Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[johnhanks]

As I previously mentioned, the ability to successfully breed apparently marks the boundaries of the Biblical "kinds".

This would make a biblical 'kind' more or less coterminous with a biological species. I mentioned earlier that there are about ten times as many butterfly/moth species as there are vertebrates; there are at least a hundred times as many beetle species, and since they are reproductive isolated from each other each must by your criterion count as a 'kind'.

So, once again: how many butterfly and beetle 'kinds' did Noah take onto the ark?

 

[johnhanks]

I am not interested in lecturing on the subject...

Just as well. I'm not sure you'd make much of a living.

... nor does one need to be credentialed by a scientific elite to examine the evidence for themselves.

In fact, to be a creationist it's best to keep yourself as uncredentialed as possible. Lordy, if you actually started to understand the biology you might begin to realise how overwhelming the evidence for evolution actually is.

 

[gnostic]

Since this is a religious forum, and since evolution is espoused on this forum, I consider it proper and right to point out the many deficiencies and weaknesses of this theory here.

Actually, this forum is a "religious education" forum. It is a place where religious and non-religious can interact, discuss or debate any social issue, including religious ones.

If you can present any deficiency or weakness, by all mean present them. I haven't seen any strong case against evolution, just ignorance of what some creationists misunderstanding the theory or deliberately lying what it isn't.

And if you're going to debate evolution and its theory, the very least you can do is to learn and understand what it really is, instead of misrepresenting it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I think your post reflects the arrogant and dismissive attitude of so many evolutionists.

No, it is not in the least arrogant and dismissive to accept the opinions of, according to one study, 99.86% of experts who accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Rather, it is arrogant and dismissive for you to reject science that you do not understand. Science has nothing to do with your rejection of evolution.

But I will respond to your question: "At any rate, the Bible does not require people to know anything about science before they become Christians, so why are you so interested in discussing evolution? "

The ToE is a complete repudiation of all that the Bible teaches, despite protests to the contrary.

You have showed that I was right that your objections to evolution have nothing to do with science.

The ToE is not a complete repudiation of all that the Bible teaches, but a repudiation of biblical literalism. How can you possibly know with 100% accuracy which parts of the Bible God intended to be interpreted literally?

Since this is a religious forum, and since evolution is espoused on this forum, I consider it proper and right to point out the many deficiencies and weaknesses of this theory here.

No, you have never come close to adequately discussing evolution at this forum. A good example is Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum. You have no idea what Miller is saying. You have refused to discuss the article, and yet you pretend that you want to discuss evolution. In addition, there is lots of global flood science that you do not understand well enough to discuss.

I am not interested in lecturing on the subject, nor does one need to be credentialed by a scientific elite to examine the evidence for themselves. Such a highminded attitude is a hallmark of propaganda and an appeal to authority that has as it's motive getting people to mindlessly follow after this baseless theory. Hitler used such tricks successfully and so do others today, religious and scientific.

No, you do not need credentials in order to understand evolution, but you do need to adequately understand it in order to intelligently discuss it. It is highminded propaganda from you to reject Ken Miller's article even though you know very little about it. As Miller says in his article, the flagellum is the "poster child" of proponents of intelligent design, and thus is a very important topic. There is no way that you know enough about biology to adequately refute Miller's article. All that you can appeal to is biblical literalism, certainly not science. In addition, from an entirely scientific perspective, there is no way that you know enough about geology to claim that a global flood occured, and enough about physics to claim that the earth is young.

As to "African natives who live in remote jungle regions", these people are as intelligent as we are, or more so.

But intelligent alone is not enough without spending a lot of time studying information. Surely most African Christians who live in remote regions of Africa have not studied lots of information about evolution, and the majority of them probably do not know how to read and write.

They can probably follow the Bible's logical arguments better than many evolutionists.......

On the contrary, in some of those regions in Africa, none of the natives know how to read and write, and only have the claims of Christian missionaries to consider. What is logical about accepting the story of Adam and Eve literally? If you told the story to a native, and he asked you why he should believe that the story is literally true instread of figuratively true, what would you say? If he asked you why he should believe that a global flood literally occurred, what would you say?

As far as what Jesus said about Noah, how could you possibly verify every single thing that Jesus said? Of course, you can't.

If a God inspired the original Bible, there is not any proof at all that he preserved all of it free of errors, and a lot of evidence suggests that the BIble contains at least some errors. If God is not obligated to always protect Christians from disease, and provide all Christians with enough food to eat so that they will not starve to death, and protect Christians from hurricanes, why would he be obligated to preserve all of the original Bible free of errors? Who are you to put God in a box of your own choosing, and try to force him to act like you want him to act?

You frequently quote the Bible, but early native American Indians never heard of the Bible. Even today, some natives who live in remote jungle regions have never heard of the Bible. Obviously, human effort alone could never tell everyone about the Gospel message. Only God could do that, and for some reason he does not want to.

 

[Agnostic75]

We would expect a global Deluge to remain in mankind's collective memory. We would also expect the truth to be obscured by embellishments and storytelling as time passed and national groups engaged in false religion. I believe these Flood legends confirm the fact that such an event did,indeed, occur.

We would expect a good deal of geological evidence, which is not there according to most experts. Would you like to critique some articles by geologists who have spent years studying global flood geology? Of course you wouldn't since you know that you know very little about geology. Your only evidence is theology, not geology.

Can you prove that the Bible's flood story came before the Sumerian flood story? Can you prove that there were not any civilizations in China in 2250 B.C.?

Are you actually suggesting that all scientists should begin their research by presupposing that all of the Bible is literally true, and then try to force science to agree with the Bible? If not, what are you suggesting?

 

[rusra02]

This would make a biblical 'kind' more or less coterminous with a biological species. I mentioned earlier that there are about ten times as many butterfly/moth species as there are vertebrates; there are at least a hundred times as many beetle species, and since they are reproductive isolated from each other each must by your criterion count as a 'kind'.

So, once again: how many butterfly and beetle 'kinds' did Noah take onto the ark?

Does "reproductive isolated" mean they cannot successfully interbreed?

 

[rusra02]

Just as well. I'm not sure you'd make much of a living.
In fact, to be a creationist it's best to keep yourself as uncredentialed as possible. Lordy, if you actually started to understand the biology you might begin to realise how overwhelming the evidence for evolution actually is.

I would agree the propaganda is overwhelming to many. The evidence, not so much.

 

[Agnostic75]

I would agree the propaganda is overwhelming to many. The evidence, not so much.

But you do not understand what you are objecting to. If you do understand what you are objecting to, you should be able to adequately critique and refute Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. You are not able to adquately critique and refute the article, but yet you mentioned the word "evidence." How in the world can you adequately refute evidence that you do not understand?

Creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory deal with a lot of complex, advanced biology, geology, and physics. It is quite obvious that the vast majority of biblical literalists do not have a good understanding of all of those fields of science. Regarding Christian natives who live in remote jungle regions in Africa, most of whom do not know how to read and write, how many of them do you think know a lot about biology, geology, and physics? Obviously, very few, or none at all, and yet you continue to mention evidence. They can consider and evaluate theological evidence to some extent, but most Christian missionaries do not try to teach natives who live in remote jungle regions about biology, geology, and physics.

No scientific research is wrong merely because you say that it is wrong. Rather, you need to demonstrate, of your own personal scientific knowledge that it is wrong. You know that you cannot adequately do that, so you should stick with theological evidence.

Now please, let's get serious, you would not even be able at this time to pass the first test in a college freshman biology, geology, or physics class, let alone properly evaluate something as complex as Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum, or some of Glenn Morton's articles on the global flood theory, or some of Andrew Weils' articles on the age of the earth. All of those men are Christians. All that you can claim is that you believe that a relative handful of biblical literalists who are experts are right. I assume that most of those biblical literalists became biblical literalists before they became experts, not the other way around. If that is true, you are obviously wasting your time since the majority of biblical literalists who became experts in science presupposed their scientific conclusions in advance before they conducted their research.

Are you suggesting that all scientists around the world should presuppose that the book of Genesis is literally true? If not, what are you suggesting?

 

[Agnostic75]

As to "African natives who live in remote jungle regions", these people are as intelligent as we are, or more so.

But intelligence alone is not enough without spending a lot of time studying information. Surely most African Christians who live in remote regions of Africa have not studied lots of scientific information about evolution, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, nor does God require them to. In addition, the majority of them probably do not know how to read and write.

My gracious, even some biblical literatlists in the U.S. do not know very much about biology, geology, and physics. You mention the word "evidence" a lot, but God does not require Christians to know anything at all about science. In addition, you do not understand a lot of scientific evidence yourself, including Ken Miller's article about the evolution of the flagellum. Your refusal to critique the article shows that you do not even understand what you are objecting to.

 

[CG Didymus]

rusra02, you call it "scoffing at God's word." I call it legitimate questioning. Lots of Jews and Christians don't take the flood literally. It isn't what is important. Some Christians have built such a monolithic structure of beliefs that everything depends on creation, the flood, and all the other "myth" sounding things.
If you need it to be true, that's fine with me, but I'm not scoffing at God, I'm scoffing at your interpretation of God. Your God was sorry he created man. He flooded the world to do what? Like I mentioned before, if it was to get rid of evil, then it didn't work. Why didn't he know that? It is a great story about how the children of Israel got to where they are now. What's funny is that the born-again Christians need the Jewish stories to be literal more than the Jews themselves.
Since we are talking about flood stories from other people still, (aren't we?) then I'd like to believe the Hopi prophesies. They seem true, therefore, their flood story must be true. Or, is that one wrong?

 

[johnhanks]

Does "reproductive isolated" mean they cannot successfully interbreed?

Yes. If you doubt me, try crossing a red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) with the very similar confused flour beetle (Tribolium confusum). If that's not challenging enough, try to mate a stag beetle with a weevil.

By your criterion, there are about half a million 'kinds' of beetle.

 

[johnhanks]

I would agree the propaganda is overwhelming to many. The evidence, not so much.

So you really are sticking to the line that thousands of professional biologists worldwide, who have studied the evidence for evolution with a full understanding of its underlying principles, have in fact been duped by propaganda that you, blessedly unencumbered by biological knowledge, can see through?

In this case, if we biologists have been so artfully duped by propaganda, who are the propagandists? And to what end is this gigantic fraud being perpetrated?

 

[rusra02]

Actually, this forum is a "religious education" forum. It is a place where religious and non-religious can interact, discuss or debate any social issue, including religious ones.

If you can present any deficiency or weakness, by all mean present them. I haven't seen any strong case against evolution, just ignorance of what some creationists misunderstanding the theory or deliberately lying what it isn't.

And if you're going to debate evolution and its theory, the very least you can do is to learn and understand what it really is, instead of misrepresenting it.

The weaknesses and deficiencies in this theory have been presented. But here they are again:

First, the ToE has no beginning, no proven starting point. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life and has given up trying. Thus, it is a theory without a foundation.

Macroevolution theory rests on three main ideas:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials for creating new species.
After 100 years of mutation research and decades of attempts to prove this ToE claim, what do we find? “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (quote from Life - How Did It Get Here.)

2. "Natural Selection" leads to new species.
Attempts to prove natural selection led to new species have uniformly failed. Darwin's finches are a prime example.

3. The fossil record supports macroevolutionary changes in animals and plants.
To the contrary: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.”—The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching. THEY SIMPLY AREN'T THERE.

Now, as to why so many scientists and others are willing to accept this baseless theory, in my opinion there are a number of reasons:

1. "There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)
What desires would motivate a scientist or other person to want to believe in evolution? Well, evolution does away with the need to consider God in one's decisions and actions. Further, many want to be accepted by their peers and this moves them to accept without serious question what they are taught.

2. "Trembling at men is what lays a snare." (Proverbs 29:25) Evolutionists are quick to attack any who dare challenge their pet theory. One example is Richard Dawkins: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Such attacks as documented in "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" and elsewhere are designed to quell dissent among scientists and bully nonbelievers into silence.

3. A constant drumbeat of propaganda in the media, academia, and the scientific establishment reinforcing the "Big Lie": "evolution is a fact", repeated over and over again.


Despite all the bluster and posturing of evolutionist apologists, millions of thinking, intelligent people reject this theory after examining the evidence for themselves.

 

[rusra02]

Yes. If you doubt me, try crossing a red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) with the very similar confused flour beetle (Tribolium confusum). If that's not challenging enough, try to mate a stag beetle with a weevil.

By your criterion, there are about half a million 'kinds' of beetle.

I wasn't doubting you. I simply asked what you meant. And if there are many kinds of beetles, so be it. Insects would doubtless have been on the ark in considerable numbers.

 

[rusra02]

So you really are sticking to the line that thousands of professional biologists worldwide, who have studied the evidence for evolution with a full understanding of its underlying principles, have in fact been duped by propaganda that you, blessedly unencumbered by biological knowledge, can see through?

In this case, if we biologists have been so artfully duped by propaganda, who are the propagandists? And to what end is this gigantic fraud being perpetrated?

See my new response to the post by gnostic in this thread for a larger response to your question. But, in brief, I do believe that many biologists have been duped (or silenced) by the propaganda campaign for the ToE. As to who the propagandists are, anyone who seeks to silence dissent through ridicule or intimidation. This includes many prominent scientists. But I believe the larger culprit is Satan, the one described in the Bible as "misleading the entire inhabited earth." (Revelation 12:9) How's that for a successful propagandist?

As to what end this gigantic fraud is being peretrated, I cannot do better than present the following quote: "It is a lie that is also a fraud because it is “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” an “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.” Teaching that man’s ancestors are animals, starting with some microbe and ending with some ape, evolutionists have “exchanged the truth of God for the lie.” By this lie, they induce many to part with something of great value—their faith in God as their Creator.—Romans 1:25.

This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’ Enter the moral breakdown, unrestrained and full-blown. Parted from their Creator and the true values of the Bible," (g90 1/22 p. 10)​

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: Since you know very little about geology, you are not in a position to properly debate, for example, the sorting of fossils and sediments. Would you like to critique some of Glenn Morton's articles on the global flood? I don't mean copy something from a relative handful of experts whose scientific writings you do not understand yourself. What do you yourself know about complex geology? Certainly not enough to have a credible scientific discussion with a geologist. If you cannot explain in scientific terms, in your own words, why you believe that a global flood occurred, why should anyone pay any attention to you?

Can you prove that the biblical flood story came before the Sumerian flood story, and that the bibilical flood story was not an embellishment of the Sumerian flood story?

Do you know of any global flood stories very far away from water, such as in the middle of Russia?

Since many parts of the world have been flooded many times during history, and since humans provably have very active imaginations, it would be much more unusual if there were not any flood stories than it would be having flood stories. In addition, you cannot possibly know which flood stories were intended by their writers to be interpreted literally, and which flood stories were deliberate fiction, fantasy, or allegory.

Even if a global flood occurred, you cannot reasonably prove what, or who, caused it.

 

[outhouse]

Can you prove that the biblical flood story came before the Sumerian flood story, and that the bibilical flood story was not an embellishment of the Sumerian flood story?

Nope he cannot

Since you know very little about geology

Your way to kind


add biology to that list as well

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The weaknesses and deficiencies in this theory have been presented. But here they are again:

First, the ToE has no beginning, no proven starting point. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life and has given up trying. Thus, it is a theory without a foundation.

This makes no sense. We don't need to know how life originated in order to observe and understand how life changes over time. This has been explained to you countless times on this forum and yet you persist in this absolutely nonsensical position. You no more need to know the origin of life in order to understand evolution than you need to know the origin of mass in order to understand gravity. The fact that you cannot understand, or simply refuse to accept, this simple distinction is baffling.

Macroevolution theory rests on three main ideas:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials for creating new species.
After 100 years of mutation research and decades of attempts to prove this ToE claim, what do we find? “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (quote from Life - How Did It Get Here.)

You mean, despite all the times we've observed it happening?

2. "Natural Selection" leads to new species.
Attempts to prove natural selection led to new species have uniformly failed. Darwin's finches are a prime example.

... Of natural selection leading to new species.

3. The fossil record supports macroevolutionary changes in animals and plants.
To the contrary: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.”—The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching. THEY SIMPLY AREN'T THERE.

Well, the out-of-context words of one person surely trump the opinion of every single credible archaeologist and geologist in the world.

Now, as to why so many scientists and others are willing to accept this baseless theory, in my opinion there are a number of reasons:

1. "There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)
What desires would motivate a scientist or other person to want to believe in evolution? Well, evolution does away with the need to consider God in one's decisions and actions. Further, many want to be accepted by their peers and this moves them to accept without serious question what they are taught.

In other words: ATHEIST CONSPIRACY!!

You're going to have to try harder than that.

3. A constant drumbeat of propaganda in the media, academia, and the scientific establishment reinforcing the "Big Lie": "evolution is a fact", repeated over and over again.

This is absolutely hilarious coming from people who deny evolution to prop up one of the biggest, media-heavy institutions in the world. How come when we present facts, explain those facts and give you the opinions of the overwhelming scientific majority it's "propaganda"; but when you present one or two random, out-of-context quotes that have been cut-and-pasted from ID websites it's fact?

Maybe, just maybe, you're the one who is spreading propaganda - not the people who have the facts, and the education required to accurately assess those facts.

Despite all the bluster and posturing of evolutionist apologists, millions of thinking, intelligent people reject this theory after examining the evidence for themselves.

And despite all your bluster and posturing, those people will continue to be wrong in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

 

[johnhanks]

I wasn't doubting you. I simply asked what you meant. And if there are many kinds of beetles, so be it.

So Noah went round on his hands and knees collecting up (at least) 400 000 breeding pairs? How long was he given for this?

Insects would doubtless have been on the ark in considerable numbers.

To paraphrase Nigel Stork, 'to a first approximation all animal species are insects'. If you are right about 'kinds', the ark's insect burden - estimates centre at around 5 million species - would have outnumbered all the rest many times over. Did Noah make a tiny cage for each pair? If not, keeping the carnivorous ones from eating the others must have been a full-time job.

Seriously, all of this just underlines how silly the ark story really is.

 

[johnhanks]

See my new response to the post by gnostic in this thread for a larger response to your question. But, in brief, I do believe that many biologists have been duped (or silenced) by the propaganda campaign for the ToE.

Rusra, unlike you biologists undertake detailed study of living systems at many levels (cell, organism, population etc); they make the understanding of these systems their life's work. For you, who self-confessedly has never studied biology in any depth, to tell them that they have been taken in by a propaganda campaign that you are able to see through whilst they cannot is arrogance of breathtaking magnitude.

And "silenced"? Are you really telling us straight-facedly that thousands of working biologists know that evolutionary theory is nonsense but dare not say so for fear of reprisals?

As to who the propagandists are, anyone who seeks to silence dissent through ridicule or intimidation. This includes many prominent scientists. But I believe the larger culprit is Satan, the one described in the Bible as "misleading the entire inhabited earth." (Revelation 12:9) How's that for a successful propagandist?

Pretty good for a fictional one.

This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’

Whom are you quoting here? No biologist I've ever read, certainly. The notion that understanding the reality of evolution frees someone from moral constraints is pure creationist fantasy.