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)
Options
Comments
-
Worse again, what about faith-based diets, as related by/to the great Don Colbert, MD, author of What would Jesus eat?
Actually, I'm probably alright there. There's a lot of olives in my gaff, and you know, He was famously fond of them. Obviously, He wouldn't be after the bacon, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
What was that?wolfsbane wrote:
Radiohalos?
There are two impossible chemical reactions listed in there and stuff that blatantly contradicts alpha-decay.
Ah, man come on.:rolleyes:‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’1
References
Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31. But see whole article in which this is quoted: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp
I have severe doubts that this quote is real. It reads like a moustache-twirling villian.
"Mwa, ha, ha, there'll be no God in science."
Also, the fact that the entire paragraph amounts to "Hello, I'm an enormous, Bible belt scientific sterotype".
Regardless, he is a single man. He hardly speaks for the entire community. His attitude certainly isn't the attitude of the scientific community in Europe.
You're also still pulling American scientists and American creationists, try pulling examples from elsewhere.
A single species turned out to not be extinct as we originally thought.Like the coelacanth?
Any of various mostly extinct fishes of the order Coelacanthiformes, known only in fossil form until a single living species, Latimeria chalumnae of African marine waters, was identified in 1938.
Or the unknown animals refered to in the Bible and other ancient writings? Or were you expecting an inventory from the Ark to have survived?
Thats one down, only several million species, not recorded in human history but found in the fossil record, to go.
Don't you find it cool that we now have dinosaur tissue.I imagine the nature of fossilization over a few thousand years makes it rare. But to think it could happen for 65 million years really requires amazing faith.
My immediate response was, "Wow preserved T-rex tissue".
Followed by "I wonder what allowed this fossil to survive".
You aren't allowing yourself to be impressed by nature or what we discover.
Instead you slot everything into a "For Genesis" or "Anti-Genesis" box. This is your (and most Creationists') main difficulty with science.0 -
Wolfsbane.. YOur links are annoyingly out of date.
Please don't post up any claims that have already been dealt with here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Here is a list of the claims for your convenience.
(Note:The list is quite long)
CA: Philosophy and Theology
CA000: Ethics
CA001. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.
CA001.1. Crime rates etc. have increased since evolution began to be taught.
CA002. Survival of the fittest implies might makes right.
CA002.1. Evolution leads to social Darwinism.
CA002.2. Marx admired and corresponded with Darwin.
CA005. Evolution is racist.
CA005.1. Darwin himself was racist.
CA005.2. Darwin's work refers to "preservation of favoured races".
CA005.3. T. H. Huxley was racist.
CA006. Evolution encourages eugenics.
CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism.
CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.
CA009. Evolution teaches that we are animals and to behave as such.
CA010. Homosexuality receives approval from evolutionists.
CA012. Evolutionists are intellectual snobs.
CA040. Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time.
CA041. Teach the controversy.
CA041.1. Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives.
CA042. Biology can reasonably be taught without evolution.
CA045. Inherit the Wind is false propaganda.
(see also CH010: Creationism is good.)
CA100-CA499: Epistemology
CA100: Foundation of Knowledge
CA100. Argument from incredulity
CA100.1. Evolution leaves lots of things unexplained.
CA110: Argument from Authority
CA110. Evolution will soon be widely rejected.
CA111. Many current scientists reject evolution.
CA111.1. Over 300 scientists express skepticism of Darwinism.
CA112. Many scientists find problems with evolution.
CA113. Quote mining
CA113.1. Darwin on evolution of the eye.
CA114. Many famous scientists were creationists.
CA114.1. Lord Kelvin was a creationist.
CA114.2. Linnaeus was a creationist.
CA114.4. Babbage was a creationist.
CA114.10. Fabre was a creationist.
CA114.22. Louis Pasteur was a creationist.
CA114.28. Steno was a creationist.
CA115.1. Design arguments converted atheist Anthony Flew to theism.
CA118. Your arguments do not count because you are not qualified.
CA120. An evolved mind is fallible, its conclusions untrustworthy.
CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis.
CA200: Theory of Science
CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
CA202. Evolution has not been proved.
CA210. Evolution does not make predictions.
CA211. Evolution can not be falsified.
CA211.1. Karl Popper said Darwinism is not testable.
CA212. Evolution is ambiguously defined.
CA215. Evolution is a useless theory.
CA220. Evolution can not be replicated.
CA221. Were you there?
CA230. Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation.
CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions.
(see also CI402: Evolutionists refuse to see design.)
CA240. Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation (creation) is preferred.
CA250. Scientific findings are always changing.
CA300-CA499: Scientific Method
CA301. Science is naturalistic. (see also CA601: Methodological naturalism)
CA301.1. Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation.
(see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
CA310. Scientists find what they expect to find.
CA320. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma.
CA320.1. Mims was fired because he was a creationist.
CA320.2. Damadian was denied a Nobel prize because he was a creationist.
CA321. Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject creationism.
CA321.1. Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money.
CA325. Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals.
CA340. Evolutionists do not accept debate challenges.
CA341. Evolutionists have not met Hovind's challenge to prove evolution.
CA342. Evolutionists do not accept Walt Brown's debate challenge.
CA343. Evolutionists refuse Mastropaolo's "Life Science Prize" challenge.
CA350. No gradual biochemical evolution models have been published.
CA500. "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
CA510. Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models.
CA510.1. Problems with evolution are evidence for creation.
CA520. The Origin of Species does not address speciation.
CA600: Theology
(see also CH: Biblical Creationism)
CA601. Evolution requires naturalism.
CA601.1. Evolution's materialism or naturalism denies a role for God.
(see also CA301: Science is naturalistic.)
(see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
CA602. Evolution is atheistic.
CA602.1. Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
CA602.2. Scientists aim to make God unnecessary.
CA603. Naturalistic evolution rules out all but a Deist god.
CA610. Evolution is a religion.
CA611. Evolutionary theory has become sacrosanct.
CA612. Evolution requires as much faith as creationism.
CA620. If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning.
CA622. Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption.
CA630. Animals are not moral, aesthetic, idealistic, or religious.
CA640. Do you want to be descended from a monkey?
CA650. Death and suffering before humanity implies an unmerciful God.
CA651. God would have pronounced death and suffering "very good."
CA652. Christ's death was unjust if physical death was not the penalty for sin.
CA660. Pope's statement about evolution was mistranslated.
CA662. It is not true that the church used to teach a flat earth.
.0 -
CB: Biology
CB0: Abiogenesis
CB000. Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis).
CB010. The odds of life forming are incredibly small.
CB010.1. Even the simplest life is incredibly complex.
CB010.2. First cells could not come together by chance.
CB015. DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA.
CB020. Why is new life not still being generated today?
CB025. Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally.
CB026. Abiogenesis experiments produce toxins, such as cyanide and formaldehyde.
CB030. Early molecules would have decayed.
CB030.1. Early molecules would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light.
CB035. Miller's experiments had an invalid assumption of the type of atmosphere.
CB035.1. Earth's early atmosphere had abundant oxygen.
CB035.2. Earth's early atmosphere had no reducing gases.
CB035.3. Amino acids are not generated from just CO2, nitrogen, and water.
CB040. Life uses only left-handed amino acids.
CB050. Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence.
CB090. Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis.
CB100: Genetics
CB100. Mutations are rare.
CB101. Most mutations are harmful.
CB101.1. Mutations are accidents; things do not get built by accident.
CB101.2. Mutations do not produce new features.
CB102. Mutations do not add information.
CB102.1. Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information.
CB110. Microevolution selects only existing variation.
CB120. Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable.
CB121. The cost of natural selection is prohibitive (Haldane's dilemma).
CB130. "Junk" DNA is not really junk.
CB141. Chromosome counts differ greatly and unsystematically between species.
CB144. Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent.
CB150. Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another.
CB180. The genetic code is a language.
CB200: Molecular Biology
CB200. Some systems are irreducibly complex.
CB200.1. Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex.
CB200.2. Blood clotting is irreducibly complex.
CB200.3. Protein transport within a cell is irreducibly complex.
CB200.4. The immune system is irreducibly complex.
CB200.5. The metabolic pathway for AMP synthesis is too complex to have evolved.
CB211. An antigen receptor protein structure is same in camels and sharks.
(see also CA350: No gradualistic biochemical models published.)
CB300: Physiology and Anatomy
CB300. Complex organs couldn't have evolved.
CB301. The eye is too complex to have evolved.
(see also CB921.1: What use is half an eye?)
CB302. The ear is too complex to have evolved.
CB303. The brain is too complex to have evolved.
(see also CB400: Behavior and Cognition)
CB310. The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved.
CB310.1. Bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor.
CB311. Butterfly metamorphosis is too complex to have evolved.
CB311.1. Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar.
CB325. The giraffe neck could not evolve without a special circulatory system.
CB326. The woodpecker tongue could not have evolved.
CB340. Organs and organ systems would have been useless until all parts were in place.
CB341. Snake venom and hollow fangs could not have evolved simultaneously.
CB350. Sex cannot have evolved.
(see also CB610: no mate for 1st of a species.)
CB360. Vestigial organs may have functions.
CB360.1. The human appendix is functional, not vestigial.
(see also CB130: Junk DNA not really junk.)
CB361. Vestigial organs are just evidence of decay, not evolution.
CB361.1. Presently useless vestigial organs once had function.
CB365. Spinal treatments based on evolutionary theory fail.
CB370. Endorphins at death indicate a beneficent creator, not evolution.
CB381. Men have fewer ribs than women.
CB400: Behavior and Cognition
CB400. Evolution cannot explain consciousness.
CB400.1. Evolution does not explain human intelligence.
CB401. Instincts are too complex to have evolved.
CB402. Evolution does not explain language ability.
CB403. Evolution does not explain homosexuality.
CB411. Evolution does not explain morals, especially altruism.
CB420. Evolution does not explain art.
CB421. Evolution does not explain music.
CB430. Evolution does not explain personality and emotions.
CB440. Evolution does not explain religion.
CB500: Botany
CB501. Dendrochronology is suspect because two or more rings can grow per year.
CB510. Evolution cannot explain photosynthesis.
CB600: Ecology and Population Biology
CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.
CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.
CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.
CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.
CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.
CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.
CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.
CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter.
CB601.3. Direct mutagenesis better explains peppered moth variation.
CB601.4. An increased recapture rate suggests fraud in Kettlewell's data.
(see also CB910.2: Peppered moths remain same species.)
CB610. The first individual of a new species would not find a mate.
CB620. Human population growth indicates a young earth.
CB621. Humanity was traced back to an African Eve.
CB621.1. Mitochondrial Eve lived only 6500 years ago.
CB630. Mutually dependent species could not have evolved.
CB700: Developmental Biology
CB701. Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.
CB701.1. Recapitulation theory is not supported.
CB704. Human embryos do not have gill slits.
CB710. Genes with major effects on development are conserved across phyla.
CB731. Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs.
CB732. Finger development differs greatly between human and frog.
CB751. Bilateral symmetry is improbable under evolution.
CB800: Systematics
CB801. Science cannot define "species."
CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
(see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)
CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.
CB900: Evolution
(see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
CB901. Macroevolution has never been observed.
CB901.1. Range of variation is limited within kinds.
CB901.2. No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
CB901.3. Darwin's finches show only microevolution.
CB902. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
CB902.1. There are barriers to large change.
CB902.2. Small changes do not imply large changes.
CB904. No entirely new features have evolved.
(see also CB101.2: mutations don't produce new features.)
CB910. No new species have been observed.
CB910.1. Fruit fly experiments produce only fruit flies.
CB910.2. Peppered moths remained the same species.
CB920. No new body parts have evolved.
CB921. New structures would be useless until fully developed.
(see also CB300: complex organs can't evolve.)
CB921.1. What use is half an eye?
CB921.2. What use is half a wing?
CB922. No two-celled life exists intermediate between one- and multicelled.
CB925. We do not see creatures in various stages of completion.
CB926. Preadaptation implies that organs evolved before they were needed.
CB928. Why are beneficial traits not evolved more often?
CB928.1. If intelligence is adaptive, other apes should have evolved it.
CB928.2. Humans have stopped evolving.
