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…116117119121122…232

Comments

  • #3542
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    Now will ye believe me that the Triceratops was a mammal?:)

    NO Triceratops is a reptile. not a mammal. All lizards are reptiles not all reptiles are lizards. If Triceratops is akin to a rhino then I suppose you would you call a T-rex an overgrown ostrich? :P


    I'am debating whether to dive into Microbe to Man evolution with you. It would take some time for me to get my arguments right. Debating 4.5 billion years of Earth history is rather more challenging than a mere 6000 :P But I think it would be worth it in the long run


  • #3543
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    NO Triceratops is a reptile. not a mammal. All lizards are reptiles not all reptiles are lizards.
    Your point is a non sequitur. I accept that all lizards are reptiles ... but the Triceratops wasn't a lizard ... 'terrible' or otherwise.
    It was an endthermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... which, last time I checked ... was a Mammal.
    All very confusing for Evolutionists, I'm sure ... whose thinking hasn't evolved to recognise that all Dinosuars weren't terrible liards ... or even lizards at all!!!

    20120511-2.gif
    tim3000 wrote: »
    If Triceratops is akin to a rhino then I suppose you would you call a T-rex an overgrown ostrich? :P
    Evolutionists probable would, given their belief that all birds are 'dinosaurs' ... I certainly wouldn't ... given the objective evidence that they were separately created.
    http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-topics/birds-are-dinosaurs

    ... or were all Dinosaurs supposed to be birds? ...
    http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/birds-dinosaurs-120530.htm
    tim3000 wrote: »
    I am debating whether to dive into Microbe to Man evolution with you. It would take some time for me to get my arguments right. Debating 4.5 billion years of Earth history is rather more challenging than a mere 6000 :P But I think it would be worth it in the long run
    Hopefully it won't take 4.5 billiion evolutionist years for you to sort out your arguments ... I saw this and I thought of you.:D

    20010820-2.gif
    tim3000 wrote: »
    I am debating whether to dive into Microbe to Man evolution with you.
    It's good to debate with yourself ... that way you will never lose. :D
    Debating with Creation Scientists always 'ends in tears' ... for M2M Evolution.


  • #3544
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    J C wrote: »
    That's your view, as an Atheist ... I don't share your denial of the Word of God in the Bible ... and neither does any other Christian either. Christians may differ on exactly how we think that God Created ... but we all proclaim the Creed that He did!!!

    You're the guys demanding the legally enforced teaching of the God-denying doctrines of Atheism under the guise of science to children of all relgions and none ... while simultaneously demanding the banning by law of any mention of God from Irish schools.

    The onus is on you to justify such legal privilege for your God-denying beliefs within schools and such intolerant sectarianism directed against the belief in God by the majority of practically every school community in Ireland.

    The tail is trying to wag the dog here!!!

    Like I have said, the reasonable and fair position is to mandate the teaching of Natural Selection of genetic diversity (which is a fact) within science class ... with the teaching of all 'origins' hypotheses (Creation/Abiogenesis/M2MEvolution) confined to Comparative Religion class.
    That is some of the most twisted logic I have ever read. Once again you are trying to deflect the argument.
    Its simple JC, show us some proof that any of the Genises stories are true. If they are not, everything you believe ends there, (sorry about that, but it is true). So why should I not believe that the whole thing is a fairytale?

    You are obviously an intelligent man. You believe it all without one shred of proof, Why?? And please stop trying to change the argument to suit your well rehearsed diatribe. Give us some evidence that the stories actually happened.


  • #3545
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    .Debating with Creation Scientists always 'ends in tears' ... for M2M Evolution.[/QUOTE]

    Yes it does ..tears of frustration


  • #3546
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    J C wrote: »
    ... and you haven't provided any evidence for M2M Evolution, like I have asked.

    Okay you're not going to answer?
    I've no need to answer your question in a manner which pleases you as nothing will budge you from your irrational beliefs and as you refuse to answer my question which I posed first. Fortunalty for me science,state and and anyone with an interest in sciences progress is on my side and it is you who must prove your story.
    J C wrote: »
    .

    'Mammy likes it and daddy likes it too' ... is that the level of your evidence for Atheism and its pet theory, that Microbes became Man??!!!
    Evolution is not a pet theory. Using pharses like Microbes to man would be the equivalent of my calling Jesus a zombie Jew. It does not correctly represent either belief, it over simplifies both.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    Scientific Evolution in the sense of Natural Selection of existing expressed created genetic diversity is a fact ...
    ... but Religious Evolution in the sense of microbes evolving into mankind through selected mutation damage and replication mistakes is something that Atheists have constructed to bolster their need to deny God.
    You've a problem with evolution. You've stated that. Most people don't.
    J C wrote: »
    .

    Scientific ideas like Natural Selection of pre-existing genetic diversity should be taught in science class ...
    ... but the Atheistic and Theistic varieties of M2M Evolution should be taught in religion classes along with the evidence for Direct Creation.
    You've clearly never been in a Irish religion class if you actual believe religion is taught.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    ... so the agenda is to remove God from Schools (and by extension society itself) ... and you say it is within sight in Ireland.
    ... a 'pipe dream' of Atheism, no doubt, with about as much chance of coming true as a fish becoming a fishmonger ... but then again, you believe that this can also happen ... if given enough time and mutagenesis!!!!
    Getting creationism into schools is a creationists 'pipe dream'. Fortunately ruiri Quinn is removing god from schools.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    ... and you say that the job of science teachers is to mock and laugh at the beliefs of Christian parents and children within their schools??? ... I think not!!!
    You know that in Ireland that creationism is a minority of a minority. I can assume anyone who literally takes genesis seriously attends a church regularly. From experience church goers are getting old.

    Yes teachers would laugh at being told to teach creationism as fact because its only base is in genesis. Why not teach Leviticus in school? Stone gays? Why not! You're holy book says so, therefore it must be true.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    Can I gently remind you (before you lose the run of yourself) that on the last census, over 90% of the Irish population declared themselves to be Theists... so you will need to do a little more than to proclaim that we are all Ape's coming from nothing and going nowhere, if you are to convince the people of Ireland to jettison the love of God and the bliss of an eternity in Heaven, for the bleak eternal hoplessness of Atheism.
    Ahh yes cultral Catholics. I've no problem with personal religion. I've always been a secularist though and from what I've witnessed some Catholics hide their faith so well that if it wasn't for the moaning of going to mass once a year at Christmas. I'd forget they were Catholics at all.

    As for heaven. Yes of course your god would create a place where all you good Christians go while he created cancer,disease and world hunger in the beginning and its just is atheist who are bleak and fail to see what is right in front of us :rolleyes:
    J C wrote: »
    .
    That's just your God-denying militant Atheism showing ... I'll mention God wherever and whenever I'm challenged to defend Him.
    not militant atheism, nothing like it. I'm a secularist too. Unless someone actively tries to shove religion down my throat I would never really talk about it in real life. I've no problem with beliefs as long as they are keep to oneself and not funded off the tax dime or state endorsed.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    As the Christian Creed says, God made everything both visible and invisible ... and if you want to deny God in the science lab then any Christian, worthy of the name, has the right to proclaim His existence there.
    So what. This isn't the Bible Belt no one proclaims Jesus in science.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    Matthew 10:32-33
    King James Version (KJV)

    32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

    33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
    :rolleyes: I could post some irrelevant dribble too.

    J C wrote: »
    .
    Alternatively, lets agree to neither deny nor affirm God in the science lab ... like I have said, I'm a liberal in these matters, as long as equality of esteem is provided to both Theists and Atheists.
    That's exactly what I've been saying. Teach but neither confirm nor deny god, leave it up to the individual. As is currently done. Although evolution ain't leaving the biology lab... again we aren't in the Bible Belt.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    Spontaneous Microbes to Man Evolution is a profoudly and exclusively Atheistic concept that has no evidence for its validity ... and should be confined to gatherings of Atheists and other God-deniers ... as well as Comparative Religion Classes in school.
    Nothing spontaneous about evolution. There is one theory on here which is quite spontaneous but it ain't evolution.
    There is no evidence of god, he should be left in the church.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    ... if religion is to be banned from schools and science labs then so also should irreligion ... such as the basic dogmas of Atheism like Materialistic M2M Evolution.
    This has been talked about before. It is as plausible as banning wetness and dryness. It is impossible. By all means wear a cross necklace if you wish.
    J C wrote: »
    .
    The legal forcing of the God-denying beliefs of Athesim into schools under the guise of science and the banning of God from there does destroy the freedom of religion of all Theist children and their parents and families ... who pay 90% of the taxes that fund these schools!!!:(
    "God-denying beliefs of Atheism"
    "Guise of science"
    Fox News much? Or some southern conservative Christian religion dribble.

    Unfortunately for you I also have an interest in public finance. This figure you stated of 90% is fictitious. Tax take is divided into 3 divisions. Over €100k a year equals 5% population. People earning less than €30,000 equals 54% of tax payers contribute less than 5% of the tax tack.

    Unless all 5% at the top who pay 40% of the country's tax are religious which is unlikely, you've made that up on the spot?!?!?



    *sigh*


  • Advertisement
  • #3547
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    That is some of the most twisted logic I have ever read. Once again you are trying to deflect the argument.
    Its simple JC, show us some proof that any of the Genises stories are true. If they are not, everything you believe ends there, (sorry about that, but it is true). So why should I not believe that the whole thing is a fairytale?

    You are obviously an intelligent man. You believe it all without one shred of proof, Why?? And please stop trying to change the argument to suit your well rehearsed diatribe. Give us some evidence that the stories actually happened.
    Where is the logic missing?
    It's indeed the viewpoint of an Atheist to deny the Word of God in the Bible. I don't deny Genesis and neither does any other Christian either. Christians may differ on exactly how we think that God Created ... but we all proclaim the Creed that He did ... and this is a fact!!!

    Ye are indeed demanding the legally enforced teaching of the God-denying doctrines of Atheism under the guise of science to children of all relgions and none ... while simultaneously demanding the banning by law of any mention of God from Irish schools.

    The onus is indeed on you to justify legal privilege for God-denying beliefs within schools and the banning of expressions of the belief in God by the majority of practically every school community in Ireland.

    The tail is trying to wag the dog here!!!

    ... and the reasonable and fair position is indeed to mandate the teaching of Natural Selection of genetic diversity (which is a fact) within science class ... with the teaching of all 'origins' hypotheses (Creation/Abiogenesis/M2MEvolution) confined to Comparative Religion class.


  • #3548
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    ManMade wrote: »
    Yes teachers would laugh at being told to teach creationism as fact because its only base is in genesis. Why not teach Leviticus in school? Stone gays? Why not! You're holy book says so, therefore it must be true.

    Not just Leviticus, but several sections of the bible teach us that stoning people is to be encouraged, and not just Gays. All sorts of people should be tortured and killed. Society understood, eventually, that this teaching was wrong, so now creationists make excuses to ignore it and say its been superseded by later teachings. God taught us about the merits of stoning, apparently, but society sort of convinced him that maybe those sections should be changed. So he did change them!


  • #3549
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ManMade wrote: »
    Okay you're not going to answer?
    I've no need to answer your question in a manner which pleases you as nothing will budge you from your irrational beliefs and as you refuse to answer my question which I posed first. Fortunalty for me science,state and and anyone with an interest in sciences progress is on my side and it is you who must prove your story.
    You have no evidence for M2M Evolution ... while I have presented pages of evidence for all aspects of Creation.
    ManMade wrote: »
    Evolution is not a pet theory. Using pharses like Microbes to man would be the equivalent of my calling Jesus a zombie Jew. It does not correctly represent either belief, it over simplifies both.
    Microbes to Man precisely describes what Atheists would like to think occurred ... even though this is an obvious impossibility.
    ManMade wrote: »
    You've a problem with evolution. You've stated that. Most people don't.
    I've no problem with Evolution ... I used be an Evolutionist myself ... so I know exactly how you feel.
    ManMade wrote: »
    You've clearly never been in a Irish religion class if you actual believe religion is taught.
    I'll take your word for that.
    ManMade wrote: »
    Getting creationism into schools is a creationists 'pipe dream'. Fortunately ruiri Quinn is removing god from schools.
    You know that in Ireland that creationism is a minority of a minority. I can assume anyone who literally takes genesis seriously attends a church regularly. From experience church goers are getting old.
    Most Creationists are young people.
    ManMade wrote: »
    Yes teachers would laugh at being told to teach creationism as fact because its only base is in genesis. Why not teach Leviticus in school? Stone gays? Why not! You're holy book says so, therefore it must be true.
    Creation Science is based on objective reality.
    ... and Jesus Christ asked those without sin to throw the first stone ... so Homosexuals and Evolutionists should be treated with equality and respect ... and so should Creationists.

    ManMade wrote: »
    Ahh yes cultral Catholics. I've no problem with personal religion. I've always been a secularist though and from what I've witnessed some Catholics hide their faith so well that if it wasn't for the moaning of going to mass once a year at Christmas. I'd forget they were Catholics at all.
    A Roman Catholic friend of mine told me recently that the 'Sunday Catholics' aren't even Catholics, on a Sunday anymore!!!
    I take no pleasure in this, as I'd sooner live in a Catholic-dominated country than an Atheist-dominated one.
    One only has to look at the vitrol spewed in my direction on this thread from Atheists, which contrasts dramatically with the respect and tolerance shown to minority religions in Ireland in the 1950s and 60s when Roman Catholicism was at its Zenith.
    ManMade wrote: »
    As for heaven. Yes of course your god would create a place where all you good Christians go while he created cancer,disease and world hunger in the beginning and its just is atheist who are bleak and fail to see what is right in front of us.
    God didn't create evil and death ... Adam and Satan did that.
    ... and you too can join us in Heaven ... it's a big place ... all anybody needs to do is stop cursing their lot ... and start praising our God.:D

    ManMade wrote: »
    not militant atheism, nothing like it. I'm a secularist too. Unless someone actively tries to shove religion down my throat I would never really talk about it in real life.
    If you really are a liberal Secularist you would respect equality of esteem between Theists and Atheists ... and if one side's viewpoint is allowed to be presented in schools ... then so should the other's. That's just basic fairness.

    ManMade wrote: »
    I've no problem with beliefs as long as they are keep to oneself and not funded off the tax dime or state endorsed.
    I have no problem with that either ... once irrelgion and God-denying views aren't shoved down my throat either!!!
    ... alternatively, any evidence that denies God, should be openly and transparently presented ... with the God affirming evidence also allowed to be fairly and openly presented, as well.

    ManMade wrote: »
    So what. This isn't the Bible Belt no one proclaims Jesus in science.
    ... you're right, instead science is used to promote militant Atheism and its fundamental dogma that life spontaneously generated itself and developed into Man.
    ManMade wrote: »
    :rolleyes: I could post some irrelevant dribble too.
    Please stop.:pac:

    ManMade wrote: »
    That's exactly what I've been saying. Teach but neither confirm nor deny god, leave it up to the individual. As is currently done. Although evolution ain't leaving the biology lab... again we aren't in the Bible Belt.
    M2M Evolution denies God ... but it won't need to leave the lab ... because it's never been there, in the first place ... its only ever been in the minds of Atheists who think that science is an extension of their irreligion ... when it actually demonstrates the magnificence of God's Creation.

    ManMade wrote: »
    Nothing spontaneous about evolution.
    ... that's one of the reasons why it is incapable of changing Microbes into Men!!
    ManMade wrote: »
    There is one theory on here which is quite spontaneous but it ain't evolution.
    There is no evidence of god, he should be left in the church.
    He lives and He reigns ... inside and outside of Church.
    ManMade wrote: »
    "God-denying beliefs of Atheism"
    "Guise of science"
    Fox News much? Or some southern conservative Christian religion dribble.
    The truth will set you free.
    ManMade wrote: »
    Unfortunately for you I also have an interest in public finance. This figure you stated of 90% is fictitious. Tax take is divided into 3 divisions. Over €100k a year equals 5% population. People earning less than €30,000 equals 54% of tax payers contribute less than 5% of the tax tack.
    Firstly you're only talking about Income Tax which is only a fraction of total tax revenue. Secondly, Christians are equally represented in each income cohort ... and therefore contribute in direct ratio to their percentage of the population ... which is 90%.
    ManMade wrote: »
    Unless all 5% at the top who pay 40% of the country's tax are religious which is unlikely, you've made that up on the spot?!?!?
    ... 90% of the 5% at the top who pay 40% of the countries income tax are probably Christian ... or are you saying that Atheists have taken over all of the top paying jobs?


  • #3550
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    J C wrote: »


    The truth will set you free.

    A truly brilliant arguement that was well thought out and convincing , surely an airtight arguement that will settle the debate once and for all. Your brilliance sir know no bounds for you have truly bested the greatest minds in human history with that one sentence. No matter how valient and clever your opponents fought you had the last laugh and showed them the erros of their logic and ways. 5 simple words,"The truth will set you free" Simply marvelous , I tip my hat to you sir.


  • #3551
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sin City wrote: »
    A truly brilliant arguement that was well thought out and convincing , surely an airtight arguement that will settle the debate once and for all. Your brilliance sir know no bounds for you have truly bested the greatest minds in human history with that one sentence. No matter how valient and clever your opponents fought you had the last laugh and showed them the erros of their logic and ways. 5 simple words,"The truth will set you free" Simply marvelous , I tip my hat to you sir.
    Thanks ... but I must tell you that they're not my words ... they're the words of Jesus Christ

    John 8:31-35
    New International Version (NIV)

    31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

    32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

    34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.


  • Advertisement
  • #3552
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    Your point is a non sequitur. I accept that all lizards are reptiles ... but the Triceratops wasn't a lizard ... 'terrible' or otherwise.
    It was an endthermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... which, last time I checked ... was a Mammal.
    All very confusing for Evolutionists, I'm sure ... whose thinking hasn't evolved to recognise that all Dinosuars weren't terrible liards ... or even lizards at all!!!

    20120511-2.gif

    Evolutionists probable would, given their belief that all birds are 'dinosaurs' ... I certainly wouldn't ... given the objective evidence that they were separately created.


    ... or were all Dinosaurs supposed to be birds? ...

    Hopefully it won't take 4.5 billiion evolutionist years for you to sort out your arguments ... I saw this and I thought of you.:D

    It's good to debate with yourself, when you are an Evolutionist ... that way you will never lose. :D
    Debating with Creation Scientists always 'ends in tears' ... for M2M Evolution.

    By any criteria that you care to measure it by, a Triceratops or any other dinosaur for that matter could not be classed as a Mammal. I have explained this a number of times and you don't seem to believe me. Why?

    I have a new tactic however. I think that we should change roles. I'll act as a creationist and you as an evolutionist. Well what do you think of that? I will answer as best I can based on what I can research and you do likewise.


  • #3553
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    By any criteria that you care to measure it by, a Triceratops or any other dinosaur for that matter could not be classed as a Mammal. I have explained this a number of times and you don't seem to believe me. Why?
    Because it was an endthermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... which, last time I checked ... was a Mammal.
    tim3000 wrote: »
    I have a new tactic however. I think that we should change roles. I'll act as a creationist and you as an evolutionist. Well what do you think of that? I will answer as best I can based on what I can research and you do likewise.
    It's an interesting idea ... but I don't think it will work. If I say something about Evolution with which you disagree ... you (or some other person) will disagree ... and vice versa.
    I did propose that one person be chosen to present the case for Evolution ... and I would present the case for Creation ... but that wasn't acceptable either.

    Besides ... being a Creationist is so cool ... and being an Evolutionist is so ... eh em passée!!!:)

    BTW, you do know that you can become a Creationist any time you want ... it would be great to have another like-mind on the Boards.


  • #3554
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod note: This thread is not for discussing the pros or cons of atheism as opposed to Christianity. We have a separate megathread for that.

    Also, some posts here recently have come close to crossing the line into personal abuse. This is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to goad other posters or soapbox. The charter is here in case anyone needs to familiarise themselves with it.


  • #3555
    Midlife Crashes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 954 ✭✭✭Midlife Crashes


    ManMade wrote: »
    Jesus said so..... A conman said so...
    As an atheist..[Sarcasm] I am sold[/Sarcasm]

    Jesus may have existed. His supernatural abilities are sorta questionable. So using his supernatural ability to prove...


    .. May cause a few to questions and eyebrows to be raised by me and anyone who isn't a fundamental Christian or really anyone who's sat Junior Cert science.

    Even if you don't believe in his miracles, The majority of scholars affirm the following 3 facts following the crucifixion ....
    1. On the Sunday morning after the crucifixion Jesus tomb was discovered empty by a group of women followers.
    On numerous occasions various individuals experienced appearances of Jesus alive.
    3. The original disciples suddenly came to believe that God rose Jesus from the dead despite every predisposition to the contrary.
    The disciples were so sincerely changed by this that they were willing to give up their lives as martyrs


  • #3556
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    Because it was an endthermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... which, last time I checked ... was a Mammal.

    It's an interesting idea ... but I don't think it will work. If I say something about Evolution with which you disagree ... you (or some other person) will disagree ... and vice versa.
    I did propose that one person be chosen to present the case for Evolution ... and I would present the case for Creation ... but that wasn't acceptable either.

    Besides ... being a Creationist is so cool ... and being an Evolutionist is so ... eh em passée!!!:)

    BTW, you do know that you can become a Creationist any time you want ... it would be great to have another like-mind on the Boards.

    If Triceratops is a mammal then what is a Stegosaurus or Velociraptor?

    You can change your mind about Creationism any time too you know:) My evolutionist world view is rather fixed I am afraid. However I still think there is merit to my idea of swapping our views. In some debates, the debating parties do not know which side of the argument they will have to argue. I reckon it would give us both greater exposure to these views. I remind you that I have read roughly half of the old testament I was trying to read it cover to cover.


  • #3557
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    If Triceratops is a mammal then what is a Stegosaurus or Velociraptor?
    The Velociraptor is a lizard ... but the Stegosaurus exhibits mammalian features, as it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate Perissodactyl ... which, last time I checked ... was also a Mammal. It looks like a small-headed Elephant ... with it's tusks on its tail rather than it's head.
    Stegosaurus-life-size1.jpg
    tim3000 wrote: »
    You can change your mind about Creationism any time too you know:) My evolutionist world view is rather fixed I am afraid.
    I thought that you guys believe that such fixity of ideas was the exclusive preserve of Theists. :D
    I'm certainly not fixed in my views ... I'll go wherever the evidence leads ... currently it's pointing away from Abiogenesis towards Direct Creation ... but if it ever started pointing in the other direction, I would certainly take it on board.
    tim3000 wrote: »
    However I still think there is merit to my idea of swapping our views. In some debates, the debating parties do not know which side of the argument they will have to argue. I reckon it would give us both greater exposure to these views. I remind you that I have read roughly half of the old testament I was trying to read it cover to cover.
    I've been an Evolutionist myself ... and I've defended the thing for years ... and I have no wish to re-live this embarrassing period of my life again.
    Besides, I genuinely can think of nothing to say to defend M2M Evolution ... there is plenty of evidence for Natural Selection, of pre-existing perfect (or almost perfect) genetic diversity ... but there is no mechanism that I know of (other than intelligent design) to account for the perfect genetic diversity, in the first place.
    ... so I'd be a hopeless defender of M2M Evolution ... and your reading of half of the Old Testament doesn't equip you to scientifically assess the Creation Hypothesis ... but if you want to try to Biblically defend it, I will certainly welcome your assistance.
    Besides, it would even things up by having two people defending Creationism against hundreds defending Evolutionism - sounds just about the right ratio for a fair debate!!!:D:eek:


  • #3558
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    How did plant life on the planet survive being poisioned with salt water post-flood? And how would oxygen levels be maintained with almost all plants dying off?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3559
    tim3000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 555 ✭✭✭tim3000


    J C wrote: »
    The Velociraptor is a lizard ... but the Stegosaurus exhibits mammalian features, as it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate ... which, last time I checked ... was also a Mammal. It looks like a small-headed Elephant ... with it's tusks on its tail rather than it's head.

    I thought that you guys believe that such fixity of ideas was the exclusive preserve of Theists. :D
    I'm certainly not fixed in my views ... I'll go wherever the evidence leads ... currently it's pointing away from Abiogenesis towards Direct Creation ... but if it ever started pointing in the other direction, I would certainly take it on board.

    I've been an Evolutionist myself ... and I've defended the thing for years ... and I have no wish to re-live this embarrassing period of my life again.
    Besides, I genuinely can think of nothing to say to defend M2M Evolution ... there is plenty of evidence for Natural Selection, of pre-existing perfect (or almost perfect) genetic diversity ... but there is no mechanism that I know of (other than intelligent design) to account for the perfect genetic diversity, in the first place.
    ... so I'd be a hopeless defender of M2M Evolution ... and your reading of half of the Old Testament doesn't equip you to scientifically assess the Creation Hypothesis ... but if you want to try to Biblically defend it, I will certainly welcome your assistance.
    Besides, it would even things up by having two people defending Creationism against hundreds defending Evolutionism - sounds just about the right ratio for a fair debate!!!:D:eek:

    But it isn't a mammal it like all other dinosaurs is a reptile. It is not an elephant either. Ungulates and Perissodactyl animals are cows and donkeys. Not Stegosaurids and raptors. Not an inverted elephant with its tusks on its tail as you claim that is a bit of a reach :).

    But you see having read it and being a scientist (albeit an unemployed one) would give me a good insight. I am not going to join your defense of it but I think you would benefit enormously from a re-examination of your view.


  • #3560
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    How did plant life on the planet survive being poisioned with salt water post-flood?
    It also rained (freshwater) during the Flood ... so there were areas that were flooded with freshwater as well as saltwater. Many delicate land plants survived as roots buried in mud and as seeds.
    koth wrote: »
    And how would oxygen levels be maintained with almost all plants dying off?
    About 70% of the oxygen currently comes from Marine Plankton ... and the flood processes would have no effect on this ... other than to increase it ... because the entire earth was flooded
    http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/activity/save-the-plankton-breathe-freely/?ar_a=1


  • #3561
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It also rained (freshwater) during the Flood ... so there were areas that were flooded with freshwater as well as saltwater. Many delicate land plants survived as roots buried in mud and as seeds.

    About 70% of the oxygen comes from Marine Plankton ... and the flood processes would have no effect on this ... other than to increase it ... because the entire land area was flooded
    http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/activity/save-the-plankton-breathe-freely/?ar_a=1

    how exactly does a global flood create regions of freshwater if all land is submerged? :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #3562
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tim3000 wrote: »
    But it isn't a mammal it like all other dinosaurs is a reptile. It is not an elephant either. Ungulates and Perissodactyl animals are cows and donkeys. Not Stegosaurids and raptors. Not an inverted elephant with its tusks on its tail as you claim that is a bit of a reach :).
    Stegosaurids were a separtate kind ... but they share many common design features with elephants and Perissodactyl Ungulates.
    tim3000 wrote: »
    But you see having read it and being a scientist (albeit an unemployed one) would give me a good insight. I am not going to join your defense of it but I think you would benefit enormously from a re-examination of your view.
    I am sorry to hear that you are unemployed and I hope and pray that you will get a job within science soon.
    We need intelligent well educated people like you ... and too many talented young people have left our shores already.
    People are our most important asset ... and that remains the case, even more so, in the current recession.

    I am willing to look at any evidence openly, if anybody has any in favour of M2M Evolution ... and equally I will look at any evidence that denies Creation ... and you can't get any fairer than that.


  • #3563
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    how exactly does a global flood create regions of freshwater if all land is submerged? :confused:
    The complete submergence was a very short period ... probably measured in days ... and once the recessionary phase started, land would have started 'popping up' out of the sea all over the place ... and copious rainwater would have rapidly washed off any salinity and restored the land to productivity.


  • #3564
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The complete submergence was a very short period ... probably measured in days ... and once the recessionary phase started, land would have started 'popping up' out of the sea ... and the copious rainwater would have rapidly washed off any salinity and restored the land to productivity.

    The saltwater would kill the plants and they wouldn't put down seeds for the next season. And how does the saltwater recede if it's raining?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3565
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    The saltwater would kill the plants and they wouldn't put down seeds for the next season.
    Some seeds can survive for many years until the conditions are right. Annual Plant seeds and all other land vegetation probably survived on vegetation rafts ... and giant floating pumice rock rafts from all of the volcanic activity.
    This 'small' raft (in comparison with what would be the case during the Flood with widespread sub-marine volcanism) was discovered in the Pacific Ocean last August 1,000 miles off New Zealand ... it's apparently 300 miles long by 30 miles wide ... and is averages 2 feet above the surface!!
    3210jat3.jpg
    koth wrote: »
    ... And how does the saltwater recede if it's raining?
    The saltwater would recede as land rose out of the sea and ocean basins sank away ... and then rainwater would rapidly cleanse the newly exposed land ... even creating freshwater rivers and lakes, just like today.


  • #3566
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    I love watching the documentaries on how life on earth began. David Attenborough is one of my favourites.

    I suspect that your list of documentary favourites includes the Flintstones.
    I can confirm that I enjoy watching David Attenborough documentaries. They are excellent quality productions and David is one of life's true gentlemen.

    I disagree with his evolutionist assertions ... but like I have previously said, just because you disagree with somebodies beliefs, doesn't mean that you can't admire other aspects of their personhood and respect their right to be different to you.

    If you leave the evolution assertions aside, David Attenburgh's documentaries are excellent presentations of the wonders of God's Creation ... and there is nobody I know who can quite match David for his enthusiasm and clear presentation.
    He is not a young man anymore ... but doesn't he get around the World ... if I have half his energy and 'air miles' when I get to his age, I'll be a happy man.
    I think his series on Africa is his best ... and deserves the documetary equivalent of a Nobel Prize ... or should that be an Oscar ... it really is a great pleasure to watch.
    I thought that the concern and gentleness of his encounter with the orphan rhino and an older rhino was very touching indeed. He is an excellent embassador for Evolutionism ... and if he is an Atheist, for Atheism as well.

    I saw a recent documentary of David's about possible fractal organisms ... and for a moment, I wondered whether I'd missed something about fractals, when I previously dismissed them as a possible mechanism for the origin of life ... but the whole thing fizzled out as he pointed out that the fractal structure isn't compatible with the specified complexity we find in living organisms today.
    He then went on to talk about some 'simple' organism that wasn't actually that simple at all.
    In fairness, he did his best ... but I thought that his thesis on Abiogenesis was let down by reality and the evidence ... which is decidedly pointing towards Creation/ID and away from Abiogenesis/Evolution.

    I think he is involved in the campaign to ban Creation Science and ID from schools in the UK ... and I obviously disagree with that - but this doesn't affect my positive opinion of his excellent documentaries.

    I think that listening to different points of view adds 'spice to life'.
    I have yet to meet somebody that I didn't learn something from!!!:D
    'Constructively criticise ... listen ... and learn' is my motto.


  • #3567
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    'Constructively criticise ... listen ... and learn' is my motto.

    Seriously? Do you have any evidence for this?


  • #3568
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Seriously? Do you have any evidence for this?
    I'm constructively criticising ... listening to the response ... and learning, all the time.
    ... and I often learn the most from people who have different viewpoints to my own.
    ... by this process, I often end up knowing more about their worldview, and its evidential underpinnings (or lack of them), than they do themselves!!!:eek:


  • #3569
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... so it turns out that Creation and the Flood is the 'watertight' origins theory ... where all of the questions and objections have been substantively answered ...
    ... and M2M Evolution is still stuck at the Natural Selection of pre-existing diversity ... with no substantial theory on how the diversity was created, in the first place.:cool:

    Love and best wishes to you all.


  • #3570
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    JC banned for two weeks. When I previously referred to goading, this is exactly the type of thing I was referring to. Although there is probably little to be said on this thread that hasn't been said before, lets try to have a semblance of discussion rather than wisecracks and inane remarks.


  • Advertisement
  • #3571
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Terrlock wrote: »
    I will give you another reason why the atheist world view is irrational

    Sorry, very quick question. Do you believe the story of Noah to be true?

    Soulandform, I'd like your answer too please.


Advertisement