The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

I take your point, and have contacted them for documentation/clarification.

I eagerly await their response, whoever they are. But I won't hold my breath.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

So where is the line drawn between merely preaching and imposing?

For example: where I post my thoughts to you and you're free to agree or disagree; and the alternative, where your disagreement has me tracing you down and making sure you post no more 'heresy'.

Of course, there are matters of public morality one may preach about that do require enforcement - murder, theft, etc. But one's religion or lack of it should not be a matter of public morality.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example: where I post my thoughts to you and you're free to agree or disagree; and the alternative, where your disagreement has me tracing you down and making sure you post no more 'heresy'.

Of course, there are matters of public morality one may preach about that do require enforcement - murder, theft, etc. But one's religion or lack of it should not be a matter of public morality.

Fair enough.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Strange, if it is as clear as that how come so many people read it and come up with different conclusions? What makes you so sure your interpretation is right?

The error comes down to either Baggage or a Bad Heart.

We all carry presuppositions and prejudices that may skew our exegesis of the text. That accounts for the a lot of the differences even among true Christians. But those differences are over lesser matters, for all agree on the basics.

Error on the basics is also fed by presuppositions and prejudices, but man's sinful nature is the main culprit: he doesn't like the truth he reads. He is therefore obliged to either openly reject the Bible or twist it to fit his ideology.

I say that all honest students, even unbelievers, will agree on what are the basic teachings of the Bible. They may well think them foolish, but they will not find them open to wide interpretation.

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

Intelligently designed computer programmes may use aspects of selection to 'evolve' ......but they run on complex, tightly specified, intelligently designed, computers and they use intelligently designed programming and pre-existing information!!!!!:D

....and nobody that I know is seriously suggesting that a computer will spontaneously produce itself and 'boot up' into Excel without any ultimate intelligent input!!!:D

.....and even the 'simplest' living cell is vastly more complex than a super-computer!!:eek:

My problem, as a scientist, is that I cannot OBSERVE 'Molecules to Man Evolution'......or reconcile it with logic or the known Laws of Science.....and 'big picture' Evolution is therefore scientifically invalid ....and logically untenable!!!:D:)

Obviously I know a computer program has a human designer, I was merely making the point that evolution occurs and you appear to agree with that. The crux of the argument is that you infer a designer for which there is no evidence scientifically or otherwise, it's a matter of faith. This is fine for religion but it is emphatically not science which explains natural phenomena only.

If a river carries a load of sediment of various sizes up to a narrow part of its course some will pass through (the smaller ones) and some will be left behind (the bigger ones). This is an example of selection taking place without any intelligent design. To become natural selection the things that are selected on must have a heritable component be it DNA, RNA etc.


Well I cannot observe a single star progress through the various stages of its life cycle but I can observe the various stages of a life cycle by examining numerous stars. The same can be done for evolution by using the fossil record.

I hope you don't believe that because we can't observe the full cycle of a star's life due to our lifespan that it doesn't occur for each star!

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

The error comes down to either Baggage or a Bad Heart.

We all carry presuppositions and prejudices that may skew our exegesis of the text. That accounts for the a lot of the differences even among true Christians. But those differences are over lesser matters, for all agree on the basics.

Error on the basics is also fed by presuppositions and prejudices, but man's sinful nature is the main culprit: he doesn't like the truth he reads. He is therefore obliged to either openly reject the Bible or twist it to fit his ideology.

I say that all honest students, even unbelievers, will agree on what are the basic teachings of the Bible. They may well think them foolish, but they will not find them open to wide interpretation.

Interesting. So would you say that public morality shapes peoples perception of the bible as opposed to the bible shaping public morality?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Interesting. So would you say that public morality shapes peoples perception of the bible as opposed to the bible shaping public morality?

Both are true.

Eschatologist

J C wrote: »

Speaking purely as a Scientist I cannot conclude SCIENTIFICALLY that it was Noah's Flood that produced practically all Sedimentary rocks.........but if it looked like Noah's Flood and behaved like Noah's Flood.......then perhaps it WAS Noah's Flood......

..........

.....in any event Science cannot ignore the question 'what if everything happened as it says in Genesis?'

I notice you only mentioned 'practically all' sedimentary rocks being 'deposited' by the Flood. What about the two other major classes of rock, those being igneous and metamorphic? How is the great diversity of pressure and temperature regimes, mineral assembleges and genesis of melts from various mantle reservoirs explained by 'Flood geology'?

Runaway subduction isn't a satisfactory answer for me and the vast majority of geologists. As has been pointed out before, the thermal energy released would melt the surface of the planet. In that case, why is every geological deposit not made up of basalt...

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists do indeed believe in a young Earth for theological reasons. But they also find by scientific research that science supports that belief. Creation Science is the scientific section of Creationism.

No, creation science is the perfect example of an oxymoron. Scientific research has completely debunked the myth of young Earth.

For example consider Noah's Flood, all species on the Ark had a population of two, the male and the female, however this is well below the number needed for a minimum viable population. The MVP is a concept that explains the lowest number of animals a species can have in its population such that it can survive in the wild. I'm afraid two of each just isn't enough.

Ekancone

Killbot2000 wrote: »

No, creation science is the perfect example of an oxymoron. Scientific research has completely debunked the myth of young Earth.

For example consider Noah's Flood, all species on the Ark had a population of two, the male and the female, however this is well below the number needed for a minimum viable population. The MVP is a concept that explains the lowest number of animals a species can have in its population such that it can survive in the wild. I'm afraid two of each just isn't enough.

Exactly, and what did the carnivores feed on? Thin air?

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Exactly, and what did the carnivores feed on? Thin air?

I generally try to avoid this thread since, as the term is usually used here, I am not a Creationist. However, some comments are too inviting to ignore.

Carnivores can eat both carrion and aquatic animals. A flood as described in Genesis would, as it receded, leave carcases of animals behind. Also, I would think it rather obvious that water contains lots of fish, crustaceans and mammals that would feed carnivores. The odd beached whale or manatee would provide a substantial snack for any carnivore.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

I generally try to avoid this thread since, as the term is usually used here, I am not a Creationist. However, some comments are too inviting to ignore.

Carnivores can eat both carrion and aquatic animals. A flood as described in Genesis would, as it receded, leave carcases of animals behind. Also, I would think it rather obvious that water contains lots of fish, crustaceans and mammals that would feed carnivores. The odd beached whale or manatee would provide a substantial snack for any carnivore.

I never realised Lions swam in the sea and ate fish. Wow! Tell me more! Also, I doubt the long rotting carcasses of animals would provide much nutrition, defeating such hypotheses is childs play. I sometimes wonder why i engage in such debates, it only gives your kind an air of credibility.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Also, I would think it rather obvious that water contains lots of fish, crustaceans and mammals that would feed carnivores. The odd beached whale or manatee would provide a substantial snack for any carnivore.

Unless, of course, history shows that beached whales don't get eaten by carnivores:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2883578220978517570

...which would suggest that biology doesn't operate in the "rather obvious" fashion that many religious, creationist and non-creationist, believe.

Asiaprod

daithifleming wrote: »

I never realised Lions swam in the sea and ate fish. Wow! Tell me more, Oh Deluded One! Also, I doubt the long rotting carcasses of animals would provide much nutrition, defeating such hypotheses is childs play. I sometimes wonder why i engage in such debates, it only gives your kind an air of credibility. Now, go back and swim in the sea of ignorance.

I would suggest you tone it down.
Asia

Ekancone

Asiaprod wrote: »

I would suggest you tone it down.
Asia

Seriously? I didn't think it was that bad! I will edit it so, better?

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

I never realised Lions swam in the sea and ate fish. Wow! Tell me more, Oh Deluded One!

Nobody mentioned lions swimming in the sea, so I'm not sure what is prompting you to display your ignorance of lions. But,being a helpful kind of a chap I will share with you what I have learned by watching Animal Planet. Yes, lions are able to swim. As for eating fish, lions will eat anything if they are hungry. They have even been observed to eat termites.

A great flood, when receding, would leave numerous temporary lakes with fish and other aquatic creatures trapped. Eventually the water would evaporate, leaving their contents stranded. You can see a similar process, on a much smaller scale, on many beaches. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that such a process could provide carnivores with a plentiful supply of stranded fresh fish, dolphins, crustaceans etc until some of the faster breeding species (such as rabbits) multiplied sufficiently to provide a sustainable food source.

defeating such hypotheses is childs play

I am sorry that child's play appears to be beyond you.

I sometimes wonder why i engage in such debates

Based on your last couple of posts, I share your wonder.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Carnivores can eat both carrion and aquatic animals. A flood as described in Genesis would, as it receded, leave carcases of animals behind.

Creationists such as JC and Wolfsbane both put forward that during the Flood there was massive amounts of tectonic activity necessary to form the mountain ranges such as the Alps and Himalayas.

To explain how fossils got into rock miles below the current surface of the Earth they also say that large quantities of "mud" was layed down on the pre-Earth surface to form these rock layers, that in turn go jumbled up by the tectonic activity.

The idea that animal carcases would survive this process is impossible (the idea that the Earth would survive is impossible, but that is another issue).

PDN wrote: »

Also, I would think it rather obvious that water contains lots of fish, crustaceans and mammals that would feed carnivores. The odd beached whale or manatee would provide a substantial snack for any carnivore.

As Robin points out it wouldn't actually. Most carnivores won't eat rotten meat, and they certainly wouldn't eat rotten meat from a year ago. Also there were either thousands or millions of animals on the Ark (depending on how a person determines the word "kind"), so it would take a bit more than the odd beached whale to feed them for the decades needed to keep by Noah to feed them and keep them separate before they turned on each other.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Nobody mentioned lions swimming in the sea, so I'm not sure what is prompting you to display your ignorance of lions. But,being a helpful kind of a chap I will share with you what I have learned by watching Animal Planet. Yes, lions are able to swim. As for eating fish, lions will eat anything if they are hungry. They have even been observed to eat termites.

A great flood, when receding, would leave numerous temporary lakes with fish and other aquatic creatures trapped. Eventually the water would evaporate, leaving their contents stranded. You can see a similar process, on a much smaller scale, on many beaches. I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that such a process could provide carnivores with a plentiful supply of stranded fresh fish, dolphins, crustaceans etc until some of the faster breeding species (such as rabbits) multiplied sufficiently to provide a sustainable food source.

Ok, perhaps that covers the first couple of months. What then? I don't think that a population of Lions could survive, let alone expand, by eating rotted meat and rabbits. What are the odds of a population of two mammals, such as Lions, producing young and for their young to survive in such circumstances? Look at the effect a small environmental change is having on the polar bears today. What you are suggesting is so improbable it may as well be impossible.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Nobody mentioned lions swimming in the sea, so I'm not sure what is prompting you to display your ignorance of lions.

This is a common assertion made by JC, that animals like lions could have survived soon after the Flood by processing plankton in a similar way that whales and other marine life do.

PDN wrote: »

As for eating fish, lions will eat anything if they are hungry. They have even been observed to eat termites.

They may eat fish, the question is whether they could survive doing so. They can't, as lions need a certain protein (its been reference on this thread before in response to these types of assertions). This was demonstrated by the odd vegetarian lion you get in zoos, such as the famous one Creationists love to quote from London Zoo. There the handlers had to give the lion supplements of this protein to stop the lion dying.

PDN wrote: »

I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that such a process could provide carnivores with a plentiful supply of stranded fresh fish, dolphins, crustaceans etc until some of the faster breeding species (such as rabbits) multiplied sufficiently to provide a sustainable food source.

Not really that reasonable.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Ok, perhaps that covers the first couple of months. What then?

It doesn't cover the first few months.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As for eating fish, lions will eat anything if they are hungry. They have even been observed to eat termites.

Most carnivores do not eat rotten meat. And termites are not fish.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationists such as JC and Wolfsbane both put forward that during the Flood there was massive amounts of tectonic activity necessary to form the mountain ranges such as the Alps and Himalayas.

To explain how fossils got into rock miles below the current surface of the Earth they also say that large quantities of "mud" was layed down on the pre-Earth surface to form these rock layers, that in turn go jumbled up by the tectonic activity.

The idea that animal carcases would survive this process is impossible (the idea that the Earth would survive is impossible, but that is another issue).

Yes, I think one can either have the "animal carcasses got covered in mud and that's where fossils come from" or "there was lots of carrion to eat", but not both.

The "lots of carrion" option would give us a worldwide "bone bed", because all that carrion has to be on the surface at the same time.

Wicknight wrote: »

As Robin points out it wouldn't actually. Most carnivores won't eat rotten meat, and they certainly wouldn't eat rotten meat from a year ago. Also there were either thousands or millions of animals on the Ark (depending on how a person determines the word "kind"), so it would take a bit more than the odd beached whale to feed them for the decades needed to keep by Noah to feed them and keep them separate before they turned on each other.

Leaving aside, as usual, the question of whether lions will eat salty carrion, and of where they got fresh water to drink, we might note that very few animals have 'broad palates'. Anyone who thinks they do should read a bit of Gerald Durrell on the immense difficulties of feeding animals away from their locale.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Creationists such as JC and Wolfsbane both put forward that during the Flood there was massive amounts of tectonic activity necessary to form the mountain ranges such as the Alps and Himalayas.

To explain how fossils got into rock miles below the current surface of the Earth they also say that large quantities of "mud" was layed down on the pre-Earth surface to form these rock layers, that in turn go jumbled up by the tectonic activity.

The idea that animal carcases would survive this process is impossible (the idea that the Earth would survive is impossible, but that is another issue).

I am interested that you place such faith in Wolfbane's and JC's theories. I am not interested in discussing them since I am not a Young earth Creationist. I am simply addressing one specific issue, namely a rather poorly thought out criticism about carnivores and their food supply.

As Robin points out it wouldn't actually. Most carnivores won't eat rotten meat, and they certainly wouldn't eat rotten meat from a year ago. Also there were either thousands or millions of animals on the Ark (depending on how a person determines the word "kind"), so it would take a bit more than the odd beached whale to feed them for the decades needed to keep by Noah to feed them and keep them separate before they turned on each other.

Are you suggesting there was a great scarcity of whales in the oceans at the time? Otherwise the quantity of whales needed is neither here nor there.

As for Robin pointing something out. He posted a link to some video about an exploding whale (I can't watch the video due to slow internet connection) but I don't see how a video will counter the scientific evidence that carnivores do eat beached whales. Without doing more extensive googling on the matter, I have seen video footage of Grizzly bears eating a beached whale. The Wildlife Institute of India, in an article on Yellowstone National Park, says: It is a well-established fact that the grizzlies thrived well in places where there was additional food in the form of salmon aggregations or beached whales or communal mass harvesting of bison, which the Craighead brothers call ‘ecocenters’. http://http://www.wii.gov.in/publications/newsletter/nletterwinter2001spring2002/page15.htm

To be honest, your attempts to help daithifleming ourt of the corner into which he has painted himself smack of desperation. I listed whales as one of various kinds of aquatic life that can be washed up on the shore. Therefore for Robin to state (falsely, as it seems) that history shows that carnivores don't eat beached whales in no way addresses my main point.

Also, if a giant flood left a large quanity of temporary lakes (water stuck in hollows, valleys or craters) then it is reasonable to suggest that they would dry out at different rates - providing plentiful sources of fresh meat. Such a scenario could last for much longer than a few months.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Most carnivores do not eat rotten meat. And termites are not fish.

Nobody said termites were fish. :rolleyes: The reference to termites is simply evidence that lions are not limited to large land animals for a food source but are adaptable.

Also, I have suggested that there would be sufficient aquatic life to provide fresh food for carnivores.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

This is a common assertion made by JC, that animals like lions could have survived soon after the Flood by processing plankton in a similar way that whales and other marine life do.

What do you mean by starting that paragraph with 'This'? I have not mentioned anything about plankton. Is that just accidental sloppy use of English to suggest that I endorse JC's views on plankton eating lions, or is it deliberate?

They may eat fish, the question is whether they could survive doing so. They can't, as lions need a certain protein (its been reference on this thread before in response to these types of assertions).

I certainly have not suggested that lions ate a fish only diet. Maybe you want to embark on a discussion of what protein can be found in every kind of aquatic animal - you're welcome to research that if you wish.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't cover the first few months.

I know, i just wanted to show him how problematic the next stage of his hypothesis was.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, your attempts to help daithifleming ourt of the corner into which he has painted himself smack of desperation.

Really? I don't feel like im in a corner... I suppose in your mind there is a victory dance being initiated but all i see is nonsense from your words. A population of two lions surviving/expanding under your proposed conditions would be extremely unlikely. Using your example of rabbits, the amount that a lion would have to consume coupled with the energy the lion would have to expend chasing them would not make it a stable strategy in the long-run. Its not quite as black and white as you are making it out to be im afraid. And where is the evidence for your prosposed sea lakes? You are simply talking nonsense.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Otherwise the quantity of whales needed is neither here nor there.

Overall, PDN, I have to say that you're committing the same unforgivable sin of thought that creationists do, namely, assuming that because one thing happens in one place, that equivalent things happen everywhere. Bears may indeed supplement a diet of fresh bison and salmon with freshly-deceased beached whale -- heavens, the eskimos eat fresh whale raw -- but that does not mean that the herbivorous squirrels of the Black Forest will dine out in their local dead whale of a Friday evening, lacking, as I believe they do, the stomach enzymes which permit carnivores to digest meat, fresh or otherwise.

There's also the more pressing question of where several vertical miles of water came from, and where it went to, and where these furry bundles of joy spent the lengthy period of the flood.

It's somewhat improbable to think that they floated up, floated around, then floated back down onto their original, and somewhat damp, environment. Thereby suggesting that they floated back into an unfamiliar environment, eating unfamiliar food while avoiding the inevitable brisk rush of receding floodwater going somewhere.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

The "lots of carrion" option would give us a worldwide "bone bed", because all that carrion has to be on the surface at the same time.

I am no geologist, and so make no pretence to know much about this, but if the amount of carrion was sufficient (but no more) to feed a comparatively small population of carnivores, then wouldn't the "bone bed" actually be smaller than that created in other ages by a much larger population of carnivores killing and eating the necessary amount of prey to feed them.

Also, approaching this from a philosophical, rather than a scientific, perspective, it appears to me that a lot of objections to the Flood are based on a fundamentally flawed logic.

1. If an omnipotent God as described in the Bible exists, then He is easily able to concentrate carrion in the right quantities and in the right places to feed the carnivores. Equally it would be nothing for such a God to enable animals to survive on unusual diets or even on different proteins etc from that which are normally required. It would be child's play to such a Being to keep the animals separate from each other and stop them consuming one another before sustainable populations were achieved.

2. Therefore many objections are based on an assumption that such an omnipotent interventionist God does not exist. However, in that case they are fairly useless for arguing with believers in a Christianity forum who don't share your presuppositions and assumptions.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Really? I don't feel like im in a corner... I suppose in your mind there is a victory dance being initiated but all i see is nonsense from your words. A population of two lions surviving/expanding under your proposed conditions would be extremely unlikely. Using your example of rabbits, the amount that a lion would have to consume coupled with the energy the lion would have to expend chasing them would not make it a stable strategy in the long-run.

More desperation. Rabbits were merely mentioned as an example of a fast producing species.

And where is the evidence for your prosposed sea lakes? You are simply talking nonsense.

There is no need for any evidence for a hypoithetical suggestion. Any fairly rational thinker, instead of unthinkingly declaring something to be impossible, will explore hypothetical situations that would render the thing possible.