Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_subgenius]

There is no reason to believe it's anything other than stories. I think it's up to you to prove it's validity if you believe it.

ummm, excuse me...but you made the claim, not me, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
your claim:
"The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories."
to which i asked for CFR or otherwise concede your speculation...which is clearly what you have done..conceded.

[_subgenius]

Those who disagree with Sethbag might think he sounds like a broken record, but I must echo him. Once I finally got around to reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, I can say with confidence that it really is required reading in advance of any and all discussion of the historicity of the Old Testament.

Only in as much as you subscribe to an evolutionary biology view, juts because Diamond is more interesting to read than Gould does not amount to much.
With little, if at all, exception his assumptions are just as flawed as any. - The most glaring being his environmentalist agenda of claiming that all groups are of average intelligence. He also disregards any genetic influences...and there are many other valid critiques (ie divergences may have been already underway before domestication of food) - if one simply takes the stance that there is innate intelligence then much of that book falls into speculation.
That being said, the book is a good read and he offers up some good material and he supports his theory well, but it is still just a theory.
...but to exclaim that reading that book is "necessary" or "required" is, well, rather unnecessary....unless you are just trying to pigeon hole the discussion into a more comfortable arena - as in "lets just keep it scientific, and just a certain type of science, please"......or as Sethbag would try, to make some awkward appeal to authority.

[_Drifting]

the century i believe is not germane at, or to, this point....but i am comfortable with whatever the scriptures note on that matter.

and you don't fool me...you can't actually continue otherwise
if you have an issue with the date, just present it...laying in the bushes with such an obvious agenda just demeans your position.

The scriptures, as denoted by LDS official teaching, sets the date at around 2,300 bc. You comfortable with believing a global flood took place around that date?

Bump so that people can see subby squirm away from saying if he believes what the Church teaches about the date and extent of the flood...

[_Sethbag]

Those who disagree with Sethbag might think he sounds like a broken record, but I must echo him. Once I finally got around to reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, I can say with confidence that it really is required reading in advance of any and all discussion of the historicity of the Old Testament.

Only in as much as you subscribe to an evolutionary biology view, juts because Diamond is more interesting to read than Gould does not amount to much.

Diamond's book has almost nothing at all to do with evolution. It almost looks like you use the term "evolution" as a sort of club, not because of what it means, but because folks who agree with you are scared of it and will thus buy into your arguments.

Diamond's book has to do with the migrations of peoples outward from their ultimate origin to all the continents that are inhabited today, and with the development of civilizations. It deals with the environmental factors, including domesticable plants and animals that could be used to give societies the food supplies they'd need to be able to afford the energy to develop their societies past the hunter-gatherer stage, and so forth.

I brought the book up specifically because LittleNipper tried to use the fact that the Aborigines were still in the hunter-gatherer stage as proof that they can't have been on Australia for the 40,000-50,000 years claimed by scientists. Apparently he assumes that "upward" progress of societies is a given - something that is guaranteed to happen. Well, it isn't, if the right ingredients aren't present. Diamond's book discusses this.

I thought maybe LittleNipper would be interested in educating himself on the subject, so that it would make more sense to him. I already knew a lot of the things contained in that book, but it did serve as a good lens to me, bringing together bits and pieces of knowledge I already had and focusing them in my mind to make a lot of things much more clear.

With little, if at all, exception his assumptions are just as flawed as any. - The most glaring being his environmentalist agenda of claiming that all groups are of average intelligence.

Is the word "environmentalist" merely a rhetorical club to you as well? Shame on Diamond for not trying to claim that societies that developed and flourished were simply smarter people than those whose societies didn't. :-O

I found his evidence compelling that in fact it doesn't seem to have been raw brain power that made the difference. The bottom line is that the societies that developed and flourished sooner had access to more, and more useful domesticable plant and animal species than those that didn't. If you have evidence that contradicts this, please feel free to share it with us.

He also disregards any genetic influences...and there are many other valid critiques (ie divergences may have been already underway before domestication of food) - if one simply takes the stance that there is innate intelligence then much of that book falls into speculation.

I don't think Diamond disregarded genetics. He developed a hypothesis that plant and animal species, and possibly other environmental factors seem to have outweighed other factors like genetics. Diamond provides a lot of evidence in his book to support his hypothesis. You don't seem to be addressing his evidence.

It concerns me that you seem to object to the book on the basis that it doesn't assert some kind of racial superiority to explain why some peoples' societies flourished sooner, or faster, than others.

Have you actually read the book, or are you just parroting crap you read about it off some Creationist website?

That being said, the book is a good read and he offers up some good material and he supports his theory well, but it is still just a theory.
...but to exclaim that reading that book is "necessary" or "required" is, well, rather unnecessary....unless you are just trying to pigeon hole the discussion into a more comfortable arena - as in "lets just keep it scientific, and just a certain type of science, please"......or as Sethbag would try, to make some awkward appeal to authority.

This is not an appeal to authority. LittleNipper demonstrated an abject lack of any semblance of understanding of how societies develop, and why it's actually possible for a society like the Aborigines of Australia to have been "stuck" in hunter-gatherer mode for tens of thousands of years, while people elsewhere developed from there to nuclear weapons and landing on the moon. There are undoubtedly other books which might have helped LittleNipper understand why his arguments re: the Aborigines were wrongheaded. Guns, Germs, and Steel is, however, a very accessible book, which does a very good job, and would help a guy like him a lot.

Anyhow, how is it that you keep accusing me of an Appeal to Authority when it would seem that on your side all arguments are settled by means of an appeal to the Bible? How is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" not an appeal to authority?

[_Quasimodo]

ummm, excuse me...but you made the claim, not me, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
your claim:
"The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories."
to which i asked for CFR or otherwise concede your speculation...which is clearly what you have done..conceded.

Yawn! Everyone here knows what I meant.

[_subgenius]

Diamond's book has almost nothing at all to do with evolution. It almost looks like you use the term "evolution" as a sort of club, not because of what it means, but because folks who agree with you are scared of it and will thus buy into your arguments.

i disagree, and i have no issue most aspects of evolutionary theory. The fact remains, whether you were able to discern it or not, that Diamond's book is very much steeped in evolutionary biology. The relationship between agriculture, economic and political growth is not a new exploration - many others have explored these aspects...even Diamond has been accused of basically deriving his work from others (ie Leslie White)
I, in no way used "evolution" in a detrimental manner, but rather as a matter of obvious fact - in order to accentuate the limited and narrow claim that the book was "required" and/or "necessary" for this discussion.
As you accuse me, we actually see that it is you with predisposed notions about why i "must surely" be using terms like evolution and environmental, when in fact those terms are just the most appropriate.Your myopia is showing.
oh yeah...and Professor Diamond is a self-proclaimed evolutionary biologist...how crazy am i?

Diamond's book has to do with the migrations of peoples outward from their ultimate origin to all the continents that are inhabited today, and with the development of civilizations. It deals with the environmental factors, including domesticable plants and animals that could be used to give societies the food supplies they'd need to be able to afford the energy to develop their societies past the hunter-gatherer stage, and so forth.

ok, i agree with your synopsis - no one is arguing that...Diamond, as i said before, also offers no argument for the claim that this divergence/migration could have been occurring anyway and that "domestication" merely accelerated it. (and thanks for mentioning "environmental factors", kinda helps my claim about "environmentalism").

I brought the book up specifically because LittleNipper tried to use the fact that the Aborigines were still in the hunter-gatherer stage as proof that they can't have been on Australia for the 40,000-50,000 years claimed by scientists. Apparently he assumes that "upward" progress of societies is a given - something that is guaranteed to happen. Well, it isn't, if the right ingredients aren't present. Diamond's book discusses this.

which i noted was that Diamond makes a broad stroke ASSUMPTION about innate intelligence...and now, obviously, that is an assumption you are comfortable with - me, i consider that a valid criticism to the theory he is proposing since the theory relies on that assumption and Diamond provides no justification for it.

I thought maybe LittleNipper would be interested in educating himself on the subject, so that it would make more sense to him. I already knew a lot of the things contained in that book, but it did serve as a good lens to me, bringing together bits and pieces of knowledge I already had and focusing them in my mind to make a lot of things much more clear.

seems like it was just simply a book "that agreed with you"...a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy...which is fine...but that does not justify the exclamation that Diamond's book is necessary! or required!

Is the word "environmentalist" merely a rhetorical club to you as well? Shame on Diamond for not trying to claim that societies that developed and flourished were simply smarter people than those whose societies didn't. :-O

ummm...reference above where i thank you for stating "environmental"....is there a better term? funny how when i say it, it must be "club", but when you say it, it is because you understand the book.
(and surely Professor Diamond, called that because of his career in environmental history and teacher of geography at UCLA, had nothing to do with using the term "environmentalist"...how awkward for me, huh?)

I found his evidence compelling that in fact it doesn't seem to have been raw brain power that made the difference.

and again, given the assumptions and other holes though it may "seem" that way it is not a strong theory...a good and interesting read, but not convincing.

The bottom line is that the societies that developed and flourished sooner had access to more, and more useful domesticable plant and animal species than those that didn't. If you have evidence that contradicts this, please feel free to share it with us.

He also disregards any genetic influences...and there are many other valid critiques (ie divergences may have been already underway before domestication of food) - if one simply takes the stance that there is innate intelligence then much of that book falls into speculation.[/quote]

I don't think Diamond disregarded genetics. He developed a hypothesis that plant and animal species, and possibly other environmental factors seem to have outweighed other factors like genetics. Diamond provides a lot of evidence in his book to support his hypothesis. You don't seem to be addressing his evidence.

sure he did...where does he solidly attribute any aspects to genetics? where does attribute anything to heredity? (aside from the off-hand comment about those New Guineans)
he even fails to recognize that social environments themselves selective pressures as well.

It concerns me that you seem to object to the book on the basis that it doesn't assert some kind of racial superiority to explain why some peoples' societies flourished sooner, or faster, than others.

i don't object to the book, i only offered a few criticisms with regard to the claim that it was "necessary" and "required". As a singular view i admitted it was, in fact a good and interesting read....but it would be silly for anyone to promote that book as having "figured it out".

Have you actually read the book, or are you just parroting crap you read about it off some Creationist website?

yes i have read it, and your need to insult rather than learn is showing again. I am sorry if your feelings are hurt by me criticizing your "necessary" and "required" book - i did not realize how deeply you held its "truths".

This is not an appeal to authority. LittleNipper demonstrated an abject lack of any semblance of understanding of how societies develop, and why it's actually possible for a society like the Aborigines of Australia to have been "stuck" in hunter-gatherer mode for tens of thousands of years, while people elsewhere developed from there to nuclear weapons and landing on the moon. There are undoubtedly other books which might have helped LittleNipper understand why his arguments re: the Aborigines were wrongheaded. Guns, Germs, and Steel is, however, a very accessible book, which does a very good job, and would help a guy like him a lot.

Consider this in response to the premise you are supporting above:
It is without argument that Diamond's theory is that members of different groups should exploit resources, including knowledge, with equal efficiency - but the facts today show that they do not and there is no reason to think they did so in the past. I also think little attention is given to sociobiology. My mother was an anthropologist and Diamond's book is good reading, but my assertion remains the same.

Anyhow, how is it that you keep accusing me of an Appeal to Authority when it would seem that on your side all arguments are settled by means of an appeal to the Bible? How is "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" not an appeal to authority?

"my side" being guilty or not guilty of it does not absolve you of it, nor does it mean you are not doing it. However, since the topic is about what the Bible is "saying" or "not saying"....then one can not really avoid using it as a reference or avoid the claim that reading it is "necessary" and "required" to that same discussion.

[_subgenius]

ummm, excuse me...but you made the claim, not me, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
your claim:
"The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories."
to which i asked for CFR or otherwise concede your speculation...which is clearly what you have done..conceded.

Yawn! Everyone here knows what I meant.

and that makes it official....concession noted

[_Themis]

and that makes it official....concession noted

You might get along better with others if you didn't put words in their mouth they never stated or meant. This is a form of lying.

[_LittleNipper]

Science is a tool. In the wrong hands and for the wrong motives, theories have been developed that say they can prove Creation without God. The Bible is a trail of history that ties together the promise of God. Truth is there for the study and scientific research.

Science's only motive is to discover truth. If there are any researchers with questionable motives (such as your 'Christian' scientists) they are quickly discovered and negated by peer review (something you should look up while having your milk and cookies).

Science has no need to prove or disprove any creation story. It only tries to find a truthful answer.

The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories.

As I said before, it's absolutely your prerogative as to which mythology you choose to believe. You may find that defending that belief in a logical way is a little difficult.

Please see the following:

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i7f.htm
http://www.icr.org/article/4620/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8qhm3KgHIw
http://sophronismos.wordpress.com/2007/ ... lutionist/

[_Bond James Bond]

If no one has any response I'm going to assume my basic arithmetic about how much time was available to feed and water the animals of the Ark has unraveled the Flood story. Geology and physics trumped by fifth grade math again!