Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

13567493

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Puck
    Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 21 are not directly related to evolution, the questions relate to the existence of a Creator, the highly remote chance of life just coming about on its own, the inability of scientists to copy God's work in a lab and... art. That's over half of your questions. You're questions have already been answered by someone apparently far more knowledgeable regarding evolution than I, if those questions don't suit you then tough, you can't just cover your ears and refuse to listen. The fact remains that the questions have been answered
    .


    ALL questions are directly related to the SCIENTIFIC validity of ‘muck to Man’ evolution – for example, Question 1 queries the evidence for the transition from inanimate muck to animate life – which must be proven if the rest of evolutionary story is to have any coherent scientific credibility. Ditto for ALL of the other questions.

    Could I again point out that answers were ATTEMPTED by Wibbs to NINE of my questions – and I have made comprehensive rebuttal to all nine answers without a response – and therefore all 21 questions remain unanswered.


    Quote Puck
    None of the Christians here are saying that God is not the "Sovereign Creator God of the Universe and all life therein". This is the reason I don't use the word "creationist" to describe you but choose to use "literalist" instead.

    If you want to criticise God's skill as a poet then go ahead but I won't be joining you. I love the beautiful poetic imagery in Genesis, I'm a big fan of God's poetry


    Unless you can provide coherent answers to my 21 SCIENTIFIC questions on evolution and satisfactorily explain the glaring anomalies between the Genesis account of Creation and the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence, Theistic Evolution will continue to have an intellectual credibility problem.

    I’m also a big fan of God’s poetry and I most certainly don’t criticise God’s poetic skills WHEN He is actually engaged in poetry, as in the Psalms for example – which I believe to be the BEST poetry ever written.

    The ‘literary position’ of Theistic Evolutionists on Genesis is akin to somebody who praises Shakespeare for the ‘poetry’ of his Plays rather than his Sonnets!!!


    Quote Puck
    If taken poetically then Genesis doesn't make a mention of how the universe was created, it addresses the far more important question of why it was created.


    Genesis 1 tells us HOW the Earth was created, HOW life was created and HOW man was created in SIX DAYS – sounds much more like a ‘HOW’ than a ‘WHY’ account to me!!!


    Quote Puck
    The Bible makes no mention of evolution making it just about as "un-Biblical" as putting on my pants in the morning.


    Genesis makes it clear that The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence DIDN’T occur for the reasons already outlined in my previous postings and in the following passages of scripture, to cite but a few :
    Ex 20:11, Mk 10:6, Rom 5:12-14 and 1 Cor 15:45-48.

    In addition, 2 Pet 3:3-6 confirms that “the last days will” actually be marked by people who reject the Genesis 1 account of the creation of a WATER COVERED Earth (which is a direct contradiction of the Big Bang) – 2 Pet 3:5 says that “they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water”. (NIV) In case anybody might be inclined to put a ‘poetic spin’ on the “water” in this particular statement, St Peter goes on to confirm in 2 Pet 3:6 that these were REAL waters “By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed” – thereby also confirming the veracity of Noah’s Flood.


    Quote Son Goku
    I used these words for a reason, if you want to argue against the Big Bang you need to understand differential geometry.
    If you think these words describe "Nothing", then you are wrong.
    They're used in General Relativity for a reason and that reason is that they are needed.


    Could I ask you if "an area of extreme Ricci curvature" or "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" has ever been OBSERVED – and if it HASN’T then surely it must by definition be classified as scientific speculation and conjecture – with no more SCIENTIFIC status than God’s statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.


    Quote Puck
    A purely literal interpretation of the Bible is going to throw all sorts of contradictions at you. For instance, did the Israelites walk out of Egypt or were they carried on eagle's wings?


    I can confirm that Creationists aren't Bible literalists - and they believe that the Israelites LITERALLY walked out of Egypt and they were METAPHORICALLY carried on Eagle’s wings by being assisted and protected by God.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    J C wrote:
    Could I again point out that answers were ATTEMPTED by Wibbs to NINE of my questions – and I have made comprehensive rebuttal to all nine answers without a response – and therefore all 21 questions remain unanswered.
    Eh, no you didn't and no they don't. Some may remain unanswered, or at least unanswered to the satisfaction of yourself(some even to me), but many of my "rebuttals" you chose to ignore(the ones about the flood and the obvious flaws in your argument thereof spring instantly to mind). So the ball is in your court to back up....... Oh oh and here's me thinking I'd run out of troll pellets.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    J C wrote:
    Could I ask you if "an area of extreme Ricci curvature" or "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" has ever been OBSERVED – and if it HASN’T then surely it must by definition be classified as scientific speculation and conjecture – with no more SCIENTIFIC status than God’s statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

    Yes, particularly the second, you see them every day.
    In fact a day wouldn't make sense without them.

    Now bring this discussion over to the science forums.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    Wibbs wrote:
    robindch, cool I may drop over.

    I'll drop over too. But only if you allow me to insist that Wordsworth's Daffodils was actually intended as a scientific treatise on floral reproduction. ;)

    Wibbs wrote:
    As for "Puck running for cover', I suspect like me he ran out of troll pellets and sadly my local pet shop is out of stock.

    Nail has been hit on its head.

    Wibbs wrote:
    Speaking as a heathen(possibly out of turn),

    Absolutely not. This is a forum for discussing issues related to Christianity on a secular website. If anything, the preachers are speaking out of turn.
    Wibbs wrote:
    it always seems a pity to me that so many religious people argue over the minutae of doctrine while failing to take on board the(by all accounts) positive teachings and sublime example of someone like Jesus.

    It literally makes me cry. I'll say again for effect what has become my refrain on this issue: If its too much work for Satan to lure us in to active sin, he is quite content to let us waste our time on trivialities that amount to nothing. If Jesus is the Son of God, then at the end of our days, he is going to put his arm around our (collective our of Christianity) shoulder and say, "Guys, seriously. Why did you think it mattered that you should teach starving children about theistic evolution? Give them water and food."
    Wibbs wrote:
    If more led by example in this way, I'm sure more would be open to the message. Just my 2 cents.

    All I can say is sorry.

    I am not locking this thread for fear of being called a censor. But I do advise folk with any time demands- be they careers or study or family or friends or a mild fondness for soap operas or a field in which you can watch grass grow, to spend their time more fruitfully.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Excelsior wrote:
    I'll drop over too. But only if you allow me to insist that Wordsworth's Daffodils was actually intended as a scientific treatise on floral reproduction. ;)
    You mean it isn't.:eek: :D There goes my membership of the Wordsworthian church up in smoke..

    All I can say is sorry.
    Hardly Excelsior, from your previous posts I've read, you're the type that gives religious people a good name.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Wibbs wrote:
    Hardly Excelsior, from your previous posts I've read, you're the type that gives religious people a good name.

    Nice statement, we don't get many of those. I'll support that one 100%


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Wibbs wrote:
    Hardly Excelsior, from your previous posts I've read, you're the type that gives religious people a good name.
    Touché.

    The reason creation science will never be taken seriously by the general scientific community is that it is "science" with an agenda. All CS does, is try to to cement the notion that God created the world as written in the bible. Objectivity, alternative theories, the willingness to accept that a favored theory can be disproved are what make science credible - and creation science practices none of these.

    Why? Because (J C) you purport that watering down Genesis to metaphor is unacceptable, and is paramount to denying the bibles validity as a whole. This attitute merely puts your back to the wall regarding any alternative theory concerning the origins of man. Put simply - you have to support the Genesis theory regardess of any scientific evidence to the contrary. To accept any other answer would render your personal beliefs invalid.

    However real science is not about preserving your personal beliefs at all costs. And that is why "creation science" is a misnomer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    you have to support the Genesis theory regardess of any scientific evidence to the contrary. To accept any other answer would render your personal beliefs invalid. However real science is not about preserving your personal beliefs at all costs. And that is why "creation science" is a misnomer.

    Damn, that was what I wanted to say, but could not find the right words, well done Atheist.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Asiaprod wrote:
    well done Atheist.
    Words not normally associated with Christianity debates. :D That goes to show how well balanced this forum is.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 ✭✭juddd


    Just chiming in again, dont mind me.
    If we evolved from apes or monkeys or whatever then how come there are still monkeys and apes that have not evolved into humans, when a species evolves into a new form does it not then seem reasonable that the old form would no longer exist, also when we interfere with nature like cross breeding two different breeds of animals, how come they are almost always born sterile, it's as if nature or God is preventing the continuation of the newly formed species to pro-create.
    Just a thought.????


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

    Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
    From:
    By Martin Penner
    November 07, 2005


    THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

    Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

    His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

    "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

    This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

    His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Excelsior said:
    'If Jesus is the Son of God, then at the end of our days, he is going to put his arm around our (collective our of Christianity) shoulder and say, "Guys, seriously. Why did you think it mattered that you should teach starving children about theistic evolution? Give them water and food."'

    So Creationists don't feed starving children? Perhaps we kill them and drink their blood? We seem to be the Jews of the 'liberal Christian' reich. How do you know what we give to the needy? From my experience, Evangelicals have been to the front of works of compassion. What we ALSO do, not instead of, is bring the Word of God to them. Saving their souls and strengthening them in the Truth. This oneness of true Christians you mention is the work of God, involving a growing knowledge of and obedience to the Truth. The passage often referred to by 'liberal Christians' actually refutes their wooly sentiments:

    John 17: 1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

    6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
    9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.


    20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
    24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

    This is the real Jesus Christ, who says 'Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth', not the one who downplays the truth. The world being created without sin, suffering and death is NOT 'trivialities that amount to nothing', but a foundational concept of real Christianity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Son Goku
    Probabilities like the ones you are using only work for things like rolling a dice or judging the odds of a royal flush coming up in a game of poker.
    Independent events.
    Using standard Bernoulli probability is just wrong.
    If you want to argue atoms and molecules, you have to use Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.
    No matter how "jargony" you feel it is, you just do.
    If there is one thing I know it's mathematics and the odds of a useful protein forming are no where near that low.


    I wasn’t talking about the chemistry involved or indeed the protein manufacturing process itself, which raises many other very serious problems. For example, many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of very specific enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes – and undirected processes cannot plausibly produce such co-ordination and precision.

    Please remember that I was ONLY talking about the achievement of useful critical amino acid SEQUENCES using undirected processes – and therefore Bernoulli probability does apply.

    The really devastating thing about this ‘Universe Defeating’ problem however, is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids.
    What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing useless amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be achieved with certainty by a 10 year old in 20 minutes – and that is but one small example of the importance of applied intelligence to ensuing that any complex system works.
    We all instinctively know this to be the case – who would buy a car without a steering wheel and expect it to take them home safely without any “intelligent input” from the driver?


    Quote Excelsior
    Augustine therefore could not be a Creation Scientist. Barnabas did not concern himself with flood geology.


    Whatever about Augustine or Barnabas, Jesus Christ HIMSELF certainly DID confirm the REALITY of Noah’s Flood and thereby the veracity of “Flood Geology” in Mt 24:37-39 and Lk 17:26-27 when he said “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking , marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all”. You can’t get any plainer than that from the very mouth of Jesus Christ Himself !

    The non-Christians and the ‘Doubting Thomases’ amongst you can also evaluate the physical evidence for this global flood catastrophe “upfront and personal” by visiting your local outcrop of sedimentary or metamorphic rock. Equally, you can confirm the global scale of Noah’s Flood by getting a JCB to strip back the clay in your own back yard and see, at first hand, the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are present (over most of the surface of the Earth).

    Quote Wibbs
    animals/plants most likely to be fossilised are sea creatures. Surely a flood wouldn't affect them at all? If you believe in Noah's flood, you would expect more fossils of land animals as a result.


    A Flood as described in Genesis where massive volumes of water were released from deep within the Earth as well as massive land movements, would result in huge silt clouds in the sea water that would rapidly inundate and bury sea creatures on a grand scale AS WELL AS land animals – when dry land disappeared beneath the waves, and that is what we find in the fossil record.

    Quote Wibbs
    As for trilobite eye; fossilisation of many of these eyes is pretty complete. In fact one can even examine the eyes down to the levels of fossilised cells. Decay in such situations would be quite easy to spot.


    The fossilisation of eye tissue at all, indicates instantaneous burial, and fossilisation within weeks at most, as these soft tissues decay rapidly (within days of death normally). This is indicative of catastrophic burial under sediment and water AS WELL AS very rapid fossilisation. This completely invalidates the claim that deep layers of sedimentary rocks are very old because they were laid down by gradual sedimentation processes. It also debunks the claim that fossilisation takes enormous lengths of time thereby removing the two biggest reasons cited by evolutionists for an old Earth and old sedimentary rocks.

    It is postulated by Creation Science that huge volumes of HOT Calcium Carbonate was released from deep within the Earth during Noah’s Flood and this reacted with other ingredients to rapidly petrify sedimentary rocks in a process akin to the setting of modern cement. Hot Calcium Carbonate and other caustic chemicals such as quicklime would rapidly degrade and chemically erode exposed soft tissue such as the compound eyes of dead Trilobites and the resultant effect could be to literally ‘melt’ the eyes out of their sockets thereby leaving what would appear to be fossilised ‘photosensitive pits’ showing no signs of decay.


    Quote Wibbs
    Actually it was over 100,000 yrs ago IIRC and it was always stated in the lit. that it was a closely related group of women, not the "eve" popularised in the media. Anyway if it was Noah and his wives and son's then they would all have to be so closely related as to be family for your theory to work.


    Creation Scientists are satisfied that the correct regression equations indicate an age of less than 10,000 years.

    If they were ‘a closely related group of women’ who were so closely related as to be effectively of one family, then this points to a common mother in their immediate ancestry and Eve would be an obvious candidate.
    If, on the other hand, these women were closely related but not as close as immediate family members then the wives of Noah and his sons would be obvious candidates as they would probably be reasonably closely related given the marriage customs of the time and the relative isolation of Noah and his sons from his ‘fellow man’ because of his religious convictions.


    Quote Wibbs
    The humble bee has a language. Bonobos have moral behaviour(many would say more than us) and conceptualisation.


    The humble Bee has a pre-programmed (i.e. instinctive) ability to communicate the location of nectar to other Bees in it’s hive – this is not comparable in almost any respect to the open-ended abstract linguistic ability of Mankind.
    Bonobos and indeed most mammals have instinctive (i.e. pre-programmed) behaviour such as caring for their young that may appear like Circumstantial moral behaviour – but Humans are capable of non-circumstantial moral behaviour. In addition, because we have free will, Humans are also capable of the greatest evil, which NO ANIMAL can match.

    Humans are BOTH fearfully and wonderfully made - and every day we see examples of Humans exercising their free will to do great GOOD and great EVIL. Animals tend to do just whatever is necessary to survive and reproduce.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Looks like the pellets came back into stock....
    J C wrote:
    The non-Christians and the ‘Doubting Thomases’ amongst you can also evaluate the physical evidence for this global flood catastrophe “upfront and personal” by visiting your local outcrop of sedimentary or metamorphic rock. Equally, you can confirm the global scale of Noah’s Flood by getting a JCB to strip back the clay in your own back yard and see, at first hand, the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are present (over most of the surface of the Earth).
    ...and igneous and conglomerates. So, conglomerates alone throw your theory in a spin for a start, as they are made up of previously formed sedimentary/metamorphic/igneous(even previous conglomerates). Just how many floods were there in this theory? Digging up ones back yard only serves to confirm the various geological processes, not debunks them.
    A Flood as described in Genesis where massive volumes of water were released from deep within the Earth as well as massive land movements, would result in huge silt clouds in the sea water that would rapidly inundate and bury sea creatures on a grand scale AS WELL AS land animals – when dry land disappeared beneath the waves, and that is what we find in the fossil record.
    What about whales. Did Noah have two of them in the Ark? Why wasn't room found for the trilobites? Why did the nautilus survive when the ammonites did not? Both would have been affected by this "silt".
    The fossilisation of eye tissue at all, indicates instantaneous burial, and fossilisation within weeks at most, as these soft tissues decay rapidly (within days of death normally). This is indicative of catastrophic burial under sediment and water AS WELL AS very rapid fossilisation. This completely invalidates the claim that deep layers of sedimentary rocks are very old because they were laid down by gradual sedimentation processes. It also debunks the claim that fossilisation takes enormous lengths of time thereby removing the two biggest reasons cited by evolutionists for an old Earth and old sedimentary rocks.
    For a start compound eyes last quite a long time. Take a microscope to any long dead wasp on your windowsill for evidence of that. The vast majority of well preserved fossils were rapidly buried as you say(usually by volcanic ash or landslide), but most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated. In fact many of them show degradation by scavengers, which suggests anything but a quick fossilisation. If you understood fossilisation you would see that the mineralisation of bone takes a very long time.In fact if you understood the various processes of fossilisation at all you would see that the idea of a flood catastrophy would make little sense. Many fossils are formed without the direct interaction of water. Burial in tar/salt/ice/very dry sand for a start. How are these explained away by the flood hypotheses?
    It is postulated by Creation Science that huge volumes of HOT Calcium Carbonate was released from deep within the Earth during Noah’s Flood and this reacted with other ingredients to rapidly petrify sedimentary rocks in a process akin to the setting of modern cement. Hot Calcium Carbonate and other caustic chemicals such as quicklime would rapidly degrade and chemically erode exposed soft tissue such as the compound eyes of dead Trilobites and the resultant effect could be to literally ‘melt’ the eyes out of their sockets thereby leaving what would appear to be fossilised ‘photosensitive pits’ showing no signs of decay.
    Even in limestones which contain a lot of calcium carbonate, soft tissues are preserved. What about such rocks that have little or no evidence of Calcium carbonate at all, such as triassic red sandstones?
    Creation Scientists are satisfied that the correct regression equations indicate an age of less than 10,000 years.
    Satisfied by what exactly? DNA clocks, Carbon dating?
    If, on the other hand, these women were closely related but not as close as immediate family members then the wives of Noah and his sons would be obvious candidates as they would probably be reasonably closely related given the marriage customs of the time and the relative isolation of Noah and his sons from his ‘fellow man’ because of his religious convictions.
    Big stretch that one.
    The humble Bee has a pre-programmed (i.e. instinctive) ability to communicate the location of nectar to other Bees in it’s hive – this is not comparable in almost any respect to the open-ended abstract linguistic ability of Mankind.
    Yes, but the humble bee shows evidence of basic "culture" in that these languages change over time and vary between colonies. The behaviour of the higher apes also shows evidence of primitive culture and language. Animals are not just pre programmed autotomata.
    Bonobos and indeed most mammals have instinctive (i.e. pre-programmed) behaviour such as caring for their young that may appear like Circumstantial moral behaviour – but Humans are capable of non-circumstantial moral behaviour. In addition, because we have free will, Humans are also capable of the greatest evil, which NO ANIMAL can match.
    As have bonobos. One was even observed tending to a small bird that had accidently flown into a tree. Caring for it till it had regained its composure before releasing it. If this isn't circumstantial moral behaviour as you call it, I don't know what is(understanding the fright of another species etc). As for evil; the chimp is capable of unbelievable violence and "evil" towards its own kind and others. Some have even killed human children and played with the bodies. There's little "instinctive" about that, in your world view.
    Animals tend to do just whatever is necessary to survive and reproduce.
    As do humans. Altruism is a good survival technique.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    J C wrote:

    Whatever about Augustine or Barnabas, Jesus Christ HIMSELF certainly DID confirm the REALITY of Noah’s Flood and thereby the veracity of “Flood Geology” in Mt 24:37-39 and Lk 17:26-27 when he said “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking , marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all”. You can’t get any plainer than that from the very mouth of Jesus Christ Himself !

    JC, you make a massive leap there where you say "Jesus believed in Noah's flood" and then conclude "Therefore he believed in flood geology". This need not be the case and you know full well, I am sure, that the Hebrew word used in Genesis's account of the punishment flood for world is used 16 times elsewhere throughout the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to the broader region of the Israelites.

    I believe in a cataclysmic flood. I believe God intended for this flood to be a punishment on a scale that hasn't been seen before. I also believe from geological evidence that this flood was only global in the relativistic sense of the whole world as the Israelites knew it.

    I don't in any way feel a need to challenge your young Earth hypothesis. As I have laid out already today, you are my brother in Christ. I need convert you from nothing. The pure motivation you have for holding to the views you hold to are clear. But can't you accept that there are more ways than yours to be authentic as a follower of Jesus and more than one legitimatly attempted interpretation of the Scriptures? (I am not saying all interpretations are right. I am saying all are probably to some extent wrong but yours and mine are both certainly sincere)

    I'm gone from this thread now unless rudeness forces me to moderate. I just didn't want to be accused of running for cover.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    juddd wrote:
    If we evolved from apes or monkeys or whatever then how come there are still monkeys and apes that have not evolved into humans, when a species evolves into a new form does it not then seem reasonable that the old form would no longer exist, also when we interfere with nature like cross breeding two different breeds of animals, how come they are almost always born sterile, it's as if nature or God is preventing the continuation of the newly formed species to pro-create.
    Just a thought.????

    Hi Juddd,
    Thank the lord for an easy question to answer, this other stuff, while fascinating, has me all afloat (oh, there`s a pun).

    Re the apes and monkeys, evolutionarily speaking:rolleyes: what appears to happen is that a line of creatures branches out on its own to form a new line. The reasons for this are many and varied. In the case of monkeys and apes, it could be as depicted in the film 2001 Space Odyssey, one group of apes developed the ability to use weapons, which required the use of an opposing thumb which set it apart from all others. The human is the only creature to have an opposing thumb which give us the dexterity to build and so on. (I use this movie as a reference only as I am sure there are many reasons why this particular branching occurred.) But this did not mean that the original line disappeared, it carried on at its own merry pace to its own conclusion. Darwin`s theory of natural selection possibly applies here since there is no rule or requirement for the original line to cease existing. Hence today, we have monkeys, apes and humans all coexisting and evolving.

    In the case of interfering with nature by cross breeding two different breeds of animals, and how come they are almost always born sterile, I am afraid it is more down to biology than God work here. Some lines of animals can be cross-bred and some cannot. It is a simple answer I know, but that is the way it goes. We already have many new types of animals cross bred in the last 10 years. It is just a case of selecting the right animals to cross breed. I am sure there is a religious side to this debate, but I am not qualified to answer that line for you. I will stick to the biological reasons.


    All praise the Coelacanth, the fish that escaped the flood and lives on to defy the CS theorists.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mixed news in from the USA today where Kansas has approved the teaching of creationism:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4419796.stm

    ...while the school board which did the same a while back in Dover, Pennsylvania, was booted out of office:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4417560.stm

    Looks like the writing's on the wall :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Son Goku
    Originally Posted by J C
    Could I ask you if "an area of extreme Ricci curvature" or "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" has ever been OBSERVED – and if it HASN’T then surely it (The Big Bang) must by definition be classified as scientific speculation and conjecture – with no more SCIENTIFIC status than God’s statement that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

    Yes, particularly the second, you see them every day.
    In fact a day wouldn't make sense without them.


    To recap – we started debating about whether my definition of the Big Bang (that first there was nothing and then it blew up) was correct. You contended that it was not correct and you explained that a singularity was “an area of extreme Ricci curvature” and that the Big Bang was “a point on the 4-D surface that is the universe” which you subsequently refined to "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime".

    You NOW tell me that these concepts actually describe aspects of what a DAY is.

    However, could I gently point out that the above obtuse concepts were first ‘rolled out’ by you to describe the Big Bang – and I cannot see ANY link between The Big Bang and a DAY.


    Quote The Atheist
    This attitude merely puts your back to the wall regarding any alternative theory concerning the origins of man. Put simply - you have to support the Genesis theory regardess of any scientific evidence to the contrary. To accept any other answer would render your personal beliefs invalid.

    However real science is not about preserving your personal beliefs at all costs.


    I fully agree that REAL science is ALL about directly observing and reporting on REAL phenomena.

    The only people with their (scientific and theological) ”backs to the wall” on this thread are the evolutionists of all faiths and none who are determined to hold onto their belief in evolution even when they cannot coherently explain what it actually is or cite any evidence in support of it’s existence.

    I am a man of both science and faith.

    I have raised 21 valid scientific questions about evolution – questions that 150 years of scientific study should have settled long ago – yet nobody on this thread has been able to effectively answer any of them.

    Wibbs has attempted several questions and he HAS made some valid points, mostly about issues other than evolution.
    However, the general thesis of my 21 questions still remains intact – i.e. that the current evolutionary theory is a woefully inadequate explanation of the origins of life and the massive amount of highly specified purposeful genetic information observed in all species.

    I have also raised profound questions about how Theistic Evolution can be theologically reconciled with either the Genesis account of Creation or with Jesus Christ’s own words on the subject.

    The ‘stock answers’ forthcoming is that “black can literally be called white” when observed through some putative ‘poetic lens’ that Theistic Evolutionists apparently use when they read Genesis.

    Two can play this particular game.
    I find that Charles Darwin was actually at the peak of his poetic abilities when he wrote about his belief in Divine Special Creation in his great opus, which he entitled “The Origin (and Creation) of Species by (God without any) Natural Selection.”
    You see, my ‘poetic lens’ allows me to expand the text to say what Darwin actually meant to say, but didn’t say, because he was writing for semi-illiterate Victorians and because he had senile dementia himself at the time.
    I have also found that a small minority of primitive LITERALISTS object to my preference for Darwin’s great Creation poetry, as I prefer to call it. In fact, I think that these ‘Darwin Literalists’ completely demean Darwin’s great work with their narrow-minded belief that he actually said what he meant and meant what he said.
    I find that Darwin’s poetic account of the creation of the six Galapagos Finches during the six days of Divine Special Creation, especially speaks to me of the great work of God in the Universe and people who claim that Darwin was an evolutionist couldn’t possible have any basis for this belief if they really read Darwin’s writings as Darwin meant them to be read.
    Darwinian fundamentalists insist on giving the poetic words of Charles Darwin an evolutionary meaning even though his words were never intended to be scientific. These fundamentalists were “all over me like a rash” when I claimed that even the title of Darwin’s book proves that he was a creationist and I am at a complete loss as to why they should be so unreasonable.


    If we all go down this road then could I suggest that language will completely lose it’s meaning and nobody will know what they are talking about anymore – something like the current ‘sorry state’ of evolution actually!!!!


    Quote hairyheretic

    THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.


    I also read a similar account to your posting, in Saturday’s Irish Independent.

    If the Vatican wishes to add evolution to their pronouncements on ‘matters of faith and morals’ by stoutly defending Charles Darwin and presumably by direct implication his Darwinian evolutionary hypotheses they are obviously quite entitled to do so.

    If The Vatican wishes to establish Divine Authority for ‘muck to Man evolution’ however, they will have to explain what Jesus Christ meant when He said (as He endorsed Gen 1:1 and 1:27) in Mt 19:4 “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).

    If they wish to establish the SCIENTIFIC credibility of ‘muck to Man evolution’, they will have to provide proper answers to hundreds of questions that completely demolish evolution SCIENTIFICALLY, of which my 21 scientific questions on evolution are but a small sample.

    If The Vatican wishes to establish the THEOLOGICAL credibility of evolution, they will have to explain how they reconcile the Genesis account of Creation with The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence – and resorting to poetry will not be an option.

    Clearly a lot of work remains to be done if evolution is to be rehabilitated.

    Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design proponents are ‘on the case’ and they are making major breakthroughs into the mainstream – just tonight, the Channel 4 News had a 10-minute feature on the new Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Kentucky – and it hasn’t even been officially opened yet.

    Quote hairyheretic
    His (Cardinal Poupard’s) statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail


    I though that the Roman Catholic Church DID believe that “the universe is so complex that some higher being (aka God) designed every detail”.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Son Goku


    JC, my responses are here on the Science forum:
    Here.

    If you want to debate Science, then come along.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    JC....I suppose Atheists do need somebody to DEFEND them.

    :mad: :mad: :mad:

    Please stop this thread. It is no longer interesting, it is infact now distastefull and has dropped to a level of personal attacks. IMHO this thread is now hard science and in its current form has only a passing interest in what this board is about. Thanks


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    J C wrote:
    I though that the Roman Catholic Church DID believe that ?the universe is so complex that some higher being (aka God) designed every detail?.

    Apparently not, to judge by that story.

    I didn't actually post any of my own thoughts there, that was just the article itself, reflecting the Cardinal's (and presumably the vaticans) position.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Asiaprod
    Please stop this thread. It is no longer interesting, it is infact now distastefull and has dropped to a level of personal attacks.

    Quote hairyheretic
    THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.


    The Vatican is quite entitled to voice their criticism of Bible Believing Christians and their defence an icon of Atheism (Darwinism) if they so wish.

    I don’t consider the defence of an atheist or the criticism of Christians to be “personal attacks” – they are merely expressions of opinion on the part of The Vatican - that I happen to disagree with.


    Quote Asiaprod
    this thread is now hard science and in its current form has only a passing interest in what this board is about. Thanks


    The thread is still focused on the Bible and creationism, with both 'hard' science and 'hard' theology being (very) actively debated.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    While it's not exactly on-topic, the following isn't a million miles off-topic either:

    > ===================================================
    > A note to let you know that the next Skeptics public lecture is on
    > Wednesday, November 16th when we are delighted to welcome
    > Lord Dick Taverne, who will present on the topic of his latest book
    > 'The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism'
    > Venue: Gandon Suite North,Davenport Hotel, Merrion Square Time:8pm
    > EUR2 for members and EUR5 for non-members
    >
    > By studying the activities of eco-fundamentalists and anti-globalization
    > activists, he suggests that by abandoning rationality in favour of
    > unrestrained and irrational emotional response, we directly damage
    > democracy itself.
    >
    > http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-280485-5?view=get
    > ===================================================

    Anybody who's interested, fundamentalists + rationalists alike, do mark it in your diaries -- next Wednesday night, 16th of November, Davenport Hotel (just around the corner from Pearse Street Dart station).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Excelsior


    How do you join Irish Skeptics?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Excelsior wrote:
    I believe in a cataclysmic flood. I believe God intended for this flood to be a punishment on a scale that hasn't been seen before. I also believe from geological evidence that this flood was only global in the relativistic sense of the whole world as the Israelites knew it.

    Funny enough Excelsior, I've seen some respected observers speculate that there was a cataclysmic flood in the area when the Black sea flooded 1000s of years ago. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

    This may tie in quite nicely. It's very possible that Noah or someone like him did exist and this was passed down through some form of race memory. I'd have no problem going along with that at all.

    It may have been even more global if the worldwide legends are anything to go by. It's possible that the melting of the ice caps were more rapid than expected and this inundation was recorded in tales going back 10,000 yrs. IIRC, recently some scientists are suggesting that the ice ages started off far more rapidly than thought before. In the order of less than a decade. It's possible that the melting occured just as quickly, hence the memory in humans of flooding.

    J C wrote:
    Wibbs has attempted several questions and he HAS made some valid points, mostly about issues other than evolution.
    . Fair enough, but my points show that the young earth hypotheses you suggest is at best flawed. Also many of my points are to do with evolution. Regardless, you haven't replied to my last points on fossilisation/geology/extinction/animal behaviour at all.

    PS A Christian Excelsior thinking of joining the Irish Skeptics? IIRC Jesus sought out unexpected company at times, so you're on the same track there. Nice one, that'll learn us heathen buggers. I for one would like to see that debate. Just look at the can of Oligochaeta you've opened now robindch:D

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > [Excelsior] How do you join Irish Skeptics?

    Turn up next wednesday and ask the lady at the door -- she should have some membership forms somewhere or other.

    After the lecture, there's usualy a rush upstairs to treat one's "often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5:23) with the contents of many caskets of spiritual purity.

    > [Wibbs] thinking of joining the Irish Skeptics?

    http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/13.html#9

    :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Wibbs
    ……..and igneous and conglomerates. So, conglomerates alone throw your theory in a spin for a start, as they are made up of previously formed sedimentary/metamorphic/igneous(even previous conglomerates).


    I did qualify my statement that digging in you backyard will reveal the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are present (OVER MOST OF THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH).
    In other words I fully accept that if you are living in parts of Co. Antrim, for example, on an extinct lava flow, you will actually find igneous Basalt when you go digging. Equally localised events either during or after Noah’s Flood created the conglomerates.

    However, even a cursory look at a Geological Survey Map of Ireland, or indeed any other country will show that the predominant rock types are sedimentary and metamorphic rocks – and these were all originally formed from sedimentation events under water.
    The great depths of most of these rocks and their widespread distribution indicates an enormous and worldwide scale of sedimentary rock deposition that only something like a worldwide flood catastrophe could generate.

    Of course there have been many localised sedimentation events, the Spirit Lake sedimentation event during the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption in 1980, being one of the most notable recent examples.
    However, the scale of the 30 metre deep canyon formed during this massive localised event is quite puny when compared with the Dakota / Nebrasca Badlands or the Grand Canyon in Colorado, which, because of both their depth and their widespread scale would indicate a Global process as being the likely cause.

    Quote Wibbs
    Just how many floods were there in this theory?


    There was one Global flood and many localised ones since then.
    The word Flood is something of a misnomer, in that the general impression that it conjures up is a flood caused by worldwide heavy rain.
    In actual fact, it is thought that the vast majority of the floodwaters came from BENEATH the ground surface as huge volumes of subterranean waters burst forth due to massive earthquake and volcanic activity.

    The heavy rain came about primarily due to the condensation of the enormous amounts of steam released by the process.

    The Ice Age that followed on from Noah's Flood was caused by a Nuclear Winter type effect because of the enormous quantities of dust and steam that was released into the atmosphere which clouded out the Sun thereby creating a “big freeze” over the Northernmost and Southernmost Latitudes of the Earth.


    Quote Wibbs
    What about whales. Did Noah have two of them in the Ark? Why wasn't room found for the trilobites? Why did the nautilus survive when the ammonites did not? Both would have been affected by this "silt".


    Gen 7:1-4 confirms that only land-based creatures were brought aboard the Ark. Aquatic creatures had to literally “sink of swim” and many did sink to form fossils and some survived because the process was ongoing and therefore there were local opportunities for survival for the water-based creatures.

    Noah’s Flood was the mother of all mass extinctions and ammonites either didn’t survive or became subsequently extinct.

    You do raise an interesting question about the Nautilus, which like Crocodiles, Coelacanths and many other so-called “living fossils” are believed by evolutionists to have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
    The unchanged Nautilus is easily explained by the Creation Science model, because they are only a few thousand years old – but the unchanged Nautilus does pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary model that assumes that all creatures evolve ‘upwards and onwards’ over time.

    Equally, the Coelacanth fish was assumed to have become extinct hundreds of millions of years ago – due to the ‘position’ of its fossils in the fossil record and it’s ‘primitive’ physiognomy – but in 1938 it was discovered to be ‘alive and well’ in the ocean off Africa – and looking EXACTLY like it’s supposed 300 million year old fossils.

    Evolutionists now postulate that during the 300 million years during which they claim that Mankind was evolving from something that looked like a rat – the Coelacanth fish remained TOTALLY UNCHANGED!!!!!

    The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.


    Quote Wibbs
    For a start compound eyes last quite a long time. Take a microscope to any long dead wasp on your windowsill for evidence of that


    The “dry” compound eye of an ‘air dwelling’ Wasp and the water filled compound eye of a ‘water dwelling’ Trilobite are fundamentally different structures. Equally, my explanation for the difference between the compound eyes observed in some fossilised Trilobites and the so-called “photosensitive pits” observed in others, is that different localised concentrations of caustic chemicals had different effects ranging from ‘no effect’ to complete degradation of the eye tissues to produce empty eye sockets which evolutionists erroneously assume to be “photosensitive pits”.


    Quote Wibbs
    The vast majority of well preserved fossils were rapidly buried as you say(usually by volcanic ash or landslide), but most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated. In fact many of them show degradation by scavengers, which suggests anything but a quick fossilisation.


    Many fossils during Noah’s Flood were actually buried by volcanic ash or landslides – due to the enormous tectonic processes released during The Flood.

    According to the Bible the initial Flooding Event took 40 days. During this period any land animals that were still alive would have become very hungry and they would have eaten other animals and carrion before they themselves ‘succumbed to the rising waters’.
    The fact that many fossilised land animals show degradation by scavengers is to be expected, but this still shows very rapid burial indeed – just think how quickly a pride of Lions (a) degrades a carcass and (b) completely consumes it – minutes in the case of (a) and hours / days in the case of (b). In other words, an instant of 'evolutionary Geological Time'.


    Quote Wibbs
    If you understood fossilisation you would see that the mineralisation of bone takes a very long time. In fact if you understood the various processes of fossilisation at all you would see that the idea of a flood catastrophy would make little sense.


    Could I suggest that it is not I who “doesn’t understand fossilization”.
    If we take the conventional evolutionary explanation it goes something like this. A bone gets buried under silt in water and there it stays as more and more silt builds up on top of it for millions of years until the weight of the overburden is so enormous that it all hardens into rock. Meanwhile, the bone has been gradually chemically transforming into the rock mineral to form a fossil imprint.

    Could I suggest that such a scenario is a good recipe for the anaerobic decay of the bone, hundreds of thousands of years before it would ever get a chance to form a fossil under such gradualist assumptions. Could I also suggest that the preservation of soft tissue is indicative of almost instantaneous fossilisation and the preservation of bone is indicative of rapid mineralisation with an input of chemically active ingredients and / or heat.


    Quote Wibbs
    Many fossils are formed without the direct interaction of water. Burial in tar/salt/ice/very dry sand for a start. How are these explained away by the flood hypotheses?


    These were all obviously fossilised after The Flood, and indeed such processes are ongoing at present.
    There are recorded cases of Humans eating frozen Mammoth flesh – and while I wouldn’t be queuing up to do so myself, it does prove that these creatures were frozen very recently indeed.

    Equally, the extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (part-fossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Wibbs
    Even in limestones which contain a lot of calcium carbonate, soft tissues are preserved. What about such rocks that have little or no evidence of Calcium carbonate at all, such as triassic red sandstones?


    Rapid localised processes are ALWAYS critical to the instantaneous fossilisation of soft tissues.

    Different combinations of sand, silt, chemicals and heat will give different localised results and the entire evidence from any particular fossil find must be evaluated – I have described the general processes involved in fossilisation. Like anything else in nature, there can be specific or localised interactions that give atypical results.


    Quote Wibbs
    Original Quote by JC
    Creation Scientists are satisfied that the correct regression equations indicate an age of less than 10,000 years.


    Satisfied by what exactly? DNA clocks, Carbon dating?

    They are satisfied by the regression equations established by examining the point mutation pattern observed in Human Mitochondrial DNA.


    Quote Wibbs
    Yes, but the humble bee shows evidence of basic "culture" in that these languages change over time and vary between colonies. The behaviour of the higher apes also shows evidence of primitive culture and language. Animals are not just pre programmed autotomata.

    One (bonobos) was even observed tending to a small bird that had accidently flown into a tree. Caring for it till it had regained its composure before releasing it.


    I agree, there is an enormous difference between an animal and a robot. Animals are able to learn from their experiences, and this learning can be passed within animal communities. The many stories of the loyalty of dogs to their owners and the fact that they can be trained to perform many useful tasks also demonstrates ‘good’ behaviour by animals – but not non-circumstantial moral behaviour

    God created all creatures perfectly. This perfection also extended to their behaviour. For example, because there was no (animal) death before Adam and Eve sinned, animals were designed to live in harmony with each and with Human Beings. There are occasional glimpses of what the pre-fall World looked like in the behavioural examples that are cited above.


    Quote Wibbs
    As for evil; the chimp is capable of unbelievable violence and "evil" towards its own kind and others. Some have even killed human children and played with the bodies. There's little "instinctive" about that, in your world view.


    As Jesus Christ illustrated when He cast out the legion of demons from the possessed man into pigs, in Mk 5:9-14 animals can be oppressed or indeed possessed by demonic forces.
    Equally, when sin entered the World through Adam and death through sin – all of Creation fell from God’s grace and not just Mankind.
    The capacity for pure evil is still only confined to Mankind and the Demonic Host.


    Quote Excelsior
    JC, you make a massive leap there where you say "Jesus believed in Noah's flood" and then conclude "Therefore he believed in flood geology".

    I also believe from geological evidence that this flood was only global in the relativistic sense of the whole world as the Israelites knew it.


    I cannot understand your above statement. You clearly accept that Jesus Christ confirmed that Noah’s Flood occurred just as Genesis records.
    Genesis confirms that it was a WORLDWIDE catastrophe that killed every land based creature in the ENTIRE World as Gen 7:22 says “EVERYTHING on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died”.
    The boundaries and shape of the original landmass on the Earth before The Flood bears little resemblance to the current landmass (due to the huge tectonic movements and the resultant upthrusts and downthrusts unleashed by the process). This fact also invalidates the 'local Middle Eastern Flood' hypothesis.
    The New Age 'Atlantis Myth' and the Pangea Theory of conventional Geology also reflect the reality that the ante-deluvian landmass was considerably different to what it now is.

    Equally some of the greatest Geological evidence for the aftermath of Noah’s Flood are found in the Grand Canyon and Badlands areas of America. Which are almost on the other side of the World from the Middle East.


    Quote Excelsior
    I don't in any way feel a need to challenge your young Earth hypothesis. As I have laid out already today, you are my brother in Christ. I need convert you from nothing. The pure motivation you have for holding to the views you hold to are clear.


    That is fair enough – but I don’t mind you challenging me, I thrive on challenges!!!!


    Quote Excelsior
    But can't you accept that there are more ways than yours to be authentic as a follower of Jesus and more than one legitimately attempted interpretation of the Scriptures? (I am not saying all interpretations are right. I am saying all are probably to some extent wrong but yours and mine are both certainly sincere)


    Could I say that all INTERPRETATIONS of God’s Word run the risk of error. Could I also say that the sincerity of our convictions has no effect on their validity – it is the truth of our beliefs that counts.

    In this context, it is important to appreciate that God’s Infallible Word resides in two locations – in the pages of the Holy Bible AND in the physical Universe and all life therein.
    Before you start accusing me of Polytheism or some other New Age Heresy could I rapidly clarify that I am NOT saying that God is IN physical matter or living organisms (other that the holy Spirit indwelling Christians) but that God CALLED these material entities forth in a Sovereign Fiat of His Divine Will during Creation Week about 7,000 years age.

    God actually SPOKE the Universe and all life into existence and so in a very real and profound sense it IS his Word and a glorious statement of His transcendent power.
    If you doubt me read Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26 where each act of Creation starts with the phrase “And God said ……”. Our amazing and all-powerful God didn’t even have “to lift a finger” during Creation Week, He just SAID it and it was done!!!

    It is also important to distinguish between the creature and it’s Creator. As Christians we should not adore the Creature (which evolution in a sense does) but rather we should adore the Creator God and Him alone.

    As Christians, we have a responsibility to study God’s Word in the Bible AND to study His Word as expressed by Him during Creation Week. Sadly The Fall has corrupted the original perfection of Creation, but God’s sovereign stamp is still very clearly visible on all of Creation – and this is what is now scientifically classified as Intelligent Design – which is God’s Word ”writ large” in all of His Creation.

    Ps 19:1-2 neatly (and poetically in THIS case) summarises The Word of God SPOKEN into The Universe.
    “The Heavens DECLARE the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”


    Quote Asiaprod
    All praise the Coelacanth, the fish that escaped the flood and lives on to defy the CS theorists.


    All praise the Lord God who created the Coelacanth Fish that has remained unchanged for the past 7,000 years and is living proof that evolutionists, (who believed that it had become extinct over 300 million years ago) got it completely wrong – on BOTH it’s extinction AND the 300 million years!!!


    Quote Robin
    Looks like the writing's on the wall (for evolution)


    Does this mean that the penny has finally dropped, Robin?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Wibbs
    It's very possible that Noah or someone like him did exist and this was passed down through some form of race memory. I'd have no problem going along with that at all.

    It may have been even more global if the worldwide legends are anything to go by. It's possible that the melting of the ice caps were more rapid than expected and this inundation was recorded in tales going back 10,000 yrs. IIRC, recently some scientists are suggesting that the ice ages started off far more rapidly than thought before. In the order of less than a decade. It's possible that the melting occured just as quickly, hence the memory in humans of flooding.



    Your date of 10,000 is quite accurate for both Noah’s Flood and the Ice Age.

    I can assure you that Noah did exist, not only did Jesus Christ Himself confirm that Noah existed in Mt 24:37-39 and Lk 17:26-27, but there are many legends of his existence (and The Flood) amongst the folklore and ‘race memories’ of many widely dispersed peoples throughout the World.

    I can confirm that the latest scientific conclusions in relation to the rapid onset of the Ice Age ARE correct – the Ice Age probably CAME AND WENT during less than 100 years in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood.


    Quote Wibbs
    you haven't replied to my last points on fossilisation/geology/extinction/animal behaviour at all.


    I have now done so – this thread is moving so fast that I have barely time to have my Tea in the evenings!!!!


    Quote Robin
    Lord Dick Taverne, who will present on the topic of his latest book
    > 'The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism'


    Sounds like Lord Taverne might have a few truly sceptical things to say about evolution – if he follows through on the logic of his thesis!!!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    J C wrote:
    I did qualify my statement that digging in you backyard will reveal the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are

    Gen 7:1-4 confirms that only land-based creatures were brought aboard the Ark. Aquatic creatures had to literally “sink of swim” and many sunk to form fossils and some survived because the process was ongoing and therefore there were local opportunities for survival for the water-based creatures.
    Even in your theory, aquatic dinosaurs would outnumber the mammals by a large margin. How come they perished?

    You do raise an interesting question about the Nautilus, which like Crocodiles, Coelacanths and many other so-called “living fossils” are believed by evolutionists to have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
    The unchanged Nautilus is easily explained by the Creation Science model, because they are only a few thousand years old – but the unchanged Nautilus does pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary model that assumes that all creatures evolve ‘upwards and onwards’ over time.
    Fair enough, but how do you explain the ones that did change?
    Equally, the Coelacanth fish was assumed to have become extinct hundreds of millions of years ago – due to the ‘position’ of its fossils in the fossil record and it’s ‘primitive’ physiognomy – but in 1938 it was discovered to be ‘alive and well’ in the ocean off Africa – and looking EXACTLY like it’s supposed 300 million year old fossils.
    Not exactly, it's actually a little different to it's ancestors in physiology.
    The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.
    It may be the biblical explanation(in your mind), but it's hardly rational, when faced with the vast wealth of zone fossils that back up the scientific theory.
    The “dry” compound eye of an ‘air dwelling’ Wasp and the water filled compound eye of a ‘water dwelling’ Trilobite are fundamentally different structures.
    Surprisingly they're remarkably similar, with both being fluid filled.
    Equally, my explanation for the difference between the compound eyes observed in some fossilised Trilobites and the so-called “photosensitive pits” observed in others, is that different localised concentrations of caustic chemicals had different effects ranging from ‘no effect’ to complete degradation of the eye tissues to produce empty eye sockets which evolutionists erroneously assume to be “photosensitive pits”.
    What about two trilobites on the same strata of rock, one with and one without compound eyes(I'm looking at one in my hand now)?

    The fact that many fossilised land animals show degradation by scavengers is to be expected, but this still shows very rapid burial indeed – just think how quickly a pride of Lions (a) degrades a carcass and (b) completely consumes it – minutes in the case of (a) and hours / days in the case of (b). In other words, an instant of 'evolutionary Geological Time'
    They may disarticulate the skeleton but the bones remain in most cases. They don't consume it all. Any stroll through the African savannahs will show you that.

    Could I suggest that it is not I who “doesn’t understand fossilization”.
    If we take the conventional evolutionary explanation it goes something like this. A bone gets buried under silt in water and there it stays as more and more silt builds up on top of it for millions of years until the weight of the overburden is so enormous that it all hardens into rock. Meanwhile, the bone has been gradually chemically transforming into the rock mineral to form a fossil imprint.
    With respect, that is a very primary school view of the process of fossilisation.
    Could I suggest that such a scenario is a good recipe for the anaerobic decay of the bone, hundreds of thousands of years before it would ever get a chance to form a fossil under such gradualist assumptions. Could I also suggest that the preservation of soft tissue is indicative of almost instantaneous fossilisation and the preservation of bone is indicative of rapid mineralisation with an input of chemically active ingredients and / or heat.
    Soft tissue(which is very rare), yes. Preservation of bone no. In fact, by your "flood" theory the soft tissue fossils should be in the majority.
    These were all obviously fossilised after The Flood, and indeed such processes are ongoing at present.
    What about those conditions found in rocks under the more common kind of fossilisation?
    Equally, the extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (part-fossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed.
    That's mostly Jurassic park fantasy, I'm afraid. While mineralised red blood cell structures have been found, haemoglobin has not.

    You are fitting the evidence to fit your theory and sadly it's not taking very well. While Evolutionists can sometimes be accused of doing similar, theirs takes a lot better, I'm afraid.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote Wibbs
    Even in your theory, aquatic dinosaurs would outnumber the mammals by a large margin. How come they perished?


    ’Survival of the fittest’, NS and all that.


    Quote Wibbs
    Fair enough, but how do you explain the ones that did change?


    ’Survival of the fittest’, genetic drift, speciation, NS and all that (using EXISTING genetic diversity).


    Quote Wibbs
    Not exactly, it's actually a little different to it's ancestors in physiology.


    It is a little smaller – indicating that the modern Coelacanth isn’t as good a feeder as its ancestors!!


    Quote Wibbs
    It may be the biblical explanation(in your mind), but it's hardly rational, when faced with the vast wealth of zone fossils that back up the scientific theory.


    The zone fossils are just that, the fossils fossilized within the same zone of fossil burial during Noah’s Flood – and their ‘wealth’ or otherwise is of little practical significance.

    Quote Wibbs
    Surprisingly they're remarkably similar, with both being fluid filled.


    Yes they’re both fluid filled but their surfaces have completely different refractive indices and the wasps eyes have a dry surface while the Trilobites were wet.

    Quote Wibbs
    What about two trilobites on the same strata of rock, one with and one without compound eyes(I'm looking at one in my hand now)?


    What about a congenitally blind cat – and a normal-sighted cat ? Ditto for Trilobite fossils.


    Quote Wibbs
    They may disarticulate the skeleton but the bones remain in most cases. They don't consume it all. Any stroll through the African savannahs will show you that.


    Can I give you your original quote by way of reply “most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated.”

    Quote Wibbs
    With respect, that is a very primary school view of the process of fossilisation.


    I don’t personally believe in it – but it is a reasonably fair representation of gradualist fossilisation nonetheless.

    Quote Wibbs
    While mineralised red blood cell structures have been found, haemoglobin has not.


    While I cannot at the moment lay my hands on the reference, haemoglobin HAS been recovered from Dinosaur bone. As I don’t currently have the reference to hand, I stand scientifically corrected on this point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7 homeostatic


    I felt the call of Christ in my life, and committed my life to Him. There is no amount of science that can sway me one way or another. I believe that God created the earth, because the Bible tells me so.

    If one has not heard the call of Christ, I don't expect them to understand. They're fathers may have been monkeys. My father however is God almighty. I am a son of God. And, by saying I am a son of God, I imply that I am entitled to his inheritance. I would not be able to say that were I a son of monkey.

    For all of the sons of monkeys out there I say live well then die. I however want to die then live. That's the beauty of the whole thing. We all chose. If upon hearing the Gospel one person chooses not to believe, the Bible says go to the next.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    For all those who insist on taking every word of the Bible literally - did the parables really happen? If they did not literally occur, are they therefore lies or are they still true?

    Homeostatic, I share the belief you express in your first paragraph, but the second? We are sons and daughters of God, yes... but surely we are also the sons and daughters of our mother and father?

    I am the son of a man and a woman. By saying this, I do not "deny my inheritance" or anything of the sort. In the same way, you can still accept evolution and believe in God.

    My ancestors were apes, and I am a child of God.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > by saying I am a son of God, I imply that I am entitled
    > to his inheritance [...] to die then live


    I'm not trying to be a smartass here folks, but do a lot of people believe this? It seems horribly selfish to me to believe something so that you'll be given something... :confused:


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    J C wrote:
    It is a little smaller – indicating that the modern Coelacanth isn’t as good a feeder as its ancestors!!
    Actually it's a little bigger and fatter.

    The zone fossils are just that, the fossils fossilized within the same zone of fossil burial during Noah’s Flood – and their ‘wealth’ or otherwise is of little practical significance.
    :eek: You can't just dismiss the amount of zone fossils and their position in the geological column so easily and still call it science, surely?

    Yes they’re both fluid filled but their surfaces have completely different refractive indices and the wasps eyes have a dry surface while the Trilobites were wet.
    Now they're both fluid filled. Refractive indices aside that doesn't affect their fossilisation.

    What about a congenitally blind cat – and a normal-sighted cat ? Ditto for Trilobite fossils.
    So now we need deformed trilobites to make your theory stick. Sseemingly common enough for me to have 3 normal and 2 deformed on the same rock. I must be so lucky. Ok, right so........
    Can I give you your original quote by way of reply “most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated.”
    Yes because unlike in your theory, most land animals were not inundated by a flood. You're disproving yourself with every point you make.
    I don’t personally believe in it – but it is a reasonably fair representation of gradualist fossilisation nonetheless.
    It really isn't. Seriously read up on it, especially the fossilisation that doesn't require water and those examples that lie under the "flood" layers.
    While I cannot at the moment lay my hands on the reference, haemoglobin HAS been recovered from Dinosaur bone. As I don’t currently have the reference to hand, I stand scientifically corrected on this point.
    No what was recovered was traces of the haematite from the haemoglobin, that was left from the fossilisation process.

    I agree with robindch and JustHalf on homeostatic's position. It feels very selfish and exclusive to me. From my reading of the guy, the one thing I wouldn't have accused Jesus of was selfishness. Quite the opposite, in fact. He seemed a very inclusive chap.

    BTW JustHalf puts his/her religious position well and I for one would defend their right to believe that(even if I don't). "My ancestors were apes, and I am a child of God". Like it. Nice way to sum up your belief :D Sadly, even Darwinists would conclude I was still an ape. :)

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    robindch wrote:
    > [Wibbs] thinking of joining the Irish Skeptics?
    Sorry, just saw that now.

    Not really though. I find I'm often too sceptical for such things. Joking aside I have found that the sceptical movement of late can be just as intransigent as other views.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    Originally Posted by J C
    It is a little smaller – indicating that the modern Coelacanth isn’t as good a feeder as its ancestors!!

    Good lord, the cheek of you JC calling my Coelacanth a little fry. Lucky I have Wibbs here to put your mind at rest on that one The CS crowd probably only found a baby one. Mum and Dad were bigger and fatter :).

    Another thing I mean to ask you was Noah was 600 years of age when he built the Ark. How does such longativity fit into your model, and why can I not expect to live that long.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The flood probably caused some change in the atmosphere that causes us to age more or some such...:rolleyes:

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    JustHalf said:
    For all those who insist on taking every word of the Bible literally - did the parables really happen? If they did not literally occur, are they therefore lies or are they still true?

    I have NEVER met any believer who insisted 'on taking every word of the Bible literally'. All hold that it is contains all the usual modes of language - literal, metaphor, simile, etc. What we do insist on is that what is meant literally should be taken as such; what is metaphorical, as metaphorical, etc.

    It is not always easy to decide which is which - in the area of prophecy, for example. At other times it is very easy - the parables, explicitly denoted as similes by our Lord. The historical narrative is also plainly meant to be taken literally - and it is appealed to frequently by the NT writers in a way that would make no sense if they were not literally true.

    The choice for believers is to accept the history of the Bible as true, or hold Christ and the apostles as mere 'men of their time', subject to literalist misunderstanding of the OT accounts. I know many believers are confused on the issue, and so can continue to believe in the Christ of the Bible while at the same time believing in evolution - but their theology is untenable and will be taken apart by any skeptic who knows a little Scripture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,525 ✭✭✭JustHalf


    Yeah, all us Christians who believe in evolution all have a terribly weak faith, easily taken apart by any learned skeptic.

    So I guess the only non-Christians I've ever spoken to are idiots. How long can I avoid the smart ones?!? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > Noah was 600 years of age when he built the Ark.
    > How does such longativity fit into your model, and
    > why can I not expect to live that long.


    Aha! I can help out here -- the usual creationist explanation is that the river of DNA ran pure and clean back in the good old days, helping people like Noah to live for ages and ages, and others to breed successfully with family members (cf, adam and eve). With the passage of time and the malodorous attentions of the various devils, DNA became corrupted, so people's lives shortened and restrictions had to be put in place on people breeding with their siblings.

    Hope this helps!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Robindch said:
    Aha! I can help out here -- the usual creationist explanation is that the river of DNA ran pure and clean back in the good old days, helping people like Noah to live for ages and ages, and others to breed successfully with family members (cf, adam and eve). With the passage of time and the malodorous attentions of the various devils, DNA became corrupted, so people's lives shortened and restrictions had to be put in place on people breeding with their siblings.

    Actually, Wibbs' sarcastic comment - The flood probably caused some change in the atmosphere that causes us to age more or some such... gives the mechanism for genetic degradation likely responsible for the dramatic decrease in our longevity. Not various devils, but a probable change to the canopy that protects earth from harmful radiation. Could a world-wide flood that altered the surface of the world have an impact on the atmosphere? Look what man's puny efforts have done in a few years to the ozone layer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    Right.

    I can think of no better way to deal with this.

    I will defend, against any challenge that may be raised, the contention that the world as we know it today was created in the manner described by Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien in the book "The Silmarillion".

    Tolkien, I put it to you, was not in fact an author of fictional novels, but a prophet in disguise. He, by virtue of his divine nature and his secret Maiar ancestry, had access to the facts regarding the true origin of the universe, which he chose to disseminate and introduce into the minds of men through appealing stories. Components of his works, including the Ainulindale, the Valaquenta and the Akallabeth, are actual holy texts recalled from ages past which describe with perfect accuracy the events which lead to the formation of the world we inhabit today. A decent summary of the history of the universe can be found here.

    We are presently in the latter part of the 5th Age of what was once called Middle Earth. Our true history has long ago been forgotten, but has been restored by Tolkien. There is not one detail described in his works which I will not be able to reconcile with the observed nature of the world through reasonable conjecture and theorising.

    Try me.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > Try me

    I was going to ask you to produce some physical evidence of hobbits, but half a second's thought reminded me of:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm

    Damn, I think you might be onto something here.

    Anyhow, leaving aside Tolkien's catholic beliefs, his friendship with CS Lewis (and the rest of the christian Inklings), not to add the many morphological similarities between the two tales, I still must say that the Ainulindalë is a hell of a lot better a read than Genesis. Here's a morsel to chew over:
    [...]a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice [...]
    Fill in the actors as necessary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Sapien said:
    I will defend, against any challenge that may be raised, the contention that the world as we know it today was created in the manner described by Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien in the book "The Silmarillion".

    For a start, we all know the origen of "The Silmarillion". We can document its date of writing, and the fact that the author presented it as a fable rather than as history.

    The Biblical account is ancient. That doesn't prove it is true, but it is the first qualifier. Next it is coherent, offering a non-contradictory history of Man.
    Finally, its account is consistent with the observable data around us. This is where the debate rages - which theory of origins fits best with the physics, chemistry and biology we observe today and whose effects we examine in the material universe? Scientists differ. Arguments for Chance or Intelligent Design abound.

    So, No, the Bible cannot just be dismissed as another fairy-story. It is not presented as such, nor has it been regarded as such by good people over thousands of years. Its account deserves a fair hearing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    JustHalf said:
    Yeah, all us Christians who believe in evolution all have a terribly weak faith, easily taken apart by any learned skeptic.

    So I guess the only non-Christians I've ever spoken to are idiots. How long can I avoid the smart ones?!?


    Well, the guys on this list are no idiots, but they do seem sort of easy-going atheists. They are content for you to live in your little Tolkien-like fantasy, but they do object to any scientific arguments made in defense of the gospel.

    When you meet militant atheists, who want to wake you out of your delusion and to warn others against it, then you will have to face the facts of Scripture.

    Here's a sample of what you have to explain away:

    Examples of Christ's reference to the Genesis record:

    Matthew 23:25
    that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    Mark 10:5-9
    5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

    Examples of the apostles' reference to the Genesis record:

    Luke 3:38
    the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

    Romans 5:14
    Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

    1 Cor.15:22
    For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

    1 Cor. 15:45
    And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    1 Tim. 2:13
    For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    1 Tim. 2:14
    And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

    Heb. 11:4
    By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

    1 John 3:12
    not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

    Jude 1:14
    Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,

    Want to make a start? I've raised this issue of the NT validation of the Genesis record on this thread already, but no one has answered.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Robindch said:
    Damn, I think you might be onto something here.

    On the other hand, maybe not:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0228hobbit_war.asp

    :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quote homeostatic
    There is no amount of science that can sway me one way or another. I believe that God created the earth, because the Bible tells me so.

    If upon hearing the Gospel one person chooses not to believe, the Bible says go to the next.


    Both are perfectly correct Biblical principles.

    However, the Bible does mandate us to explain why we believe what we do using logic and the Word of God (which is expressed in both the Bible and in His Creation). This is confirmed in 1Pet 3:15 where Christians are told to “always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”.(NIV)

    Modern Creation Science is an ultra-modern application of ‘cutting-edge’ science to the study of the resultant effects of Special Divine Creation - and it takes it’s mandate from the biblical confirmation in Rom 1:19-20 that God’s actions can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. The fact that Creation Science uses modern scientific methods in the pursuit of biblical truth is a good reason for all Christians, and other mono-theists, to support it’s endeavours – and indeed many do so.

    Equally, this thread is a Christianity Forum and Jesus Christ’s advice when dealing with non-believers who reject the Gospel (to move on and wipe the dust from your feet) DOESN’T apply to situations where people wish to discuss Holy Scripture, as is often the case on this forum.


    Quote Asiaprod
    Another thing I mean to ask you was Noah was 600 years of age when he built the Ark. How does such longativity fit into your model, and why can I not expect to live that long


    Long anti-diluvian lifespans are confirmed in the Bible and also by the giant size to which reptiles grew prior to the Flood as evidenced by the fossils of certain Dinosaurs.
    Please note that reptiles are one of the few types of creature that continue to grow throughout their lives – unlike mammals or birds, for example, who stop growing when they reach their mature sizes. Very large reptiles are therefore almost invariably very old reptiles – and there are plenty of very large (and therefore very old) reptiles in the fossil record and therefore presumably killed by Noah’s Flood.

    Many explanations have been proffered for the contractions in lifespan evident in the Bible. It would appear that the first mutations occurred immediately after the ‘fall of mankind’ when God told Adam and Eve that “dying they would die”. However, the ageing process greatly accelerated in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood and this is currently explained by some Creation Scientists to be, in part due, to an increase in incident solar radiation upon the Earth due to the collapse of a postulated ‘water canopy’ in the upper atmosphere that covered the entire Earth before the Flood. This ‘water canopy’ could also have maintained a ‘greenhouse effect’ and a stable warm climate all over the Earth – and this could explain the presence of fossilized tropical vegetation, which has been found in the polar regions. Please also note that such a ‘water canopy’ could allow sunlight in at levels that would produce photosynthesis rates greatly in excess of the compensation point of plants.
    Additional sources of radiation could have been released from deep within the Earth during the massive upheavals that were evidently caused by Noah’s Flood – thereby further shortening lifespans. Please note that all of the above is speculative and subject to active ongoing Creation Science research.

    Quote Robin
    DNA ran pure and clean back in the good old days, helping people like Noah to live for ages and ages, and others to breed successfully with family members (cf, adam and eve). With the passage of time and the malodorous attentions of the various devils, DNA became corrupted, so people's lives shortened and restrictions had to be put in place on people breeding with their siblings.


    Not bad Robin, you ARE becoming a Creation Scientist after all!!.

    There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).

    Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background radiation apparently greatly increased the mutation rates (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.

    Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Quotable quotes from Christian sources on Creation.


    The “Penny Catechism” of The Roman Catholic Church said:-
    “God made the world from nothing and by His Word only – that is by a single act of His all-powerful will”


    Martin Luther said :-
    “When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are.”


    Similarly, John Calvin stated:-
    “…albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years ……. God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”


    God said In Ex 20:11 :-
    “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).


    Jesus Christ said In Mt 19:4 :-
    “Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).


    Malcolm Muggeridge, Roman Catholic Philosopher and Broadcaster, said during the Pascal Lectures in the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada :-
    “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”




    Quotable quotes from Scientists on Evolution.

    Prof H S Lipton FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, ‘A physicist looks at evolution’ Physics Bulletin, vol 21 1980 pp138.
    “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”


    Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA 1984 pp 89.
    “It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”


    Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, USA on 5 November 1981.
    One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let us call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year one morning I woke up and something had happened in the night. It struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

    That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be mislead for so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
    The question is – can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?
    I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists and all I got was silence.”


    Prof Richard Dawkins, Dept of Zoology, Oxford University, UK. ‘The necessity of Darwinism’. New Scientist, vol 94, 15 April 1982 pp 130.
    “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer.”


    Prof Sir Fred Hoyle, Late Astronomer Royal, Late Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University, UK, & Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics, University of Cardiff, UK, in Evolution from Space, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1981 pp141 and 144.
    “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate …..”

    “It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the intelligences to our left, even to the extreme idealized limit of God.”


    Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University, ‘Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology vol 6(1), January 1980 pp127.
    “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.


    Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. ‘The return of hopeful monsters’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (6) June-July 1977 pp24
    “All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.”


    Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The History of life’ in The Evolution of Life, Sol Tax (editor) Vol 1 of Evolution After Darwin, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1960 pp149.
    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. “


    Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol 117 no 2 pp 213-219 2004.
    “At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighbourhood.

    Biological systems also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks – nucleotide bases and amino acids – arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made up of among other things, systems of specialised proteins. Organs are made of specialised arrangements of cell types and tissues and body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet clearly, the properties of individual proteins do not fully determine the organisation of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns. It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.”



    Just like my own 21 scientific questions on evolution – there are hundreds more quotes where they came from.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,328 ✭✭✭OfflerCrocGod


    J C wrote:
    There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).

    Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background radiation apparently greatly increased the mutation rates (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
    Don't forget the martians; they are in it with the gays - they are all after our precious bodily fluids. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core atheist works. I can no longer sit back and allow atheist infiltration, atheist indoctrination, atheist subversion and the international atheist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Fight the power J C!!!

    dr_strangelove.jpg


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement