Re: [RC] [ RC ] Perplexed in the Pre-Paleolithic

2011-06-19 Thread David R. Block 
Title: ORourke54.htm


  
  
You had me going with you until the
  last paragraph or so. It is not at all obvious to me that the
  "Mesopotamian original" should be scripture. 
  
  David
  


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
"There is
no virtue in compulsory government charity, and
there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who
portrays himself as
"caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the
government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's
willing to try to
do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a
voter who takes pride
in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good
with his own money
-- if a gun is held to his head."--P.
J.
O'Rourke
  


On 6/19/2011 10:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:

  
  
  

  Well, we can guess. But,  yeah, how did 90 % of the
world's cultures end up
  with Flood stories ? Some can be accounted for by means
of diffusion, it is
  a good story and could have been retold many times. But
who told it
  to Native Americans or Polynesians or Australian
Aborigines ?
   
  That is one mystery. I don't have a good answer.
   
  But , for sure, there would be post-Flood effects. Like
salt deposits
  where there should not be any, when all that water
evaporated. 
  OK, where are they ?  Bonneville can be explained by the
evaporation
  of old Lake Bonneville.  A global ocean should have had
similar
  effects, at least in scattered locations besides those
like Bonneville.
  I've never heard of any.
   
  You'd think that some salt water fish would end up in
places where
  they don't belong, either. Of course, they'd die, but
even one salt water fish 
  found in Minnesota or Colorado would do the trick. Don't
know of any, either.
   
  Or how about a few salt water lakes ( not evaporates like
Bonneville )
  in Wisconsin or Tennessee ? 
   
  Or a fresh water fish found in the middle of  Timor or in
the Falklands.
  Not an introduced species, but one that was there long
before humans.
   
  What about before the Flood ?  How did ( now extinct ) 
DoDo birds, flightless,
  found only in the Seychelles, get to the ark ?  Or the
flightless Moas from NZ ? 
  Clearly the  Flood, ca 3500 BC,  did not kill off the
moas or dodos. 
  How'd they get to the ark ?  How'd they get back ?
   
  But let's say that the story is completely true. It is
also completely derivative
  of almost the exact same story from Mesopotamia, which
predates the Bible
  by a minimum of 1000 years.
   
  Obviously, therefore, seems to me, the Mesopotamian
original is sacred
  and deserves to be regarded as scripture.  Right ?
   
  You can see the problems
   
  Billy
   
  
   
   
  message dated 6/19/2011 7:56:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight
Time, [email protected] writes:
  The only problem is, that if the flood of Noah
was really worldwide (and most cultures, even without
the Bible, have a flood story) is that we don't know
what the subterranean (or underwater) results of that
would be. 

David
  
  






  "There
  is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and
  there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician
  who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive"
  because he wants to expand the government's
  charitable programs is merely saying that he's
  willing to try to do good with other people's
  money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes
  pride in supporting such programs is telling us
  that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun
  is held to his head."--P.
  J. O'Rourke

  
  
  On 6/19/2011 12:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Re: [RC] [ RC ] Perplexed in the Pre-Paleolithic

2011-06-19 Thread David R. Block 


  
  
The only problem is, that if the
  flood of Noah was really worldwide (and most cultures, even
  without the Bible, have a flood story) is that we don't know what
  the subterranean (or underwater) results of that would be. 
  
  David
    

  
  
  
  
  
  ORourke54.htm
  
  
  
"There is
no virtue in compulsory government charity, and
there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who
portrays himself as
"caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the
government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's
willing to try to
do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a
voter who takes pride
in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good
with his own money
-- if a gun is held to his head."--P.
J.
O'Rourke
  


On 6/19/2011 12:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:

  
  
  

  One Summer I was a tour guide at the Grand Canyon
  ; did a lot of reading
  about historical geology. But my best  "textbook" was
open before me every day.
  A dozen  miles wide and over a mile deep.
   
  I love the Bible, have spent decades in study of the
book. But , yes, its
  not a science encyclopedia. 
   
  What squares for me, in terms of science, while I am not
so sure
  that the figures that geologists use for really old
strata are necessarily,
  say, 1.5 billion years, maybe it is 1.3
billion or 1.8 billion, or maybe
  someone really miscalculated and new zilchtron equipment
will make it
  necessary to recalibrate to 1 .1 billion
years, seems to me that the
  scientists have it basically right.
   
  All the strata, layers, with consistent fossils evidence
in each, just where the
  theory says they should be, simpler life forms at the
bottom, more complex
  the closer to the top you get, well, it all adds up. Plus
it all fits nicely with
  plate techtonics and the enormous periods of time it
takes to move continents
  ( at a race driver's speed of 3 inches per year ) and
uplift mountain ranges, 
  we are talking ages  --epochs--  not days. Then there are
the volcano intrusions 
  below and known rates of erosion of basalts, which is
really solid data, and you
  start your math with a 100,000 years( + or -)  nailed
down tight.
   
  So we get, current best estimate, a million year old
canyon exposing incredibly
  more ancient strata,  and right away, "ages" means tens
of millions or 
  hundreds of millions of  years. Don't see any problem
with that.
   
  My take.
   
  Billy
   
  --
   
   
   
  message dated 6/18/2011 8:42:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight
Time, [email protected] writes:
  Well, despite all of the negative articles on
Rand (coming from the usual suspects that would have an
axe to grind against libertarian and conservatives
ANYWAY), I'm still of the view that those particular
economists would do a better job than the Keynesian
"epic fail" that we are currently experiencing. Only I
don't see a WW 2 in the offing to ride to Obama's rescue
like it saved FDRs bacon. (Although if he keeps trying
to screw over Israel, he might get one.) According to
Wikipedia (I know), there was a great spike in
unemployment in 1937 (the recession of 1937) that took
WW 2 to bring down. 

While I have creationist sympathies, I'm fairly sure
that the Bible is not a science textbook, nor do I
believe that everything that happened in creation is
necessarily in the Genesis account. The creationists
seem to ignore that the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis
1 has more possible meanings than "day," including
"age." But I think that creation could be done in a week
once you have God in the equation. 

David

  
  






  "There