The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Obliq · 08-10-2012 09:07PM

On bbc3 now! Creationism; Conspiracy road trip - with Andrew Maxwell and a bunch of British creationists........tune in, should be *ahem* ....invigorating.

shizz · 08-10-2012 09:27PM

Obliq wrote: »

On bbc3 now! Creationism; Conspiracy road trip - with Andrew Maxwell and a bunch of British creationists........tune in, should be *ahem* ....invigorating.

Is it a three part series? Any where I can watch it later? Can't seem to find it on bbc iplayer only it live.

Obliq · 08-10-2012 09:32PM

shizz wrote: »

Is it a three part series? Any where I can watch it later? Can't seem to find it on bbc iplayer only it live.

Think it's a series on Andrew Maxwell trying to debunk conspiracy theories - only this one on creationism. Don't know about real player - i've tried it b4 but can't get it in Ireland without hacking it (according to my computer expert 14yr old). Hope ya find it somewhere.....

Benny_Cake · 08-10-2012 09:56PM

shizz wrote: »

Is it a three part series? Any where I can watch it later? Can't seem to find it on bbc iplayer only it live.

If it's on BBC 3, you can be sure it will be repeated soon.

The chap from the North is coming across as truly obnoxious.

Obliq · 08-10-2012 10:03PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If it's on BBC 3, you can be sure it will be repeated soon.

The chap from the North is coming across as truly obnoxious.

Interesting. I thought it was sad that the black haired girl (not good on names, sorry) was worried that if she questioned her religious belief in creation, that that would undermine her entire belief and would lead to questioning the rest of it. She seemed genuinely afraid of what would happen if she asked herself that one question and how it would lead to others.

J C · 08-10-2012 10:04PM

nickcave wrote: »

That's what I meant. So you do believe that there is a systematic bias among independent researchers the world over towards presenting a certain point of view.

... most of the independent researchers on the origins issue are Creation Scientists and ID proponents.
... anybody proposing these ideas within Secular-controlled institutions would likely be shown door in double quick time.

nickcave wrote: »

Furthermore you believe that this affects everyone except a minority of religious young-earth scientists.

It affects everybody ... from the Evolutionists who believe they are directly descended from pondkind without a shred of evidence in favour of it ... to ID proponents who suffer the same disdain as Creation Scientists from their fellow Evolutionist scientists.

nickcave wrote: »

But you're perfectly ok with ignoring that their work points exactly to what their religions have been teaching all along. 'Cause that's how science works.

The Atheist religion has certainly been teaching godless creation ... that has now turned into godless evolution ... all along.

nickcave wrote: »

.
And you believe that this has introduced an error to the tune of several orders of magnitude into the consensus on how old the earth is? Did you even read that paper?

The point is that an article of scientific faith has been the immutibility of radioactive decay rates ... and now we find that this article of faith is wrong ... and who knows, if they have been wrong about its immutability ... they may be equally wrong about the possible magnitudes involved.

nickcave wrote: »

Swap 'guess' for 'investigate' and you've just about got it

I'm not an Evolutionist anymore ... so I have stopped the wild speculation about rat-like creatures becoming Man during a time period when crocodiles and turtles and all of the other 'living fossils' didn't change at all.

J C · 08-10-2012 10:17PM

Obliq wrote: »

On bbc3 now! Creationism; Conspiracy road trip - with Andrew Maxwell and a bunch of British creationists........tune in, should be *ahem* ....invigorating.

Thanks for the tip.
An interesting programme.
However, it suffered by not inviting Creation Scientists to meet their Evolutionist colleagues ... but then again that might not be a good idea, if you wanted to avoid the weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory ... and the demonstrable strengths of Creation Science.

It had all of the usual claims about evolution = science ... when Spontaneous Evolution is a deeply held religious tenet of Secular Humanist Faith.

Monty Burnz · 08-10-2012 10:20PM

J C wrote: »

Thanks for the tip.
An interesting programme.
However, it suffered by not inviting Creation Scientists

I think I've spotted an oxymoron in your post.

J C · 08-10-2012 10:26PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think I've spotted an oxymoron in your post.

... your thought is wrong ... all Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists and most are of the highest calibre.:)

... but then again why let objective facts spoil a good story ... like the one about the frog amphibian who turned into a prince man ... with nothing added but selected mistakes!!:)

Obliq · 08-10-2012 10:29PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think I've spotted an oxymoron in your post.

I imagine that was thoroughly intentional. I'm getting used to how JC expresses himself. Creation Scientists and religious tenet of Secular Humanist Faith.

Obliq · 08-10-2012 10:39PM

I'm fascinated by the possibility that creationists and atheists cringed in equal proportion while watching that programme. Night all.

J C · 08-10-2012 10:44PM

Obliq wrote: »

I'm fascinated by the possibility that creationists and atheists cringed in equal proportion while watching that programme. Night all.

... so we can agree on something.
... sweet dreams!!:)

PopePalpatine · 08-10-2012 10:47PM

J C wrote: »

... your thought is wrong ... all Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists and most are of the highest calibre.:)

Name one who has studied evolutionary biology, and didn't drop out of/fail the course.

Gumbi · 09-10-2012 12:34AM

"Atheist religion". Oh JC. I take these little comments as humour, for the sake of my sanity.

AtomicHorror · 09-10-2012 12:43AM

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

And his neck? You know, the most glaringly obvious feature of all? The one the kids all remember about sauropods? No mention of the neck? An odd omission.

AtomicHorror · 09-10-2012 12:54AM

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C wrote: »

... please stop depriving yourself of the fruits of this cutting edge science, Sarky.:)

Out of interest, what would those fruits be? What are we able to do, technologically, with the knowledge gained from ID, that we cannot do with knowledge gained from evolutionary theory? If we accept ID, what can we do that we weren't able to do before?

The fruits of ID research is certainly available to ET researchers ... but I don't expect them to publicly confirm that they use it because there is such a religious bias within the scientific establishment against ID.

JC, I was hoping for some specifics on those "fruits" of ID research. Can we take it that you don't know?

You can take it that they involve knowhow of such importance that I am not prepared to share it ... I have given you guys too much information already ... for all the thanks I have got!!!:)

This is a very odd conversation, J_C. Why aren't you prepared to share the information? You suggest that it is of great benefit and importance. I see three possibilities:

1. The information is not beneficial, and you mislead us by suggesting that it is.
2. The information is of great benefit to humanity and you are withholding it intentionally in line with some agenda unclear to us.
3. You don't know of any practical applications of ID and lied to us previously.

All three options suggest morally questionable behavior on your part. Can you explain please?

systemsready · 09-10-2012 06:24AM

The scientist asked the kids how did Noah's Ark accommodate the whales.
Why would a ******** whale get in a boat? Because he might drown in a flood?
Did they forget the whale could swim?
If the whale got on the Ark, then all the fish would want to get in too!
I cant believe no one told the scientist that.

systemsready · 09-10-2012 06:36AM

Another thing, which I believe is also a sign from God. The young people had something that the scientists didn't.
One of the girls, the dark haired girl, said near the end, "I dont want to accept that detail about the skulls, because if I accept that I have to accept that everything is just crap, and I'm not gonna do that"
Because she is right, without God everything is crap, and thats what makes it inevitable that God is there.
The scientists looked like some of the poor examples of life on this planet, and the 'believers' looked like they had real life energy.
The blonde girl seemed to be weakening and I could see her lose her youthful energy in that moment.
Jesus said you must be as a child to get to heaven. What he meant was , you must believe, always, because as soon as you stop believing , spiritual death starts setting in.
Abdul seemed to be the one with the real nous,followed by Phil.

systemsready · 09-10-2012 06:44AM

No matter what **** you hear , never stop believing, always remember the Universe could not have happened by accident,impossible. Therefore the Creator is there, if He is there then all about the Prophets is true, and all the Angels are true. and the Hereafter is true. If not then everything is 'crap' as the girl said.
You think Satan isnt clever enough to invent new ways to destroy your spirit?
Thats his job. And hes working overtime these days.

Monty Burnz · 09-10-2012 09:47AM

J C wrote: »

... your thought is wrong ... all Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified scientists and most are of the highest calibre.:)

They aren't. Please don't try to blow smoke up my ass - you are insulting my intelligence, it's not like I can't look up these goons' qualifications. 'Highest calibre' - pffffft.

Monty Burnz · 09-10-2012 09:51AM

systemsready wrote: »

The scientist asked the kids how did Noah's Ark accommodate the whales.
Why would a ******** whale get in a boat? Because he might drown in a flood?
Did they forget the whale could swim?
If the whale got on the Ark, then all the fish would want to get in too!
I cant believe no one told the scientist that.

Did the scientist ask how Noah and his family identified the millions of different types of insects and spiders all over the world and manage to gather a few of each of them?

Because that would have been a lot harder than getting some whales into his little boat.

systemsready · 09-10-2012 10:11AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Did the scientist ask how Noah and his family identified the millions of different types of insects and spiders all over the world and manage to gather a few of each of them?

Because that would have been a lot harder than getting some whales into his little boat.

My question was why a 'scientist' would wonder how whales would fit in the Ark.
If he was indeed an educated man he would not have asked such a stupid question. Doesn't he know that whales can swim? Or does he think that at the time of Noah, the whales had legs and were land animals but 'evolved' into sea creatures afterwards. (Lord save us!)

Peregrinus · 09-10-2012 10:22AM

systemsready wrote: »

My question was why a 'scientist' would wonder how whales would fit in the Ark.

I think you should consider the possiblity that he was being ironic.

You know, it's just an outside chance, but still. . . :rolleyes:

systemsready · 09-10-2012 10:29AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you should consider the possiblity that he was being ironic.

You know, it's just an outside chance, but still. . . :rolleyes:

Now you are clutching at straws Peregrinus! Haha
He was a nerd trapped in a school of thought that is so fragile a child can see through it.

systemsready · 09-10-2012 10:32AM

Next time one of them 'scientists' like Richard Dawkins starts presenting **** bring on some of the youths who are believers and see that **** just crumble away in their hands.
Scientists need to get real, all things come from The Creator, ..OK now go and do your science but keep the fundamental reasoning in your mind.

Peregrinus · 09-10-2012 10:40AM

systemsready wrote: »

Now you are clutching at straws Peregrinus!

Systemsready, you're advancing an argument which requires us to accept that a scientist is genuinely unware that the whale is a marine mammal, and I'm the one grasping at straws?

systemsready wrote: »

Haha

Haha indeed!

Lantus · 09-10-2012 10:42AM

15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows
by the brook surround him.

creatures like dinosaurs roamed the earth alongside men and this vague one liner is the only thing to identify them? What about T-rex going on an all you can eat buffet?

Also, the lotus tree is only around 25ft tall but is almost 50% dense foilage with wide branches. An animal underneath would be limited to around 10ft high which would be about the size of an elephant. To the people of that age that would be a behemoth. Aso it only mentions ONE creature not many. There were a vast array of dinosaurs of differing sizes, cololurs and types.

I'm just baffled as to why so many christians want to 'try' to use the bible as some sort of scientific reference guide to life? The point of the bible was to develop personally. Learning how to love people and accept them and grow. The stories about creation were just a brief little intro to give a bit of reference to the entire story. I am confident that the author wanted people to develop a much better understanding of science and creation beyond what was written. Its just a shame he or she couldn't of written that to help folks out.

Wiggles88 · 09-10-2012 10:51AM

systemsready wrote: »

The scientist asked the kids how did Noah's Ark accommodate the whales.
Why would a ******** whale get in a boat? Because he might drown in a flood?
Did they forget the whale could swim?
If the whale got on the Ark, then all the fish would want to get in too!
I cant believe no one told the scientist that.

Now I havent seen the program myself so I'm not fully aware of the context however just on the whale thing: assuming the flood happened as described it would introduce so much water that the salt concentration in the sea would become negligible thereby making all the worlds waters essentially fresh water. Now whales are salt water creatures, while the length of time a whale can survive in fresh water is still somewhat debatable, no whale has been observed living in fresh water for more than a few weeks. Therefore assuming noah was real he would have had to have some sort of salt water compartment on board to accommodate all those salt water creatures who cannot survive in the fresh waters of the flood.

Monty Burnz · 09-10-2012 11:02AM

systemsready wrote: »

My question was why a 'scientist' would wonder how whales would fit in the Ark.
If he was indeed an educated man he would not have asked such a stupid question. Doesn't he know that whales can swim? Or does he think that at the time of Noah, the whales had legs and were land animals but 'evolved' into sea creatures afterwards. (Lord save us!)

My question was how exactly you expect us to believe that Noah gathered up millions of species if insect, spider, slugs, worms etc. etc.

But of course you can't answer this, so by all means answer a different question.

Peregrinus · 09-10-2012 11:05AM

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Now I havent seen the program myself so I'm not fully aware of the context however just on the whale thing: assuming the flood happened as described it would introduce so much water that the salt concentration in the sea would become negligible thereby making all the worlds waters essentially fresh water. Now whales are salt water creatures, while the length of time a whale can survive in fresh water is still somewhat debatable, no whale has been observed living in fresh water for more than a few weeks. Therefore assuming noah was real he would have had to have some sort of salt water compartment on board to accommodate all those salt water creatures who cannot survive in the fresh waters of the flood.

Actually, the bigger problem is the freshwater species.

The notion that salt concentration becomes negligible in the flood-enlarged oceans presumes that salinity is evenly distributed. But in fact we know that, even now, salinity is not evenly distributed through the oceans; adjacent bodies of water present different salt concentrations. So there is the (highly theoretical) possibility that, during the flood, some parts of ocean retained high salinity, or at least high enough to enable saltwater species to survive. Oceans near coasts would of course be heavily diluted by runoff from the land. But the middle of large oceans? You'd have your layer of fresh water falling out of the sky onto your enormously deep column of salt water, and quite possible no rising currents to cause the two to mix.

But if the waters covered the face of the earth to a point where they inundated Mount Ararat, then there was very little fresh water left, and none at all outside of high mountain ranges. So the freshwater species which cannot survive in high mountain streams - and that's most of them - would have had no sustainable habitat for the duration. Bye-bye, trout and pike.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments