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

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…113114116118119…232

Comments

  • #3452
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    It appears that JC missed this:

    What do you mean by "information destructive"?
    What "information" are you talking about?
    At what molecular level is this "information" held (DNA? protein? functional output?)?
    Does a synonymous change in DNA (for example, at the third base of a codon) constitute "information destruction"?
    Does a conservative change in protein sequence (for example, a threonine-serine substitution) constitute "information destruction"?
    Does a radical change in protein sequence (for example, a proline-alanine substitution), where the protein function is maintained, constitute "information destruction"?
    If protein sequences are altered, such that an improved or novel function is acquired, does this constitute "information destruction"?
    If two proteins with radically different sequences perform the same cellular function in different animals, which of the two has been "destroyed" to the higher extent?
    Which is the "master template" by which you measure "information destruction"?


  • #3453
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    the evidence shows that we are all descended from one woman and one man
    I agree with this. But the experiments were designed to identify the time this woman and this man lived, not designed to demonstrate their existence. They had to exist - they are a function of the experiment.

    It's like conducting an experiment to find your car keys. You just keep going until you identify the location of your car keys. You can't claim that the finding of the car keys is somehow a surprising or significant outcome - the experiment was to find WHERE they were, not that they existed.

    My questions are as follows:
    1. Why do you accept the above conclusion while rejecting all the other conclusions (such as time scales) that are part and parcel of the same techniques performed by the same type of scientist?
    2. Do you understand that tracing our lineages back to one man and one woman does not mean that they were the only or the first man and woman? The experiment has no power to form any conclusions about this.


  • #3454
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    Here ya go.....Mitochondrial Eve....

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm


  • #3455
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I agree with this. But the experiments were designed to identify the time this woman and this man lived, not designed to demonstrate their existence. They had to exist - they are a function of the experiment.

    It's like conducting an experiment to find your car keys. You just keep going until you identify the location of your car keys. You can't claim that the finding of the car keys is somehow a surprising or significant outcome - the experiment was to find WHERE they were, not that they existed.

    My questions are as follows:
    1. Why do you accept the above conclusion while rejecting all the other conclusions (such as time scales) that are part and parcel of the same techniques performed by the same type of scientist?
    2. Do you understand that tracing our lineages back to one man and one woman does not mean that they were the only or the first man and woman? The experiment has no power to form any conclusions about this.

    Emma, JC loves this type of debate. You have made total sense in the vast majority of your arguments. The basic fact is that there is no proof, or evidence to show that any of the Genises stories are real or factual. JC knows that, but as long as we are prepared to play the game by his rules, there can never be a clear answer. He loves obfuscation. Enter the muddy waters of vague facts and spurious evidence denying evolution, and JC appears to be a true olympian. Stick to proven facts about the biblical accounts and he is a wasp without wings.


  • #3456
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Stick to proven facts about the biblical accounts and he is a wasp without wings.
    You're right, of course.

    So let's have another go at this:

    Article here: http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark/

    Key points regarding the physical issues:

    1. Noah would have required an education in naval architecture and a knowledge of physical principles not yet discovered, in an era where people sailed in hollowed out logs. This immense leap in knowledge, Noah's primary contribution to humanity, was lost among Noah's descendants, with sailors returning to hollowed-out logs.

    2. The number of different internal fixtures required is mind-boggling. Different floorings, different cage sizes/bar width, different perch sizes, and so on. All this was achieved without a single consultation with a zoologist, who even today, lack the breadth of knowledge required to transport all animals.

    3. The harvesting of timber and production of lumber (some of the beams required would have taken several years to cure) and the building of scaffolding/boat/dock/interior would take an estimated 81 years. By this time, the earliest phases would have been rotting away.

    4. The ark was coated with "pitch", which requires oil wells to extract and couldn't have existed pre-Flood, given that such organic deposits were deposited during the Flood.

    5. There is a physical upper limit on the length of a wooden boat, before bowing and sagging etc destroy it. Noah's ark exceeds this length. Boats as big as Noah's didn't reappear until the 1850s, when iron was first used

    Any thoughts at the first interval, JC?


  • Advertisement
  • #3457
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    No they don't. There are lots of data to show that mammals coexisted with dinosaurs.
    I'm glad we agree on that ... I recall endless debate on whether it was even possible that some Dinsaurs could have been Mammals!!!

    doctoremma wrote: »
    You still haven't answered questions about what you mean by "information destruction".
    Information destruction ... is just that the destruction of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) ... which occurs with all mutagenesis ... and it therefore cannot be a plausible mechanism for producing the vast quantities of high quality CFSI found in all living organisms.


  • #3458
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Isn't it interesting that the words proof and spoof are so similar.
    It is indeed interesting ... and when it comes to Evolutionists talking about M2M Evolution, they're identical!!:)
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    You have presented no evidence for the stories of Genises, yet you continue to argue as if you had. What kind of scientist keeps going with zero evidence for his/her position?

    The Ark, Noah etc. show us the evidence JC. (Speculation is not evidence)
    All of the 'evidence' for M2M Evolution is also speculation ... and unfounded speculation at that.

    We start with two basic worldviews on the 'origins' issue ... that a Creator God exists ...
    or that He doesn't exist or at least didn't create anything, if He does exist.

    If He exists and created life, we would expect it to be highly complex, tightly specified and with no current 'natural' mechanism capable of producing it spontaneously ... and that is what we find.
    If God doesn't exist then life would have to produce itself spontaneously via some mechanism currently observable, or at least replicable through the ingenuity of man ... but we don't find this.

    All this stuff about Noah's Ark is just a diversionary tactic away from the core issue on the existence of God (that can be easily proven) into something from deep history (that can only be circumstantially proven).

    It's a bit like asking me to prove the existence of the Ark of the Covenant ... or even the final resting place of Shergar ... or indeed any other lost artefact whose current location and physical condition cannot be definitively determined.

    In any event there is no legal requirement being imposed to teach the existence of Noah's Ark as a fact in schools ... but there is such a requirement in relation to M2M Evolution ... but it looks like Creationists have nothing to worry about, as this law will never be enforced due to the inability of Evolutionists to provide any substantive evidence for it themselves ... and thus they will 'fall foul' of their own law!!!

    Although the law requres M2M Evolution to be taught in school in England and America, the most the Evolutionists can say about it is to proclaim it to be a fact ... and then move gingerly on to the reproductive system of a Frog or some other example of Created CFSI!!!:)

    ... all the while telling any Creationist student who points out the glaring inadequacies of M2M Evolution to 'shut up' ... or the Thought Police will 'nick' them!!:)


  • #3459
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Stick to proven facts about the biblical accounts and he is a wasp without wings.
    I'm still a buzzin like a WASP ... and a stingin like a Bee!!!:):eek:


  • #3460
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You're right, of course.

    So let's have another go at this:

    Article here: http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark/

    Key points regarding the physical issues:

    1. Noah would have required an education in naval architecture and a knowledge of physical principles not yet discovered, in an era where people sailed in hollowed out logs. This immense leap in knowledge, Noah's primary contribution to humanity, was lost among Noah's descendants, with sailors returning to hollowed-out logs.
    Who says that Noah wasn't all these things and more.
    This illustrates your 'old earth' bias ... the antediluvian people, including Noah were more intelligent and capable of far greater feats of engineering than we are ... just look at Stonehenge, Newgrange and the pyramids of Egypt and South/Central America, if you doubt me.

    2. The number of different internal fixtures required is mind-boggling. Different floorings, different cage sizes/bar width, different perch sizes, and so on. All this was achieved without a single consultation with a zoologist, who even today, lack the breadth of knowledge required to transport all animals.
    No big deal for somebody like Noah, who was 'middle aged' at 500 years old.

    3. The harvesting of timber and production of lumber (some of the beams required would have taken several years to cure) and the building of scaffolding/boat/dock/interior would take an estimated 81 years. By this time, the earliest phases would have been rotting away.
    No big deal again ... a Dutch carpenter produced a full-size replica of Noah's Ark in 3 years for £1million, with the help of some friends and two of his children!!

    Noah had hundreds of years to do so.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246247/Dutchman-Johan-Huibers-launches-life-sized-Noahs-Ark-replica-Dordrecht.html


    4. The ark was coated with "pitch", which requires oil wells to extract and couldn't have existed pre-Flood, given that such organic deposits were deposited during the Flood.
    Again, you are showing your 'old Earth' bias ... even today there are spontaneous tar and pitch pits on the surface of the ground in the Middle East and other oil-producing areas (not linked to oil drilling at all) ... and the reality that oil was largely abiotically produced is now accepted by every serious petroleum geologist.

    5. There is a physical upper limit on the length of a wooden boat, before bowing and sagging etc destroy it. Noah's ark exceeds this length. Boats as big as Noah's didn't reappear until the 1850s, when iron was first used.
    The antediluvian peoples had greater knowhow and knowledge in handling and using stone than we have today, as exemplified by the huge stone monuments and megaliths that they erected and which we see today ... it is also quite plausible that their wooden ship-building skills also exceeded ours.

    Any thoughts at the first interval, JC?
    .

    Here is how the above NCSE article you linked to starts:-
    "Suppose you picked up the newspaper tomorrow morning and were startled to see headlines announcing the discovery of a large ship high on the snowy slopes of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey. As you hurriedly scanned the article, you learned that a team from the Institute for Creation Research had unearthed the vessel and their measurements and studies had determined that it perfectly matched the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis. Would this be proof at last—the "smoking gun" as it were—that the earliest chapters of the Bible were true and that the story they told of a six-day creation and a universal flood was a sober, scientific account?

    Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is no. Even this sensational find is not enough to validate a literal reading of Genesis. "

    ... so even if Noah's Ark was physically discovered, you guys would still deny that it existed !!!!
    ... with this level of denial amongst Evoutionists ... I'd be wasting my time bothering to try to prove anything to you guys!!!!

    Interesting that this article starts this way, given that I have personally met people that I trust, who claim that the Ark does physically exist.


  • #3461
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    How did Noah find all of the animals and get them back to the ark? Did he bring them back one pair at a time, or did they all follow him in a line as he visited other continents to collect more animals?


    What did the carnivores eat on the ark?


  • Advertisement
  • #3462
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... so even if Noah's Ark was physically discovered, you guys would still deny that it existed !!!!
    ... with this level of denial amongst Evoutionists ... I'd be wasting my time bothering to try to prove anything to you guys!!!!

    Interesting that this article starts this way, given that I have personally met people that I trust, who claim that the Ark does physically exist.

    JC, finding the remnants of a big boat up a mountain demonstrates that once, a big boat found its way up a mountain. It does not prove that it is Noah's ark. It is somewhat ironic that you accuse your opposition of extrapolation but are the most guilty here.


  • #3463
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    How did Noah find all of the animals and get them back to the ark? Did he bring them back one pair at a time, or did they all follow him in a line as he visited other continents to collect more animals?


    What did the carnivores eat on the ark?
    You're assuming that the landmass of the antediluvian Earth bears resemblance to todays world.
    It is thought that there was one large landmass prior to the Flood ... so all of the different Kinds of animal were waiting in Noah's backyard!!!!
    ... no pressure ... no pack drill !!!:pac:

    It is thought that carnivory was greatly reduced prior to the Flood ... Humans were vegetarians then ... and other animals were likely largely the same.
    It is also thought that animals on the Ark may have gone through a form of hibernation as a means of reducing feed and general maintenance requirements ... they may have literally 'slept out' the Flood.
    ... and of course, juvenile large animals were probably taken aboard rather than adults, thereby further reducing feed and space requirements.


  • #3464
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, finding the remnants of a big boat up a mountain demonstrates that once, a big boat found its way up a mountain. It does not prove that it is Noah's ark. It is somewhat ironic that you accuse your opposition of extrapolation but are the most guilty here.
    Ah now come on guys ... the article said that if a vessel perfectly matching the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis was found on the slopes of Mount Arrarat ... ye still wouldn't believe it was Noah's Ark!!!

    ... only a miracle can cure such levels of denial !!!

    ... but meanwhile the progress of science should not be held back by such obstinancy.


  • #3465
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    You're assuming that the landmass of the antediluvian Earth bears resemblance to todays world.
    It is thought that there was one large landmass prior to the Flood
    No JC, it is most definitely NOT thought that there was one large landmass 10,000 years ago.

    Your tone is a devious (yes, devious) attempt to conflate what is actually 'thought' by the scientific community with what you want it to be as a creationist.


  • #3466
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Ah now come on guys ... the article said that if a vessel perfectly matching the description of Noah's Ark given in the book of Genesis was found on the slopes of Mount Arrarat ... ye still wouldn't believe it was Noah's Ark!!!

    ... only a miracle can cure such levels of denial !!!
    Well, why don't you show us evidence of the boat?


  • #3467
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    No JC, it is most definitely NOT thought that there was one large landmass 10,000 years ago.

    Your tone is a devious (yes, devious) attempt to conflate what is actually 'thought' by the scientific community with what you want it to be as a creationist.
    I was clearly speaking on behalf of the Creation Science Community.


  • #3468
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Well, why don't you show us evidence of the boat?
    The point I'm making is that the article you linked to has admitted that even if I brought an Evolutionist to an Ark perfectly matching the description in Genesis on the slopes of Arrarat, they still wouldn't believe their eyes ... that's some admission !!!!


  • #3469
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    The point I'm making is that the article you linked to has admitted that even if I brought an Evolutionist to an Ark perfectly matching the description in Genesis on the slopes of Arrarat, they still wouldn't believe their eyes ... that's some admission!!!!
    I think you miss the point. Data only shows what it shows. It would simply be a boat up a mountain.


  • #3470
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    Just googled Noah's ark. Apparently he was 500 when he was first mentioned. 600 when he entered the ark. Really! Noah's balls must have dragged a mile behind him!


    Was it the inbreeding after the ark that caused us to loose our super human abilitys?

    The idea of a family of father and sons and a mom in their hundreds getting it on with each other, to save humanity? Really?!?


  • #3471
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    I'm glad we agree on that ... I recall endless debate on whether it was even possible that some Dinsaurs could have been Mammals!!!


    Information destruction ... is just that the destruction of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) ... which occurs with all mutagenesis ... and it therefore cannot be a plausible mechanism for producing the vast quantities of high quality CFSI found in all living organisms.

    Dinosaurs could not have been mammals. They were reptiles similar to modern crocs and alligators. As far as I know dinosaurs laid eggs and did not have milk producing ability. Mammals evolved from mammal like reptiles. Evidence for this extends way back to the Triassic era. That said there are mammals platypus and the echidna that do lay eggs and produce milk. But both are warm blooded. But this is a digression.

    If this is indeed Noahs ark, J.C., How could we date it? I am sure you wouldn't rely on carbon dating :)


  • Advertisement
  • #3472
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I think you miss the point. Data only shows what it shows. It would simply be a boat up a mountain.
    ... and the fact that it perfectly matches the descrition of Noah's Ark in Genesis and it is found on Mount Ararat is of no significance?


  • #3473
    coolhull
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49,731 ✭✭✭✭coolhull


    J C wrote: »
    ... and the fact that it perfectly matches the descrition of Noah's Ark in Genesis and it is found on Mount Ararat is of no significance?
    Well, lets find it first, then we'll discuss the authenticity or otherwise of this amazing vessel.


  • #3474
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    Dinosaurs could not have been mammals. They were reptiles similar to modern crocs and alligators. As far as I know dinosaurs laid eggs and did not have milk producing ability. Mammals evolved from mammal like reptiles.
    I just love it!!!
    ... Ok, dare I ask ... was the Triceratops was a 'mammal like reptile' ... or a 'reptile like mammal' ... or simply a Mammal ... that is causing Evolutionists to freak out in palpitations of denial!!!:)

    ... I hope I'm wrong ... but I feel an episode of the flatfish that wasn't a Flatfish but was a Flat Fish, coming on!!!! :):eek:

    tim3000 wrote: »
    Evidence for this extends way back to the Triassic era. That said there are mammals platypus and the echidna that do lay eggs and produce milk. But both are warm blooded. But this is a digression.
    That was just God saying 'explain that without me' to Atheists !!!:)


  • #3475
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    coolhull wrote: »
    Well, lets find it first, then we'll discuss the authenticity or otherwise of this amazing vessel.
    Unfortunately Emma has linked to a leading Evolutionist site that says that even if it is found exactly as described in Genesis, they still won't accept that it is the Ark.


  • #3476
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    J C wrote: »
    I just love it!!!
    ... Ok, dare I ask ... was the Triceratops was a 'mammal like reptile' ... or a 'reptile like mammal' ... or simply a Mammal ... that is causing Evolutionists to freak out in palpitations of denial!!!:)

    ... I hope I'm wrong ... but I feel an episode of the flatfish that wasn't a Flatfish but was a Flat Fish, coming on!!!! :):eek:


    That was just God saying 'explain that without me' to Atheists !!!:)

    Did you hear about that moth that appeared on a volcanic island that's miles from anywhere,and too far from any mainland to fly to that Island...

    I was told about it by some open minded scientist,he says this moth makes a mockery of Darwinism :S


  • #3477
    sea_monkey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    i realize this is a picture (and a cartoon at that) but can you explain the idea it's getting at?

    G4WpgQV.jpg


  • #3478
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    Just googled Noah's ark. Apparently he was 500 when he was first mentioned. 600 when he entered the ark. Really! Noah's balls must have dragged a mile behind him!


    Was it the inbreeding after the ark that caused us to loose our super human abilitys?
    It certainly wouldn't have helped!!:)
    ManMade wrote: »
    The idea of a family of father and sons and a mom in their hundreds getting it on with each other, to save humanity? Really?!?
    Needs must!!:)


  • #3479
    coolhull
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 49,731 ✭✭✭✭coolhull


    Geomy wrote: »
    Did you hear about that moth that appeared on a volcanic island that's miles from anywhere,and too far from any mainland to fly to that Island...

    I was told about it by some open minded scientist,he says this moth makes a mockery of Darwinism :S
    The world seems to be full of scientists with too much time on their hands.


  • #3480
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sea_monkey wrote: »
    i realize this is a picture (and a cartoon at that) but can you explain the idea it's getting at?

    G4WpgQV.jpg
    It happens often ... missionaries are constantly amazed at the commonality of belief between people of all cultures in relation to God.
    This is one of the reasons why conversions are made so widely and easily across all cultures.


  • Advertisement
  • #3481
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    I just love it!!!
    ... Ok, dare I ask ... was the Triceratops was a 'mammal like reptile' ... or a 'reptile like mammal' ... or simply a Mammal ... that is causing Evolutionists to freak out in palpitations of denial!!!:)

    ... I hope I'm wrong ... but I feel an episode of the flatfish that wasn't a Flatfish but was a Flat Fish, coming on!!!! :):eek:


    That was just God saying 'explain that without me' to Atheists !!!:)

    It really isn't as I previously stated mammals evolved from mammal like reptiles (similar to cyondonts). The platypus and echidna are not riddles left by a creator instead they are further proof of the existence of a common ancestor of both mammals and reptiles evidenced by the fact that they can lay eggs and produce a milk.

    Triceratops was a reptile .

    Also how are we supposed to date this ark without carbon dating which is so notoriously unreliable :)


Advertisement