Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Wicknight
Complex self replicating molecules. There was no slime or goo. "Primordial soup" is a metaphor, it wasn't an actually soup JC
For crying out loud, we have been over this how many times, and you continue to lie about it.
So-called ‘self replicating molecules’ may well be produced using a significant input of Human intelligence and ingenuity……….but they are a long way from a living cell……which is billions of orders of magnitude more complex than these molecules!!!!:D
……even if you don’t accept that water containing such hypothetical chemicals would be ‘Gooey’…… Evolution postulates that these molecules eventually ‘morphed’ into single-celled water based life forms that approximate to today’s algae which would CERTAINLY be Pond SLIME???:eek:
…….as I have said before……..not only are you in denial of God……but you now are in denial of what Evolution ACTUALLY postulates!!!!!:D
Wicknight
Yes JC, praise Jesus!
I must point out that such an exclamation won't save you.....
....but I guess you are heading in the right direction!!!!
Originally Posted by J C
I spent years trying to come up with a theory of Evolution that looked half reasonable……and I failed!!!!
Wicknight
You tried to come up with a theory of evolution. Well that does explain quite a bit. Were you aware at the time that Darwin had already done this, about 150 years ago?
Darwin's Theory was largely based on his observations of Natural Selection with some speculation thrown in …….and it was clearly a product of the very limited scientific understanding of the Victorian era, to which he had access.
I was trying to come up with a ‘Muck to Man all singing and dancing Theory of Evolution’…… that looked half reasonable……and I failed!!!!
If you have succeeded, where I have failed please share your breakthrough with us!!!:eek:
Originally Posted by J C
Of course, the fact that preserved dinosaur flesh and blood has been found, indicates that both large Mammals and large Dinosaurs lived TOGETHER very recently indeed!!!
Wicknight
Lie, lie, lie. Please stop lying. The person who discovered this fossil has already said this is a lie, we have already told you this, please stop lying.
Take your own advice and stop ‘lying’ (as you define it) YOURSELF!!!
Firstly, there have been A NUMBER OF fresh unfossilised Dinosaur bones discoveries……of which more later in this post….
Secondly, the following USA Today article quoting Science magazine states basically what I have said about the find to which you are referring and comes complete with photos to PROVE it!!!:eek:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-03-24-t-rex_x.htm?csp=34
I herewith quote from the above article:-
“The find included what appear to be blood vessels, and possibly even cells, from a Tyrannosaurus Rex. ……….
……..The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported.
In recent years evidence has accumulated that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, and Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich because it is the largest bird available.
Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues that have been preserved, largely leaves or petrified wood and a few examples of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.
But soft tissues are rare in older finds, "that's why in a 70-million-year-old fossil is so interesting," he said.
Blood vessels are FLESH and blood cells are BLOOD…….so I am not lying!!!
Equally, Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, confirms that SOFT TISSUE was recovered……i.e. they weren’t just dry bone material……they contained blood vessels identical to blood vessels recovered from Ostrich bone…….or ARE you saying that Dr Hanson is also mistaken????
Unfortunately for Evolution, this wasn’t the first or the only find of fresh Dinosaur bones. Creation Scientists (and some Evolutionists) regularly bring home such finds from field trips, particularly in Alaska and Northern Canada
For example a fresh, unfossilized dinosaur bone was found in 1987, by a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo), working with scientists from Memorial University, Newfoundland (Canada), on Bylot Island. The bone was identified as part of a lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur.
Ref Margaret Helder, ‘Fresh dinosaur bones found’, Creation magazine, Vol. 14 No. 3, June–August 1992, p. 16.
Back in 1981, scientists identified dinosaur bones which had been found in Alaska 20 years earlier. The bones had been so fresh that the geologist who had found them thought at first they must have been bison bones. They have now been identified as belonging to horned dinosaurs, duckbill dinosaurs, and small carnivorous dinosaurs.
This discovery was reported in 1985 in Geological Society of America abstract proceedings, Vol. 17, p. 548. Also in an article by Kyle L. Davies, ‘Duckbill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska’, Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 198–200.
Bones, of course, don’t stay fresh very long—certainly not for millions of years......and so these discoveries clearly indicate that dinosaurs were around recently.
You can read more about fresh Dinosaur bones here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp
http://creationwiki.org/Unfossilized_dinosaur_bones?setlang=af
The phenomenon of amazing preservation feats (from an Evolutionist ‘millions of years’ perspective) isn’t unique to Dinosaur bones.
For example, and closer to home, the Wootton Bassett Mudsprings near Swindon in Wiltshire, England have recently ‘regurgitated’ fresh Ammonite shells, that are supposedly about 165 million years old.
These UNFOSSILISED creatures are supposedly from a time that was BEFORE the so-called ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’) :eek:
They exhibit remarkable preservation. Some bivalves still have their original organic ligaments, and the Ammonites are irridescent and still have their ORIGINAL shells of aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate.:D
Several specimens of the bivalve Myophorella have been found to be STILL ARTICULATED with the ligament still preserved and retaining its original microstructure……. remarkable for the 4,000 or so years that they have been preserved…….but IMPOSSIBLE over the 165 MILLION years over which Evolutionists maintain that they have been entombed!!!:eek:
…..and the Ammonites are so plentiful that they apparently blocked a small stream leading from the mud springs……indicating that they were rapidly and catastrophically buried and NOT the result of occasional non-catastrophic random burial!!!!:eek:
Originally Posted by J C
Of course God made independent eye designs because He wished to…….and to ensure that Evolutionist claims are even more ridiculous than they would otherwise be!!!!
Wicknight
So God did it to trick humans?
God didn’t use different eye designs to ‘trick’ anyone……He used them to PROVE that He Created us………
……and Evolutionists are actually the ones that are fooling THEMSELVES on this one!!!!!!:eek:
Wicknight
ALL. LIFE. UNDER. THE. HEAVENS
Remember that one JC. Interesting how you never answered how life could survive if all life on Earth was wiped out except those in the Ark (fish, plants, bacteria, insects)
…with due apologies to those who have already read my answer to this question …..here is my answer AGAIN….
So let us look at Genesis AGAIN!!!
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
God states that He will Flood the DRY LAND of the Earth thereby causing the death of LAND-BASED creatures…….please note that it is IMPOSSIBLE to flood the seas or to drown aquatic creatures……..so marine fauna was NOT included in God’s condemnation.
God then clarifies that the intended target of His wrath are all creatures of ‘flesh’ that ‘breathe’……..i.e. all of the land-based Mammals, Birds and Reptiles……..so Plants, Insects and Micro-Fauna are also NOT included in God’s condemnation.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
God then promises to exempt Noah and his family ……..as well as all Mammals, Birds and Reptiles on the Ark from His general condemnation (on land-based Mammals, Birds and Reptiles).
Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
God knew that scoffers would come in the latter days……….and so He confirmed that the target of His wrath was all KINDS of Birds, Land Mammals and Reptiles (as exemplified by Fowls, Cattle and ‘Creeping Things’).
Gen 7:7And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
God’s Word then confirms that representative pairs of the particular Kinds of animal that WERE THE TARGET OF GOD’S WRATH in the Flood (Mammals, Birds and Reptiles) went on board the Ark…….and were saved.
10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
God then clarified that the Flood started when Noah was six hundred years old.
13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.
Because God knew that the type of scoffers who would come in the latter days………..would be a particularly stubborn lot…….He repeated for a THIRD TIME that the creatures on the Ark were “flesh, wherein is the breath of life” and further clarified AGAIN that this means every KIND of Mammal, Reptile and Bird.
17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
This confirms that ALL dry land was covered to a minimum depth of 15 cubits or 6 metres.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
To put it beyond all doubt for even the most stubborn of scoffers ….……..God repeated for a FOURTH TIME that the creatures NOT on the Ark that died in the Flood were all flesh, “in whose nostrils was the breath of life” and further clarified AGAIN that this meant every KIND of Bird, Mammal and Reptile………and again clarified that the judgement of the Flood was visited upon ALL dry land (and it’s Avian, Mammalian and Reptilian fauna).
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
To put it beyond all doubt for even the greatest scoffers (in the Universe) ……..God repeated for a FIFTH TIME that the creatures NOT on the Ark that died in the Flood were Land Mammals, Reptiles and Birds (as exemplified by Man, Cattle ‘Creeping Things’ and Fowl)!!!!:D0 -
Ciaran500 wrote:Except all those other sciences go through the scientific method. Creation science can not since creation science is right no matter what evidence you find.
......and in answer to that, I will just post the following!!!!:D
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind about to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth mens' minds to religion" Sir Francis Bacon, CREATIONIST and 'Father of Empiricism and The Scientific Method'.
Please note that Sir Francis Bacon was BOTH a Creation Scientist (actually the first Creation Scientist)......and 'the father of The Scientific Method'!!!!:D0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by J C
I wasn’t favouring any particular Christian denomination…..so I wasn’t proselytising …..merely suggesting a possible prayer with which people can become Born Again…….which Jesus Christ confirms as the essential condition for BECOMING a Christian
Scofflaw
Christianity itself is just one possible religion. What you are doing is proselytisation to a Muslim, or a Hindu, or an atheist
1. This is a CHRISTIANITY Forum.
2. All Christians are commanded by Jesus Christ in Mt 28:19 to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
3. Unless ‘the salt has COMPLETELY lost it’s flavour’, Non-Christians visiting a Christianity Forum should not be surprised if they are presented with the saving message of Jesus Christ.:D
Scofflaw
Now, are you welcoming "people who want to become Christians", or trying to persuade people to want to become Christians? I think it is very obvious that it is the latter, not the former - if for no other reason than that you are addressing atheists.
Neither actually……..I am merely laying before EVERYBODY the possibility of (spiritual) life or death ……and asking them to freely choose life (in Jesus Christ)!!!:D
Scofflaw
These are not what you might call standard textbooks, nor are they "standard evolutionist books" - the Origin of Species is of only historical interest, and the rest are coffee-table books. I haven't done more than dip into any of them.
Although some of these could be considered to be ‘populist works’ I have found that they are nonetheless a fair reflection of the ‘state of play’ of the Evolutionist Literature……
Scofflaw
...few conventional scientists, not many - we've been over this, repeatedly. The best that any creationist has been able to produce is a few hundred names, in the context of millions of scientists.
You are confusing the fact that Creation Scientists are ‘few’ in percentage terms ……but they are ‘many’ in numerical terms!!!!!:D
Scofflaw
the main difference would be that we have scientific, peer-reviewed, articles that debunk this or that aspect of eco-hysteria?
Certainly we are pretty much at "case closed" on the issue of whether humanity currently contributes most of the climate change drivers, but we certainly don't have enough information to "close the book".
I wouldn’t claim to have expertise in evaluating the causes of Climate Change ……and so I have an ‘open mind’ on it.
Wicknight
for the record: abiogenesis is not now, and never has been, either part of, or in any way necessary to, the Theory of Evolution. Any science textbook or biology course will confirm this - abiogenesis is the 'muck to early life' bit, and evolution the 'early life to man' bit. The two are separate areas of science.
Some Evolutionists cite ‘evolution’ as the ‘motor’ behind EVERYTHING from the so-called ‘Big Bang’ onwards…….i.e they claim that Galaxies ‘Evolved’ into what they are now, simple replicating molecules ‘evolved’ into living cells and these, in turn, carried on evolving up to Man!!1
However, any technical distinction between abiogenesis and evolution doesn’t resolve the overall problem faced by the Materialist in explaining how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet.
The reality is that Direct Creation is a scientifically superior explanation that is in direct opposition to BOTH abiogenesis and evolution……..and drawing artificial distinctions between abiogenesis and evolution only weakens the Materialists claim to be able to comprehensively explain how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet
Wicknight
To state otherwise is to either accidentally or deliberately conflate two separate areas of science - the well-understood and highly provable Theory of Evolution with the very uncertain and speculative hypotheses of abiogenesis.
I am glad that you admit that all these ideas about ‘self replicating molecules’ and other abiogenesis hypotheses are highly uncertain and speculative………one could be forgiven for believing that we were on the point of scientifically demonstrating abiogenesis when reading some Evolutionist writings on this thread!!!!:eek:
Unfortunately the ‘highly provable Theory of Evolution’ is confined to it’s Natural Selection aspect (and within Created Kinds at that).
The ‘early life to Man’ bit of Evolution is just as unfounded and just as speculative as abiogenesis …..and for roughly the same reasons…….the massive increase in specified complexity (SC) required to produce a putative living proto-cell is of a somewhat similar order of magnitude to the increase in SC required to ‘move’ from a proto-cell to Man!!!!:cool:
Equally, the point where Abiogenesis supposedly ended and Evolution supposedly started is both vague and variable ……..
……so from now on, in order to avoid any accusations of ‘lying’ I will use the terms ‘Muck to Man Abiogenesis / Evolution’ ……..and the ‘Abiogenesis / Evolution of Pondslime’ when describing these hypothetical phenomena!!!!:D
Scofflaw
Because, as explained above, you're either lying, or think we are.
I have NEVER called you a liar
.....and I simply think that you are mistaken in your belief that Abiogenesis/Evolution of Pondslime produced Man!!!!
.......please bear in mind that I once believed that Evolution/abiogenesis was true......and I wasn't lying when I told people then that Evolution/biogenesis was true....at that time
......I could still be wrong in my current beliefs.....but I don't think I am.
Originally Posted Scofflaw
It is akin to arguing that while 2 x 3 = 6, you simply don't accept that 3 x 4 = 12 - the same method, the same discipline produces the result.
Originally Posted by J C
Would that also be like arguing that while dead things DON'T spontaneously become alive again………dead muck DID spontaneously became alive?????
Scofflaw
Er, no, since one is a question of method, the other of theory.
One is a matter of methodical consistency…….
And the other is a matter of logical consistency!!!!
…….and unfortunately for Evolutionists, Science requires BOTH methodical and logical CONSISTENCY!!!!:D
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
You cannot accept modern medical theory on the one hand, and reject modern evolutionary theory on the other,
Originally Posted by J C
I know some Creationists who are leading medical specialists ……..but I don’t choose my doctor on whether or not they believe in the 'generative powers' of muck or their kinship with an Ape !!!!
Scofflaw
Sigh. Unkind though it may be to say so, most modern doctors are technical specialists ('technicians' seems a bit too harsh, although it's not inaccurate), not scientists. As long as he or she is capable of accurate diagnosis and correct prescription, a doctor can believe that their remedies are powered b y little green men for all the difference it makes.
The many Faculties of Medical SCIENCE around the world would disagree with you in classifying Doctors as ‘technicians’!!!!!!
However, be that as it may…….your original point was that Modern Medicine would ‘spontaneously combust’ in the absence of Evolution…….and whether my Doctor is a Scientist or Technician I have never asked her whether she believed in the 'generative powers' of muck or if she had a cousin that was an Ape…….it somehow never came up!!!!:D
Scofflaw
The problem is not the calculations, but that the calculations bear no relation to the reality. All the calculations prove is that the figure in a spreadsheet cell can be made larger than six billion in a matter of less than 4000 cells - nothing more. It's beermat maths.
The maths certainly isn’t complicated…………
However, it is the CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS that makes the case so well for the likelihood of two people being able to produce the current world population within a Biblical timeframe:
In this projection I have assumed an average fertility rate of 3.0 children per woman and 6 billion was reached in just 54 generations or only about 2,000 years!!!!
Generations ....People
0 ....2
1 ....3
2 ....5
3 ....7
4 ....10
5 ....15
6 ....23
7 ....34
8 ....51
9 ....77
10 ....115
11 ....173
12 ....259
13 ....389
14 ....584
15 ....876
16 ....1,314
17 ....1,971
18 ....2,956
19 ....4,434
20 ....6,651
21 ....9,976
22 ....14,964
23 ....22,445
24 ....33,668
25 ....50,502
26 ....75,754
27 ....113,630
28 ....170,445
29 ....255,668
30 ....383,502
31 ....575,253
32 ....862,880
33 ....1,294,320
34 ....1,941,479
35 ....2,912,219
36 ....4,368,329
37 ....6,552,493
38 ....9,828,740
39 ....14,743,110
40 ....22,114,665
41 ....33,171,997
42 ....49,757,995
43 ....74,636,993
44 ....111,955,490
45 ....167,933,235
46 ....251,899,852
47 ....377,849,778
48 ....566,774,667
49 ....850,162,000
50 ....1,275,243,000
51 ....1,912,864,501
52 ....2,869,296,751
53 ....4,303,945,126
54 ....6,455,917,6900 -
-
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
I wasn’t favouring any particular Christian denomination…..so I wasn’t proselytising …..merely suggesting a possible prayer with which people can become Born Again…….which Jesus Christ confirms as the essential condition for BECOMING a Christian
Scofflaw
Christianity itself is just one possible religion. What you are doing is proselytisation to a Muslim, or a Hindu, or an atheist
1. This is a CHRISTIANITY Forum.
It's a forum for the discussion of Christianity, not one exclusively for Christians.J C wrote:2. All Christians are commanded by Jesus Christ in Mt 28:19 to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
3. Unless ‘the salt has COMPLETELY lost it’s flavour’, Non-Christians visiting a Christianity Forum should not be surprised if they are presented with the saving message of Jesus Christ.:D
Did I say I was surprised? Or even offended? I'm just amused by the idea that while there appears to be an implicit polite rule against poaching Christians from other sects (or is it a wider rule against poaching any other god's followers?), we atheists are fair game.
There's no need to get excited - I'm certainly not accusing you of anything against the Charter, which as far as I know doesn't even mention proselytisation.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Now, are you welcoming "people who want to become Christians", or trying to persuade people to want to become Christians? I think it is very obvious that it is the latter, not the former - if for no other reason than that you are addressing atheists.
Neither actually……..I am merely laying before EVERYBODY the possibility of (spiritual) life or death ……and asking them to freely choose life (in Jesus Christ)!!!:D
Pretty much what I said...J C wrote:Scofflaw
These are not what you might call standard textbooks, nor are they "standard evolutionist books" - the Origin of Species is of only historical interest, and the rest are coffee-table books. I haven't done more than dip into any of them.
Although some of these could be considered to be ‘populist works’ I have found that they are nonetheless a fair reflection of the ‘state of play’ of the Evolutionist Literature……
They're not scientific works, unfortunately, so not really. Look at it like this, JC - if I wanted to know what it says in the Bible, should I read de Mello, or the Bible?J C wrote:Scofflaw
...few conventional scientists, not many - we've been over this, repeatedly. The best that any creationist has been able to produce is a few hundred names, in the context of millions of scientists.
You are confusing the fact that Creation Scientists are ‘few’ in percentage terms ……but they are ‘many’ in numerical terms!!!!!:D
Context, JC, context. I don't deny that I would find "several hundred" a large number to do a tea-party for at short notice - only that there really is a difference between "alarming number for a tea-party" (creationist scientists) and "the population of a country" (non-creationist scientists).J C wrote:Scofflaw
the main difference would be that we have scientific, peer-reviewed, articles that debunk this or that aspect of eco-hysteria?
Certainly we are pretty much at "case closed" on the issue of whether humanity currently contributes most of the climate change drivers, but we certainly don't have enough information to "close the book".
I wouldn’t claim to have expertise in evaluating the causes of Climate Change ……and so I have an ‘open mind’ on it.
Oh? And do you also have an 'open mind' on the benefits of anti-biotics, or are you sufficiently expert to know exactly their operation? Do you have an 'open mind' on whether air travel works? What about your car?J C wrote:Scofflaw
for the record: abiogenesis is not now, and never has been, either part of, or in any way necessary to, the Theory of Evolution. Any science textbook or biology course will confirm this - abiogenesis is the 'muck to early life' bit, and evolution the 'early life to man' bit. The two are separate areas of science.
Some Evolutionists cite ‘evolution’ as the ‘motor’ behind EVERYTHING from the so-called ‘Big Bang’ onwards…….i.e they claim that Galaxies ‘Evolved’ into what they are now, simple replicating molecules ‘evolved’ into living cells and these, in turn, carried on evolving up to Man!!1
However, any technical distinction between abiogenesis and evolution doesn’t resolve the overall problem faced by the Materialist in explaining how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet.
The "technical distinction" is that abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution.
You're not answering the question, JC. I already know that you think abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution to be incorrect, and I understand that you see them as just parts of the same false world-view. I want to know whether you think that we are falsely presenting them as separate areas of science, when in fact they are not.J C wrote:The reality is that Direct Creation is a scientifically superior explanation that is in direct opposition to BOTH abiogenesis and evolution……..and drawing artificial distinctions between abiogenesis and evolution only weakens the Materialists claim to be able to comprehensively explain how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet
The difference between theory A and theory B is not an "artificial distinction" or a "technical distinction". The Theory of Gravity is not part of the Theory of Evolution, and nor are the hypotheses on abiogenesis - the distinction is exactly as "technical" and "artificial" in the one case as it is in the other.J C wrote:Scofflaw
To state otherwise is to either accidentally or deliberately conflate two separate areas of science - the well-understood and highly provable Theory of Evolution with the very uncertain and speculative hypotheses of abiogenesis.
I am glad that you admit that all these ideas about ‘self replicating molecules’ and other abiogenesis hypotheses are highly uncertain and speculative………one could be forgiven for believing that we were on the point of scientifically demonstrating abiogenesis when reading some Evolutionist writings on this thread!!!!:eek:
Well, 'self-replicating molecules' are rather well-known and studied...J C wrote:Unfortunately the ‘highly provable Theory of Evolution’ is confined to it’s Natural Selection aspect (and within Created Kinds at that).
The ‘early life to Man’ bit of Evolution is just as unfounded and just as speculative as abiogenesis …..and for roughly the same reasons…….the massive increase in specified complexity (SC) required to produce a putative living proto-cell is of a somewhat similar order of magnitude to the increase in SC required to ‘move’ from a proto-cell to Man!!!!:cool:
Oh aye, and if you ever do define "Specified Complexity" do let me know, won't you?J C wrote:Equally, the point where Abiogenesis supposedly ended and Evolution supposedly started is both vague and variable ……..
That would be the uncertainty over abiogenesis, which, as we've seen, is not part of the Theory of Evolution. We cannot say for sure when evolution started because we don't know for sure when life started.J C wrote:……so from now on, in order to avoid any accusations of ‘lying’ I will use the terms ‘Muck to Man Abiogenesis / Evolution’ ……..and the ‘Abiogenesis / Evolution of Pondslime’ when describing these hypothetical phenomena!!!!:D
Gosh. It's almost like a step forward. Except of course that you are still connecting the two as if they were one thing, and stood or fell together, which is still not the case, because of that "arbitrary" and "technical" distinction between one theory and another.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Because, as explained above, you're either lying, or think we are.
I have NEVER called you a liar
.....and I simply think that you are mistaken in your belief that Abiogenesis/Evolution of Pondslime produced Man!!!!
Unfortunately that wasn't the question. I asked you whether you thought that we were deliberately and falsely separating the Theory of Evolution from the speculative mechanisms of abiogenesis.J C wrote:Originally Posted Scofflaw
It is akin to arguing that while 2 x 3 = 6, you simply don't accept that 3 x 4 = 12 - the same method, the same discipline produces the result.
Originally Posted by J C
Would that also be like arguing that while dead things DON'T spontaneously become alive again………dead muck DID spontaneously became alive?????
Scofflaw
Er, no, since one is a question of method, the other of theory.
One is a matter of methodical consistency…….
And the other is a matter of logical consistency!!!!
…….and unfortunately for Evolutionists, Science requires BOTH methodical and logical CONSISTENCY!!!!:D
Science does not require us to say that because X happened, it will always happen, or that because A did not happen, it never has and never will happen, which is what you appear to think is logic, judging by the above. You may have mistaken "rigid belief" for logic, there, of course (and I have his follow-up comment here in a sealed envelope, ladies and gentlemen).J C wrote:Originally Posted by Scofflaw
You cannot accept modern medical theory on the one hand, and reject modern evolutionary theory on the other,
Originally Posted by J C
I know some Creationists who are leading medical specialists ……..but I don’t choose my doctor on whether or not they believe in the 'generative powers' of muck or their kinship with an Ape !!!!
Scofflaw
Sigh. Unkind though it may be to say so, most modern doctors are technical specialists ('technicians' seems a bit too harsh, although it's not inaccurate), not scientists. As long as he or she is capable of accurate diagnosis and correct prescription, a doctor can believe that their remedies are powered b y little green men for all the difference it makes.
The many Faculties of Medical SCIENCE around the world would disagree with you in classifying Doctors as ‘technicians’!!!!!!
I'm sure they would, but I doubt you get your prescriptions from medical researchers. I imagine that like the rest of us, you get them from practitioners.
Hmm - of course if you are getting your prescriptions from medical researchers, that would explain a lot.J C wrote:However, be that as it may…….your original point was that Modern Medicine would ‘spontaneously combust’ in the absence of Evolution…….and whether my Doctor is a Scientist or Technician I have never asked her whether she believed in the 'generative powers' of muck or if she had a cousin that was an Ape…….it somehow never came up!!!!:D
I don't even think that was offered as a point by another "evilutionist", and certainly not by me. I must say I would certainly be interested in seeing a field of study spontaneously combust, though.
Have you noticed, by the way, that you are confirming my point - that you don't need to know the beliefs of your medical practitioner, because they make no actual difference?
I have to include, of course, the relevant Doonesbury.J C wrote:Scofflaw
The problem is not the calculations, but that the calculations bear no relation to the reality. All the calculations prove is that the figure in a spreadsheet cell can be made larger than six billion in a matter of less than 4000 cells - nothing more. It's beermat maths.
The maths certainly isn’t complicated…………
However, it is the CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS that makes the case so well for the likelihood of two people being able to produce the current world population within a Biblical timeframe:
In this projection I have assumed an average fertility rate of 3.0 children per woman and 6 billion was reached in just 54 generations or only about 2,000 years!!!!
No, it is the fact that the assumptions, and the calculation, are entirely meaningless, and irrelevant to the real world. The sort of maths one does to show that if everyone gave you the price of a pint, and you placed it on a succession of winning horses and then bought enough lottery tickets to be sure of winning...etc, etc...and that's why everyone should give you the price of a pint. Beermat maths, see?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Well, because there is a the dramatic untruth (JC's "spurting blood"), and then there is the rather less dramatic truth.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Once again I find my clear 'figure of speech' being interpreted LITERALLY by people who decry a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis. ......
........does this mean that you will become a Bible Literalist if you ever become a Christian, I wonder???
Those photographs are certainly dramatic......and whilst not spurting blood (which would only occur in a live Dino) they DO show dramatic evidence of the presence of blood and soft tissue .......not something you would expect with a 65 MILLION year artefact.......or even a 4,000 year old one EITHER!!!:D0 -
J C wrote:I don't know about you, but I would classify 'soft tissue' / 'blood vessels' as 'flesh!!!:D
Personally, I would regard classifying "altered remnants of microscopic blood vessels embedded in mineralised bone" as 'flesh' to be a piece of stupidity.
Besides, whatever happened to "blood and marrow spurting out", as you used to claim? Discussions of what is or isn't flesh seem rather 'dry' by comparison...J C wrote:Once again I find my clear 'figure of speech' being interpreted LITERALLY by people who decry a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis. ......
........does this mean that you will become a Bible Literalist if you ever become a Christian, I wonder???
Those photographs are certainly dramatic......and whilst not spurting blood (which would only occur in a live Dino) they DO show dramatic evidence of the presence of blood and soft tissue .......not something you would expect with a 65 MILLION year artefact.......or even a 4,000 year old one EITHER!!!:D
EDIT: Oh, I see! It's become a 'figure of speech'. I can imagine it now:
Judge: So, witness, you say that the victim was spurting blood across the room?
Witness: Well, that's just a figure of speech, Your Honour.
Judge: And when you said he'd been stabbed brutally to death by the accused...was that also a 'figure of speech'?
Witness (sulkily): Maybe.
Victim (interjecting): I got better.
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Once again I find my clear 'figure of speech' being interpreted LITERALLY by people who decry a LITERAL interpretation of Genesis. ......
........does this mean that you will become a Bible Literalist if you ever become a Christian, I wonder???
Those photographs are certainly dramatic......and whilst not spurting blood (which would only occur in a live Dino) they DO show dramatic evidence of the presence of blood and soft tissue .......not something you would expect with a 65 MILLION year artefact.......or even a 4,000 year old one EITHER!!!:D
How odd that you generally when you use figures of speech - like the phrase 'figure of speech' - you put them in inverted commas for some reason. Aside from making it look like you speak in the strangest cadence I've ever come across, this does have the benefit of making it clear when you're using figures of speech and when you're not.
How odd, then, that when you say things like 'spurting blood', you don't use inverted commas (for whatever reason you used them in 'figure of speech').0 -
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by Scofflaw
Science is not a la carte, any more than religion is - one of the few features they have in common. To argue otherwise is to say that science gets things right by luck,
Originally Posted by J C
So you (correctly) argue that science CAN’T get things right by luck………but then you go and claim that a series of 'lucky breaks' WILL spontaneously turn Pondslime into Man????
Scofflaw
I'd also argue that you can get lucky in a game of cards - and that would have just as much relevance as the comment you have produced above.
You would have one BIG problem with such an argument……..
The odds of getting the rarest ‘hand’ in Poker, which is a Royal Flush, are only about 650 thousand to one or 640,740 to be precise………and these odds DO ensure that such a ‘hand’ turns up occasionally.
However the odds of spontaneously producing the amino acid sequence for a specific essential 100 AA chain protein is 10^^130 to one ……which is an IMPOSSIBILITY given the fact that there are only 10^^80 ELECTRONS in the known Universe!!!!!:D
…..so Evolutionists can add the denial of mathematical probability to the (lengthening) list of their other DENIALS!!!!:D
Scofflaw
It's a forum for the discussion of Christianity, not one exclusively for Christians.
I have never denied that…….and I fully accept it!!!!
Scofflaw
Did I say I was surprised? Or even offended? I'm just amused by the idea that while there appears to be an implicit polite rule against poaching Christians from other sects (or is it a wider rule against poaching any other god's followers?), we atheists are fair game.
Are you saying that some religions engage in the religious equivalent of ‘market sharing’????!!!!!
In any event, Christians are called upon to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified, without fear or favour!!!
….and that is what you should EXPECT if you start to debate with Christians ……
Atheists who visit Christianity Forums are certainly taking their ‘Atheistic Spiritual Lives’ in their hands……
……like many before them, Atheists may visit the Christianity Forum to scoff …….but there is ALWAYS the RISK that they will stay to PRAY!!!!:D
……and that isn’t 'poaching'…..it’s just the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in action!!!!:cool:
BTW, are you really as fearful as you seem to be that Atheists will be 'poached' on this thread???
Do you really think that the next Skeptics meeting will be held in a phone box or that the meeting will spontanously break into a rendition 'Our God Reigns' ???:D
Scofflaw
I'm certainly not accusing you of anything against the Charter, which as far as I know doesn't mention proselytisation.
I don’t know whether it does or doesn’t mention proselytisation……..but in any event your point is moot……because I WASN’T proselytising!!!
Scofflaw
They're not scientific works, unfortunately, so not really. Look at it like this, JC - if I wanted to know what it says in the Bible, should I read de Mello, or the Bible?
OK, can I then say that I have read ALL of the main 'populist' Evolutionist books and SOME of the Evolutionist Technical Papers…..and I have still been unable to develop a ‘Muck to Man all singing and dancing Theory of Evolution’…… that looked half reasonable……
……so if you have succeeded, where I have failed please share your breakthrough with us!!!
Scofflaw
Context, JC, context. I don't deny that I would find "several hundred" a large number to do a tea-party for at short notice - only that there really is a difference between "alarming number for a tea-party" (creationist scientists) and "the population of a country" (non-creationist scientists).
As I have already said, you are confusing your ‘relatives’ with your ‘absolutes’!!!!:D
I would also take issue with the idea that ‘died in the wool’ Evolutionists greatly outnumber Creation Scientists………
most scientists don’t think too much about the ‘Origins Issue’ - if at all……..
......they may declare themselves to be ‘Evolutionists’ if pushed to do so on a survey….but this declaration is usually on the basis that Evolution is part of current ‘Scientific Orthodoxy’…and usually not because of any in-depth knowledge of the supposed biological mechanisms involved!!!
Originally Posted by JC
I wouldn’t claim to have expertise in evaluating the causes of Climate Change ……and so I have an ‘open mind’ on it
Scofflaw
Oh? And do you also have an 'open mind' on the benefits of anti-biotics, or are you sufficiently expert to know exactly their operation? Do you have an 'open mind' on whether air travel works? What about your car?
I have sufficient expertise in all of these areas to comment knowledgably about them……..
….and the fact that ‘Global Warming’ has recently been re-named ‘Climate Change’ indicates that the Experts in this area are continuing to gain new insights into this problem!!!!
…….it sounds to me, like a work in progress !!!!!:D
Originally Posted by JC
Some Evolutionists cite ‘evolution’ as the ‘motor’ behind EVERYTHING from the so-called ‘Big Bang’ onwards…….i.e they claim that Galaxies ‘Evolved’ into what they are now, simple replicating molecules ‘evolved’ into living cells and these, in turn, carried on evolving up to Man!!1
However, any technical distinction between abiogenesis and evolution doesn’t resolve the overall problem faced by the Materialist in explaining how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet.
The reality is that Direct Creation is a scientifically superior explanation that is in direct opposition to BOTH abiogenesis and evolution……..and drawing artificial distinctions between abiogenesis and evolution only weakens the Materialists claim to be able to comprehensively explain how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet
Scofflaw
Ah. Flim-flam. How unexpected.
An Evolutionist in denial……How unexpected!!:D
Scofflaw
Oh aye, and if you ever define "Specified Complexity" do let me know, won't you?
The statement “a@4$%9*twtks4p;/=pftem!^ma£#:c/w*(+!ghkk” ……..would be ‘Unspecified Complexity’….
……and the statement that “Scofflaw wishes me to define Plain English” ......would be ‘Specified Complexity’!!!!!!
Scofflaw
That would be the uncertainty over abiogenesis, and the high likelihood that evolution operated on the very earliest self-replicators.
…whatever!!!!
…..in any event, it proves that Abiogenesis and Evolution are all part of the same faith-filled ‘shemozzle’!!!!!
....and I wasn't lying when I included both Abiogenesis and Evolution under the generic title of Evolution!!!
Scofflaw
that wasn't the question. I asked you whether you thought that we were deliberately and falsely separating the Theory of Evolution from speculative mechanisms of abiogenesis.
………I accept that you are drawing a distinction between the two …….and only you can tell us what your motives are!!!
Could I again remind you that any technical distinction between Abiogenesis and Evolution doesn’t resolve the overall problem faced by the Materialist in explaining how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet.
The reality is that Direct Creation is a scientifically superior explanation that is in direct opposition to BOTH abiogenesis and evolution……..and drawing an arbitrary distinction between abiogenesis and evolution only weakens the Materialists claim to be able to comprehensively explain how Human Beings came to be living on Earth.:cool:
Scofflaw
Science does not require us to say that because X happened, it will always happen, or that because A did not happen, it never has and never will happen.
It all depends on what ‘A’ and ‘X’ are………
……..and if they defy the known Laws of Science, like Abiogenesis and Evolution do, then Science can indeed conclude that they DIDN’T happen unless and until they are proven by observation to occur!!!:D
Scofflaw
As to your point, I give you, of course, the relevant Doonesbury.
This idea that full medical treatment should be withheld from certain classes of people is very sinister indeed……
……is this some outworking of some Evolutionist nonsense…..where Evolutionist Doctors determine that Creationists should die by withholding medical treatment?:(
Could I also point out that Creationists have NEVER raised any ethical objections to antibiotic therapy.....so why does this doctor assume that there is any problem in giving the patient full antibiotic treatment.....indeed why does he feel compelled to establish that the patient is a Creationist?
Scofflaw
No, it is the fact that the assumptions, and the calculation, are entirely meaningless, and irrelevant to the real world.
The calculations ARE very meaningful and relevant in the real world.
Not only do they prove that the current world population could arise within the past 5,000 years……but they ALSO show that Humans could only have been here for a few thousand years.
You see, most Humans have this habit of preserving their dead by burying them…..
………and these projections clearly show that you would be literally tripping over graves and skeletons across the face of the Earth IF Humans were around for the millions of years that Evolutionists claim.:eek:0 -
Galvasean wrote:As far I was aware the term flesh is limited to the meat parts of your body. Blood is a liquid thing. Not exactly fleshy.
OK, so here we have UNFOSSILISED T.Rex bones .....and not just very old dry bones .......but bones with SOFT TISSUE, INTACT BLOOD VESSELS.....and to top it all, BLOOD CELLS present.....you would often get less fresh forensics at a murder scene......and you 'nit pick' endlessly.....
......while studiously ignoring 'the Elephant in the Living Room'..... the bald fact that such tissues COULDN'T have logically survived unfossilised for over SIXTY MILLION YEARS!!!:eek:
...and probably NOT even over 4,000 years EITHER!!!:D0 -
-
-
Since I'm a statistician, I'd say yesJ C wrote:Do you unserstand anything about statistics or probability? Clearly you don't! As Son Goku pointed out, your Mathematics are nonsense! Since there are pretty good world population estimates stretching back far enough to show the spurt in population growth of the last 200 ish years, they're demonstratablty nonsense. Better luck next time:)
A useful graphical view of historical view of historical population growth worldwide can be found at
http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html
btw.0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:OK, so here we have UNFOSSILISED T.Rex bones .....and not just very old dry bones .......but bones with SOFT TISSUE, INTACT BLOOD VESSELS.....and to top it all, BLOOD CELLS present.....you would often get less fresh forensics at a murder scene......and you 'nit pick' endlessly.....
......while studiously ignoring 'the Elephant in the Living Room'..... the bald fact that such tissues COULDN'T have logically survived unfossilised for over SIXTY MILLION YEARS!!!:eek:
...and probably NOT even over 4,000 years EITHER!!!:D
Err.. the bones are fossilized. So too is the 'soft tissue'. Did you read the article Scofflaw posted? Here it is again.
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php0 -
-
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
I'd also argue that you can get lucky in a game of cards - and that would have just as much relevance as the comment you have produced above.
You would only have one BIG problem with such an argument……..
The odds of getting the rarest ‘hand’ in Poker, which is a Royal Flush, are only about 650 thousand to one or 640,740 to be precise………and these odds DO ensure that such a ‘hand’ turns up occasionally.
However the odds of spontaneously producing the amino acid sequence for a simple 100 AA chain protein is 10^^130 to one ……which is an IMPOSSIBILITY given the fact that there are only 10^^80 ELECTRONS in the known Universe!!!!!:D
Well, that's pretty much the same as the chances of getting any other hand, though - and once again you're doing entirely the wrong kind of maths, because evolution doesn't specify the outcome in advance.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Did I say I was surprised? Or even offended? I'm just amused by the idea that while there appears to be an implicit polite rule against poaching Christians from other sects (or is it a wider rule against poaching any other god's followers?), we atheists are fair game.
Are you saying that some religions engage in the religious equivalent of ‘market sharing’????!!!!!
In any event, such ‘cozy cartels’ don’t exist in the Christian Faith…….
I presumed there was such an arrangement in place in this forum, implicit or otherwise, although I may well be entirely wrong.
However, the claim that such "cosy cartels" don't exist would appear to be unfounded - unless of course this is just 'figures of speech' again.J C wrote:… Christians are called upon to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified, without fear or favour!!!
….and that is what you should EXPECT if you start to debate with Christians ……
So noted!J C wrote:Atheists who visit Christianity Forums are certainly taking their ‘Atheistic Spiritual Lives’ in their hands……
……like many before them, Atheists may visit the Christianity Forum to scoff …….but there is ALWAYS the RISK that they will stay to PRAY!!!!:D
……and that isn’t 'poaching'…..it’s just the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in action!!!!:cool:
BTW, are you really as fearful as you seem to be that Atheists will be 'poached' on this thread???
I've occasionally blanched on this thread, but half-baking is a bigger risk, I think.
To answer you both honestly and briefly, JC, you have no more hope of converting me than you have of spontaneously turning into diamond.J C wrote:Scofflaw
I'm certainly not accusing you of anything against the Charter, which as far as I know doesn't mention proselytisation.
I don’t know whether it does or doesn’t mention proselytisation……..but in any event your point is moot……because I WASN’T proselytising!!!
Really? Showing people the way to Christ doesn't form part of trying to make them Christian? So, er, why do you do it then?J C wrote:Scofflaw
They're not scientific works, unfortunately, so not really. Look at it like this, JC - if I wanted to know what it says in the Bible, should I read de Mello, or the Bible?
OK, can I then say that I have read ALL of the main 'populist' Evolutionist books and SOME of the Evolutionist Technical Papers…..and I have found NONE of them to have contributed much to my quest to develop a ‘Muck to Man all singing and dancing Theory of Evolution’…… that looked half reasonable……
……so if you have succeeded, where I have failed please share your breakthrough with us!!!
That would be unfair of me - I have the advantage of not having mixed up abiogenesis with evolution.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Context, JC, context. I don't deny that I would find "several hundred" a large number to do a tea-party for at short notice - only that there really is a difference between "alarming number for a tea-party" (creationist scientists) and "the population of a country" (non-creationist scientists).
As I have already said, you are confusing your ‘relatives’ with your ‘absolutes’!!!!:D
I'm aware that you prefer your numbers without context...J C wrote:Originally Posted by JC
I wouldn’t claim to have expertise in evaluating the causes of Climate Change ……and so I have an ‘open mind’ on it
Scofflaw
Oh? And do you also have an 'open mind' on the benefits of anti-biotics, or are you sufficiently expert to know exactly their operation? Do you have an 'open mind' on whether air travel works? What about your car?
I have sufficient expertise in all of these areas to comment knowledgably about them……..
….and the fact that ‘Global Warming’ has recently been re-named ‘Climate Change’ indicates that the Experts in this area are continuing to gain new insights into this problem!!!!
…….it sounds to me, like a work in progress !!!!!:D
Quite correct - although the name change is largely PR. 'Global warming' confuses some people, because it appears to imply a universal increase in temperature.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Oh aye, and if you ever define "Specified Complexity" do let me know, won't you?
The statement “a@4$%9*twtks4p;/=pftem!^ma£#:c/w*(+!ghkk” ……..would be ‘Unspecified Complexity’….
……and the statement that “Scofflaw doesn’t understand Plain English” ......would be ‘Specified Complexity’!!!!!!
So, 'specified complexity' is the English language? A mildly insulting phrase in the English language?
Can you maybe go into a little more detail, given the concept is one that apparently knocks down evolutions?J C wrote:Scofflaw
that wasn't the question. I asked you whether you thought that we were deliberately and falsely separating the Theory of Evolution from speculative mechanisms of abiogenesis.
………I accept that you are drawing a distinction between the two …….and only you can tell us what your motives are!!!
OK - so you do, in other words, believe that abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution - and therefore that we are promoting a falsehood by claiming that they are separate theories.J C wrote:Could I again remind you that any technical distinction between Abiogenesis and Evolution doesn’t resolve the overall problem faced by the Materialist in explaining how Human Beings came to be living on this Planet.
Hmm, that sounds like you know they're separate, and provably so - it's a back-out statement.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Science does not require us to say that because X happened, it will always happen, or that because A did not happen, it never has and never will happen.
It all depends on what ‘A’ and ‘X’ are………
……..and if they defy the known Laws of Science, like Abiogenesis and Evolution do, then Science can indeed conclude that they DIDN’T happen unless and until they are proven by observation to occur!!!:D
If they defied the "known Laws of Science" (which I take to be a particularly florid 'Figure of Speech'), then I'm not sure exactly how observations would be scientifically possible.J C wrote:Scofflaw
As to your point, I give you, of course, the relevant Doonesbury.
.
This Evolutionist idea that full medical treatment should be withheld from certain classes of people is very sinister indeed……
……is this some outworking of ‘survival of the fittest’ nonsense…..where supposedly ‘fitter’ Evolutionist Doctors determine that supposedly ‘less fit’ Creationists should die by withholding medical treatment?:(
The import of your cartoon is quite outrageous and it would clearly be a breach of the Hippocratic Oath and gross malpractice if any doctor were to act in the manner outlined in the cartoon.:(
Well, yes, JC, if that cartoon was real, as opposed to being, y'know, a cartoon.
Hmm. I think I'll say that again - cartoon.J C wrote:You see, Humans have this habit of preserving their dead by generally burying them…..indeed respect for the dead is one of the things that makes us Human…….
………and these projections clearly show that you would be literally tripping over graves and skeletons across the face of the Earth IF Humans were around for the millions of years that Evolutionists claim.:eek:
Except that preservation is both rare and quirky. Again, this is rather well-known. Really, JC, this has to be one of the weakest arguments in the creationist armoury. We know that bodies can be preserved from the Celtic Iron Age, but we're not tripping over them either.
cordially,
Scofflaw
PS Just in case: cartoon.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement