The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone · 29-10-2007 9:20pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

All of it.

So what about the stars that are so far away that the light they emitted millions of years ago has only reached us now? How is that possible in a universe that has only existed for 6,000 years? Light travels at the speed of, err, light! Leaving out the 'God made it so' explanation, please provide an answer for this. Surely the sky would have no stars when viewed with the naked eye?

Also, was the entire universe created just for us?

Zombrex · 29-10-2007 11:23pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Social Darwinism had everything to do with Darwin and Darwinism.

It has nothing to do with Darwinism.

Darwinism by definition doesn't apply to "social Darwinism" because Darwinism is, by definition, a natural process where as "social Darwinism" isn't, it is an attempt to direct evolution.

As soon as someone attempts to direct evolution it is no long Darwinian evolution, by definition. That is where the "natural" in natural selection comes from.

This is nothing to do with being PC, or trying to pretend that scientific understanding cannot be used for immoral purpose.

Scientists throughout history have been racist, violent and cruel. I've no doubt that Darwin held some pretty racist view points about the superiority of the European cultures. I see little point in pretending otherwise, or attempting to excuse this, because it doesn't actually matter.

As has been explained to you already by Scofflaw, science is ethically neutral. Darwin's science was neither moral or immoral, it simply was a model of how he believed nature worked, and while not as accurate as today's models, it was pretty accurate.

Darwin could have molested children and raped grannies, that would have no bearing on the science he produced, which was either accurate or inaccurate depending solely on how closely it matched the natural world.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm glad Neo-Darwinists have rejected his social conclusions as well as the evident faults in his scientific theories.

There are no social conclusions to Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism, to reject.

If you don't realise this then you don't know what Darwinism actually is, or what a scientific theory is TBH (which I must say I've suspected since you joined this thread)

Its like saying "I reject the social conclusions of the theory of electromagnetism" .. ie nonsense.

If someone wants to say something like Because electricity is dangerous to human life I think it is necessary to genocide all countries that attempt to produce electricity they certainly can but that is not a moral conclusion of the scientific models of electricity, any more than the idea that killing of other cultures is a conclusion from the theory of Darwinian evolution.

The theories of electricity can tell you that it is harmful to living organisms. But it can't and won't tell you the moral course of action to take because of this fact.

Believing that science directs morality down certain paths is nonsense, and simply demonstrates a gross missunderstanding of what science is.

As Scofflaw suggested you seem to view science as some form of religion, who's responsibility is to proclaim moral opinion as a priest or Pope would.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But Neo-Darwinists will have to face up to the social implications of their theories too.

What social implications?

The only implications from any scientific theory are the implications we, as humans, give it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where does it place Man?

It doesn't place Man anywhere.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What morality may be derived from the scientific theory?

What ever morality you want.

Seriously do you even understand what you are asking?

What morality may be derived from Pi being 3.14?

What morality may be derived from the acceleration of a falling object on Earth being 9.8 mss?

What morality may be derived from the DNA structure of a genome?

Science is morally neutral. Science is simply a model of what is happening in the universe.

Zombrex · 29-10-2007 11:26pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Leaving out the 'God made it so' explanation, please provide an answer for this.

Or even better, leave in the "God made it so" explanation Wolfsbane, and give us a scientific model of how that works, which I assume your Creationist friends have (no links to random papers you claim explain it, I want you to explain it to us. Doesn't have to be that detail, just detailed enough to be clear of the scientific theories behind it).

(BTW I'm still waiting for all the other scientific models you said you had to give about Creationism)

Ekancone · 29-10-2007 11:28pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Or even better, leave in the "God made it so" explanation and give us a scientific model of how that works.

(BTW I'm still waiting for all the other scientific models you said you had to give about Creationism)

He doesnt have them, he just keeps referencing the same websites: Answersingenesis, wikipedia, evolutionsucks.com, etc, etc.

The Chessplayer · 29-10-2007 11:47pm

Danno wrote: »

Dear Mods and fellow Boards Members.

I wish to open this thread to discuss the Bible and Creationism, and to hear peoples opinions on what can be viewed as the most fundamental part of the origins of man, and also to tease out what prophecy has to offer in where we came from and where we are going.

I hope that with enough interest that this thread becomes a sticky.

I also wish to ask everyone who posts here not to personally attack any person contributing. I look forward to a good debate...

I had sort of just presumed that the whole creationism theory was just a load of old cobblers, until a pair of mormons called to my door the other day and told me that creationism is a fact! I thought to myself: there must be some truth to it - Shakespeare himself couldn't have come up with a crazy old tale like that.

And so, the chessplayer did bid the two fellows farewell, and on their way they did go - hawking door to door, pulling their medium-sized suitcase with wheels.

Parsley · 30-10-2007 12:50am

Post #3 from this thread:

Dades wrote: »

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

Hehehe. Three-hundred and seventy-odd pages later...

Scofflaw · 30-10-2007 1:28am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me remind you why I posted Darwin's comments:
[Underlining mine]

Social Darwinism had everything to do with Darwin and Darwinism. I'm glad Neo-Darwinists have rejected his social conclusions as well as the evident faults in his scientific theories.

The use of the word "Darwin", and "evolution", do not connect Social Darwinism with evolutionary theory any more than you would accept that every group that claims to be Christian is genuinely teaching Christ's message.

None of these terms is in any way licensed, or otherwise controlled. Anyone is perfectly welcome to set up a group called 'Christian Darwinists' to proclaim theistic evolution - neither you nor I can prevent them, and it has no bearing whatsoever on what either you or I know to be correct.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But Neo-Darwinists will have to face up to the social implications of their theories too.

The only 'social implications' of evolutionary theory are observational - we can say that people are likely to do this or that. There are no normative implications. Science cannot say 'do this', or 'do that' - it has no authority to do so.

You may be confusing this with "if you want to do x, then scientifically the best way is y" - science in its advisory capacity.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where does it place Man?

It doesn't 'place' Man, or any other organism, anywhere.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What morality may be derived from the scientific theory?

None.

Perhaps it would help if you explained to us why you think science is 'normative' - why you think it says "people should do this or that"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 30-10-2007 1:30am

Parsley wrote: »

Post #3 from this thread:

Dades wrote:

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

Hehehe. Three-hundred and seventy-odd pages later...

Yes, that may be one of the most comprehensively wrong predictions ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane · 30-10-2007 12:40pm

Just a quickie to follow up Wickie's request for Creationist research finances.
Here's another I checked out and received a reply today.
From the Creation Research Society:
I assume the point your opponent is trying to make is that creationists (not being scientist) spend very little time and effort really doing scientific research. There are many creationist ministries and groups that do focus mostly on presentations and popularization, but that is their goal and that is what they claim to be. However, there are those, such as us and ICR who do work to make major research efforts. The RATE project (joint project of ICR and CRS) and the GENE project (another joint project) have (had) significant budgets in comparison to the overall budgets of the respective institutions. Also, remind your opponent that creationists do not receive the billions in tax money that evolutionists do.

As for the percentage of the overall CRS budget that is devoted to research, the research committee budget varies from year to year, but is probably at least 10% of the total CRS budget and the budget for the Van Andel Creation Research Center (the Society’s research facility) is probably over 50% of the total CRS budget. Also, we publish a technical journal and technical books, which are extensions of research, and these represent an additional 30 – 40% of our budget. So, ultimately, you can see that almost all of the CRS budget is directly or indirectly supporting scientific research.

He should look at some of the most resent issues of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and see wonderful electron microscopic work, gas analysis of deep wells, and geological investigations to see some of the experimental work being funded and published by the Society.

wolfsbane · 30-10-2007 1:05pm

Scofflaw said:

The use of the word "Darwin", and "evolution", do not connect Social Darwinism with evolutionary theory any more than you would accept that every group that claims to be Christian is genuinely teaching Christ's message.

I was not talking about every group that claims to be, I was talking about Darwin. Whatever Christ taught can properly be considered Christian; whatever Darwin taught about his evolutionary theory can properly be attributed to him.

The only 'social implications' of evolutionary theory are observational - we can say that people are likely to do this or that. There are no normative implications. Science cannot say 'do this', or 'do that' - it has no authority to do so.

Certainly. What I'm saying is that an error of fact will encourage men to act erroneously. Man has the ultimate responsibility, not the 'fact'. But who could blame a driver for running out of fuel if the needle were stuck? Man makes decisions based on what he perceives as facts.

Evolutionary theory informs us that Man is not a special creation of God, just a result of natural forces, no more or less significant than an acorn. We may choose to give ourselves greater significance, or we may not - but the facts logically encourage us to act on the 'reality'.

It doesn't 'place' Man, or any other organism, anywhere.

You think evolution tells us nothing about what man is in relation to everything else, animate and inanimate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What morality may be derived from the scientific theory?

None.

I should think it would at least declare there is no morality, other than one we may construct for ourselves.

Perhaps it would help if you explained to us why you think science is 'normative' - why you think it says "people should do this or that"?

Fire burns flesh. The science is sure. Are we not logically deducing from that that it is a bad idea to put our hand in the fire? The cult of not putting our hands in the fire has arisen from observation of this fact.

From observing the 'fact' of evolution, many have treated their fellowman with a sound (but ruthless) logic. Others, while believing evolution to be true, have felt emotionally or practically unable to act on the logic and have invented moralities in justification of their illogical behaviour.

wolfsbane · 30-10-2007 1:21pm

daithifleming wrote: »

So what about the stars that are so far away that the light they emitted millions of years ago has only reached us now? How is that possible in a universe that has only existed for 6,000 years? Light travels at the speed of, err, light! Leaving out the 'God made it so' explanation, please provide an answer for this. Surely the sky would have no stars when viewed with the naked eye?

Also, was the entire universe created just for us?

Last first: it might be a bit much to put it that way. It was made for God's pleasure, and Man was made in His image and set over the Earth. The rest of the universe was made to be a witness to man; for his regularing of the time; and for God's glory to be displayed (to man and angels).

As to starlight and time, there is debate among Creationists about how what we see came to be where it is. The Bible tells us God spread out the heavens, but not how. Some suggest relativistic time dilation. It's far beyond me to follow the concepts, but see for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

Hartnett differs somewhat: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/cosmology.asp

If you follow the links you may get a fuller picture.

mossieh · 30-10-2007 1:29pm

daithifleming wrote: »

So what about the stars that are so far away that the light they emitted millions of years ago has only reached us now? How is that possible in a universe that has only existed for 6,000 years? Light travels at the speed of, err, light! Leaving out the 'God made it so' explanation, please provide an answer for this. Surely the sky would have no stars when viewed with the naked eye?

Also, was the entire universe created just for us?

I'll try to reply on Wolfbane's behalf:

God accelerated the the light from distant stars so that it was already hitting earth as soon as it was created, so that Noah would have something to navigate the ark by.

How is that Wolfsbane?

Wow, the creationist side is much easier to argue, not having to worry about silly restrictions like logic and common sense.

Edit: you got there before I did, I prefer my explanation, though.

Scofflaw · 30-10-2007 2:54pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was not talking about every group that claims to be, I was talking about Darwin. Whatever Christ taught can properly be considered Christian; whatever Darwin taught about his evolutionary theory can properly be attributed to him.

Which would make your case, if only Darwin had taught Social Darwinism. Since he didn't, I can't see the relevance.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Certainly. What I'm saying is that an error of fact will encourage men to act erroneously. Man has the ultimate responsibility, not the 'fact'. But who could blame a driver for running out of fuel if the needle were stuck? Man makes decisions based on what he perceives as facts.

Evolutionary theory informs us that Man is not a special creation of God, just a result of natural forces, no more or less significant than an acorn. We may choose to give ourselves greater significance, or we may not - but the facts logically encourage us to act on the 'reality'.

Do they? Personally, I find that extended questioning of almost anyone, theist or atheist, reveals a human chauvinism as deep as any Creationist's, if less explicit.

For several years, people have argued that apes should be accorded rights similar to humans, based on their close kinship with us. This is certainly a logical extension of the facts, but the effort is generally derided, not lauded.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You think evolution tells us nothing about what man is in relation to everything else, animate and inanimate?

It has no system that allows such relative rankings to be formed. Of course, if you start off with the preconception that humans should be in the 'top spot', then the very lack of a top spot becomes an issue.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I should think it would at least declare there is no morality, other than one we may construct for ourselves.

Why? Science cannot tell us anything prescriptive about morality (although it can tell us about the effects of morality). It cannot tell us that "there is no morality, other than one we may construct for ourselves", because science does not deal with the question of God, or purpose, or anything of that kind.

Again, there are certainly those who claim science can say these things, but they are incorrect.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fire burns flesh. The science is sure. Are we not logically deducing from that that it is a bad idea to put our hand in the fire? The cult of not putting our hands in the fire has arisen from observation of this fact.

As have flamethrowers. Science deals only with observation and explanation. It cannot tell you not to put your hands in the fire, unless you ask the question 'how can I not get my hand burned by the fire'.

wolfsbane wrote: »

From observing the 'fact' of evolution, many have treated their fellowman with a sound (but ruthless) logic. Others, while believing evolution to be true, have felt emotionally or practically unable to act on the logic and have invented moralities in justification of their illogical behaviour.

Not at all. Science has been used as a justification by those who wish to do immoral things - as has the Bible.

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops · 02-11-2007 2:28am

No sign of J C.

I quite enjoyed his swashbuckling style as he, a single creationist, deflected the arguments of over 100 ATHEISTS! Heroic.

I will take his absence as an admission of defeat and I hereby claim this thread for Evolutionia!

:D:):):D:D

Ekancone · 02-11-2007 9:51am

2Scoops wrote: »

No sign of J C.

I quite enjoyed his swashbuckling style as he, a single creationist, deflected the arguments of over 100 ATHEISTS! Heroic.

I will take his absence as an admission of defeat and I hereby claim this thread for Evolutionia! :D:):):D:D

Yay!

:eek::)

Zombrex · 02-11-2007 9:59am

Wolfsbane if you don't mind can we get back to you providing the scientific models that you claim Creationism have ...

This thread is after all supposed to be about Biblical Creationism ... for some strange reason we seem to spend an awful lot of time discussing Darwinian evolution ...

BrianCalgary · 02-11-2007 2:59pm

2Scoops wrote: »

No sign of J C.

I quite enjoyed his swashbuckling style as he, a single creationist, deflected the arguments of over 100 ATHEISTS! Heroic.

I will take his absence as an admission of defeat and I hereby claim this thread for Evolutionia! :D:):):D:D

Satan thought that he had defeated God in teh Garden of Eden. God came back spectactularly. JC will return.

Scofflaw · 02-11-2007 3:11pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Satan thought that he had defeated God in teh Garden of Eden. God came back spectactularly. JC will return.

Love it.

lovin' it,
Scofflaw

Ekancone · 02-11-2007 3:30pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Satan thought that he had defeated God in teh Garden of Eden. God came back spectactularly. JC will return.

Given the run of things in the twentieth century (assuming God and the Devil exist), i'd say God is getting trounced.

bonkey · 02-11-2007 5:06pm

mossieh wrote: »

I'll try to reply on Wolfbane's behalf:

God accelerated the the light from distant stars so that it was already hitting earth as soon as it was created, so that Noah would have something to navigate the ark by.

How is that Wolfsbane?

Wow, the creationist side is much easier to argue, not having to worry about silly restrictions like logic and common sense.

Now...be fair. You've abandoned neither logic nor common sense with that explanation. All you've abandoned are notions such as evidence, the concept of verifiability, etc.

DerKaiser · 02-11-2007 5:19pm

Wow, this thread has evolved from mildly interesting to illogical and funny and then just plain boring, Darwin would be pleased (but bored as hell)

wolfsbane · 03-11-2007 5:33pm

mossieh wrote: »

I'll try to reply on Wolfbane's behalf:

God accelerated the the light from distant stars so that it was already hitting earth as soon as it was created, so that Noah would have something to navigate the ark by.

How is that Wolfsbane?

Wow, the creationist side is much easier to argue, not having to worry about silly restrictions like logic and common sense.

Edit: you got there before I did, I prefer my explanation, though.

Thank you for your attempt. 5/10 for effort; 0/10 for accuracy.

You must have missed my post sent some 8 minutes before yours. I hope it answers your needs.

As to Noah, he did not navigate the ark. All he did was wait on God to give it a safe landing.

Genesis 8:1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

Ekancone · 03-11-2007 5:43pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for your attempt. 5/10 for effort; 0/10 for accuracy.

You must have missed my post sent some 8 minutes before yours. I hope it answers your needs.

As to Noah, he did not navigate the ark. All he did was wait on God to give it a safe landing.

Genesis 8:1 Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

What did Noah and the lads drink? How come the animals didnt kill each other? Wasnt that what God programmed them to do? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (parmesan be upon him) Did the pirates survive this flood?

wolfsbane · 03-11-2007 6:14pm

Scofflaw said:

Which would make your case, if only Darwin had taught Social Darwinism. Since he didn't, I can't see the relevance.

I've already posted what Darwin taught. Call it what you will, it amounts to the same thing:
However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."[1] from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Do they? Personally, I find that extended questioning of almost anyone, theist or atheist, reveals a human chauvinism as deep as any Creationist's, if less explicit.

For several years, people have argued that apes should be accorded rights similar to humans, based on their close kinship with us. This is certainly a logical extension of the facts, but the effort is generally derided, not lauded.

Their misguided generosity toward the apes is in fact a denial of the logic of evolutionism: it teaches no such compassion on near relatives. The rule of the fittest is what counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You think evolution tells us nothing about what man is in relation to everything else, animate and inanimate?

It has no system that allows such relative rankings to be formed. Of course, if you start off with the preconception that humans should be in the 'top spot', then the very lack of a top spot becomes an issue.

I was not thinking so much of Man's powerful position relative to the rest, but of his nature. Man, in the evolutionary scenario, is entirely the same as the rest of the universe: energy tied up on a bunch of molecules. That is his significance in relation to everything else: exactly the same. Of no more worth than the dirt on one's shoe. Any significance we give him must be entirely subjective. So when someone finds it profitable/enjoyable to rape/murder another, there is nothing bad/evil about that: it is just an action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I should think it would at least declare there is no morality, other than one we may construct for ourselves.

Why? Science cannot tell us anything prescriptive about morality (although it can tell us about the effects of morality). It cannot tell us that "there is no morality, other than one we may construct for ourselves", because science does not deal with the question of God, or purpose, or anything of that kind.

The 'science' of evolution, in its billions of years of suffering and death, strongly supports the idea that there is no God, or purpose, or anything of that kind. It is the logical deduction we may make from the 'fact' of evolution. Atheism is bold enough to declare it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Fire burns flesh. The science is sure. Are we not logically deducing from that that it is a bad idea to put our hand in the fire? The cult of not putting our hands in the fire has arisen from observation of this fact.

As have flamethrowers. Science deals only with observation and explanation. It cannot tell you not to put your hands in the fire, unless you ask the question 'how can I not get my hand burned by the fire'.

As I said, we draw the logical conclusions. But the science enables that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
From observing the 'fact' of evolution, many have treated their fellowman with a sound (but ruthless) logic. Others, while believing evolution to be true, have felt emotionally or practically unable to act on the logic and have invented moralities in justification of their illogical behaviour.

Not at all. Science has been used as a justification by those who wish to do immoral things - as has the Bible.

You are denying the logical conclusions these evolutionists have drawn. They seem perfectly logical to me. They are wrong and wicked because the first premise (evolution) is wrong.

Ekancone · 03-11-2007 6:16pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

I've already posted what Darwin taught. Call it what you will, it amounts to the same thing:
However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."[1] from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Again, i feel the need to point out the fallacy in using Wikipedia as a reference. Schoolboy stuff.

Ekancone · 03-11-2007 6:18pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was not thinking so much of Man's powerful position relative to the rest, but of his nature. Man, in the evolutionary scenario, is entirely the same as the rest of the universe: energy tied up on a bunch of molecules. That is his significance in relation to everything else: exactly the same. Of no more worth than the dirt on one's shoe. Any significance we give him must be entirely subjective. So when someone finds it profitable/enjoyable to rape/murder another, there is nothing bad/evil about that: it is just an action.

Explain what this has to do with the science. All you are describing here are human actions.

wolfsbane · 03-11-2007 6:24pm

daithifleming wrote: »

What did Noah and the lads drink? How come the animals didnt kill each other? Wasnt that what God programmed them to do? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (parmesan be upon him) Did the pirates survive this flood?

1. Water. I don't think there would have been any shortage of that given the prolonged rain.
2. The animals were under God's control, so Noah had no fear. Even today, in face of extremity like forest/savannah fire, I understand natural enemies in the animal world concentrate on their survival.
3. I can authoritively confirm that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is the invention of a darkened mind.;)
4. Yes, the pirates did survive - in the genes of Noah's family. All the wicked who have lived since the flood came from them, just like the rest of us:
Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written:

“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

Ekancone · 03-11-2007 6:30pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. Water. I don't think there would have been any shortage of that given the prolonged rain.

Do i really need to point this out? Really? The water couldnt have been clean or safe, full of billions of dead humans/animals. Can you drink sea water Wolfy? Come on.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. The animals were under God's control, so Noah had no fear. Even today, in face of extremity like forest/savannah fire, I understand natural enemies in the animal world concentrate on their survival.

Ok... God did it. Thats not really satisfying for people who prefer explanations grounded in reality im afraid.

wolfsbane wrote: »

3. I can authoritively confirm that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is the invention of a darkened mind.;)

Can you disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monsters existence?

wolfsbane wrote: »

4. Yes, the pirates did survive - in the genes of Noah's family. All the wicked who have lived since the flood came from them, just like the rest of us:

So if it has all gone so wrong again why doesnt he flood the earth again. In fact, why doesnt he even show up anymore like he used to. You know, like for those people he appeared before who believed the earth was flat and all that.

wolfsbane · 03-11-2007 6:30pm

daithifleming said:

Again, i feel the need to point out the fallacy in using Wikipedia as a reference. Schoolboy stuff.

The quote they used was of Darwin himself. Do you deny that? So what's all this about Wiki not being valid for our use - are we presenting a PhD thesis? Get a grip, man.

Explain what this has to do with the science. All you are describing here are human actions.

Yes, actions based on the science. Like not putting your hand in the fire is based our knowledge of the science of the effects of heat on flesh.

wolfsbane · 03-11-2007 6:35pm

2Scoops wrote: »

No sign of J C.

I quite enjoyed his swashbuckling style as he, a single creationist, deflected the arguments of over 100 ATHEISTS! Heroic.

I will take his absence as an admission of defeat and I hereby claim this thread for Evolutionia! :D:):):D:D

I don't know how to break this to you: JC is merely in France for a holiday, as he told us in another thread. You'd better strap back on the armour and keep your medical kit handy.:D

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments