The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

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 [...] an assumption that such an omnipotent interventionist God does not exist.

If you are going to permit yourself the luxury of assuming the existence of a deity who can bend reality like a pretzel, faking evidence left right and center, then you should ask yourself whether you actually want to be associated with such a clearly dishonest buffoon.

Sounds to me more like one of Terry Pratchett's gods than the sublime being of infinite love, care and wisdom that the world's churches make such good business from.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

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.

I have not mentioned herbivorous animals at all. I am purely dealing with daithifleming's assertiuon that carnivores would have had to eat thin air.

As already stated, I have neither the time nor inclination for pursuing a lengthy discussion about every aspect of the Flood.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

If you are going to permit yourself the luxury of assuming the existence of a deity who can bend reality like a pretzel, faking evidence left right and center, then you should ask yourself whether you actually want to be associated with such a clearly dishonest buffoon.

Sounds to me more like one of Terry Pratchett's gods than the sublime being of infinite love, care and wisdom that the world's churches make such good business from.

I have not suggested anywhere that God fakes evidence. Why do you make such dishonest misrepresentations?

I have simply said that God is not bound to ensure that carrion would be evenly distributed around the world nor is He incapable of enabling animals to survive on abnormal diets.

sdep

daithifleming wrote: »

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

[From answersindarwin.org]

Arguments we think evolutionists should NOT use:

The dining habits of lions are not to be considered in the first rank of evidences against Noye's Fludde. The lions could have eaten man[n]atees:
Origins[7:178] - Nor must we overlook the fact, that increased bulk would act as a protection against almost all beasts of prey excepting the lion

It is better to point out that a global flood is utterly irreconcilable with everything we know of geology, palaeontology, biogeography and population genetics.;):D:)

Zombrex

Groan ... :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

I am simply addressing one specific issue, namely a rather poorly thought out criticism about carnivores and their food supply.

Well you see it isn't actually poorly thought out, you are simply using what we call "barn yard biology" to argue against it (a very creationist thing to do).

Most carnivores don't eat dead marine life.

Finding a bear that does is rather irrelevant to that fact, though it is the form of debating that we are very used to on this thread.

Most don't eat marine life because they have evolved digestive systems that are not suited to eating marine life. For example, a lion will die if it is feed purely fish as its source of meat. Again, bears have little do with that as bears have evolved to eat fish. This is where the "barn yard biology" comes into play, as it is the way a child looks at a barn yard and assumes that a cow eats like a dug and pig eats like a dog.

So I don't really appreciate you calling my posts "desperate" when you are working with rather silly anecdotally examples to back up something I imagine you know very little about.

PDN wrote: »

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.

If the Biblical Flood happened there certainly was. As JC and Wolfsbane rightly point out the Biblical Flood would be require to drastically alter the shape of the Earth's surface, and such activity would certainly have killed the vast majority of marine life.

PDN wrote: »

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.

And how exactly do the animals just off the Ark either know about these drying out lakes or get to them?

Do the lions bring with them stored dead fish as they migrate to the next lake that is about to dry up?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan ... :rolleyes:


Well you see it isn't actually poorly thought out, you are simply using what we call "barn yard biology" to argue against it (a very creationist thing to do).

Most carnivores don't eat dead marine life.

Finding a bear that does is rather irrelevant to that fact, though it is the form of debating that we are very used to on this thread.

Finding a bear that eats dead marine life is absolutely relevant when someone posted "history shows that beached whales don't get eaten by carnivores". As a true skeptic I simply looked for evidence to support that assertion.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

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.

No, any rational thinker would demand evidence for such a ridiculous propostion. We are talking about the natural world here, not heaven, even if god did direct it there would still be evidence. There must be evidence or else no one will listen to you. Im afraid you are the one lacking in rationality in this debate.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

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.

Interesting. Except that it is the ID'ers who are attempting to make their hypotheses scientifically valid. Therefore they have willingly entered the scientific arena. So the argument is not useless as long as they pursue this policy.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

No, any rational thinker would demand evidence for such a ridiculous propostion. We are talking about the natural world here, not heaven, even if god did direct it there would still be evidence. There must be evidence or else no one will listen to you. Im afraid you are the one lacking in rationality in this debate.

Take a walk along a beach after high tide. You find pools of water with fish and other aquatic life stranded in them. There were many reports of similar occurrences after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia (sharks in swimming pools etc). It is perfectly reasonable to assume that something similar, but on a bigger scale, would happen after a catastrophic flood.

Are you seriously arguing that there would have to be evidence of such a process many thousands of years after the event?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Finding a bear that eats dead marine life is absolutely relevant when someone posted "history shows that beached whales don't get eaten by carnivores". As a true skeptic I simply looked for evidence to support that assertion.

Well firstly I seriously doubt Robin meant to imply that a beached whale had never ever in the history of the world been nibbled at by a carnivorous animal. :rolleyes:

Secondly I'm not actually referring to Robins statement, I'm refereeing to your assertion that the carnivores off the Ark could eat dead fish.

If you had said that the bears could I would have agreed with you. But the assertion that there is no issue, that daithifleming is just being "desperate" is frankly nonsense. You can wheel out as many bears as you like.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Take a walk along a beach after high tide. You find pools of water with fish and other aquatic life stranded in them. There were many reports of similar occurrences after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia (sharks in swimming pools etc). It is perfectly reasonable to assume that something similar, but on a bigger scale, would happen after a catastrophic flood.

Are you seriously arguing that there would have to be evidence of such a process many thousands of years after the event?

After a worldwide global flood such as the one described in the bible? Yeah, i'd imagine there would be a clue or two lying around. :rolleyes:

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I have not mentioned herbivorous animals at all. I am purely dealing with daithifleming's assertiuon that carnivores would have had to eat thin air.

And I am dealing with your general belief that the flood has a rational explanation, or even the possibility of one.

PDN wrote: »

I have not suggested anywhere that God fakes evidence. Why do you make such dishonest misrepresentations?

I must apologize -- I should have included the words "capable of" in front of "faking evidence" when referring to your specific post. The context I had in mind was missing.

In the wider world of creationism, one must assume that the deus ex machina has planted evidence, since YEC and OEC "explanations" require it. I assume that in your own incomplete mental model, no such faking of evidence has taken place, and that you believe that your deity has in fact arranged, with his usual foresight, a global in which a certain series of events took place, in a certain order, which resulted, eventually, in an account which bears strong similarities to the Epic of Gilgamesh. And that you are unaware, in good faith, of the places in which evidence must have been planted in order to make such OEC/YEC claims fit reality as it currently appears.

It all seems a trifle unlikely to me, I must say. But you're a different guy and I've no doubt that it seems likely, even obvious that this is exactly what did happen.

wolfsbane

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.

1. Scientific research has completely debunked the myth of young Earth. - That is the issue being debated on this thread, so a statement of it doesn't further things.

2. minimum viable population.- I take it that is based on genetics. The biosphere at the Flood would have had far less genetic load than we have today, so the problem did not arise. Same applies, only more so, for the Edenic biosphere.

wolfsbane

Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
I can hear the gates of the psychiatric units of the gulags being oiled already. :D:D

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

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.

The amount of carrion involved would imply a worldwide layer of dead animals left over as the Flood receded. That in turn would imply a worldwide 'bone bed' because the majority of the carrion would not in fact be eaten, but would simply rot in situ.

However, that assumes....

PDN wrote: »

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.

...no divine intervention. Obviously, God could arrange the carrion any way he wants, or provide manna, or whatever. However, the whole point of the Creationist claim is that Genesis is scientifically provable, so the Creationists lose points every time they say "God just did it that way".

For Genesis to be scientifically provable, one is welcome to invoke God as the ultimate cause, but one cannot hand off every explanation of mechanism to divine fiat, because that makes the whole thing a series of unrepeatable miracles and an obvious statement of faith.

Essentially, then, one can either have one's cake or eat it, but not both. Either science demonstrates the truth of Genesis in exactly the same way it demonstrates gravity, or nothing is knowable because God himself is unknowable - in which case science is an exercise in futility.

In practice, of course, Creationism seeks to blur the distinction - to put faith into science's clothes without disturbing them too much, or destroying the credibility of the garments. The resulting jerky marrionette suffices to fool those who have never looked at the real thing, but fails to stand up in court or lab. One might think of Puzzle, if one were fond of Narnia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with most of your comments here, except the last sentence. Would you not say the Nazi or Kymer Rouge cultures had a fractured view on life? Or the Holy Roman Empire, or fundamental Islam today?

Well firstly what exactly do we mean by a fractured view on life?

It is very fair to say that everyone has their own view on life on a personal level. Then in certain communities like catholic ones you would have a shared view on life where laws and moral codes preached by the church are the foundation of this shared view.

But when we start to bring in the world and its many different cultures it is apparent that the tribes in the many jungles of the world, the islamic fundamentalists and all other types of communities and cultures can all have very different views on life. Morals can also differ greatly depending on social conditioning via laws,culture etc (like the extreme sharia laws where some1 in the west would consider such laws barbaric etc)

I suppose what i am getting at is that shared morals is what gives people a similar view on life but conditioning and corrupt societies lead by people like hitler and pol pot (who obviously had a messed up moral compass) is what damages the image of the culture not necessarily the view of life of each individual. it is just a regime influencing on a culture.

Just because everyone has the same shared view on life does not mean that it is the best view on life for humanity. Materialsim seems to be a bi-product of the current view on life imo. Another cultures "different" view on life may seem more unethical but might be better for humanity and a better environment to nurcher morality.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Without a doubt, humans and civilization are in sore need of the intellectual cleanness and mental health of Atheism.” G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30

Well I think this thread, with lions eating the beached whales to survive, is clear evidence of that statement's validity.

bogwalrus

Eschatologist wrote: »

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...

he also forgot about all the elements that could not have formed in any other way other than through the explosions of stars and supernovae eventually leading to the earths formation.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/2414/Elements-Formation.html

bogwalrus

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.

something tells me that if there were only two of every animal and they all got off at the same place from the same big ark then the carnivores (like lions) would be going after the other animals for a meal instead of eating remains from the sea bed. this is assuming that they did not already eat them while aboard the ark.

Besides as some1 already mentioned two of each animal is not enough to repopulate the species when compared to the reality of this world. But im sure there will be plenty of arguments explaining how it is possible from the creationist side of things. A speed up in evolution might be a reason where species quickly adapt and repopulate in a short period of time, but i don't think you can use that argument.

read http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/28578/Does_evolution_select_for_faster_evolvers.html

Ekancone

What corner PDN? What corner? The only painting i was doing were circles around you.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

What corner PDN? What corner? The only painting i was doing were circles around you.

Oh no you didn' !!!

Scofflaw

bogwalrus wrote: »

something tells me that if there were only two of every animal and they all got off at the same place from the same big ark then the carnivores (like lions) would be going after the other animals for a meal instead of eating remains from the sea bed. this is assuming that they did not already eat them while aboard the ark.

Besides as some1 already mentioned two of each animal is not enough to repopulate the species when compared to the reality of this world. But im sure there will be plenty of arguments explaining how it is possible from the creationist side of things. A speed up in evolution might be a reason where species quickly adapt and repopulate in a short period of time, but i don't think you can use that argument.

Well, that is exactly the argument that gets used, I fear. The animals on the Ark were what you might call the archetypes of their 'kinds'. They contained all the genetic information necessary to allow the rapid speciation-through-degeneration that produced the animals we see today.

And if you believe that, I have a book you might like.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh no you didn' !!!

He got served! Y'all better recognise!

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that is exactly the argument that gets used, I fear. The animals on the Ark were what you might call the archetypes of their 'kinds'. They contained all the genetic information necessary to allow the rapid speciation-through-degeneration that produced the animals we see today.

And if you believe that, I have a book you might like.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I saw somewhere that in order for the creationist 'super-evolution' hypothesis to be true, at the levels of mutation they are suggesting speciation had to occur every 3.5 hours...

And all without mutations adding new information or being beneficial!

:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

I saw somewhere that in order for the creationist 'super-evolution' hypothesis to be true, at the levels of mutation they are suggesting speciation had to occur every 3.5 hours...

And all without mutations adding new information or being beneficial!

:rolleyes:

Interesting...maybe we should do the calculations. We'd need the date of the Flood, the number of kinds on the Ark, the number of species today - and the first recorded history which does not contain rapid speciation.....hmm, that may well be the second book of the Bible.

Of course, the evidence from the fossil record suggests an enormous diversity before the Flood.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting...maybe we should do the calculations. We'd need the date of the Flood, the number of kinds on the Ark, the number of species today - and the first recorded history which does not contain rapid speciation.....hmm, that may well be the second book of the Bible.

Of course, the evidence from the fossil record suggests an enormous diversity before the Flood.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I believe this is where i saw it, but i don't know his source. I will watch the video again to confirm it.

EDIT: Ok, its a video about the creationist museum. This video says the museum claims that 10,000 species were the figure on the ark.

1m23secs: Thats where i saw it, a speciation event every 3hrs 50mins.

2m57secs: In the fine print of a display in the creationist museum.

'Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences, suggesting god provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.'

3m57secs: A creationist definition of 'kind', citing the Canids

4m46secs: The main reason why evolution as described by ID is impossible.

5m24secs: Reasons why ID mutation rates must be 125,000 times higher than biology suggests.

5m44secs: Reasons why ID mutation rates would have to be 250,000 higher than biology suggests

6m05secs: If ID are correct, new genes must appear every 5 months, yet not provide any new information or be beneficial.

The rest of the video poses some very important questions for ID as well. You basically must refute all of science if you are to truely follow your logic.

Eschatologist

I also read somewhere that it takes about 30 pairs to create a viable population that's genetically diverse.

On another note, if creationists believe the Earth is 6000 years old, how old do they believe the Universe is?

I've seen the number '42 billion years' quoted by creationist 'scientists' on the ICR website for what scientists assign for the age of the Earth, despite the fact that's about 3 times the actual age of the Universe. I had to laugh out loud at that; it seems they've left out that crucial decimal point.

Ekancone

Eschatologist wrote: »

I also read somewhere that it takes about 30 pairs to create a viable population that's genetically diverse.

On another note, if creationists believe the Earth is 6000 years old, how old do they believe the Universe is?

I've seen the number '42 billion years' quoted by creationist 'scientists' on the ICR website for what scientists assign for the age of the Earth, despite the fact that's about 3 times the actual age of the Universe. I had to laugh out loud at that; it seems they've left out that crucial decimal point.

They believe the universe is the same age, 6000 years. I know whats coming next in your mind, but they will say that the speed of light was faster back then.

Here are a pair of videos by the same person i displayed above, using mathematical models, as to why creationists must deny the theory of gravity. His video on the faster speed of light is next, can't wait.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=sEW1oQBZu-I

sdep

daithifleming wrote: »

I believe this is where i saw it, but i don't know his source. I will watch the video again to confirm it.

EDIT: Ok, its a video about the creationist museum. This video says the museum claims that 10,000 species were the figure on the ark.

1m23secs: Thats where i saw it, a speciation event every 3hrs 50mins.

2m57secs: In the fine print of a display in the creationist museum.

'Present changes are too small and too slow to explain these differences, suggesting god provided organisms with special tools to change rapidly.'

3m57secs: A creationist definition of 'kind', citing the Canids

4m46secs: The main reason why evolution as described by ID is impossible.

5m24secs: Reasons why ID mutation rates must be 125,000 times higher than biology suggests.

5m44secs: Reasons why ID mutation rates would have to be 250,000 higher than biology suggests

6m05secs: If ID are correct, new genes must appear every 5 months, yet not provide any new information or be beneficial.

The rest of the video poses some very important questions for ID as well. You basically must refute all of science if you are to truely follow your logic.

Very good, sounds about right.

We're beginning to get good direct estimates of mutation rates. These are based on observed sequence change in current generations, not using dates inferred from fossil calibration. For humans, a recent estimate is ~2 x 10-8 per nucleotide per generation, which agrees remarkable well with the rate estimated from the human-chimp divergence of 6 million years or so before present.

My own back-of-Excel calculations reckon that, to generate the observable genetic diversity between species post-Ark, mutation rates would have, at the very least, to be 1000 times this for a pair of intra-kind species differing by 2% at sequence level. The more recent the flood and the shorter the subsequent period of rapid speciation, the higher those rates go.

So whatever the mysterious 'special tools' of rapid DNA change were, they clearly aren't there now. Oh well, we'll never know how all those hyper-mutated creatures managed to survive without turning into neoplastic monstrosities.

Eschatologist

I have indeed heard of the 'faster c in the past' argument, which only makes the Universe bigger and older. And I took a look at those links - very nice! For me, the whole creationist argument just falls flat in the face of real real geology and astronomy. The moon cannot possibly be 6000 years old. I think we would have noticed if our Solar System was ripped apart by the Large Megellanic Cloud somehow.