The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MooseJam

How did all the animals in the then unknown world survive the flood, Kangaroos koala'a etc

CiDeRmAn

Scientist is quite a broad term, given that you have present day snake oil salespeople running around doing Homeopathy and the suchlike calling themselves medical practicioners, what sort of scientist are you JC, what field do you work in at the moment? What type of research perhaps? I mean is it biological, chemical, physics? Is it a research type post?

As for the flood, most peoples in the world as they formed the first societies based their new villages around shallows in the local river, for access to the other side, drinking water for animals and selves, food source etc, is it any wonder the greatest fear was the fear of flooding?
Not to mention perhaps more unlikely, a race memory of the inundation of the Mediterranean basin in antiquity? Could be, all of which make infinitely more sense than god sent flood and a big wooden ark, daft.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

JC has made it quite clear that he is not going to reveal his qualifications nor his identity. Respect his reasons for doing so.

Brian if someone claims to be something, such as a qualified and professional scientist, using that claim to speak with authority on a subject such as biological evolution, yet totally refuses to back up any of his claims when it becomes clear that he doesn't understand the subject he is speaking about, it seems rather ridiculous that he is allowed to continue to do that

Yet for some reason he is not only allowed to continue to state this over and over, but when people call him on his nonsense they incur the wrath of the mod.

Do you actually understand what JC is claiming he is, or why people such as myself have such a problem with him continuously claiming it?

Can I pretend to be a leading Vatican historian and use that in discussion with the Catholics here? :rolleyes:

Indeed, I noticed my posts were deleted also and I'm with wicknight on this one ( as are most of the forum I suppose).
I suppose now I can claim to be a priest and continue to maintain such despite not knowing the scriptures inside out or anything at all in fact. But that's ok, because I have my reasons for doing so. Someone might recognise who I am if I give such details at all! :eek: In fact, I'd better not state which religion I'm a priest in, because that would give me away too.
But you still have to trust everything I say, no matter how wrong it is, because I'm some sort of a priest.

If we're not even allowed to call JC when he's obviously lying (e.g. "I have read EVERY book published on evolution!! :cool: :eek: ) then we can't be called on it either. Let's have a free for all...

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Can I pretend to be a leading Vatican historian and use that in discussion with the Catholics here? :rolleyes:

Yes, but the real question is could you pull it off;) The obvious is very obvious.

Sangre

When a 'conventially qualified scientist' claims that a rhino is a dinosaur then you can't expect people to stay quiet about his qualifications. Although, apparently he is morally AND legally entitled to call himself a scientist!

Asiaprod

Sangre wrote:

When a 'conventially qualified scientist' claims that a rhino is a dinosaur then you can't expect people to stay quiet about his qualifications. Although, apparently he is morally AND legally entitled to call himself a scientist!

I expect nothing from anybody. While JC may truly believe what he says, the value of this thread does not lie in what he says, but in the correct and accurate rebuttals it produces. After 310 pages, the obvious is very obvious.

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

I expect nothing from anybody. While JC may truly believe what he says, the value of this thread does not lie in what he says, but in the correct and accurate rebuttals it produces. After 310 pages, the obvious is very obvious.

It is obvious that he isn't a scientist, the problem is that we have been told that we shouldn't say "JC it is obvious you are not a scientist" because that is seemingly name calling

I've no problem with JC continuing to claim to be a "professional scientist", but equally others should continue to say "Er, no you aren't"

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

I've no problem with JC continuing to claim to be a "professional scientist", but equally others should continue to say "Er, no you aren't"

I understand, but
JC will say he is.
Others will say he's not...
JC will say he is
Others will say he's not...

I understand Brian's point, and I don't feel the need to say JC's not a scientist, I know, 310 pages speak for themselves. Maybe we need a new way to say "no your not." If I was such a scientist I would want to prove it. Besides, I want to keep him around, I have learned too much to waste time on an argument that will just go round in circles. It has far more impact when he is proved not to be a scientist, than by just repetitively saying it.

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

I understand, but
JC will say he is.
Others will say he's not...
JC will say he is
Others will say he's not...

The issue I would have with that is that all JC does then is wait for a bit, and then says it again.

Unless someone has been reading the 300 pages they won't know that it is bulls**t. And when he says it in a months time, if no one here can go "JC, we have been over this, you aren't a scientist" who ever is reading his posts (and occasionally we do get a new person who wanders into the God forsaken thread) may go "Well if a scientists has issues with evolution there might be something to this"

In general I object to deception, and Creationism relies wholly on deception, be it Ken Ham claiming to have found a recent dinosaur bone, to JC claiming he has studied evolution as a professional scientist and found serious flaws in it.

Is it not easier just to say "JC stop claiming to be a scientist unless you can back that up"?

Galvasean

Surely a scientist knows the scientific method? You present your idea and if you want it taken seriously you back it up with evidence. this is science pure and simple. You don't have to be a scientist to know this.

Oh and while were on the topic I can't believe I forgot to mention, Ego sum papa. Of course I don't have to back that up with evidence since I'm within my rights to do so. Anyone who tries to call me on it is clearly just infringing on my rights.

robindch

Well, in the interests of even-handedness, and regardless of where the truth lies, I politely suggest that if Wicknight isn't allowed to claim that JC's isn't a scientist, then I don't think it's fair for JC to be allowed to claim that he is.

The moderator(s) are in danger of taking sides in the same way that I believe would happen in the forum concerned with a well-known religion of peace, to the detriment of debate generally.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

The moderator(s) are in danger of taking sides in the same way that I believe would happen in the forum concerned with a well-known religion of peace, to the detriment of debate generally

Wicknight wrote:

Is it not easier just to say "JC stop claiming to be a scientist unless you can back that up"?

I see robin's point, and I agree with Wicknight's logic for new readers. In the interests of fairplay, I consider it only fair that the following comment is within the bounds of this forum's charter and is acceptable:

"JC stop claiming to be a scientist unless you can back that up"

Out of curiosity, just how does one prove one is a scientist? I really don't know.

2Scoops

Asiaprod wrote:

Out of curiosity, just how does one prove one is a scientist?

Of course, the easiest solution would be for J C to simply stop claiming to be a scientist whether he is one or not, since his occupation should not have a bearing on his posts and serves only to aggravate his fellow posters (a somewhat un-Christian practice he appears to revel in:)). Perhaps the Mods can step in an censor these unnecessary and antagonistic claims

I'd actually be very upset to discover that J C is in fact some advanced type of internet troll who exists only to torment rational minded people for his own pleasure.

Anyway, still waiting for evidence of peer review bias, feedback forms, evidence of the veracity of the Biblical account of creation, or indeed any example of creationist research exposed to peer review...

I miss Scofflaw.

5uspect

Asiaprod wrote:

Out of curiosity, just how does one prove one is a scientist? I really don't know.

Well doing that without disclosing one's identity is indeed difficult. You can cite papers that you have published, provide copies of your degrees etc.

But no one has asked J C for any of these. (apart from third party creationist research papers which he has not provided either simply because they don't exist)

We have asked for J C simply to state his qualification and possibly the institution where he was awarded it.

Everyone else here has provided their qualifications without question or concern.

By providing these we don't find out if he is an active researcher but we will hopefully find out if he is educated in the areas he claims to be "qualified" in.

robindch

Well, JC has been asked to produce the research that he's claimed that he's done, but he hasn't produced it, saying that this could lead to his job being put in jeapordy.

I'm inclined to believe instead that he's done no research at all, because a christian with his level of belief in belief wouldn't have any trouble saying what he believes publicly, in fact, he'd probably be quite proud to do it (given that he's said that he'd prefer to see his family murdered, rather than say that his religion is doubtful). I think that only somebody who's done nothing and ashamed of it would claim that it's the other side's closed-mindedness which is to blame for him having to keep quiet.

5uspect

robindch wrote:

Well, JC has been asked to produce the research that he's claimed that he's done, but he hasn't produced it, saying that this could lead to his job being put in jeapordy.

Okay I missed his claims of performing creationism research personally.
Surely he could upload a pdf draft of his papers, anonymously of course, for us to review?

J C

Wicknight
Medicine was almost non-existent back then. We have evidence that infant mortality was very high.

Could I remind you that Medicine only becomes important when somebody is SICK ….and the longevities of the earlier generations of Mankind indicates that sickness (and therefore the need for medicine) was considerably less prevalent then than it is today!!!


Wicknight
Lack of disease won't make someone live for 500 years.

It certainly won't stop them doing so!!

…and prevalence of disease will certainly REDUCE longevities!!!!


Wicknight
You do realise that there are hundreds of different radio-active dating methods that work on different principles, that can all be used to independently verify each other

……and they are all based on inter-dependent and/or circular reasoning!!!


Wicknight
Based on the measurements of the Ark given in the Bible you would not get one of each dinosaur species discovered in the fossil record on the ark, let alone all the dinosaurs and every other animal species.

You would get juveniles on, no problem.


Jonny 72
Ah ah, allow me, to answer this..

You must remember, that in order to fit all the species onto the Ark, including all the dinosaurs, he had to only take the young of each species (this has all been calculated carefully by creation scientists to fit perfectly inside the Ark, with plenty of space left over for animal fodder, crew quarters, remember he needed alot of crew, to feed and take care of 20,000+ species of animal + dinosaurs takes alot of man hours)

Now straight away you may ask, "but how did he collect a species from say Northern Canada, without the species he had collected from Central Africa growing old and dying?"

Its very simple, he built a giant farm, some say remains of which have been located in Israel near where Noah was from. An enormous Jurassic Park if you will. He needed this farm because to reach India from Israel by sea takes an incredibly long time. In the time it took, many species he had already collected either grew too big or died of old age, so he needed to keep them breeding.

He traveled the whole world, scouring it, getting all the species from North America, South America, Galapogas Islands, Europe, Russia (including Siberia), Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, the Arctic, the Antarctic, the whole of Africa, Madagascar, etc, not missing a single one and bringing them back to this gigantic farm, and incredibly (unlike today) these species weren't afraid of man, and they all bred perfectly in captivity.

So imagine a zoo if you will, yet a zoo only holds a tiny tiny fraction of all the species, so imagine a gigantic zoo of absolutely epic proportions, housing many of each of the species in the world, hundreds, maybe thousands (depending on how many are found) species of dinosaur, plus all the mammals who have since become extinct, such as..

The sabretooth cat, woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros (oops thats a dinosaur sorry) sloths, bears, camels, elk, beavers, rats, cats, mastodons, those giant flightless birds discovered in Australia, whatever they're called, them too..

After many many years Noah had collected all the species from all over the Earth (he was the first man to single handedly discover all 5 continents and circumnavigate the globe, however all this knowledge was lost, also lost was his incredible ship building skills which allowed him to build such a massive ship that could withstand the rigors of the sea, but being maneuverable enough to navigate gracefully through icebergs, etc. All his carefully cataloged knowledge of all dinosaurs and soon to be extinct mammals was also sadly lost.

Having all the species available on earth, he was able to calculate the size of his final ship, the biggest one, the Ark. As I said before, he took into account how many crew he would need, their quarters, their needs, enough food for them, the minimum possible size to hold a pair of each young of all the species and enough food for all of them (such as eucalyptus leaves for the Koala, etc), he also managed to create a system by which the animals, mammals and dinosaurs from warmer climes were housed far below deck in heated compartments to keep them alive, this knowledge was sadly also lost.

All dinosaurs and many mammals became extinct quite quickly after the flood, probably due to the changed environment, remember 6000 years is a relatively short time, only 100 lifetimes of 60 years each, so it happened extremely rapidly..

I shall let JC explain why a Rhino is a dinosaur..

but heres a little hint ok.. Rhinoceros.. RhinoSAURUS.. think you can put two and two together there huh..

Such enthusiasm for the verdant truth of Creation Science……..

DinoSAURUS …..RhinoSAURUS….. Rhinoceros …….an obvious linguistic continuum……now why didn’t I think of that!!!!!!:D
Jonny you're a genius!!!:)

I don’t wish to dampen your obvious enthusiasm for Creation Science, Jonny….indeed, you are taking to it ‘like a duck to water’!!!!
However, I must correct some small errors in your Thesis:-

Ante-Diluvian species/kinds hadn’t become isolated, like today, because the entire landmass was all linked and with much less seawater on Earth than today (the water was underground and in a protective blanket above the Earth.
Therefore all kinds were available LOCALLY to enter the Ark.

Equally, animal diets were probably not as specialised as they are today.

Apart from that, your ideas are very good!!!

Who would ever believe that Evolutionists could be so enthusiastically contributing to the progress of Creation Science????

…….must be a MIRACLE or something!!!!:eek:


Bisar
32,000 - I assume that's a pair of each kind i.e. 16,000 x 2. Am I right in thinking that there's a passage in Genesis somewhere saying that only the unclean animals were taken on in pairs, that the clean animals were taken in sevens? Do you need to up your estimate a little on that basis?

There are less than 20 ‘clean’ or food-producing Kinds of animals – so it has little effect on my 32,000 estimate!!


Galvasean
a rhino is not a dinosaur. Rhinos are nowhere near closely related to the dinosaurs. In fact they aren't even closely related to reptiles.

…..but ALL Dinosaurs WEREN’T reptiles…. some of the largest ones were warm-blooded and the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros….WAS a rhinoceros!!!:D


Galvasean
Today there are about 3,000 species of mammal and almost 9,500 species of birds. Factor in reptiles, amphibians and especially insects (whose species number is believed to be in the millions!) and the sheer number of species is just so vast that the ark could never hold them all unless it was a lot bigger than any current estimates.

OK 3,000 species of mammal in about 2,000 Kinds as well as 9,500 species of birds in about 6,000 kinds and about 8,000 other land based Kinds makes up my estimated number of 16,000 Kinds aboard the Ark!!!!

As I have already said, insects or amphibians weren’t on board the Ark!!!!!!!


Ned78
JC, that's the biggest load of opinion I've seen in a while.

Did you know that the record for the ‘Biggest Load of Opinion’ is held by an EVOLUTIONIST ???


pH
You're making the claims that this is all science. How does one follow his method to arrive at these conclusions? If he was able to pin the creation down to 'the third day', I'm surprised that given the progress that science normally makes, a few thousand years later creation scientists haven't been able to get a little more precise? Why not narrow it down to 'about tea time' on the third day?

The Bible ISN’T a scientific work….but Genesis IS a largely literal historic account of Creation …..and just like other historical accounts, science can be applied to testing it’s veracity!!!


Wicknight
He (JC) would probably die rather quickly since he doesn't recognise medicine.
I am in reasonably good health, so I have no need for medicine at present……and neither did the long-lived healthy people in the first generations of Mankind.


Asiaprod

I enjoy it so much I could never stop the thread. There is a very positive aspect in that people like me who have vast gaps in our knowledge of the sciences have learned a lot from you guts. Keep it up.

….and I’ll second thatl!!!:eek:


Zod
How much time ( approximately in days, months or years ) did Noah get to build his ark and collect all the animals ?

Also what help did he have ?

The Bible doesn’t answer any of these questions. We could speculate endlessly….but the reality is that God is sovereign over the affairs of Mankind and He provided the time and resources to Noah.

Gen 7:11 says that Noah was 600 years old when the Flood came ….so this is the upper limit on the length of time provided to Noah to build the Ark. The human resources available to Noah would have been determined by his means…..but it was likely that many people were employed by Noah, such was the immense scale of the Ark’s dimensions.
Gen 6:15 confirms the size of the Ark as 300x50x30 Cubits – which was 137x23x13.7 metres or 43,160 cubic metres i.e. with a potential laden displacement of in excess of 35 THOUSAND tonnes!!!!
The Ark was equivalent to the volume of 522 standard railway stock wagons, each of which can hold 250 sheep i.e. over 130,000 ‘sheep spaces’ so to speak. The Ark was a truly massive vessel, unmatched in size by modern shipping until the building of The Great Eastern Liner by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1858.


Galvasean
It says how long it took between Adam and Moses. Does it explain as clearly how much time there was between Moses and say Jesus? I'm just saying that perhaps the events in the Bible took place over longer periods than it is given credit for.

Gen 5 gives the exact CHRONOLOGY of descent from Adam to Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Gen 11:10-26 gives the exact CHRONOLOGY of descent from Shem to Abraham.

Lk 3:23-38 gives the exact LINE of ascent from Jesus to Adam (via Jesus’ biological mother Mary and her paternal levitical line) which establishes the right of Jesus to be considered as a Rabbi of the Jews …..which fulfilled one of the requirements of the Messiah.

Mt 1:1-16 gives the exact LINE of descent from Abraham via David to Jesus (via Jesus’ legal father Joseph) which establishes the right of Jesus to be considered as a member of the Royal House of the Jews …..which fulfilled the other requirement of the Messiah.

The number of generations from Abraham to Jesus was 56 generations in the (priestly) paternal line from Abraham to Jesus via Mary.

The number of generations from Abraham to Jesus was 41 generations in the (kingly) paternal line from Abraham to Jesus via Joseph.

As the period of time was obviously a particular length between Abraham and Jesus, the average generation lengths in the kingly line were somewhat longer than in the priestly line.

If we assume an average generation length of 35 years for the priestly line, then a total of 1960 (56 x 35) years elapsed between Abraham’s birth and the birth of Jesus.

The average generation length of the kingly line would then be 48 years….and interestingly, the Early Church believed Joseph to be a relatively old man – who seems to have been keeping up a family tradition for late marriage in his lineage!!!!

The above figures indicate that Noah’s Flood occurred in 4475 BP and the Creation of Adam was in 6131 BP.
…..and I would place a margin of error of +/- 500 years on these figures.


Hivemind187
I certainly wouldn’t trust any of your research, findings etc without having them checked, double checked and triple checked

Please do so……….I am not infallible.....and I check, double check and triple check my conclusions myself!!!!:D


MooseJam
How did all the animals in the then unknown world survive the flood, Kangaroos koala'a etc

All kinds (including Marsupials) were available LOCALLY to enter the Ark.


CiDeRmAn
most peoples in the world as they formed the first societies based their new villages around shallows in the local river, for access to the other side, drinking water for animals and selves, food source etc, is it any wonder the greatest fear was the fear of flooding?
Not to mention perhaps more unlikely, a race memory of the inundation of the Mediterranean basin in antiquity?

The ‘race memories’ of a catastrophic flood that nearly wiped out all life, is GLOBAL ……and NOT confined to the Mediterranean!!!

The evidence is ALSO there in Geology – where we find billions of dead things catastrophically entombed in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!


Wicknight
Can I pretend to be a leading Vatican historian and use that in discussion with the Catholics here?

You SHOULDN’T do so……but IF you were actually a ‘leading Vatican historian’ who wished to give your views on Vatican history without identifying yourself, I see no reason why you couldn’t be allowed to do so!!!


Originally Posted by Asiaprod
Out of curiosity, just how does one prove one is a scientist? I really don't know.

5uspect
Well doing that without disclosing one's identity is indeed difficult

I take your points on this matter.
To ease your plights, I will desist from using ‘the weight of my scientific qualifications’ from now on ……I will merely continue to demonstrate them!!!!

……..and if I ‘slip’ …..you may (courteously) point out that I have done so, along the lines suggested by Asiaprod ("JC stop claiming to be a scientist unless you can back that up").

MooseJam

Equally, animal diets were probably not as specialised as they are today.

Animal diets weren't as specialised ? you're making this up as you go along aren't you, yes it wasn't untill McDonalds opened that the animals tastes became more varied

When did the flood take place ? there are 6.5 billion people on earth today, it should be fairly easy to work out whether it's possible to get 6.5 billion from the survivors on the ark in such a short time frame. I'd also be interested in hearing where black or chinese or any ethnic variation came from and when this came about

jonny72

J C wrote:

Ante-Diluvian species/kinds hadn’t become isolated, like today, because the entire landmass was all linked and with much less seawater on Earth than today (the water was underground and in a protective blanket above the Earth.
Therefore all kinds were available LOCALLY to enter the Ark.

You are saying the Koala bear and the Kangaroo lived LOCALLY to where the Ark was built? Penguins, dinosaurs, bison, lizards, etc all lived locally?

Or did they walk, crawl and slither across land from South America and Australia to that one point where Noah was?

He must have at least had to travel to their closest habitats, mountains, jungles, plains, etc.

I can't imagine how hard it was for 8 people (actually less than 8, others had to stay back and take care of the other animals) to hack and slash their way into the jungle, take a young male and female tyrannosaur from their friendly parents, then drag them all the way back to where the Ark was being built.

JC I think you do put up an admiral defense for the eh very hard to defend, but isn't this stuff kinda stretching the imagination a bit..

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Could I remind you that Medicine only becomes important when somebody is SICK ….and the longevities of the earlier generations of Mankind indicates that sickness (and therefore the need for medicine) was considerably less prevalent then than it is today!!!

Are you claiming that people didn't get sick back then? Seriously?

Because historical records greatly contradict that. The writings of Egyptian and Chinese civilizations demonstrate a wide understanding of disease, and human remains from that period include many remains showing evidence of disease.

J C wrote:

It certainly won't stop you doing so!!

You are right it won't. But you haven't put forward an explanation for how humans could live for hundreds of years. Humans will not naturally live for hundreds of years, absence of disease or not.

J C wrote:

……and they are all based on inter-dependent and/or circular reasoning!!!

No, actually they aren't. As I said they work independently of each other on different "assumptions". If they give unpredictable results then the results shouldn't match with each other.

While you may claim that any individual method works on an assumption that the laws of physics worked the same way millions of years ago as they do now, if this isn't actually true then the systems should not match up at all. The only way they could possibly match is if the laws of physics worked exactly the same today as they did back then.

Think of it this way. You get a big wheel, and you measure out the length of a line. You then get another big wheel, but of different sizes, and measure out the same line. The first wheel takes 5.5 turns to measure the line, and the second takes 3.4 turns.

Later on you see another line. It looks the same as the last line, but you want to see if this new line is the same length. So you measure out line with the first wheel, and it comes to 5.5 turns. Ah, you say, looks like the same length. But just to make sure you use the second wheel. It comes to 3.4 turns, so you say "Yup, defo the same length as the first line"

Then a creationists comes along and says "Stop! You are working on the assumption that the wheels you are using have not changed in size since you measure the first line"

Very true. But if the wheels had changed size then the ratio between the two numbers shouldn't match (x/5.5 = x/3.4)

Now imagine if you had 100 different wheels.

You can claim that the laws of physics were completely different 6,000 years ago, but if that were true then these dating methods should not give the same result when measuring the same thing, because the systems would have changed independently of each other (all the wheels would be different sizes and they should not give the same ratios)

J C wrote:

You would get juveniles on, no problem.

No, actually you couldn't.

A juvenile Sauroposeidon would have been taller than the actual Ark (approx 14 meters), with an adult one growing to over 18 meters tall (the Ark was 13 meters high).

A juvenile Brachiosaurus would have been approx 7 or 8 meters tall (an adult one was 13.5 meters high (still higher than the Ark). Which limits the Ark to 2 floors at the most (ignoring the Sauroposeidon)

Even having 2 juveniles of each of the Sauropoda species you have run out of space on the Ark.

And this is before all the other dinosaurs, let alone all other animals. There would simply be no room left to put any of the other animals.

J C wrote:

DinoSAURUS …..RhinoSAURUS….. Rhinoceros …….an obvious linguistic continuum……now why didn’t I think of that!!!!!!:D

It does sound like your logic .. you sure you didn't?

J C wrote:

…..but ALL Dinosaurs WEREN’T reptiles…. some of the largest ones were warm-blooded and the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros….WAS a rhinoceros!!!:D

A Rhinoceros was not a dinosaur, it was a mammal.

Do you actually understand what a dinosaur is JC?

J C wrote:

OK 3,000 species of mammal in about 2,000 Kinds

Based on what JC? Are you just pulling numbers out of the air?

J C wrote:

As I have already said, insects or amphibians weren’t on board the Ark!!!!!!!

Because most insects can live under water ... oh wait, no they can't.

J C wrote:

The evidence is ALSO there in Geology – where we find billions of dead things catastrophically entombed in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!

Which has been demonstrated could not have been created by water pressure

Yes, that is convincing :rolleyes:

How much pressure was on these rocks JC? Why does the sea bed not turn to rock instantly as is supposed to have happened during the flood.

Were the laws of physics different back then too, so water was heavier than it is now?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Wicknight
You do realise that there are hundreds of different radio-active dating methods that work on different principles, that can all be used to independently verify each other

……and they are all based on inter-dependent and/or circular reasoning!!!

Here we go again.......

Again I ask, what is wrong with the reasoning involved with radioactive dating?
And don't say daughter-nucleus ratios, because Quantum Mechanically it doesn't matter.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

They are gettingdeleted because they are far more than you claiming that JC isn't a scientist.

They include phrases like the following:
You can "remind" us that you are a talking 2 headed chicken, it ain't going to make you being a scientists any more true.

I am getting a bit tired of the name calling.

JC has made it quite clear that he is not going to reveal his qualifications nor his identity. Respect his reasons for doing so.

We've been over this a couple of times, Brian. We don't respect JC's reasons, because they are "that we will use his qualifications to identify him, and either get him sacked or otherwise make his life difficult".

Now, short of having a qualification unique in Ireland, we cannot identify him without the complete set of year-institution-major - and his name, just in case 20 people graduated with the same major that year, as is usual. It is not possible, and while he might like to pretend that we could, and you might choose to support that contention, it's false, and I don't respect it.

Since the first bit can't be true, the second can't be either - and never mind just how insulting the implication of it is. Do you honestly believe that we would try to make trouble for JC, simply because we disagree with him? How little do you think of us?

In short - no, I don't respect JC's reasons, and I don't think you should nail your colours to this mast, because frankly it brings moderatorship into disrepute.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Anyone who thinks they are the same animal is fooling themselves.

Triceratops is Greek for 'three horned face'.
Rhnoceros is Greek for 'nose horn'

Zombrex

one might as well say this Beetle is a dinosaur because it too has a horn on its head :rolleyes:

Utter nonsense, the argument that their names were similar had more plausibility. Though did we expect anything better from Mr. "I'm a scientist, I am" JC?

J C

Galvasean wrote:

Quote Galvasean:-

Anyone who thinks they are the same animal is fooling themselves.

Triceratops is Greek for 'three horned face'.
Rhnoceros is Greek for 'nose horn'

They BOTH have a 'nose horn'.....and an almost identical body and legs skeleton!!!

Looks like two VARIANTS of the SAME Created Kind to me!!!:D

......different tail sizes ....... but the same KIND!!!!:eek:

BTW, the somewhat smaller 'brain-case' in the Rhino ....whould indicate that it has degenerated from the ancestral Triceratops!!!:D

J C

MooseJam
Animal diets weren't as specialised ? you're making this up as you go along aren't you, yes it wasn't untill McDonalds opened that the animals tastes became more varied

Specialisation in diet is often the result of speciation or other genetic isolation processes that REDUCES genetic variation……which occurred SINCE the Flood!!!!


MooseJam
When did the flood take place ? there are 6.5 billion people on earth today, it should be fairly easy to work out whether it's possible to get 6.5 billion from the survivors on the ark in such a short time frame.

Starting off with two people and each couple having an average family size of only four children, you would get a population expansion of 2….4…..8…..16……and you would reach over 8 BILLION people in just 33 generations. If we assume an average generation length of 35 years, this would occur in only 1155 years.
The world population was likely to have expanded very rapidly initially. The long lived earlier generations of Mankind (with consequently later Menopause) probably had average family sizes of 20 children or more.

The expansion rate would then have slowed down as resource limitations, war, disease and reduced longevity took their toll.:eek:

In any event the achievement of a population of 6 billion people during the 4475 +/-500 years that have elapsed since the Flood would have been VERY EASY!!!

MooseJam
I'd also be interested in hearing where black or chinese or any ethnic variation came from and when this came about

For those who doubt that the genome of two people, could contain all of the racial diversity of Mankind – here is a modern example of just such diversity. Two British parents of mixed colour gave birth to beautiful twin girls, one white and the other dark-skinned on 07/04/2005.

Read all about this amazing latter day “Adam and Eve” story here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kian_and_Remee_Hodgson
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=377839&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

The Bible and genetics proves that we are all one blood – and so racism is unfounded scientifically as well as being sinful. We are all members of ONE race – the Human Race!!!!
……and you can read all about how the Human Race arose here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter4.asp


Jonny 72
You are saying the Koala bear and the Kangaroo lived LOCALLY to where the Ark was built? Penguins, dinosaurs, bison, lizards, etc all lived locally?

Or did they walk, crawl and slither across land from South America and Australia to that one point where Noah was?

He must have at least had to travel to their closest habitats, mountains, jungles, plains, etc.

The original Kinds were ALL located LOCALLY all over the Earth.

Different specialist habitats and climatic conditions largely arose after the Flood.
Ante-Diluvian conditions from the poles to the equator, were much more similar than today, due to the stabilising influence of the water canopy all over the Earth – and that is why you find FRESH sub-tropical vegetation in Antarctic ice cores!!!:D

Natural selection, speciation and other genetic isolation processes that REDUCES genetic variation allowed adaptation by creatures to the many new habitats that emerged SINCE the Flood!!!!:)


Jonny 72
I can't imagine how hard it was for 8 people……… (taking) a young male and female tyrannosaur from their friendly parents, then drag them all the way back to where the Ark was being built.

Gen 6:8-9 indicates that the animals came into the Ark of their own volition.
The Flood Processes were driven by wide-scale seismic activity. Animals can sense danger and are known to behave atypically prior to Earthquakes......and this could explain the apparent docility of the animals boarding the Ark.


Wicknight
Are you claiming that people didn't get sick back then? Seriously?

…………….. The writings of Egyptian and Chinese civilizations demonstrate a wide understanding of disease, and human remains from that period include many remains showing evidence of disease.

I am claiming that illness was LESS prevalent then than now.

I fully accept that the SOPHISTICATED Post-Flood peoples had a sophisticated understanding Medical Science.


Wicknight
A juvenile Brachiosaurus would have been approx 7 or 8 meters tall (an adult one was 13.5 meters high (still higher than the Ark). Which limits the Ark to 2 floors at the most (ignoring the Sauroposeidon)

The average ratio of infant to adult mammal heights is about 4 to one – and it can take up to 5-10 years to reach full adult height for most Mammals.
This would indicate that a one year old Brachiosaurus would have been about 3 metres tall and less than 2 metres at the shoulders – so it could easily fit in below decks, if it kept it’s head down which was it’s normal eating position!!!!:D


Wicknight
How much pressure was on these rocks JC? Why does the sea bed not turn to rock instantly as is supposed to have happened during the flood.

…..but sedimentary rocks weren’t formed by pressure over millions of years…….they were formed by cementation processes within hours!!!!

Have a look here at HOW sandstone forms today:-
http://www.constructionindustrynews.net/storyView.asp?StoryID=70034
http://www.technologyhorizons.co.uk/industry_sectors/structural_&_civil.cfm?faarea1=customWidgets.contentitem_displaypage&cit_id=4121

BTW, the sea bed sediments don't turn into rock today because there is no cementing agent present currently in these sediments......add cement and they WILL form rock without 'pressure' or 'millions of years'!!!:D

Galvasean

J C wrote:

[/B]
They BOTH have a 'nose horn'.....and an almost identical body and legs skeleton!!!

Sorry, to put it simply you are wrong.
I could express how I really feel about your (what I believe to be purposeful) ignorance on the topic but I would be banned for sure.
Look mate either put up or shut up. You say their bodies are almost identical. I say you should actually LOOK before you start typing again and then realize they are VERY different animals. Pay particular attention to their heads, feet, hips and tails.
Or you can just continue to troll away.. The choice is yours.

MooseJam

Is JC saying that the dinosaurs were alive during the time of the flood ? you can't seriously make that claim

J C

Galvasean wrote:

You say their bodies are almost identical. I say you should actually LOOK before you start typing again and then realize they are VERY different animals. Pay particular attention to their heads, feet, hips and tails.

.....but the two skeletons and general body outlines are practically identical ....you would see nearly as much differences between, for example, the 'armour-plated' Indian Rhino (with one horn) and African White Rhino (that has two horns) ...and they are BOTH alive today!!!!:D

...and the real clincher is that the Triceratops was warm-blooded......and it had a 'beaked mouth' that was closer to the Black Rhino's 'narrow mouth' than the White Rhino's 'broad mouth' !!!!!:eek::D

..........go down and look at the Triceratops..Eh ...Em, I mean, the White Rhinos in Dublin Zoo.....and last time I was in Chester Zoo there was an Indian (armour plated) Rhino ....an amazing animal!!!!:D