A little more irony.

So why not let them continue?

Frickin' Degas!

Anyway, I'll give hungry Lenny a pass on LPG's say-so tonight, seein's how I kinda owe the kid one for reasons we need not elaborate.

But agreeing that theistic science-supporters can do good science and agreeing theistic science-supporters can wage effective war in the anti-IDiot trenches, is not the same thing as agreeing that their religious notions make good sense.

I fail to see why PZ can't enter into the first two agreements with complete good will, while reserving his right to have a side-argument about the third topic.

In other words, why should we go to war with our atheistic science supporters any more than we should go to war with our believing science supporters?

And, as Lenny might say, let's be clear that I don't have a horse in the race either--I couldn't care less what otherwise-sensible science-supporting believers do when they take their lab coats off and walk through the big double doors of a Sunday morning (or, ya know, whenever faith requires...).

Now, gotta go make some spaghetti.

Uh, excuse me, Lenny--and, dang, that spaghetti is a callin' out!--but didn't our last little "religious" war get started, not bacause PZ went after Miller, but because Miller went to Kansas and sure sounded like he was siccin' the fundies on their "real" enemy, the atheists?

Yeah, that is what it sounded like, however much Miller then backed off of it when he got called on it.

Hmmm.

Maybe we need a mutual, verifiable non-aggression pact.

Or, in your mind, is there simply no difference? Is a theist a theist a theist a theist --- and all of them need to be "corrected"?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

I do not recall a single instance of any pro-evolution anti-ID theist here attacking any atheist for his atheism. No one. Not a one. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. In every single instance where someone has opened fire on someone else for their religious beliefs, it has ALWAYS been Norm, Popper, or PZ attacking an evolution supporter's theism.

The fundies simply do not worship a god --- they worship a BOOK ABOUT GOD, and are too dumb to tell the difference.

— I believe you once

the uber-atheists and the hyper-fundies --- both of who claim that science supports their religious opinions, and neither of which can prove it.

— And on this thread you

So why not let them continue?

Carol wrote It is firmly established that the original Hebrew Bible can very well be interpreted literally and yet not conflict with any tenet of science.

...but because Miller went to Kansas and sure sounded like he was siccin' the fundies on their "real" enemy, the atheists?

No, Miller was pointing out that the fundies' real enemy ALREADY was...well...everyone who didn't think exactly like them, and their entire culture and secular society, but not evolution or science in general; and that the fundies were attacking the wrong "enemy," as they usually do. The fundies don't need any stinkin' non-fundies to "sic" them on anyone, so blaming Miller for such an act is just plain silly.

...and science supports the conclusion that no gods exist of fundie-atheists.

Who, exactly, are these "gods of fundie-atheists," and how does science "support the conclusion" that they don't exist? Some people are getting both incoherent and repetitive at the same time.

I'm amused to note that the atheists have been smacked down for silliness by...the Queen of Silliness Herself, Ms. Carol "The Bible is a science textbook that only a select handful of Jews can understand" Clouser. (I suppose I could debunk her silliness, but I've done so before, and so have others, and she's completely ignored us...and it's getting late...so I'll just compliment Carol on making herself sound sensible compared with norm & co.; and ask her what part of the Bible tells us "F=ma", and how long ago the Jews got the drop on Newton...*YAWN*...)

Dude, PZ's message (and that of his Puppies) comes shining through loud and clear. No one here mistakes it. And certainly not anyone on the receiving end of it.

Anyway, to reiterate what I said earlier in the thread, the guy who gave us evolutionary theory in the first place said it made his theistic view of the world a little more comforting and understandable. Evolutionary theory's been illuminating the heads of atheists, agnostics and believers alike since the first generation of scientists who experienced it, and there's no reason to withhold that benefit from anyone who doesn't actively oppose a clearer view of the world, regardless of their theology.

They think that theists happen to be wrong, and that it's worth explaining why. Meanwhile, theists think atheists happen to be wrong, and many of them think it's worth explaining why. Oddly enough, these arguments often proceed just fine without either side demanding that the other be imprisoned or drug out into the street and shot. So why not let them continue?

Because it has nothing to do with science. If they want to continue they can do it somewhere else. Just not here. Nor on a science blog. They can do it on their own damn non-science blog. But only if they don't have a lot of readers. (Plus they have to be from a small island too. With no internet. And no phone calls.)

Anton wrote:

That's odd, because this very thread seems to involve you and Bee claiming that the atheists here find theism "intolerable," are dedicated to stamping it out, and devalue the work of theist scientists. Or is it okay as long as you attack the person, rather than the belief?

YOu may not be interested in such tedious complexities, but what we are attacking is the ignorance, arrogance, intolerance, know-nothingism, and shameless bigotry that we have seen from certain atheists here, directed at people who have done us no wrong, and at beliefs the attackers clearly don't understand, in violation of the most basic table manners; not atheism itself, which is a perfectly valid belief. (Of course, if you choose to make such ignorance, arrogance, intolerance, know-nothingism, and shameless bigotry PART of your brand of atheism, then yes, we ARE attacking your belief, right along with similar "beliefs" of certain Christians, and we see no need to apologize for it.)

Um, in case you haven't noticed, about two-thirds of the people in the US who reject ID/creationism and who accept evolution, are, uh, theists.

Which makes your "science proves there's no god and that's why they're all pissed at us" rant seem, well, kind of stupid.

You'd be far more correct had you said that the conflict revolves around two sets of extremists --- the uber-atheists and the hyper-fundies --- both of who claim that science supports their religious opinions, and neither of which can prove it. The big blob of non-extremist people in the middle, meanwhile, go on with their lives and ignore the extremists as they yell at each other. (shrug)

YOu may not be interested in such tedious complexities, but what we are attacking is the ignorance, arrogance, intolerance, know-nothingism, and shameless bigotry that we have seen from certain atheists here, directed at people who have done us no wrong, and at beliefs the attackers clearly don't understand, in violation of the most basic table manners; not atheism itself, which is a perfectly valid belief. (Of course, if you choose to make such ignorance, arrogance, intolerance, know-nothingism, and shameless bigotry PART of your brand of atheism, then yes, we ARE attacking your belief, right along with similar "beliefs" of certain Christians, and we see no need to apologize for it.)

— Raging Bee

I would say science fails to support the conclusion that any particular god exists. There could be any number of wild, weird and wonderful deities out there; we just have no particular reason to believe in them.

They think that theists happen to be wrong, and that it's worth explaining why. Meanwhile, theists think atheists happen to be wrong, and many of them think it's worth explaining why.... So why not let them continue?

— 386sx

Because it has nothing to do with science. If they want to continue they can do it somewhere else. Just not here.

Nor on a science blog. They can do it on their own damn non-science blog.

But only if they don't have a lot of readers. (Plus they have to be from a small island too. With no internet. And no phone calls.)

But anyway, science supports the conclusion gods and other deities do not exist and it fails to support the conclusion that any particular god exists.

That's the problems with TE's - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith.

There are Biblical issues that arise, such as Paul's views on women: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim. 2:11-14)

Do you really want your daily theological diatribes arriving inscribed on catapult-launched coconuts? Internet and phone seem much less risky.

First I would claim that they prayed for the coconuts to have anti-conkingness properties. That way nobody would have anything to worry about because it wouldn't be a scientific claim.

Stevaroni,

"So in the original Hebrew, does the Bible still have all those little self-contradictory doublets. Ya know like where the first iteration of the flood story says that Noah took two of each animal, then a few dozen pages later another verse says he took seven, or is that just an artifact of translation?"

There are no two creation stories in the original Hebrew. That is just another bit of drivel propagated by those who (like Friedmann, stc.) wish to read such things into the text to satisfy their own agendas. The Hebrew makes it quite clear that chapter two is an elaboration on chapter one, filling in some details. All you need do is apply the normal rules of ancient Biblical Hebrew used throughout the text by all the ancient commentators, long before Darwin appeared in diapers, to see that this assertion is a sham. As far as Noah's animals is concerned, the Hebrew makes it quite clear that certain kinds were represented by two animals, while others were represented by seven.

"Or maybe it's a side-effect of evolution ruining mathematics, didn't we have that discussion on another thread? That would explain how Moses came down from the hill with 10 commandments in one part of Exodus and 27 in another."

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Raging Bee,

"I'm amused to note that the atheists have been smacked down for silliness by...the Queen of Silliness Herself, Ms. Carol "The Bible is a science textbook that only a select handful of Jews can understand" Clouser."

I have always claimed the exact opposite on both counts. The Bible is NOT a science textbook, and all Hebrew-knowledgable Jews and others will readily agree with what I said. And I might add that even fundamentalist Jews do not at all oppose the teaching of evolution, not do they care to convert outsiders. All the anti-evolution activity and proslytizing is Christian in nature.

"(I suppose I could debunk her silliness, but I've done so before, and so have others, and she's completely ignored us...and it's getting late...so I'll just compliment Carol on making herself sound sensible compared with norm & co.; and ask her what part of the Bible tells us "F=ma", and how long ago the Jews got the drop on Newton...*YAWN*...)"

You are a bald-faced liar. Neither you nor anyone here has ever "debunked" me. I invite you to try, big mouth. You will suffer the same fate as, well let's see... Jonboy, etc.

Comment #134101 Posted by Anton Mates on September 25, 2006 11:27 PM (e) Raging Bee wrote:

YOu may not be interested in such tedious complexities, but what we are attacking is the ignorance, arrogance, intolerance, know-nothingism, and shameless bigotry that we have seen from certain atheists here, directed at people who have done us no wrong, and at beliefs the attackers clearly don't understand, in violation of the most basic table manners; not atheism itself, which is a perfectly valid belief. (Of course, if you choose to make such ignorance, arrogance, intolerance, know-nothingism, and shameless bigotry PART of your brand of atheism, then yes, we ARE attacking your belief, right along with similar "beliefs" of certain Christians, and we see no need to apologize for it.)

— Anton Mates

Well, I think that about wraps it up for the notion that the atheists are doing the attacking here.

"Neither you nor anyone here has ever "debunked" me."

Hyena's.

Sorry, couldn't resist! ;)

And sure, that's not what Panda's Thumb is for. The next time PZ makes a PT post about the top ten reasons theism is stupid, I'll be sure to complain. In the meantime, he gets to bitch about whatever he wants outside of PT

Duh. So the war is really theists against theists.

To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well-studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both.

Well, I think that about wraps it up for the notion that the atheists are doing the attacking here.

And I think that about wraps it up for the notion that certain militant atheists here are willing to act like grownups and take responsibility for their own words.

PS to Carol: it's interesting that you'd mention Jonboy -- you did indeed refute his rather less than coherent arguments, but at the same time, you ignored more coherent arguments and more incisive questions from myself and others on the same thread.

Don't be calling us liars, little girl -- we can't read ancient Hebrew (or whatever language(s) we have to read to verify your outlandish claims), but that doesn't mean we can't remember your past track record.

To me this quote says that both science and theology need revision in light of new knowledge.

How much evidence is necessary to convince a believer that their theology is incorrect?

reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith." ---and so forth, was written by an anti-evolutionist. It wasn't an atheist complaining about theistic evolution, it was a theist IDer.

How much evidence is necessary to convince a believer that their theology is incorrect?

There is a difference between atheists bagging theists about theist's beliefs and theists telling atheists that they can be atheists but they don't want to continually listen to the atheists say that being a theist is stupid.

— Wayne Francis

Theists are not saying that the atheists are stupid for their lack of spiritual beliefs from what I see. What I see is theists saying that atheists are being stupid when atheists constantly bag theist's spiritual beliefs.

Oddly enough, during the class I attended on reading the Tanakh in its historical context, the rabbi teaching the class made much of the "mirror motif" that Carol claims isn't there--the repetition of certain stories, such as Gen 1 and Gen 2, or the bit about Abraham's wife passing as his sister (or vice versa? It's been awhile)... Rather than telling us that we could take those stories literally and that there were no contradictions, the rabbi described this as a literary motif, a poetic expansion on the theme, two ways of appreciating a mythic event, literally contradictory but literarily complementary.

I would have loved to see Carol arguing with this rabbi about it. There might be a way of reconciling their two view points, but I personally can't see it, not if I'm to take Carol's argument literally that the original Hebrew should be taken literally.

The sure sign that "science" hasn't quite sorted itself out yet is emotion. Ever hear people get emotional when confronted with the terrifying proposition that the square of the whatever-it-is equals you-know-what? Reformed or scripturally based Christianity fosters science and tolerates beliefs other than its own. But as soon as you hear people get cranked over a supposed technicality, take a hard look at the technicality. Relativity, quantum theory, Newton's Laws of Motion, you name it, ultimately people quietened down about it. Not so Darwinism.
At www.creationtheory.com we see how evolution can be approached in the classical, reformed Christian/scientific manner without rancour and without religious controversy. And with the latest facts, not ignoring the contribution of Darwin AND of other reputable people.

I bring people's attention especially to the Educator's Section, accessed via the Main Page. Any questions of a technical nature may be answered by me should I get back here.

Raging Bee,

"PS to Carol: it's interesting that you'd mention Jonboy --- you did indeed refute his rather less than coherent arguments, but at the same time, you ignored more coherent arguments and more incisive questions from myself and others on the same thread."

You have not said anything incisive in my 18 months at Panda's Thumb.

"Don't be calling us liars, little girl --- we can't read ancient Hebrew (or whatever language(s) we have to read to verify your outlandish claims), but that doesn't mean we can't remember your past track record."

I didn't call "us" a liar, I called YOU a liar. If you cannot read what it takes, how can you possibly know that the claims are "outlandish"?

Lenny,

While much of what you are saying in this thread makes a lot of sense, you ought to know that the vocal atheists here (PZ and others) did manage to highten my awareness (and I would hope and expect that of others too) of the unfairness, wrongness and injustice in the attitude of the majority toward the small minority of atheists in our midst. This cannot but help support the science position vis-a-vis the opposition.

A couple of additional comments have been posted where I thought my above would come to reside. I see there is some discussion of biblical (Torah, is it?) literality. The classical, reformed Christian approach to literality is two-pronged: 1) Exhaustive technical accuracy in the copying of the texts. 2) The Scriptures only come alive in their fuller and most accurate meaning if the same spirit of prophesy as inspired the authors, enlightens the readers. Hence, dead languages no longer remain dead. However the scriptures are not of anyone's private interpretation - i.e., consensus opinion carries weight.

And not forgetting our daily preaching from creationlackoftheorydotcom..... (sigh)

Nicole,

"I would have loved to see Carol arguing with this rabbi about it. There might be a way of reconciling their two view points, but I personally can't see it, not if I'm to take Carol's argument literally that the original Hebrew should be taken literally."

Actually, I am not sure the rabbi and I would disgree.

First, I am not in favor of strict, mindless literalism. "An eye for an eye", according to the sages, was never meant to be taken literally. But the decision needs to be based on the text (such as the "song" of Moses) or tradition or some internal imperative. It ought never be based on external considerations. To take eleven chapters in Genesis that provide no clue that they are meant to be anything other than historical narrative and mangle the meaning of the words solely for the purpose of rescuing the text from conflict with science, seems to me to be a dishonest cop-out.

Second, I was criticizing the notion of two contradictory stories of creation in Genesis. There are two stories in the sense that the latter reviews and elaborates on the former. The key point is that the text (in Hebrew) clearly tells us that it is doing just that. All we need do is READ it carefully.

Finally, there is the issue of words with multiple meanings. I subscribe to the view that literalism needs to be integrated with reasonablness and style.

I realize I partially interrupted the thread, but there did appear to be the possibility that at least one person wished to talk origins, especially in the context of teaching. Since the peanut gallery obviously can't do it, well, at your service! The interjector will now inform us of Sir Richard Owen's "Law of Progression", and whether by adding some of Darwin's ideas thereto a technically sound theory of species origin may be deduced. We wait with baited breath.

Here's a question: Can Owen's (modified & updated) theory be called Theistic Evolution by any stretch of the language? Into which origins theory classification would it fall?

Carol -- a practical question: if the original books of the Old Testament (or whatever documents you're talking about) can be literally interpreted to eliminate all conflict between Jewish religion and science, shouldn't there have been at least one scientific or technological advance pioneered by ancient Hebrews as a result of such information? What scientific or technical advancement can be attributed to the ancient Hebrews' literal reading of their holy texts?

shouldn't there have been at least one scientific or technological advance pioneered by ancient Hebrews as a result of such information?

The sure sign that "science" hasn't quite sorted itself out yet is emotion.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Ever hear people get emotional when confronted with the terrifying proposition that the square of the whatever-it-is equals you-know-what?

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Reformed or scripturally based Christianity fosters science and tolerates beliefs other than its own.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

But as soon as you hear people get cranked over a supposed technicality, take a hard look at the technicality. Relativity, quantum theory, Newton's Laws of Motion, you name it, ultimately people quietened down about it.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Not so Darwinism.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

At www.creationtheory.com we see how evolution can be approached in the classical, reformed Christian/scientific manner without rancour and without religious controversy. And with the latest facts, not ignoring the contribution of Darwin AND of other reputable people.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

The NONexistence of the Gods isn't exactly obvious to all of us either, Flint. Let's stick to the scientific issues, shall we?

As far as Noah's animals is concerned, the Hebrew makes it quite clear that certain kinds were represented by two animals, while others were represented by seven.

Yo, Heywood, does "creation theory" have a methodology for determining the age of the Earth? How old, roughly, does "creation theory" say the Earth is?

Re "That would explain how Moses came down from the hill with 10 commandments in one part of Exodus and 27 in another."

Actually, he came down with 15, but dropped one of the three tablets which left us with only 10. (As documented by Mel Brooks.)

Re "wouldn't the species/kinds/whatever with seven founding members consistently show greater genetic diversity than the species/etc. that only had two founding members?"

Maybe five of the seven got used as food?

Carol wrote:

Finally, there is the issue of words with multiple meanings. I subscribe to the view that literalism needs to be integrated with reasonablness and style.

The whole point of "literalist" interpretation is that each word has a single, "correct," "literal" meaning, which then informs the single, "correct," "literal" and "objective" meaning of the overall text. There is no room for "reasonablness and style" when one is finding the literal meanings of words.

If a word has more than one "official," universally agreed-upon meaning, then that word cannot, by definition, be read or interpreted "literally." And if there is no single "literal" meaning for the word, then there can be no objective, "literal" meaning to be read from a sentence containing that word. Therefore, your entire thesis fails. And yes, I mean that "literally," not "literarily." (You yourself admitted this when, pressed to explain how the Genesis account really meant six billion years and not a six-day creation, you started waffling about different meanings of the Ancient Hebrew word for "day.")

wouldn't the species/kinds/whatever with seven founding members consistently show greater genetic diversity than the species/etc. that only had two founding members?

Just imagine all those poor woodpeckers, waiting hundreds of years without food while old-growth forests to regenerate after the flood. It's quite impossible, which is why all woodpeckers are extinct. Please ignore any that you see existing in defiance of Biblical fact.

Imagine the poor measles virus. Once all the people on the ark had measles, they would have immunity and it would be extinct. That's why there are no cases of measles today, of course, the virus went extinct, along with all the other viruses of like nature. They don't exist anymore. Anyone pretending they have measles is just trying to get out of work or school.

regardless of what might be claimed about hyper-mutation rates since the Flood, wouldn't the species/kinds/whatever with seven founding members consistently show greater genetic diversity than the species/etc. that only had two founding members?

— Steviepinhead

Just imagine all those poor woodpeckers, waiting hundreds of years without food while old-growth forests to regenerate after the flood.

— Michael Suttkus, II

Imagine the poor measles virus. Once all the people on the ark had measles, they would have immunity and it would be extinct.

Meet Peeps:

Well, I was trying to be "nice" and just focus on how Carol's one claim would play out, and not go into the 1,001 other problems with the Noah story--charming as, in some ways, it is (the whole notion of "arks," of at least attempting to preserve the diversity of life on the planet from overwhelming threats, ought to be one that literalists, ecologists, and evolutionists could agree upon, wouldn't ya think?--which I gather is the thrust of E.O Wilson's latest book).

IOW, even if we assume that the "kinds" did survive their genetic bottleneck of in-breeding somehow (hypermutation rates over the intervening 5300 years, or however many it's supposed to be, with a lot of that hypervariability in the first few generations, or hand-wave whatever other fantasy might serve), shouldn't the differential preservation of two-vs.-seven have observable consequences in the present-day genomes of these species?

(There was a funny discussion of the absurdities of the ark story on Carl Zimmer's "Loom" blog recently, taking off from the premise of the movie "Snakes On A Plane," with the ark as the plane and every frickin' species on earth, carnivore, herbivore, dinosaur, what have you, as the snakes--kind of a major animal behavior management problem, even if you overlook food, waste, fertility cycles, musth, rut, ahhhh!)

I fully expect Carol to tell us that her immaculate, perfectly-preserved, transmitted, and translated version of the OT only involves a "local" flood--in which case, while it surely behooved Noah and clan to boat up and ship out, what was the whole point of taking every freakin' species, exactly, beyond strictly the stock that would be needed to support N. & Co. during and immediately after the Flood?

But Carol, wouldn't distinctive mideast subpopulations of at least some of these species (hyrax, perhaps, heh heh?) still show the differential genomic effects of the different-sized founder populations?

Wallace himself got involved in an effort to prove the earth round, only to have the quack refuse to pay up and spend the next several years in court trying to make him.

— Michael Suttkus, II

IOW, even if we assume that the "kinds" did survive their genetic bottleneck of in-breeding somehow (hypermutation rates over the intervening 5300 years, or however many it's supposed to be, with a lot of that hypervariability in the first few generations

— Steviepinhead

(There was a funny discussion of the absurdities of the ark story on Carl Zimmer's "Loom" blog recently, taking off from the premise of the movie "Snakes On A Plane," with the ark as the plane and every frickin' species on earth, carnivore, herbivore, dinosaur, what have you, as the snakes---kind of a major animal behavior management problem, even if you overlook food, waste, fertility cycles, musth, rut, ahhhh!)

Raging Bee,

"Carol --- a practical question: if the original books of the Old Testament (or whatever documents you're talking about) can be literally interpreted to eliminate all conflict between Jewish religion and science, shouldn't there have been at least one scientific or technological advance pioneered by ancient Hebrews as a result of such information? What scientific or technical advancement can be attributed to the ancient Hebrews' literal reading of their holy texts?"

No and none. The Bible is not, never has been, never was claimed by its authors to be, a science primer. That is not its purpose.

But the ancient Hebrews, as you call them, did give rise to the present day family of Jews whose contributions to science far exceed their numbers or the contributions of any other group of comprable size. Just look at those Nobels, my friend.

Flint,

"Or as Carl Sagan asked over and over, why is this god so obvious in the bible, and so thoroughly hidden in the Real World?"

I can think of at least ten great responses to your complaint, each of which could lead to a long thread all its own. But I shall limit myself to briefly mentioning just three.

(1) Perhaps God prefers to remain invisible and undetectable in order that you be at total liberty to exercise your free will to be an atheist.

(2) Perhaps God does not care at all as to what pathetic creatures of flesh and blood like you think or believe.

(3) Perhaps in God's "opinion" He has left much evidence of his handiwork and you are just too obstinate to see it. After all, you see an immense awesome universe demonstrably fine-tuned for life, evolving on the basis of particular and specific laws and initial conditions, and you prefer to believe that all this just POOFed itself into existence without cause and effect. But on virtually everything else you confront as a scientist, you insist on knowing - How and why did this get to be this way? Take off your blinders, look into yoyr blind spot, and use your head, and you might find God!

Stevie and others,

The Hebrew Bible tells the story of a flood that covered most or all of Mesapotamia but was a local phenomenon, not a global one. Care to debate this?

To return to the originally quoted IDer's complaint--- That's the problems with TE's - they can give you no reason whatsoever as to why they believe what they do in regard to their religious beliefs other than they take it all on faith.

By definition, the miraculous is beyond explanation, beyond our understanding, beyond science. This does not mean that miracles do not occur. A key doctrine in my own faith is that Jesus was born of a virgin, even though it makes no scientific sense---there is the matter of Jesus's Y-chromosome to account for. But that is the point. Miracles, by definition, do not have to make scientific sense.

ActionBioscience.org: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a higher being? Miller: No, it can't. The existence of a supreme being simply is not a scientific question. A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature. Beyond that it's a matter of personal belief.

Raging Bee,

By your anachronistic definition of "literal", I guess I am not a literalist. But according to the dictionary definitions of literal that I have encountered, literal means use of a word in ANY of its standard commonly used meanings. As long as one stays away from metaphorical or allegorical definitions, I consider it to be literal. The applicable rule for the entire OT has been laid down by the ancient Sages of Israel, "The Torah speaks to us in the language of everyday ordinary conversation".

Stevie,

"But Carol, wouldn't distinctive mideast subpopulations of at least some of these species (hyrax, perhaps, heh heh?) still show the differential genomic effects of the different-sized founder populations?"

Now you are cooking! I am intrigued by this issue. Could you elaborate? I am a physicist not a biologist so you need to be specific. What do we know and dopn't we know about this matter?

Wallace himself got involved in an effort to prove the earth round, only to have the quack refuse to pay up and spend the next several years in court trying to make him.

— Anton Mates

I never knew that. Is there a book/article about it?

Maybe that's why the clean ones needed seven. More genetic diversity, hence more disease resistance.

— Anton Mates

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

You'd think all the aquatic critters that didn't need the ark...

— Anton Mates

Just imagine all those poor woodpeckers, waiting hundreds of years without food while old-growth forests to regenerate after the flood.

— Anton Mates

Miracle.

Imagine the poor measles virus. Once all the people on the ark had measles, they would have immunity and it would be extinct.

— Michael Suttkus, II

Miracle.

Actually, maybe the woodpeckers could all have used the beached ark as a grub farm. Lots of wood in that thing.

— Anton Mates

The hypermutation thing always floors me. So humans and chimps are too genetically distant to have a common ancestor six million years ago or so...but all the biodiversity on terrestrial Earth could have developed from an arkful of ancestors a few thousand years ago?

— Anton Mates

The Hebrew Bible tells the story of a flood that covered most or all of Mesapotamia but was a local phenomenon, not a global one.

I fully expect Carol to tell us that her immaculate, perfectly-preserved, transmitted, and translated version of the OT only involves a "local" flood---in which case, while it surely behooved Noah and clan to boat up and ship out, what was the whole point of taking every freakin' species, exactly, beyond strictly the stock that would be needed to support N. & Co. during and immediately after the Flood? But Carol, wouldn't distinctive mideast subpopulations of at least some of these species (hyrax, perhaps, heh heh?) still show the differential genomic effects of the different-sized founder populations?

Stevie,

"No, Carol, I don't care to "debate" it---that's what I predicted you'd say"

I wrote my post before I saw yours with the prediction. Sorry about that. I assume you recall me saying that about the flood on other occasions. Or do you claim to be clairvoyant?

"1. Wouldn't we still expect to see differential founder effects as between the two-per-species and the seven-per-species animals, even if we look only at animals with ranges restricted to the mideast/mesopotamian area or at subpopulations of the same region? If not, why not? Please be specific---commit yourself to a prediction about what we would or would not expect to find in these genomes."

I am not a biologist, and I assume you are. So you tell me. What species existed UNIQUELY in the Mesapotamian area 4000 years ago that a simple man like Noah would know about? Can we tell from the present day genome of such species how many there were 5000 years ago? And if so, what do the data in fact tell us? Please elaborate. I am willing to listen to evidence, as you well know.

"2. If only the mesopotamian area was going to be affected, what was the point of taking two (or seven) of every kind, as opposed to the kinds that Noah and clan would need (mostly domestic stock) for the relatively brief period it would take for the limited area impacted by the flood to be resettled from outside (cf. Mt. St. Helens, Krakatoa, etc.)?"

Noah gathered indigenous species to be saved, that is every kind in the area, not every kind on the planet. And it is fair to say that he did not gather such items as microbes, fish, etc. He did so because he was commanded to do so, not just to provide food for himself and his family, but to save the species for its future retention in the area. There also is the consideration of God's desiring that Noah make a huge spectacle of his preparations in order to encourage folks to mend their ways.

"3. Can you give us any assistance with why even a more-linited areal flood isn't reflected in the geologic record for the appropriate locale and timeframe?

As far as I know the plains of mesapotamia were in fact flooded repeatedly and the record does show that. I am not aware of any evidence that there was no flood 5000 years ago. Nor are present day dating techniques capable of confidently pinpointing a flood's occurrance to the nearest year or even decade. If you know of anything specific in this regard, I am all ears.

"One could, of course, go on and on in this vein"

If you got any other arguments backed by evidence, by all means, go on!

All the anti-evolution activity and proslytizing is Christian in nature.

Okay, CArol, if you want to be able to choose from more than one "literal" meaning per word when interpreting ancient Hebrew holy texts, that's fine, as long as you're honest about it: when you pick and choose, you're injecting your own agenda/interpretation into the texts, to get the result you want, which is no more "authentic," "absolute" or "authoritative" than anyone else's. Calling your interpretation "literal" is thus no more substantive a claim to authenticity than the claims of the Christian literalists.

YOu had previously implied -- very strongly -- that the Hebrew texts had only ONE "absolute" meaning, which was not in conflict with science. Now you're implying multiple possible meanings.

The "reasonablness and style" with which you believe your interpretation should be "integrated" is yours, not ours or the original authors'. (Your very use of the word "reasonableness" implies you're interpreting the texts to mean something you consider "reasonable," and tossing out other interpretations you don't consider "reasonable." And then, of course, we get to this question: "Reasonable" based on what/whose assumptions, premises or priorities?)

The applicable rule for the entire OT has been laid down by the ancient Sages of Israel, "The Torah speaks to us in the language of everyday ordinary conversation".

And how rigidly "literalistic" are we in "everyday ordinary conversation?"

Also, which Jewish scientist got which Nobel-worthy idea from ancient Hebrew holy texts in the original language -- or any other language, for that matter? Got anything remotely resembling proof of such a claim?

alienward: Miller's alleged "self-contradiction" is entirely of your imagining. There's nothing at all self-contradictory in the statements you quoted: he uses science to explain nature, and personal belief to explain what he believes to lie outside of nature. AS long as he's not mixing the two on company time, where's the problem?

This used to be an interesting thread until a certain person claiming to be a physicist came along...

The most relevant flood was the filling of the Black Sea about 8000 years ago. There is a popular account by two geologists entitled "Noah's Flood" or something similar. The geology is excellent but when they wander into archeology there appear to be errors of both fact and interpretation.

But could we get back to the topic of this thread? Please?

Raging Bee,

I am making two distinct assertions:

(1) The common Christian English translations (I am not certain about the other non-English translations, other than the ancient Greek) are replete with incorrect and inaccurate translations, the cumulative effect of which is to grotesquely distort the intent and meaning of the original Hebrew. This is not an issue of multiple meanings, and constitutes some 80% of the problems.

(2) With regard to words with more than one possible but literal meaning, the common Christian English translations almost always mindlessly adopted whatever sounded best to the translators, sometimes for political reasons, and without regard to rigorous, comparative textual analysis. I would argue that the choices made by Hebrew scholars of late are typically sounder and more defensible. In a very small number of cases it becomes hard to nail the choice down.

(3) The bottom line thus is this - The first eleven chapters of Genesis can reasonably and soundly be interpreted literally and no conflict with science appears. So science cannot be employed as an argument to discredit a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Peter,

Read my other posts here.

The Sumerians, way back in 3,000 BC, were the first to use cheetahs as hunting companions. Since then, the pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of France, the princes of Persia, the Mongol emperors of India and the emperors of Austria have continued this tradition. When Marco Polo visited Kublai Khan at his summer residence in the Himalayan Mountains 700 years ago, he found that the mighty Khan kept 1,000 cheetahs to hunt deer and other slower animals. Cheetahs are very inbred. They are so inbred, that genetically they are almost identical. The current theory is that they became inbred when a "natural" disaster dropped their total world population down to less than seven individual cheetahs - probably about 10,000 years ago. They went through a "Genetic Bottleneck", and their genetic diversity plummeted. They survived only through brother-to-sister or parent-to-child mating.

While much of what you are saying in this thread makes a lot of sense, you ought to know that the vocal atheists here (PZ and others) did manage to highten my awareness (and I would hope and expect that of others too) of the unfairness, wrongness and injustice in the attitude of the majority toward the small minority of atheists in our midst.

The bottom line thus is this - The first eleven chapters of Genesis can reasonably and soundly be interpreted literally and no conflict with science appears.

I wrote my post before I saw yours with the prediction. Sorry about that. I assume you recall me saying that about the flood on other occasions. Or do you claim to be clairvoyant?

Ah, atheist conspiracies, that finally explains why the fundies have such a hang-up about our A.P.E.* relatives.

________________
*Atheist Pizza Eaters.

Carol Clouser and Creation Science Bible Guy, I have a question:

Do your neighbors ever complain about the smell when you honor your gods with sacrifices and offerings as the Old Testament instructs you to in Leviticus 1-7?

By my merely translated english reading of the Old Testament it looks like the ancient Hebrew's primary approach to thier gods/God was through a sacrificial system. It seems it was designed to serve the gods by meeting their physical needs for food. The sacrifices were the food and drink of the gods.

From the beginning the Old Testament is loaded with these sacrifices, Cain and Abel brought offerings to the Lord from the produce of the land and from the first born of the flock (Genesis 4:1). Noah built an altar and offered burnt sacrifices. These were a soothing aroma to the Lord (Genesis 8:1). The patriarchal stories in Genesis 12-50 are filled with instances of sacrifice to God. The most famous is that of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22:1).

Do you still use sacrifices in the consecration or ordination of the priests (Exodus 29:1)? Doesn't it get expensive slaughtering all those bulls on altars made from accacia wood and overlaid with copper (Exodus 27:1)?

(3) The bottom line thus is this - The first eleven chapters of Genesis can reasonably and soundly be interpreted literally and no conflict with science appears. So science cannot be employed as an argument to discredit a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I'm reminded of Pascal's Pensees...

"I admire the boldness with which these persons undertake to speak of God. In addressing their argument to infidels, their first chapter is to prove Divinity from the works of nature. I should not be astonished at their enterprise, if they were addressing their argument to the faithful; for it is certain that those who have the living faith in their hearts see at once that all existence is none other than the work of the God whom they adore. But for those in whom this light is extinguished, and in whom we purpose to rekindle it, persons destitute of faith and grace, who, seeking with all their light whatever they see in nature that can bring them to this knowledge, find only obscurity and darkness; to tell them that they have only to look at the smallest things which surround them, and they will see God openly, to give them, as a complete proof of this great and important matter, the course of the moon and planets, and to claim to have concluded the proof with such an argument, is to give them ground for believing that the proofs of our religion are very weak. And I see by reason and experience that nothing is more calculated to arouse their contempt.

It is not after this manner that Scripture speaks, which has a better knowledge of the things that are of God. It says, on the contrary, that God is a hidden God..."

"Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only."

"The last proceeding of reason is to recognise that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it. It is but feeble if it does not see so far as to know this. But if natural things are beyond it, what will be said of supernatural?"

"All our reasoning reduces itself to yielding to feeling."

normdoering:
Way to leave out the New Testament... and you all complain about quote mining? I don't like to be off topic, but that was such a pathetic attmept there I had to point it out.

Stevie,

"And surely there are species of non-aquatic, non-microbial animals whose ranges, then and now, have been confined to Mesopotamia. Assuming we can identify such, Carol, commit yourself to a hypothesis as to their genomic diversity. Then we'll go looking."

I have already gone looking, years ago, and came up empty-handed. But surely as a biologist you can do a better job of it than I did. So, here is my commitment - you meet the conditions above ("What species existed UNIQUELY in the Mesopotamian area 5000 years ago that a simple man like Noah would know about? Can we tell from the present day genome of such species how many there were 5000 years ago? And if so, what do the data in fact tell us?") and I will be eternally grateful. And if the data is convincing and the Bible's story untenable I will publicly eat crow.

norm,

Sacrifices in Judaism's past (no temple today) were not what you seem to think they were. The overwhelming majority were (after certain rituals) eaten by human beings (the owners, priests, and others). The ritual was merely an elaborate form of prayer and thanking God, which is still done today by observant Jews. If you didn't need the meat for human consumption, you didn't offer the sacrifice. It is all spelled out in Leviticus. The sages explain that early Jews were chagrined that the entire world around them was offering sacrifices to their multitude of idols and they were left out. It wasn't easy being "different" (monotheistic, no statues, no sacrifices, etc.) So, as a concession to these concerns, God sanctioned the sacrifices.

Statements to the effect that God smelled and enjoyed the sacrifices are to be read anthropomorphically, as are a multitude of similar statements in the Bible referring to God's eyes, arms, etc.

Peter,

The vast majority of Christians today do not know Hebrew. The Bible they read literally is the sloppy English translation, where they encounter all the conflicts with science. The few Christian scholars who do know some Hebrew are very aware of the issues I raise and have been debating them for quite some time. You can check out any of the fundamentalist web sites for more information. Since they are reluctant to remind the Christian masses that their Bible is really a Jewish document, they usually end up sweeping the matter under a rug, where it just sits eternally while the flock is enjoying their ignorance in bliss.

Actually, infamous, we were having a discussion with, um, Carol.

However much we might disagree with Carol on a multitude of things, I'm pretty confident she'd have no problem with our "omitting" the New Testament.

Quick now, infamous, any ideas ideas why that would be the case.

sheesh!

Way to leave out the New Testament...

...and you all complain about quote mining? I don't like to be off topic, but that was such a pathetic attmept there I had to point it out.

Stevie:
I assume by your comment that Carol is Jewish... so the you are correct in saying it's ok to "omit" the New Testament in a "discussion" with her...
HOWEVER, norm's comment was addressed to Carol AND Creation Science Bible Guy.
My previous comment still stands.
Thank you.

norm:
Um, no. We're under a new covenant. Jesus is our "sacrificial lamb." This is why we no longer make sacrifices. We don't need them. Jesus' sacrifice was/is enough to cover our sins.
Since we're already quite off topic, I'll answer any more questions you would like to ask.

norm:
Um, no. We're under a new covenant. Jesus is our "sacrificial lamb." This is why we no longer make sacrifices. We don't need them. Jesus' sacrifice was/is enough to cover our sins.
Since we're already quite off topic, I'll answer any more questions you would like to ask.

norm:
Um, no. We're under a new covenant. Jesus is our "sacrificial lamb." This is why we no longer make sacrifices. We don't need them. Jesus' sacrifice was/is enough to cover our sins.
Since we're already quite off topic, I'll answer any more questions you would like to ask.

infamous:

You're welcome.

You're welcome.

You're welcome.

Statements to the effect that God smelled and enjoyed the sacrifices are to be read anthropomorphically, as are a multitude of similar statements in the Bible referring to God's eyes, arms, etc.

Jesus is our "sacrificial lamb." This is why we no longer make sacrifices.

They had different sacrifices in the Old Testament... some were for the atonement of sin. Since we are under a new covenant we no longer need to sacrifice animals for this.
I don't necessarily disagree with what Carol said. God didn't eat the sacrifices or something... you pulled that out of your arse.

I'll answer any more questions you would like to ask.

"Since we are under a new covenant we no longer need to sacrifice animals for this."

So now you can engage in two thousand years of murder, pillage, crusades, pogroms, blood libels, expulsions, inquisitions, the dark ages, blocking scientific progress with crap theology, and so on, and all is automatically forgiven! You don't even need to bring a sacrifice which would compel you to journey to the temple, confess your sins, see the animal vividly die and have to face the fact that perhaps you really deserve such a fate for your evil deeds, and resolve to mend your ways. What a great deal, this "new" covenant. Perhaps it will be replaced tomorrow with a "new and improved" covenant. And God? what a deal He got out of this. He replaced the "old" covenant with the sinning Jews and replaced it with a "new" covenant with people who promptly proceeded to outdo the Jews in sinning in spades. They made the Jews look like angles by comparison.

Need I say more?

Statements to the effect that God smelled and enjoyed the sacrifices are to be read anthropomorphically, as are a multitude of similar statements in the Bible referring to God's eyes, arms, etc.

— Carol Clouser

See, Rabing Bee is a Christian.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Anton,

"Statements of "X" are to be read as "Not X" as required for them to make sense. Ah, "literal" interpretation."

Yes. Statements such as these in "ordinary everyday conversation" (the litmus test, as described above) are understood by all to be anthropomorphic. Any Israelite would know that God has no ears, nose, eyes, etc. That is the concept of "reasonable literalism".

But could we get back to the topic of this thread? Please?

— David B. Benson

If Miller were indeed an extreme fideist, he'd hardly be in poor company.

— alienward

Well, he's not, he's a Catholic. From "Finding Darwins God:

Perhaps it will be replaced tomorrow with a "new and improved" covenant

Need I say more?

God didn't eat the sacrifices or something... you pulled that out of your arse.

Numbers 15:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 15:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land of your habitations, which I give unto you, 15:3 And will make an offering by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice in performing a vow, or in a freewill offering, or in your solemn feasts, to make a sweet savour unto the LORD , of the herd or of the flock: 15:4 Then shall he that offereth his offering unto the LORD bring a meat offering of a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of oil. 15:5 And the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering shalt thou prepare with the burnt offering or sacrifice, for one lamb. 15:6 Or for a ram, thou shalt prepare for a meat offering two tenth deals of flour mingled with the third part of an hin of oil. 15:7 And for a drink offering thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of wine, for a sweet savour unto the LORD. 15:8 And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt offering, or for a sacrifice in performing a vow, or peace offerings unto the LORD: 15:9 Then shall he bring with a bullock a meat offering of three tenth deals of flour mingled with half an hin of oil. 15:10 And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. 15:11 Thus shall it be done for one bullock, or for one ram, or for a lamb, or a kid. 15:12 According to the number that ye shall prepare, so shall ye do to every one according to their number. 15:13 All that are born of the country shall do these things after this manner, in offering an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. 15:14 And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD ; as ye do, so he shall do. 15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Numbers 23:1 And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams. 23:2 And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram. 23:3 And Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt offering, and I will go: peradventure the LORD will come to meet me: and whatsoever he sheweth me I will tell thee. And he went to an high place. 23:4 And God met Balaam: and he said unto him, I have prepared seven altars, and I have offered upon every altar a bullock and a ram.

Leviticus 23:12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. 23:13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour : and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. 23:14 And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

I think the guy who wrote that passage originally was just a freeloader looking for a good meal.

"uh, yeah, just leave the uh, dressed sheep and some bread and wine around the back".

"the, uh, Lord will be quite pleased. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

As far as I can tell, the following quote alienward provided is a fideist statement. Miller, as the IDer objected, does believe the doctrines of his church explicitly on faith rather than scientific evidence.

Really? From that quote you get Miller doesn't believe in the doctrine of his church that a god can be reasoned into existence even though you imply he does believe in the doctrines of his church?

— alienward

All this talk about 'sweet savour' (as opposed, one supposes, to the 'sweet Saviour') just makes me smile.

The thing is, ancient peoples put a lot of significance on the ritualistic use of food in a way that tends to put off modern readers. For example, if you read Homer, there are multiple occasions where feasts are given in the honor of this or that deed and a telling detail is which hero got which part of the animals sacrificed ('the choicest meats'). A casual reader overlooks this detail as trivial, when in fact it was supposed to convey something important about this or that hero/demigod.

It seems likely that the details of how this or that animal were to be offered to the God of the OT carries similar baggage which was very important to the Israelites, but almost impossible for us to actually appreciate as intended.

A good discussion of this, and the deeper ecological roles played by ritual sacrifice and food use, can be found in Marvin Harris's book 'Cannibals and Kings'....SH

I think the guy who wrote that passage originally was just a freeloader looking for a good meal

The age of the earth is approx. 4,600 mill.yrs, or more. The Geology Lesson has a small segment on age determination. The Bee could buzz around, press the link, and find out.

I didn't find anything else remotely resembling a technical origins question, although I could be mistaken. I suppose I should note the obvious - Geology doesn't get into fossil sorting, (not unless there is evidence of turbidity) - and Galileo was tried by the same people who were sworn to exterminate reformed christians. I don't have a lot of time for gobbledigook, and won't go on repeating the obvious.

So, you think God used to love the smell of burning flesh during the Old Testament times, but after Jesus he aquired new tastes?

— normdoering

I suppose I should note the obvious - Geology doesn't get into fossil sorting, (not unless there is evidence of turbidity)...

— Philip Bruce Heywood

...and Galileo was tried by the same people who were sworn to exterminate reformed christians.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

I don't have a lot of time for gobbledigook, and won't go on repeating the obvious.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Geology doesn't get into fossil sorting, (not unless there is evidence of turbidity)

Ah, so you get to decide who is a True Christianâ„¢ and who is not. You do realize you've just turned your statement into a "No true Scotsman..." fallacy, right?

he few Christian scholars who do know some Hebrew are very aware of the issues I raise and have been debating them for quite some time

"I don't have a lot of time for gobbledigook"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

"Geology doesn't get into fossil sorting"

Phil, you are the GOD of Gobbledigook! Possibly Loki's younger, dumber brother?

If anyone attended a geology lecture by which he was given the impression that geologic systems - Cambrian, Cretaceous, etc.- were laid down by some hydraulic mechanism which resulted in the fossil layout as a whole being the product of said hydraulic mechanism, he should ask for a refund. (Robo, of course, was too pre-occuppied ogling the one girl present to pick up much at all.) Fossil sorting may have some relevance when deciphering past, localised tubidity events. Isn't there a geologist in the house? What's the drill with this fossil sorting non-issue? Go visit my site if you wish to learn about earth science.

Actually I found out later that the girl was the lecturer's mother, but that's another story.

If anyone attended a geology lecture by which he was given the impression that geologic systems - Cambrian, Cretaceous, etc.- were laid down by some hydraulic mechanism which resulted in the fossil layout as a whole being the product of said hydraulic mechanism, he should ask for a refund.

"If anyone attended a geology lecture by which he was given the impression that geologic systems - Cambrian, Cretaceous, etc.- were laid down by some hydraulic mechanism which resulted in the fossil layout as a whole being the product of said hydraulic mechanism, he should ask for a refund."

C'mon, give him a break. He was only eight years old. I don't think his mother was worried he got the details wrong. She was just proud to see him up there speaking infront of his fellow pupils.

"Robo, of course, was too pre-occuppied ogling the one girl present to pick up much at all." Well she was pretty hot. That's natural selection at work for ya!

"Actually I found out later that the girl was the lecturer's mother, but that's another story."

And I found out she was single and happened to be a really nice girl too, but that's another story. (And no, it's none of your business.) ;)

sorting may have some relevance when deciphering past, localised tubidity events. Isn't there a geologist in the house?

Yes? And what you post is nonsense.

But I forget. You ignore what doesn't fit into your prejudices.

norm and Others:
You can make virtually anything say anything you want. You're taking this whole sacrifice thing too literally. Jesus spoke of giving himself as a sacrifice and told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Was he telling us to literally eat him? No. It's figurative.

'Rev Dr':
I say that I'll answer questions not because I am "holier than thou," but because I want to answer your questions. I know I'll be ridiculed, so I am in no way trying to boost my ego. I aim to counteract the misinformation.
BTW, I'm no "fundie." I'm what you all call a "TE." It's funny to me that the fundies and atheists both attack those who, like Dr. Miller, are "TE's."

"Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only."

"The last proceeding of reason is to recognise that there is an infinity of things which are beyond it. It is but feeble if it does not see so far as to know this. But if natural things are beyond it, what will be said of supernatural?"

"All our reasoning reduces itself to yielding to feeling."
-Pascal

To be more precise, I get from that quote that Miller believes in some doctrines of his church, such as the Incarnation, and that he does so on faith. I dunno if denying scientific proof for God implies a violation of the Catholic doctrine that God can be proved through pure reason...in fact, I would think the two would have nothing to with each other since science isn't a process of pure reason. I always took the Catholic doctrine to be that there exists a logical proof of God, not necessarily a scientific one. But I don't know much about the subject.

Yeah, sure, Carol, I'm sure you can tell us all about "blocking scientific progress with crap theology." :-D (History was not my forte, to be sure, but I don't remember hearing about a separate Renaissance or Enlightenment happening in the Holy Land.)

I notice you seem to have retreated a bit from your original position, and are now talking about "reasonable literalism" kinda sorta mixed with anthropomorphic bits in "ordinary everyday conversation". Whatever...

Speaking of which, you still haven't specified which Jewish scientists got which Nobel-worthy ideas out of your original holy texts...

PS: Yes, FWIW, I'm a Druid; but, having grown up in Christian societies (US & UK), nearly all of the Pagans I know have inevitably brought a heavy dose of Christian ethics (somewhat reworded) into our beliefs. And most of us don't flatly deny the divinity of Christ, either.

alienward wrote:

Miller contradicts himself when he says "Jesus was born of a virgin" and "A supreme being stands outside of nature". All we need is that god to come and do that virgin birth thing again so we can watch it walk on water and then find the combo human/water strider genes in it's DNA.

Again, where is the contradiction between those two statements? A supreme being outside of nature stuck his hand in the natural world and caused a miracle. Miller's belief may be true or false, but he's not "contradicting himself." And your demand for proof of virgin birth does not make it so; it's just a stock non-sequitur.

The fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" doesn't lie in producing a definition of what a true Scotsman is, it lies in the willingness to change the definition so that observations don't conflict with previous assertions.

— Caledonian

If anyone attended a geology lecture by which he was given the impression that geologic systems - Cambrian, Cretaceous, etc.- were laid down by some hydraulic mechanism which resulted in the fossil layout as a whole being the product of said hydraulic mechanism, he should ask for a refund.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Fossil sorting may have some relevance when deciphering past, localised tubidity events.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

Isn't there a geologist in the house? What's the drill with this fossil sorting non-issue? Go visit my site if you wish to learn about earth science.

— Philip Bruce Heywood

That doesn't gel with any of the usages of it I've seen.

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

If someone forwards the definition that a 'Scotsman' is a person who was born within a particular region, then rejecting someone who was born elsewhere and has merely lived there most of their lives as "not a true Scotsman" is entirely appropriate.

I still don't see how that fails to agree with my usage. Nothing in the wikipedia example doesn't match mine. The claimant is not making statements about where someone is from (Scotsman) but about people who embody the nature of a culture (TRUE Scotsman), which he is defining (surreptitiously) as someone who, among other features, doesn't like sugar in his porridge.

This seems to me identical to PBH's claiming that Christians support science, by claiming any ostensible "Christians" who do not are not "TRUE Christians". That is, what religion the person claims (parallel to their nationality) is not equivalent to whether they embody the TRUE spirit of the religion (being a TRUE Scotsman).

If I'm missing something obvious, please explain it to me.

You're missing the point of the objection. Woo, big surprise there.

There IS no generally accepted definition of "Christian", so the poster was entitled to present an implied definition of the term if he so chose. He WAS defining what a "True Christian" is - you are free to reject that definition, but he was not committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. He would only have been committing that fallacy if he had forwarded some other definition, claimed that people fitting that definition supported science, and then insisted that actual examples of a person who fit his definition but did not support science did not falsify his claim.

I have to go lie down. The sheer stupid is getting to me.

... ancient peoples put a lot of significance on the ritualistic use of food in a way that tends to put off modern readers. For example, if you read Homer, there are multiple occasions where feasts are given in the honor of this or that deed and a telling detail is which hero got which part of the animals sacrificed ('the choicest meats').

Tom: I gather you're not terribly fond of the Bible. Joseph: Not at all! It's the most over-advertised book in the world. It's very pretentious to claim it to be the word of God, or accept it as such and perpetuate this tribal mythology, justifying all kinds of violence to people who are not members of the tribe. The thing I see about the Bible that's unfortunate is that it's a tribally circumscribed mythology. It deals with a certain people at a certain time. The Christians magnified it to include them. It then turns this society against all others, whereas the condition of the world today is that this particular society that's presented in the Bible isn't even the most important. This thing is like a dead weight. It's pulling us back because it belongs to an earlier period. We can't break loose and move into a modern theology. One of the great promises of mythology is, with what social group do you identify? How about the planet? To say that the members of this particular social group are the elite of God's world is a good way to keep that group together, but look at the consequences! I think that what might be called the sanctified chauvinism of the Bible is one of the curses of the planet today.

A casual reader overlooks this detail as trivial, when in fact it was supposed to convey something important about this or that hero/demigod.

norm and Others: You can make virtually anything say anything you want. You're taking this whole sacrifice thing too literally. Jesus spoke of giving himself as a sacrifice and told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Was he telling us to literally eat him? No. It's figurative.

— infamous

All you need to know is that if Miller accepts the god can be reasoned into existence doctrine of his church, he is not a fideist and claims like the one in the opening post that he is a theist on faith alone are false.

— alienward

Meanwhile, Miller contradicts himself when he says "Jesus was born of a virgin" and "A supreme being stands outside of nature".

I think the guy who wrote that passage originally was just a freeloader looking for a good meal.

Yes, FWIW, I'm a Druid

And most of us don't flatly deny the divinity of Christ, either.

I say that I'll answer questions not because I am "holier than thou," but because I want to answer your questions.

All you need to know is that if Miller accepts the god can be reasoned into existence doctrine of his church, he is not a fideist and claims like the one in the opening post that he is a theist on faith alone are false.

— alienward

Meanwhile, Miller contradicts himself when he says "Jesus was born of a virgin" and "A supreme being stands outside of nature".

You're missing the point of the objection.

— Caledonian

Woo, big surprise there.

— Caledonian

There IS no generally accepted definition of "Christian",

— Caledonian

so the poster was entitled to present an implied definition of the term if he so chose.

— Caledonian

He would only have been committing that fallacy if he had forwarded some other definition, claimed that people fitting that definition supported science, and then insisted that actual examples of a person who fit his definition but did not support science did not falsify his claim.

— Caledonian

I have to go lie down. The sheer stupid is getting to me.

— Caledonian

Anton wrote:

"Clouserianism's gonna beat the pants off transubstantiation and consubstantiation at next year's theological playoffs."

Clouserianism? Wow. I now have a theology named just for me!

Raging Bee wrote:

"I notice you seem to have retreated a bit from your original position..."

Not at all. I have always said what I am saying here, you just weren't paying careful attention. Just not to lose sight of the bottom line - to interpret eleven chapters of historical narrative as all being meant allegorically or metaphorically in order to save the Bible from conflict with the facts as established by science is just plain dishonest.

"Speaking of which, you still haven't specified which Jewish scientists got which Nobel-worthy ideas out of your original holy texts..."

I said no such thing. Please read my posts with the degree of care they deserve.

Peter wrote:

"I was thinking of Ken Ham Carol. Now, I don't know Hebrew, but one of Ham's justifications for belief in six 24hr days apparently comes from the original Hebrew text which mentions the word "Yom" in the creation story. According to Ham, this is referring to a 24hr day, and it is why Christians can't interpret the days in Genesis as long periods of time. Is Ham misinterpreting this Carol, and if so why?"

I don't know Ham from a ham sandwich. If he really knows Hebrew and the ancient Hebrew of the Bible he surely knows that "yom" (pronounced YOHM) is in fact indisputedly used throughout the Bible to mean "era", period of time characterized by some development or feature. Of course, it is also used to mean "period of daylight" and "twenty four hour period". A solid case can be made for the "era" translation in Genesis based on textual analysis, some of which I have discussed on other threads. There are some good books on the subject I can refer you to, such Landa's IN THE BEGINNING OF, A New Look at Old Words, the production of which I was involved with in my role as editor.

Again, where is the contradiction between those two statements? A supreme being outside of nature stuck his hand in the natural world and caused a miracle. Miller's belief may be true or false, but he's not "contradicting himself." And your demand for proof of virgin birth does not make it so; it's just a stock non-sequitur.

Not necessarily. Catholic doctrine holds that God's existence has been rationally demonstrated, not that individual Catholics have to be able to prove it themselves. Miller can believe purely on faith and not contravene that doctrine, unless he claims that everyone believes purely on faith.

And even if he does reject Catholic doctrine, so what? That's the Pope's problem, not ours.

Well, I don't think "stands outside of nature" is sufficiently meaningful to contradict much of anything.

Clouserianism? Wow. I now have a theology named just for me!

If he really knows Hebrew and the ancient Hebrew of the Bible he surely knows that "yom" (pronounced YOHM) is in fact indisputedly used throughout the Bible to mean "era", period of time characterized by some development or feature. Of course, it is also used to mean "period of daylight" and "twenty four hour period". A solid case can be made for the "era" translation in Genesis based on textual analysis, some of which I have discussed on other threads

alienward: Nothing you've said "proves" any sort of internal contradiction in any of Miller's statements. All you're doing is reiterating your own demands for scientific proof of God's existence (which, to my knowledge, no one has said was available), and making up "contradictions" in the words of people who disagree with you.

There's nothing "contradictory" in asserting that a being outside of nature can act ON nature to cause a "miracle" that subsequently cannot be proven or disproven by natural science. Untestable, scientifically vacuous, and possibly wrong, sure, but not "contradictory."

As for the idea that "God can be reasoned into existence" (as you put it), that's perfectly okay, as long as it's understood that the reasoning is subjective, based on personal premises, and the proof is also subjective.

Your posts on this subject are getting less coherent by the day. What point are you trying to make?

Carol wrote:

Just not to lose sight of the bottom line - to interpret eleven chapters of historical narrative as all being meant allegorically or metaphorically in order to save the Bible from conflict with the facts as established by science is just plain dishonest.

It's not "dishonest" if one believes that such holy texts were not intended to be literal documents in the first place. And this is a very reasonable thing to believe, given that the subject of most holy texts -- Man's relationship to God(s) -- is not easily described in literal terms.

"It's not "dishonest" if one believes that such holy texts were not intended to be literal documents in the first place. And this is a very reasonable thing to believe, given that the subject of most holy texts --- Man's relationship to God(s) --- is not easily described in literal terms."

Amen, brother. I don't understand why anyone would expect the creation story to tell all about evolution and how it works... It's meant to get across certain truths rather than describe the process.

"If you had been reading some of the recent threads in PT about him, you'd know he was recently in Kansas telling creationists not to attack evolution but go attack atheistic interpretations of evolution instead."

And your point is? Science cannot disprove God. End of story. However, atheists make it seem as though it already HAS. That's ridiculous. Atheists (i.e. Dawkins) who step over the line are, in 'Rev Dr's' words, "self-righteous arrogant pricks."

*I'm actually a fan of Dawkins... the stuff dealing with actual science, anyways.

Catholic doctrine holds that God's existence has been rationally demonstrated, not that individual Catholics have to be able to prove it themselves.

Infamous wrote Science cannot disprove God. End of story.

However, atheists make it seem as though it already HAS.

One more note for Carol: if the texts you're on about are "historical narratives," to use your own phrase, then they must be read and judged by the same standards as all other historical narratives ever written by humans: subject to verification, and possibly containing errors. Re-interpreting the words to avoid conflict with later-revealed truth is -- again, to use your words -- just plain dishonest.

Raging Bee wrote:

"It's not "dishonest" if one believes that such holy texts were not intended to be literal documents in the first place. And this is a very reasonable thing to believe, given that the subject of most holy texts --- Man's relationship to God(s) --- is not easily described in literal terms."

That is a recipe for eviscerating the Bible of all meaning. Yes could mean no, and no could mean yes. And that is exactly what Christians have been doing with the essentially Jewish document known as the old testament. A covenant doesn't quite mean that, it could be replaced, even one made by God. Homosexuality is forbidden, but pork is not. The sabbath is to be honored but not on the seventh day. The list is very long indeed. Which is why I cannot but help and view Christianity as unmitigated silliness.

Oh carol?

While we're working on tracking down a Mesopotamian-only critter, what about the genome of the cheetah vs. the lion?

The Sumerian archaeological record?

Peter wrote:

"As you can see, they are pretty adamant that yom should be interpreted to mean 24 hrs. I'm not sure if either author is fluent in Hebrew."

The links you provided clearly demonstrate their ignorance. Check out Hosea (2:6 I believe) where yom is used "with a number", EXACTLY as it is Genesis, and all the ancient commentators, long before evolution, translate that yom to mean "era". Genesis itself contains a few yom's that must mean "era", independent of considerations pertaining to the age of the universe.

Nothing you've said "proves" any sort of internal contradiction in any of Miller's statements. All you're doing is reiterating your own demands for scientific proof of God's existence (which, to my knowledge, no one has said was available), and making up "contradictions" in the words of people who disagree with you. There's nothing "contradictory" in asserting that a being outside of nature can act ON nature to cause a "miracle" that subsequently cannot be proven or disproven by natural science. Untestable, scientifically vacuous, and possibly wrong, sure, but not "contradictory."

As for the idea that "God can be reasoned into existence" (as you put it), that's perfectly okay, as long as it's understood that the reasoning is subjective, based on personal premises, and the proof is also subjective.

Your posts on this subject are getting less coherent by the day. What point are you trying to make?

That is a recipe for eviscerating the Bible of all meaning. Yes could mean no, and no could mean yes.

If you had a clear enough grasp of the most important tenets of your own religion, and the courage of your convictions, (and didn't forget what "yes" and "no" mean), then you would easily be able to resist such "evisceration" without trying to shut down that big cerebral cortex that the Gods gave all of us.

Your (selective) literalism comes from the same source as the (selective) literalism of the faux-Christians: clinging to an imagined perfect authority in order to avoid having to think for yourself and take responsibility for your actions.

Hi Stevie,

"While we're working on tracking down a Mesopotamian-only critter, what about the genome of the cheetah vs. the lion? The Sumerian archaeological record?"

What about them?

I have yet to encounter any reliable evidence either supporting or disproving a large but local flood in Mesopotamia about 5000 years ago.

If you know something I don't know about this, by all means let us know.

Hi, Carol!

For the record, there is no shortage of believers (Hugh Ross comes to mind) who have taken YEC to task for their failure to acknowledge anything other than a strict literal reading of the Hebrew text. AIG head Ken Ham is obviously sensitive to this, because he alludes to alternative interpretations of the word 'yom' as part of his schtick when presenting to fundy churches. If you don't know Ham from a ham sandwich, you can see the fellow try to gloss over this objection in the episode of the PBS Evolution series called "What About God?" The way Ham tries to sidestep this criticism is talk very fast and repetitively as if the entire idea is just a joke to be lampooned. It makes my skin crawl every time I watch him, frankly.

At any rate, OEC and so-called 'progressive creationists' like Ross seem to be a lot more sensitive to and consonant with the original text, in my opinion.

Secondly, regarding the claim that Genesis is a historical narrative, I respectfully demur. Scholarship has established that there are multiple sources for more than one passage in Genesis. These sources differ in style, intent and in the nature of the claims made. Some scholars have suggested that much of the text in the first 11 chapters was massaged not so much for the purpose of doing history, but of establishing a liturgical tradition. It's not so much that one needs to interpret Genesis 1-11 metaphorically to avoid conflict with science (that would seem dishonest); it's that, when you look at the text closely, you come to understand that those parts of Genesis are not so much a narrative as they are a collection of traditional teachings about the origins of the Jewish people. Reading them strictly as history (or worse, as scientific claims) does violence to the text, in my opinion....SH

If a supreme being impregnated itself into a virgin, you don't think we could examine the virgin and say "Yep, what we have here is a pregnant virgin."?

Depends on whether the supreme being covered his/her tracks.

Likewise for the walking on water "miracle". You don't think we could examine this and say "Yep, this human looking being is really walking on water and not on rocks just below the surface."?

If someone had been there with the appropriate recording equipment, then we'd have some evidence to go on. But he wasn't, so we don't.

Religions like Catholicism teach:

"The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error."

That doesn't sound like the reasoning is subjective to me.

It doesn't sound objective either -- note the lack of any mention of how to disprove the errors.

Two points; Miller contradicts himself when he says a supreme being stands outside of nature and a supreme being came and stood in nature via a virgin, and the claim Miller bases his theism on faith alone is false.

You are repeating the same claims over and over without modification, regardless of what others have said here in direct response to said claims. So now you're both incoherent AND unresponsive. (Not to mention obsessive -- why should we CARE what Miller bases his theism on?)

Who said anything about proving Catholic doctrines? Really, what are you trying to get away with here? What if Miller believes the god can be reasoned into existence doctrine just like he believes in the god got a virgin pregnant doctrine? I'm thinking you don't know too much about Kenneth Miller.

If you had been reading some of the recent threads in PT about him, you'd know he was recently in Kansas telling creationists not to attack evolution but go attack atheistic interpretations of evolution instead. Attack atheists with faith arguments???

And if you at least know a little about Miller you'd know he believes the god can be reasoned into existence doctrine because he's told one of cardinals he was wrong that evolution only has an atheistic interpretation because "the age and development of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man ... invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator." quoting from the Catechism which also says, just a couple of paragraphs later: "The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error."

It's really pretty simple. Stands outside of nature means does not stand inside nature. It's what Miller says in his weak attempt to hide his god from science when he says: "A supreme being stands outside of nature. Science is a naturalistic process and can only answer questions about what is inside nature." When his god was inside that virgin, walking on water, and so on while he was on the planet, he was most definitely inside of nature.

And your point is? Science cannot disprove God. End of story. However, atheists make it seem as though it already HAS. That's ridiculous. Atheists (i.e. Dawkins) who step over the line are, in 'Rev Dr's' words, "self-righteous arrogant pricks."

— infamous

I find that the reason that I am no longer religious is that the argument from design has been undermined by evolution. So if the basis for your religion is the argument from design, if the reason why you are religious is that you look at the world and you say, "Isn't it beautifully designed! Isn't it elegant! Isn't it complicated!" then Darwinism really does pull the rug out from under that argument. If your reason for being religious has nothing to do with that, if your reason for being religious is some still, small voice inside you which utterly convinces you, then the argument from design, I suppose, has no bearing on that. But what, I think, Darwinism has done is utterly to destroy the argument from design which, I believe, is probably, historically, the dominant reason for believing in a supernatural being.

Gosh, Carol, I would have thought the Sumerians would have noticed a "large but local" "Flood" in their immediate neighborhood, don't you?

If by "large but local" we mean--as we necessarily must--one large enough to require Noah to stock up and preserve all the regionally-deistributed animals of any size? Rather larger than just, "that bigger than usual seasonal flood of the Euphrates ten years ago," since floods of that kind don't seem to have required similar efforts at biota-preservation, or to have wiped out/genomically-constrained any animals that we are aware of, eh?

So, setting aside--perhaps only for the nonce--what you apparently choose to regard as hand-waveable (the lack of any notable gaps in the archeological or written records of Sumerian civilization), why don't you address the disparities in the lion/cheetah genomes?

You agree--as I think you must--that both were animals that ranged across Mesopotamia in Noachian times, yes? We see the cheetah depicted on Sumerian and Assyrian objects from the relevant timeframe, and the lion is a crittur attested in the OT.

You agree--as I think you must--that the cheetah genome shows the effects of a genetic bottleneck, whereas the lion genome does not.

Why the difference?

Alien wrote: Likewise for the walking on water "miracle". You don't think we could examine this and say "Yep, this human looking being is really walking on water and not on rocks just below the surface."? Bee replied: If someone had been there with the appropriate recording equipment, then we'd have some evidence to go on. But he wasn't, so we don't.

So if there's a "rational demonstration" out there for God, please, by all means, bring it out, I want to see it.

— stevaroni

Gerbillus mesopotamiae (Harrison's gerbil) Tigris-Euphrates Valley in Iraq and western Iran Gerbillus allenbyi (Allenby's gerbil) coastal Israel Gerbillus henleyi (Henley's gerbil, Pygmy dipodil) Algeria to Israel and Arabian Peninsula

Depends on whether the supreme being covered his/her tracks.

If you know something I don't know about this, by all means let us know.

Surely, therefore, there would be no Harrison's gerbil if Noah did not save two of these little fellers

Gosh, Carol, I would have thought the Sumerians would have noticed a "large but local" "Flood" in their immediate neighborhood, don't you?

— Steviepinhead

If by "large but local" we mean---as we necessarily must---one large enough to require Noah to stock up and preserve all the regionally-distributed animals of any size?

C'mon, Sir Toe, you're just not thinking the implications through to their logical conclusions--most unlike you!

See, even if my gerbils don't get Carol all hot to, uh, y'know, perform comparative genetic studies, I would absolutely expect all the "scientists" at AIG and--what was the name of Nurse Bettinke's escapee?--"Doc" Martin's boys over at creation_the_web (or whatever the heck blittherage the poor kid kept linking to) to be hitting the Templeton Foundation up for money to go snag some Mideast gerbils right this minute!

And I would likewise expect Bush's fundy base to immediately reverse their position on the Iraq War! Think about it: here you've got a crittur whose genome could well be harboring Scientific Proof of Noah's flood--and its range is restricted to a red-hot War Zone!

I mean, give me a break! Forget WMDs and a fledgling democracy (or is it an incipient Civil War?--I can't keep the Rumsfeld-speak straight): this war is threatening a unique Biblical treasure trove--the genome of the unique, invaluable, irreplaceable, and threatened G. mesopotamiae.

I've already ordered my bumpersticker:

End A War! Save A Gerbil!

[the "scientists" at AIG ] hitting the Templeton Foundation up for money to go snag some Mideast gerbils right this minute!

Nah, that's a german legend.

I mean a gere-bil legend.

I mean an urb-il legend.

I mean...

Well, you know what I mean!

exactly.

all the more reason AIG would want to investigate it and tie it to "darwinism".

Or the surface tension of water was much higher in those days, allowing the little guys to walk out of harms way (hell, if starlight could have slowed down 150,000% since the creation, why should the properties of water be a constant?).

— stevaroni

Boy, disagree with the holy Caledonian once or twice, be branded stupid forever.

The problem is that the natural world seems to work quite well without any observable supernatural intervention.

What point are you trying to make?

Then poor Simon Peter must have set foot on the lake just before the tension dropped below the threshold for bearing his weight. All is explained!

And I would likewise expect Bush's fundy base to immediately reverse their position on the Iraq War! Think about it: here you've got a crittur whose genome could well be harboring Scientific Proof of Noah's flood---and its range is restricted to a red-hot War Zone!

— Steviepinhead

The problem is that the natural world seems to work quite well without any observable supernatural intervention.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Of course, it also works quite well without any observable human emotions. Just ask Dr Skinner.

Well, I dislike having to introduce a note of rationality and empirical geological evidence into this 'discussion', but:

SSW of Al Nasriyah, Iraq, there is an extremely large lens of detritus which is clearly a flood deposit. It is large enough to be visible in satellite photos and is about 10--20 meters thick at the maximum.

While I do not know the age of this flood deposit, other evidence from further south suggests about 10,000 years ago. But you know how geologists are: what's a few thousand years among friends?

SSW of Al Nasriyah, Iraq, there is an extremely large lens of detritus which is clearly a flood deposit. It is large enough to be visible in satellite photos

See you guys later. I'm off to be rich! I suppose I'll have to sell my soul, I wonder if it hurts much when they go to rip it out?

I said SSW,not ESE. It's out in the desert, which is why it shows nicely in satellite photos.

Boy, disagree with the holy Caledonian once or twice, be branded stupid forever.

The remains of Ur are called today "Tell el-Mukayyar" and can be found near the city of Nasiriyah, south of Baghdad in modern day Iraq.

I guess I need to say how such a lens is formed: The water carrying the rocks, etc., which are to become the lens has to SLOW DOWN in order to drop its load. There are several possible ways for the slow down to occur. The simplest is to enter a big body of water. More complex is the increase in the downwater slope size of the lens is enough to slow the water, causing some of it to run off to the sides. I am only an amateur at this, but I have observed both forms of development (of MUCH smaller lens) in the mountain rivers and lakes not far from this very keyboard.

But from the size, it is fair to conclude that a extreme rainfall event, localized to some tens (at most a few hundreds) of square kilometers, occur ed. Might get a right bit wet in Ur...

Instructive, and a fair point--it must certainly have been tough on those cheetahs (as they say about an avalanche, the ride in the cloud of snow isn't the hard part, it's when it all comes to a stop and packs around you with the density of wet concrete, that you know you're in trouble...).

Fact remains, Ur is still in place, archaeologically speaking. However wet it did or did not get at times after it was founded, it seems unlikely to have survived David's debris event at all. That Ur is still in situ strongly suggests, in and of itself, that it was not subjected to a cataclysmic flood event of the size suggested by: (a) Carol's regional-but-not-global "Genesis-correctly-translated" theory, or (b) by David's massive debris-lens forming event, much less by a worldwide "Genesis-incorrectly-translated" global-cataclysm theory.

Ur stayed, ergo *coughcough*, any cataclysmic flood in the area ur-curred before Ur's founding.

And some of you (we know who you are) were sure that I was going to end that last sentence with "Ur's Ur-ection."

Ha! Tactless I may be, but tasteless I'm not.

steviepinhead --- Good for you! If this big but local flood occurred after the founding of Ur I, I'll guess maybe 10--20 centimeters or so of flooding in the fields. Without somebody actually bothering to go out there, collect some rocks and attempt some radio-dating (if possible at all) dating this event (or series of events) can only be done rather indirectly. From paleoclimate data in the Arabian Peninsula, I have hazarded the guess that THIS big flood occur ed during the wet times down south there. That would have been about 10,000 years ago, plus or minus a few thousand. I consider it, sans the dating mentioned, most unlikely to be as recent as 5,000 years ago.

"No, all science has done is demonstrate that God is not necessary, since he apparently deigns not to interact with the physical world in any measurable way.

He could still exist, science has no problem with that. It's just that he doesn't seem to do anything down here. At least nothing that has any demonstrable physical effect."

In a way... that's the point.
"Verily thou art a hidden God..." Isaiah 45:15
Dr. Miller talks about this in Finding Darwin's God. It's kinda the reason we have a little thing called faith... don't take that too far though.

But from the size, it is fair to conclude that a extreme rainfall event, localized to some tens (at most a few hundreds) of square kilometers, occur ed. Might get a right bit wet in Ur...

— David B. Benson

Anton, it is certainly the case that the fertile crescent flooded, many times. That's why it was fertile, after all. I just pointed out that a long time ago there was a very big event. Lens that thick are extremely rare.

But my favorite big flood, at about the right time, was the filling of the Black Sea. I mentioned that before...

Anton, it is certainly the case that the fertile crescent flooded, many times. That's why it was fertile, after all. I just pointed out that a long time ago there was a very big event. Lens that thick are extremely rare.

— David B. Benson

I said SSW,not ESE. It's out in the desert, which is why it shows nicely in satellite photos.

Anton & stevaronion --- The lens is way the hell out in the desert. I doubt that any scientist knew about it before looking at the satellite photos. I am an amateur geologist and a lens this big and, especially, thick is genuinely rare.

I am no expert on the changes of the course of those rivers over time, but I doubt that far to the south.

Gilgamesh is thought to be Ur III, about 6,000 years ago, yes? I expressed my doubts about the event or events being anywhere near so recent. Nonetheless, memories of a really big, unexpected flood are likely to have been long lasting...

Anton & stevaronion --- The lens is way the hell out in the desert. I doubt that any scientist knew about it before looking at the satellite photos.

— David B. Benson

Caledonian bloviated thusly:

No: make particularly stupid comments two or more times, and be branded as stupid until you say something intelligent...

You mean "particularly stupid comments" like the ones that got YOU kicked off Ed Brayton's blog?

Sorry if we "disgust" you, dude, but you're really not the one to lecture us about stupid comments. Go back to bed.

Stevie,

Just so you don't think I am ignoring you, I am in fact intrigued by the gerbils you brought up (Harrison's et al) but need to inform myself more about them. Perhaps we are on to something here. Key questions are:

(1) Was Harrison's gerbil confined to Mesopotamia, not today, but 5000 years ago? And could we tell? If it was wider ranging at that time, the rescued 2 or seven could have interbred with outside members after the flood and became confined to mesopotamia more recently than the flood. In which case we come up empty handed yet again.

(2) Are there other species as inter-bred as cheetahs?

As far as the Sumerians "noticing" the flood, the problem is that the documentary record currently in our hands is too fragmented and unreliable to be of help here. Similar problems for the Bible come up in other areas, such as the large number of slaves escaping all at once (the exodus) and the destruction of the Egyptian army at the time of the crossing of the sea. And the solution offered by most scholars is the same - the absence we see in the record is not nearly conclusive of anything.

As far as the archeological evidence is concerned, my understanding is that the area was definitely flood-prone and that the dating techniques don't have a high enough resolution to pinpoint the time, even to the nearest century.

The cheetah/lion issue doesn't concern us at all. Both these fellas were not confined to the area of interest. Whatever level of inter-breeding they exhibit today must then be a consequence of other phenomena, in other places.

But, Carol, didn't we conclude on some other thread recently that Harrison's gerbils were the "cud-chewing" rabbits?

When "rabbits" was *correctly* translated?

Hmmm. Maybe not.

Guess we'll have to go back to those stelae, and see if any of them depict gerbils...

Or maybe he doesn't believe it at all. But what Ken Miller keeps actually saying is that science can't settle the question of God's existence, and I don't see any point in speculating about whether he's lying and he's actually a secret arch-conservative Catholic who believes he has scientific proof of God but won't tell us about it.

Well, yeah. If he thinks (a)theism's a matter of faith, how else would you attack it but with faith arguments?

Except that, if you're thinking of this article, Miller's quote doesn't include that later bit. So why claim that he believes that part?

I don't understand what you're arguing here. Are you saying that he's a bad Catholic and his beliefs are contrary to doctrine? Maybe he is, but a) every Catholic believes something contrary to some of the Church's teachings, what with there being several metric tons of them written down over almost two millennia, often self-contradictory, and b) I don't care.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that he's actually a really good and orthodox Catholic who therefore doesn't mean anything he says about the divide between science and theology...well, okay, I guess he could be. But until there's actual evidence of him being a compulsive liar, why worry about it?

And yet he was still doing things like walking on water and resurrecting the dead, apparently by no known natural method. So what does it really mean to say he was "inside of nature" at the time? Hell, he was apparently still outside the universe simultaneously, being his own father and such.

Ya know, I don't want to toot my own horn or anything, but my surface tension explanation might be the key to how a local flood in Mesopotamia could be deep enough to cover the mountains, but not flood over them and inundate the rest of the world!

— stevaroni

Stevie,

Upon further reflection it seems to me that we ought start a campaign for funding the "Harrison's gerbil project". Whatever it reveals about the level of diversity among those creatures, I cannot lose but you just may lose big time.

If the evidence reveals ordinary levels of diversity , well they may not have been limited to Mesopotamia about 5000 years ago. If the evidence shows a low level of diversity, then the Biblical local flood with Noah story is given a huge boost, particularly if the bottleneck turns out to have occured about 5000 years ago.

No: make particularly stupid comments two or more times, and be branded as stupid until you say something intelligent.

— Caledonian

I think we're going to be waiting a while in your case.

— Caledonian

The supernatural is only meaningful if you have preconceived ideas about what limits should be placed on nature. Science eschews preconceived limits on the things it studies. Thus, science rejects the concept of the supernatural.

— Caledonian

This is so blatantly obvious than only Lenny could miss it.

— Caledonian

Seems to me it's rather like the search for the "historical Atlantis," where you come up with a couple dozen settlements, societies, civilizations, etc....on islands, coasts, isthmuses, etc....that got blown up by volcanoes, covered by rising sea levels, destroyed by warfare or economic collapse, etc....somewhere between 20,000 and 1,000 BC. You can't really point to one of them and go "That one!"

— Anton Mates

You know, I was getting all excited about this theory of yours, Steve. I was starting to wonder if it could explain the layering of fossils. But then a horrible thought crossed my mind - if the surface tension of the water was so high, why did Noah need to build an ark in the first place?

— demallien

I am almost exclusively a lurker (i.e. learner) in this forum, but also increasingly intrigued by the "Clouser Syndrome" and just wish to vent my curiosity aloud.

Taking full advantage of the fact that the majority of us are not scholars in Hebrew linguistics (although we may otherwise be accomplished linguists), she frequently (if not invariably) brandishes "the original Hebrew Bible", adorned by such concepts as the unique, unequivocal meaning of Hebrew words in it.

Known Hebrew literature prior to the late 6th century BC consists exclusively of (some of) the books of the OT. How do we determine the single, unequivocal meaning of words from a single body of writing, with nothing to compare it with?

It is generally accepted that some of this "biblical" literature originated at least six centuries earlier. But when was it first written down? Which written copy is Carol's "real" original Hebrew text?

It defies all logic that, whereas subsequent translations into various generations of Greek, Latin and ultimately English or Swahili are naturally erratic, there should be one unquestioned, literal, written text in Hebrew universally understood to mean what Carol says it does. I respectfully submit that she builds her appearance of paramount expertise in this matter exclusively on our own perceived ignorance.

It defies all logic that, whereas subsequent translations into various generations of Greek, Latin and ultimately English or Swahili are naturally erratic, there should be one unquestioned, literal, written text in Hebrew universally understood to mean what Carol says it does.