- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by sonhousePersonally I think the biggest argument against the flood myth is that it violates the
One huge argument against the flood story, or the Noah Ark thing: With such a small population, modern genetic analysis can figure out when the last change happened, how diverse a gene pool a particular species has and so forth. If the Ark myth was true, there would be a very small genetic diversity of animals and we know most animal populations have a very ...[text shortened]... ome dumb argument they think refutes that but that is what they do, come up with dumb arguments.
known laws of physics.
But that might be because I trained as a physicist not a biologist.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczReferences for your 'article':
Any broken ankles? 😉
I will add this article that I come across, it is fairly scientific so enjoy.
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm
W. J. Arkell - He died 1958. That's just a few years after the discovery of DNA. His evidence in the article you quote is somewhat out-dated, and completely out of context. He did not support the flood myth or creationist origins.
I. Velikovsky - His views have always been considered part of the lunatic fringe. Furthermore he did not support the flood myth or hold with creationism.
David M Raup - Quotes attributed to Raup are repeatedly used by creationists out of context. He does not support the myth of a worldwide flood nor creationism in general.
Stephen Jay Gould - I find it highly amusing that a creationist would reference Gould in an 'essay' supporting the flood myth. I'm sure Gould would laugh too. This man is one of the most well-known champions of evolution on the planet, and certainly doesn't hold to the biblical flood myth. Again, his words are quoted out of context.
Frankly the whole article is just disingenuous bulls**t masquerading as science. Do yourself a favour and stop reading this crap, you're just embarrassing yourself.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell it is just a dumb story made up to scare the hell out of primitives anyway. I was just pointing out one big flaw in the oinkment.
Personally I think the biggest argument against the flood myth is that it violates the
known laws of physics.
But that might be because I trained as a physicist not a biologist.
08 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI would like to give you another website to spend some time going through if you wish, you may find some interesting information there. There is an organization called Creation Research, complete with scientists! http://www.icr.org/
If you think that that article is 'fairly scientific' then you have no idea what 'scientific' means... [tesxt shortend]...
“What's in the injection?” said James. “You know, you start asking questions like that, you might get science back...”[/i]
Thanks GF for the feedback, I do appreciate your thoughts, I just don't agree.
-K
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczNo, I think I'll stick with the 95% of science faculties in Texas alone which opposed ICR's request to issue science degrees. YEC is bollocks and anybody who agrees with it is a crackpot.
I would like to give you another website to spend some time going through if you wish, you may find some interesting information there. There is an organization called Creation Research, complete with scientists! http://www.icr.org/
Thanks GF for the feedback, I do appreciate your thoughts, I just don't agree.
-K
08 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI KNEW Velikovsky. I met him when I was 18, he lived ATT on the road to Mt Palomar which I did also, I had been reading Ages in Chaos by him and one day saw his name on a mailbox on my way to school (Palomar College). So one day I got up the nerve to drop in and talk, he was home and it was clear he was a nut case from just about the first word out of his mouth. One thing, he kept talking about how it was his work that allowed the first american satellite to work, I think he said he designed the high voltage power supply onboard.
References for your 'article':
W. J. Arkell - He died 1958. That's just a few years after the discovery of DNA. His evidence in the article you quote is somewhat out-dated, and completely [b]out of context. He did not support the flood myth or creationist origins.
I. Velikovsky - His views have always been considered part of the lunatic fring nce. Do yourself a favour and stop reading this crap, you're just embarrassing yourself.[/b]
I later found out that was a bald face lie. I got a job at a company called Varian, and the ion implant division, Extrion, which was HQ on the north end of Mass. rte 128 in Gloucester Ma. I found out the REAL dude that made the HV power supply was a guy who became my teacher on a BUNCH of ion implanter physics courses, his name is Ray Callahan, he came from a company called High Energy physics or something like that. And when he was a very young man with a fresh Phd, he made the HV power supply, about 100,000 volts back in 1959 or so, in a box about 3 inches by 3 inches and it powered an antenna about 3 feet long sticking out of the satellite to produce a local ionization at the satellite altitude.
Another thing Veli told me, was to listen on and I quote "168 megacycles" (we say megahertz now, no big deal) and you will hear the "music of the spheres". The thing was, I had been a ham for 4 years at that point in time and one of our bands was 144 to 148 Mhz, the 'two meter band'. I had spent some time listening to frequencies around that from 30 to 400 mhz and there of course was no such thing to be heard on 168 mhz.
I knew right then this guy was way out there. He tried to show the entire Earth had flipped north to south pole, not the magnetic pole but the entire Earth flipping upside down as the result of a close encounter with some rogue planet. Of course that would have had the undesirable side effect of killing every life form on Earth with maybe the exception of bacteria, but that didn't deter him from these idiotic pronunciations. A nut job through and through, made even more so because he thoroughly believed in his fairy tales.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczYes, I have heard of them...
I would like to give you another website to spend some time going through if you wish, you may find some interesting information there. There is an organization called Creation Research, complete with scientists! http://www.icr.org/
Thanks GF for the feedback, I do appreciate your thoughts, I just don't agree.
-K
They are religious fanatics who lie and dissemble to try to create a veneer of scientific
respectability for creationism so that they can get it taught in schools.
They are absolutely not scientists.
They do not do science.
They do pseudo-science.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThat is the coolest thing I've ever heard from you, and that's saying something to an honest-to-god rocket scientist. Or from anybody else on the web, come to think of it.
I KNEW Velikovsky. I met him when I was 18, he lived ATT on the road to Mt Palomar which I did also, I had been reading Ages in Chaos by him and one day saw his name on a mailbox on my way to school (Palomar College). So one day I got up the nerve to drop in and talk, he was home and it was clear he was a nut case from just about the first word out of his m ...[text shortened]... through and through, made even more so because he thoroughly believed in his fairy tales.
I first read Worlds in Collision as a kid back in the 70s and it blew me away. That and Chariots of the Gods, man I loved those books. Still do, I guess, but it's not quite the same when you can see how imaginary they are.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczWhat makes you think I'm bothered? Oh, you don't, you're just resorting to a crappy internet technique to try to make your ill-informed and feebly supported position seem somehow stronger than it is. In fact I'm not bothered at all what garbage you choose to believe, I was offering you the benefit of an educated insight, is all.
Why are you so bothered?
08 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatGood enough. Chess? Will probably loose, but I'll play.
What makes you think I'm bothered? Oh, you don't, you're just resorting to a crappy internet technique to try to make your ill-informed and feebly supported position seem somehow stronger than it is. In fact I'm not bothered at all what garbage you choose to believe, I was offering you the benefit of an educated insight, is all.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by kd2aczDid you read my post about Velikovsiky? And the 'music of the spheres on 168 mhz? Doesn't that tell you something about the dudes that write that stuff? You know good and well what there is around the 2 meter ham band, right?
Good enough. Chess? Will probably loose, but I'll play.