The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

MooseJam wrote:

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

I am saying that 'Dinosaurs' were alive long AFTER the Flood.....and some are alive today.....e.g. the Rhino, the Komodo Dragon and the Crocodile.....to name a few!!!:eek:

Galvasean

J C wrote:

.....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

Practically identical? Did you even read my last post before you clicked the quote button and typed random smilies?
LOOK at the Tricerotops. Now THINK and LOOK at it again.
No species of rhino has a big bony frill, bird like hips or a crocodile like tail or beak.

J C wrote:

...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

Does the wide mouthed rhino have a beak? NO.
Does the black rhino have a beak? NO.
Humans are warm blooded. So are mice. Are we the same animal? NO.

Saying one type of rhino looks more like a Triceratops than another type of rhino is epic in both naivity and ignorance.

Galvasean

J C wrote:

[/B]

I am saying that 'Dinosaurs' were alive long AFTER the Flood.....and some are alive today.....e.g. the Rhino, the Komodo Dragon and the Crocodile.....to name a few!!!:eek:

Wrong on all 3 counts. Seriously, go read a book or something. You will not find ANY texts, not even Creationist ones which say rhinos (mammals), Komodo dragons (lizards) and crocodiles (crocodilians) are dinosaurs.
You are making stuff up and giving Creationists a bad name.

Giblet

I think he may be on to something...

MooseJam

J C wrote:

[/B]

I am saying that 'Dinosaurs' were alive long AFTER the Flood.....and some are alive today.....e.g. the Rhino, the Komodo Dragon and the Crocodile.....to name a few!!!:eek:

Tyranosaurus rex and man were cohabiting ? if this was the case why is there no records of these creatures in any old texts or cave paintings or anything, why have no dinosaur bones been found with the markings of tools, I'm sure we would have hunted these or if not hunted at least been forced to kill some of them, T-rex quite the dangerous beast !

Asiaprod

Galvasean wrote:

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.

That is correct, as it also could happen for

"go read a book or something"

and

"Saying one type of rhino looks more like a Triceratops than another type of rhino is epic in both naivity and ignorance."

and for

"and giving Creationists a bad name"

This thread takes a huge amount of my time and my life to moderate. I leave it running because others learn a lot from it thanks to some brilliant posters here. I have read 312 pages of this now, I am sure I can now also claim to be a scientist after this. As long as I feel their is something to be learned from this thread I will happily keep it going. I am giving advanced warning that if this thread decends into personal attack or ridicule I will shut it down and move it to the Thunderdome. This has nothing to do with me validating or supporting any individual here. This is the Christianity forum, and this particular creationist thread has long ago dropped the Christian tag and moved into a completly new frontier where we have a boat with signs stuck all over in Dinosaurs speak reminding them to "Keep your head down while below decks". I am surprized the damn thing did not sink with all the manure that must have accumulated, not to mention the smell. Its no wonder the first dove did not come back, it had had enough.

I have agreed it is acceptable to say things along the line of:

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

I am very happy for posters to show JC the error of his ways scientifically, as I am equally for JC to show us the error of our faulty sciences.

For the last time, I am respectfully asking all to leave it at varients of this please. This battle is won by the excellent rebbutals given to some of the madness here.
Don't spoil the learning experience and enjoyment for others by forcing me to close this thread. I would really hate to do that. Remember the uproar when this thread got lost last year and all the efforts that were made to restablish it.
Asia

Zombrex

J C wrote:

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

On what grounds?

J C wrote:

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.

Well thank God we aren't talking about mammals then.

J C wrote:

This would indicate that a one year old Brachiosaurus would have been about 3 metres tall and less than 2 metres at the shoulders

No actually it wouldn't, since Dinosaurs aren't Mammals, as you well know.

J C wrote:

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

As has already been esablished that impossible. Have you actually read the papers you quote

J C wrote:

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

Ok, at least we have established two things

1 - You haven't read the articles you are linking to. This is an bio-chemical reaction. That wouldn't work under water, it needs air.

2 - You really haven't read the articles you linked to. It is a combination of bacteria that is not found naturally in nature, otherwise this would be happening all over the place. So who added the huge amounts of agent during the Flood? God?

3 - You really really haven't read the articles you link to. THis produces sandstone. And not particularly strong sand stone. It doesn't explain any of the other rocks, even if one ignored 1 & 2

So I ask again, how did the Flood produce the sedimentary rocks containing fossils (because it damn sure wasn't this way)

Red Hand

I just can't believe how this thread is still going strong. Where do the posters find the time, energy (and endure the sheer heartache/frustration of it all:))? At this stage, I think it is self-inflicted punishment, honestly!

BrianCalgary

A few here have insinuated that I deleted them because they simply claimed, "JC you are not a scientist'.

That is NOT what I said. I deleted them because they went beyond making that statement and got into name calling. That is the part that is objectionable and goes against the charter. If I saw JC calling any one else a name, his post would also be deleted.

To Bluewolf and wicknight: you can claim to be whatever you wish, however it would soon come out that you really aren't what you claim, and the rest of the posters would see this.

So, continue the debate if you so desire, just stay away from the name calling.

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I just can't believe how this thread is still going strong. Where do the posters find the time, energy (and endure the sheer heartache/frustration of it all:))? At this stage, I think it is self-inflicted punishment, honestly!

Unfortunately I meet people like JC out here in the real world (mostly friends of friends). Anyone who reads the Indo newspaper or watches the Late Late Show or Newsnight knows that there is a lot of ignorance out there when it comes to evolution and science in general, propagated by Christians and Muslims who refuse to accept the natural world around them. Harmless some might say, but it is having an effect on medicine and science research in America and I fear the same here.

Wacky Creationism is no long contained within the Christian Bible Belt of America, it has spread to the UK, Europe and even Ireland. Understanding how to argue with these people (when logic and reason will not work) is helpful. It is one of the problems I think someone like Richard Dawkins has, he doesn't understand how someone could actually believe any of this nonsense, so he is ineffective when debating with them. To debate successfully one must understand why people believe the opposite to you.

JC is a useful guinea pig, a barometer to the wider Creationists movement

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

A few here have insinuated that I deleted them because they simply claimed, "JC you are not a scientist'.

That is NOT what I said. I deleted them because they went beyond making that statement and got into name calling. That is the part that is objectionable and goes against the charter. If I saw JC calling any one else a name, his post would also be deleted.

To Bluewolf and wicknight: you can claim to be whatever you wish, however it would soon come out that you really aren't what you claim, and the rest of the posters would see this.

So, continue the debate if you so desire, just stay away from the name calling.

What name calling? All I remember saying was "you can remind us that you claim to be a scientist"
what else did i say?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

it would soon come out that you really aren't what you claim, and the rest of the posters would see this.

Not always, and that's really the point here.

The people who would most benefit from seeing that JC's no more of a scientist than Ronald McDonald is, are the ones who seem to be completely unable to see this fairly simple fact. It's a bit like old muttonchops's fantasy theme park in Kentucky -- some people, bizarrely, seem to think that that bearded clown knows what he's talking about and that he's being honest about it. I mean, whatever about science, but can't they even read body language?

BrianCalgary

bluewolf wrote:

What name calling? All I remember saying was "you can remind us that you claim to be a scientist"
what else did i say?

On further review, I was harsh on Bluewolf.

Apologies.

Galvasean

Asiaprod wrote:

[/B]I am very happy for posters to show JC the error of his ways scientifically, as I am equally for JC to show us the error of our faulty sciences.

Fine, I will admit that I let my frustration get the better of me and for that I am very sorry.
I just hope you recognize that I have been posting scientific responses with more than ample amounts of evidence to back them up (I even posted diagrams which where ignored) but all I am receiving are responses which provide no evidence or back up whatsoever and seem to be made up on the spot, not to mention the overuse of condescending smilies at the end. I just don't think its entirely fair that I should be reprimanded while another poster can be disrespectful to many other posters in this fashion and get away with it.

Galvasean

J C wrote:

..........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

Tell me, in the name of scientific en devour did you inform the zookeepers that they had mislabeled their animals?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

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!!!

This is all incorrect. Though it is an easy mistake to make as you would imagine doubling is how population growth works.

Rather population is governed by the Logistic Map discovered by Pierre François Verhulst, although it wasn't fully appreciated until Chaos Theory came on the scene in the 1970s.

Like all of early chaos theory it is exceptionally easy to understand. I'll try to explain.

A big X means multiplied, I think it's the best way to represent it on a forum.

The map is this:
y = r X z X (1-z)

z is this years population.
y is next years population.
r is called the starvation coeffecient, the smaller it is the less food and medicine, e.t.c. there is.

You pick a value of r and stick to it, then pick a value for z to start off. A common example is z = 0.5. You might wonder why if z is population it has to be a number like 0.5, it's because the map is used for ratios. So if z = 0.5 and then you work out y = 0.25 or 0.75, it means the population has declined or grown by a half respectively.

Then use the formula to work out y and that gives you the next years population. Then you take your answer and put it in for z to get the third years population.

If r is between 0 and 1, the population will eventually die off no matter what. Between 1 and 2 it'll eventually settle down on some fixed value.
Strange stuff happens as r gets bigger, which you can read about here:
Logistic Map

The problem with Adam and Eve is that in order for a population to grow quickly from two people, r has to be huge. However if r is huge, then the map is chaotic and population jumps about like crazy and never gets near large numbers.

BrianCalgary

Galvasean wrote:

Fine, I will admit that I let my frustration get the better of me and for that I am very sorry.

Apologies accepted.

Galvasean wrote:

I just hope you recognize that I have been posting scientific responses with more than ample amounts of evidence to back them up (I even posted diagrams which where ignored) but all I am receiving are responses which provide no evidence or back up whatsoever and seem to be made up on the spot, not to mention the overuse of condescending smilies at the end..

Welocme to the boards. JC and wolfsbane would argue that they have provided more than ample evidence to refute all of yours. It has been going on for quite a while now and will continue until Christ comes again and every knee bows. At that point we will then know the truth.

At that point his smilie will get used by one group or the other:

Galvasean wrote:

I just don't think its entirely fair that I should be reprimanded while another poster can be disrespectful to many other posters in this fashion and get away with it.

And it is up to the mods to decide what is and isn't fair. It can depend on our moods at times, but we do our best and I think you will find that on the Christianity board we tend to allow complete freedom of speech unless it gets personal and / or abusive.

And every now and then we do need to rein things in. Overall we have a pretty decent group that works together quite well and is very understanding and civil.

We'd like to keep it that way.

Red Hand

Wicknight wrote:

Unfortunately I meet people like JC out here in the real world (mostly friends of friends). Anyone who reads the Indo newspaper or watches the Late Late Show or Newsnight knows that there is a lot of ignorance out there when it comes to evolution and science in general, propagated by Christians and Muslims who refuse to accept the natural world around them. Harmless some might say, but it is having an effect on medicine and science research in America and I fear the same here.

Wacky Creationism is no long contained within the Christian Bible Belt of America, it has spread to the UK, Europe and even Ireland. Understanding how to argue with these people (when logic and reason will not work) is helpful. It is one of the problems I think someone like Richard Dawkins has, he doesn't understand how someone could actually believe any of this nonsense, so he is ineffective when debating with them. To debate successfully one must understand why people believe the opposite to you.

JC is a useful guinea pig, a barometer to the wider Creationists movement

After posting I don't know how many times in this thread, Wicknight, you must have faith in something to get you through the day (and through this thread)?:D


Hmmmm, I can understand believing in something (sometimes), but I can't get over some of the mental gymnastics that some Creationists here perform to get the "science" and stuff they quote/link looking the way it does.

Such talent could be used for something useful...I mean that in a genuine way! Alot of effort is going into making pieces of the jigsaw of science fit by clipping corners, forcing pieces that don't go together against each other, and disregarding or painting over whole sections.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Welocme to the boards. JC and wolfsbane would argue that they have provided more than ample evidence to refute all of yours.

Saying a Rhino and a Triceratops are the same thing is not evidence, nor is the rest of the half baked stuff we see here. However it would be nice if JC could try to make sense. I don't mind the Creationist stuff, but making things up and reversing them half way, while making jokes is not up to the standards of everybody else.

Also saying things that are patently false repeatedly, is a bit below standards as well.

Take his common claim that radio-carbon dating is false, he has never provided anything yet he continues to say it. What truly baffles me though is how others think he saying something.

Unless people see ":( :eek: :cool:" as "Following from the basic ontological assumption that....", I really don't understand why others take him seriously. I mean are you reading what I'm reading?

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

I mean are you reading what I'm reading?

Is that rhetorical?

If not, I'm probably not reading what you're reading. I'm at a point where I just scan the posts to make sure everyone is still playing nice in this particular sandbox.

The language is way over my head, with regard to the scientific terms used, so I really don't get anything out of the discussion.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Is that rhetorical?

No, I'm seriously asking. If you're just glancing and not reading, that's fine. It's just that I don't understand how somebody could think JC makes sense and be actually reading what he is saying.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote:

The language is way over my head, with regard to the scientific terms used, so I really don't get anything out of the discussion.

So, why don't you ask people to explain what they mean? That's what this discussion is for. Are you not interested in the world you live in?

Asiaprod

Galvasean wrote:

Fine, I will admit that I let my frustration get the better of me and for that I am very sorry.

Very easy to do when dealing with JC

I just hope you recognize that I have been posting scientific responses with more than ample amounts of evidence to back them up (I even posted diagrams which where ignored) but all I am receiving are responses which provide no evidence or back up whatsoever and seem to be made up on the spot, not to mention the overuse of condescending smilies at the end.

Welcome to Captain Capslock's (JCs) world. You will never get a satisfactory answer back. You would do well to expect that to continue. For the record, I thought the Rhino was very good and the point was drilled home very nicely. Point in case, my 12 year old daughter was intrigued by it and through questioning me about what she was looking at now also knows the difference. Well done.

I just don't think its entirely fair that I should be reprimanded while another poster can be disrespectful to many other posters in this fashion and get away with it.

You were not reprimanded, believe me. If I reprimand you, you will know it. If you felt you were, then that is a lack of communication on my part for which I would apologize. Having asked for order in the post prior to yours, you came strait back with the quotes I mentioned, I therefore used your post as an example of what I would not accept from posters.

jonny72

http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

5uspect

BrianCalgary wrote:

The language is way over my head, with regard to the scientific terms used, so I really don't get anything out of the discussion.

I really find this tragic. Many people have spend years on this thread trying to explain science to people who either don't understand it or just don't want to understand.

Do you want to understand or would you rather not think about it?

Galvasean

jonny72 wrote:

http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

Peanut butter disproves evolution? Well its actually a good idea in theory but i think they are (as usual) oversimplifying the mechanics of evolution to try make it seem ridiculous.
Also, who says there wasn't microscopic life in our peanut butter? We may have eaten it without even knowing. I doubt anyone really checks.

Zombrex

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

After posting I don't know how many times in this thread, Wicknight, you must have faith in something to get you through the day (and through this thread)?:D

I have faith in the ability of humanity to eventually, often painfully slowly, but eventually see through nonsense, religious or otherwise.

As Abraham Lincoln said -

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Zombrex

jonny72 wrote:

http://gprime.net/video.php/proofofcreationism

LOL .. that is brilliant ... who says Creationists are dumb?

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote:

Peanut butter disproves evolution? Well its actually a good idea in theory but i think they are (as usual) oversimplifying the mechanics of evolution to try make it seem ridiculous.
Also, who says there wasn't microscopic life in our peanut butter? We may have eaten it without even knowing. I doubt anyone really checks.

The other problem is that scientists have actually done exactly what these Creationists are talking about, created self-replicating molecules by modeling the conditions of early Earth. No peanut butter was involved, but I'm not sure God used peanut butter either :rolleyes:

Mention that to JC. His reaction to the MIT experiments shows pretty well how damning this fact is to the Creationists idea that life can never arise naturally.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

Do you want to understand or would you rather not think about it?

Unfortunately if this thread demonstrates anything it is that most of the regular theists who post here fall into the later of your 2 choices