Greetings, heathen scum! Are you ready for more Bible Science? Get your rubber gloves on, because we're continuing our dissection of a textbook from Bob Jones University Press, Biology For Christian Schools, by William S. Pinkston. Last week, we learned about the very scientific theory of the "canopy" of water that floated above the atmosphere, just waiting for God to drop it on the Earth so He could kill every living thing that wasn't on Noah's Ark. In this week's installment, it's time for the Flood itself, which totally happened and was real, as proven by scientific facts in the Book of Genesis.
A related and simpler explanation for flood myths is that people observed seashell fossils in places far from the sea, such as the tops of mountains, and posited (not at all stupidly) that they had once been covered by water.
Since flooding was a known phenomenon, the supposition that a temporary flood had once covered the earth was reasonable. The only things they got wrong were the causation and the time frame. We moderns forget how closely folks in the ancient world observed nature.
The most astute of these speculations is Leonardo da Vinci's Codex Leicester, in which he suggests that the presence of sea fossils on mountains is due not only to a primordial flood but also to the sea bed later pushing upward to create mountain ranges. He arrived at the idea of plate tectonics by observing geological patterns and strata. Brilliant guy, but he was building on earlier observations, going all the way back.
You're a tougher audience than I. What I call "stupidity" is when faith-based beliefs are directly contradicted by physical evidence, but the contradiction is ignored or "explained away".
Philosophically, I am less concerned about faith-based beliefs that lack either supporting or contradicting evidence. After all, the definition of "faith" is belief in something for which there is no conventional evidence.
My view of "people of faith" is that if their faith, however unrealistic it may seem to me, helps them to be better people, then good for them. If not, I evaluate the people based on their behavior, not on the "faith" that may contribute to it.
I am a superannuated physics major. I have a problem with the proponents of string theory (or &quot;M-Theory&quot;, if you prefer), because they&#039;ve essentially become faith-based. The theory is so elegant, it must be correct, even though there is no experimental support, and, possibly, there <i>can&#039;t</i> be any experimental support.
I have the same opinion about string theorists as I do about rational religionists. If their faith helps them to be better people, and they are willing to accept evidence that contradicts their beliefs, good for them.
As a side note to my comment about faith-based reasoning elsewhere: Intelligent Designers are the bunk. And, I guess, represent an exception to my notion that faith is okay unless contradicted by evidence.
The inevitable incompleteness of the discovered fossil record, and the decay of soft structures, means that it is improbable that we will ever have indisputable evidence of the evolution of, say, the mammalian eye.
FWIW, they are using the rationale: &quot;There is no evidence to support this, therefore you are wrong, and by default we must be right (in this case, meaning the mammalian eye was divinely designed)&quot;.
This is a logical fallacy. But, again fwiw, it&#039;s the same thing as saying, e.g., there is no such thing as heaven, because there is no evidence to support it.
BTW, I do not think there is such a thing as heaven. But I do not have any data to support my belief.
I think it&#039;s something the Xtards invented, when they noticed guys like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins bringing atheism out of the closet and advocating for it in public. This is why they&#039;re scared shitless and screaming about the &quot;war on religion.&quot; (Their own centuries-long &quot;war on atheism&quot; never happened, obviously.)
<i> &quot;inconclusive results owning to the difficult conditions of the region, dinosaurian wiliness, and God&#039;s Will.&quot;</i>
I was feeling pretty smug for spotting quickly that it&#039;s a parody, but then I followed the link for &quot;asswaged&quot;. I *think* that leads to a genuine site, but I wouldn&#039;t bet serious money on it. Anyone care to bet 5 ameros it&#039;s not? (I checked, and &quot;asswaged&quot; is the spelling in <a href="http:\/\/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org\/Genesis-Chapter-8_Original-1611-KJV\/" target="_blank">the 1611 printing</a>, or as close as you can get without looking up the Unicode for the elongated s.)
A related and simpler explanation for flood myths is that people observed seashell fossils in places far from the sea, such as the tops of mountains, and posited (not at all stupidly) that they had once been covered by water.
Since flooding was a known phenomenon, the supposition that a temporary flood had once covered the earth was reasonable. The only things they got wrong were the causation and the time frame. We moderns forget how closely folks in the ancient world observed nature.
The most astute of these speculations is Leonardo da Vinci&#039;s Codex Leicester, in which he suggests that the presence of sea fossils on mountains is due not only to a primordial flood but also to the sea bed later pushing upward to create mountain ranges. He arrived at the idea of plate tectonics by observing geological patterns and strata. Brilliant guy, but he was building on earlier observations, going all the way back.
/lecturemode
You&#039;re a tougher audience than I. What I call &quot;stupidity&quot; is when faith-based beliefs are directly contradicted by physical evidence, but the contradiction is ignored or &quot;explained away&quot;.
Philosophically, I am less concerned about faith-based beliefs that lack either supporting or contradicting evidence. After all, the definition of &quot;faith&quot; is belief in something for which there is no conventional evidence.
My view of &quot;people of faith&quot; is that if their faith, however unrealistic it may seem to me, helps them to be better people, then good for them. If not, I evaluate the people based on their behavior, not on the &quot;faith&quot; that may contribute to it.
I am a superannuated physics major. I have a problem with the proponents of string theory (or &quot;M-Theory&quot;, if you prefer), because they&#039;ve essentially become faith-based. The theory is so elegant, it must be correct, even though there is no experimental support, and, possibly, there <i>can&#039;t</i> be any experimental support.
I have the same opinion about string theorists as I do about rational religionists. If their faith helps them to be better people, and they are willing to accept evidence that contradicts their beliefs, good for them.
As a side note to my comment about faith-based reasoning elsewhere: Intelligent Designers are the bunk. And, I guess, represent an exception to my notion that faith is okay unless contradicted by evidence.
The inevitable incompleteness of the discovered fossil record, and the decay of soft structures, means that it is improbable that we will ever have indisputable evidence of the evolution of, say, the mammalian eye.
FWIW, they are using the rationale: &quot;There is no evidence to support this, therefore you are wrong, and by default we must be right (in this case, meaning the mammalian eye was divinely designed)&quot;.
This is a logical fallacy. But, again fwiw, it&#039;s the same thing as saying, e.g., there is no such thing as heaven, because there is no evidence to support it.
BTW, I do not think there is such a thing as heaven. But I do not have any data to support my belief.
Ah, but you saw the fnord.
Then why are they fucking around in my back yard?
I finally listened to that, and, yeah.
So, my overall comment about this thread is: why you all respond so much to the troll?
I think it&#039;s something the Xtards invented, when they noticed guys like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins bringing atheism out of the closet and advocating for it in public. This is why they&#039;re scared shitless and screaming about the &quot;war on religion.&quot; (Their own centuries-long &quot;war on atheism&quot; never happened, obviously.)
<i> &quot;inconclusive results owning to the difficult conditions of the region, dinosaurian wiliness, and God&#039;s Will.&quot;</i>
LMFAO! That&#039;s really all I can say.
I don&#039;t think he&#039;s going to put Paradise back in Muhlenberg County.
I&#039;ve found petrified poop in the desert, which of course is proof that Phyllis Schlafly had been there.
You bet it took a long time to recede. As in, where the fuck did it go?
Is it the size of a sheep?
You know, I don&#039;t really have a problem with the faith. It&#039;s the stupidity that makes me crazy.
Nicely pronounced, Dok.
I was feeling pretty smug for spotting quickly that it&#039;s a parody, but then I followed the link for &quot;asswaged&quot;. I *think* that leads to a genuine site, but I wouldn&#039;t bet serious money on it. Anyone care to bet 5 ameros it&#039;s not? (I checked, and &quot;asswaged&quot; is the spelling in <a href="http:\/\/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org\/Genesis-Chapter-8_Original-1611-KJV\/" target="_blank">the 1611 printing</a>, or as close as you can get without looking up the Unicode for the elongated s.)