Who wrote Genesis?

snip

apparently not. No mammoths are walking around.

But there are lots of very large animals that are walking around
today. \

Keep in mind the ark was as big as a sports stadium and it took 40
years to build.

Four hundred and fifty feet long, and made of wood.
It would never have floated, at least, not as a boat.
...Perhaps as wreckage.

Let me give you a bit of technical knowledge for your benefit. It
wasn't a boat.

The problems with a barge are far greater than for a boat. You have
exchanged a frying pan for a fire. The largest barge used as a boat was
nowhere near the size of the alleged ark and it broke in half longitudinally
when one side ran arrond in very shallow water.

So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah. Truthfully Noah had
help. I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the building
of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids on both side
of the pond are built. Your argument is flawed.

But even is it did float, bailing it out, and caulking it, would
have been an impossible task for eight people.

I think when it take you about forty years to build a floating box,
those details are taken care of.

Which shows you are even more ignorant than was first assumed.

How so?

Darrell Stec

2006-06-24 13:44:00 UTC

After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 24 June 2006 7:51 am

snip

apparently not. No mammoths are walking around.

But there are lots of very large animals that are walking around
today. \

Keep in mind the ark was as big as a sports stadium and it took 40
years to build.

Four hundred and fifty feet long, and made of wood.
It would never have floated, at least, not as a boat.
...Perhaps as wreckage.

Let me give you a bit of technical knowledge for your benefit. It
wasn't a boat.

The problems with a barge are far greater than for a boat. You have
exchanged a frying pan for a fire. The largest barge used as a boat
was nowhere near the size of the alleged ark and it broke in half
longitudinally when one side ran arrond in very shallow water.

So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah. Truthfully Noah had
help. I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the
building of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids
on both side of the pond are built. Your argument is flawed.

I'll grant you that it has been said that "modern builder can't imitate
the building of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which
pyramids on both side of the pond are built" however those who say it
would be wrong. See: http://guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm There
have been projects to build pyramids at least on a small scale. The
task isn't magic. It simply involves people on a massive scale, people
who dedicated their time and labor as a religious donation.

But even is it did float, bailing it out, and caulking it, would
have been an impossible task for eight people.

I think when it take you about forty years to build a floating box,
those details are taken care of.

Which shows you are even more ignorant than was first assumed.

How so?

--
Later,
Darrell Stec ***@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

Mike Painter

2006-06-24 18:51:57 UTC

Blak wrote:
<snip>

Let me give you a bit of technical knowledge for your benefit. It
wasn't a boat.

The problems with a barge are far greater than for a boat. You have
exchanged a frying pan for a fire. The largest barge used as a boat
was nowhere near the size of the alleged ark and it broke in half
longitudinally when one side ran arrond in very shallow water.

So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah. Truthfully Noah had
help. I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the
building of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids
on both side of the pond are built. Your argument is flawed.

Modern builders who work in stone are impressed with the accuracy and size
of the pyramids but they can easily do exactly what the pyramid builders did
and do it faster. In many cases they still use exactly the same tools except
theirs don't have to be sharpened as often. *ALL* of the techniques are
known and most are still used today. It's just that leveling and aligning
the site would be a lot faster with lasers than with ditches and plumb bobs.
Chances are good they wouldn't even have to bother with hundreds of smaller
and sometimes failed structures as the original people did.

As for Noah having help, if you are going to claim magic then just tell us
you have faith that it happened. That your god used materials not known to
science today, that gopher wood was a code word for this, that it suspended
many laws of physics, and that it hid the results aferwards.

But even is it did float, bailing it out, and caulking it, would
have been an impossible task for eight people.

I think when it take you about forty years to build a floating box,
those details are taken care of.

Which shows you are even more ignorant than was first assumed.

How so?

Suspend a 20 foot plank between two fixed points. Note that it sags in the
middle. Walk on it. Note what happens.
Curve the plank in an arc pointing up and fix it at both ends. Walk on it.
That's the main reason boats have curved lines. it adds strength. Building a
barge the size of the ark would require *massive* amounts of internal
bracing, reducing the carrying capacity to below that of a similar sized
ship. It would leak more and since you are beyond the theoretical strength
of any known wood would break up in the slightest wave action.
Without invoking magic it's can't be done even if you have hundred of years
of ship building knowledge behind you.
And that's just a minor starting point for the idea of a flood.

Blak

2006-06-24 22:28:06 UTC

Post by Mike Painter
<snip>

Let me give you a bit of technical knowledge for your benefit. It
wasn't a boat.

The problems with a barge are far greater than for a boat. You have
exchanged a frying pan for a fire. The largest barge used as a boat
was nowhere near the size of the alleged ark and it broke in half
longitudinally when one side ran arrond in very shallow water.

So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah. Truthfully Noah had
help. I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the
building of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids
on both side of the pond are built. Your argument is flawed.

Modern builders who work in stone are impressed with the accuracy and size
of the pyramids but they can easily do exactly what the pyramid builders did
and do it faster. In many cases they still use exactly the same tools except
theirs don't have to be sharpened as often. *ALL* of the techniques are
known and most are still used today. It's just that leveling and aligning
the site would be a lot faster with lasers than with ditches and plumb bobs.
Chances are good they wouldn't even have to bother with hundreds of smaller
and sometimes failed structures as the original people did.
As for Noah having help, if you are going to claim magic then just tell us
you have faith that it happened.

I don't believe in Magic.

Mike Painter

2006-06-25 00:52:22 UTC

Post by Mike Painter
<snip>

Let me give you a bit of technical knowledge for your benefit. It
wasn't a boat.

The problems with a barge are far greater than for a boat. You have
exchanged a frying pan for a fire. The largest barge used as a boat
was nowhere near the size of the alleged ark and it broke in half
longitudinally when one side ran arrond in very shallow water.

So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah. Truthfully Noah had
help. I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the
building of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids
on both side of the pond are built. Your argument is flawed.

Modern builders who work in stone are impressed with the accuracy
and size of the pyramids but they can easily do exactly what the
pyramid builders did and do it faster. In many cases they still use
exactly the same tools except theirs don't have to be sharpened as
often. *ALL* of the techniques are known and most are still used
today. It's just that leveling and aligning the site would be a lot
faster with lasers than with ditches and plumb bobs. Chances are
good they wouldn't even have to bother with hundreds of smaller and
sometimes failed structures as the original people did. As for Noah
having help, if you are going to claim magic then just
tell us you have faith that it happened.

I don't believe in Magic.

I see no difference between a god or magic and that's the only way it could
have happened.

ALL of science provides one or more reason why the flood could not have
happened, why the ark could not have floated, why there was not enough room
for just the food, and why nobody would have lived to even get on the ark.

Masked Avenger

2006-06-25 11:58:57 UTC

Post by Mike Painter
<snip>

Let me give you a bit of technical knowledge for your benefit. It
wasn't a boat.

The problems with a barge are far greater than for a boat. You have
exchanged a frying pan for a fire. The largest barge used as a boat
was nowhere near the size of the alleged ark and it broke in half
longitudinally when one side ran arrond in very shallow water.

So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah. Truthfully Noah had
help. I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the
building of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids
on both side of the pond are built. Your argument is flawed.

Modern builders who work in stone are impressed with the accuracy and
size of the pyramids but they can easily do exactly what the pyramid
builders did and do it faster. In many cases they still use exactly
the same tools except theirs don't have to be sharpened as often.
*ALL* of the techniques are known and most are still used today. It's
just that leveling and aligning the site would be a lot faster with
lasers than with ditches and plumb bobs.
Chances are good they wouldn't even have to bother with hundreds of
smaller and sometimes failed structures as the original people did.
As for Noah having help, if you are going to claim magic then just
tell us you have faith that it happened.

I don't believe in Magic.

Maybe not .....but you obviously believe in Fairy Tales ........ The
Ark, as described in the Bible is physically impossible ...... i.e. it
would break the Laws of Physics if it could float. Most engineers could
tell you why this is so .......

The Flood never happened ....there is simply no evidence for it ANYWHERE
......... and if it did happen ... it too would have broken various Laws
of Physics.

This is just for starters .....I haven't begun to point out the
absurdities of the story ........ like, were there Koalas on the Ark ?
if so, please explain how they were fed ? How did Noah get them on the
Ark ? Did he travel to Australia or did the Koalas swim all the way to
the Middle East ?

--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein

a***@sbcglobal.net

2006-07-14 16:17:59 UTC

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a
bumblebee could not fly.

Richard Riehle

thomas p

2006-07-14 19:06:58 UTC

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a
bumblebee could not fly.
Richard Riehle

You never read it, because it doesn't exist.

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

Matt Silberstein

2006-07-14 22:08:18 UTC

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:06:58 +0200, in alt.atheism , thomas p

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a
bumblebee could not fly.
Richard Riehle

You never read it, because it doesn't exist.

That is, it is a myth. IIANM the actual paper said that for a given
notion of how bumblebees fly, they could not fly and so the *notion*
was wrong. Remarkably enough, scientists did see the bumblebees
flying.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Michelle Malkin

2006-07-15 04:47:56 UTC

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:06:58 +0200, in alt.atheism , thomas p

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a
bumblebee could not fly.
Richard Riehle

You never read it, because it doesn't exist.

Doggone! You just reminded me of that children's
record I had when I was a child called "The Trial
of Bumble the Bee". Some people (other insects
who, I think, were the jury) sing:

"A bee can't fly, can't fly, can't fly.
I know it's true, but I don't know why."

And, of course, the trial ends when Bumble
flies in singing, "I just went ahead and did it!"
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Post by Matt Silberstein
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Elroy Willis

2006-07-17 11:23:01 UTC

Matt Silberstein wrote in message

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a
bumblebee could not fly.

You never read it, because it doesn't exist.

Doggone! You just reminded me of that children's
record I had when I was a child called "The Trial
of Bumble the Bee". Some people (other insects
"A bee can't fly, can't fly, can't fly.
I know it's true, but I don't know why."
And, of course, the trial ends when Bumble
flies in singing, "I just went ahead and did it!"

What was he on trial for? Breaking the laws of physics?

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

Michael Gray

2006-07-15 01:45:22 UTC

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:06:58 +0200, thomas p

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a
bumblebee could not fly.
Richard Riehle

You never read it, because it doesn't exist.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

French entomologist Antoine Magnan. In 1934, Magnan included the
following passage in the introduction to his book Le Vol des Insectes:

Tou d'abord poussé par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai appliqué aux
insectes les lois de la résistance de l'air, et je suis arrivé avec M.
SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol est impossible.

Magnan's reference is to a calculation by his assistant André
Saint-Lagué, who was apparently an engineer.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp

--

Mark K. Bilbo

2006-07-15 03:37:25 UTC

Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

Post by Masked Avenger
Maybe not .....but you obviously believe in Fairy Tales ........ The
Ark, as described in the Bible is physically impossible ...... i.e. it
would break the Laws of Physics if it could float. Most engineers could
tell you why this is so .......

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

a***@sbcglobal.net

2006-07-15 06:14:43 UTC

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?

I never copied down the reference. It was in a book on
Work Simplification I read over forty years ago. At that
time, I had no interest in bibliographic citations.

The main point is that we often develop computational results
that prove this or that, but overlook some factor that causes
reality to fly in the face of analysis. Richard Feynman used
to love to sit in the audience at conferences and devastate a
presenter with some simple observation from the audience.

BTW, I am not one of those who accepts the Bibilical flood
story either. However, we don't have enough information
about what is supposed to have happened, now that it is
distorted by the surrounding myths and the ambiguity of
poetry. Maybe there was some kind of regional flood.
Perhaps a lot of animals from that region were taken
aboard the boat of some superstitious man named Noah.
There is likely to be some factual event behind the myth,
even though it is not likely to have been as global in effect
as reported in Bibilical mythology.

Richard Riehle

Matt Silberstein

2006-07-15 11:37:21 UTC

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:14:43 GMT, in alt.atheism ,

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?

Do you think he was a creationist? Look around you today and ask who
is it who looks at think in the world and says they are impossible? It
sure seems to me that it is not the scientists doing that.
Creationists look at evolution and declare it impossible, scientists
try to explain it. What scientists will do is say that things that we
don't actually observe happen to be impossible.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
BTW, I am not one of those who accepts the Bibilical flood
story either. However, we don't have enough information
about what is supposed to have happened, now that it is
distorted by the surrounding myths and the ambiguity of
poetry.

We do have enough information to know that the Earth was not
completely flooded at any time in the last 200,000 years. (Actually we
have enough evidence to know it was never completely flooded.) We do
have enough evidence to know that the Earth is very old, that life is
very old, and that all life is related by descent. We may not know the
origins of the particular flood story in the Bible, but we actually
can have some pretty good ideas regarding that.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Maybe there was some kind of regional flood.

Floods happen all of the time and flood stories occur around the
world, there is no reason to imagine some particularly significant
event to have inspired Noah's flood. That said, maybe it was a big
flood, that does not give any credence to the story, there had to have
been some flood, even if it as small and local, to inspire the
writers.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Perhaps a lot of animals from that region were taken
aboard the boat of some superstitious man named Noah.

He it is you who does not have enough information. There are flood
stories around the world. Some stories have boats (what a surprise) as
a survival mechanism, some have mountains, some even have tunnels in
the sky. Some kill everything, some don't. There is no need to posit
some actual events that are related to us, the stories have a message,
a point, and that is what is important (to the original writers and
readers). Personally I think that Noah's story is a *creation* story.
The important thing is not the cause of the rain, but the emptying of
the Ark. Stories often answer questions, this one answer the question
of why there are animals and people.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
There is likely to be some factual event behind the myth,
even though it is not likely to have been as global in effect
as reported in Bibilical mythology.

At some point in your education I bet you were told that there is
always a factual basis for myths. That is an unfortunate and
distorting thing we tell children. Most myths are not distorted
versions of actual events, they are explanatory stories about the
world.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

a***@sbcglobal.net

2006-07-15 19:43:16 UTC

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:14:43 GMT, in alt.atheism ,

You reply to my recent post seems to assume that I am arguing
with you about the validity of the Ark myth. I am well aware of
the many flood stories, etc. that you cite. I am not suggesting
that the Noah story is unique. I merely suggested that some
myths, not all, may have some element of historical episode behind
them. This is not a radical idea. Lots of historians seem to think
this is so.

I also indicated that there is some limit to what we seem to be
able to know, at least at this stage of human evolution. We still
do not have the ability to create life from non-living things. We
do know the elements in the periodic table, but do we know
every possible isotope? Can we combine those elements into
new life forms?

Perhaps, in the future, human scientists will be able to create new
life forms by combining carbon with other elements. Some progress
has been made in this regard, but far far from anything resembling
life. Was a deity involved in solving the problem of creating life?
No one knows for sure. Should a scientist rule it out? In my
view, a scientist should not rule anything out until it is proven wrong.
However, without evidence, that scientist should not put undo
emphasis on a hypothesis that cannot be subjected to some kind
of proof. So far, no good scientific experiments have been proposed
for the God hypothesis.

You and I are not at odds on this issue. We simply have different
levels of skepticism. I believe it was Blaise Pascal who decided
that it did no harm to behave as a believer since, if he were to die
and discover there is a God, he would have hedged his bet. If
he died and that was the end of it, there was nothing lost.

Some scientists and engineers, knowing that proof in deity is
impossible, simply hedge their bet. We would hope they do
this without compromising their intellectual honesty with regard
to their responsibilities as scientists.

Richard

Matt Silberstein

2006-07-15 20:34:05 UTC

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:43:16 GMT, in alt.atheism ,

Post by Matt Silberstein
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:14:43 GMT, in alt.atheism ,

Of course, but you have to provide some external evidence that there
was some such distinct inspiration. I don't know of any such evidence.
The Black Sea flood was proposed, but it does not work. The Tigris and
Euphrates flood all of the time, there is no evidence of some dramatic
special flood.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
I also indicated that there is some limit to what we seem to be
able to know, at least at this stage of human evolution.

That is a rather banal claim.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
We still
do not have the ability to create life from non-living things.

So?

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
We
do know the elements in the periodic table, but do we know
every possible isotope?

We actually do know enough physics to know regarding what isotopes are
stable.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Can we combine those elements into
new life forms?

Where in the world does that come from? Life works with the isotopes
that exist in the Universe, why look for something else?

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Perhaps, in the future, human scientists will be able to create new
life forms by combining carbon with other elements. Some progress
has been made in this regard, but far far from anything resembling
life.

We can make lots of likely necessary precursors, not just amino acids.
We have learned lots in the last 50 years and we learn more each year.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Was a deity involved in solving the problem of creating life?

Was a deity involved in the breeze I just felt?

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
No one knows for sure. Should a scientist rule it out?

Do they? No science considers any actions by any g(G)od(s).

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
In my
view, a scientist should not rule anything out until it is proven wrong.
However, without evidence, that scientist should not put undo
emphasis on a hypothesis that cannot be subjected to some kind
of proof. So far, no good scientific experiments have been proposed
for the God hypothesis.

No valid experiments in any fields have been proposed that can detect
g(G)od(s). All g(G)od(s) are outside science.

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
You and I are not at odds on this issue. We simply have different
levels of skepticism. I believe it was Blaise Pascal who decided
that it did no harm to behave as a believer since, if he were to die
and discover there is a God, he would have hedged his bet. If
he died and that was the end of it, there was nothing lost.

Pascal's Wager is bad theology and bad math. It ignores all but one
God (for example, it ignores all the possible Gods that will punish
you for believing wrong). It also acts like believing has no cost at
all in this world. Do you think that is a good assumption?

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Some scientists and engineers, knowing that proof in deity is
impossible, simply hedge their bet. We would hope they do
this without compromising their intellectual honesty with regard
to their responsibilities as scientists.

What in the world does this have to do with the Flood story?
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Elroy Willis

2006-07-17 11:37:44 UTC

Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Maybe there was some kind of regional flood.

One of the simplest explanations for a global deluge story with
a boat landing on top of a mountain, is the fact that people find
seashells and marine life fossils on tops of mountains. In an
attempt to explain why they're there, one might be inclined to make
up a story about a worldwide flood which covered up even the tops
of mountains.

Not knowing about plate tectonics and how mountains are formed at the
time, that's about the only explanation that makes sense. "The water
must have been as high as this mountain at some time, so there must
have been a massive flood." So, some of the stories might not be
based on some actual flood, but rather on some imagined flood to
explain the fossils and seashells.

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

Matt Silberstein

2006-07-17 13:00:19 UTC

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:37:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis

Post by Elroy Willis
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Maybe there was some kind of regional flood.

I don't think we even need to say that. People see floods and if you
are going to go anywhere after a flood a mountain is more likely than
a valley. But plenty of flood stories end with the whole world being
destroyed.

Post by Elroy Willis
Not knowing about plate tectonics and how mountains are formed at the
time, that's about the only explanation that makes sense. "The water
must have been as high as this mountain at some time, so there must
have been a massive flood." So, some of the stories might not be
based on some actual flood, but rather on some imagined flood to
explain the fossils and seashells.

That assumes that they were trying to explain that. I think that is
putting way too much into the story. I doubt if they were trying to
explain those shells with a flood story. They had bigger things to
consider.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Elroy Willis

2006-07-17 13:41:35 UTC

Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by Elroy Willis
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Maybe there was some kind of regional flood.

That assumes that they were trying to explain that.

There's no doubt that ancient people found those things, so how did
they try to explain them when they found them?

Post by Matt Silberstein
I think that is putting way too much into the story. I doubt if they were
trying to explain those shells with a flood story. They had bigger things
to consider.

When they found dinosaur bones, they invented stories about giants and
dragons and heroes who killed them to explain the bones, so them
explaining the presence and demise of sea life on top of mountains
seems to be something they'd make up other stories to explain.

I'm not claiming that explanations for those things are the only
source or reason for creating some flood story, but I think they might
fit in there somewhere.

I've seen several creationists claim that Noah's flood was what killed
off the dinosaurs, while other creationists claim baby dinosaurs were
actually taken aboard Noah's ark to save space. Some people still
believe crude oil comes from dead dinosaurs that were killed in the
supposed Noah's flood, so the explanation for where oil comes from
enters the picture...

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

Matt Silberstein

2006-07-17 14:01:52 UTC

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:41:35 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis

Post by Elroy Willis
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by Elroy Willis
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by a***@sbcglobal.net
Maybe there was some kind of regional flood.

That assumes that they were trying to explain that.

There's no doubt that ancient people found those things, so how did
they try to explain them when they found them?

That they found them is likely, that they then needed to make an
explanation is not clear. There are much bigger issues to explain:
life, death, return of the Sun, birth, etc. I would think that if the
stories were to explain the shells on mountains they would mention
shells on mountains. Very few flood stories do that at all.

Post by Elroy Willis

Post by Matt Silberstein
I think that is putting way too much into the story. I doubt if they were
trying to explain those shells with a flood story. They had bigger things
to consider.

The fellow who came up with this dinosaur<->giant theory did lots of
work to connect the ideas. It is also a much latter concept than the
flood.

Post by Elroy Willis
I'm not claiming that explanations for those things are the only
source or reason for creating some flood story, but I think they might
fit in there somewhere.

Might, sure, but I don't see it as likely.

Post by Elroy Willis
I've seen several creationists claim that Noah's flood was what killed
off the dinosaurs, while other creationists claim baby dinosaurs were
actually taken aboard Noah's ark to save space. Some people still
believe crude oil comes from dead dinosaurs that were killed in the
supposed Noah's flood, so the explanation for where oil comes from
enters the picture...

No, it does not. That some modern creationist has some idea has no
particular relevance to the origin of the story. I am sure that no
flood story was intended to explain petroleum.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Elroy Willis

2006-07-17 15:13:56 UTC

Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

Post by Elroy Willis
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism

<snip>

Post by Elroy Willis

One of the simplest explanations for a global deluge story with7
a boat landing on top of a mountain, is the fact that people find
seashells and marine life fossils on tops of mountains. In an
attempt to explain why they're there, one might be inclined to make
up a story about a worldwide flood which covered up even the tops
of mountains.

Not knowing about plate tectonics and how mountains are formed at the
time, that's about the only explanation that makes sense. "The water
must have been as high as this mountain at some time, so there must
have been a massive flood." So, some of the stories might not be
based on some actual flood, but rather on some imagined flood to
explain the fossils and seashells.

That assumes that they were trying to explain that.

There's no doubt that ancient people found those things, so how did
they try to explain them when they found them?

That they found them is likely, that they then needed to make an
explanation is not clear.

Oh, c'mon. Most people need and like to have an explanation for
everything they find and see. That's part of what our brains require
in order to survive and what makes us human -- curiosity...

Post by Elroy Willis

Post by Matt Silberstein
I think that is putting way too much into the story. I doubt if they were
trying to explain those shells with a flood story. They had bigger things
to consider.

The fellow who came up with this dinosaur<->giant theory did lots of
work to connect the ideas. It is also a much latter concept than the
flood.

How do you think ancient people 3 or 4 or even 10 thousand years ago
would explain dinosaur fossils and bones that they found?

Post by Elroy Willis
I'm not claiming that explanations for those things are the only
source or reason for creating some flood story, but I think they might
fit in there somewhere.

Might, sure, but I don't see it as likely.

No, it does not. That some modern creationist has some idea has no
particular relevance to the origin of the story. I am sure that no
flood story was intended to explain petroleum.

Not originally, but some modern creationists have grabbed the idea an
ran with it. The big green Sinclair Dinosaur being tied to oil has
something to do with the idea.

--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com

Mark K. Bilbo

2006-07-15 14:39:13 UTC

Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?

I never copied down the reference. It was in a book on Work
Simplification I read over forty years ago. At that time, I had no
interest in bibliographic citations.
The main point is...

Memory is reconstructive and without a cite, there's no telling.

Last I recall, the whole thing is a myth.

"The bumblebee story can be traced back to a 1934 book by entomologist
Antoine Magnan, who refers to a calculation by his assistant Andre
Sainte-Lague, who was an engineer. The conclusion was presumably based on
the fact that the maximum possible lift produced by aircraft wings as
small as a bumblebee's wings and traveling as slowly as a bee in flight
would be much less than the weight of a bee."

[SciAm, June 2001]

That is, the claim was that bumblebees could not fly *if their wings
worked the same as those of an aircraft. Meaning, our understanding of
aerodynamics at the time was incomplete. Still is, actually, though we
understand a great deal more now about how bees fly.

Next up:

Walt Disney's a popsicle in an underground vault beneath Disneyland!

Those who go swimming less than one hour after eating will be taken by a
cramp and drown!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

thomas p

2006-07-15 07:25:30 UTC

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:37:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?

It is just one of those things we all hear repeated. I believed it as
a child. I probably heard it the first time from some teacher.

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

Mark K. Bilbo

2006-07-15 14:23:59 UTC

Previously, on alt.atheism, thomas p in episode

Post by thomas p
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:37:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?

It is just one of those things we all hear repeated. I believed it as a
child. I probably heard it the first time from some teacher.

"They say" is a good way to indicate "this is horseshit". <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC

"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com

thomas p

2006-07-16 15:49:25 UTC

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:23:59 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, thomas p in episode

Post by thomas p
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:37:25 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"

Post by Mark K. Bilbo
Previously, on alt.atheism, adaworks in episode

I recall a paper written many decades ago that proved that a bumblebee
could not fly.

I'm sure you can cite this paper?

It is just one of those things we all hear repeated. I believed it as a
child. I probably heard it the first time from some teacher.

"They say" is a good way to indicate "this is horseshit". <g>

Yes, that's what they say.

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

Dubh Ghall

2006-06-24 22:33:23 UTC

Post by Blak
So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah.

No, they are quite the opposite; and it still can't be done.

Post by Blak
Truthfully Noah had
help.

Yep, his sons.

Post by Blak
I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the building
of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids on both side
of the pond are built.

Which is totally false.

That was, IIRC, a story, put out in the 1950s by people writing books claiming
that little men in flying saucers, built the pyramids.

Post by Blak
Your argument is flawed.

No.

But even is it did float, bailing it out, and caulking it, would
have been an impossible task for eight people.

I think when it take you about forty years to build a floating box,
those details are taken care of.

Which shows you are even more ignorant than was first assumed.

How so?

On a wooden boat, caulking is an ongoing job.

As soon as he boat starts to move, she needs recaulking. and will not be fully
water tight until her timbers are swollen with water.

Even then, she will take some water, and will constantly be in need of some
caulking.

SBC Yahoo

2006-08-03 21:09:56 UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee

Post by Dubh Ghall

Post by Blak
So modern barge makers are less adept than Noah.

No, they are quite the opposite; and it still can't be done.

Post by Blak
Truthfully Noah had
help.

Yep, his sons.

Post by Blak
I digress; It said that modern builder can't imitate the building
of the Pyramids, and marvel at the precision which pyramids on both side
of the pond are built.

Which is totally false.
That was, IIRC, a story, put out in the 1950s by people writing books claiming
that little men in flying saucers, built the pyramids.

Post by Blak
Your argument is flawed.

No.