From+quot; Tyler A. Wunder To: Steven Stout In a msg of Friday May 28 1993, Steven Stout w

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From" Tyler A. Wunder To: Steven Stout In a msg of , Steven Stout writes to John Musselwhite: SS> Is there any evidence that against the Flood? Tons. A flood that covered the entire earth would have left traces (understatement) of its having happened. Although not a geologist (fortunately, Marty Leipzig is, and frequents this echo, so if it gets down to specifics we can call on an expert) the flood has the following problems that make it impossible: 1) Where'd the water come from? Remember, enough water to cover the earth to the level of the highest mountain is an incredible amount of water. Frankly, it boggles the mind (and this is not argument from incredulity -- where'd the water come from? There is not that much water on the earth). 2) Where'd the water go? It certainly is no longer with us. Ron Stringfellow would have us believe it came and went from "the deep". How wonderfully enigmatic and unsubstantiated. Perhaps when Ron has more than impossible speculation (there's not enough room within the earth for all the water in addition to what we already know is there) he'll fill us in. Ralph Stokes, on the other hand, believes the water came from the stars. Right now, people are trying to explain to him how water cannot exist in a vacuum (space is a vacuum), but he doesn't seem to want to believe. I suppose the logic of these two clowns is that if something threatens belief in deity, it is to be ignored. Care to make it a trio? 3) In order for that quantity of water to rain down in a period of fourty days, the rain would have to fall down with such force that it would certainly sink any aircraft carrier (I seem to recall a figure of 6 cubic km a second), let alone a wooden boat (which leads to another question -- how did the ark survive such a rainstorm?). 4) The energy produced by such an amount of water falling to the earth would be sufficient to raise the earth's temperature to something a little uncomfortable (the figure 1800 comes to mind, although I can't remember if it's celcius or kalvin); as well, the pressure at the ocean floor would be increased to the point where the water would turn into a gas. 6) Where did he get all of the animals? How did the koala bears make it to Noah? The polar bears? The kangaroos? What did Noah feed them? What did they breath (it is difficult to breath at the summit of Mt. Everest, which is about the altitude they'd be at)? When he let them out of the ark, what did they eat? All vegetation on the earth would be destroyed, so the herbivores are going to get a little hungry. And then, of course, the carnivores are going to get a little hungry after they eat all the herbivores and omnivores. Seriously, if there were at one time only 2 rabbits for example, Noah would have had to provide for them a place to eat, and live (I don't imagine rabbits fair too well in deep muck) and thrive, so that they could produce enough rabbits so that when he unleashed the carnivores all the rabbits weren't wiped out. Now expand that to every other species on the earth. Think about this flood myth seriously for more than a minute, and one of two things will happen: 1) You'll stop thinking and start praying (possibly reading the bible). 2) You'll become very ashamed. Number two hurts, but it's a start on the road to recovery. SS> There is where you're wrong... There are more scientists that SS> DON'T believe evolution is true than there are that believe it IS SS> true. Even science itself contradicts evolution. Let me guess: back of an ICR propoganda pamphlet? Kindly produce the figures for this claim, or is this once again simply wishful thinking? Keep thinking about your global flood. How does science contradict evolution? SS> Is rational behavior the belief in cold-fusion? This is an excellent example of two things at work: 1) stupid fundy mentality of trying to discredit science 2) science at work To elaborate on number two, was it a group of fundamentalists who discredited cold fusion? Was it the bible that discredited cold fusion? I'll give you a hint -- it was scientists. This is how science works -- if something is not repeatable, or flawed, it is abandoned. Likely, the scientific community at large cringed when they saw the attention cold fusion got there for a while, as it was irresponsible journalism to grab a story like that and sensationalize it before it had been confirmed by the scientific community at large. Back to number one, the scientific community rejected cold fusion as bad science. Fundamentalists often conveniently forget this, however, and play it as some sort of trump card to demonstrate the errors in science, when in fact it's an excellent demonstration of how science patrols its own corridors. JM>> Besides, the Argumentum ad Antiquitam is not valid. Just because JM>> something is old doesn't mean it's correct! If that were true all the SS> No, but after 2000 years of trying to disprove it with no luck SS> might be a reason to say it's true. There's only been no luck for so long as: 1) Some people have their heads jammed so far up their assholes they'll never see the light of day if you set them on fire. Witness belief in a global flood as evidence of this, and as an excellent example of people wanting to believe something so badly that fact is ignored (or invented). 2) For many of those 2000 years trying to disprove religious claims would get you very dead, very fast. Galileo tried, and was nailed (actually, he was lucky as he was not killed, but merely placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and forced to recant what even the most ardent fundamentalist must now acknowledge to be true). Evolution is now going through similar stages (has been for quite a while), with reality on one side and fundamentalist Christianity on the other. If you've got facts to discredit it, please post them. However, keep in mind that these facts will be scrutinized. People who actually _understand_ evolution will read them (NOTE: I think one of the most damning things against evolution is that lay people don't understand it, but usually operate from a flawed conception of what evolution is [e.g. "I don't come from no monkies!]. It's easy to attack evolution when the idea you're attacking isn't what evolution really is.) Tyler A. Wunder


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank