Originally posted by DREDIOCK
OK. Now Im not saying I agree with him.
but alot of people are calling him an idiot.
What are your arguements to his arguements?
Prove him wrong
Where to begin...
OK first off some local nitpickery -- find me the actual Chinese flood myth. Because I contend that is rubbish: Firstly the name Fuhi isn't Chinese according to any of the English transliterations I've seen (Fu is OK hi is not) and neither is the purported book's name, Hihking (king is ok, Hih is not). So that smacks of "we've just made this up".
A cursory net check
seems to go with me on that. BTW if you come up with a Miao legend,
click here before posting.
The Hawaiian legend appears to be on equally dodgy ground: apparently the myth that "sounds a lot like the bible story" sounds a lot like it because it's a xianised version of the original myth.
But let's get to a big problem: that whole "kinds" of animals spiel. He really doesn't define what a "kind" of animal is, and it's important that he doesn't. Because it essentially can only mean that he believes not only in Darwinian evolution, but in some really serious, rapid evolution "post-flood", which is according to his own theory impossible. Why? Because if you have different species, descended from one "kind" of animal (and there are only 8,000 "kinds" of animal, whilst there are millions of species), then you have only from 2304 BC to get these new species to evolve and only 2 specimens of each to get all these multitudes from. And a "kind" of animal evolving into different species means the creationists' "macro-evolution" bugbear has to happen. The only way to avoid this is to define the "kind" as a species, so you're back up to the millions of "kinds" and two of each.
All of this is still minutiae really, the main point being: he thinks the Bible is true, but can't offer any proof that it is. Thus basing stuff around this central assumption, he can get away with the most amazing nonsense, without a shred of proof:
"There used to be a layer of water above the atmosphere. Some people think it was ice, I dunno if it's solid, liquid or gas, water comes in three flavours, but somehow there was water up there. How it was up there, I don't know, but the bible says it was and I believe it."
This is just after he derides "a scientist" with this put down: "Well, he might believe that, but that's not part of science, folks." Oh the irony!
And if the US school textbooks are over simplistic and their theory of creation is questionable because of it, what then is the Jewish creation myth as put in genesis?
He seems to think he can simply talk, joke and reason his way out of evolution rather than offer any serious proof, and this attitude extends to his taxes too, apparently. It doesn't seem to be working well for him in either area. The guy is essentially a carny with a lot of pre-selected easy marks.
