Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Not including all the "kinds" that are now extinct, such as dinosaurs, that must have been on the Ark.
They were only babies dinosaurs so they didn't need that much room. :rolleyes: And they only needed a few ones anyway, which then "kindiated" into the different types such as this:
And this:
Flamed Diving wrote: »Indeed, that certainly bumps up the volume of creatures! Unless of course those fossils were put there to test our faith, like they used to assert!
:pac::pac:
No I believe the latest "evidence" suggests that fossilization must have occured after the flood or else all the dinosaur fossils would have been destroyed.
No need to thank me I get my buzz soley from spreading knowledge
0 -
-
-
-
We did Noah's Ark a few months back; not sure if you were on the thread at that point.AtomicHorror wrote: »Wild speculation for fun:
But yes, when you do the sums, the story falls to bits almost as fast as the ark would, had it had been built as described. Wolfsbane helpfully produced a link on AiG to an article, written by a couple of Korean blokes, which claimed to be a structural analysis of the ark. Needless to say, it was long on tech-speak, but strangely short of what might be termed "actual detail".
A lot further back, somebody else took the dimensions of the ark, worked out how many animals you could fit on it, then worked out an implied speciation rate which would be necessary to have the ark's contents produce the range of species we can see. I seem to remember (but am probably wrong) that everything had to speciate every few hours.
Somebody else spent posted about how kangaroos would have travelled from Mount Ararat to Australia, while speciating constantly, with all the intermediate species helpfully evaporating into thin air and leaving no fossils behind.
And I think that I did the one about how people spread from Ararat to South America at a rate of a hundred yards or so per week, while developing asiatic features (and unrelated languages and cultures) with enough food on their backs to maintain themselves all the way; without refrigeration too. Then, there was the "where did the flood water come from and go to" thing which suggested a 1,500-km iceball hitting the earth without leaving a crater, melting immediately (producing the flood), then having the water disappear underground, leaving the Earth's stone crust floating on 8km of water. Stone floats on water -- yes, if you're a creationist!
Somebody else did the one about lions having to eat six-month old fish for reasons which have thankfully deserted me.
Anyhow, yes, it really is fun doing Creation Science(tm)!
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
We did Noah's Ark a few months back; not sure if you were on the thread at that point.
But yes, when you do the sums, the story falls to bits almost as fast as the ark would, had it had been built as described. Wolfsbane helpfully produced a link on AiG to an article, written by a couple of Korean blokes, which claimed to be a structural analysis of the ark. Needless to say, it was long on tech-speak, but strangely short of what might be termed "actual detail".
A lot further back, somebody else took the dimensions of the ark, worked out how many animals you could fit on it, then worked out an implied speciation rate which would be necessary to have the ark's contents produce the range of species we can see. I seem to remember (but am probably wrong) that everything had to speciate every few hours.
Somebody else spent posted about how kangaroos would have travelled from Mount Ararat to Australia, while speciating constantly, with all the intermediate species helpfully evaporating into thin air and leaving no fossils behind.
And I think that I did the one about how people spread from Ararat to South America at a rate of a hundred yards or so per week, while developing asiatic features (and unrelated languages and cultures) with enough food on their backs to maintain themselves all the way; without refrigeration too. Then, there was the "where did the flood water come from and go to" thing which suggested a 1,500-km iceball hitting the earth without leaving a crater, melting immediately (producing the flood), then having the water disappear underground, leaving the Earth's stone crust floating on 8km of water. Stone floats on water -- yes, if you're a creationist!
Somebody else did the one about lions having to eat six-month old fish for reasons which have thankfully deserted me.
Anyhow, yes, it really is fun doing Creation Science(tm)!
Oh yeah, I remember that one! IIRC, one of Scofflaw's posts were legendary. I will try to dig it up.
This is it:I'm afraid this argument almost exactly demonstrates the difference between the scientific and the pseudo-scientific approaches.
On the one hand, we know scientifically that lots of animals can only live on a restricted diet - more often the herbivores than the carnivores, in fact - koala bears being a very good example, since they eat only eucalyptus leaves. Fructivores, of course, would have been equally badly off, since soft fruit would neither survive the flood, nor be available again for perhaps years afterwards. Insectivores would also find it impossible to survive, since insects were not taken onto the ark. While some insects may have survived clinging to the famous 'mats of vegetation', you're not talking about a whole ant colony (a) surviving, and (b) digging themselves a new nest in time to become dinner for a hungry pangolin - and pangolins eat pounds of insects each day.
On the other hand, in the broad brush-strokes of pseudo-science, we have "carnivores eat meat, carrion is meat, therefore carnivores were OK", or "insectivores eat insects, there were insects, therefore insectivores were OK" - and the debate is over.
The whole point is moot, of course, since these animals were mutating every 3.5 hours anyway, while trying to get from Ararat to their eventual 'destinations' quickly enough to leave no fossil traces of their passing - in the case of the koala bears, down to Australia and across the Wallace Line along with every single other marsupial, presumably carrying eucalyptus seeds. I pity them, for they had only tiny little leggies, and thousands of miles to travel.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Wicknight said:
Glad to oblige.Well Wolfie you walked right into that one - but let's see what exactly I am alleged to have walked into:
There you go - 100% wrong from the word 'Go'. Kind is not on the level of species or genera just because some of the latter cannot interbreed. Interbreeding is a marker for kind, but not exclusive to it. Hot is a marker for sun, but a lit candle also possesses that characteristic. Logic, Wickie, logic.If "kinds" cannot evolve into different kinds, and a classification of a kind is that it cannot breed with others then you a pretty much putting kinds on the level of species or genera, of which there are hundreds of thousands of known genera (millions of species), possibly a lot more unknown ones.
BTW, please define what you mean by genera and where you got your figure hundreds of thousands of known genera. How many of those are bacteria and insects? How many are aquatic? Thanks.
Excellent - you have been listening at least, even if you got confused after.So if you can't create new kinds, since kinds cannot evolve outside of kinds (they can only rearrange existing genetic material, not produce new genetic material),
I think the estimates are about 8000. See this for more detail on that and the definition of kind:how many kinds were on the Ark?
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf
It wasn't. There are less kinds alive today.And if it was only a tiny sub-set of kinds alive today
They didn't.where did the new kinds come from if the Ark kinds could not evolve into different kinds?
But here's a more scientific explanation of kinds than I can give:
What do creationists really teach?
Lerner claims:
'Most creationists admit the possibility of microevolution but deny that the process can proceed so as to result in diverse species, let alone still broader spectra of living things’
But CMI does not deny speciation — in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology — see Q&A: Speciation. Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
But creationists point out that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks, ‘jumping genes’, natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognising a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.2
But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.
Lerner mocks the idea of ‘kind’ by claiming:
‘In creationist literature, however, the breadth of a kind can vary from a species to a phylum, including everything in between.’
But this is fallacious. Creationists have pointed out that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4,5 Any problems with ‘the breadth of a kind’ are actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system, not the term ‘kind’. That is, organisms classified as different ‘species’, and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many types) species. A number of examples are presented in Ref. 3, and in the article Ligers and wholphins? What next?, including Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid of two different so-called genera.
Some atheistic skeptics have demanded that creationists should list every single ‘kind’. Of course, to even begin to do so, it would be necessary to perform hybridization experiments on all sexually reproducing organisms, so this is unreasonable. And no evolutionist has ever listed all biological species anyway, as opposed to a list of organisms classified into arbitrary man-made groupings classified as species. And the skeptic’s demand for a list of every single kind overlooks the fact that a denotative definition (i.e. exhaustive list) is not the only kind of definition. The hybridization criterion is a more reasonable operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds.
Lerner also mocked, much the same way as the compromising apologist Hugh Ross:
‘In order to avoid overcrowding Noah’s Ark, some creationists adhere to the Biblical term “kinds” rather than species as the limiting barrier to evolution.’
As shown above, the creationist concept of kind has nothing to do with trying to fit things on the Ark, but based on sound biblical exegesis and the concept of hybridisation. In reality, the converse is true — sceptics hate the creationist analysis of ‘kinds’ partly because it neutralizes sceptical attacks on the Ark that try to pack it full of millions of ‘species’, including many which are marine, invertebrate or plant anyway, so could have survived off the Ark. See How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? One sad thing is seeing self-professed Christian apologists like Hugh Ross parrot these atheistic attacks on a global Flood and Ark, and resorting to the long-disproven notion of fixity of species to maintain his old-earth compromise — see Exposé of Hugh Ross book: The Genesis Question.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/28910 -
Flamed Diving said:
That's the skill and labour of women firmly excluded, then. :pac:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, you are wrong about that. For a start, he had his wife, his three sons and their wives. And nothing to stop him employing outside labour.
Next, he had 120 years to complete the task.
The logistics look better now?
Right, so at best four men using bronze age technology to make a ship the size of the Titanic out of wood, which was wood based on bronze age technology. I would give them 1,000 years and I still wouldnt fancy their chances.
But ignoring your sexist assumptions, let me remind you again that outside labour could have been called on. Why are you so sure it wasn't? You think Noah's boat was blacklisted by a labour movement?
Then too, why do you underestimate the skills of that age? Think of the great monuments that were erected not long after the Flood.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by Mark Hamill
The story of Jesus in the bible essentially boils down to this: God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself.
Originally Posted by J C
Another example of an Evolutionist taking the evidence and completely mis-interpreting it
Mark Hamill
Actually I just interpreted the evidence like a (very literal) Christian.
You agree that God sacrificed Himself....
This is the Biblical truth of the matter to which you refer:-
Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Originally Posted by J C
.....and BTW Jesus didn't die to save us from Himself......He actually died to save us from ourselves.....i.e. from our OWN sinful nature
Mark Hamill
Who decides where you go when you die in the Christian religion? Answer: God. And what does he base His decision on? Answer: the sins you commit. So by sacrificing Jesus (ie Himself) to save us from our sins, he actually sacrifices Jesus to save us from His having to punish us for our sins.
So an intepretation of the story of Jesus in the bible can be described as: God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself. :
Yes, God decides where you go when you die…….but He does NOT base His decision on the sins that you commit……otherwise we would ALL be lost!!!!:eek:
God's decision on your eternal destiny is based on whether or not you are saved……i.e. whether or not you have believed on Jesus Christ to save you!!!!
…..so again, the CORRECT intepretation of the story of Jesus in the bible is according to Jn 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
……OK, so Mr. P…… you do not fear the Creator God of the Universe who will judge you!!!:eek:Mr Pudding
I am not scared because I do not believe in your jesus or indeed your god.Mr Pudding
I am not scared of not going to one imaginary place after I die and spending eternity in another.
……and, Mr. P…… you do not fear spending an eternity in torment in Hell!!!:eek:Mr Pudding
I am not scared because you have roundly, in your own head I might add, defeated the theory of evolution.
……and, Mr. P…… you do not fear the total defeat of the theory of evolution!!!
……so what DOES scare you???
Mr Pudding
Here is why I am scared and creeped out. It is the level of self delusion and denial shown by yourself on this thread that scares me.
…..so apparently Mr P ………you ONLY fear little ole ME!!!:eek:
…..well thanks for the compliment…….but if you consider the logic of your position for one moment……you will conclude that fearing me is totally irrational when I only bear love for you and your eternal destiny ……
........if I were you, I would certainly fear falling into the hands of the living God……while still unsaved!!!!:eek:Mr Pudding
I genuinely believe that humans should question their origin and everything that they see. What scares me most in the world is seeing humans that have totally lost the will and the ability to question. Humans that, in the face of massive evidence, cling to the belief of an absurd idea of how the world began simply on the basis of a book the truth of which is confirmed by nothing more than a couple of circular arguments.
Yes indeed, Darwin’s book and the whole Evolution business is full of circular reasoning ...and un-critical acceptance by it's believers !!!!!
……but since you will clearly not believe me…….perhaps you will believe some EVOLUTIONISTS on the matter:-Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist:-
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate):-
"When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"
H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester:-
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it."
…..IF we are lucky…..perhaps Atomic Horror may even adopt these quotes as his signature…….just like he has adopted the devastating quote from Professor Gould on (the absence of) intermediate structures!!!:pac::):D0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement