The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

hairyheretic

J C wrote:

I though that the Roman Catholic Church DID believe that ?the universe is so complex that some higher being (aka God) designed every detail?.

Apparently not, to judge by that story.

I didn't actually post any of my own thoughts there, that was just the article itself, reflecting the Cardinal's (and presumably the vaticans) position.

J C

Quote Asiaprod
Please stop this thread. It is no longer interesting, it is infact now distastefull and has dropped to a level of personal attacks.

Quote hairyheretic
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

The Vatican is quite entitled to voice their criticism of Bible Believing Christians and their defence an icon of Atheism (Darwinism) if they so wish.

I don’t consider the defence of an atheist or the criticism of Christians to be “personal attacks” – they are merely expressions of opinion on the part of The Vatican - that I happen to disagree with.


Quote Asiaprod
this thread is now hard science and in its current form has only a passing interest in what this board is about. Thanks

The thread is still focused on the Bible and creationism, with both 'hard' science and 'hard' theology being (very) actively debated.

robindch

While it's not exactly on-topic, the following isn't a million miles off-topic either:

> ===================================================
> A note to let you know that the next Skeptics public lecture is on
> Wednesday, November 16th when we are delighted to welcome
> Lord Dick Taverne, who will present on the topic of his latest book
> 'The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism'
> Venue: Gandon Suite North,Davenport Hotel, Merrion Square Time:8pm
> EUR2 for members and EUR5 for non-members
>
> By studying the activities of eco-fundamentalists and anti-globalization
> activists, he suggests that by abandoning rationality in favour of
> unrestrained and irrational emotional response, we directly damage
> democracy itself.
>
> http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-280485-5?view=get
> ===================================================

Anybody who's interested, fundamentalists + rationalists alike, do mark it in your diaries -- next Wednesday night, 16th of November, Davenport Hotel (just around the corner from Pearse Street Dart station).

Excelsior

How do you join Irish Skeptics?

Wibbs

Excelsior wrote:

I believe in a cataclysmic flood. I believe God intended for this flood to be a punishment on a scale that hasn't been seen before. I also believe from geological evidence that this flood was only global in the relativistic sense of the whole world as the Israelites knew it.

Funny enough Excelsior, I've seen some respected observers speculate that there was a cataclysmic flood in the area when the Black sea flooded 1000s of years ago. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

This may tie in quite nicely. It's very possible that Noah or someone like him did exist and this was passed down through some form of race memory. I'd have no problem going along with that at all.

It may have been even more global if the worldwide legends are anything to go by. It's possible that the melting of the ice caps were more rapid than expected and this inundation was recorded in tales going back 10,000 yrs. IIRC, recently some scientists are suggesting that the ice ages started off far more rapidly than thought before. In the order of less than a decade. It's possible that the melting occured just as quickly, hence the memory in humans of flooding.

J C wrote:

Wibbs has attempted several questions and he HAS made some valid points, mostly about issues other than evolution.

. Fair enough, but my points show that the young earth hypotheses you suggest is at best flawed. Also many of my points are to do with evolution. Regardless, you haven't replied to my last points on fossilisation/geology/extinction/animal behaviour at all.

PS A Christian Excelsior thinking of joining the Irish Skeptics? IIRC Jesus sought out unexpected company at times, so you're on the same track there. Nice one, that'll learn us heathen buggers. I for one would like to see that debate. Just look at the can of Oligochaeta you've opened now robindch:D

robindch

> [Excelsior] How do you join Irish Skeptics?

Turn up next wednesday and ask the lady at the door -- she should have some membership forms somewhere or other.

After the lecture, there's usualy a rush upstairs to treat one's "often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5:23) with the contents of many caskets of spiritual purity.

> [Wibbs] thinking of joining the Irish Skeptics?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/13.html#9

J C

Quote Wibbs
……..and igneous and conglomerates. So, conglomerates alone throw your theory in a spin for a start, as they are made up of previously formed sedimentary/metamorphic/igneous(even previous conglomerates).

I did qualify my statement that digging in you backyard will reveal the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are present (OVER MOST OF THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH).
In other words I fully accept that if you are living in parts of Co. Antrim, for example, on an extinct lava flow, you will actually find igneous Basalt when you go digging. Equally localised events either during or after Noah’s Flood created the conglomerates.

However, even a cursory look at a Geological Survey Map of Ireland, or indeed any other country will show that the predominant rock types are sedimentary and metamorphic rocks – and these were all originally formed from sedimentation events under water.
The great depths of most of these rocks and their widespread distribution indicates an enormous and worldwide scale of sedimentary rock deposition that only something like a worldwide flood catastrophe could generate.

Of course there have been many localised sedimentation events, the Spirit Lake sedimentation event during the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption in 1980, being one of the most notable recent examples.
However, the scale of the 30 metre deep canyon formed during this massive localised event is quite puny when compared with the Dakota / Nebrasca Badlands or the Grand Canyon in Colorado, which, because of both their depth and their widespread scale would indicate a Global process as being the likely cause.

Quote Wibbs
Just how many floods were there in this theory?

