Ä Area: EVOLUTION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
  Msg#: 258                                          Date: 03-13-96  08:49
  From: John Musselwhite                             Read: Yes    Replied: No 
    To: Ed Haynes                                    Mark:                     
  Subj: Allopatric speciation #3
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Hi Ed...

On 11 Mar 96  18:44:00, Ed Haynes penned the following to John Musselwhite 
 re: Allopatric speciation #3

 JM>  Back to mythology again, eh Ed?  Why bother discussing an "Ark"
 JM>  at all? It is KNOWN that the Ark story was borrowed from the
 JM>  Sumerians in the first place. Why should it come up in ANY
 JM>  scientific discussions?

 EH> I place historic value upon the Bible.  The Bible does give an account

  The problem with placing historic value on the Bible is
  distinguishing between what is "history" and what is merely the
  repetition of ancient myths. Just because the odd town
  mentioned in it actually existed at some point doesn't mean it
  is historically accurate.

 EH> of  the Ark.  I have read in a couple of sources where it was suggested
 EH> that  the Ark story came from the Sumerians as well as others but I've
 EH> never seen  any accounts with strong evidence that would support these
 EH> suggestions.   And as far as the Ark and scientific discussions - If I
 EH> wish to determine  if the Ark account has scientific support, what
 EH> other method would you  suggest?

  First, I would look at the literary evidence. There are
  actually two accounts of Noah in the Bible, written about 500
  years apart and combined into one story. I'll go into that in a
  bit.

  What do they have to say from a "scientific" POV?

  Basically, there is absolutely NOTHING in the story that
  conforms to our understanding of how nature works. The size of
  the Ark, construction, animals on board, duration of the flood
  and the resulting destruction of the world are all purely
  fictional, because they CANNOT, by any means, be associated
  with science. There are FAR too many problems with the details
  for it to be anything other than a "story".

  This part is probably off-topic, but it does give you some idea
  of the literary history behind the Ark story.

  Subj: Noachian Deluge
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
 From Dictionary of Science & Creationism, Ronald Ecker, 1990.

        The Genesis Flood narrative is believed by most biblical scholars to be
a conflation of two main literary sources, designated (in what is called the
documentary hypothesis) as J (the Yahwist account) and P (the Priestly
account). The two accounts were composed about 500 years apart, and there are
contradictions between them. Thus Noah is told by God (Yahweh) in the J
document to take into the ark seven pairs of all clean animals and single pairs
of all others (7:2), while in the P source all animals enter by twos (7:8-9).
In J the Flood lasts 40 days and nights (7:17), in P 150 days (7:24). J and P
can generally be distinguished from each other (in the original Hebrew)
throughout the Flood story. The prescribed dimensions of the ark (6:14-16), the
opening of the firmament and upsurging of the subterranean waters (7:11), the
landing of the ark "upon the mountains of Ararat" (8:4), and God's covenant
with Noah (9:1-17) are details from the P source. Noah's sending out of the
raven and the dove (8:6-12), and his burnt offering for the pleasure of Yahweh
("The Lord smelled the pleasing odor") (8:20-22), are from the J source.
        The story of Noah's Flood so strikingly resembles that of Utnapishtim
in the ancient Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh that some degree of direct or
indirect Hebrew borrowing seems indisputable [but this does not mean there is
direct evidence of plagiarism -- JM]. In the Babylonian tale (see Speiser 1969,
72-99), Utnapishtim is warned by the god Ea of the coming deluge, builds a
ship, takes animals aboard, and weathers the storm. The ship grounds atop a
mountain, whereupon Utnapishtim sends out a dove, a swallow, and a raven, and
then burns an offering, the gods smelling the odor and crowding around "like
flies."
        Ancient flood traditions are found among many peoples, with two now
fragmentary Mesopotamian myths -- one in which the Noah character is the
Sumerian king Ziusudra (Kramer 1969, 42-44), the other in which he is named
Atrahasis (Speiser 1969, 104-106) -- predating the one in the Gilgamesh epic.
What distinguishes the Genesis myth from its predecessors is firstly the
elimination by the biblical writers of the original polytheistic context, and
secondly the presentation of the Flood as divine judgement against sin. (In the
Atrahasis myth, by way of contrast, a flood is sent because people have become
so numerous and noisy that the supreme god Enlil can't sleep.)

__________________________________________________________

  So... we have a pretty good handle on where the legend comes
  from and how it got into the Bible. The scientific evidence
  AGAINST the flood, such as the size of the Ark, the animals on
  it, feeding them and removing waste, the fact that many animals
  are NOT male and female so how could Noah gather them, the
  physics required to provide the water plus practically every
  other detail about the legend is such that it can really be
  dismissed out-of-hand as an historical fact as described in the
  Bible. And that isn't even touching on the evidence of geology
  and biology which MUST be taken into account if you're going to
  investigate the story.

  That is not to say that some farmer four thousand years ago
  didn't take his family and a few goats on a raft to survive a
  particularly bad flood in the Tigris-Euphrates Delta and told
  his descendants about it. It's hardly a "global deluge" though.

      John


... Don't hit me, Mr. Moderator... I'll go back on topic... I swear!
-!- Blue Wave/Max v2.30
 ! Origin: The Evolving Keyboard [Calgary, AB] (1:134/67)