CB929. Evolution does not explain our using one tenth of our brain.
CB930. Some fossil species are still living.
CB930.1. The coelacanth, thought extinct for ages, is still living.
CB930.2. A plesiosaur was found by a Japanese trawler.
CB930.3. Dinosaurs may still be alive in the Congo.
CB930.4. A pterodactyl was found alive in Jurassic limestone.
CB932. Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms.
CB940. Pure chance cannot create new structures.
CB940.1. Odds of many successive beneficial mutations are minuscule.
CB941. How do things know how to evolve?
CB950. Overspecialization with no adaptive value sometimes occurs.
CB951. Long-term trends (orthogenesis) do not fit evolutionary theory.
CB952. The evolution of specialized diets would not be adaptive.
CB990. Proposed evolution scenarios are just-so stories.0 -
CC: Paleontology
CC0: Physical Anthropology
CC000-CC049: Questionable fossils
CC000: Specific hominid fossils were hoaxed
CC001. Piltdown man was a hoax.
CC001.1. Piltdown man was the subject of 500 doctoral dissertations.
CC002. Nebraska man was a hoax.
CC003. Lucy's knee was found far from the rest of the skeleton.
CC004. Ten Peking Man skeletons were suppressed.
CC020: Specific hominid fossils were misidentified
CC021. "Orce Man" was a donkey skull.
CC030. All human fossils would fit on a billiard table.
CC040. Anthropologists disagree.
CC041. Homo habilis is an invalid taxon.
CC050. All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.
CC051. Neanderthal was based on a disfigured human.
CC051.1. Neanderthals were humans with rickets.
CC052. Laetoli footprints were human.
CC054. KP 271 (a fossil humerus) was human.
CC061. French scientists called Peking Man "monkey-like."
CC080. Australopithecus was fully ape, closer to chimp.
CC100: Human fossils are out of place.
CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
CC102. Sandal footprints have been found associated with trilobites.
CC110. Moab man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
CC111. Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
CC112. Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls were found in Pliocene strata.
CC120. Baugh found a fossilized finger from the Cretaceous.
CC130. A petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks.
CC131. An iron pot was found encased in Carboniferous coal.
CC150: Other Anthropology
CC150. If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
CC200: Transitional fossils
CC200. Transitional fossils are lacking.
CC200.1. There should be billions of transitional fossils.
CC201. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
CC201.1. Punctuated equilibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps.
(see also CB805: smooth continuum among living creatures.)
CC210: Specific examples of non-transition
CC211. There are gaps between invertebrates and vertebrates.
CC212. There are gaps between fish and amphibians.
CC213. There are gaps between amphibians and reptiles.
CC214. There are gaps between reptiles and birds.
CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
CC214.2. Duck-billed dinosaur find disproves its bird ancestry.
CC215. There are gaps between reptiles and mammals.
CC216.1. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
CC216.2. Horse fossils do not show evolution.
CC220. Arthropods arose suddenly.
CC220.1. There are no fossil ancestors of insects.
CC250. There are no fossil ancestors of plants.
CC251. Progymnosperms are imaginary evolutionary ancestors.
CC300: Fossil Record
CC300. The Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly.
CC301. Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary "tree" pattern.
CC310: Dating of fossils
(see also CD0: Geochronology)
CC310. Fossils are dated from strata; strata are dated from fossils.
(see also CD103: Geologic column assumes evolution.)
CC330: Polystrate fossils
CC331. Polystrate fossils indicate massive sudden deposition.
CC332. Yellowstone's Specimen Creek fossil forests were evidently transported.
CC332.1. Specimen Creek fossil trees grew at the same time.
CC332.2. Orientations show Specimen Creek fossil trees were transported.
CC335. A fossil whale was found vertically through several strata.
CC340. Many fossils are out of place.
(see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
CC341. Recent pollen has been found in old rocks.
CC350: Some fossils are faked.
(see also CC000: Hominid fossils faked)
CC351. Archaeopteryx is a fake.
CC352. Archaeoraptor was a fake.
CC360: Taphonomy
CC360. No new fossils are being formed.
CC361. Fossils can form quickly.
CC361.1. Coal and oil can form quickly.
CC361.2. Mammoths that were quickly frozen have been found.
CC361.3. Contorted positions of fossil animals indicate rapid burial.
CC362. Large collections of fossils indicate catastrophism.
CC363. Fossilization requires sudden burial.
CC364. Sea fossils have been found on mountaintops.
CC365. Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone appear to have been made underwater.
CC365.1. Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater.
CC371. Evidence of blood in a Tyrannosaurus bone indicates recent burial.
CC371.1. Soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus bone indicate recent burial.
CC373. Jurassic shells from mud springs are remarkably preserved.
CC381. There are too few Stone-Age remains for a long history of humanity.
CC400: Methodology
CC401. Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone.0 -
Advertisement
-
CD: Geology
CD0: Geochronology
(see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
(see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.
CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.
CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.
CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.
CD100: Geological Column
(see also CH540: Flood effects)
CD101. Entire geological column does not exist.
CD102. The geological column is sometimes out of order.
CD102.1. Out-of-order strata occur at the Lewis Overthrust.
CD103. The geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
(see also CC310: Circular dating of fossils and strata.)
CD110. Meteor craters are never found in deeper strata.
CD111. Meteorites are never found in deeper strata.
CD200: Sedimentation
(see also CH540: Flood effects)
CD200. Uniformitarian assumption is untenable.
CD202. Sandstone and shale layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
CD203. Limestone and dolomite layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
CD210. The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon.
CD211. Mississippi delta could have formed in 5,000 years.
CD220. There is not enough sediment in the ocean for an old earth.
CD220.1. Much more sediment is deposited than removed by subduction.
CD221. Oceans do not have enough dissolved minerals for an old earth.
CD221.1. Sodium accumulates in oceans too fast for an old earth.
CD222. Juvenile water is added to oceans too fast for an old earth.
CD230. Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages.
CD231. High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old.
CD232. Oil seepage would have drained offshore reservoirs in 20,000 years.
CD240. Experiments show that strata can violate principles of superposition.
CD241. Varves can form in less than a year.
CD250. Stalactites can grow very rapidly.
(see also CC365.1: Coconino sandstone deposited underwater.)
CD300: Evaporation
CD301. Evaporites could form without evaporation.
CD302. Evaporites are too thick.
CD303. Evaporites contain no organic matter.
CD400: Glaciation
CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.
CD500: Mountain Building
CD501. On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now.
CD502. Volcanic mountains are built too fast for an old earth.
CD510. Folded rocks must have been soft when folded.
CD600: Erosion
(see also CH540: Flood effects)
CD610. The erosion rate of Niagara Falls' rim indicates a young earth.
CD620. Average soil depth is consistent with a young earth.
CD700: Geophysics and Plate Tectonics
CD701. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.
CD701.1. Cowling's theorem disproves dynamo theory of earth's magnetic field.
CD740. The theory of plate tectonics is wrong.
CD741. Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals.
CD750. Plate tectonics occurred catastrophically and has since slowed.
CD800: Climate Change
CD821. Sahara Desert is expanding.0 -
CD: Geology
CD0: Geochronology
(see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
(see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.
CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.
CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.
CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.
CD100: Geological Column
(see also CH540: Flood effects)
CD101. Entire geological column does not exist.
CD102. The geological column is sometimes out of order.
CD102.1. Out-of-order strata occur at the Lewis Overthrust.
CD103. The geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
(see also CC310: Circular dating of fossils and strata.)
CD110. Meteor craters are never found in deeper strata.
CD111. Meteorites are never found in deeper strata.
CD200: Sedimentation
(see also CH540: Flood effects)
CD200. Uniformitarian assumption is untenable.
CD202. Sandstone and shale layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
CD203. Limestone and dolomite layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
CD210. The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon.
CD211. Mississippi delta could have formed in 5,000 years.
CD220. There is not enough sediment in the ocean for an old earth.
CD220.1. Much more sediment is deposited than removed by subduction.
CD221. Oceans do not have enough dissolved minerals for an old earth.
CD221.1. Sodium accumulates in oceans too fast for an old earth.
CD222. Juvenile water is added to oceans too fast for an old earth.
CD230. Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages.
CD231. High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old.
CD232. Oil seepage would have drained offshore reservoirs in 20,000 years.
CD240. Experiments show that strata can violate principles of superposition.
CD241. Varves can form in less than a year.
CD250. Stalactites can grow very rapidly.
(see also CC365.1: Coconino sandstone deposited underwater.)
CD300: Evaporation
CD301. Evaporites could form without evaporation.
CD302. Evaporites are too thick.
CD303. Evaporites contain no organic matter.
CD400: Glaciation
CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.
CD500: Mountain Building
CD501. On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now.
CD502. Volcanic mountains are built too fast for an old earth.
CD510. Folded rocks must have been soft when folded.
CD600: Erosion
(see also CH540: Flood effects)
CD610. The erosion rate of Niagara Falls' rim indicates a young earth.
CD620. Average soil depth is consistent with a young earth.
CD700: Geophysics and Plate Tectonics
CD701. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.
CD701.1. Cowling's theorem disproves dynamo theory of earth's magnetic field.
CD740. The theory of plate tectonics is wrong.
CD741. Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals.
CD750. Plate tectonics occurred catastrophically and has since slowed.
CD800: Climate Change
CD821. Sahara Desert is expanding.0 -
CE: Astronomy and Cosmology
CE000: Earth
CE001. There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth.
CE010. NASA scientists found a day missing.
CE011. Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth.
CE011.1. The frequency of leap seconds indicates a young earth.
CE020. An old earth would be covered by 182 feet of meteoric dust.
CE100: Moon
CE101. There is not enough moon dust for an old universe.
CE110. The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.
CE130. Lunar moonquakes, lava flows, and gas emissions indicates the moon's youth.
(see also CF220: Short-lived U-326, Th-230 found on moon.)
CE200: Planets and Solar System
CE210. Venus's high temperature and atmosphere should have eroded its surface features.
CE230. Io's great volcanic activity indicates a young age.
CE231. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling too rapidly to be old.
CE240. Saturn's rings are unstable.
CE260. Three planets and several moons revolve backwards.
CE260.1. Retrograde motion of planets disproves the big bang.
CE261. Comets would not have lasted in an old universe.
CE261.1. Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are ad hoc fantasies of astronomers.
CE280. Solar wind should have cleared the inner solar system of microparticles.
CE281. The Poynting-Robertson effect would remove space dust in an old solar system.
CE300: Sun and Stars
CE301. The lack of solar neutrinos indicates that the stellar model is wrong.
CE302. The sun has most of the mass but little angular momentum of the solar system.
CE310. A shrinking sun indicates a young sun.
CE310.1. Helmholtz's contraction theory says the sun is young.
CE311. The faint young sun paradox contradicts an old earth.
CE351. Sirius was a red star 2,000 years ago and is a white dwarf now.
CE380. Galaxies should lose their spiral shape over millions of years.
CE400: Cosmology
(see also CI300: Anthropic principle)
CE401. There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe.
CE410. Physical constants are only assumed constant.
CE411. The speed of light has changed.
CE411.1. Physicists found that the speed of light was once faster.
CE412. Gravitational time dilation made distant clocks run faster.
(see also CF210: Radiometric dating assumes constant rates.)
CE420. The big bang theory is wrong.
CE421. The cosmos has an axis, contrary to big bang models.
CE425. Red shift comes from light aging, not expansion of the universe.
CE440. Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from?
CE441. Explosions such as the big bang do not produce order or information.
CF: Physics and Mathematics
(see also CE400: Cosmology)
CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
(see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
(see also CE441: Big Bang doesn't produce information.)
CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
CF001.4. The second law is about organized complexity, not entropy.
CF001.5. Evolution needs an energy conversion mechanism to utilize energy.
CF002. Complexity does not come from simplicity.
CF002.1. Tornadoes in junkyards do not build things.
CF003. How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself?
CF005. 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to information theory.
CF010. Cybernetic simulations show that Darwinian processes do not produce order.
CF011. Evolutionary algorithms smuggle in design in the fitness function.
CF011.1. The outcome of Dawkins's WEASEL program was prespecified.
CF011.2. NFL theorems prove that evolutionary algorithms do not beat blind search.
CF100: First Law of Thermodynamics
CF101. The universe's energy cannot come from nothing.
(see also CE440: Origin of everything; CI200: First cause)
CF200: Radiometric Decay
(see also CD000: Radiometric dating)
CF201. Polonium haloes indicate a young earth.
CF210. Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant.
(see also CE410: Physical constants only assumed constant.)
CF220. Short-lived isotopes Th-230 and U-236 exist on the moon.0 -
CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution
CG000: History
CG001. Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
CG010. The oldest living thing is younger than 4,900 years.
CG020. All all languages and religions could develop in 3,000 years.
(see also CB620: Population growth.)
CG030. Oldest structures, such as pyramids, are already very complex.
CG040. Written history is too short.
CG041. Agriculture is too recent.
CG100: Linguistics
CG101. Chinese glyph for "ark" is literally "8 mouths."
CG110. The first known languages are highly complex.
CG111. Why are languages getting less complex?
CG200: Folklore
CG201. There are flood myths from all over the world.
CG202.1. The Miao flood myth is very like the story of Noah.
CG202.2. The Chinese Hihking flood myth is very like the story of Noah.
CH: Biblical Creationism
CH000: Biblical Creationism Generally
CH001. Creationism has explanatory power.
CH010. Creationism, being Bible-based, is good.
CH010.1. Learning creationism stimulates mental health, joy, and morals.
CH030. God is all-good.
(see also CA650: Death before humanity implies unmerciful God.)
CH050. Genesis is foundational to the Bible.
CH055. Noncreationist Christians are compromisers.
CH100: Biblical Accuracy
CH100. The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.
CH100.1. Science must be interpreted in light of scripture.
CH101. The Bible is inerrant.
CH101.1. If part of the Bible is wrong, none of it can be trusted.
CH102. The Bible is literal.
CH102.1. Genesis must be literal; it is straightforward narrative.
CH102.2. Genesis must be literal; later writers refer to it as fact.
CH102.2.1. Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal.
CH102.5. God's promise of no more floods fails if Noah's flood was local.
CH103. Bible claims inspiration.
CH110. Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible.
CH120. The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it.
CH130. The Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy.
CH131. The Bible says that the earth is round.
CH132. The Bible says that the earth is unsupported.
CH133. The Bible got the water cycle right.
CH134. Records say civilization was man's original state.
CH135. The Bible specifies good medical and hygienic practices.
CH135.1. The Bible specifies the best time for circumcision.
CH135.2. Moses reveals that blood is the essence of life.
(see also CB621: Humanity traced to an African Eve.)
CH180: The Bible is unique in other ways.
CH181. The Bible is popular.
CH182. The Bible is influential.
CH183. The Bible is target of persecution.
CH184. The Bible is intellectually honest.
CH190. The Bible is harmonious throughout.
CH200-CH799: Young Earth Creationism
CH200: Age of the Universe
CH200. The universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.
CH210. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
CH220. The universe was created with apparent age.
CH300: Death and the Fall
CH301. There was no death or decay before the Fall.
CH310. The pre-Flood vapor canopy would have made the world Edenic.
CH311. The pre-Flood vapor canopy would have extended human lifetimes.
CH320. Life is deteriorating.
CH321. Parasites are degenerations of free-living species.
CH350: Created Kinds
CH350. Organisms come in discrete kinds.
CH370. The stars and galaxies are unchanging.
CH400-CH599: Flood
CH400: Source of Flood
CH401. Flood from vapor canopy.
CH410. Flood from comet.
CH420. Hydroplate theory.
CH430. Runaway subduction.
CH500: The Ark
CH500. Noah's ark has been found.
CH501. We can expect to find Noah's ark on Mount Ararat.
CH502.1. Noah's ark may have been photographed on Ararat in 1949.
CH502.2. ERTS satellite photographed Noah's ark in 1973.
CH503. Noah's ark has been found near Dogubayazit, Turkey.
CH503.1. Anchor stones of Noah's ark have been found.
CH503.2. The Turkish government officially recognized the site of Noah's ark.
CH504.1. James Bryce found a 4-foot timber high on Ararat.
CH504.2. Navarra retrieved hand-hewn wood from high on Ararat.
CH504.3. Hardwicke Knight found soft wood timbers on Ararat.
CH505.1. Yearam guided three vile scientists to Noah's ark in 1916.
CH505.2. An 1883 Turkish expedition found Noah's ark.
CH505.3. Prince Nouri of Baghdad found the ark in 1887.
CH505.4. Hagopian visited the ark with his uncle around 1908.
CH505.5. Russian aviator Roskovitsky photographed the ark.
CH505.6. Resit, a Kurdish farmer, found the ark in 1948.
CH505.7. Local Kurds led Ed Davis to the ark in 1943.
CH505.8. Ed Behling was led to the ark in 1973.
CH508. Chinese treasure ships show Noah's ark was feasible.
CH510-CH529: Animals on the Ark
CH511. Insects survived on floating vegetation mats.
CH512. All kinds could fit.
CH512.1. Juveniles of large animals were taken aboard.
CH512.2. The average land animal is the size of a sheep.
CH513. Animals hibernated on the ark.
CH514. The crew could feed and care for the animals.
CH514.1. Many animals do not require fresh or live food.
CH520. Pre-Flood animals lived in a uniform climate.
CH521. Animals' exacting needs could have evolved after the Flood.
CH540-CH599: Effects of the Flood
CH541. Aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood.
CH542. Plants could have survived the Flood.
CH550. The geologic column was deposited by the Flood.
(see also CC364: Seashells on mountains.)
CH560: Fossils were deposited by the Flood.
CH561: Fossil order was determined by the Flood.
CH561.1. Fossils are sorted by ecological zonation.
CH561.2. Fossils are sorted hydrologically.
CH561.3. Fossils are sorted by the ability to escape.
CH561.4. Fossils are sorted by a combination of these factors.
(see also CC361: Fossils form quickly.)
CH570. High mountains were raised during the Flood.
CH580. The Flood shaped the earth's surface in other ways.
CH581. The Grand Canyon was carved by retreating Flood waters.
CH581.1. Rapid erosion on Mount St. Helens shows Grand Canyon could form suddenly.
CH590. The Flood caused an ice age.
CH700: Miscellaneous Young Earth Creationism
CH710. Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
(see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
(see also CB930.3: Dinosaurs may be in the Congo.)
CH710.1. Ica stones show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
CH710.2. Dinosaur figurines from Acambaro show a human-dinosaur association.
CH711. Behemoth, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
CH711.1. Leviathan, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
CH712. Dragons were dinosaurs.
CH712.1. Some dinosaurs breathed fire.
CH800: Day-Age Creationism
CH801. Genesis 1 got the order of events right.
CH900: Geocentrism
CH901. Bible says the sun goes around the earth.
CH910. Relativity shows geocentrism is true.
CI: Intelligent Design
(see also CH000: Creationism Generally)
(see also CF000: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory)
CI000: ID as Science
CI001. Intelligent design theory is scientific.
CI001.1. Intelligent design theory is not religious.
CI001.2. Intelligent design is not creationism.
CI001.3. Intelligent design is mainstream.
CI001.4. Intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
(see also CA041.1: Santorum Amendment.)
CI002. Intelligent design has explanatory power.
CI009. Evidence for design disproves evolutionary mechanisms.
CI010. There is a law of conservation of information.
(see also CF011: Design from ev. algorithms comes from fitness function.)
CI100-CI199: Detecting Design
(see also CA100: Argument from incredulity.)
CI100. Design is detectable.
CI100.1. Look; is design not obvious?
CI101. Complexity indicates design.
CI102. Irreducible complexity indicates design.
CI110. Complex specified information indicates design.
CI111. Dembski's filter can detect design.
CI111.1. Specified information criterion produces no false positives.
CI111.2. Specified complexity characterizes what intelligent agents do.
CI113. Genetic algorithms require a designer to specify desired outcome.
(see also CF011: Design from ev. algorithms comes from fitness function.)
CI120. Purpose indicates design.
CI130. Functional integration indicates design.
CI131. Every machine's origin, where determinable, is by intelligent agency.
CI141. Similarities in DNA and anatomy are due to common design.
CI141.1. Similar structures for similar functions, different for different.
CI190. SETI researchers expect that they can detect design.
CI191. Archaeologists and forensic scientists can detect design.
CI200: First Cause.
CI200. There must have been a first cause.
CI300: Anthropic Principle.
CI301. The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life.
CI302. The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit scientific discovery.
CI400: Meta-arguments
CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.
(see also CA301.1: Science rules out supernatural explanations.)
CI402. Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design.
(see also CA230.1: Evolutionists interpret per their preconceptions.)
CI410. Design requires a designer.
CJ: Other Creationism
CJ000: Vedic Creationism
CJ001. Mankind has existed essentially unchanged for billions of years.
CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
CJ300: Creationism from individual tribes
CJ311. The 9,400-year-old Kennewick Man was an Umatilla ancestor.
CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism
CJ500: Qur'an Accuracy
CJ530. The Qur'an's accuracy on scientific points shows overall accuracy.
CJ531. The Qur'an speaks of an expanding universe.
CJ533. The Qur'an describes human embryology accurately
I know this was a huge message. But I feel it's important to convey the rigorous refutation of creationism that exists.0 -
Bloody Hell, am I surposed to read all this:eek:0
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
i wonder what creationists would make of my final year project, investigating evolvable hardware?
0 -
-
If the bible is the word of god and if Genesis is the true story of how the universe wsa created, then how come there are basic contradictions between Chapter one and Chapter two of genesis. It's a basic principle of logic that something can't be two contradictory things at the same time. The order in which things were created is significantly different between the two chapters.
One simple exampleGEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Either God made man before the animals or he made the animals before man. They cannot both be true. So which do you believe?
If every word of the bible is truth as creationists believe, then how come God doesn't know simple things like Insects do not have 4 feet.
Perhaps they did have 4 feet once but they evolved since then?LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Is the world still flat? Because that's what the bible says. maybe NASA and the Airlines have been lying to us all these years?
No matter how high the mountain is, unless the devil also put a collection of reflective mirrors in space, you can't see all the kingdoms of the world at once on a spherical planet.MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;0 -
Morbert said:
You could have saved our readers the long posts. The talkorigins.org list was there for their perusal if they followed my invitation to check out the Biblical Creation Society site. They are happy to give it as a link for those really interested in examining the arguments. Here's the link page to prove my point, with the anti-creationist sites bolded:Wolfsbane.. YOur links are annoyingly out of date.
Please don't post up any claims that have already been dealt with here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Here is a list of the claims for your convenience.
(Note:The list is quite long)
Links to Other Sites
The sites listed here have been selected for their interest and relevance to origins issues. Many of the sites have extensive additional links, and this list makes no claim to be either comprehensive or representative! Some sites known to us that link to the BCS site are listed in a separate section. As might be expected, BCS is neither recommending nor endorsing these sites, but only offering the links as a service to members.
Contents
Creation and Origins: Special Creation
Creation and Origins: Intelligent Design sites
Creation and Origins: mostly theistic sites favouring an ancient earth and evolutionary explanations of origins
Creation and Origins: Anti-Creationist sites
Sites linking to BCS
Information Resources
Science Organizations
Environmental Issues and Resources
Life Issues and Resources
Creation and Origins: Special Creation
Answers in Genesis
Astronomy & Origins
Creation Matters (CRS Newsletter)
Center for Scientific Creation
Creation Resources Trust (Geoff Chapman)
Creation Research Society
Creation Science Homepage
Creation Science Movement
Earth History Research Center
Earth Science Associates (Robert Gentry)
Earth History (Richard Johnston)
Earth History (Steven Robinson)
Geoscience Research Institute
Brazilian Creation Society (Brazilian)
Institute for Creation Research
Lambert Dolphin's Resource Files
Revolution Against Evolution (Doug Sharp)
Twin Cities Creation Science Association
True.Origin Archive
Was Darwin Right?
Wort und Wissen (in German)
www.creationism.org (Paul Abramson)
Barry Setterfield Research Library
CreationDigest.com (Warren L. Johns)
Creation and Origins: Intelligent Design sites
Access Research Network
Discovery Institute (CRSC)
Eye Design Book (Curt Deckert)
Icons of Evolution (Jonathon Wells)
ID Think (Mike Gene)
IDEA Center (Casey Luskin)
Intelligent Design Network
Intelligent Design & Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club
Mere Creation Homepage
Michael J. Behe
Origins (Leadership University)
Origins Research archives
Pascal Centre (Redeemer College)
Phillip E Johnson
The Design Inference (William A. Dembski)
The Privileged Planet
Creation and Origins: mostly theistic sites favouring an ancient earth and evolutionary explanations of origins
Affiliation of Christian Geologists
American Scientific Affiliation
Christians in Science
Faith & Reason Ministries
Fellowship of Scientists
John Tant's Bookmarks
John Templeton Foundation
Glenn Morton's Home Page
Reasons To Believe (Hugh Ross)
Science and Spirit
Creation and Origins: Anti-Creationist sites
No Answers in Genesis (Australian Skeptics Inc)
Noah's Ark
Talk.Origins Archive
Sites linking to BCS (not listed elsewhere)
American Portrait Films
Anointed Christian Links (Australia site)
ApologeticsCourses.com
Apprising Ministries (Ken Silva)
BibleKeeper.com(the Bible in several languages + Bible study tools)
Chip Rohlke
Creation and Evolution (Ross's Web site)
Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia
Darkness to Light (Creation Page)
David Haslam's Home Page
Dordt College zoology link
Evolution Cruncher
Forgotten History of the Western People (Mike Gascoigne)
Edinburgh Creation Group
Gospel Magazine
Lee Wilson
Paradigm Shift (Marc Surtees)
Science Against Evolution
Steve Birks
Wooler Evangelical Church
Information Resources: Christian
Associates for Biblical Research
Arthur C. Custance library
Books and Culture (Christianity Today)
Christian Answers Network
Christian Books Direct
christianity-links
christianity.co.uk
Creation Resources Trust (Geoff Chapman)
Creationism and the Early Church (Robert Bradshaw)
Evangelicals Now
Evangelical Times
Genesis Agendum
Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute IBRI
Noah's Ark Farm
Origins Resource Association (educational materials)
Probe Ministries
Prof. A.E. Wilder Smith
Information Resources: Science and Education
Alternative Science (Richard Milton)
Babylonia and Near Eastern Resources
Center for the Advancement of PaleoOrthodoxy
Cosmic Ancestry
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (Discovery Institute)
Encyclopaedia Britannica
Franklin Institute educational resources
Geologists Lifetime Field List (Terry Acomb)
Glen's Dinosaur Den
High Index (web site directory)
Institute of Science in Society
John Ray Initiative
Kuban's Paleo Place (Palaeontology web links)
Leadership niversity
Mainz Institute for Geosciences Links
Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise Conference
Nature - international weekly journal of science
New Scientist
ScienceNOW magazine (from AAAS)
Science Online magazine
SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
Stephen Jay Gould Archive
Teaching resources for parents, teachers and school boards
A Test of Time (David Rohl)
The Tree of Life (phylogeny and biodiversity)
The World of Richard Dawkins
Science Organizations
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Physical Society
British Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
Hubble Space Telescope: images
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
NASA Spacelink (An Aeronautics & Space Resource for Educators)
National Geographic Society
National Space Science Data Center
Nobel oundation
Santa Fe Institute
Science Museum (London)
Smithsonian Institution
StarDate
Environmental Issues and Resources
A Rocha
Acne Resource Center
Au Sable
Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Christian Ecology Link
Environmental Information links (Friends of the Earth)
Four Seasons (Groundwork)
Friends of the Earth - England, Wales, Northern Ireland
Greening Earth Society
Greenpeace International
Life Issues and Resources
Christian Medical Fellowship
Do no Harm
Eubios Home Page
The Human Genome Project
Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future
Pro-Life Internet Directory
Americans United for Life
Feminists for Life
Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy
That's from: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/links_to_other_sites.html0 -
Akrasia said:
See: http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.htmlIf the bible is the word of god and if Genesis is the true story of how the universe wsa created, then how come there are basic contradictions between Chapter one and Chapter two of genesis. It's a basic principle of logic that something can't be two contradictory things at the same time. The order in which things were created is significantly different between the two chapters.
See: http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.htmlIf every word of the bible is truth as creationists believe, then how come God doesn't know simple things like Insects do not have 4 feet.
See: http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#globeIs the world still flat? Because that's what the bible says. maybe NASA and the Airlines have been lying to us all these years?
Quote:
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
No matter how high the mountain is, unless the devil also put a collection of reflective mirrors in space, you can't see all the kingdoms of the world at once on a spherical planet.0 -
John Doe said:
I was refering to their mocking abuse, not to their complicity in the murder. Luke 23:35 And the people stood looking on. But even the rulers with them sneered, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ, the chosen of God.”That is preposterous. I suppose you believe also that "the day someone laughed at an anti-semitic joke was the day Hitler received permission to orchestrate the Holocaust".
36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine, 37 and saying, “If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.”
The Life of Brian is well-intentioned fun-poking? Seemed just like ridicule to me.How can one equate murder with well-intentioned fun-poking?0 -
Morbert's and wolfsbane's posts sort of sum up the debate (or at least wolfsbane's part in it).
Morbert has posted a long list of pseudo-scientific claims by Creationists which have been debunked.
wolfsbane has posted a long list of associations, groups, and publications in response, said list containing amongst others the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Not merely not an answer, but not even a non-answer.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw said:
That was precisely my point: the detailed lists are there on the links. If you want me to paste up all the creationist articles like Morbert has done, I'll be glad to. Just let me know.Morbert has posted a long list of pseudo-scientific claims by Creationists which have been debunked.
wolfsbane has posted a long list of associations, groups, and publications in response, said list containing amongst others the Encyclopedia Britannica.0 -
Advertisement
-
wolfsbane wrote:That was precisely my point: the detailed lists are there on the links. If you want me to paste up all the creationist articles like Morbert has done, I'll be glad to. Just let me know.
Well, no, that's not what Morbert did. In fact, if you read Morbert's list, it's a list of Creationist questions or statements that have already been scientifically responded to, so you posting "all the creationist articles" would be entirely superfluous, unless you have any new questions or statements not listed there.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
That is a very impressive looking argument, but it is meaningless because all the strategies to refute the claim are unsatisfactory.wolfsbane wrote:
The first strategy is to suggest that the contradictions in the 2 chapters were put there intentionally and this makes it as some kind of a polemic, but that makes absolutely no sense. It would be like a maths teacher intentionally getting the answers wrong to spark confusion amongst his class.
The second strategy is to change the words of the bible, if you stick in a 'had' in the middle of a sentence, then you change the tense of the verb so it fits in, but that word wasn't there so you can't just add it in. and then you claim that 'G2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals.'
It's not at all satisfactory, and the fact that there are so many other chronological contradictions in the same short selection of passages requires an awful lot of grasping at straws.
The answer to this point, is that the devil showed him the world on some kind of a computer screen. Enough said.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:That was precisely my point: the detailed lists are there on the links. If you want me to paste up all the creationist articles like Morbert has done, I'll be glad to. Just let me know.
Wolfsbane... You need to focus a little more.
As scofflaw said, you have not provided an answer.
If you post up a list of AiG articles, then chances are they have already been addressed and catalogued in the list of pseudo-arguments I posted.
What you need to do is post up arguments which haven't already been dealt with.
Failure to do this will be testament to the fact that there is no more debate over the issue.0 -
I should resist this, but I can't.Then there’s the Bavarian Purity Law, which states that four ingredients exist in beer: malt, yeast, hops and water. This law represents the politics of beer as some beers were formerly made from gruet. As gruet had to be grown on farms, people couldn’t brew beer unless it was in the landowner’s favor.
"The purity of beer was part of it, but at the same time, (landowners were) making their own place in the chain of events," Roger said. "Hops won because it was great, but it also worked back into economics. Beer has a very chemical, political and historical side. How did somebody decide to get grain wet and boil it?"
Scott provided the answer. "It’s obviously a gift from God because it’s too hard to figure out," he said. While the original process may have been hard to figure out, today’s brewers have help.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
> Scott provided the answer. "It’s obviously a gift from God because it’s
> too hard to figure out," he said.
I've not idea who this Scott guy might be, but I should respectfully point out that not only was beer not handed down by a god, but it wasn't even their collective drink either, as they seem to have spent most of their time sloshed on some confection of nectar and ambrosia. On the contrary, beer, like the peculiar dogma of the Trinity, seems to have originated in Egypt and has been causing hilarity in humanity for a very long time indeed, as this quote from my copy of Healy's excellent translation of Pliny the Elder's Natural History points out at the end of chapter 14:
Note the 'we' -- nothing about god here, and he was writing before the NT was produced. BTW, why doesn't there seem to be a good translation of Pliny available on the internet -- even Gutenberg doesn't have it <sigh>Western people also have their own liquor made from grain soaked in water. Alas, what wonderful ingenuity vice pessesses - we have even discovered how to make water intoxicating!0 -
Morbert said:
I'm not that well-read in all the responses and counter-responses to know which have not been addressed. Maybe you will point them out so I can hunt for the creationist response?As scofflaw said, you have not provided an answer.
If you post up a list of AiG articles, then chances are they have already been addressed and catalogued in the list of pseudo-arguments I posted.
What you need to do is post up arguments which haven't already been dealt with.
But here's something to be going on with: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp0 -
I forgot to mention the second significant error in your thinking:
The presumption that these anti-creationist responses have debunked the creationist ones. Just because one makes a response, does not prove one is right.Morbert has posted a long list of pseudo-scientific claims by Creationists which have been debunked.
And on a lighter note - Morbert failed to mention the very first anti-creationist response on record:
“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”......“You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
It is found in: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-5;&version=50;49;47;31;0 -
wolfsbane wrote:Morbert said:
I'm not that well-read in all the responses and counter-responses to know which have not been addressed. Maybe you will point them out so I can hunt for the creationist response?
But here's something to be going on with: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp
Yup... Read a lot of those articles already. If you would like me to show you their errors, post up your favourite article from the "countering the critics" section and I'll show you what the scientific community thinks of it.
Anyway... You asked for an example... So here's one
Claim CE401: There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe.
If the universe is old, many supernova remnants (SNRs) should have reached the third, oldest stage. We observe no Stage 3 SNRs and few Stage 2 SNRs. Both observations are consistent with a young universe, not an old one.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp
Response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova0 -
Akrasia said:
The fact is that just such a technique was shown to be used in elsewhere in the Bible - in the Temple construction history, where it would be so obvious an error as to beggar belief that the writer would have missed it. But I say the same for the Genesis account: the apparent contradiction is so glaring that one should suspect it not to be such. And the alterantive pointed out in the article makes perfect sense.It's not at all satisfactory, and the fact that there are so many other chronological contradictions in the same short selection of passages requires an awful lot of grasping at straws.
You introduce an anachronistic concept to rubbish the argument, but the facts of the matter remain: Satan showed Christ the glories of earthly power. Obviously that was a psychological/spiritual event, not one of optics. Or would you argue that all the visions of the prophets mentioned in the Bible must also be optical? Rev.21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,The answer to this point, is that the devil showed him the world on some kind of a computer screen. Enough said.0 -
Advertisement
-
Obviously that was a psychological/spiritual event, not one of optics. Or would you argue that all the visions of the prophets mentioned in the Bible must also be optical?
As so often, wolfsbane, it appears that you are able to choose when literal means literal, and when it means something else (which appears to be when you find the literal interpretation impossible).
While I don't deny your right to decide what is to be taken literally in the Bible, it appears that this entire thread boils down to the fact that we don't accept your interpretation. Personally, I consider your interpretation both narrow and self-serving - not only that, but as far as I can tell, that's its sole purpose.
Obviously, I don't deny that others share your intepretation, but we have to note that they represent a small minority of Christians. You differ from many of them on specific points of intepretation, so there is only really an illusion of a large body of your opinion.
Scofflaw0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement