Evolution and Creationism Both Preposterous

Very good points - I guess that's why some lean toward creationism. It kinda has to be one or the other doesn't it? What's your suggestion for an alternative? Intelligent design? I guess we could have been made by aliens, ah but that's still creationism.

Even if you accept evolution, who designed the first cells? Couldn't have been Darwin. Was it Mother Nature? But who is she anyway, God's wife?

The uneducated brain-dead Stephen Pullan suggests an alternative to the strongest fact of science, evolution, but he doesn't name the alternative.

Stephen Pullan said he works in the field of medicine. I assume his job is cleaning toilets in hospitals. He's obviously not competent to do anything else.

Stephen Pullan, do you know what natural selection is? Why don't you look it up. You should educate yourself instead of making a fool out of yourself. Since you obviously know nothing about evolutionary biology, why don't you shut up about it. Like most uneducated hicks, you think your total ignorance of science is equal to the knowledge of the entire scientific community.

OK Bob, rather than intelligently refute the idea - attack the idea presenter such a common tactic. Seems to work for the presidential candidates. You really demonstrated a superior intelligence. So much for the idea of intelligent design.

Personal attacks and name calling, especially when calling someone "uneducated and brain dead" without presenting an argument or rebuttal is pathetic, immature and an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
I think Stephen should be commended for daring to present ideas that are "outside the box and going against the mainstream accepted beliefs, instead of following along like a sheep and not challenging commonly accepted ideas. I'd like to see the same on the subject of global warming.

If you are so educated, bob, you would know that evolution is a theory, and not a fact.

AShaw: Evolution (i.e. change of allele frequencies over time in a population) is a fact. It is also a fact (i.e. it is observed) that species have changed drastically over the course of the earth's history. It is also a fact that species with the same morphological similarities and differences share genes as would be predicted if they shared common ancestry. How this happens and the explanation of these facts (among others) is what the theory of evolution is.
A theory is a well founded and supported explanation for observed facts. None of the facts that I presented are disputable, they are direct observations that anyone can make.

Mr: Pullan:
First of all, if you work in the field of medicine (and are an expert in the field) you should be aware that mutations occur very very frequently. You yourself have many mutations that were not present in either of your parents. Most mutations are neutral, some are beneficial, and some are harmful. Harmful mutations, of course, lessen the fitness of an organism and it will probably die out before it passes on this harmful mutation, no problem to evolution there. Beneficial mutations, even if rare, will (by nature of being beneficial), will allow an organism advantages in reaching reproductive age and passing on its genes (including the beneficial mutations).

2. If you haven't noticed, the earth is a pretty big place with a lot of varied habitable places. If life begins in one place and can radiate out to various environments (or ecological niches), and these environments select for specific traits that are beneficial in these environments, then variation and diversity must increase over time. I'm not sure how exactly it is you reach the conclusion that diversity must decrease over time.

3. The evolutionary drive that makes organisms become more complex over time is simply the fact that gaining a beneficial trait helps that organism succeed in a competitive environment.

Your alternative is not really an alternative, you just claim that no one knows anything at all (which may be true for you, but applying that to everyone else would be something called "projection"). Furthermore, the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origins of life. It is a theory to explain current biodiversity regardless of how life arose. If you'd like to talk about abiogenesis, then you're free to do so, but it is a nonsensical statement to say that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life.

1) The majority of obvious mutations are detrimental; however, many more mutations are neutral in effect. A lucky few, however, can provide substantial benefits in a particular environment; EG, the mutation of citrate-digestion in Lenski's long term E. Coli experiment. Mutation thus radiates outward in all directions like the explosion of a fuel-air mix in an engine, with natural selection thereafter constricting this impetus to move the population's average in particular directions that are favorable.

2) Survival of the fittest is an oversimplification, in that there are many ways to be "fit". (Mr. Pullan should read Kipling's "The Neolithic Age" again). The omni-directional radiative nature of mutation (as just mentioned) will attempt to reach all of them. Furthermore, some mutations (or geographic accidents) result in a population splitting into two groups that no longer interbreed directly. After separation for enough generations, the ability to interbreed is lost; thus, one species becomes two, each with the potential to re-branch anew. While the typical five megayear interval for a single species to branch makes the event rare in terms of the human life span, a half billion years would is time for a number of species larger than the number of the atoms in the earth to arise from a single common ancestor.

3) The answer depends on the formal definition of "complexity" used. In at least one sense, it doesn't; sometimes genes for abilities are lost, such as the human loss of the gene for L-ascorbate synthesis - which is why our diet needs to contain vitamin-C. However, the potential to increase is there, since an increase of beneficial traits usually means more complicated on some level. More complicated answers involve math the average person would not call "simple", since even the typical honors high-school education doesn't cover it.

"Why not just accept the fact that we haven't got a clue?" We do indeed have am excellent clue; evolution is an exceedingly powerful theory, which provides a unified description of a vast range of observations. True, there is doubtless room for further improvement. In fact, there have been dozens of refinements since Darwin's original publication. The theory of evolution has itself evolved as a result of suggested variations (mutations) competing against one another for broader and broader explanatory power. While it is possible the present theory may be supplanted, the most likely candidate to do so will be yet another mutation of it. (Creationism, alas, is most probably doomed to a slow path to extinction.)

For AShaw's first question, as Jma0322 notes, the present Evolutionary theory does not extend past the Biogenic transition (from non-life to life). That question (referred to as "Abiogenesis", from Greek roots for "without life, birth") is still not fully understood. Several competing models are viable to within the limits of present evidence. As for a basic mechanism, however, there's been some interesting progress on the math involved of late. Those with interest should check out Nowak and Ohtsuki's paper "Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution" in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As for AShaw's remark about evolution being a theory, it would appear he is confusing (through either malice or ignorance) the colloquial definition of "theory" with the formal use in science. To quote the recent Florida Science Standards, "a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual" (Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1) and "a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer" (Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1).

Ashaw:
You said:
"It kinda has to be one or the other doesn't it?"

No, it doesn't. That is called a false dichotomy or false dilemma. Even if evolution was proven to be completely false, you would have to provide evidence of "god done it", otherwise we would just be at a neutral position of not having any explanation.
What reason would you have to make the conclusion that god did it? Would you have evidence?
That is what is so funny about the creationist movement, they don't realize that arguing against evolution does absolutely nothing to support their own positive claims.

AShaw wrote "If you are so educated, bob, you would know that evolution is a theory, and not a fact."

AShaw, if you knew anything about science, you would have known that a theory is the highest level of understanding in science. Please read what abb3w wrote about a theory above.

The reason I called the hick Stephen Pullan "uneducated and brain dead" is because of his obvious breathtaking stupidity. I've had it with god-soaked creationists who spread lies about science. They don't even know what science is. If they can't speak intelligently about a subject they should just shut up about it. Evolution deniers have made America the laughing-stock of the world.

"a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer"

But if the best just isn't good enough, what good is it? Pretty much the definition of God is something that transcends physical law and scientific explanations and enters the realm of the supernatural. So if the theory of evolution is the best that science can do, or if it were proven to be completely false then God or something supernatural must have done it.

Isn't the "thing created" evidence enough of a creator or an intelligent designer? To not acknowledge this violates the physical law of cause and effect.
__________________________________________

Suppose we are standing at an airport, watching a big jet coming in for a landing. I say to you, "A lot of people think that plane is the result of someone's carefully designed plans, but I know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all. In some strange way the metal just came out of the ground, and fashioned itself into flat sheets. And then these metal sheets slowly began to grow together and formed the body and wings and tail. Then after a long while the engines slowly grew in place, and one day some people came along and discovered the plane, all finished and ready to fly."

You would probably consider me a lunatic and move farther into the crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why? You know that where there is a design there must be a designer, and having seen other products of the human mind just like the plane in question, you are positive that it was planned by human intelligence and built by human skill.

- Robert Laidlaw

Another physical law is the second law of thermodynamics called entropy. One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems.

Also if things tend toward disorder, what exactly is keeping things in order, such as the Solar System on the macro level and DNA - molecular activity etc on the micro level? God maybe?

So like I said - it has to be one or the other - either something explainable and proven by physics and science, and perhaps even reproducable, or...something inexplicable, such as a miracle and hence supernatural, the realm of God, which of course is a theory also, but why not one given equal credence?

bobby, if you think evolution deniars are just in America, you need to get out in the world a little more. And why are you so concerned about what the world thinks of you. That seems so high school. Are you insecure in youself? Go ahead call me names now..

I must stand up here for my good friend AShaw.

I know it's obvious he can't follow your reasoning, instead applying his blend of rootless and far-flung nonsequiturs based on a gut reaction to anything "scientific" or "liberal" (which I've observed occupy the same place in his world-view), but if we were talking about illegal immigrants and the lack of ICE agreements in Santa Barbara, he would know quite a bit.

So just back off with your rational explanations, and let AShaw turn this into a filibuster about the Plague of feriners invading us from the south -- taking our wimmen, stabbin' each other, and clogging our emergency rooms with their tubercular offspring.

Ashaw: Committing fallacy after fallacy is not a way to support your claim. Instead of spamming with irrelevancies and arguments that just prove your complete ignorance of epistemology, why don't you respond point by point to the posts made by myself and abb3w? We made many statements that you could analyze, think about, and respond to, yet you refuse to do so.

To Mr. Pullan.
Now what your questions have been thoroughly and satisfactorily answered, you should probably retract your statements. If you do not, you are admitting your complete lack of intellectual integrity and you are showing your that you have no actual interest in learning, but rather that you're nothing more than a typical troll out to get attention.
Any more questions?

Ashaw = Liar for Jebus.

Grow up and educate yourself Ashaw. Your magic fairy is a delusion.

Evolution is a theory, supported by factual evidence. Creationism is an idea, supported by other ideas and a complete lack of factual evidence. There simply is no comparison, and other than enjoying creationism as a story in a literature class, it has no other scholastic relevance. It makes for a fine story, and I imagine many people can find solace and comfort in it since the world is vastly complex and difficult to understand. But there are plenty of great books out there on evolution, go to the scientific american website for some suggested reading.
Happy hunting!

Robert Laidlaw: If the best isn't good enough, it's still the best you can have.

Definitions of God such as you give are inconsistent with inference. Since you cannot distinguishing asserting it from refuting it, it's meaningless.

Evolution is not proven the best science can do; it's simply the best idea put forth so far... including "God did it". Also, the idea of something being proven "completely false" is inconsistent with science; rather (as with God), the most one can do is show that there is a better alternative, even if it is only the null hypothesis which says "this is data; we attach no meaning".

Saying the "thing created" circularly assumes the conclusion of a creator. Furthermore, while the idea of cause and effect is a very strong and general rule, it is not an absolute primary philosophical principle. Rather, it is an inference from the evidence, and from the assumptions of the validity of formal logic, the self-consistency of the Zermelo-Frankel axioms (used to prove basic "2+2=4" arithmetic), and the proposition that inference from evidence is possible.

Similarly, technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" (ISBN 0521296811) for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim.

There are inferences that with present evidence may be mathematically shown "better" than the assertion of a designer for humans, and for a lack of any intelligence behind the design of airplanes. If you want the math used to define "better", track down the papers "Minimum Message Length and Kolmogorov Complexity", by C. S. Wallace and D. L. Dowe, and "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", by Paul M. B. Vitanyi and Ming Li.

The choice is the science of evolution or the sky fairy waved its magic wand. The first idea has powerful evidence. The 2nd idea is completely evidence free.

I noticed the more uneducated a person is, the more likely he or she will choose the magic fairy to answer scientific questions. There's nothing that can be done for these losers except point at them and laugh.

Ashaw: Earth's biosphere is not an isolated system. There is an energy inflow from the Sun. In a sub-system with mass/energy flows, natural selection is a mathematical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. See "Natural selection for least action", by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila; Proceedings of the Royal Society A (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178).

The reason credence is not given to the hypothesis of God is because it is inferior under the formal criterion; again, see the Wallace-Dowe/Vitanyi-Li papers.

tegrat: I'm afraid I have a nit-picking quibble; it is technically incorrect to assert that there is "a complete lack of factual evidence". It is a fact that the Bible describes creation of the world some 6000 years ago. It is very bad evidence, however, indistinguishable from the contradictory evidence about creation from the Norse Eddas and other mythologies, and vastly overwhelmed by the monstrous body of evidence from science.
However, that's different from "no evidence at all".

Sponges, of course, don't have nerves, bones, or eyes. Why would sponges conserve this information, in fact, how did they ever get it at all? This data is in direct conflict with the Darwinian paradigm - genetic complexity has nothing to do with morphilogical complexity (its now a scientific fact).

As you may kow, any scientific theory (such as Darwin's) is only effective right up until the moment it is falsified by contradictory evidence. This observed empirical evidence contradicts Darwin's theory, and only the sleight of hand from materialists that have a priori commitment to establishment Darwinism can disguise it. (So why not attack Jesus freaks, they're always good for a laugh, right?).

Nothing Dawkins says even enters the ring of actual debate about the biochemical challenge to Darwin. (He actually refuses to debate). That is the point. Darwin is a socio-political need for a Materialist worldview, it not science and hasn't been for decades. It lost to the empirical evidence long ago.

And by the way...no where did I say 'It just so darn complex GOD musta dun it'

vanlore:

Regarding sponges, I believe your premise (as I read it) that genetic complexity and morphology are in ratio or intertwined is flawed. You have asked a good question, but the answer has been understood for quite a while.

The mechanism in which metazoans transmit the information is well known (perhaps not to you) and fundamental to single celled life forms. Cell signaling and signal transduction account for the differing fates of the cells over time.

By signaling one subset of cells to stick to one another more strongly than to their neighbors, and mechanical forces will then sort them out into different tissues. Metazoans have taken these basic cellular functions to an elaborate extreme, but they are commonly shared mechanisms.

Please forgive me if you already knew this. I believe Darwin can breathe easy.

PZ Meyers explains it much thoroughly than I: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/...

Here http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x137460...

The science and data exist, and has for quite a while, to refute the questions raised by both Stephen Pullan, who wrote the letter, and his defender, "vanlore."

Simply ignoring the counter-arguments and continuing to nay-say the science with emotional but groundless assertions or counter-proof, makes for an argument only, not a debate.

I did read your link, "vanlore," and noticed it also offers long-ago answered challenges as if they remain unanswered (I also noticed the totality of your argument on this thread is just cutting and pasting from your referenced link). Again, closing your eyes and covering your ears does not make it go away.

Also, the person who wrote the link which you champion, made a reference to "the actual science attached to Intelligent Design," which has thusfar not been peer-reviewed or subjected to any of the long-established protocols of scientific methology, as practiced by real-world scientists, in any rigorous way as to be described as a theory or "science."

binky

I am not closing my eyes and covering my ears as you can see I am still here reading everything you say. I find the best way to learn is pick a side and debate. I am also interested in what you say on the topic binky. You do not have to point out that I copy and pasted the information because It is obvious I did not hide that fact from anyone.

binky

Has the equilibrium problem for evolution theory been solved yet since it says the earth is less than 30k years old?

Another imprecise question, but if you mean Hovind's attempt to discredit Carbon 14 dating, yes.

He claims that atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This argument was made before cycles of C-14 variation were discovered, a discovery which nixed Hovind's (and others) argument.

If you mean Gould's punctuated equilibrium ideas, you need to readdress the question, as I'm unclear where you feel his ideas are in conflict with evolution.

If you mean yet some other equilibrium problem, let me know, thanks.

Vanlore, if you're going to ask a question, you need to explain what it is that you're talking about.

What is the equilibrium problem?
What says that the earth is less than 30k years old?

One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

"His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

binky

Thank you binky. I read up on the cycles of C-14 variation and am still studying it. In the mean time this bit of information I posted above I found along the way and thought it was worth being put out there to see if anyone could address this. Thanks.

20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:

25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

from Romans 1

Just thought I'd throw in God's opinion on the subject, for what it's worth ;)

As long as we're referencing superstitions and fairy tales, please allow me to add another, equally valid opinion from the Greeks:

"In truth at first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundation of all the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, and Eros (Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them.

"From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus. And Earth first bore starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods. And she brought forth long hills, graceful haunts of the goddess Nymphs who dwell amongst the glens of the hills.

"She bore also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love. But afterwards she lay with Heaven and bore deep-swirling Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis and Mnemosyne and gold-crowned Phoebe and lovely Tethys. After them was born Cronos the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire. "

-- Complied from myths and documented by a man (Hesiod), just like the Christian's bible, and at one time the prevalent belief of "civilized" society.

Actually boinky you are again wrong, as the Bible was not a compilation of myths documented by a single man, but rather the Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years. Isaiah was a prophet, Ezra was a priest, Matthew was a tax-collector, John was a fisherman, Paul was a tentmaker, Moses was a shepherd... yet contains the consistant theme of a single God as creator.

But you always do manage to sound very intellectually snooty, elite and condescending when you pretend to know what you are talking about.

Luke was a physician, David was a King...

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
especially applicable to binky...

I'm sorry my writing was careless; Hesiod's passage and entire work, Theogony, was was written by (presumably) one man, and the collaborative authorship of the Christian bible, in all its forms, is well known. I didn't mean to set up that comparison.

Instead, I was pointing out that men (and a man) wrote both popular compilations of myths and fairy tales.

Which is an important distinction.. I wonder how all these men collaborated - when they didn't even know each other or live in the same time or place.. hmmm

Perhaps it should have been written:
"for that they exchanged the truth of God for a fairy tale...

You dismiss a lot of historical and archeological evidence when you dismiss these writings as a "myth and fairy tale" binky - something severely lacking in your greek mythology comparison...perhaps you should spend some time with some biblical scholars before you offer such a simplistic dismissal and comparison to what is generally agreed to be one man's compilation of fiction and imagination.

I believe my use of the term "myth" fits well with your definition; from Websters Online:

"Main Entry:
myth
Pronunciation:
\ˈmith\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Greek mythos
Date:
1830

"1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b: parable , allegory

"2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone ; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b: an unfounded or false notion

"3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

"4: the whole body of myths"

The first two most common uses also sit well with my intent.

I would apply the term myth to many of the world's creation stories, the Christian bible included. Many creation myths contain verifiable elements of history (there is a case to be made that the stories derive from events).

