11 May 07
Originally posted by RBHILLNaturally, this information is profoundly misleading. The determination
47. True or False? Ramapithecus, once widely regarded as the ancestor of homans, has now been recognized as merely an extinct type of orangutan.
about Ramapithecus' relationship to humans was based on two factors:
1) The belief that the proto-human line deviated from apes around 15
million years ago (it's now believed to be about 5 million years ago); and,
2) The fossil found was very fragmentary. When larger sections of the
same genus was found, they observed that the association with humans
was more distant than previously suspected.
Ramapithecus is actually considered a misnomer now (like 'brontosaurus'😉;
it's actually known as Sivapithecus.
And, it's not 'merely an extinct type of orangutan' but an evolutionary
ancestor to the modern orangutan.
So, what does this experience tell us about science?
1) That, under scrutiny, a scientist is willing to revise a theory given more
adequate information;
2) That the fossil record does indeed have transitional creatures; and,
3) Your board game is willing to utterly misrepresent the way in which a
scientific theory evolves in an effort to bolster untenable claims.
Nemesio
11 May 07
Originally posted by NemesioI'm playing to win, but even if I weren't there is some evidence of a worldwide flood, such as it being a recurring event across several cultural histories, even though the weight of the evidence is not in favor of the flood account in the Bible.
You are guessing these answers based on what you suppose is the
answer on the back of the card RBHILL is holding, not based on what
is actually true.
You should be ashamed 😛
11 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo, to be candid, your answers reflect what you believe to be the answer
I'm playing to win, but even if I weren't there is some evidence of a worldwide flood, such as it being a recurring event across several cultural histories, even though the weight of the evidence is not in favor of the flood account in the Bible.
on the back side of RB's card, not necessarily what you actually believe
to be the case, right?
You sincerely consider it probative that collective accounts of a world-wide
flood across cultural histories, where 'world-wide flood' means the simultaneous
flooding of the entire globe?
Nemesio
11 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIt's some evidence in favor of a world-wide flood, which is to say it has some informational bearing on the matter, and it weighs on the side for rather than against. That is, if you could consider a large random set of populated planets, it is more likely that those in which several cultures have written about major floods experienced world-wide floods, given no other information.
So, to be candid, your answers reflect what you believe to be the answer
on the back side of RB's card, not necessarily what you actually believe
to be the case, right?
You sincerely consider it probative that collective accounts of a world-wide
flood across cultural histories, where 'world-wide flood' means the simultaneous
flooding of the entire globe?
Nemesio
The degree to which the evidence is relevant and probative is irrelevant to the question on the card, which makes the very strong claim that there is no evidence and not merely the weaker claim that the evidence against such a flood heavily outweighs the evidence for it.
Given the existence of such texts, one would be negligent to ignore them altogether when deliberating about whether there was a world-wide flood, even if ultimately they are found to be of very low credibility or importance.
But in the end, I'm playing to win.
12 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, once again I have fallen victim to the semantics trap. You are absolutely correct -- it is
It's some evidence in favor of a world-wide flood, which is to say it has some informational bearing on the matter, and it weighs on the side for rather than against. That is, if you could consider a large random set of populated planets, it is more likely that those in which several cultures have written about major floods experienced world-wide f ...[text shortened]... are found to be of very low credibility or importance.
But in the end, I'm playing to win.
incorrect to say that there exists 'no evidence' for a world-wide flood. In fact, it is almost impossible
to state that there is 'no evidence' for any material claim. People have 'seen' leprechauns, 'heard'
God, 'been abducted' by aliens.
I, of course, understood 'no evidence' to mean 'no evidence of any significant probative quality,' and
that is my most grievous fault. I did not evaluate the actual claim made, but interpreted the claim.
The value that anecdotal stories about unicorns have for actual existence of unicorns is immaterial
to the question 'Is there any evidence for the existence of unicorns?' The answer is 'Yes, but it's
all crappy,' but it's still 'yes.'
And while you are absolutely right and I apologize for posturing, it would seem that asking if there is
any evidence (or if there exists no evidence) is a meaningless question. The question ought to be
'Is there any credible evidence...,' or 'Does the extant evidence lead us to conclude that X is most
likely the case...,' and the like. I suppose I just assume people aren't asking meaningless questions,
which is (as you've pointed out time and time again) a bad assumption.
Mea maxima culpa.
Nemesio
12 May 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOf course, we do have other information, and we have a means by which to evaluate the stories and
It's some evidence in favor of a world-wide flood, which is to say it has some informational bearing on the matter, and it weighs on the side for rather than against. That is, if you could consider a large random set of populated planets, it is more likely that those in which several cultures have written about major floods experienced world-wide floods, given no other information.
their probative quality (using redaction and text criticism).
And, of course, you know all of this, so I am just talking to hear my head rattle...
Never mind.
Nemesio
15 May 07
Originally posted by RBHILLAnswer: False. All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in mud and sand carried by water. Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood. preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks, and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation. [The Answers Book, Ken Ham]
48. True or False? There is no evidence for a world-wide flood in the geologic record.
15 May 07
Originally posted by RBHILLwhere did all the water go, you know, after the flood? bearing in mind the oceans were already there and all land was covered (so mount everest) there would have been just under 9000 kilometres of water completely around the world....
Answer: False. All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in mud and sand carried by water. Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood. preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks, and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation. [The Answers Book, Ken Ham]