Check this out! I thought it was really interesting that they may have found soft tissue that survived in any form after MILLIONS OF YEARS. Maybe soon scientist will actually admit that dinos didn't go extinct that long ago and that man actually contributed to their demise. I mean, really, why did so many cultures mention dragons in their mythology and art? Because they co-existed with us and Sir George actually DID slay a dragon. CNN.com Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oh by the way, I’m one of the few who will agree with ya though!
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:I mean, really, why did so many cultures mention dragons in their mythology and art? Because they co-existed with us and Sir George actually DID
That is certainly one explination. Do you agree that there are many other explinations that fit the facts?
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
I came to my conclusions years ago, and I've read some of the other theories, but they just don't make as much sense to me. 'People saw dino bones hundreds of years ago and made up myths about them' that sort of thing. I mean there are written accounts about dragons and were treated as fact by the people of those cultures. The artwork depicting them has them right alongside creatures that still exist. To me it just makes sense that the reason so many cultures mentioned dragons (african, south american, europe, china, even north american natives) is because they lived alongside dinosaurs. And what the heck is that Loch Ness monster? Easy, a dinosaur.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, of course it all came from the biblical description of the Leviathan:
Job 41- 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
Wonder where they got it all from…..
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Crotalus, I'm not asking you what theory seems most plausable to you.
I'm asking if you are willing to admit that there are other theories that could explain the facts.
Are you?
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
Sure. But what are they?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*gets a tub of popcorn*
*sits back to watch*
*crunch*
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Do you admit that, however implausible it seems to you, that the commonly held view on dinosaurs explains the facts well?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The common view that dinosaurs died millions of years ago yet somehow we have images of them as dragons and legends in the bible but of course had never dug any up. Sure that makes perfect sense. Silly me.
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
To answer your last question AntiCool: No.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Crotalus, folk belief in small, sometimes malevolent, sometimes helpful humanoids is pretty much global as well. What do you make of this?
Edit--I'm honestly curious to know what you think about this, by the way. I can think of a number of arguments you might make in response to this question, and I'm curious to know if I've guessed the one you subscribe to.
[ March 31, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The common view that dinosaurs died millions of years ago yet somehow we have images of them as dragons and legends in the bible but of course had never dug any up. Sure that makes perfect sense. Silly me.
And yet your belief in the literal truth of a revision of a revision of a two-thousand-year-old book that describes the divine creator of the universe and everything in it wandering about setting bushes on fire in the Middle East is utterly unshakeable. Yes, of course, that makes so much more sense. Silly me.
Whoo boy I'm touchy this morning. I shouldn't post this. And yet, somehow, I can't resist...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Set one bush on fire and everyone thinks you’re a pyro… Revision of a revision? Interesting. Sure there are translations into other languages but the original Greek and Hebrew are pretty much set in stone (pun intended).
[ March 31, 2005, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Crotalus, what are some of the phenomenon that you believe cannot be explained by the idea that dinosaurs died out millions of years ago?
Now, to clarify -- I'm talking about explinations that while they may seem farcical to you, still can explain the facts. For example, possible explinations of why all cultures have dragons that don't involve humans co-habitating with dinosaurs include:
1. People found dino bones, and extrapolated from there. (I know this seems far-fetched to you, but it explains it just fine.) 2. People extrapolated dragons from lizards, just like they extrapolated giants from humans. 3. Although we call them all dragons, the dragons in different cultures are drastically different. Some of them are more similar to dogs than they are to dinosaurs.
OK, now that I've said that, what are some of the phenomena that you don't think can be explained by the "scientific" view of dinosaurs?
[ March 31, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I mean there are written accounts about dragons and were treated as fact by the people of those cultures."
Explain giants, unicorns, vampires, and fairies. I'll wait. Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
How universal are unicorns? Isn't that pretty much a western thing?
[ March 31, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
How about those Japanese legends about tentacle monsters? Oh, wait, that's anime... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"How universal are unicorns? Isn't that pretty much a western thing?"
Nope. Unicorns are pretty universal, although they're not all white and fond of virgins.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:And what the heck is that Loch Ness monster?
A hoax. The people who took the original photographs have admitted that. They faked it.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Non-sequitir, anyone?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Well, people are talking about dragons, and then Tom mentioned virgins, and naturally my mind went to a song about dragons and virgins. Just listen to the song, will ya?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I want to know if they would have supported the notion that there were many Gods, presided over by a storm God who had defeated his father for the position, back when most of the known world had a similar myth.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Most of the known world? Known to who?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire Wow... I wonder if somehow cultures were all closer at the beginning. And spoke the same language. Maybe some kind of dividing of the tongues. Wait…. Was there a big tower. Tower of Babble or something. I don’t know. Silly me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairies Very interesting. Tom I think you might be onto something here. Seems like that the cultures are closer then we ever suspected. All these similar tales.
Thanks for pointing this out Tom. It’s been very helpful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Very interesting. Tom I think you might be onto something here. Seems like that the cultures are closer then we ever suspected. All these similar tales."
Yes, that's certainly one interpretation. I like how Sesame Street's on the air in hundreds of countries around the world, too, thus proving that Big Bird really exists.
I think what this really proves is that mankind hungers for story, and certain narratives are more compelling -- or seem to answer more questions -- than others, especially as a society develops. Everyone needs an origin myth; everyone needs a giant or a dragon or "Little People" to account for missing socks.
Urban legends and sock-eating dryer monsters play the same role in modern myth.
[ March 31, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Known to each other. In this case, we're talking Europe, primarily southern, mediterranean and north african, middle eastern, and much of southeast asia. Which together make up a big chunk of the world as a whole.
That is, the largest chunk of the world that had regular contact with other parts of itself -- in a networked sense, the most "connected" part of the world.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You're reaching on that cave drawing, Jay. If I may say: you're trying to fit that picture into your foregone conclusion. I say that because, to me, that looks no more like a dinosaur than any other cave drawing I've seen. And just so we're clear, all cultures believe in hairy horned horses because giant scaly lizards slept in the next cave over?
What do vampires have to do with the Tower of Babble? That you can gain power by taking the essence of a man is a common thread in all cultures, and not hard to see why. It's not such a leap to vampires. What are you talking about? Do you always insinuate things because you don't know the point you're trying to make and trust us to make it for you?
And your flood link talks of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish flood traditions. Well... of course they have them, but that hardly speaks for all the other cultures. Not to mention that the flood myth could just as easily come from the end of the ice age. For that matter, one could argue that the flood myth in the bible is also derived from the end of the ice age. So I think this argument holds no water (har har).
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Sauropods and humans could have coexisted at some point in recorded history. After all, we've still got crocodilians, which remain largely unchanged from their fossilized ancestors.
Fossilized remains of any particular land-dwelling creature are extremely rare. Fossilization requires a unique set of circumstances. Usually the creature has to be buried almost immediately following death, probably by some sort of natural disaster like a flood or volcanic eruption. Even tar pits containing animal remains are fairly rare.
By the time humans came on the scene, any surviving species of sauropods would have found themselves being hunted and eaten faster than they could die and be fossilized by natural causes. We don't find too many fossils of cattle and chickens do we?
Also, we haven't had a major fossil-creating event since humans came on the scene. So we have no idea what sort of creatures the early humans might have encountered.
One thing's for sure, humans have demonstrated the ability to hunt anything that is slow, ugly, or tasty to extinction.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:We don't find too many fossils of cattle and chickens do we?
No, but don't we find a lot of their bones in the garbage pits of early humans.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Crocodilians aren't sauropods, or particularly close relatives, or particularly alike in their ability to survive natural disaster (due to being in a completely different ecological niche).
Also, one thing we do find plenty of are bones left behind by our feasting ancestors -- had our ancestors been eating sauropods, we would likely have found those as well.
Not to mention there are no images on cave walls (and other locations) that look like even a near approximation of a sauropod -- there are plenty of rather clear images of many other sorts of creatures.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, great minds think alike, mph.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, Big Bird does exist. Don’t you ever watch TV? How can you call his existence into question? He’s a guy in a puppet suit in some Hollywood studio. But we’re getting sidetracked here.
So many similar stories in ancient cultures doesn’t point to some kind of connection? Yes, the Tower of Babble where everyone spoke the same language after the flood would help explain this interesting common thread across vastly distant cultures. Stories passed down before the tongues were divided. Hence my point was that the similar stories about giants, unicorns, vampires, and fairies could have been told before the Tower of Babble. Christian, Islamic, and Jewish aren’t the only cultures to have flood stories. Australian Aboriginal flood stories for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3764.asp Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Don't floods happen every year in all manner of places around the world?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Hey Jay, did you read that book I recommended to you once?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, there are annual floods all over, but I was meaning world wide flood examples when I say the flood. Sorry.
I remember looking at that book, but no, I didn’t get it. Sorry
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Jay is right about the ubiquity of flood myths--virtually all cultures seem to have them. Twinky is right that floods are a threat that faces virtually every culture at some time or another, and I don't find it to be much of a stretch to believe that those devistating floods were immortalized in myth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, because clearly it was possible for ancient people to tell that a flood was global.
Note that in many of the ancient legends it only talks about the huge flood rising to the height of the rooftops or the trees -- hardly a global level.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I strongly recommend it. It's really good. heck, I might be tempted to part with my copy... Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Sure the flood stories could be connected that way. How about the rest though? Seems like there are countless examples of similar cultural stories like this.
I honestly forget the title of the book you recommended. I imagine there would be a copy of it on eBay or Amazon that I could get for chump change.
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
My whole point in posting to begin with is to say how ludicrous it is to believe that soft tissue of any kind would be preserved for MILLIONS OF YEARS. Think about how long just one million years is. As for fairies I'm sure I was expected to retort with explaining them away as demons, or maybe I was supposed to cite the recent 'hobbit' find. Unicorns? Whose to say they didn't once exist. We do have Narwhals. As for my original argument, here is a link of interest to support it.
Crotalus, Neat site. I like it. And agree with you. Don’t get discouraged! I know they can be harsh. But I need ya dude! Occasional is one of the only other ones around who helps me out sometimes! Well, ok Farmgirl too, but she can be shy with these touchy ones. By the way, we need an intro from ya. Where you’re from and what you do and all that. Anyway….. thanks!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Actually, it never occurred to me that you might believe in demons. The small hominid fossil find did occur to me as one possibility. I'm still interested to hear what your thoughts on the matter are, if you'd care to share.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Crotalus -- in case you missed it in all the threads since then, I asked you a specific question. What are your thoughts on that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: One would think that such hard evidence would be highly problematic for evolutionary theory. Indeed Dr. Philip Kitcher, in his anti-creationist book Abusing Science, claims that solid evidence that dinosaurs and man co-existed would "shake the foundations of evolutionary theory."
Okay, having followed the most recent link, I have to say that I find this baffling.
Leaving aside the author's claim that ancient art represents "hard evidence" of anything, I fail to understand why anyone would think that vanishingly rare numbers of surviving dinosaur species would "shake the foundations of evolutionary theory."
Would one of the Creationists here explain to me why it would be impossible for evolution to be true and yet have small numbers of dinosaurs alive until, say, the 1600s or so?
I ask this because some of the earliest proponents of the "some dinosaurs were contemporary with man, and may even survive in some isolated part of Africa" story were in fact ardent evolutionists. While that theory has largely been discounted by the preponderance of other evidence against it, there's no reason that modern dinosaurs and evolutionary theory can't co-exist.
[ March 31, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
First of all, Anticool and Noemon, I will get to your questions when i have time to elaborate. I'm at work right now and deadlines are looming. Maybe this weekend I can go into some in-depth responses.
Jay, (and for anyone else)
I'm male, 36, QC Chemist for a pharm manufacting site. I've lurked here for years, but just started posting here a few weeks ago. I've put up a fragment in the writers forum and just jumped in on this side this week. I'm a husband and dad of a 2yr old with another due in May. Oh yeah, and I hail from Georgia, USA.
That's right the BIBLE BELT. Now everyone feel free to put your labels on me.
now back to work...Q'PLA!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So you've lurked here for years, and yet expect us to automatically pidgeonhole you because you're from the South? That's...a bit odd, I think.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I look forward to reading your repsonses to my and AntiCool's questions, by the way.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Nitpick: It's the Tower of BABEL, not the Tower of Babble.
Carry on.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I mean, really, why did so many cultures mention dragons in their mythology and art? Because they co-existed with us and Sir George actually DID slay a dragon.
As many people have already noted, the Dragon (or Sea-Dragon) of the St George myth represents the Leviathan, which in turn is represented by Satan. This is the same Leviathan (this time a Sea monster) slain by Perseus to save Andromeda, and the same Leviathan slain by many other earlier and later classical heroes, representing through history that collosal inhabitant of chaos, the Sea Dragon. Of course, since this myth is so horribly collective, it is possible that at one point, people did take note of Kraken and Whales, or perhaps some other impossibley large and frightening sea creature.
But these things are just symbols. Symbols of evil, taken through the ages, changed from myth to myth from story to story.
What's more, the original story of St George, the original myth, did not contain a dragon. St George's story only aquired a dragon after the Christian myth spread across Europe and became combined with the earlier Pagan myths of monster-slaying heroes.
Dragons may have existed thousands of years ago when the first storyteller told this monster-slaying myth, or perhaps they were completely invented by storytellers, or perhaps they evolved from one frightening and strange creature to another. After all, a Dog with Eyes as Big As Saucers, or three heads, or massive spiders aren't likely to have existed but they still frighten us.
Christian or not, the Sea Dragon representative of the Christian Satan or not, it's a myth. It's meant to convey something to the listener through story.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Crotalus, I'm sure your pharma company has an extensive library on all things pharmacological. When you have a free moment, or over lunch some day, look up the stability of various peptides in differing environments. For example, a closed anaerobic system. You might also want to look up the basics behind stability studies and how they're constructed, noting in particular the percent change over time.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Crotalus, Sweet. Glad to have ya around! And a Star Trek fan too.
Well, Tom you’re mostly right. It would be earth shaking for them since they have been so insistent that dinosaurs died so many millions of years ago. And it was the anti creation guy who made that statement anyway. And if dinosaurs would have survived in small numbers all around the world what changed then that they died off? Seems almost more logical that if dinosaurs and man co existed that they were unable to survive the environmental changes in the post flood era and slowly died off. How can I explain how evolution to be true when I don’t believe in it? Let them explain their own claims. What would be hard core evidence for you Tom? Heck, I half think if we found Noah’s ark that wouldn’t be enough for you to believe in a world wide flood. That link looks pretty hard core to me, but since it doesn’t fit into the evolutionary model it is dismissed.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well said Teshi.
By the way, the dog with eyes the size of saucers isn't nearly as frightening as the dog with eyes the size of the millstones of Copenhagen.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I couldn't remember which Dog had the biggest eyes. We're thinking of the same story right? with the three dogs on the chests of treasure?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:I'm at work right now and deadlines are looming. Maybe this weekend I can go into some in-depth responses.
I grok that. I also am interested in seeing your response.
And while there are always a few bad eggs, I think that for the most part you'll find that as long as you are respectful, others will treat you respectfully as well.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yep, that's the one. I seem to remember that it was called "The Tinderbox"
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:find a lot of their bones in the garbage pits of early humans
Larger animals were probably butchered at the kill site, and their bones would not have been brought home to the garbage pit.
On the other hand, we should expect to find large bones made into implements, and we should expect to find man-made markings on butchered bones. We do, but none of the marked bones happen to be dinosaur bones.
The problem with man coexisting with dinosaurs at their peak is that man could never have evolved in the face of the kind of competition that dinosaurs would have presented.
I do think it is possible that isolated pockets of dinosaurs may have survived and had encounters with man.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Yep, that's the one. I seem to remember that it was called "The Tinderbox"
Yes indeed. Isn't the character a soldier?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So a story teller invented dragons, something that is so similar to dinosaurs that the two are pretty much the same? Plus the stories of dragons across multiple cultures again? I really wish people would look at it with an open mind instead of the evolutionary bias.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm sorry Jay, I'm getting such amusement out of this thread. Please keep it up.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You misunderstand me. I didn't actually touch on whether humans had any contact with dinosaurs, I'm just saying that St George never slew a 'real' dragon .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Heck, I half think if we found Noah’s ark that wouldn’t be enough for you to believe in a world wide flood."
No, it absolutely wouldn't. And I hope any intelligent, scientifically-minded person would understand why.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I am an intelligent, scientifically minded person who doesn’t.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You may well be intelligent. But if you think finding an ark on a mountainside would prove that there was a global flood, you are not scientifically-minded by definition.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So if Noah’s Ark was found what would your scientific explanation be? I was looking for stuff but came to find this article that sums it up pretty good: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4400arkahoy11-25-2000.asp Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm half tempted to jump into this one, but there's already people here arguing the same thing I would be, and I wouldn't want to clutter things up.
However, there's a point of Jay's about the Bible that no one disputed that I felt should be clarified:
quote: Revision of a revision? Interesting. Sure there are translations into other languages but the original Greek and Hebrew are pretty much set in stone
That is not true. The Bible, like the Koran and others have been revised over time. Everyone from Popes to Kings have revised it. When first writing it down, then later when the first written Bibles were decaying from old age and had to be recompiled to be saved. We know this because bibles and "Books of Hours" (prayer books), have been found that conflict with one another. I'm talking around AD 500, things were still on Hebrew and Latin, and this goes for the old Byzantine Orthodoxy church as well as the Western church.
I don't have the sources on me at the moment, but I can post some up here tomorrow when I've had a chance to round them all up.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Mormons could have some fun with the following from the book of Ether, chapter 9:
quote:31 And there came forth poisonous serpents also upon the face of the land, and did poison many people. And it came to pass that their flocks began to flee before the poisonous serpents, towards the land southward, which was called by the Nephites Zarahemla.
32 And it came to pass that there were many of them which did perish by the way; nevertheless, there were some which fled into the land southward.
33 And it came to pass that the Lord did cause the serpents that they should pursue them no more, but that they should hedge up the way that the people could not pass, that whoso should attempt to pass might fall by the poisonous serpents.
34 And it came to pass that the people did follow the course of the beasts, and did devour the carcasses of them which fell by the way, until they had devoured them all. Now when the people saw that they must perish they began to repent of their iniquities and cry unto the Lord.
I don't know of any modern poisonous serpents capable of chasing farm animals to another continent or of "hedging up the way."
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Jay, if we found an an arc on a mountain, it wouldn't prove that it was Noah's.
Even if we could prove that it was Noah's, the wouldn't necessarily prove that it was in a flood.
Even if we could prove that Noah built this arc and was in it during a flood, that wouldn't prove that the the entire earth was flooded.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm inclined to agree with Jay (now THAT really hurt to say ) on there having been some sort of great flood. There are too many flood stories from the flood epic in Gilgamesh, to Indian writings, to Celtic writings, African stories passed down, so on and so forth.
But I'm not necesarily willing to give ground that it was some all encompassing flood that killed everything on earth. Or that Noah could actually fit every animal on earth into his ark. Even if he did (it'd have to be the size of the Titanic, that's a whole lotta cubits), two of every animal isn't enough genetic variation for the species to have survived. They would have died off by now.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(In response to Anticool) Very concisely put. It's called not jumping to conclusions.
Skillery, I always thought the curlemoms and cumoms might have been wooly mammoths. I mean, talk about horse-power!
[ March 31, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: now back to work...Q'PLA!
:sexy growl: Ah! My favorite Warrior!
Crotalus, I like you already!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So if Noah’s Ark was found what would your scientific explanation be?
First: why do we believe it's Noah's Ark? Is it the same size, shape, and material as described in the Bible? Is it of approximately the right age? Does it show signs of having been densely inhabited for a significant period? Is the word "Noah" written on the mast?
Second: How did the ark, whether it's Noah's or not, get there? Does it appear to have been deposited, dragged, or constructed on the site? If the former, is there any other sign of flood to be found in the immediate area? If so, can we date this flood?
Third: Assuming we can date the flood and have a functional estimate of the height of at least the crest -- based on the ark's present location -- can we estimate what the water level would have been in other locations? If so, do we see geological and archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis?
If so, we can begin to discuss the possibility of a massive -- if not necessarily worldwide -- flood. But those are the preliminary questions.
-------
As a side note, there is actually ample if not conclusive evidence for a massive Mesopotamian/Mediterranian flood. This is hardly a "worldwide" sample, but it sure would have seemed like it to the various tribes and burgeoning civilizations in that area at the time.
[ March 31, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Noah's flood would not necessarily have to have been a worldwide immersion. We can't account for that much water. Velikovsky postulates that a comet or asteroid may have passed close enough to the earth that it was temporarily captured by the earth's gravity, and that as it orbited the earth, the comet raised a huge tidal wave 1000 feet high that swept around the earth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Velikovsky postulates that a comet or asteroid may have passed close enough to the earth that it was temporarily captured by the earth's gravity, and that as it orbited the earth, the comet raised a huge tidal wave 1000 feet high that swept around the earth."
But then it wouldn't happen to be Noah's flood, would it? It just would have been a really big flood. Noah's flood, after all, was deliberately a destructive act of God; a flood that was the inspiration for Noah's flood is something else altogether.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Very interesting idea about the comets. I've never heard that one before.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:But then it wouldn't happen to be Noah's flood, would it? It just would have been a really big flood. [Smile] Noah's flood, after all, was deliberately a destructive act of God; a flood that was the inspiration for Noah's flood is something else altogether.
Why couldn't God have sent the comet? Finding a natural explination for a phenomenon doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why couldn't God have sent the comet? Finding a natural explination for a phenomenon doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it."
Oh, absolutely. But it also means that God becomes an unnecessary complication in the theory.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I'll give you that.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
After some checking on the comet theory I found this.
quote: In 1950, Macmillan Company published Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, a book which asserts, among many other things, that the planet Venus did not exist until recently. Some 3500 years ago in the guise of a gigantic comet, it grazed Earth a couple of times, after having been ejected from the planet Jupiter some indefinite time earlier, before settling into its current orbit. "Venus was expelled as a comet and then changed to a planet after contact with a number of members of our solar system" (Velikovsky 1972,182).
It would be really naughty of me to throw this into the mix.
I like the fossilized hammer embedded in rock strata. Good trick neh?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This interesting photograph is of a hammer found in similar strata. It's iron head and wooden handle are solidified in sandstone. Metallurgical studies show that it was constructed of a type of iron that could not have been made under present atmospheric conditions. It is believed that before the flood our atmosphere was compressed to approximately twice its current density, and no ultraviolet radiation."
Oh, boy. That's just funny. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
People, please do not argue that Velikovsky's flood wouldn't be Noah's flood as though Velikovsky actually had some shred of credibility. He is one step above von Daniken and other bottom-crawlers, in that he didn't actually make up any evidence. Actually, that may put him one step below, since he didn't give any evidence, made-up or not.
Now, about the Ark : What if we found one, and there wasn't room for two elephants? Incidentally, why is it called an 'Ark'? What's wrong with the word boat or ship? And does this have any connection to the Ark of the Covenant?
Dragons, as in fire-breathing, winged lizards, are in fact not at all similar to dinosaurs. On the other hand, human DNA is very similar to monkey DNA. Indeed, our making-Vitamin-C gene is broken in precisely the same way across several different primate species. How do you account for that without common descent? Not to mention the ERV insertions.
Skillery, I hope you didn't intend that site as serious evidence? I mean, talk about obvious fakes discredited a hundred times before.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:God becomes an unnecessary complication in the theory
God's primary role was in warning Noah. Either that or Noah said to himself one night while looking through his telescope: "oooh, this one's gonna be close!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"God's primary role was in warning Noah."
This would only be an essential role if indeed you could demonstrate that there were no other human survivors. Which would pretty much make a worldwide flood.
----
Let me also point out why the hammer thing is so funny:
1) The ore mixture said to be in that hammer is as far as we know impossible to achieve. We could assume that the hammer is indeed an artifact of another "world" or technology, or we could assume that the tests were wrong. The owner conveniently refuses to have it retested.
2) The hammer was found exposed in a cave. Its wood has not fossilized. Its iron has not fully oxidized. And it's covered in sandstone deposits. Is it more likely that it existed in the cave at a considerable depth for millions of years, and was only recently exposed -- or that it was dropped in a cave around 1890 and surrounded by forty years of flowstone? We could carbon date the handle, but again the owner has refused to have the item carbon-dated.
[ March 31, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm a little fuzzy on the flood idea, but didn't God send the flood? He doesn't just warn Noah, he actually deliberately destroys everyone else.
Also, the theory I heard was something to do with a high water level and one of the next-to-the-mediterranean basins (the salty one). Noah and his people lived in the basin and when the water came, overflowing from the meditteranean into the dry basin, many people in the area died.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Have you read Pastwatch, by any chance?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Erm, no I haven't... I read this in a non-fiction book so it must be a legitimate theory to someone...
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:"God's primary role was in warning Noah."
This would only be an essential role if indeed you could demonstrate that there were no other human survivors. Which would pretty much make a worldwide flood.
No, it's not. Whether or not we can demonstrate it does not change what God did or did not do.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:but didn't God send the flood
Yes, but it had to involve real water from a real source with a real triggering mechanism. Do you think our resident scientists would give God credit for that? Or do we have some religious fanatics here who claim that God can create water out of nothing and return it to nothingness when He's done?
The real miracle here is that Noah had advance knowledge of the event. Everything else, including loading beasts on a boat can find some reasonable scientific explanation.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Or do we have some religious fanatics here who claim that God can create water out of nothing and return it to nothingness when He's done?
*raises hand*
I believe God could do that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But, AntiCool, if you're going to postulate magic, why look for evidence at all? Unless the water appears and disappears by some known or knowable natural process, there is simply no use in looking for scientific evidence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, there's no scientific explanation consistent with both the description of the ark and even a minimal number of animals (by the description) to go on it.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Is God only limited to the use of unknown and unknowable processes? If all natural processes are known or knowable, does that mean there is no God?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's been a problem with some traditional conceptions of God, yes. Read up on the "God of the gaps".
However, there are many nuanced conceptions of God not dependent on any such silly thing.
Showing evolution is correct or that there was no world flood will not disprove the existence of God in either case, nor bring it closer, nor anything close.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I did not mean evolution would make God go away; I meant that, insofar as any process involves miracles, science cannot deal with it. Science, by definition, deals with the repeatable; miracles, by definition, are not repeatable.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:But, AntiCool, if you're going to postulate magic, why look for evidence at all? Unless the water appears and disappears by some known or knowable natural process, there is simply no use in looking for scientific evidence.
I never postulated that this is how God made the flood. I just said that I believe if He wanted to, He could do that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Sure there are translations into other languages but the original Greek and Hebrew are pretty much set in stone
Jay, Lyrhawn spoke about revisions of the Bible in the past 1500 years.
There is also evidence in the Jewish commentary on the OT that it has changed over time, too. One commentary will say "aleph" is the middle letter of the Torah, a later commentary will disagree. Similarly with words, the middle words shift over time.
If the Bible is the word of God, wouldn't it be maintained better without error creeping in?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, I’ll disagree with the statement that the bible has been revised over and over. Yes, we don’t have the 1st Greek and Hebrew, but we do have a lot of ancient texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls helped show that our original texts are very accurate. I know they have taken many many old artifacts together to get the original Greek and Hebrew. Sure there are many versions of the bible today. But the original text is what be considered holy writ. I think what you’re wanting to know is the great debate about the source for the translators. This site gives an interesting overview of Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus along with the majority texts: http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is God only limited to the use of unknown and unknowable processes? If all natural processes are known or knowable, does that mean there is no God?"
Once all natural processes are known, we'll be able to see what role -- if any -- a god played in the universe.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Tom, we won't. Many traditions of God won't be dealt with in that way at all. For instance, the belief that it is God who created and maintains the physical laws would not be affected at all, because it is outside the realm of science to determine any root why. In a scientific sense, some things just are. Perhaps they come from God, or perhaps that's just the way it is, but there will continue to be plenty of room for God.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually Jay I'm referring to changes made to the bible by various popes and emperors during the fall of Rome, and in the following centuries. During the persecution of Christians emperors sought of destroyed an incredible number of bibles. Bibles were only reconstructed by using the memories of people in the Palestinian area, one book at a time.
But even with the flawed reconstructions, popes and emperors (like I said before, if you wait a day or two I can get you more details and sources) would cut out entire books from the bible, or edit sections of the bible to suit them. So I don't mean translations, and I don't mean multiple versions of the bible. I know we have some very ancient texts, such as the dead sea scrolls. I'm saying that even the ancient texts aren't what you would consider the "true bible."
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Once all natural processes are known, we'll be able to see what role -- if any -- a god played in the universe.
I completely agree with this.
[ March 31, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For instance, the belief that it is God who created and maintains the physical laws would not be affected at all, because it is outside the realm of science to determine any root why."
Assuming that God does, however, do things outside the bounds of normal "science," any natural law which did not take this into account would be, by definition, incomplete. That this law could not predict Acts of God does not mean that it could not make exceptions for them.
It's true that a God which works exclusively through mechanical forces would be an undetectable god. Of course, such a God is largely worthless.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug*
If the universe wouldn't exist without him, that's hardly worthless.
I should note that I don't believe in God, but there can be a completely undetectable God who is completely essential, and that's pretty obvious from a little basic philosophy and a little basic science.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suspect TomD meant 'worthless' in the scientific-hypothesis sense that such a God would have no explanatory or predictive power.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, what has he done for us lately?
Edit : Ack, AntiCool, don't remove posts!
[ March 31, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. It's like the Catholic concept of item attributes which can change without the item changing in any detectable way by any mortal science. These attributes might exist. But it is absolutely irrelevant to mortal science whether they exist or not.
Clearly, if mortal science is itself irrelevant, they might be highly relevant. But if that's the case, any scientific discussion of God is, again, worthless.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Skillery, Mormons often forget that we are one of the few Religions that believe that God is a Scientist. For most other religions, such a statement is blasphemous and materialistic. Finding physical answers to miracles in other religions is damaging to their belief in the Immaterial and Omnicience of God.
Posted by Darth Ender (Member # 7694) on :
But the dark will win in the end
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Skillery, Mormons often forget that we are one of the few Religions that believe that God is a Scientist. For most other religions, such a statement is blasphemous and materialistic. Finding physical answers to miracles in other religions is damaging to their belief in the Immaterial and Omnicience of God.
I have no idea what bizarre place you get your ideas about religions from, but I would go so far as to say most modern religions have perfectly respectable (and typically very large) branches, at the least, which are completely comfortable with considering God as a scientist.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:Anticool and Noemon, I will get to your questions when i have time to elaborate. I'm at work right now and deadlines are looming. Maybe this weekend I can go into some in-depth responses.
*still waiting*
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Must have been a busy weekend.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
That tissue looks like chicken...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::swallows noisily while trying to be inconspicuous::
I certainly wouldn't know whether it tastes like chicken or not.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)