The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with RATE is that it is a group searching for some way, any way, to make data fit their already accepted conclusion

Or at the very least, an untestable assumption.

My biggest beef is that there's still no motive for scientists on a community-wide scale to claim that the Earth is older than it appears. The creationists have a very clear motive for disputing the obvious.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Nope, its supposed to be a made up word. I checked dictionary.com just to be sure I wasn't accidentally making sense.

In that case I commend your unsensibleness. Firefox spell checker says I can do wordwrongs too! That said, Firefox spell checker doesn't recognize the word "Firefox".

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My biggest beef is that there's still no motive for scientists on a community-wide scale to claim that the Earth is older than it appears.

No, there isn't a motive -- quite the opposite really, since the reputation of scientists is based upon them overturning orthodoxies, not upholding them. Religion, on the contrary, is all about upholding orthodoxies and seems to have real problems even pretending to believe that there's a more flexible way of dealing with the world.

And anyhow, since religion thrives on the reality or illusion of persecution, what easier and better way could there be to create a sense of persecution, than simply claiming that the persecution is real? Creationists aren't going to check the facts -- they never do.

Gegerty

I'm trying to figure something out maybe somebody can help me here. If there is no such thing as evolution and we are all descendants from Adam and Eve then why are we all different?

In other words, how do creationists explain bio diversity?

Another question bugging me is this, if we all came from Adam and Eve then where did my cat come from? And why does she have 4 legs and fur and I don't? Is there an Adam and Eve for Cats? Did god create them too?

Sir Molle

Gegerty wrote: »

I'm trying to figure something out maybe somebody can help me here. If there is no such thing as evolution and we are all descendants from Adam and Eve then why are we all different?

In other words, how do creationists explain bio diversity?

Another question bugging me is this, if we all came from Adam and Eve then where did my cat come from? And why does she have 4 legs and fur and I don't? Is there an Adam and Eve for Cats? Did god create them too?

Adam and Eve gave birth to Cane and Able. How did that work out? Was there some kind of incestuous man love going on or something? How did Cane and Able make babies?


The truth is, the world was not created the way it was in the Bible. Nobody knows where we come from, and anyone who tells you that they do is simply lying to you at this stage. When they turn on the Large Hydron Collider in December we will have a better understanding of where we came from.

The point is that the bible and creationism explain absolutly nothing.

robindch

Gegerty wrote: »

In other words, how do creationists explain bio diversity?

This is best dealt with in the creationism thread.

The usual answer is that biodiversity is caused by sin. Unfortunately, no mechanism is postulated by which bad intentions cause molecules to move around.

BrianCalgary

Gegerty wrote: »

I'm trying to figure something out maybe somebody can help me here. 1) If there is no such thing as evolution and we are all descendants from Adam and Eve then why are we all different?

2) In other words, how do creationists explain bio diversity?

3) Another question bugging me is this, if we all came from Adam and Eve then where did my cat come from? 4) And why does she have 4 legs and fur and I don't? 5) Is there an Adam and Eve for Cats? 6) Did god create them too?

1) Micro-evolution. Man adapting to his environment.
2) See 1.
3) Cats are not human and were created on day 6. The same day as man.
4) Because you are a human and she is a cat.
5) No
6) Yes

BrianCalgary

Sir Molle wrote: »

Adam and Eve gave birth to Cane and Able. 1) How did that work out? 2) Was there some kind of incestuous man love going on or something? 3) How did Cane and Able make babies?


The truth is, the world was not created the way it was in the Bible. Nobody knows where we come from, and anyone who tells you that they do is simply lying to you at this stage. When they turn on the Large Hydron Collider in December we will have a better understanding of where we came from.

The point is that the bible and creationism explain absolutly nothing.

1) Adam and Eve had sexual relations which produced Cain and Abel.
2) No. Adam and Eve were male and female, legally joined by God.
3) They had sexual relations with women.

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote: »

1) Micro-evolution. Man adapting to his environment.
2) See 1.

Creationists pretend to believe that cross species evolution is impossible.
So why does a platypus have reptile, mammal and avian DNA? Argument completely blown out of the water (of course there are lots of other evidence to counter that creationist belief too)

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003027.html

MrPudding

BrianCalgary wrote: »

3) They had sexual relations with women.

That came from.......?

MrP

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That said, Firefox spell checker doesn't recognize the word "Firefox".

I think therefore I am'nt?

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

That came from.......?

MrP

Probably from a basic knowledge of where babies come from. Send me a PM and I'll explain the process to you.

iUseVi

MrPudding wrote: »

That came from.......?

MrP

The answer is incest.:eek: No other choice from a literal reading. Most Christians don't like to talk about it; fortunately it's unavoidable.

2Scoops

One creationism thread is quite enough for this petty silliness. Follow the one true thread! Splitters! :pac:

BrianCalgary

iUseVi wrote: »

The answer is incest.:eek: No other choice from a literal reading. Most Christians don't like to talk about it; fortunately it's unavoidable.

Boy all the assumptions about what all Christians do and don't like to talk about. :rolleyes:

At that time incest wasn't an issue. Incest as a law didn't happen until Moses' time.

Back at the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't an issue. So Cain and Abel's wives were their sisters. Adam and Eve had many children over the length of their lives.

iUseVi

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Boy all the assumptions about what all Christians do and don't like to talk about. :rolleyes:

At that time incest wasn't an issue. Incest as a law didn't happen until Moses' time.

Back at the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't an issue. So Cain and Abel's wives were their sisters. Adam and Eve had many children over the length of their lives.

No assumption is necessary. I have had plenty of direct experience.

wolfsbane

Gegerty wrote: »

I'm trying to figure something out maybe somebody can help me here. If there is no such thing as evolution and we are all descendants from Adam and Eve then why are we all different?

In other words, how do creationists explain bio diversity?

Another question bugging me is this, if we all came from Adam and Eve then where did my cat come from? And why does she have 4 legs and fur and I don't? Is there an Adam and Eve for Cats? Did god create them too?

The biosphere was created according to Genesis 1, so if you check that ref. out you will see the distinctions between man, fish, birds, etc. So, yes, there was an original pair of the cat kind.

But as 2Scoops said, why don't you join us on the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy thread? You will have all your questions - and more! - answered there.

PDN

Threads merged. Let the fun continue.

Akrasia

I dare a creationist to answer my Platypus point.

I'll restate.
If 'macroevolution' never happens, how come a platypus has DNA from 3 entirely different kinds of animals (Birds, Reptiles and Mammals)


(or are you waiting for answers in genesis to post the official deception)

here's a hint http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/platypus.asp

(an article dating back to the late 1980s that says precisely nothing while trying to look as though it is debunking scientific theory. )

2Scoops

Akrasia wrote: »

If 'macroevolution' never happens, how come a platypus has DNA from 3 entirely different kinds of animals (Birds, Reptiles and Mammals)

I see what you're saying, but this hardly a conundrum for a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. God just made 2 of 'platypus Kind' on Day 6.

Genomics be damned.

Akrasia

2Scoops wrote: »

I see what you're saying, but this hardly a conundrum for a dyed-in-the-wool creationist. God just made 2 of 'platypus Kind' on Day 6.

Genomics be damned.

That doesn't answer the question as to why platypus can have DNA from 3 groups of species at once. Creationists are adamant that reptiles can't possibly evolve into mammals or birds (or even that dogs can't evolve into wolves...)

Here's what answers in genesis had to say:

So what has been the history of the platypus? Where did it come from? We are told that God created water creatures on Day Five and the land animals on Day Six of Creation week, so the first platypuses, even though not mentioned by name, were obviously included. And we know they survived Noah’s Flood, because God sent two of every kind of land animal to Noah’s Ark and water creatures didn’t need to go. It is most likely however, that Noah had a pair of platypuses on board his Ark, since even though they are water dwellers, it is unlikely the platypuses would have survived the raging flood waters. How did the platypuses get to Australia after Noah’s Flood? If they were on the Ark they obviously swam and walked here from Mt. Ararat. This would have taken years, even centuries. The platypuses could have used any land bridges that existed between Asia and Australia as a result of the drastic lowering of sea level during the ice age subsequent to the Flood. But once the ice age ended and the land bridges disappeared, the platypuses were left to thrive in isolation on their island continent home.

Its utterly utterly ludicrous that the entire platypus species spent centuries crawling through ice ages to get to the south pacific after the great flood. They would have had to be more resillant and single minded than the jewish people in getting to their 'promised land'

Anyone who believes that needs their heads examined.

2Scoops

Akrasia wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question as to why platypus can have DNA from 3 groups of species at once. Creationists are adamant that reptiles can't possibly evolve into mammals or birds (or even that dogs can't evolve into wolves...)

Again, I understand your argument but a creationist can easily say that God just made platypuses that way, and DNA sequences are just his way of building organisms. This will not be a mental roadblock to a creationist.

Sir Molle

Are there actually creationists in this thread? I thought only really dumb Americans were creationists!

Ciaran500

Sir Molle wrote: »

Are there actually creationists in this thread? I thought only really dumb Americans were creationists!

JC and Wolfsbane are out and out young earth creationists.

PDN and BrianCalgary are undecided, I think.

iUseVi

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Boy all the assumptions about what all Christians do and don't like to talk about. :rolleyes:

At that time incest wasn't an issue. Incest as a law didn't happen until Moses' time.

Back at the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't an issue. So Cain and Abel's wives were their sisters. Adam and Eve had many children over the length of their lives.

You do realise that by the exact same logic murder was also permissible? You can't pick and choose.

Galvasean

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Boy all the assumptions about what all Christians do and don't like to talk about. :rolleyes:

At that time incest wasn't an issue. Incest as a law didn't happen until Moses' time.

Back at the time of Adam and Eve incest wasn't an issue. So Cain and Abel's wives were their sisters. Adam and Eve had many children over the length of their lives.

Maybe it wasn't an issue as far as the law was concerned, but surely it would still have been an inbreeding issue?

sdep

Akrasia wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question as to why platypus can have DNA from 3 groups of species at once.

If the platypus did have DNA sequence features that had arisen within birds, reptiles and eutherian mammals subsequent to the divergence of all of these groups.....that would indeed be a problem......FOR EVOLUTIONISTS!!!:eek::pac::p;):D (apologies for writing 'style').

Birds belong to the 'sauropsids', a taxonomic group including turtles, lizards and crocodiles (their closest relatives). Mammals - placental mammals such as us, marsupials and monotremes such as the platypus - are 'synapsids', a different group that diverged from the sauropsids around 300 million years ago, give or take a week. Clearly, then, any DNA features arising within birds after their split from the rest of the sauropsids (i.e. the reptiles) ought not to be found within the platypus, else this would be a headache for evolution. Happily for evolution, this is not the case.

What evolution does predict - and what is seen - is that the platypus genome should show more features in common with the other mammals, from which monotremes diverged most recently, and fewer with the more distant sauropsids (both reptiles and birds). Where the platypus shows anatomical, physiological or developmental features apparently shared exclusively with birds (e.g. the 'duck' bill) or sub-groups of reptiles (venom production), evolution predicts this similarity will usually be superficial and due to convergent evolution; the underlying DNA should not reflect the apparent similarity. With the venom genes, this is what is seen.

Unfortunately, much of the news reporting has carelessly implied that the platypus is some fantastical chimera resulting from blending genomes across taxonomic boundaries. PZ Myers also gets annoyed about this; his review of the platypus genome paper is well worth a read.

To conclude, I wouldn't expect the platypus genome to pose any more or any less of a problem for creationists than any other genome sequenced; all genomes show the tell-tale signs of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

Galvasean

Excellent post sdep.
I was actually a bit taken aback by the claim that the platypus had avian DNA and had trouble sourcing it.

Gegerty

Sorry answered already.

Gegerty

wolfsbane wrote: »

The biosphere was created according to Genesis 1, so if you check that ref. out you will see the distinctions between man, fish, birds, etc. So, yes, there was an original pair of the cat kind.

But as 2Scoops said, why don't you join us on the Bible, Creationism and Prophecy thread? You will have all your questions - and more! - answered there.

And do all creatures share the same god or is there a cat god? So all the fossils of creatures that have been discovered are all different species?

Anyway, back to humans. I was watching the body shock documentaries, they document freak genetic mutations. People with 3 legs, giant people, dwarve people etc. Assuming there is no evolution, how can these things happen? Because according to creationism these people would have been from a species that existed back with Adam and Eve. But they were born from normal humans (normal but who carry defect genes).