The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 08:04PM

[-0-] wrote: »

JC, I have a question regarding Creationism.

If you believe the universe to be several thousand years old, how do you explain light from far off stars taking MILLIONS of light years to get to us? If the universe was only a few thousand years old we wouldn't see any stars, right?

J C already dealt with this. He has it on good authority that 10,000 years ago, the stars created photons that were much, much faster than the ones that are created now.

He didn't mention anything about the effect that superfast photons would have on the subatomic particles they were absorbed by though.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 08:16PM

J C wrote: »

... and there is only two serious 'origins' scientific hypotheses at present ... ID and Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a serious origins hypothesis.

Masteroid · 17-03-2013 08:18PM

J C wrote: »

... science can be knowledge and evidentially based ... or it can amount to little more than conjecture ... abiogenesis being an example of this.

And now it isn't.

doctoremma · 17-03-2013 08:58PM

J C wrote: »

I'm arguing that 'origins' science doesn't follow the scientific method in so far as it rejects all physical evidence for the action of God a priori .

There is no physical evidence for the action of god.

(Remember that picking holes in experiments does not bolster the argument for god. You must place your weights properly).

Brian Shanahan · 17-03-2013 11:56PM

Masteroid wrote: »

Good luck with your future endeavours which I trust will not involve teaching science to young people.

Or any equipment more complicated than a shovel and some faeces.

Lucy8080 · 18-03-2013 02:23AM

J C wrote: »

Creation Science is evaluating the scientific evidence for Biblical events.
Creation Science is a separate branch of science ... and it has its own independent funding and peer review.

hi j.c,

Thank you for your previous reply.

I ' d like to move on to the above statement.

I wonder if you are aware that Israel can find no evidence for 600,000 people moving through the desert (exodus) despite it basically being their birth cert. And a great credit to them for their own honesty, admitting such.

Not a bone nor a piece of clay pottery.

Is the bible an historical document in your opinion?

Delirium · 18-03-2013 10:22AM

J C wrote: »

Scientific evidence based on the suppostion that God doesn't exist ... which is an exclusively atheistic belief.
... and the evidence presented for 'life producing itself' is paltry to the point of non-existence.

It's a bad thing for scientists to research based on evidence?

I'll do it when Theistic 'origins' hypotheses are welcomed ... and not before.
Conventionally qualified Creation Scientists and ID proponents will perform their own peer-reviewed science outside of the Godless version until their right to so within conventional science is restored.

That's a cop-out and you know it. You've just stated that you'll not provide evidence to any of your claims about creationism. So you can no longer make any allegations about bias against creationism as you won't provide evidence so that people can decide if you're correct. Are purposely wasting peoples time?

Evolution is accepted and heavily promoted by Atheists since the dawn of history.
Of course it is a direct insult to God (and in absolute contradiction of both Christian Creeds) to argue that He didn't Create Heaven and Earth and all things therein.

So science should just down tools to spare religious peoples feelings?

Science and Theology are separate already and should remain so.
The point I'm making is that Science should be separated from Atheism, on the 'origins' question ... and if it isn't, then it shouldn't be separated from Theism either ... and must be 'even-handed' in how it treats both Atheist and Theist Hypotheses on the 'origins' of life.

Science is separate from atheism. There is no requirement for scientists to be atheists for example. Nor are there any restrictions on exploring possible explanations for the origins of life. All scientists have to investigate and produce evidence regardless of what their personal religious beliefs are.

... and I don't see any reason to remove testable hypotheses that an Intelligence is the Creator of life, just to satisfy some irreligious folk.

Repeating back my statement with a non-religious slate doesn't do anything for the discussion as it's not reflective of the reality of scientific inquiry. You've stated that you will not provide any examples of how to test for the existence of God or evidence for creationism. However there have been plenty of examples of evidence for evolution provided.

... and the current understandings of eminent Conventional Scientists who are Theists, is that a Being or Beings of God-like powers did it through a process of Intelligent Design.

But that's their personal beliefs rather than a result of evidence as you've stated that "conventional" science has banned investigation into creationism/ID.

Please don't bother ... there are none ... because they aren't allowed.

I'd rather do some research for myself rather than take your word for it. You must have evidence of multiple applications being turned down for example. I would imagine you're not assuming they're banned just because you haven't seen any scientists investigating creationism/"God did it".

This hasn't stopped them teaching that life created itself by Abiogenesis ... which is in direct contravention of the Christian Creeds - and is effectively a statement that 'there is no God'.

No it's not. Science teachers don't get involved in theology in the classroom. And once again, do we ban everything from the classroom that goes against Christian creeds? Even though not all students are Chrisitian? I thought you wanted a pluralist society? Or are you retracting that statement now?

It was you who brought criminalisation into it.

Originally Posted by koth

IHEU highlights the criminalisation of atheism in many parts of the world.

That's dishonest of you, JC. You were the one who said that you didn't know of any thiests that wanted to outlaw atheism. I just gave some examples.

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, if religion is going to be removed from the classroom ... then irreligion must also be removed.
This can easily be achieved, by removing any reference that denies God from the classroom.

There is no teaching that God doesn't exist been taught in the science classroom. It's not part of the science lessons. Not saying God did it is not the same as saying God did not do it.

That's an interesting admission that removing irreligion i.e. Atheism from schools is contrary to the principle of the separation of church and state.

Irreligion isn't atheism. Irregligion is the absense of religion, that's not the same as atheism. So my statement was correct, and I appreciate less of your distorting of my posts.

... so you are admitting that the 'separation of church and state' is just the copperfastening of Atheism within schools by kicking Churches out of schools.

Nope. You just don't understand what irreligion is.

I see, the clue is in the word church ... it means only church ... glad we have cleared that up.

what else would it mean? The state isn't to pick sides, i.e. pro-church or anti-church. It's to keep itself separate from that discussion. I really don't understand why it's such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

doctoremma · 18-03-2013 04:30PM

http://exploringevolution.com/essays/2013/03/18/false-dilemma/#.UUc_WVxFCM-

Highlights:
False dilemma - a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted.

I first encountered Creationist thought during high school in 1974 when I read the book Scientific Creationism2 by Henry Morris...This book explained how the earth was created about 6,000 years ago during six 24-hour days, how all of the fossil-bearing rock layers were deposited during Noah's Flood, how biological evolution was impossible, how scientists had conspired to make up theories that denied the evidence of Creation, and how true science confirmed a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

I remember going to that first Geology class armed with every available Creation Science argument, ready to do battle for the faith. Yet despite my preparation, it was for naught. I found myself walking the same path as the earliest geologists, who, starting from a perspective of a Biblical Creation about 6,000-years in the past, saw evidence in the rocks for so many different events and environments, which convinced them the earth was much older than a few thousand years. I saw how rock layers could be grouped into larger "geologic ages" based on their depositional environment and fossil content with boundaries defined by major environmental changes or an extinction event. I was shocked to discover that these geologic ages had been identified and named, not by God-denying Evolutionists, but mostly by Christians and even ministers who saw their work as glorifying to God.

Although I was fascinated by geology and had found a scientific field that I loved, my faith was in shambles. Based on what I had believed and read in the Young Earth Creationist literature, if the geologic ages were real, if the earth was old, if evolution had happened then the Bible was false, Christianity wasn't true, and Christ's death on the cross was meaningless. So what was left?

I have seen students break down into tears as they stood on an outcrop of rock and saw evidence that contradicted what their church had taught them. I have comforted my own daughter when she was told by a Sunday School teacher that she couldn't be a Christian if she accepted evidence for evolution. I have talked with scientists who were once raised in a church and are now bitter agnostics because the church "lied to them" about science.

My hope in these discussions is not that we all come to the same scientific or theological understanding of evolution or age-of-the-earth issues but that we can move away from the false dilemmas forced by an exclusive and rigid mode of Biblical interpretation. God is too great and majestic to be confined in man's theology. We have to allow Him to inspire and even surprise us from all of his Creation and not just from the Bible.

The Concrete Doctor · 20-03-2013 02:08PM

J C wrote: »

Creation Science is evaluating the scientific evidence for Biblical events.
Creation Science is a separate branch of science ... and it has its own independent funding and peer review.

As a creationist, who believes in the Biblical accounts, you believe in Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden. You have told us before that you believe in Noah and the Ark, with all its animals.
You also say you are a scientist.
JC, there is absolutely no evidence that Adam ever existed. Nor is there any evidence for the existence of a garden of Eden, a large ark or Noah, despite large quantities of money being spent on a search for that boat, yielding no results.
How can a scientist declare that these people, places and items are factual with zero evidence to support that declaration? (A story written in a book does not constitute evidence, just in case you want to reference the biblical account)

Masteroid · 21-03-2013 05:34AM

doctoremma wrote: »

My hope in these discussions is not that we all come to the same scientific or theological understanding of evolution or age-of-the-earth issues but that we can move away from the false dilemmas forced by an exclusive and rigid mode of Biblical interpretation. God is too great and majestic to be confined in man's theology. We have to allow Him to inspire and even surprise us from all of his Creation and not just from the Bible.