There was one Global flood and many localised ones since then.
The word Flood is something of a misnomer, in that the general impression that it conjures up is a flood caused by worldwide heavy rain.
In actual fact, it is thought that the vast majority of the floodwaters came from BENEATH the ground surface as huge volumes of subterranean waters burst forth due to massive earthquake and volcanic activity.

The heavy rain came about primarily due to the condensation of the enormous amounts of steam released by the process.

The Ice Age that followed on from Noah's Flood was caused by a Nuclear Winter type effect because of the enormous quantities of dust and steam that was released into the atmosphere which clouded out the Sun thereby creating a “big freeze” over the Northernmost and Southernmost Latitudes of the Earth.


Quote Wibbs
What about whales. Did Noah have two of them in the Ark? Why wasn't room found for the trilobites? Why did the nautilus survive when the ammonites did not? Both would have been affected by this "silt".

Gen 7:1-4 confirms that only land-based creatures were brought aboard the Ark. Aquatic creatures had to literally “sink of swim” and many did sink to form fossils and some survived because the process was ongoing and therefore there were local opportunities for survival for the water-based creatures.

Noah’s Flood was the mother of all mass extinctions and ammonites either didn’t survive or became subsequently extinct.

You do raise an interesting question about the Nautilus, which like Crocodiles, Coelacanths and many other so-called “living fossils” are believed by evolutionists to have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
The unchanged Nautilus is easily explained by the Creation Science model, because they are only a few thousand years old – but the unchanged Nautilus does pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary model that assumes that all creatures evolve ‘upwards and onwards’ over time.

Equally, the Coelacanth fish was assumed to have become extinct hundreds of millions of years ago – due to the ‘position’ of its fossils in the fossil record and it’s ‘primitive’ physiognomy – but in 1938 it was discovered to be ‘alive and well’ in the ocean off Africa – and looking EXACTLY like it’s supposed 300 million year old fossils.

Evolutionists now postulate that during the 300 million years during which they claim that Mankind was evolving from something that looked like a rat – the Coelacanth fish remained TOTALLY UNCHANGED!!!!!

The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.


Quote Wibbs
For a start compound eyes last quite a long time. Take a microscope to any long dead wasp on your windowsill for evidence of that

The “dry” compound eye of an ‘air dwelling’ Wasp and the water filled compound eye of a ‘water dwelling’ Trilobite are fundamentally different structures. Equally, my explanation for the difference between the compound eyes observed in some fossilised Trilobites and the so-called “photosensitive pits” observed in others, is that different localised concentrations of caustic chemicals had different effects ranging from ‘no effect’ to complete degradation of the eye tissues to produce empty eye sockets which evolutionists erroneously assume to be “photosensitive pits”.


Quote Wibbs
The vast majority of well preserved fossils were rapidly buried as you say(usually by volcanic ash or landslide), but most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated. In fact many of them show degradation by scavengers, which suggests anything but a quick fossilisation.

Many fossils during Noah’s Flood were actually buried by volcanic ash or landslides – due to the enormous tectonic processes released during The Flood.

According to the Bible the initial Flooding Event took 40 days. During this period any land animals that were still alive would have become very hungry and they would have eaten other animals and carrion before they themselves ‘succumbed to the rising waters’.
The fact that many fossilised land animals show degradation by scavengers is to be expected, but this still shows very rapid burial indeed – just think how quickly a pride of Lions (a) degrades a carcass and (b) completely consumes it – minutes in the case of (a) and hours / days in the case of (b). In other words, an instant of 'evolutionary Geological Time'.


Quote Wibbs
If you understood fossilisation you would see that the mineralisation of bone takes a very long time. In fact if you understood the various processes of fossilisation at all you would see that the idea of a flood catastrophy would make little sense.

Could I suggest that it is not I who “doesn’t understand fossilization”.
If we take the conventional evolutionary explanation it goes something like this. A bone gets buried under silt in water and there it stays as more and more silt builds up on top of it for millions of years until the weight of the overburden is so enormous that it all hardens into rock. Meanwhile, the bone has been gradually chemically transforming into the rock mineral to form a fossil imprint.

Could I suggest that such a scenario is a good recipe for the anaerobic decay of the bone, hundreds of thousands of years before it would ever get a chance to form a fossil under such gradualist assumptions. Could I also suggest that the preservation of soft tissue is indicative of almost instantaneous fossilisation and the preservation of bone is indicative of rapid mineralisation with an input of chemically active ingredients and / or heat.


Quote Wibbs
Many fossils are formed without the direct interaction of water. Burial in tar/salt/ice/very dry sand for a start. How are these explained away by the flood hypotheses?

These were all obviously fossilised after The Flood, and indeed such processes are ongoing at present.
There are recorded cases of Humans eating frozen Mammoth flesh – and while I wouldn’t be queuing up to do so myself, it does prove that these creatures were frozen very recently indeed.

Equally, the extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (part-fossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.

J C

Quote Wibbs
Even in limestones which contain a lot of calcium carbonate, soft tissues are preserved. What about such rocks that have little or no evidence of Calcium carbonate at all, such as triassic red sandstones?

Rapid localised processes are ALWAYS critical to the instantaneous fossilisation of soft tissues.

Different combinations of sand, silt, chemicals and heat will give different localised results and the entire evidence from any particular fossil find must be evaluated – I have described the general processes involved in fossilisation. Like anything else in nature, there can be specific or localised interactions that give atypical results.


Quote Wibbs
Original Quote by JC
Creation Scientists are satisfied that the correct regression equations indicate an age of less than 10,000 years.

Satisfied by what exactly? DNA clocks, Carbon dating?
They are satisfied by the regression equations established by examining the point mutation pattern observed in Human Mitochondrial DNA.


Quote Wibbs
Yes, but the humble bee shows evidence of basic "culture" in that these languages change over time and vary between colonies. The behaviour of the higher apes also shows evidence of primitive culture and language. Animals are not just pre programmed autotomata.

One (bonobos) was even observed tending to a small bird that had accidently flown into a tree. Caring for it till it had regained its composure before releasing it.

I agree, there is an enormous difference between an animal and a robot. Animals are able to learn from their experiences, and this learning can be passed within animal communities. The many stories of the loyalty of dogs to their owners and the fact that they can be trained to perform many useful tasks also demonstrates ‘good’ behaviour by animals – but not non-circumstantial moral behaviour

God created all creatures perfectly. This perfection also extended to their behaviour. For example, because there was no (animal) death before Adam and Eve sinned, animals were designed to live in harmony with each and with Human Beings. There are occasional glimpses of what the pre-fall World looked like in the behavioural examples that are cited above.


Quote Wibbs
As for evil; the chimp is capable of unbelievable violence and "evil" towards its own kind and others. Some have even killed human children and played with the bodies. There's little "instinctive" about that, in your world view.

As Jesus Christ illustrated when He cast out the legion of demons from the possessed man into pigs, in Mk 5:9-14 animals can be oppressed or indeed possessed by demonic forces.
Equally, when sin entered the World through Adam and death through sin – all of Creation fell from God’s grace and not just Mankind.
The capacity for pure evil is still only confined to Mankind and the Demonic Host.


Quote Excelsior
JC, you make a massive leap there where you say "Jesus believed in Noah's flood" and then conclude "Therefore he believed in flood geology".

I also believe from geological evidence that this flood was only global in the relativistic sense of the whole world as the Israelites knew it.

I cannot understand your above statement. You clearly accept that Jesus Christ confirmed that Noah’s Flood occurred just as Genesis records.
Genesis confirms that it was a WORLDWIDE catastrophe that killed every land based creature in the ENTIRE World as Gen 7:22 says “EVERYTHING on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died”.
The boundaries and shape of the original landmass on the Earth before The Flood bears little resemblance to the current landmass (due to the huge tectonic movements and the resultant upthrusts and downthrusts unleashed by the process). This fact also invalidates the 'local Middle Eastern Flood' hypothesis.
The New Age 'Atlantis Myth' and the Pangea Theory of conventional Geology also reflect the reality that the ante-deluvian landmass was considerably different to what it now is.

Equally some of the greatest Geological evidence for the aftermath of Noah’s Flood are found in the Grand Canyon and Badlands areas of America. Which are almost on the other side of the World from the Middle East.


Quote Excelsior
I don't in any way feel a need to challenge your young Earth hypothesis. As I have laid out already today, you are my brother in Christ. I need convert you from nothing. The pure motivation you have for holding to the views you hold to are clear.

That is fair enough – but I don’t mind you challenging me, I thrive on challenges!!!!


Quote Excelsior
But can't you accept that there are more ways than yours to be authentic as a follower of Jesus and more than one legitimately attempted interpretation of the Scriptures? (I am not saying all interpretations are right. I am saying all are probably to some extent wrong but yours and mine are both certainly sincere)

Could I say that all INTERPRETATIONS of God’s Word run the risk of error. Could I also say that the sincerity of our convictions has no effect on their validity – it is the truth of our beliefs that counts.

In this context, it is important to appreciate that God’s Infallible Word resides in two locations – in the pages of the Holy Bible AND in the physical Universe and all life therein.
Before you start accusing me of Polytheism or some other New Age Heresy could I rapidly clarify that I am NOT saying that God is IN physical matter or living organisms (other that the holy Spirit indwelling Christians) but that God CALLED these material entities forth in a Sovereign Fiat of His Divine Will during Creation Week about 7,000 years age.

God actually SPOKE the Universe and all life into existence and so in a very real and profound sense it IS his Word and a glorious statement of His transcendent power.
If you doubt me read Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26 where each act of Creation starts with the phrase “And God said ……”. Our amazing and all-powerful God didn’t even have “to lift a finger” during Creation Week, He just SAID it and it was done!!!

It is also important to distinguish between the creature and it’s Creator. As Christians we should not adore the Creature (which evolution in a sense does) but rather we should adore the Creator God and Him alone.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to study God’s Word in the Bible AND to study His Word as expressed by Him during Creation Week. Sadly The Fall has corrupted the original perfection of Creation, but God’s sovereign stamp is still very clearly visible on all of Creation – and this is what is now scientifically classified as Intelligent Design – which is God’s Word ”writ large” in all of His Creation.

Ps 19:1-2 neatly (and poetically in THIS case) summarises The Word of God SPOKEN into The Universe.
“The Heavens DECLARE the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”


Quote Asiaprod
All praise the Coelacanth, the fish that escaped the flood and lives on to defy the CS theorists.

All praise the Lord God who created the Coelacanth Fish that has remained unchanged for the past 7,000 years and is living proof that evolutionists, (who believed that it had become extinct over 300 million years ago) got it completely wrong – on BOTH it’s extinction AND the 300 million years!!!


Quote Robin
Looks like the writing's on the wall (for evolution)

Does this mean that the penny has finally dropped, Robin?

J C

Quote Wibbs
It's very possible that Noah or someone like him did exist and this was passed down through some form of race memory. I'd have no problem going along with that at all.

It may have been even more global if the worldwide legends are anything to go by. It's possible that the melting of the ice caps were more rapid than expected and this inundation was recorded in tales going back 10,000 yrs. IIRC, recently some scientists are suggesting that the ice ages started off far more rapidly than thought before. In the order of less than a decade. It's possible that the melting occured just as quickly, hence the memory in humans of flooding.


Your date of 10,000 is quite accurate for both Noah’s Flood and the Ice Age.

I can assure you that Noah did exist, not only did Jesus Christ Himself confirm that Noah existed in Mt 24:37-39 and Lk 17:26-27, but there are many legends of his existence (and The Flood) amongst the folklore and ‘race memories’ of many widely dispersed peoples throughout the World.

I can confirm that the latest scientific conclusions in relation to the rapid onset of the Ice Age ARE correct – the Ice Age probably CAME AND WENT during less than 100 years in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood.


Quote Wibbs
you haven't replied to my last points on fossilisation/geology/extinction/animal behaviour at all.

I have now done so – this thread is moving so fast that I have barely time to have my Tea in the evenings!!!!


Quote Robin
Lord Dick Taverne, who will present on the topic of his latest book
> 'The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism'

Sounds like Lord Taverne might have a few truly sceptical things to say about evolution – if he follows through on the logic of his thesis!!!

Wibbs

J C wrote:

I did qualify my statement that digging in you backyard will reveal the massive quantities of sedimentary / metamorphic rock that are

Gen 7:1-4 confirms that only land-based creatures were brought aboard the Ark. Aquatic creatures had to literally “sink of swim” and many sunk to form fossils and some survived because the process was ongoing and therefore there were local opportunities for survival for the water-based creatures.

Even in your theory, aquatic dinosaurs would outnumber the mammals by a large margin. How come they perished?

You do raise an interesting question about the Nautilus, which like Crocodiles, Coelacanths and many other so-called “living fossils” are believed by evolutionists to have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.
The unchanged Nautilus is easily explained by the Creation Science model, because they are only a few thousand years old – but the unchanged Nautilus does pose a serious challenge to the evolutionary model that assumes that all creatures evolve ‘upwards and onwards’ over time.

Fair enough, but how do you explain the ones that did change?

Equally, the Coelacanth fish was assumed to have become extinct hundreds of millions of years ago – due to the ‘position’ of its fossils in the fossil record and it’s ‘primitive’ physiognomy – but in 1938 it was discovered to be ‘alive and well’ in the ocean off Africa – and looking EXACTLY like it’s supposed 300 million year old fossils.

Not exactly, it's actually a little different to it's ancestors in physiology.

The only rational explanation is that Humans didn’t evolve from rats over 300 million years and the rocks in which the Coelacanth fossils are found are NOT 300 million years old.

It may be the biblical explanation(in your mind), but it's hardly rational, when faced with the vast wealth of zone fossils that back up the scientific theory.

The “dry” compound eye of an ‘air dwelling’ Wasp and the water filled compound eye of a ‘water dwelling’ Trilobite are fundamentally different structures.

Surprisingly they're remarkably similar, with both being fluid filled.

Equally, my explanation for the difference between the compound eyes observed in some fossilised Trilobites and the so-called “photosensitive pits” observed in others, is that different localised concentrations of caustic chemicals had different effects ranging from ‘no effect’ to complete degradation of the eye tissues to produce empty eye sockets which evolutionists erroneously assume to be “photosensitive pits”.

What about two trilobites on the same strata of rock, one with and one without compound eyes(I'm looking at one in my hand now)?

The fact that many fossilised land animals show degradation by scavengers is to be expected, but this still shows very rapid burial indeed – just think how quickly a pride of Lions (a) degrades a carcass and (b) completely consumes it – minutes in the case of (a) and hours / days in the case of (b). In other words, an instant of 'evolutionary Geological Time'

They may disarticulate the skeleton but the bones remain in most cases. They don't consume it all. Any stroll through the African savannahs will show you that.

Could I suggest that it is not I who “doesn’t understand fossilization”.
If we take the conventional evolutionary explanation it goes something like this. A bone gets buried under silt in water and there it stays as more and more silt builds up on top of it for millions of years until the weight of the overburden is so enormous that it all hardens into rock. Meanwhile, the bone has been gradually chemically transforming into the rock mineral to form a fossil imprint.

With respect, that is a very primary school view of the process of fossilisation.

Could I suggest that such a scenario is a good recipe for the anaerobic decay of the bone, hundreds of thousands of years before it would ever get a chance to form a fossil under such gradualist assumptions. Could I also suggest that the preservation of soft tissue is indicative of almost instantaneous fossilisation and the preservation of bone is indicative of rapid mineralisation with an input of chemically active ingredients and / or heat.

Soft tissue(which is very rare), yes. Preservation of bone no. In fact, by your "flood" theory the soft tissue fossils should be in the majority.

These were all obviously fossilised after The Flood, and indeed such processes are ongoing at present.

What about those conditions found in rocks under the more common kind of fossilisation?

Equally, the extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (part-fossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed.

That's mostly Jurassic park fantasy, I'm afraid. While mineralised red blood cell structures have been found, haemoglobin has not.

You are fitting the evidence to fit your theory and sadly it's not taking very well. While Evolutionists can sometimes be accused of doing similar, theirs takes a lot better, I'm afraid.

J C

Quote Wibbs
Even in your theory, aquatic dinosaurs would outnumber the mammals by a large margin. How come they perished?

’Survival of the fittest’, NS and all that.


Quote Wibbs
Fair enough, but how do you explain the ones that did change?

’Survival of the fittest’, genetic drift, speciation, NS and all that (using EXISTING genetic diversity).


Quote Wibbs
Not exactly, it's actually a little different to it's ancestors in physiology.

It is a little smaller – indicating that the modern Coelacanth isn’t as good a feeder as its ancestors!!


Quote Wibbs
It may be the biblical explanation(in your mind), but it's hardly rational, when faced with the vast wealth of zone fossils that back up the scientific theory.

The zone fossils are just that, the fossils fossilized within the same zone of fossil burial during Noah’s Flood – and their ‘wealth’ or otherwise is of little practical significance.

Quote Wibbs
Surprisingly they're remarkably similar, with both being fluid filled.

Yes they’re both fluid filled but their surfaces have completely different refractive indices and the wasps eyes have a dry surface while the Trilobites were wet.

Quote Wibbs
What about two trilobites on the same strata of rock, one with and one without compound eyes(I'm looking at one in my hand now)?

What about a congenitally blind cat – and a normal-sighted cat ? Ditto for Trilobite fossils.


Quote Wibbs
They may disarticulate the skeleton but the bones remain in most cases. They don't consume it all. Any stroll through the African savannahs will show you that.

Can I give you your original quote by way of reply “most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated.”

Quote Wibbs
With respect, that is a very primary school view of the process of fossilisation.

I don’t personally believe in it – but it is a reasonably fair representation of gradualist fossilisation nonetheless.

Quote Wibbs
While mineralised red blood cell structures have been found, haemoglobin has not.

While I cannot at the moment lay my hands on the reference, haemoglobin HAS been recovered from Dinosaur bone. As I don’t currently have the reference to hand, I stand scientifically corrected on this point.

homeostatic

I felt the call of Christ in my life, and committed my life to Him. There is no amount of science that can sway me one way or another. I believe that God created the earth, because the Bible tells me so.

If one has not heard the call of Christ, I don't expect them to understand. They're fathers may have been monkeys. My father however is God almighty. I am a son of God. And, by saying I am a son of God, I imply that I am entitled to his inheritance. I would not be able to say that were I a son of monkey.

For all of the sons of monkeys out there I say live well then die. I however want to die then live. That's the beauty of the whole thing. We all chose. If upon hearing the Gospel one person chooses not to believe, the Bible says go to the next.

JustHalf

For all those who insist on taking every word of the Bible literally - did the parables really happen? If they did not literally occur, are they therefore lies or are they still true?

Homeostatic, I share the belief you express in your first paragraph, but the second? We are sons and daughters of God, yes... but surely we are also the sons and daughters of our mother and father?

I am the son of a man and a woman. By saying this, I do not "deny my inheritance" or anything of the sort. In the same way, you can still accept evolution and believe in God.

My ancestors were apes, and I am a child of God.

robindch

> by saying I am a son of God, I imply that I am entitled
> to his inheritance [...] to die then live

I'm not trying to be a smartass here folks, but do a lot of people believe this? It seems horribly selfish to me to believe something so that you'll be given something...

Wibbs

J C wrote:

It is a little smaller – indicating that the modern Coelacanth isn’t as good a feeder as its ancestors!!

Actually it's a little bigger and fatter.

The zone fossils are just that, the fossils fossilized within the same zone of fossil burial during Noah’s Flood – and their ‘wealth’ or otherwise is of little practical significance.

:eek: You can't just dismiss the amount of zone fossils and their position in the geological column so easily and still call it science, surely?

Yes they’re both fluid filled but their surfaces have completely different refractive indices and the wasps eyes have a dry surface while the Trilobites were wet.

Now they're both fluid filled. Refractive indices aside that doesn't affect their fossilisation.

What about a congenitally blind cat – and a normal-sighted cat ? Ditto for Trilobite fossils.

So now we need deformed trilobites to make your theory stick. Sseemingly common enough for me to have 3 normal and 2 deformed on the same rock. I must be so lucky. Ok, right so........

Can I give you your original quote by way of reply “most fossils are not that well preserved, especially those of land animals. Except in exceptional circumstances all you get are the hard tissues remaining and even those are rarely articulated.”

Yes because unlike in your theory, most land animals were not inundated by a flood. You're disproving yourself with every point you make.

I don’t personally believe in it – but it is a reasonably fair representation of gradualist fossilisation nonetheless.

It really isn't. Seriously read up on it, especially the fossilisation that doesn't require water and those examples that lie under the "flood" layers.

While I cannot at the moment lay my hands on the reference, haemoglobin HAS been recovered from Dinosaur bone. As I don’t currently have the reference to hand, I stand scientifically corrected on this point.

No what was recovered was traces of the haematite from the haemoglobin, that was left from the fossilisation process.

I agree with robindch and JustHalf on homeostatic's position. It feels very selfish and exclusive to me. From my reading of the guy, the one thing I wouldn't have accused Jesus of was selfishness. Quite the opposite, in fact. He seemed a very inclusive chap.

BTW JustHalf puts his/her religious position well and I for one would defend their right to believe that(even if I don't). "My ancestors were apes, and I am a child of God". Like it. Nice way to sum up your belief Sadly, even Darwinists would conclude I was still an ape.

Wibbs

robindch wrote:

> [Wibbs] thinking of joining the Irish Skeptics?

Sorry, just saw that now.

Not really though. I find I'm often too sceptical for such things. Joking aside I have found that the sceptical movement of late can be just as intransigent as other views.

Asiaprod

Originally Posted by J C
It is a little smaller – indicating that the modern Coelacanth isn’t as good a feeder as its ancestors!!

Good lord, the cheek of you JC calling my Coelacanth a little fry. Lucky I have Wibbs here to put your mind at rest on that one The CS crowd probably only found a baby one. Mum and Dad were bigger and fatter .

Another thing I mean to ask you was Noah was 600 years of age when he built the Ark. How does such longativity fit into your model, and why can I not expect to live that long.

Wibbs

The flood probably caused some change in the atmosphere that causes us to age more or some such...:rolleyes:

wolfsbane

JustHalf said:
For all those who insist on taking every word of the Bible literally - did the parables really happen? If they did not literally occur, are they therefore lies or are they still true?

I have NEVER met any believer who insisted 'on taking every word of the Bible literally'. All hold that it is contains all the usual modes of language - literal, metaphor, simile, etc. What we do insist on is that what is meant literally should be taken as such; what is metaphorical, as metaphorical, etc.

It is not always easy to decide which is which - in the area of prophecy, for example. At other times it is very easy - the parables, explicitly denoted as similes by our Lord. The historical narrative is also plainly meant to be taken literally - and it is appealed to frequently by the NT writers in a way that would make no sense if they were not literally true.

The choice for believers is to accept the history of the Bible as true, or hold Christ and the apostles as mere 'men of their time', subject to literalist misunderstanding of the OT accounts. I know many believers are confused on the issue, and so can continue to believe in the Christ of the Bible while at the same time believing in evolution - but their theology is untenable and will be taken apart by any skeptic who knows a little Scripture.

JustHalf

Yeah, all us Christians who believe in evolution all have a terribly weak faith, easily taken apart by any learned skeptic.

So I guess the only non-Christians I've ever spoken to are idiots. How long can I avoid the smart ones?!? :rolleyes:

robindch

> Noah was 600 years of age when he built the Ark.
> How does such longativity fit into your model, and
> why can I not expect to live that long.

Aha! I can help out here -- the usual creationist explanation is that the river of DNA ran pure and clean back in the good old days, helping people like Noah to live for ages and ages, and others to breed successfully with family members (cf, adam and eve). With the passage of time and the malodorous attentions of the various devils, DNA became corrupted, so people's lives shortened and restrictions had to be put in place on people breeding with their siblings.

Hope this helps!

wolfsbane

Robindch said:
Aha! I can help out here -- the usual creationist explanation is that the river of DNA ran pure and clean back in the good old days, helping people like Noah to live for ages and ages, and others to breed successfully with family members (cf, adam and eve). With the passage of time and the malodorous attentions of the various devils, DNA became corrupted, so people's lives shortened and restrictions had to be put in place on people breeding with their siblings.

Actually, Wibbs' sarcastic comment - The flood probably caused some change in the atmosphere that causes us to age more or some such... gives the mechanism for genetic degradation likely responsible for the dramatic decrease in our longevity. Not various devils, but a probable change to the canopy that protects earth from harmful radiation. Could a world-wide flood that altered the surface of the world have an impact on the atmosphere? Look what man's puny efforts have done in a few years to the ozone layer.

Sapien

Right.

I can think of no better way to deal with this.

I will defend, against any challenge that may be raised, the contention that the world as we know it today was created in the manner described by Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien in the book "The Silmarillion".

