The Genesis Account...

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you still didnt answer my question. how long did Gilgamesh live and when did he die?

EC

I'm not aware that the story answers either of these questions. What difference does it make?

I'm not aware that the story answers either of these questions. What difference does it make?

well if he lived before the flood, he should have lived to be at least 900 like most other people before the flood. if he didnt he ws probably one of the few people who died early for some reason other than old age.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well if he lived before the flood, he should have lived to be at least 900 like most other people before the flood. if he didnt he ws probably one of the few people who died early for some reason other than old age.

There's nothing in the story as far as I can see to indicate a great age for Gilgamesh. The implication is a normal life span I suppose.

However, the Epic of Gilgamesh is a legend, not history. It's filled with impossible magical aspects including interventions by several gods.

This legend predates the Old Testamanet by 2000 years, and is clearly the source of the Noah legend.

There is no credible evidence of any kind that people ever lived hundreds of years. Numerous skeletal remains have been uncovered from 'before the flood', and they still have teeth intact. Human teeth would not survive hundreds of years of usage, and they don't grow back after they are ground down/fall out.

If you flood story is true, you should have no problem demonstrating great ages for ancient skeletal remains.

and is clearly the source of the Noah legend.

If you flood story is true, you should have no problem demonstrating great ages for ancient skeletal remains.

it is not 'clearly' the source of the noah legend. just because it predates noah does not mean that it is the source.
Just because I was born before my brother does not mean that I am have the answers to all his questions about things before he was born.


Demonstrating great age for ancient skeletal remains.

1. Bigger eyebrow ridges because of old age.
2. longated skulls from constant pull from muscles.
3. bigger skeletons altogether.
4. bigger bones altogether.
5. some people get more than just two sets of teeth, some people get three.
there are others that I cant think of at the moment.

The age of gilgamesh is not implied as being of modern age. no one knows what the age of Gilgamesh was. and you even said it yourself. the legend is full of a bunch of impossible stuff and magic, and you even said that its not history. so why would you even bring it up? if its not gauranteed to be accurate then how do you know that it is the source to the story of noahs flood?

EC

spamandham

evolution cruncher said:

quote: Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
what exactly is macro evolution to you?

To which you replied(for the 2nd time):

An arbitrary distinction invented by Creationists.

You're incorrect, but don't take it from me let's see what iloveevolution.com has to say

www.talkorigins.org...
The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.

emphasis mine

And just to be clear on the distinction between the two:

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species

macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another

They are different and NOT because creationists say so, or because you say they do. :shk:

And "kinds" being a "semantical wall...that doesn't exist" is also missleading, this is still very much debateable. Fish to Human is a hypothesis that has most definately never been shown in a lab and obviously never observed. I'm gonna assume your aware of this but if you need me to elaborate just ask, i'd rather not hijack the thread. Just wanted to clear up some mis-conceptions.

However you raindrops/flood to micro/macro analogy was clever, got a snicker out of me on that one.


But as an "old-Eartherr" i'll bow out know, evolution cruncher tends to get a little, "my GOD ain't your GOD, mine has no limitations" sometimes. But apparently the need for six 24hr days is not an indication of limitations, by that logic it seems that any belief beyond instantaneous is that of a weak faith, eh evolution cruncher?

Take no offense evolution cruncher, i love ya brother. It's a big complicated Universe and NO ONE has it all figured out. The Bible is not so black and white (when it comes to creation) as you seem to think it is.

But as an "old-Eartherr" i'll bow out know, evolution cruncher tends to get a little, "my GOD ain't your GOD, mine has no limitations" sometimes. But apparently the need for six 24hr days is not an indication of limitations, by that logic it seems that any belief beyond instantaneous is that of a weak faith, eh evolution cruncher?

or maybe the purpose of using a 6 day creation with the 7th day as rest was a sign between him and man. read the bible and you will find that. he could have made it all at one time but then there would be no sign between him and the children of israel.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
it is not 'clearly' the source of the noah legend. just because it predates noah does not mean that it is the source.

It certainly tilts the balance that direction.

www.icr.org...

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Demonstrating great age for ancient skeletal remains.

1. Bigger eyebrow ridges because of old age.
2. longated skulls from constant pull from muscles.
3. bigger skeletons altogether.
4. bigger bones altogether.

Are you suggesting the skeletal remains of children that have these same features are the skeletons of hundreds of years old children?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the legend is full of a bunch of impossible stuff and magic, and you even said that its not history. so why would you even bring it up? if its not gauranteed to be accurate then how do you know that it is the source to the story of noahs flood?

Both stories contain magical impossible aspects. Yet you readily reject one as mere legend while claiming the other is true.

It's the selective reasoning common to many christians especially those who refuse to see the bible as anything less than the literal word of God ,if it's in the bible it's fact if it's not it's not,they dont follow reasoning beyond this point.They will quote biblical passages at you all day long to answer things but if you go into areas of logic and reasoning the bible can't answer you see the limitations of a narrow mind.If you rely entirely on one source for all knowledge,your understanding of the world will naturally be biased and limited in the extreme.
I brought up a similar thing amongst other points in my last post which EC chose to ignore in it's entirety.

Originally posted by Ras Dedan
Take the story of the serpent tempting Eve,your claiming that this serpent actually spoke to Eve because it's in the bible,now if I tell you that in Ghana the Ashanti people have a story of Anansi the spider who's a trickster and can talk,to you that is myth but both are stories of talking animals who trick people yet you believe one because it comes from a certain location on earth.That's madness both are the same thing mere myths.

It's the selective reasoning common to many christians especially those who refuse to see the bible as anything less than the literal word of God ,if it's in the bible it's fact if it's not it's not,they dont follow reasoning beyond this point.They will quote biblical passages at you all day long to answer things but if you go into areas of logic and reasoning the bible can't answer you see the limitations of a narrow mind.If you rely entirely on one source for all knowledge,your understanding of the world will naturally be biased and limited in the extreme.
I brought up a similar thing amongst other points in my last post which EC chose to ignore in it's entirety.

quote: Originally posted by Ras Dedan
Take the story of the serpent tempting Eve,your claiming that this serpent actually spoke to Eve because it's in the bible,now if I tell you that in Ghana the Ashanti people have a story of Anansi the spider who's a trickster and can talk,to you that is myth but both are stories of talking animals who trick people yet you believe one because it comes from a certain location on earth.That's madness both are the same thing mere myths.

I have no doubt that a spider talked and was indeed a trickster. it proably is true. and in my story, the snake was the devil. the devil has a lot of power. he can do many things, some ordinary spider that can talk probably doesnt have the power of the devil. it could have been, but I did not deny that it was a fact. the bible was written by people who witnessed things. kinda like Bill Clinton and his book "My Life". if someone writes a book on something and if he believes in the same god as I, im going to use logic and decide whether to believe it or not to belive it. I dont know how you decide on what is right or wrong but I decide by what the bible says and the logic of it.

with the evolution theory, there is no way to tell right from wrong. how do you decide what is right from wrong? there is no way to tell or decide.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the bible was written by people who witnessed things.

How have you made such a determination, considering that few (any?) of the books make such a claim of eyewitness?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
with the evolution theory, there is no way to tell right from wrong. how do you decide what is right from wrong? there is no way to tell or decide.

Even if this were true, it is not an argument in support of the truth of the Bible, nor of Christianity.

You do realize that disproving evolution, were you to succeed, is not the same as proving the Bible don't you?

EC

How have you made such a determination, considering that few (any?) of the books make such a claim of eyewitness?

I already explained to you the "teledoth" this is clearly the eye witness accounts.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I have no doubt that a spider talked and was indeed a trickster. it proably is true. and in my story, the snake was the devil. the devil has a lot of power. he can do many things, some ordinary spider that can talk probably doesnt have the power of the devil. it could have been, but I did not deny that it was a fact. the bible was written by people who witnessed things. kinda like Bill Clinton and his book "My Life". if someone writes a book on something and if he believes in the same god as I, im going to use logic and decide whether to believe it or not to belive it. I dont know how you decide on what is right or wrong but I decide by what the bible says and the logic of it.

with the evolution theory, there is no way to tell right from wrong. how do you decide what is right from wrong? there is no way to tell or decide.

EC

Anansi is not a true story though it's a fable,people create these stories to explain concepts which are outwith human understanding or to promote understanding of teachings.Jesus in the bible used parables to teach it's the exact same concept.Does it say in Genesis though that the serpent is the devil,as far as I'm aware no,please correct me if I'm wrong.
Bill Clinton's book is not the same thing,Bill Clinton is a undeniable person who is still alive we can say without doubt Bill Clinton exists and what is claimed he said he did indeed say.There was no recording equipment or the BBC at the time of the Genesis stories or any biblical time so logic dictates that nobody can say without doubt or a leap of faith what actually happened,if you believe thats what happend,brilliant I have no problem with that I'm not arrogant enough to claim to know any better than you but why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that you may be wrong.
To claim people who don't follow the bible are without morality is obviously wrong as I said to someone in another thread take your head out of the bible for 10 minutes and take a look at the reality of the world.
You've got the wrong end of the stick concerning myself and evolution,if you read my posts you'll find no time do I promote the theory of evolution or the big bang.What I know of evolution stems from Darwin and anyone who has read The Descent of Man can be in no doubt to Darwin's agenda,he and his cronies Thomas Huxley and Francis Galton the founder of the eugenics movement are blatant rascists who forward evolution as a scientific theory to give validity to their racism,any black man who can go along with Darwin needs their head looked at.
Just because I don't believe the factual validity of Genesis does not mean I don't believe in God or a form of creation,I find it impossible to look at amongst other things the complexity and balance in nature and not see design,could this all of happend by chance I suppose it could but I find it so unlikely the sheer number of coincedences involved throws the balance in my mind towards design.For many people it's not enough though to say I can see design and try to explain that to others who may be doubtful,there's a need in human nature to have everything explained to minute detail thats where creation stories which are in all cultures come from.

[edit on 12/9/2005 by Ras Dedan]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

How have you made such a determination, considering that few (any?) of the books make such a claim of eyewitness?

I already explained to you the "teledoth" this is clearly the eye witness accounts.

...

The hebrew word "teledoth" explain who wrote what part. the key-phrase "these are the generations of" is where the person signs off at the end of their part. the first teledoth was written by God and the second was adam. and the other 8 are in there as well. 8 of these eyewitnesses were born, 1 was created, and the other one, the first one, was God who was not created or born.

You stated it, but you didn't explain it. The toledoth are nothing more than clarification of the framework of Genesis by the person(s) who compiled it from several pre-existing stories. How you construe that to be a claim of eyewitness is incomprehensible.

I guess you don't find it the least bit unusual that all 10 authors would choose to end their work with "this is the book of" or "these are the origins of" (neither of which is a claim of eyewitness by the way)?

if you read the bible, you will come to a phrase that says " these are the generations of..." or "this is the book of the generations of..." this is called the teledoth where the person who is writing is signing off. the first teledoth is found at the beginning of Genesis 2. it is where God signed off. the second one is by adam where he signed off. there are 8 to follow as you read Genesis. these are clearly eye-witness accounts according to the bible.

EC

Moses is said to have written the Pentateuch, or first five books of the OT, yet, the end of the fifth book records his death. It is unlikely he wrote that. And also, if he did write these books, then the eyewitness-ness, if thats a word, is questionable. Also, the incommensurability of the four gospels telling of the events is hard to explain. Luke and Matthew give different lineages for Joseph, and there is more than one version of who attended the discovery of the empty tomb. Mary Magdalene is the only name agreed upon. Also, the NIV, KJAV, and ASV all have different names in both areas. If these are eye witness accounts, then someone wasn't paying attention.

Originally posted by oveon
but i do believe that some of the ideas presented in the bible are exceptional for use by our species in interacting with each other.

Why stop with believing part of the Bible? If you have made a conscious decision to believe that some of what is written in it contains truth, then move beyond that and believe that it is truth, all of it.

Don't limit God by disbelieving the parts of it that you have decided are not true.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
if you read the bible, you will come to a phrase that says " these are the generations of..." or "this is the book of the generations of..." this is called the teledoth where the person who is writing is signing off.

The fact that someone wrote it, and further that they indicated an end to a particular section, is not the same as a claim of eyewitness. You have yet to explain how the toledoth implies an eyewitness account.

To the contrary, the similarity of language in the toledoth indicates a common authorship for the compiler of the accounts.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
these are clearly eye-witness accounts according to the bible.
EC

You keep repeating this, but it certainly isn't obvious why. Please explain. The request is for an explanation as to why the toledoth indicates the sections are eyewitness accounts, rather than simply a compilation of accounts segmented by these phrases for clarity.

I posted a response to this days ago, and now it seems to have disappeared!?? Let's try again...

Originally posted by Rren
To which you replied(for the 2nd time):

An arbitrary distinction invented by Creationists.

You're incorrect, but don't take it from me let's see what iloveevolution.com has to say

www.talkorigins.org...

Ok. The distinctions were not coined by creationists. However, if you read the article, you'll see that these distinctions were shortly rejected as arbitrary. Yet they are still in use by creationists 50+ years after they went out of usage in the scientific community. Why? Because the terms imply some kind of wall that prevents adaptation from generating new species. This is precisely the reason they went out of favor, no such wall exists in nature. 'macro' evolution and 'micro' evolution are the exact same process.

Case in point

We observe fruit fly speciation in the lab. Yet, there is not a single change that results in the speciation. Instead, it results from the accumulation of numerous changes that make it gradually more difficult for populations to interbreed until the accumulation becomes so large that no interbreeding is observed anymore.

Is this 'micro' or 'macro'? No single change results in a new species, so it isn't 'macro', yet a new species emerges, so it isn't 'micro' either. These terms imply a binary function where reality is analog.

Control the language and you win the debate before it even begins. These terms are an attempt to win the debate without a discussion.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by spamandham]

Evolution Cruncher, I'm still waiting for a response to the question regarding the skeletal remains of Neanderthal children...

You have yet to explain how the toledoth implies an eyewitness account.

uh no, you just havent read the part I did post. the phrase "these are the generations of" or "this is the book of the generations of" is where the person signs off. the person who signs off is the person who wrote it. it is the person who was the eyewitness.

Evolution Cruncher, I'm still waiting for a response to the question regarding the skeletal remains of Neanderthal children...

sorry didnt catch that post. please provide a source or something. what neanderthal children. all neanderthal was were people with arthritis that we bent over. kinda like the hunchback of ND. there is no evidence that says they are a missing link or that they came from an ancestar common to apes or chimps.

EC

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]