Pleasant tales with the ring of truth and the salting of facts aside, they cannot survive the rigors and scrutiny of the scientific method, and that is where this conversation started.

"Intelligent Design" and other mythologies forwarded by people of much faith and little scientific background are not science and not interchangeable with the theories developed by the sciences.

It's up to the proponents of the alternate ideas to develop theories based on facts, not toss out concepts and attempt to build the supporting science without facts or peer review.

That is, if the conversation is about verifiable science. If we are debating reality and descriptions of the world based on faith, deeply held belief, and feelings, I'll leave that to the evolution of your personality.

binky

If there was a flood. Your dating methods would be incorrect or crap. 2nd there is more evidence for flood geology. The difference between my geology and yours is I have historical evidence and Empirical evidence to support mine.

WORLDWIDE FLOOD—Ours is the water planet. We have 330 million cubic miles [2212 million km3] of it! Water covers 72 percent of our planet’s surface. Every cubic mile of seawater holds over 150 million tons [136 mt] of minerals. On the average, rain pours down on our planet at the rate of 1.5 tons [1,361 kg] a day. At the present time, there is 70 billion gallons [26,822 liters] of water for every person alive. The oceans of the world are so vast and deep that if Earth had an absolutely level crust, the sea would form an envelope over 8,800 feet [26,822 dm] deep.

The antediluvian world had never seen rain before. But when it came, it really came. When the Genesis Flood began, the vast water canopy collapsed and "the floodgates of the sky were opened." Torrential rains fell for six weeks.

FLOOD STORIES—Races and tribes all over the world have, as part of their traditions, stories about a great flood of water that covered the whole earth. The event was so world-shattering and life-changing that, from parents to children, stories of that great upheaval passed down through the generations. Gradually, as mythologies developed, legends about this flood became part of them. These stories include various aspects of the Genesis account of the Flood:

"It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world."—*George Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (1919), p. 105.

One survey of 120 tribal groups in North, Central, and South America disclosed flood traditions among each of them (*International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 822).

(1) There was general wickedness among men.

(2) God saw that a flood was necessary.

(3) One family with eight members was protected.

(4) A giant boat was constructed.

(5) The family, along with animals and birds, went into the boat.

(6) The flood overwhelmed all those living on the earth.

(7) The deluge covered all the earth for a time.

(8) The boat landed in a high mountainous area.

(9) Two or three birds were sent out first.

(10) The people left the boat with all the animals.

(11) The survivors worshiped God for sparing them.

(12) A promise of divine favor was given that there would not be another worldwide flood of waters.

Another survey of ancient Flood literature and legends is discussed by B. Nelson in The Deluge Story in Stone (1968). In this tabulation, the stories and writings of 41 different tribal and national groups were given.

First, we will list these 41 groups, many of which were ancient races. ("A and B" indicate two different sub-groups; example: Fiji A and B.)

Assyria-Babylonia (A and B), Alaska, Andaman Island, Asia Minor, Aztecs, Brazil, Cherokee, China, Cree, Egypt, Esquimaux (Canada), Fiji (A and B), Greece, Hawaii, India (A and B), Italy, Lapland, Lenni Lenape, Lithuania, Leward Islands, Mandan, Michoacan, Nicaragua, Papagos (Mexico), Persia (A and B), Peru, Pimas, Russia, Scandinavia (A and B), Sumatra, Syria, Takoe, Thlinkut (A and B), Toltecks, Wales.

Second, we will list twelve points in their legends, according to the number of times each is included by each of the 41 groups.

Destruction by a flood—41 times.

Some humans saved—38 times.

A boat saved them—36 times.

Universal destruction by the flood—24 times.

One family was especially favored for protection— 15 times.

The flood was caused by man’s transgressions—14 times.

The flood came as a result of a divine decree—10 times.

Birds were sent out first—9 times.

Animals were saved by the boat also—8 times.

The survivors worship God after leaving the boat—7 times.

The boat landed in a high mountainous area—6 times.

After leaving the boat, God spoke favor to the saved—5 times.

An even larger collection of Flood stories is to be found in *Sir James G. Frazer’s book, Folklore in the Old Testament (1919), Vol. 1, pp. 146-330. There are 11 Hellenic stories from ancient Greece, 6 European stories, 29 Persian and Indian stories, 31 Australian, Southeast Asia, and Pacific stories, 63 North, Central, and South American stories, and 3 African stories related in 185 pages of Frazer’s book; a total of 143 Flood stories. You will find them listed in Donald W. Patten (ed), Symposium on Creation IV (1972), pp. 36-38.

An excellent five-page analysis of confusion-of-tongues legends will be found in James E. Strickling, "Legendary Evidence for the Confusion of Tongues, "in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, pp. 97-101. Quotations from a number of sources are given.

"There are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets [of Mesopotamia], and still others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records, than this very one . . It is one of the events which seems to be familiar to the most distant nations—in Australia, in India, in China, in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America."—Stephen D. Peet, "Story of the Deluge," American Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July-August 1905, p. 203.

NOAH’S NAME—If the story of the Ark and the Flood is to be found among 120 different tribes of earth, should we not expect that Noah’s name would be remembered by some of them also?

Noah’s name is found in the stories and languages of mankind. That is a striking cultural evidence of the worldwide Flood which, itself, left so many physical evidences upon our globe. Not only do the rock strata and their fossil contents vindicate the veracity of the Flood story, but the languages of man do also! Here are some interesting facts

Sanskrit (of ancient India) is a basic language, dating back nearly to the time of the Flood. According to the legends of India, Ma-nu was the man who built the boat and then, with seven others, entered it and were saved. Ma is an ancient word for "water." Ma-nu could then mean "Noah of the waters." In Sanscrit, Manu later came to mean "mankind."

The most ancient man in the Germanic tribes was called Mannus. Mannus was also the name of the Lithuanian Noah.

In the Hebrew, "karat" is the same as "Armenia." The prefix Ar means mountain, so "Armenia" probably means the mountain of Meni. According to Genesis 8:4, Noah landed somewhere in the Ararat mountains.

The legendary founder of the first Egyptian dynasty was Menes; and Minos was the man who is said to have been the first man of Crete. The nearby Greeks said that Minos was the son of their god, Zeus, and the ruler of the sea.

The English (as well as all Germanic) words for man comes from the Sanskrit, manu.

The Egyptian god, Nu was the god of waters who sent a flood to destroy mankind. They identified Nu with the rain and the atmosphere. Summerians taught that Anu was the god of the atmosphere. The rainbow they called "the great bow of Anu."

In ancient Africa, the king in the Congo was called Mani Congo. Later, Mani became the title of respect given to all leading men of the country.

In Japan, manu became maru, a name included in most Japanese ship names. Chinese mythology taught that Hakudo Maru came down from heaven to teach men how to build ships. We know that Noah was the first shipbuilder and that all ancient and modern hulls are basically designed in the same manner. The ancient boats were copied from an archtype. The Ark was the great pattern boat. Men who had to traverse the coasts of the new oceans knew that, nestled in the mountains of Ararat, was a boat which had successfully done it. They carefully copied its structural design.

In Japanese, Maru also means a protective circle or enclosure of refuge. The first people to inhabit Japan were called Ainu, and mai means "original man" in some Australian aboriginal languages.

Among the North American Indians, manu became minne, meaning "water" for the Sioux; hence our Minneapolis (city of water) and Minnesota (sky-blue water). Minnetoba (our Manitoba, Canada) meant "water prairie" to the Assiniboines.

In South America, we find the Nahuatl, managuac (our Managua, capital of Nicaragua) which means "surrounded by ponds." The fabled city, Manoa (meaning "Noah’s water"), was supposed to be the capital of the god El Dorado. A number of important rivers in South America are derived from manu: The Amazon (named after the Manau), the Manu in Peru, and also the Muymanu, Tahuamanu, Pariamanu, Tacuatimanu, etc. In all of these, manu means "river" or "water."

The Egyptians invented their picture writing—hieroglyphics, we call them—soon after the Flood. Their word for water was a wavy line. When the alphabet was later developed, that symbol became the letter "m," for mayim, the Semitic word for water. It later became the Greek letter Mu, the Roman letter Em, and our Western M.

The Assyrian name for "rain" was zunnu. The Roman god, Janus (our January), was originally the Estruscan father god of the world and inventor of ships. This could have easily have been derived from the Hebrew word for "God of Noah," and by the Estruscans, who pronounced this Jah Nu.

The Greek sea-goddess was naiade, which meant "water goddess."

The ancient Norse of the Scandinavians called their ship god, Njord (Niord), who lived at Noatun, the great harbor of the god-ships. Noa in Norse is related to the Icelandic nor, which meant "ship."

The original Sanskrit word for "ship" was nau, which later passed into our English word, navy, nautical, nausea (sea sickness).

(We are indebted to Bengt Sage for the above information. See "Noah and Human Entomology" in Creation, the Cutting Edge, pp., 48-52. The publisher, Creation Life Publishers [Master Books], in El Cajon, California has many, many other excellent books. Write them for a book order sheet.)
Creation and the Flood in Chinese

THE FLOOD IN CHINESE—According to Harvard’s Chinese-Japanese Yenching Library, written Chinese is dated at approximately 2500 B.C. This correlates closely with the end of the Flood. It is of interest that two of the earliest written languages—Egyptian and Chinese—were both picture writing.

Because of its ancientness, the pictoral Chinese script has information for us from the very earliest times. In picture writing, it portrays facts recorded in the book of Genesis.

C.H. Kang and Ethel A. Nelson did intensive research into that script and wrote the book, The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language. This is a fascinating volume, one you will want to read for yourself. Here are a few insights from the book:

(1) The Chinese character for Devil is formed from three other characters: man, garden, and private (Genesis 3:1-7).

(2) Tempter is a combination of three words: devil, cover, and tree (Genesis 3:1-6).

(3) Righteousness combines sheep, I or me, and hand (Genesis 4:2-5).

(4) The Chinese word for total is a uniting of eight people who join hands over the earth (Genesis 7:7,13; 8:13-16).

(5) Boat, in Chinese, brings together three words into one. The three words are vessel, mouth, and eight (Genesis 7:7, 13; 8:13).

(6) Rebellion and Confusion have the same script: a linking together of the words for tongue and walking (Genesis 11:4-9).

(7) One example of the unusual discoveries is Garden or Field which is a square. Inside the square are four straight lines radiating outward in a "plus sign" shape. According to Genesis 2:9-14, a river flowed outward in four streams and watered the entire garden.

You may recall our earlier mention that the Chinese recorded the solar eclipse of 2250 B.C., the earliest exact historical date in history and confirmed scientifically (see chapter 4, Age of the Earth). Biblical records indicate the Flood occurred very close to that time.

THE SIZE OF NOAH’S ARK—Based on the Hebrew cubit of 18.5 inches [563.88 cm], it has been estimated that if that great boat—the Ark—was only one-half the size stated in Genesis 6:14-16—and omitting water creatures—it could still have held two or seven of each basic kind of animal and bird. The remainder of the boat was probably used for food storage. But that estimate is based on the smaller Hebrew cubit in the dimensions of the Ark. However, it is very likely that Moses used the cubit of his time—the Egyptian cubit—when giving the dimensions of the Ark. This would make that giant boat even larger. Here is the data:

Kang and Nelson revealed dozens of other Chinese words suggesting a relationship to Genesis. You will find the entire book very interesting. (In 1997, Dr. Nelson, Dr. Ginger Tong Chock, and Richard E. Broadberry released God’s Promise to the Chinese, a book which updated the study using oracle bone characters, the most ancient Chinese writing known.)

As they arrived in their new home after the scattering from the tower of Babel, and formulated their picture writing, the Chinese placed in their "picture words" recollections of those important earlier events: the Fall of Man, the early sacrificial system, the worldwide Flood, and the Tower of Babal. These are four of the outstanding events described in Genesis 3 to 11.

You may recall our earlier mention that the Chinese recorded the solar eclipse of 2250 B.C., the earliest exact historical date in history and confirmed scientifically (see chapter 4, Age of the Earth). Biblical records indicate the Flood occurred very close to that time.

THE SIZE OF NOAH’S ARK—Based on the Hebrew cubit of 18.5 inches [563.88 cm], it has been estimated that if that great boat—the Ark—was only one-half the size stated in Genesis 6:14-16—and omitting water creatures—it could still have held two or seven of each basic kind of animal and bird. The remainder of the boat was probably used for food storage. But that estimate is based on the smaller Hebrew cubit in the dimensions of the Ark. However, it is very likely that Moses used the cubit of his time—the Egyptian cubit—when giving the dimensions of the Ark. This would make that giant boat even larger. Here is the data:

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The Babylonian cubit was 19.8 inches [603.504 cm], the later Hebrew regular cubit was 17.5 inches [533.4 cm], and the Egyptian cubit was 20.65 inches [629.12 cm].

Based on the Hebrew cubit, the dimensions of the Ark would have been 4,37.5 feet [1,333 dm] long, 72.92 feet [222 dm] wide, and 43.75 feet [133 dm] high. With three decks in the Ark, it had 95,747 square feet [29.18 dkm2], and a total volume of 1,395,734 cubic feet [39,499 mt3]. Its cubic tonnage would be 13,960 [1042 mt3].

Based on the Egyptian cubit used in the time of Moses, the measurements of the Ark would be 516.25 feet [1,573 dm] long, its width would be 86.04 feet [262 dm] wide, and its height would be 51.625 feet [157 dm]. On this basis—with three stories—its square footage would be 1,332,545 square feet [123,793 m2] , and its volume would be 2,293,087 cubic feet [64,894 m3]. Its cubic tonnage would be 22,930 [17110 mt].

The Ark was a barge, not a ship with sloping sides, so it had a much larger carrying capacity. It has been reckoned that, even if measured by the smaller 18.5-inch [563.88 cm] cubit of later times, the Ark would have been so huge that 522 modern railroad box cars could have fitted inside it! One each of every species of air-breathing creatures in the world today could be comfortably carried in only 150 box cars.

For 4,000 years after the Ark was constructed, ships rarely exceeded 150 to 200 feet [457-6,096 dm] in length. It was not until 1854 that a ship was built with a longer length than the Ark: the Eturia, a Cunard liner constructed in England. It was not until after World War II that ships were built which had a larger volume and cubic tonnage—the ocean-going oil supertankers.

FLOOD CHRONOLOGY—In a chapter of this nature, we should provide the Biblical dating of the Genesis Flood. Although it is impossible to provide exact dates, in accordance with conservative Biblical chronology, Creation occurred at approximately 4004 B.C. (2,000 years before the birth of Christ). The Flood began 1,656 years later (1656 A.M. [anno mundi - year of the world]), which would be approximately 2348 B.C. That is the closest approximation we can arrive at.

Here, according to Genesis 7 and 8, is a brief chronology of events during the Flood (the following figures are based on a thirty-day month):

40 days—Rain fell for forty days (7:4, 12, 17).

110 days—The waters rose and reached their greatest height at some time during or at the close of another 110 days (Genesis 7:24).

74 days—The "going and decreasing" of the waters occupied 74 days, then the tops of the mountains were seen (8:5, note the margin).

40 days—Forty more days passed and then Noah sent out the raven (8:6-7).

7 days—Seven days elapsed and then Noah sent out the dove for the first time, but the "waters were still on the face of the whole earth" (8:8; cf. 8:11, "other seven days").

7 days—Seven days later, the second dove was sent out the second time and found the olive leaf, because "the waters were abated" (8:11).

7 days—After seven more days, the dove was sent out a third time and did not return, because "the waters were abated" (8:12).

29 days—The total so far is 285 days, but comparing the dates in 7:11 with the next event in 8:14 yields a total of 314 days. During that additional 29 days, Noah waited until "the waters were dried from off the earth" to remove the covering from the Ark. By that time the raven ceased to "go to and fro" (8:7).

57 days—From the time when the covering of the Ark was removed, to the day they and the animals left the Ark, 57 more days elapsed. When the "earth" was adequately "dry," Noah left the Ark (8:14).

371 days—From the time that the rain first began falling until the Ark was vacated, would be a total of 371 days.

Some suggest that the flood waters reached their maximum height in 40 days while others think that they continued to rise for the first 150 days.

The fresh olive leaf (which was found shortly after the Ark beached in the Ararat Mountains) would have had as much as four months to sprout from an asexually propagated olive branch buried near the surface of the soil.

CREATION STORIES—Before concluding this section, it is of interest that, not only are Flood stories found worldwide, but Creation stories are also. In both we find parallels to the accounts given in Genesis. We would not have room here to discuss this; but, for example, man was created from clay, and there was an ominous serpent that caused mankind great trouble. It is frequently thought to have been winged.

"An extraordinary number of religious traditions among diverse peoples—Jews, Christians, Moslems, Native Americans, Polynesians, Austrahari aborigines—describe living things as having been originally shaped from clay."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 84.

"Dragon legends have persisted for centuries in Norse epics, medieval English ballads, Wagnerian operas, Japanese art and Chinese folktales."—*Op. cit, p. 145.

A few things I was thinking about.

After considering the discovery that our universe had a beginning and that science is incapable of ever discovering what went before existence.

We could say that there is no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation.

0+? does it really =

If something was always here. Why find perfect design and characteristics of symbiosis that can not be defined as nothing less than intelligence. Since symbiosis can not evolve.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

binky:

"Intelligent Design" and other mythologies forwarded by people of much faith and little scientific background are not science and not interchangeable with the theories developed by the sciences."

The flaw in your argument is your premise - you fail to acknowledge that there are people of much faith AND much scientific background.

But those are the "unevolved of personality" - only monkeys with no knowledge of science could possibly have faith and deeply held beliefs, right? Only condescending and highly intellectually evolved binkys are omniscient... God must be laughing at your ego, self esteem and arrogance. :)

rather - you fail to acknowledge that there are people of much faith AND much scientific background who believe in intelligent design.

Many place all of their faith in science with all of it's limitations. If it can't be proven by scientific theory, then it doesn't exist. Science depends on reason and logic and intelligence. But where do those very attributes come from? How are they explained by evolution and science? How does science explain attributes of the soul - emotion, love, hate, etc. Limited stuff that science eh?

Pwnt