Tolkien, I put it to you, was not in fact an author of fictional novels, but a prophet in disguise. He, by virtue of his divine nature and his secret Maiar ancestry, had access to the facts regarding the true origin of the universe, which he chose to disseminate and introduce into the minds of men through appealing stories. Components of his works, including the Ainulindale, the Valaquenta and the Akallabeth, are actual holy texts recalled from ages past which describe with perfect accuracy the events which lead to the formation of the world we inhabit today. A decent summary of the history of the universe can be found here.

We are presently in the latter part of the 5th Age of what was once called Middle Earth. Our true history has long ago been forgotten, but has been restored by Tolkien. There is not one detail described in his works which I will not be able to reconcile with the observed nature of the world through reasonable conjecture and theorising.

Try me.

robindch

> Try me

I was going to ask you to produce some physical evidence of hobbits, but half a second's thought reminded me of:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm

Damn, I think you might be onto something here.

Anyhow, leaving aside Tolkien's catholic beliefs, his friendship with CS Lewis (and the rest of the christian Inklings), not to add the many morphological similarities between the two tales, I still must say that the Ainulindalë is a hell of a lot better a read than Genesis. Here's a morsel to chew over:

[...]a third theme grew amid the confusion, and it was unlike the others. For it seemed at first soft and sweet, a mere rippling of gentle sounds in delicate melodies; but it could not be quenched, and it took to itself power and profundity. And it seemed at last that there were two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Ilúvatar, and they were utterly at variance. The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came. The other had now achieved a unity of its own; but it was loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated; and it had little harmony, but rather a clamorous unison as of many trumpets braying upon a few notes. And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice [...]

Fill in the actors as necessary.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:
I will defend, against any challenge that may be raised, the contention that the world as we know it today was created in the manner described by Prof. J.R.R. Tolkien in the book "The Silmarillion".

For a start, we all know the origen of "The Silmarillion". We can document its date of writing, and the fact that the author presented it as a fable rather than as history.

The Biblical account is ancient. That doesn't prove it is true, but it is the first qualifier. Next it is coherent, offering a non-contradictory history of Man.
Finally, its account is consistent with the observable data around us. This is where the debate rages - which theory of origins fits best with the physics, chemistry and biology we observe today and whose effects we examine in the material universe? Scientists differ. Arguments for Chance or Intelligent Design abound.

So, No, the Bible cannot just be dismissed as another fairy-story. It is not presented as such, nor has it been regarded as such by good people over thousands of years. Its account deserves a fair hearing.

wolfsbane

JustHalf said:
Yeah, all us Christians who believe in evolution all have a terribly weak faith, easily taken apart by any learned skeptic.

So I guess the only non-Christians I've ever spoken to are idiots. How long can I avoid the smart ones?!?

Well, the guys on this list are no idiots, but they do seem sort of easy-going atheists. They are content for you to live in your little Tolkien-like fantasy, but they do object to any scientific arguments made in defense of the gospel.

When you meet militant atheists, who want to wake you out of your delusion and to warn others against it, then you will have to face the facts of Scripture.

Here's a sample of what you have to explain away:

Examples of Christ's reference to the Genesis record:

Matthew 23:25
that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Mark 10:5-9
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Examples of the apostles' reference to the Genesis record:

Luke 3:38
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

1 Cor.15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

1 Cor. 15:45
And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1 Tim. 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

1 Tim. 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Heb. 11:4
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

1 John 3:12
not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

Jude 1:14
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints,

Want to make a start? I've raised this issue of the NT validation of the Genesis record on this thread already, but no one has answered.

wolfsbane

Robindch said:
Damn, I think you might be onto something here.

On the other hand, maybe not:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0228hobbit_war.asp

J C

Quote homeostatic
There is no amount of science that can sway me one way or another. I believe that God created the earth, because the Bible tells me so.

If upon hearing the Gospel one person chooses not to believe, the Bible says go to the next.

Both are perfectly correct Biblical principles.

However, the Bible does mandate us to explain why we believe what we do using logic and the Word of God (which is expressed in both the Bible and in His Creation). This is confirmed in 1Pet 3:15 where Christians are told to “always be prepared to give an ANSWER to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”.(NIV)

Modern Creation Science is an ultra-modern application of ‘cutting-edge’ science to the study of the resultant effects of Special Divine Creation - and it takes it’s mandate from the biblical confirmation in Rom 1:19-20 that God’s actions can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”. The fact that Creation Science uses modern scientific methods in the pursuit of biblical truth is a good reason for all Christians, and other mono-theists, to support it’s endeavours – and indeed many do so.

Equally, this thread is a Christianity Forum and Jesus Christ’s advice when dealing with non-believers who reject the Gospel (to move on and wipe the dust from your feet) DOESN’T apply to situations where people wish to discuss Holy Scripture, as is often the case on this forum.


Quote Asiaprod
Another thing I mean to ask you was Noah was 600 years of age when he built the Ark. How does such longativity fit into your model, and why can I not expect to live that long

Long anti-diluvian lifespans are confirmed in the Bible and also by the giant size to which reptiles grew prior to the Flood as evidenced by the fossils of certain Dinosaurs.
Please note that reptiles are one of the few types of creature that continue to grow throughout their lives – unlike mammals or birds, for example, who stop growing when they reach their mature sizes. Very large reptiles are therefore almost invariably very old reptiles – and there are plenty of very large (and therefore very old) reptiles in the fossil record and therefore presumably killed by Noah’s Flood.

Many explanations have been proffered for the contractions in lifespan evident in the Bible. It would appear that the first mutations occurred immediately after the ‘fall of mankind’ when God told Adam and Eve that “dying they would die”. However, the ageing process greatly accelerated in the immediate aftermath of Noah’s Flood and this is currently explained by some Creation Scientists to be, in part due, to an increase in incident solar radiation upon the Earth due to the collapse of a postulated ‘water canopy’ in the upper atmosphere that covered the entire Earth before the Flood. This ‘water canopy’ could also have maintained a ‘greenhouse effect’ and a stable warm climate all over the Earth – and this could explain the presence of fossilized tropical vegetation, which has been found in the polar regions. Please also note that such a ‘water canopy’ could allow sunlight in at levels that would produce photosynthesis rates greatly in excess of the compensation point of plants.
Additional sources of radiation could have been released from deep within the Earth during the massive upheavals that were evidently caused by Noah’s Flood – thereby further shortening lifespans. Please note that all of the above is speculative and subject to active ongoing Creation Science research.

Quote Robin
DNA ran pure and clean back in the good old days, helping people like Noah to live for ages and ages, and others to breed successfully with family members (cf, adam and eve). With the passage of time and the malodorous attentions of the various devils, DNA became corrupted, so people's lives shortened and restrictions had to be put in place on people breeding with their siblings.

Not bad Robin, you ARE becoming a Creation Scientist after all!!.

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).

Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background radiation apparently greatly increased the mutation rates (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.

Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve.

J C

Quotable quotes from Christian sources on Creation.


The “Penny Catechism” of The Roman Catholic Church said:-
“God made the world from nothing and by His Word only – that is by a single act of His all-powerful will”


Martin Luther said :-
“When Moses writes that God created Heaven and Earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are.”


Similarly, John Calvin stated:-
“…albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years ……. God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”


God said In Ex 20:11 :-
“For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY” (NIV).


Jesus Christ said In Mt 19:4 :-
“Haven’t you read. He replied, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” and again in MK 10:6 when He said “But at the beginning of Creation God made them male and female.” (NIV).


Malcolm Muggeridge, Roman Catholic Philosopher and Broadcaster, said during the Pascal Lectures in the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada :-
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”




Quotable quotes from Scientists on Evolution.

Prof H S Lipton FRS, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, ‘A physicist looks at evolution’ Physics Bulletin, vol 21 1980 pp138.
“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 in with it.”


Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Quoted in Darwin’s Enigma by Luther D Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA 1984 pp 89.
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”


Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, USA on 5 November 1981.
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let us call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year one morning I woke up and something had happened in the night. It struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be mislead for so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
The question is – can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists and all I got was silence.”


Prof Richard Dawkins, Dept of Zoology, Oxford University, UK. ‘The necessity of Darwinism’. New Scientist, vol 94, 15 April 1982 pp 130.
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer.”


Prof Sir Fred Hoyle, Late Astronomer Royal, Late Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University, UK, & Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics, University of Cardiff, UK, in Evolution from Space, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1981 pp141 and 144.
“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate …..”

“It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the intelligences to our left, even to the extreme idealized limit of God.”


Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University, ‘Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?’ Paleobiology vol 6(1), January 1980 pp127.
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organ design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.


Prof Stephen Jay Gould, Late Professor of Geology and Palaeontology, Harvard University. ‘The return of hopeful monsters’ Natural History, vol LXXXVI (6) June-July 1977 pp24
“All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt.”


Prof George Gaylord Simpson Ph D. Late Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. ‘The History of life’ in The Evolution of Life, Sol Tax (editor) Vol 1 of Evolution After Darwin, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1960 pp149.
“It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution. “


Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington Vol 117 no 2 pp 213-219 2004.
“At a building site, builders will make use of many materials: lumber, wires, nails, drywall, piping and windows. Yet building materials do not determine the floor plan of the house, or the arrangement of houses in a neighbourhood.

Biological systems also depend on hierarchical arrangements of parts. Genes and proteins are made from simple building blocks – nucleotide bases and amino acids – arranged in specific ways. Cell types are made up of among other things, systems of specialised proteins. Organs are made of specialised arrangements of cell types and tissues and body plans comprise specific arrangements of specialized organs. Yet clearly, the properties of individual proteins do not fully determine the organisation of the higher-level structures and organizational patterns. It follows that the genetic information that codes for proteins does not determine these higher-level structures either.”



Just like my own 21 scientific questions on evolution – there are hundreds more quotes where they came from.

OfflerCrocGod

J C wrote:

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).

Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when background radiation apparently greatly increased the mutation rates (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.

Don't forget the martians; they are in it with the gays - they are all after our precious bodily fluids. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core atheist works. I can no longer sit back and allow atheist infiltration, atheist indoctrination, atheist subversion and the international atheist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Fight the power J C!!!