The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

5uspect wrote:

I was asked by a postdoc the other day (in their late 20s I might add) how to attach a file to an email. So just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean that they are some sort of supreme infalliable expert in anything.

Was s/he an Evolutionist perhaps???:eek:

J C

Scofflaw
Very briefly - the linked document demonstrates a number of interesting features:

1. nearly everyone on the list is American
2. the majority simply have PhD degrees, and it's difficult to see what "authority" a PhD confirms!
3. those who are reasonably eminent demonstrate that Creationists are not prevented from reaching positions of influence, as is so often claimed

most of all:

4. it shows you can get all of them into a single 15-page document - even when the listed is padded with PhD's and dead people, and has a big fancy border.

Equally briefly:-

1. America is the leading technological and scientific power on Earth – so a majority of Americans is to be EXPECTED on any list of eminent anti-Darwinian PhDs.
2. A Doctorate is the highest EARNED academic award, which any University can confer.
3. The eminence of the scientists was usually achieved BEFORE they became Creationists.
4. The text size is very small!!:D

Have a look again here and you will see that I am correct :-
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Scofflaw
I 'm prepared to bet that all the living Creationist scientists would fit into the Ark...

You could be right – but could I remind you that The Ark had sufficient space capacity to accommodate in excess of 100,000 people!!! :eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Computer systems ALSO...

So you admit that this feature of life is similar to the systems designers but in software systems to compensate because of their mistakes, and therefore it is not possible that God designed us because He would not make a mistake.

Right glad we have that cleared up. The intelligence in Intelligent Design cannot be God. As I said, we are left with super intelligent aliens.

J C wrote:

...have backup and auto repair systems to repair the mistakes of the USER as well as combating ‘environmental impactors’ such as viruses, power failures, etc.

They do, because the software designer cannot predict how the user will use the system after it has been release into the "wild" so to speak. God can, since He is supposed to know everything till the end of time.

He would not need to place a general "catch all" backup systems in life, as software programmers do, because he would know instantly the specifics of any problems that might arise in the future.

So again, that rules out God as the intelligence in Intelligent Design, and we are left with very intelligent aliens.

Wow, thanks JC. You have just proved beyond doubt that if there is an intelligent designer it is not God.

J C wrote:

God Created life fully developed and perfect – and He provided the back-up mechanisms in anticipation of the ‘environmental impactors’ which would result from The Fall.

Why? He knew the Fall would happen before it did. He knew exactly when it would happen and what effects it would have on humanity. There would be no need to place a general wide scale backup systems into life itself because He would know the specifics of each problem that life would encounter after the fall.

Also the Fall is supposed to effect only humans. These back up systems are found in all life, even simple bateria.

As I said above, you have just proven that even if Intelligent Design is correct, God is not the intelligence. The evidence proves that if life was designed it was designed by beings who could not foresee or predict every problem life would face, and as such would have built in general systems rather than specific ones.

God would have no need to do that, since He would know every single problem life would face from the moment of creation. General systems implimented across wide ranges of life forms that only kinda work would be pointless, He would know exactly where to concentrate attention.

You have just proved God didn't design us, or any life. Thanks JC, that has made my job a lot easier

J C wrote:

Certainly not – Creationists believe that God designed and Created all life PERFECTLY.

Then God didn't design us, because the solutions to the problems life faces are general and wide spread and fail a lot of the time (almost as if they were a product of natural selection :eek: ), not specific and perfect.

J C wrote:

He was ANTICIPATING their effects.

He didn't need to anticipate anything. He knew exactly what the effect of the Fall would be from the instant of creation. He would not have needed to design general catch all systems to hopefully help counter the effects of the Fall, He would know exactly what those effects would be and how to address them.

God could not be the designer of life, because life is designed (either by intelligence or natural selection) in such a way to be able to deal with unforseen problems. There are no unforseen problems to a god, God would have forseen all problems to face life until the end of time.

So either God did not design life, or God is lying to us in the way life is developed. God doesn't lie so the only response left is "God didn't design life on Earth"

J C wrote:

God actually COMPENSATED for the effects of The Fall through the perfect atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Pretty sure the systems in place in all life to help with errors were in place long before Jesus Christ stepped on the scene :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Christians have no law against calling God stupid – but their love and respect for God means that they don’t do so.!!!

But you just did. You have said God would not have known what the effects of the fall were, so he build in general systems to counter act it. So knowing God sees all till the end of time, you must be calling God stupid.

J C wrote:

Ah, but who Intelligently Designed your putative ‘Intelligent Aliens’ ???

More intelligent aliens? Who designed God?

J C

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
Ah, but who Intelligently Designed your putative ‘Intelligent Aliens’ ???

Wicknight wrote:

More intelligent aliens? Who designed God?

Ah yes, there comes a point in time when every Atheist comes 'face to face' with the REALITY that God exists!!!

Some do nothing about it - others are saved!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Ah yes, there comes a point in time when every Atheist comes 'face to face' with the REALITY that God exists!!!

So you are saying God designed intelligent aliens, who in turn designed us?

That is a rather new slant on Creationist arguments JC, well done.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say I was inspired by the Devil?

Indeed. But that doesn't mean you are totally controlled by him. God determines just how far you get from Him, how darkened your understanding becomes. Some folk sink morally or rationally very low, others are kept by His grace nearer their 'image of God' design. I'm always encouraged to see reason and commonsense in my fellowman.

BTW, the Christian knows the solution to the paradox of the Irresistable Force confronting the Immoveable Object. Of course, the paradox is in reality an impossibility, a self-contradiction. Like the sound of one hand clapping: clapping is by definition the striking of two hands together.

But there is an Irresistable Force and an Immoveable Object, it is just that they do not oppose one another, rather are the same entity. God is both. Nothing can resist His force; nothing can move Him out of His way.

Since this is so, everyone should give heed to His word. Those who act against Him will be shattered; those whom He acts against will be utterly destroyed.
Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:


‘ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

1 Peter 2:4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,


“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,


“ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”

8 and


“ A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”


They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

J C

Originally stated by J C
here, for example is a (growing) list of HUNDREDS of eminent conventional scientists who have ‘gone public’ with their dissent from Darwinism

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

bonkey wrote:

Hundreds of scientists, though. That must be what...ummm...to the nearest percentage of the world total....hmmm.....I make it to be 0%.

Impressive. I'm impressed. More - I'm convinced.

Yes bonkey, these scientists DO indeed have impressive qualifications!!:cool:

Yes indeed bonkey, they are only a tiny fraction of one percent of the total number of CREATIONISTS worldwide - within most Christian Churches and indeed in other mono-theist religions.:D

J C

Wicknight wrote:

So you are saying God designed intelligent aliens, who in turn designed us?

That is a rather new slant on Creationist arguments JC, well done.

I have said nothing of the kind!!!

What I DID point out is that YOUR explanation for the Intelligent Design of life by 'Aliens' was that further 'Aliens' designed the 'Aliens' that designed us. This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT - and proves that the ultimate source of the Intelligent Design of life can only be GOD.:eek: :cool:

That was why I said that even somebody who believes that they were designed by 'Aliens' (which I don't) must also accept the ultimate reality of God at the START of the process!!:D

hairyheretic

J C wrote:

2. A Doctorate is the highest EARNED academic award, which any University can confer.

Judging by the emails I keep getting into my inbox, I can buy the degree of my choice (including PhDs), simply by calling an american phone number.

Its all based on my 'life experience' apparently.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed. But that doesn't mean you are totally controlled by him. God determines just how far you get from Him, how darkened your understanding becomes. Some folk sink morally or rationally very low, others are kept by His grace nearer their 'image of God' design. I'm always encouraged to see reason and commonsense in my fellowman.

Hmm. Thanks a bit. So I should regard my reason and commonsense as due to the grace of God - but presumably, when I err, I err because he allows me to. I need not, therefore, feel bad about insulting JC, since it appears I have no responsibility in the matter, being either inspired by the Devil or allowed by God to see reason and commonsense. Makes me feel like a yoyo, mind you.

Well, I had better head off - the babies don't eat themselves.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

I have said nothing of the kind!!!

What I DID point out is that YOUR explanation for the Intelligent Design of life by 'Aliens' was that further 'Aliens' designed the 'Aliens' that designed us. This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT - and proves that the ultimate source of the Intelligent Design of life can only be GOD.:eek: :cool:

Interesting - so that's what circular arguments prove, is it? That explains a lot...

amused,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I have said nothing of the kind!!!

I said God could not be the intelligence in Intelligent Design. The only thing left then is intelligent aliens. Then, in some kind of lame response, said ah yes, but who designed the aliens.

It doesn't matter. You have proven by your own logic that the intelligence that created us in your theory could not have been God, since the intelligence was not prefect and could not forsee the problems life would face.

J C wrote:

This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT - and proves that the ultimate source of the Intelligent Design of life can only be GOD.:eek: :cool:

If God made other extraterresial life that is beside the point. Ignoring the fact that we have no samples of these aliens so we can tell nothing about what made them let alone if it was God, God didn't design us, or any life on Earth.

You yourself have proven that point.

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Why are none of the world's top 300 universities on that list?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

But they are!!! – it reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of leading Universities and here are a few examples of some of the top Universities on the list:-

John Hopkins, Princeton, Chicago, Hong Kong, UCLA, Columbia, Cambridge, MIT, Stanford, Penn State, Cornell Medical, Imperial College London, US Naval Academy and US Military Academy.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Yes bonkey, these scientists DO indeed have impressive qualifications!!:cool:

Oo-er! PhD! Impressive! Well, a bit. Oh, alright, only a little bit. Actually, it depends what it's in - and let's have a look at the list.

Well, there's a couple of Professors of Kinesiology - that is to say, reflexologists pretty much. There's crop scientists. Plenty of engineers (covers MIT, for example). A lot of irrelevant qualifications. Most of the "leading universities" are represented only by PhD students, not faculty - whoopdedoo.

On the other hand, there's Professors of Natural Science, and PhD graduates in Zoology - surely they count? Wait, what's this -

Kieran Clements: Assistant Professor, Natural Sciences, Toccoa Falls College

That's impressive, isn't it? Surely this guy, who is an assistant professor of natural sciences, is relevant and at least a bit authoritative?

Toccoa Falls College - aka Toccoa Falls Bible College - "Toccoa Falls College is an accredited liberal arts Christian college, located in Toccoa, Georgia. While an associate college of the Christian and Missionary Alliance the school maintains close ties with several evangelical and 'Bible-believing' groups and denominations."

Oh, so a professor of Natural Sciences at a Bible College. Maybe not so impressive then. Hardly, er, unbiased, really.

Once again, we find that our list of "eminent" "conventional" "scientists" is riddled with people who are undistinguished, at Creationist colleges, and qualified in Physical Education.

Frankly, the usual sh**e. Sorry to be so blunt, but these lists are repetitive, deceitful, and a complete waste of everybody's time and mouse clicks.

Even if these lists were corrected, they would still only prove what we all know - that Creationism is limited to a laughably tiny percentage of scientists.

J C wrote:

Yes indeed bonkey, they are only a tiny fraction of one percent of the total number of CREATIONISTS worldwide - within most Christian Churches and indeed in other mono-theist religions.:D

Standard JC maths, anyway.

bored,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote:

How does the Creationist model account for electroweak symmetry breaking?

Or that fact that lions can't live in mountains? Never did get an answer to that.

I wouldn't hold your breath Son Goku, JC has a habit of just ignoring questions that show his ideas or theories are incorrect/flawed/ridiculous. He just ignores challanges, quietly drops it and then, about 2 weeks later, he just repeats the same idea again hoping no one will notice. He is still spouting on about the probability of a protien forming by random, despite that fact that each time he brings that up it is pointed out to him that his entire argument is flawed (protiens don't form by random)

And Creationists wonder why they aren't taken seriously ... :rolleyes:

5uspect

I don't think we ever got a response to the whole animals frozen under liquid satly water on mountain tops thing either. I think that this was the point where I lost all respect that I may have had for J C. For someone who claims that he is a scientist (and still refuses to prove it) he's seriously pushing the boundaries of complete and utter fantasy.

So i'm sitting awaiting an onslaught of smileys and the good ole "no I'm not you are" response...

bonkey

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/evolution_in_kenya/

Came across this evening...thought it somewhat interesting and relevant.

From the article wrote:

However, Bishop Boniface Adoyo, chairman of the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, says that the exhibition does not represent scientific evidence of human evolution. He says evolution is still a theory, and that the fossils cannot be called as evidence to support it.

What specious reasoning! Because evolution is "still a theory*", fossils can't be used as evidence to support it. Strangely, were evolution proven*, there would be no need to use anything as evidence to support it.

*Yes, I know that theory is about the highest accolade a scientific model can reach, and that it is impossible to scientifically prove anything, unless one does away with any sort of rigorous definition of "prove", as a scientic model must be falsifiable.

The use of "just a theory", though, rankles as always. It is the clearest possible indication that either the person speaking does not fully understand what the term means in a scientific context, or that they are deliberately attempting to undermine the meaning of a term they understand the ramifications of.

Disagreeing that it is correct, or even that it is a theory - that I can accept as an argumentative position. "Just a theory", however, is an almost-definite sign of an ideologue.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
I have said nothing of the kind!!!

What I DID point out is that YOUR explanation for the Intelligent Design of life by 'Aliens' was that further 'Aliens' designed the 'Aliens' that designed us. This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT - and proves that the ultimate source of the Intelligent Design of life can only be GOD.

Scofflaw
Interesting - so that's what circular arguments prove, is it? That explains a lot...

ONCE AGAIN you are failing to understand what I have said!!!

My point was that your contention, that ‘Intelligent Aliens’ were the Intelligent Designers of life on Earth and that these ‘Aliens’ were in turn Intelligently Designed by other ‘Aliens’ ad infinitum, is INVALID because it is a Circular Argument.

As the only plausible ULTIMATE source of the Intelligent Design manifestly present in living systems is God – this logically PROVES that God exists – and Created life.


Wicknight
He (God) didn't need to anticipate anything. He knew exactly what the effect of the Fall would be from the instant of creation. He would not have needed to design general catch all systems to hopefully help counter the effects of the Fall, He would know exactly what those effects would be and how to address them.

In His benevolence, God chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems. He DIDN’T design ‘catch all’ systems – otherwise death, for example, (and free will) would be eliminated.
We should remember that God warned Adam and Eve in Gen 1:17 that they would die if the partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – and death today is the continued fulfilment of that unheeded warning.

J C

5uspect wrote:

I don't think we ever got a response to the whole animals frozen under liquid satly water on mountain tops thing either.

I'll dignify your 'Straw Man' question with an appropriate response, when YOU explain how 'mud evolved into Man' in contravention of every known Law of Physics, Chemistry and Biology!!!:D

BTW what is "satly water" ??

Diogenes

J C wrote:

I'll dignify your 'Straw Man' question with an appropriate response, when YOU explain how 'mud evolved into Man' in contravention of every known Law of Physics, Chemistry and Biology!!!:D

I don't think anyone is claiming mud became man, just a complex chemical and biological reaction occured.

Trying to equate your logic that frozen dead animals survived in chunks of ice underwater, for a year, which then some how melted allowing the carnivores of the ark, including predators, a wealth of carcass's to feed on. And when you're asked to explain how this happened, instead of explaining, you launch into a non sequitur rebuttal. :rolleyes:

So again JC how did the animal carcasses survive? In Ice under water? For a year? Why didn't the ice melt under water? Have you never had ice in a glass of water? Why did the ice only start to melt after the flood.

Oh and do you like your underwater year aged steak, well done, or medium rare?

BTW what is "satly water" ??

Pedantry the last act of the desperate rebutter.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

I'll dignify your 'Straw Man' question with an appropriate response, when YOU explain how 'mud evolved into Man' in contravention of every known Law of Physics, Chemistry and Biology!!!:D

BTW what is "satly water" ??

BTW, what is the Creationist model's account for electroweak symmetry breaking?

pH

Could one of the mods attempt a merge of this thread with II?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I have said nothing of the kind!!!

What I DID point out is that YOUR explanation for the Intelligent Design of life by 'Aliens' was that further 'Aliens' designed the 'Aliens' that designed us. This is a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT - and proves that the ultimate source of the Intelligent Design of life can only be GOD.

Scofflaw
Interesting - so that's what circular arguments prove, is it? That explains a lot...

ONCE AGAIN you are failing to understand what I have said!!!

Actually, and amazingly, I think you (that's JC) have failed to understand what you (that's JC again) have said.

Also, imitation - I am sincerely flattered!

J C wrote:

My point was that your contention, that ‘Intelligent Aliens’ were the Intelligent Designers of life on Earth and that these ‘Aliens’ were in turn Intelligently Designed by other ‘Aliens’ ad infinitum, is INVALID because it is a Circular Argument.

...Wicknight's contention...

J C wrote:

As the only plausible ULTIMATE source of the Intelligent Design manifestly present in living systems is God – this logically PROVES that God exists – and Created life.

No, you see, because life was invented by me personally, 15 minutes ago. Since that's clearly wrong, it proves that evolution is right. Don't mind me - frankly, I'm just jeering now...

J C wrote:

Wicknight
He (God) didn't need to anticipate anything. He knew exactly what the effect of the Fall would be from the instant of creation. He would not have needed to design general catch all systems to hopefully help counter the effects of the Fall, He would know exactly what those effects would be and how to address them.

In His benevolence, God chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems. He DIDN’T design ‘catch all’ systems – otherwise death, for example, (and free will) would be eliminated.
We should remember that God warned Adam and Eve in Gen 1:17 that they would die if the partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – and death today is the continued fulfilment of that unheeded warning.

Rhubarb...rhubarb...mumble...hey presto...Biblical truth! Woop. Alternatively, he could just have not caused the Fall to have those effects.

I'm forced to most sincerely doubt your ability to spot intelligent design. On the other hand, given the level of intelligence you imply Him to have, I'd be surprised if He could hit himself with a brick.

laughing,
at you, not with you,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Could one of the mods attempt a merge of this thread with II?

That would be good. Gives one such a sense of solidity and respectability, all those posts...although the new one is gathering steam now.

hopefully,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

My point was that your contention, that ‘Intelligent Aliens’ were the Intelligent Designers of life on Earth and that these ‘Aliens’ were in turn Intelligently Designed by other ‘Aliens’ ad infinitum, is INVALID because it is a Circular Argument.

A few points

1 - It isn't a circular argument. It stops after the second alien species with no assertion as to how they developed. If you think God developed the second alien species thats fine. We could never know since we have had no contact with said alien species, but there is no evidence to suggest that God did or did not designed them (if one believes in God). But you have proven that God did not design life on Earth.

2 - It wasn't my contention (or even Scoflaws), it was your contention when you asked "And what designed the aliens?" It is your assertion that something must have designed them. That something could be anything. It could be another alien. It could be God. It doesn't really matter. The topic on this thread is life on Earth. And you have proven that God did not design life on Earth. If one believes in Intelligent Design the only other explination is an alien intelligence.

J C wrote:

As the only plausible ULTIMATE source of the Intelligent Design manifestly present in living systems is God – this logically PROVES that God exists – and Created life.

But you have already proved that God did not create life on Earth, as life on Earth is designed in such a way that it is obvious that the designer (be it natural selection or intelligence of an exterterrestrial nature) could not view the future, and as such had to design biological systems that would attempt to adapt to unpredicatable circumstance. YOU HAVE SHOWN THIS YOURSELF as evidence of intelligent design. As God can by definition see everything passed present or future, such designs would be illogical for such a being, it would be wholey unnecessary for God to produce systems that would have to guess (in some case not very well) at future problems as God would be aware of all future problems until the end of time.

So whether you believe that ultimately any alien intelligence that might have designed life on Earth would eventually have to be traced back to God designing these aliens is irrelivent to the question of life on Earth. You have PROVED that God did not design life on Earth. You have proved that God did not create the first designs of life or the firsth Humans.

You can continue to believe that in Intelligence Design if you wish, though i would imagine that the idea of super intelligence alien life forms designing life on Earth will not appeal to you as much as the idea of God designing life on Earth. But you have, by accident, given the strongest argument ever as to why it is totally illogical to suppose that God created life on Earth.

If He had He would not have needed to design life the way it is. Life on earth is designed in such a way as to attempt to over come unpredictable problems that the life form might experience in the future. To God there is no unpredictable problems, He sees everyting. Therefore it is ridiculous to claim that God would design a system for future problems he could not anticipate.

You have proved God is not the designer of life on Earth. Well done. Can we close this thread now.

J C wrote:

In His benevolence, God chose to anticipate and ameliorate SOME of the effects of The Fall via the auto repair and back-up genetic systems that we observe in living systems.

He clearly didn't JC because these systems don't tackle specific problems which God must have been able to forseen, they attempt to deal with an unpredicable range problems in a not very complete manner. It would be utterly ridiculous to say that a designer of these systems is able to see the future.

You have, thankfully for the rest of us, proven beyond any doubt that God did not design biological life on Earth.

Well done. Can we close the thread now?

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

That would be good. Gives one such a sense of solidity and respectability, all those posts...although the new one is gathering steam now.

hopefully,
Scofflaw

We are here to serve, just utter your wish and it shall be made so by virtue of all the great mods here.:)
Ah, back to normal, just a single thread to read each night. I feel like I just got my life back, well half of it at last.

5uspect

J C wrote:

I'll dignify your 'Straw Man' question with an appropriate response...

Do you know what a strawman is J C? You are the one who said that the animals in the Ark ate the carcasses of the dead after the flood. When the stupidity of such a notion was pointed out to you (again and again) you decided that they were frozen on top of mountains only no doubt requiring 30 minutes in a oven (20 for a fan assisted) to be all healthy and tasty. I asked how possibly could ice exist under the flood waters for so long? I also asked you to account for the presence of Icebergs harbouring other survivors. And while we're at it I guess the ark had plenty of room for all the frestwater animals (including water tanks) that couldn't survive in the salty (or should I say satly) water. Of course you'll claim that freshwater animals lost the abilty to live in sea water since then, without even a shread of evidence. J C you made the arguement I'm simply pointing out the gross logical inadequacies of it. So once again, how could ice survive under flood waters for any extended period of time "in contravention of every known Law of Physics and Chemistry"?

J C wrote:

...when YOU explain how 'mud evolved into Man' in contravention of every known Law of Physics, Chemistry and Biology!!!:D

Can you show how this contravenes every law of science?
As has been pointed out to you the self replication of molucules has been observed. I suggest you take "The Selfish Gene" from your bookshelf and give it a good read.

J C wrote:

BTW what is "satly water" ??

Its what happens when I try to type too fast as I need to get back to analysing those experimental results that I have taken.

robindch

3.3 million year old child's skeleton found in Ethiopia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm

I wonder how AiG are going to spin this. Any suggestions to help them out?

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

3.3 million year old child's skeleton found in Ethiopia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5363328.stm

I wonder how AiG are going to spin this. Any suggestions to help them out?

Answer: they will crow with delighted triumph.

Why: the phrase "judging by how well it was preserved, the skeleton may have come from a body that was quickly buried by sediment in a flood, the researchers said."

Implications will not be considered (and there are many)...it doesn't matter what the dating is, or that the child is not H. sapiens...only the phrase "quickly buried by sediment in a flood" will get past the gatekeepers of cognitive dissonance.

gloomily,
Scofflaw