Kansas USD 383: Keith B Miller

the conclusions of modem science must be balanced by a theistic alternative.

Science has no power to prove, or disprove, the existence or action of God.

The slower modem version of science, erstwhile useful...

— t.f.

Wamba,

Refuting specific, empirical claims that humans believe to be the work of God does nothing to prove or disprove any existence or action of God.

It just disproves a specific human idea about what God may or may not have directly intervened in, should he/she/it exist (or not). It is probably also worthwhile to point out that science could only determine if there was a flood or not; there would be no ability to attribute any supernatural agency to the flood.

Not Just that Wamba (any and all past so-called divine interventions in the natural world are by scientific implication false)

But what he is saying of course, by implication, is *insert favorite deity* does NOT occur in the natural universe and is therefore restricted to human thinking (and thus ego projection) about something un-natural which of course can only be anything outside of existence, that is to say not existing.

What DOES exist is pride and fear that a belief received as a child from respected elders may NOT be true, that is something that not only questions their trust in those who transferred the idea but their entire grip on reality.

If they want to use their imagination that way and not impose their views...no problem.

It's about the best you can expect from dreamers. Cue replay of Behe's testimony.

Oh...plus of course they don't want to be called creationists ...intellectual honesty and all that.

Now here is the coup de gras a Creationist Funday DOES ACTUALLY have Intellectual Honesty as a key plank in their persona ...the mask they wear when addressing the outside world...Provided they believe as objective fact .....romantic folk tales.

One local Kansas school district down, 5 1 1 more to go.
Not the best way of addressing this mess.

Refuting specific, empirical claims that humans believe to be the work of God does nothing to prove or disprove any existence or action of God. It just disproves a specific human idea about what God may or may not have directly intervened in, should he/she/it exist (or not).

How can we justify teaching our children that the discoveries of science must be viewed as threat to faith?

It is probably also worthwhile to point out that science could only determine if there was a flood or not; there would be no ability to attribute any supernatural agency to the flood.

Allayluyah Brother BWE Pass The Loot

and now for a hymn

All Things Dull And Ugly.

All Things Dull And Ugly - Monty Python
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.

This appears to be a shell game. You say the God who may exist did not cause a global Noachian flood. I say that the God who caused a global Noachian flood does not exist.

Science is only capable of addressing certain mistaken notions of how God did it people interpreted history and then wrote about it.

This appears to be a shell game. You say the God who may exist did not cause a global Noachian flood. I say that the God who caused a global Noachian flood does not exist. You are smuggling in the concept of monotheism, which I don't care to do.

"I tend to group people who demonstrably claim to have disproved god right along with those who claim to have demonstrably proved the existence of god...leave it alone already."

Not only that, but isn't "faith" a central tenet for any religion? Faith necessarily implies a lack of proof. If you get proof, you're not believing based on faith at all, you're believing based on evidence; that's rationality, not faith.

That's another reason ID is inherently flawed - if it ever does produce scientific evidence of a designer, by the definition of science the designer ceases to be supernatural...you wouldn't need faith to acknowledge the existence of the designer, just rationality.

Those who need proof to believe are devoid of faith. Wasn't that the lesson of the "doubting Thomas" episode in the Bible?

Bah
Science is only capable of addressing certain mistaken notions of how God did it people interpreted history or made observations and then wrote about it.

Belief (which is purely subjective) about an event in history is dependent on the cultural influences on the observer and are irrelevant if no objective evidence can be provided.

Hypothesis:- All natural events are the result explainable processes using the scientific method and if they are not, will be, by more advanced technology or new theories -none of which will be outside of the natural universe.

Prediction: All currently unexplained natural events that invoke an unnatural cause will gradually diminish to nil. That is to say anything "un-natural" will become natural.

Believers in the "little boy who owns an ant farm" will need to keep moving the truly imaginary further from reality....and look how far that "imaginary" has had to travel over the centuries....or become a Fundy.

No. You are wrong....If there wasn't a flood, science couldn't prove God failed to cause it. ... End of story.

Very strange indeed - Man who thought God is a circular reasoner.

Very strange indeed - Man who thought God is a circular reasoner.

AD ...Projection ....remember ?

Or do I have to wait until the end of the universe to see a proof that

If there wasn't a flood, science an independent observer or observers couldn't prove see God failed to cause it.

Ah ...The Sargent Shultz school of empirical evidence gathering perhaps.

Explosive logic is dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced.

I prefer obviously ridiculous statements to be told in the context of humor.

I think you may have done this before no offense, I may be guilty of not engaging my brain before posting as well.

Each beastly little squid,

— Monty Python

We are back to the old GOTG ideology,do the Idiots really want to open up their poor old deity to scientific scrutiny. If you say that proof of your God can be shown by a particular unexplained phenomenon, you're going to be in trouble when science gets round to examining and explaining that phenomenon. Does your God vanish or die, or just scuttle over to the next gap. Science cannot explain THIS, they cry, That is sure proof of God's existence and cleverness. Look what we've found, they shout, the only possible explanation is our God (as defined in this chapter or verse, of this particular translation of the Bible). How could anyone possibly argue with such damning evidence?!? Yet the bulldozer of science grinds forward, pushing heaps of fresh knowledge and understanding into the hidey-holes where gods are to be found. Someday, most of the important gaps will be closed, and those remaining believers will have to fall back on good old ignorance, denial or old-fashioned faith

I could really do this couldn't I? Expect to see me on the fundy channel soon.

"Because, if you truly believe. I mean truly believe in the word of God through Jesus Christ our lord and savior, you will help us in this fight for our very souls. That's right, this war is for nothing less than our souls! So avoid the temptation of our race who have fallen for the golden goose of Beelzebub and write that check. Your contribution will help our ministry to wipe the abomination of science off the map. Your donation will help us declare WAR ON EVIL!

Some of you may not be able to contribute very much to our cause. You may be among those that our lord has blessed with material wealth, but if you can just send fifty dollars or one hundred dollars, you can rest assured that This ministry will carry on the war on evil and work tirelessly and diligently to expose science for what is is- A ministry of evil, shepherded by the crook of Satan at the altar of human sacrifice and blood lust.

Some of you have been blessed with monetary wealth by our lord and savior Jesus Christ. If this is you, prove that you believe by sending as much as you can afford. If you can afford one thousand dollars, send it now. Go to your phone right this instant and make your pledge to fight evil. Jesus is watching and he knows that you have given in his name. Your gift will be recorded in St. Peter's logbook and you will enjoy a preeminent place in heaven as you have on earth.

In the name of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, let us pray for the money to wage this war.

If there wasn't a flood, /science/ an independent observer or observers couldn't /prove/ see God failed to cause it.

I'd tend to agree with AD. There is no way to disprove the existence of God.

Right, but you've conveniently excised the word that was under debate.

Projection ....remember ? Or do I have to wait until the end of the universe to see a proof that if there wasn't a flood, an independent observer or observers couldn't see God failed to cause it.

Corkscrew

Yes there is and always be plenty of gaps left for whatever deity a man desires and wants everyone one else to fear, the obvious question then, is what is that deities morality (or more precisely the believing group's projection) if it appears to be amoral?

Quite convenient really.

The more right wing (and strangely social Darwinist) literal readers of the so called "One True Word of God ^TM" actually believe decease and birth deformities etc etc are physical manifestations of "One True (male and presumably white unworldly and protestant) God ^TM" imposed as a test of their Faith.

What a day. I wake up to discover that the local public radio station has launched its Spring fundraising drive, then link to PT to learn that BWE is a televangelist-in-training.

BWE
I'm sold brother ,where do I send the money?

Send money here.

This appears to be a shell game. You say the God who may exist did not cause a global Noachian flood. I say that the God who caused a global Noachian flood does not exist. You are smuggling in the concept of monotheism, which I don't care to do.

It's not a shell game. Even if there was a flood which corresponded with the time period of the Noachian flood that does not prove any sort of supernatuarl being did it.

This is confusing correlation with causation and methodological verus metaphysical naturalism.

The bible said these things and since they happen as the bible said they happen I will therefore infer there is a god. However if the bible and acutal historical events do not conincide I will conclude there is not a god. (you could change god to Spaghetti Monster) Regardless of how this little exercise would come out, there is no definitive proof of god (it could be the spaghettie monster), only events that are correlated with some story out of a book. There was no god'o'meter that definitively showed the presence of a supernatural being. In the same way you could say pirates exhibited some sort of mystical control of the climate and since there numbers have dwindled the climate has warmed as a result of this mystical pirate control. So you collect some data, draw a graph and low and behold there's a realtionship (http://www.venganza.org/) and you've shown your hypothesis to be correct just because fewer pirates mean higher temperatures right. Wait, don't I need a mystical power pirate meter. The problem is, in many cases, once it's supernatural you can't measure it .. oops.. it is outside the realm of methodological naturalism.

Now, if you want to talk about if something really exists you're getting into metaphysics/ontology and if you want to say there's no such thing as the supernatural fine with me but to try and test the hypothesis that there is 'a god' is just folly. There is no way to measure it.

So, if you want to assume there's NOT something anyone can measure controlling the universe that's fine with me. Just don't try to justify it by pretending we can do science to test it. Also, don't try and argue the spaghetti monster in the sky exists based on 'evidence' cause that's playing pretend too.

This appears to be a shell game. You say the God who may exist did not cause a global Noachian flood. I say that the God who caused a global Noachian flood does not exist. You are smuggling in the concept of monotheism, which I don't care to do.

Let us also keep in mind that just as science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, that it in fact does not and cannot even comment on the matter, so can science not prove/disprove/comment upon the occurance of miracles or interventions by God into the course of nature.

So the only possible conflicts between science and religion pertain to factual statements in the Bible that science may prove to be untrue.

Since it has already been established that no such contradictory facts exists, even if the Bible on the whole is interpreted literally, so long as the original Hebrew version is translated correctly, the proper conclusion to reach is that science and religion can coexist.

As far as the flood is concerned, a careful reading of the original makes it quite evident that the Bible could very well be describing a massive but local flood.

Jesus Carol. You really are a one trick pony. Send me money.

Carol, give it up. No one here wants to buy your book.

Carol,
Would you be willing to write an article for my blog explaining that the bible is actually consistent with science. Especially, Genesis 1 and 2, t5he flood, Soddom and Gamorrah, and Moses with the red sea?

I would be happy to let you plug your friend's book. I think your article would fit perfectly with my other material.

I may have damaged my brain seeking altered states in the 60's and 70's but I do think I understand.

Oh goodness. I have been so bigoted. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. I will try to be more sensitive to those who engaged in selective pruning of their brain cells in more recent decades.

One of my good friends sought altered states in the 80's and 90's.

"Carol,
Would you be willing to write an article for my blog explaining that the bible is actually consistent with science. Especially, Genesis 1 and 2, t5he flood, Soddom and Gamorrah, and Moses with the red sea?"

It doesn't have to be - they just reinterpret the Bible to mesh with science. Religion adjusts itself to accommodate scientific discoveries, just as science adjusts itself to accommodate new facts. It wouldn't survive otherwise. Who was it who said something like, "God occupies the dark places where knowledge has yet to shine light?"

It's the people who draw a line in the sand and say "my religion is not backing down from here" that create conflicts between science and religion. Science always wins those battles. It was created to do just that.

Whether or not you believe religion will become extinct depends on if you believe we will ever know all there is to know about everything. As long as we are aware that there are things we do not know, God - or some form of religion - will continue to live.

Carol, are you an orthodox jew? Are you real? Do you think you are offering something new when you post? So the flood was local. Noah was sure fooled eh? Top of Mt. Ararat? Water must've got pretty high eh? Parting the red sea? Oh that's right, miracles. Like the one where you graduated high school.
Send me money.

Carol Clouser, Errrrrrrr would that be a global flood as described in the Old Testament(your bible) or the one mentioned in the New Testament (David Heddles bible)?

Dizzy,

OK. But that article would fit my blog pretty well. And Carol is exactly the person to write it. It would be so much more authentic than if I wrote it.

Since it has already been established that no such contradictory facts exists, even if the Bible on the whole is interpreted literally, so long as the original Hebrew version is translated correctly, the proper conclusion to reach is that science and religion can coexist.

Oh Oh. My tourettes talking again.

Miller states: Science is a very limited way of knowing and is restricted to addressing the operation of natural processes. I believe that the processes described by science are upheld and directed continually by the creative action of God. But that conclusion is beyond the power of science. Science has no power to prove, or disprove, the existence or action of God. (italics mine)

Dang it! Wrong button! Oh well, Carol's blathering about her special bible interpretations would be a waste of time to rebut.

Carol opines:

So the only possible conflicts between science and religion pertain to factual statements in the Bible that science may prove to be untrue.

Since it has already been established that no such contradictory facts exists, even if the Bible on the whole is interpreted literally, so long as the original Hebrew version is translated correctly, the proper conclusion to reach is that science and religion can coexist.

So what you're saying is that those sotries about Jonah being ingested by a whale, and the Sun standing still in the sky for about a day, are such total mistranslations that we even got the basic substance of the story wrong?

And would you care to explain how so many scholars could get so much of the Bible so totally bollixed up for so many centuries before you showed up to sort us all out?

Have you ever wondered if I'm a plant by one of the DI's minions, introduced solely for the purpose of derailing these threads so that real science can not happen here. THat every time you get close to the "Universal Truth" I show up and quietly and subtly direct the conversation away fronm the dangerous Universal Truth?

Hmmmm BWE
er well
Let's just say I took a long break from a physics degree and did some independent social anthropological studies on a lot of different cultures and sub-cultures And some semi-serious study of belief systems.

Did you hear about the guy who took LSD and thought he was a fire hydrant?

Well whenever any car's came to park near him he told the drivers that they couldn't park in front of him, because he was a fire hydrant! (obviously.... duh).

Now that is a TRUE story. (Not one of mine, I've never taken it)

I have had some of the best hash that was around 30 years ago and the one thing any of those types of substances will show you is ...just what your mind does to construct reality/worldview and the effect ones own ego has on shaping that reality.

Except of course for the guy above, where he really believed something so strongly that he became IT.
I run into people like him all the time on this Blog.

Stanislav Groff did some interesting studies on thousands of patients with LSD and found that many people had perceptions of reality that mirrored some of the religious Myths and how various belief systems were influenced by common psychological problems of the members of those groups.

In some belief systems there were "assisted" adolescent to adult transformative experiences, including the Greek Hermetic tradition which influenced the early Christian Church and several North American Indian initiation ceremonies. There are countless other traditions that had all sorts of initiation ceremonies and rituals that are practiced in Churches today. They probably go back to neolithic times.

My own view on all this, is that everything is worldview and Myths are not other peoples religion they are ALL Myth, a road map to the human psyche and the hidden unconscious, nothing holy about them.

Myth not in the popular vernacular as a lie but as public dreams the underlying nature of humans exposed as stories by perceptive artists and recorders of history, what Freud called the "super ego" or Campbell and Huxley called the "Mind at Large" in the vernacular crudely speaking "a circle jerk" ...itself the subject of Myth.

Just look at Larry ...if that is not an aging Oedipus I don't what is.
The whole ID movement and the Hydra Myth.
The imagined history of the ancient Hebrews, which the fundies love, not hard to work out why. Us vs them and the old stink upstairs gives them full permission to give us whatever they feel we deserve and looking to the middle east they may just succeed, at the cost of the planet.

Noah? Well New Orleans without helicopters and trucks ....a few hundred years and a Chinese whisper... Mothers promising to bring down the wrath of ....well anyone will do when you have a dozen screaming kids.

Anything else is just wishful thinking, get real.

As a meta-physic Zen I think is about as close to reality as man can get, with pure thought, note Zen considers motive and time part of the 'game'.
Most of the rest of philosophical thought about reality is solipsism or circular reasoning of one sort or another.
And it would make no difference to science one way or the other if philosophy disappeared up its own collective postmodern ass.

The only people who take any notice of philosophers are religious people who do not have a built in BS detector.
Needless to say theologians are failed philosophers.
And religions? Well I have to say they seems to me a purely political and economic activity, they are after all run as separate incorporated countries and have very little to do with the human Godhead's on which they are supposedly based.

In my view "The real test" for the various sects/cults of any so called religion is "how honest are the leaders in particular, then the followers, what are their motives, political aims, and what (if any) are the public benefits (outside of the obvious ones to the leaders)?
In a great number of cases they represent a danger and I'm quite happy to tell them so.

i'm sorry, but my understanding is that the writers of the bible stole, copied, borrowed, etc... the story of the flood from previous religious texts. that would seem to make the whole point moot in my book. perhaps i am mistaken however... could someone help explain this to me?

Flood Stories

Ha! k.e. Socrates said something like that honest men couldn't be in public life without essentially being killed quick and that was why he chose to think out loud privately. It let him live a while longer. But as you said, WTF. Woo Hoo!

P.S. you missed out on the LSD thing. We see things from a pretty narrow perspective which gets widened considerably after ingesting hallucinogens.

Grof's "LSD Psychotherapy" is good read. He gives this total mindf$ck drug to these people and then asks them what they need to get over and what they are most afraid of. THat's bound to get interesting results. I like the guy who poops on the floor and plays with it while crying about his mother best.

OK Floods happen all the time all over the Planet.
If one does A LOT of damage it is going to be retold as an Oral story for hundreds of years.
Over that time there would quite probably be more floods.
The story changes over time and gets embellished.
The Flood Myth is in practically all ancient cultures.

SIMPLE IT RAINS THE RIVER OVERFLOWS AND WIPES OUT THE FIRKIN VILLAGE PEOPLE DIE, THE GOATS GET WASHED AWAY.
Someone survived and said goddidit.

It was on TV last year.
Remember

I've been reading some of the comments on the Panda's Thumb site. I live in the UK. I'm flabbergasted by the way your country it 'manipulating' Christianity. I seem to remember reading that the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT of the constitution is based on the Separation of church and state. The main reason why the forefathers went to your country was for religious freedom. They listed it as their top goal in forming 'America'. As a matter of fact most of the forefathers weren't even Christian. They were a mix of deists, atheists and agnostics. Look at some of the quotes of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, etc. You should remember some of them, considering the reading of the constitution is a curriculum requirement (in grade 4, I think).

Let us also keep in mind that just as science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, that it in fact does not and cannot even comment on the matter, so can science not prove/disprove/comment upon the occurance of miracles or interventions by God into the course of nature.

— Carol

So the only possible conflicts between science and religion pertain to factual statements in the Bible that science may prove to be untrue.

Since it has already been established that no such contradictory facts exists, even if the Bible on the whole is interpreted literally, so long as the original Hebrew version is translated correctly, the proper conclusion to reach is that science and religion can coexist.

As far as the flood is concerned, a careful reading of the original makes it quite evident that the Bible could very well be describing a massive but local flood.

Carol, will you write that post? I'm sorry for all the mean things I said about you.

And it would make no difference to science one way or the other if philosophy disappeared up its own collective postmodern ass.

— k.e.

Carol Clouser said "As far as the flood is concerned, a careful reading of the original makes it quite evident that the Bible could very well be describing a massive but local flood"
The Hebrew terminology of Genesis 6-94
'The earth' (Heb. erets), is used 46 times in the Flood account in Genesis 6---9, as well as in Genesis 1. The explicit link to the big picture of creation, especially in Genesis 6:6---7, clearly implies a universal Flood. Furthermore, the judgment of God is pronounced not just on all flesh, but on the earth:

And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. And, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Gen. 6:13)

All flesh' (Heb. kolbasar) is used 12 times in the Flood account and nowhere else in Genesis. God said he would destroy 'all flesh,' apart from those on the Ark
The word 'all' (Heb. kol) is used 72 times in the 85 verses of Genesis 6---9, 21% of all the times it is used in all 50 chapters of Genesis.

In Genesis 7:19 we read that 'all (Heb. kol) the high mountains under all (Heb. kol) the heavens were covered.' Note the double use of 'all.' In Hebrew this gives emphasis so as to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity.7 This could be accurately translated as 'all the high mountains under the entire heavens,' to reflect the emphasis in the Hebrew. Leupold, in his authoritative commentary on Genesis, said of this, ' ... the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.'7
Jon Nickles,The biblical account of the flood was derived from
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a literary work from Babylonia, dating from long after the time that king Gilgamesh was supposed to have ruled. It was based on earlier Sumerian legends of Gilgamesh. The most complete version of the epic was preserved on eleven clay tablets in the collection of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal. It is considered to be the oldest story ever recorded.
Gilgamesh meets Utnapishtim, who tells him about the great flood and reluctantly gives him a chance for immortality. He tells Gilgamesh that if he can stay awake for six days and seven nights he will become immortal. However, Gilgamesh falls asleep and Utnapishtim tells his wife to bake a loaf of bread for every day he is asleep so that Gilgamesh cannot deny his failure. When Gilgamesh wakes up, Utnapishtim decides to tell him about a plant that will rejuvenate him. Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh that if he can obtain the plant from the bottom of the sea and eat it he will be rejuvenated, be a younger man again. Gilgamesh obtains the plant, but doesn't eat it immediately because he wants to share it with other elders of Uruk. He places the plant on the shore of a lake while he bathes and it is stolen by a snake. The story could have been adopted into Hebrew writings while they were in captivity in Babylon

Betcha Carol replies to my post any takers?????

No she won't answer because that isn't one of her answers. I've seen them all and that isn't one of the questions she answers.

I know I'm as guilty of fueling the fire as anyone, but I really wish people we could avoid these "science vs. religion" debates. They really drive people into the IDiots' tent.

Science has no power to prove, or disprove, the existence or action of God.

Ah Dizzy. Never misunderestimate the power of the Dark Side. THe forces of god must someday crumble under the oppressive weight of the ridicule heaped upon them by the forces of JOHNBOY, k.e. and the rest of our ilk! Mwuhahahaha!!!!!

Faith involves the outright negation of consciousness--both in content and method--in some area and is a vice.

Faith involves the outright negation of consciousness---both in content and method---in some area and is a vice.

k.e. said:
"The Flood Myth is in practically all ancient cultures."

That might have something to do with floods being the most common natural disaster....

... I really wish people we could avoid these "science vs. religion" debates. They really drive people into the IDiots' tent.

That might have something to do with floods being the most common natural disaster....

I agree with Keith Miller in that science has no basis to prove or disprove God, and another talkbacker mentioned that no religion has "proof" of this claim either. Furthermore, science can and does disclaim religious dogma, i.e. The Flood, The 7-Day Creation, etc. Now I am an atheist, but I have never once tried to convince somebody that God doesn't exist. I might as well be trying to convince somebody that THEY don't exist. The problem I come across is when I actively disagree with their religious dogma like the Flood and I get labeled an atheist because of it. Now to be fair, it is true, but I've been labeled that so many times when arguing positions that are not atheistic as to be quite disquieting. I was actually thrown out of a man's house once for daring to speak my opinion. (My father-in-law has never even done that before). Is it just me or is it a sign of poor faith in a person that they are incapable of questioning a portion of their religious dogma without somehow crumbling their entire worldview? I mean if you came today and proved conclusively that yes in fact the world had an intelligent designer, that wouldn't say anything about whether Jesus walked on water or not would it?

Note to reader: I ask the questions rhetorically.

Dr. James Dobson. Dr. James Dobson. I sat here for five minutes thinking of something to say about the man, before I realized everything I wanted to say would probably get me banned (and if it doesn't, then it should have), so all I am going to say is:

I have a very poor opinion of that man.

Jonboy,

Your post has real substance to it and contains legitimate questions. And no insults! Of Course I will respond. I always try to do so (time permitting) under such circumstances.

Regarding the flood. A thorough analysis necessitates a verse by verse analysis of the original Hebrew. This has been done. To make a long story short, the key word is ARETZ, which you translate (from the KJV and others no doubt) as "the earth". But that word is used very many times in the Bible to mean "the land", that is, the land we know about. As a matter of fact, ARETZ means "the land" far more often than "the earth" in the HB.

As an example, consider the ten plagues. The Bible states that the plagues struck KOL HA-ARETZ, "all the land". Which land? The land we have been speaking about, of course, the land of Egypt. Surely you wouldn't suggest that the Bible means to say that the whole earth was smitten.

The flood covered "all the land". Which land? The one described earlier as bounded by four rivers, where the stories of Adam and his descendants occured. THAT land was flooded.

You are correct in stating that God expresses disappointment with the behavior of "all flesh" but that (a) could mean all flesh within the area discussed in the Bible (it is not reasonable to postulate that all people, all over the earth, simultaneously became so terribly behaved that God could no longer countenance their continued existance), and (b) even if it referred to all people all over the earth, that does not imply that all will be flooded.

I am at all not concerned about other, older or younger, flood tales, myths or legends. Whether these floods occured or not has no bearing on the Biblical story. And I would argue that the history contained in the Bible, with its thousands of copies in the hands of people who took great care of it, is far more reliable than history based on some scholar finding a crumbled documant in some palace, who thinks he can read and understand those documants but knows nothing of the motives and agendas of the writer and what palace intrigues lurk behind them.

Would you suggest that one not believe reports of hurricane Katrina because some fiction writer a century ago wrote a novel about a hurricane followed by a flood somewhere?

We can continue this coversation in a few hours. I need to get back to work right now. Hope this helped some.

So, Carol,
WHy would god have noah put two of every animal on board? Does the accurate translation say that he actually only put his domestic animals on board? That would make sense. Also, were there people still alive in china? So all the world isn't decended from noah?

Chris:
The first ammendment simply said that the Federal Government could not make a law respecting religion. In fact, until after the Civil War, this ammendmant did not apply to the States, who could, and some did, have established churches like the Church of England.

In fact, the famous "Letter to the Danbury baptists" by Thomas Jefferson, where "the wall of separation between church and state" is first written, was written to decline to force the State (Conneticut?) that the Baptist's lived in from having an established State Church.

And the Pilgrims did not come for "religious freedom", they came to be free to practice their own beliefs. They were very happy to persecute others, such as baptists, that did not believe the way they did. Only Roger Smith in Rhode Island, IIRC, came to promote religious pluralism.

And I would argue that the history contained in the Bible, with its thousands of copies in the hands of people who took great care of it, is far more reliable than history based on some scholar finding a crumbled documant in some palace, who thinks he can read and understand those documants but knows nothing of the motives and agendas of the writer and what palace intrigues lurk behind them.

Yet another holy war?

Jesus H Christ.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 1, 2006 07:39 PM (e) Yet another holy war? Jesus H Christ.

It's totally cool that the oral traditions of pre-literate peoples were eventually written down and recorded. Otherwise we would have missed out on lots of great song, poetry, and literature.

Not to mention the occasional nugget that might assist some srchaeologist, historian, anthropologist, or other scientist track down some interesting indication of a past person, place, or event. Until something better comes along, these myths serve as a reasonable means of recording funny and gripping tales, significant events, moral lessons, the genealogies of chiefly lineages, histories of encounters with neighboring peoples, and the like. They also exemplify humanity's urge to divide and categorize the phenomena that surround them in some sort of logical, "structural" manner.

In short, myths make great myths. Origin myths make great origin myths. But did you ever play the game of "postman" or "telephone" as a kid? You know, the one where one child whispers an original phrase to another, and so on, until--five or ten kids later--the phrase is hopelessly (and amusingly) garbled?

We can presume that all cultures had good and sufficient motivations to perpetuate and preserve--as a cultural legacy--their own treasure trove of tales. Likewise, each culture's oral tale-tellers would have been motivated to invent and maintain rhythmic and mnemonic devices which enabled them to retain the outline and gist of their tales from bard to apprentice, and from generation to generation.

Inevitably, however, as with any system of imperfect replication, a certain amount of variation, individuation, stylyzation, and adaptation to changing audiences, venues, and social purposes would have taken place.

Yep, I'm gonna say it: myths evolve by a process of variation and adaptation, over time.

Only by sheer accident, in other words, once enough time and embellishment have transpired, do any of these ancient myths retain any shred of historical or "factual" specificity.

Carol nonetheless seems to believe--and that's all it is, folks, a belief, supported by her faith (which ought to be good enough for her, but somehow--for this kind of folk--pure faith never seems to be strong enough)--that the care with which her particular tribe's myths were treated once they came to be written down somehow rescues them from the ravages of time over all the centuries before they were written down.

(We'll skip lightly over all the variations, emendations, wrangling, politics, and selective inclusion or exclusion that went into the "care" of the written versions.)

Carol, there's simply nothing in the way of rational evidence that suggests that your particular body of now-written but once-oral traditions was transmitted with any greater fidelity--or even that strict fidelity was even the original point!--than any other similar body of myth, legend, stories, and songs generated by any other pre-literate culture.

Believe what you want, of course, and I'm not here to tell anybody that their belief in whichever god, goddess, trickster, pantheon, or Flying Spaghetti Monster is entitled to any less or greater credence than anybody else's (cue the Pizza Guy and the weepy Italian violins). But to claim that there's some tenable scientific, evidentiary basis for believing that your preferred myth-corpus is entitled to greater credence than anybody else's is simply laughable.

Stop trying to kid the kidders, kiddo!

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 1, 2006 07:39 PM Yet another holy war? Jesus H Christ.

Uh oh. Carol, did you read this important new discovery?

Usually when a thread starts to decay like this, it's easy enough to ignore.

Devout geology professor Keith Miller has put forth great effort in trying to help Kansans see that having their kids learn about evolution - and big bang cosmology, and an ancient earth - doesn't mean the kids will lose their faith.

'Tis a shame, then, that this particular thread has degenerated into yet another holy war.

New irony meter needed.

Back to lurking. And skipping holy war threads.

And where, exactly, O Threadlurker, have any of us said anything about anyone giving up their faith.

Yep, didn't think so.

Dizzy wrote: ... I really wish people we could avoid these "science vs. religion" debates. They really drive people into the IDiots' tent. And you know this how? Because you feel you are being driven to the IDer's tent? If I told you that Samuel Alito sent James Dobson a profuse thank you note for getting him on the supreme court would that drive you back out of the tent? It seems Alito did: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/ali...

— normdoering

Although I cant log in right now for some reason, I started a thread over at After the Bar Closes called "How much fun is too much fun" aimed at finding the balance, the fine line between acceptable laughing at the fundies expense and doing what you are describing here.

Realizing that there is no way we are going to exercise restraint when so much good sport is on the table, I was attempting to ascertain what kinds of comments were "over the top" and which were, in the interest of good fun, marginally acceptable.

BTW, why can't I log in to AtBC?

BWE,

Since the word ARETZ, meaning the designated "land", is used repeatedly in the Hebrew one must conclude that Noah gathered only indigenous creatures into the ark. The purpose was to repopulate the effected area as soon as possible after the flood, without having to depend on migration and importation from more distant regions. Also, and I speculate here, the message is that with humankind's dominion over the other species comes the responsibility to care for, and to go to great lengths to save, those other species.

Yes, people in China were not effected and no, not all people are descendent from Noah.

As far as writing for your blog is concerned, I have no objection in principle but would want to know more about it. With the demands on my time these days, I would be able to make only short contributions.

For the sake of completeness I should also mention that another Hebrew word of significance appears a few times in this context. It is ADAMAH. The KJV incorrectly translates this word too as "the earth" which people generally understand as referring to the planet. The correct translation of ADAMAH is more like "the ground" or "the soil". Again, this refers to the ground or soil in the designated area described as "the land".

Pinhead,

I was not arguing that the thousands of people taking great care of their thousands of copies of the Bible constitutes proof of anything. I was comparing the relative reliability of history obtained this way to that of finding a handful of crumbled, indecipherable documents or tablets of unknown authorship, agenda and motivation. I think the former constitutes a much more transparent method less susceptible to error and deception.

I don't know how old you are, but perhaps you can relate to my experience of reading historical perspectives on the 1970's and not recognizing that period through which I lived. Don't they say that history is written by the victors? So how dependable is this process, particularly across centuries and millenia.

It is worthy of note that the dead sea scrolls virtually confirmed the accuracy and consistancy of at least 1500 years of handwriting Hebrew Bibles and passing it on by Jews from one generation to the next. Only a mere handful of words, out of hundreds of thousands, were found to be in dispute.

Carol
Did the ancient Bedouins/Semites have a word for "hallucination", "fantasy", "reality" or "personal perception"
or were those things just assumed ?

You know what happens when an Oral tradition gets written down?
The subjective meaning becomes obscured by anyone with an agenda, particularly if new knowledge calls into question great great grandma's version of events.

Like when a kid runs into the kitchen and says "I just saw grandma's legs dangling over the edge of a cloud, she must be getting tired standing up in heaven everyday."

Oh don't be silly child, heavens just a story you heard at school, grandmas dead and gone all green and the worms are happy.

Carol there is a brief sequel to that child's inquiry.

"Oh you mean like Elvis our pet goldfish ?"
'Yes dear ....bacteria food'

We interrupt this with a message from our sponsor Mr. Entropy

"Carol what is this dot . ?"

"Don't know ? unlit pixels on your monitor"

Re "BTW, why can't I log in to AtBC?"

Oh, good, then it isn't just me.

Henry

Carol,
In all seriousness. Please write a piece explaining how the Bible is consistent with science. I don't care what part you go for. I will post it entirely unedited, I cross my heart.
Thank you,
Bruce (BWE)

Carol, I will give you a platform, plug your book, whatever. My e ma il is pteraster at gmail dot com.

The only stipulation that I have is that your post has to try to show that scientific knowledge can be reconciled with the OT. You can add whatever else you want.

Re "BTW, why can't I log in to AtBC?"
Oh, good, then it isn't just me.
Henry
BWE, Henry,
I couldn't either from work.
I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.
his msg. box was full, so I'm guessing there's a few who can't get on.

Comment #83009 Posted by KeithB on March 1, 2006 07:36 PM (e) And the Pilgrims did not come for "religious freedom", they came to be free to practice their own beliefs. They were very happy to persecute others, such as baptists, that did not believe the way they did. Only Roger Smith in Rhode Island, IIRC, came to promote religious pluralism.

To the Pilgrims, there were only two sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper. The other sacraments (Confession, Penance, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Confession, Last Rites) of the Church of England and Roman Catholic church were inventions of man, had no scriptural basis, and were therefore superstitions, to the point of being heretical. The Pilgrims opposed mass, and considered marriage a civil affair to be handled by the State (not a religious sacrament). The legitimacy of the Pope, the Saints, and the church hierarchy were rejected, as was the veneration of relics. Icons and religious symbols such as crosses, statues, stain-glass windows, fancy architecture, and other worldly manifestations of religion were rejected as a form of idolatry. It was the rejection of the authority of the church hierarchy, and of the sacraments, that was the primary cause of conflict between the Pilgrims and the Church of England.

Carol Clouser,
Your opinions see to fly in the face of many biblical scholers,and you appear have no scriptures to support your position. According to the biblical writers, far from being a non-historical, symbolical, or mythical account written only to teach theological truths, the Flood narrative is intended to accurately record a real, literal, historical event
Some have argued that if Moses had wished to indicate the entire world, he would have used the Hebrew term tebel, which means the world as a whole, or dry land in the sense of continents. This word is never used in the Flood narrative. But it should be pointed out that tebel is never used in the entire Pentateuch, including the creation account. In fact, the term appears no where in the narrative portions of the Hebrew Bible, but only in poetic texts (39 times) usually as a poetic synonym in parallel with haÉares "the earth
The expression, "upon the face of all the earth" Ìal-penê kol-haÉares (Genesis 7:3; 8:9), clearly alludes to the first occurrence of the same phrase in the universal context of creation (Genesis 1:29; cf. Genesis 1:2 for a related universal expression), and thus here also implies a universality of the same dimension, i.e., the entire surface of the global mass. While the shortened term "all the earth" (kol-haÉares) by itself may have a limited meaning elsewhere when indicated by the immediate context (see Exodus 10:5, 15; Numbers 22:5, 11; 1 Kings 4:34; 10:24; 2 Chronicles 36:23; Genesis 41:57), the immediate context of the Flood story is the universal sinfulness of humankind whom God had made and created (Genesis 6:6,7) to have dominion over "all the earth" (Genesis 1:26), and the succeeding context is the universal dispersal of man after the Tower of Babel "upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:4, 8, 9). In each of the four occurrences of the phrase "upon the face of all the earth" in Genesis outside the Flood story (Genesis 1:29; 11:4, 8, 9), it clearly has the universal sense of the entire land surface of the globe, and there is nothing in the Flood narrative to indicate any less universality. (It should be also noted that the one place in Genesis where in context a similar phrase "upon all the face of the earth" is not universal [the famine mentioned in Genesis 41:56], the Hebrew has a change in word order from elsewhere in Genesis [Ìal-kol penê haÉares]).
The genealogical lines from both Adam (Genesis 4:17-26; 5:1-31) and Noah (Genesis 10:1-32; 11:1-9) are exclusive in nature, indicating that as Adam was father of all pre-Flood humanity, so Noah was father of all post-Flood humanity. From the descendants of Noah "the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood" (Genesis 10: 32), and the Tower of Babel experience spreads humanity across the globe (Genesis 11:1-19).

Comment #83027 Posted by BWE on March 1, 2006 09:04 PM (e) Uh oh. Carol, did you read this important new discovery?

In all seriousness. Please write a piece explaining how the Bible is consistent with science. I don't care what part you go for. I will post it entirely unedited, I cross my heart.

— BWE, addressing Carol,

It is worthy of note that the dead sea scrolls virtually confirmed the accuracy and consistancy of at least 1500 years of handwriting Hebrew Bibles and passing it on by Jews from one generation to the next. Only a mere handful of words, out of hundreds of thousands, were found to be in dispute.

Since it has already been established that no such contradictory facts exists, even if the Bible on the whole is interpreted literally, so long as the original Hebrew version is translated correctly, the proper conclusion to reach is that science and religion can coexist.

Re "Re "BTW, why can't I log in to AtBC?"
Oh, good, then it isn't just me.
Henry
BWE, Henry,
I couldn't either from work.
I have since and Wesley, well, he did something.
his msg. box was full, so I'm guessing there's a few who can't get on."

It was from home that I couldn't get on AtBC last night. Won't know till tonight if that's changed or not. The screen that came up said I did't have permission to use this board, and the "logon" button just led back to the same screen. The "register" button did bring up the registration screen, but it just wound up telling me my ID was already in use. (Duh.)

Henry

DOn't you see? Carol's claim doesn't have to be good or bad. It's good tv. Like Jerry Springer.

DOn't you see? Carol's claim doesn't have to be good or bad. It's good tv. Like Jerry Springer.

— BWE

It never takes them long to figure out that I'm baiting them over there. I've been through dozens of user names. Oh I'll continue, but Carol is actually a little different. Dave would not write a good post for my blog. It would just be all nasty and stinky. Carol, however, would write a post that would hardly be discernable from my own.
See what I mean:
http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com

Oh come on. "Embarrassing"? What are the guests on Jerry Springer? Besides, I am offering her a legitimate posting opportunity to disseminate her ideas to a broader audience. She will actually get it in front of a good audience for her ideas since my visitors tend to be split between religious types and other. I can post it so the whole World Wide Web can see it.

Well BWE I seem to remember Carol saying that according to some dusty old book written by Cameleers and their Wives (er....Brave wrath fearing ones)
that the old fella had a chariot which he rode across the sky and she believed it literally.
Now it makes me wonder just where was he going on that occasion.
Ethiopia obviously.

Jonboy,

(1) Please read what I write carefully. I did NOT say that the Biblical account of the flood is intended to be allegorical, symbolical or in any way non-historical. Quite the contrary. I just claimed it was local rather than global.

(2) Replace "the earth" with "the land" in most of the verses you cite, and they all cancel out.

(3) Words can and do have different meanings even in the same verse in the Bible. So pointing to creation, where ARETZ means "earth", does nothing for us.

(4) The context for the location of the flood is not the location of creation but the location of the descendants of Adam, roughly ancient Sumeria.

(5) The Bible does not necessarily mean to say that all humans on the planet have turned to evil ways.

(6) It is true that many ancient scholars disagree with my interpretation. But they do not disagree with my contention that the Hebrew wording quite reasonably allows for my interpretation, based on the rules of Biblical literacy. I also would argue that had many of them been alive today and confronting the scientific evidence, they would give it a second look and conclude as I have.

(1) Please read what I write carefully. I did NOT say that the Biblical account of the flood is intended to be allegorical, symbolical or in any way non-historical. Quite the contrary. I just claimed it was local rather than global.

(2) Replace "the earth" with "the land" in most of the verses you cite, and they all cancel out.

(3) Words can and do have different meanings even in the same verse in the Bible. So pointing to creation, where ARETZ means "earth", does nothing for us.

(4) The context for the location of the flood is not the location of creation but the location of the descendants of Adam, roughly ancient Sumeria.

(5) The Bible does not necessarily mean to say that all humans on the planet have turned to evil ways.

(6) It is true that many ancient scholars disagree with my interpretation. But they do not disagree with my contention that the Hebrew wording quite reasonably allows for my interpretation, based on the rules of Biblical literacy. I also would argue that had many of them been alive today and confronting the scientific evidence, they would give it a second look and conclude as I have.

Exactly,

Have you seen my blog? Same kind of thing.

Rilke's Granddaughter on March 2, 2006 02:00 PM (e)
Thank you for criticizing Carol Clousers response to my post "Comment #83165",it seems less argumentative if it comes from someone other than myself.You covered all my objections admirably,I would like to add that after repeatedly asking Carol to quote me the verses from the Bible(as I invariably do)to support her statement's,she fails to.I wonder why?

Carol blathered thusly:

And I would argue that the history contained in the Bible, with its thousands of copies in the hands of people who took great care of it, is far more reliable than history based on some scholar finding a crumbled documant in some palace, who thinks he can read and understand those documants but knows nothing of the motives and agendas of the writer and what palace intrigues lurk behind them.

This is just amazing...so amazing I'm stopped dead in my tracks, shaking my head and thinking this might be satire.

I could just as easily blather thusly:

And I would argue that the "Bat-Boy" stories contained in the Weekly World News, with its millions of copies in the hands of people who took great care to make sure that no one could buy dinner without seeing it, are far more reliable than history based on some scholar finding lots of books in a library, who thinks he can read and understand these books but knows nothing of the motives and agendas of the writers and what political intrigues lurk behind them.

If you want your reasoning to be taken at all seriously, please tell us why your above-quoted paragraph is more credible or authoritative than my variation thereof.

Devout geology professor Keith Miller has put forth great effort in trying to help Kansans see that having their kids learn about evolution - and big bang cosmology, and an ancient earth - doesn't mean the kids will lose their faith.

— ks

And if learning about these things means the kids lose their faith, then what is the problem supposed to be?

Believers in the "little boy who owns an ant farm" will need to keep moving the truly imaginary further from reality....and look how far that "imaginary" has had to travel over the centuries....or become a Fundy.

Comment #83333 Posted by Leigh Jackson on March 2, 2006 04:54 PM (e) And if learning about these things means the kids lose their faith, then what is the problem supposed to be?

Boy steve, I expect a few responses to that one. I think I might have nuanced your statement a little more :)

Posted by steve s on March 2, 2006 06:13 PM (e) ... I think learning about science obviously causes people to lose their faith. Are there any other professions with so many atheists? (please, no cliche lectures about correlation and causation). And so I think it would be great for everyone to learn lots of science and in doing so undermine stupid religious beliefs. But there's a large segment of people here who don't care one way or the other about religion, they care first and foremost about promoting evolution, and chide us atheists for being so counterproductive, perhaps because they don't grok that we aren't working towards the same goal.

Anyway, I don't know of any credible historical information that would give one rise to believe that the Pilgrims engaged, or would have engaged, in persecution of others. It could exist. But I've never run into it.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 2, 2006 07:24 PM (e) ... His anti-Catholic stance prompted him to invade Ireland ...

There was a bit more to this than religion alone.

Re "(please, no cliche lectures about correlation and causation)."

Okay then, just a quick comment. The cause/effect arrow could conceivably be in either direction, even if the two things are the cause and the effect.

Henry

Thanks for coming to my defense, Lenny. 8^)

I first learned about the Pilgrim's intolerance because in my electronic World Book, it mentioned that Miles Standish spent the end of his life going around and persecuting baptists.

I was just researching the Miles->John->Priscilla love triangle.

There was a bit more to this than religion alone.

I am sincerely sorry that so many of you are blinded by the stubbornness of refusing to be responsible to anyone for your actions here on this earth. It is a very depressing thing to see so many people who will believe any theory, lie, or fairy tale that comes their way. It seems a waste to live a life believing what you know is a lie, just so you can do as you please and ignore that you will have to one day answer for everything you have done, to the One who you have ignored all of your life.

Is that Parody a.k.?

Not parody, projection.

a.k.,
You don't have to be sorry for me. I like it this way. I'm taking up heliocentrism next. It should be fun. So go run off and worry about your eternal soul while I enjoy the ride to hell in my bucket, ok?

I am sincerely sorry that so many of you are blinded by the stubbornness of refusing to be responsible to anyone for your actions here on this earth. It is a very depressing thing to see so many people who will believe any theory, lie, or fairy tale that comes their way. It seems a waste to live a life believing what you know is a lie, just so you can do as you please and ignore that you will have to one day answer for everything you have done, to the One who you have ignored all of your life.

— a.k.