Nicely put.

I think that a scientist who is humble enough not to rule out God can exist in the same person who has a philosophy rooted in the notion of God.

In an ideal world, one changes in response to a change in the other, God lives with science and science lives with God.

In the end, one should explain the other but if one side resists change then it impedes the other, conflict occurs and neither grow.

It is a pity we do not yet live in an ideal world.

Terrlock · 22-03-2013 06:18PM

"The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised"

Also how can we say that something is 6000 years old or billions of year old when time itself is a variable and not a constant? Would it not be possible that both answers are actually true?

If the speed of light was much faster in the past then it is now, wouldn't this greatly alter the measurement of time?

The biggest question to answer is everything done by design or by random chance.

It's difficult for me to even try and fathom how everything just happens by random chance.

I mean from how the very feathers of a bird is designed to the leaves on a tree. Are they all not examples of design rather then randomness?

If evolution is true why are there still stupid people (like myself).

Also which ethnic group in the human race is the more evolved, and is it not the case that the more evolved group should be wiping out the less evolved group?

You say that the study of geology shows that the earth is much older then the bible would subscribe, and even the flood can't explain them all.

But Noah's flood was a global catastrophe, with water not just coming from the sky but water came up from the ground..the earth itself was opened up.

A flood of that scale surely can explain an awful lot of it.

Maybe some of you can educate my some what lesser mind.

PopePalpatine · 22-03-2013 08:46PM

Terrlock wrote: »

The biggest question to answer is everything done by design or by random chance.

It's difficult for me to even try and fathom how everything just happens by random chance.

The mutations that arise between generations are random, but over time the mutated organisms that are better adapted to a specific environment do better than those whose mutations have led to them being less well-adapted.

Brian Shanahan · 23-03-2013 01:41AM

Terrlock wrote: »

But Noah's flood was a global catastrophe, with water not just coming from the sky but water came up from the ground..the earth itself was opened up.

Never mind being a global catastrophe, Noah's flood didn't even happen.

Masteroid · 23-03-2013 01:50AM

Terrlock wrote: »

"The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised"

Also how can we say that something is 6000 years old or billions of year old when time itself is a variable and not a constant? Would it not be possible that both answers are actually true?

Unlikely.

Dendrochronology provides a record that extends to about 11,000 years before the present.

How do Young Earth Creationists explain the existence of trees 5,000 years before the earth was created?

By the derogation of science and excessive use of emoticons is how.

Young Earth Creationism is dead. Let's just bury it and let it rest in peace.

Terrlock wrote: »

If the speed of light was much faster in the past then it is now, wouldn't this greatly alter the measurement of time?

No, it wouldn't but it would have an enormous effect on how we perceive the relative motions of objects.

The energy, 'E', of a photon is given as a relationship between its wavelength, 'w', and a function that contains a term, 'c', for the velocity of light. As its wavelength decreases, its energy increases. We can think of this relationship as 'E=c/w' in rough terms.

But you can see from this that an increase in 'c' will cause 'E' to increase too.

Now, let's imagine that photons are 'ping-pong balls' that come in three different colours, red, green and blue and that they come in three different weights with blue being the heaviest and red being the lightest.

Suppose you are stood at the bottom of a tower and a constant flow of these ping-pong balls falls down on you from ten-metres above you.

Because of the difference in weights, you might perceive the impact of the red balls as being like snowflakes landing on you, the green balls as rain falling on you and the blue ball as feeling like hail.

If we increase the height from which the balls are dropped to twenty-metres in order to increase their velocity then the red ones might feel like rain, the green ones like hail and the blue ones might feel like marbles.

Increase the height a little more and the red balls feel like hail, the green like marbles and the blue ones knock you unconscious.

An increase in the velocity of light is equivalent to increasing the height from which we drop the balls.

I'll just add that if you are at rest relative to a source of red photons then you will perceive those photons as red light but if you move toward the source, at a certain velocity, the red photons will appear as green light. Increase your speed further and the light will appear to be blue.

This occurs due to the Doppler-like effect of 'blue-shift'.

And if we were to replace the red light-source with a blue one in the above example, the blue photons would shift to ultra-violet, then x-ray and at even higher velocities, gamma-radiation.

The same would be true if it was the photon source that was in motion.

I hope that this sets the scene. Now let's test the sense.

Cosmology reckons the universe is about 13.8-billion years old. Let's call it twelve-billion since this divides better by the Young Earther's claim of 6,000 years.

Science thinks that the universe is 2-million times older than YECists do.

Consider this. Astronomers have identified events which have been measured as being more than twelve-billion light-years away.

In order to give as much of a margin of error as possible to YEC, let's assume that the light we see today from that distant place started its journey 6,000 years ago. Let's assume that this far off event could not have been viewable on earth until now.

If we assume that this object was viewable 6,000 years ago then the velocity of light would have had to have been close to infinity. So let's avoid infinities by saying that this object has only recently become viewable.

This would still mean that the photons that we receive today from that event have travelled twelve-billion light years in only 6,000 years. That means that the photons must be travelling at two-million times the velocity of light.

And if those photons were emitted at any time after 6,000 years ago, they would have to be travelling even faster.

And we are only talking about the average speed here. And about a very distant object.

The sun is much closer. Let's consider the effect that the sun would have on earth 6,000 years ago, immediately after creation.

Remember the rain of ping-pong balls above? We increased the velocity of the red ball only twice and turned a snowflake into a hailstone. Imagine what a red ball would feel like if it was travelling a few million times faster, it would be like being hit by an entire planet.

At a minimum, the speed of light must have been about four-million times what it is today and that is still being kind to YEC. Photons from the sun were arriving at the suface of earth with four-million times the energy they have today.

This kind of 'relative velocity' would blue-shift harmless visible light right up to and beyond the gamma end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This means that right after the earth was created, it was exposed to levels of radiation which would have quite literally removed all the electrons from all the atoms on earth sending them out toward the edge of the solar system.

In short, all the atomic bonds existent in the solar system would be broken and one might even argue that the forces holding the subatomic particles together would have been compromised in the same way.

And believe me, it would take longer than six days to make the planet inhabitable for humans.

So you see, the operation of a clock would be the least of our problems if the speed of light was changed significantly.

Terrlock wrote: »

The biggest question to answer is everything done by design or by random chance.

It's difficult for me to even try and fathom how everything just happens by random chance.

I mean from how the very feathers of a bird is designed to the leaves on a tree. Are they all not examples of design rather then randomness?

The structure of snowflakes, the formation of clouds, the whirlpool systems that persist in turbulent rivers, all of these are randomly generated patterns and structures than can be understood in terms of energy.

Living systems are pattern-based just like snowflakes and equally, they are subject to exactly the same forces that cause the weather systems and whirlpool systems.

Evidently randomness can give rise to patterns of great complexity and until we know that life is not a pattern of great complexity we have no reason to suppose that life cannot emerge from randomness.

Terrlock wrote: »

If evolution is true why are there still stupid people (like myself).

Evolution is not about getting it right, it's about what works.

And you do beg the question of 'why would an intelligent designer create an idiot?'

I find the 'devolution' argument amusing. God created perfect human beings 6000 years ago. Through random mutations our genome has been progressively damaged until 5,969 years later man had devolved into a species that was dumb enough to put a man on the moon.

Very amusing.

Terrlock wrote: »

Also which ethnic group in the human race is the more evolved, and is it not the case that the more evolved group should be wiping out the less evolved group?

Well, on that basis it shouldn't be too hard to work out which ethnic groups consider themselves the more evolved.

Terrlock wrote: »

You say that the study of geology shows that the earth is much older then the bible would subscribe, and even the flood can't explain them all.

But Noah's flood was a global catastrophe, with water not just coming from the sky but water came up from the ground..the earth itself was opened up.

A flood of that scale surely can explain an awful lot of it.

Sorry but a flood of that scale actually needs a lot of explaining. How could a wooden ark have withstood earthquakes and tsunamis? It would have been smashed to pieces.

What about all the steam that would have been generated when the water came into contact with the magma chamber. The atmospheric oxygen would have been displaced making it impossible to breathe.

Where is all that water now?

Also, why should we suppose that no-one else survived the flood?

For instance, why did no-one else ride out the flood on a boat or a raft of some kind?

Terrlock wrote: »

Maybe some of you can educate my some what lesser mind.

I hope that this helps.

The Concrete Doctor · 24-03-2013 12:59AM

Terrlock wrote: »

"The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised"

What an amazing paragraph! Not that you are in any way biased.
Whose word are we going to choose? the word of the true, holy being who created the world, or a bunch of liars who wrote erroneous scientifically researched books that conflict with his word.
Well, the bible teaches us that stoning people to death for infidelity is not only OK, it is encouraged. It also teaches us that slavery is OK. That is supposedly the word of the truthful creator. Don't mind those sinful creatures who preach forgiveness and who say that passages which preach that type of intolerant nonsense should be ignored. Or do we interpret some passages differently from others. As JC says: "Actually those tracts were superseded by the new testament, so although they were the word of God at that time, he changed his mind and they are not the word of God anymore. Sorry about that, sorry for the confusion those sections of the holy book may have caused. But the rest of it still stands. All the word of our creator. All very true." We know this because it was written by people inspired by voices in their heads and other wonders, like burning bushes which offered words of wisdom to anyone willing to listen.

Science = sinful and evil! Holy Bible = Glorious truth, to be ignored at your peril!

Zombrex · 24-03-2013 10:57AM

Terrlock wrote: »

"The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised"

I think what you mean is that the debate is between the guess a bunch of kings and priests made 4,000 years ago, and the most up to date scientific instruments and measuring techiques.

Can you name many things that a bunch of kings and priests got right 4,000 years ago? I can't.

Terrlock wrote: »

Also how can we say that something is 6000 years old or billions of year old when time itself is a variable and not a constant? Would it not be possible that both answers are actually true?

Time is not variable. Yesterday lasted as long as the previous day, which was as long as the day before it.

Terrlock wrote: »

If the speed of light was much faster in the past then it is now, wouldn't this greatly alter the measurement of time?

It wasn't much faster in the past. If it was then the night sky would be much much brighter.

Terrlock wrote: »

The biggest question to answer is everything done by design or by random chance.

If you believe in a designer then who designed the designer? Or does he just exist, and just is as he is? If so isn't that also believing in random chance? The designer just is as he is, randomly with no reason?

What ever about evolution is doesn't suppose that something as complex as life just is the way it is. It explains why it is the way it is due to natural selection and adaptation. But if you suppose a god like creator then you are stuck with the notion that this powerful intelligent emotionally complex being just exist and just happens to be as he is.

It is stupid then to have trouble with the idea that the simple rules of chemistry that produce evolution just happen to be, yet claim to have no problem with a complex intelligent deity that just happens to be.

God is the ultimate 747 in a hurricane, a super powerful intelligent begin capable of multiple states of emotion and reasoning that just happens to exist.

Terrlock wrote: »

It's difficult for me to even try and fathom how everything just happens by random chance.

Can you fathom how a super power deity can just happen to exist?

Terrlock wrote: »

I mean from how the very feathers of a bird is designed to the leaves on a tree. Are they all not examples of design rather then randomness?

They are example of natural selection and adaptation.

Terrlock wrote: »

If evolution is true why are there still stupid people (like myself).

Because even stupid people sometimes manage to have sex.

Terrlock wrote: »

Also which ethnic group in the human race is the more evolved, and is it not the case that the more evolved group should be wiping out the less evolved group?

The most evolved humans are the ones that are most adapted to the environment they currently find themselves in. Determining who that is would be rather difficult as there are a large number of variables. The most evolved human currently living is probably a child some where who has a mutation that gives them resistance to a virus or bactria. For example there is probably someone alive to day immune to HIV.

Using this exmaple, why would this person want to wipe out people who aren't immune to HIV?

Terrlock wrote: »

You say that the study of geology shows that the earth is much older then the bible would subscribe, and even the flood can't explain them all.

But Noah's flood was a global catastrophe, with water not just coming from the sky but water came up from the ground..the earth itself was opened up.

A flood of that scale surely can explain an awful lot of it.

No, a flood wouldn't explain any of it. Everything we find in the rock below us shows evidence of long drawn out change, not rapid catastrophe event. Occasionally we do find evidence of actual catastrophe events, such as flood and meteor strikes, and the stuff they leave beyond is nothing like the rest of it.

How would a global flood cause something like the Grand Canyon, which doubles back on itself? It couldn't, it would have just scooped the whole thing up, not cut a fine channel twisting and turning around the rock as the river did.

If you want to see what a global flood would produce just look at the ocean floor. And you don't find anything like that, the ocean is not carving out neat circular rivers on the ocean floor.

MrPudding · 24-03-2013 08:57PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not a 'pompous twat' ... if that's what you mean.
... but I am a serious scientist supervising some very important stuff.

If by "serious scientist" you mean kitchen porter and by "very important stuff" you mean pot scrubbing then perhaps I might believe you... actually, no, I still wouldn't. That someone might give you a sharp implement or something hot frightens he life out of me.

MrP

maguffin · 27-03-2013 01:54PM

More fuel for the fire.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9946222/New-images-confirm-Big-Bang-theory.html

stoke it up!!!!!

The Concrete Doctor · 03-04-2013 04:00PM

maguffin wrote: »

More fuel for the fire.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9946222/New-images-confirm-Big-Bang-theory.html

stoke it up!!!!!

Beaten into silence, finally!

tim3000 · 03-04-2013 07:35PM

Why is it that this evolution/creationism is still a debate. Science isn't incompatible with a belief system ,however to make sweeping generalizations that the earth is 6000 years old and that man didn't evolve from apes is simply foolish. All the while ignoring and disregarding any evidence to the contrary. The default position of any scientist faced with a problem is "I don't know why" while any creationist simply says "God did it".

I ask why creationists don't subscribe to other creation myths such as the Viking one or the Greeks creation theory? Each as as valid as the method described in the bible.

J C · 07-04-2013 10:42AM

MrPudding wrote: »

If by "serious scientist" you mean kitchen porter and by "very important stuff" you mean pot scrubbing then perhaps I might believe you... actually, no, I still wouldn't. That someone might give you a sharp implement or something hot frightens he life out of me.

MrP

... I didn't think being a Kitchen Porter qualifies Evolutionists to be called 'serious scientists' ... but there you go ... you're full of surprises, Mr P.

... although, come to think about it, a Kitchen Porter, wouldn't believe that the vegetables that they process were a 'cosmic accident' ... so they may not qualify as 'true blue' Evolutionists, at all.

In any event, I always speak highly of you ... and I'd encourage you to do the same about other people.

ziedth · 07-04-2013 11:05AM

OK here is one I'd love for you to try to explain J C:

The Galápagos Islands and Madagascar both have vast number of species that are indigenous to each one of those islands.

Now at a guess lets say that each location is 10,000km apart. It could of course be much less but im useless at this kind of thing. If the Ark was real how could it be possible for this to happen?

Would there not be Galápagos tortoises all over the place for one thing and even more questionalbe is how (and why) did Noah decide to take all these animals and leave so many of them in two locations at opposite sides of the world?

Sin City · 07-04-2013 11:09AM

ziedth wrote: »

OK here is one I'd love for you to try to explain J C:

The Galápagos Islands and Madagascar both have vast number of species that are indigenous to each one of those islands.

Now at a guess lets say that each location is 10,000km apart. It could of course could be much less but im useless at this kind of thing. If the Ark was real how could it be possible for this to happen?

Would there not be Galápagos tortoises all over the place for one thing and even more questionalbe is how (and why) did Noah decide to take all these animals and leave so many of them in two locations at opposite sides of the world?

Not to mention Kangaroos etc
Another why did all the animals have to die, barring two of each to repopulate, surely the animals werent evil
Why then did "God" allow them to die, but the fish, aquatic mamals (whales dolphins etc) live

J C · 07-04-2013 11:17AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Beaten into silence, finally!

... so, is the objective to beat me into silence???

... rather than deal with the evidence that I present.

J C · 07-04-2013 11:50AM

ziedth wrote: »

OK here is one I'd love for you to try to explain J C:

The Galápagos Islands and Madagascar both have vast number of species that are indigenous to each one of those islands.

Now at a guess lets say that each location is 10,000km apart. It could of course be much less but im useless at this kind of thing. If the Ark was real how could it be possible for this to happen?

Would there not be Galápagos tortoises all over the place for one thing and even more questionalbe is how (and why) did Noah decide to take all these animals and leave so many of them in two locations at opposite sides of the world?

These unique species developed by isolation on these remote islands after the first founder kinds arrived there in the aftermath of the Flood.
The following quote from Dr. Roger Sanders (PhD in Botany from the University of Texas) explains the current Creation Science position in relation to the species found in the Galápagos Islands:-
"I have visited this famous “laboratory for evolution,” and I hope to return someday. I saw the same things that Darwin did but came to different conclusions because of my different starting point.

Within each family group, I saw species that are different but similar. I saw that unique species are often confined to one or a few islands and their closest relatives live on nearby islands. I saw that each family group, even if it has unique traits, is stamped “South American.” If we read biblical history as fact, this pattern makes perfect sense.

God created various organisms by their kinds. Only a few members of each kind survived the Flood, and these reproduced and diversified to fill the post-Flood habitats. While the receding Flood waters probably deposited plant fragments and seedlings in the Americas, the land animals on the Ark had to spread from the mountains of Ararat to the Americas.

The Galápagos Islands apparently rose up in the Pacific after the Flood as a result of extensive volcanic activity. From the American continents, a few of each kind was carried by wind and waves to the small, isolated islands. As animal and plant colonists from each kind produced offspring in explosive numbers, their descendants spread over the islands, and a number of new species were born. Certain species expressed some of the remarkable modifications that God programmed into the capabilities of the various biblical kinds, such as the ocean-feeding ability in iguanas, beak variability in finches, and gigantism in tortoises and daisies.

Can we see natural selection acting in the Galápagos today? Yes and no. Scientists have been able to measure changes, as individual species change with the ebb and flow of environmental changes, such as the periodic warming of the ocean surface known as El Niño. However, the changes within these species are unlikely to explain the origin of new species, a process that requires too much time by natural selection alone.

Certainly we cannot see evidence in the Galápagos that reptiles evolved into birds or the origin of one biblical kind from another. Nor are the islands old enough, even by conventional radiometric dating, to support such an idea.

Island species should prove valuable to future creationist research. Because islands are relatively isolated and less affected by outside factors than continents, it should be easier to interpret the mechanisms that produced the species. In this sense, the Galápagos Islands are a gift from God, given to modern scientists to help them know Him better and understand how He worked in the past and present."

J C · 07-04-2013 12:21PM

Which came first ... the chicken or the Dinosaur?

... Evolutionists claim that the chicken came after the Dinosaur, because birds are supposed to have 'evolved' from small Dinosaurs.

... Creationists claim birds and Dinosuars were created simultaneously and lived contemporaneously.

... and now we find fossilised birds in a small fossilised Dinosaur stomach!!!
... leaving Evolutionists ... and 'Evolution from Dino to Bird' in a total flap!!!:)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044012

http://www.creationmagazine.com/creation/2013vol35iss2?pg=33#pg33

J C · 07-04-2013 12:35PM

... Quote:-"The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.

The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex."

... that is what Creationists have always maintained ... species can change by becoming less complex (devolution) ...

... and as losing complexity cannot turn 'Microbes to Man' ... the entire basis for M2M Evolution has 'become a thing of the past'.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2012/title,92122,en.php

MrPudding · 07-04-2013 01:26PM

J C wrote: »

... Quote:-"The view that animals have become more complex over time could be a thing of the past, according to the latest research.

The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex."

... that is what Creationists have always maintained ... species can change by becoming less complex (devolution) ...

... and as losing complexity cannot turn 'Microbes to Man' ... the entire basis for M2M Evolution has 'become a thing of the past'.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2012/title,92122,en.php

I have highlighted a relevent word form the article.

MrP

J C · 07-04-2013 03:05PM

... and Humans are getting less intelligent ... due to a build up of mutations so that our once-perfect intellect ... is less than perfect.
Quote:
"A series of mutations affecting the estimated 5,000 genes controlling human intellect have crept into our DNA says Gerald Crabtree, a geneticist at Stanford University, whose findings were published in the journal Trends in Genetics.

"I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to suddenly appear among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companies, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas, and a clear-sighted view of important issues," he writes."

Its called entropy ... and can you just imagine the effect of a million years of such entropy build up!!!
Its called 'devolution'!!!;)
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/13/dumb-and-dumber-study-says-humans-are-slowly-losing-their-smarts

J C · 07-04-2013 03:10PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I have highlighted a relevent word form the article.

MrP

... and what about the rest?
... my next post tells us that they have become less intelligent ... 'evolution' seems to be a losing phenomenon ... a 'race to the bottom' from a once-perfect Creation!!:)

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments