The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

But that presupposes it immoral of God to create a universe in which He knows man will sin. You accept that He did not make man sin, but blame Him for allowing it to happen by virtue of creating the circumstances.

I don't accept that god didn't make man sin. Being truely omnipotent and ominscient means that every thing that happens, happens because god wants it to happen. God didn't create the circumstances without knowing all possible outcomes and knowing the actual outcome that would happen.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What if God had a higher cause to serve, one that justified Him creating a universe in which man would freely choose to sin?

A higher cause than god? Even if there is a higher cause, god is omnipotent and omniscient, surely he has a better way to do it than creating sin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That in fact is God's case - He is perfectly and infinitely holy, and all His decisions are likewise righteous. He chose to create a universe in which sin would enter, but in response to which He would redeem many sinners for Himself, by Himself paying for their sins.

Is he holy because all his decisions are righteous, or vice versa?

wolfsbane wrote: »

If one accepts the concept of the God of the Bible, one must accept His decisions as always perfectly righteous.

If one actually beliefs he is omnipotent and omniscient than one must believe he caused man to sin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Another analogy: the judge sentences the rapist to ten years in prison and the rapist's son feels the shame and deprivation imprisonment brings on a family. He is embittered and when of age he gets involved in robbery and violence.

Is the judge at fault? Should he have let the rapist go free? Or was the judge right, even if as a consequence the son yielded to the tempation to blame society for his problems?

The judge had a higher motive that over-rode the consequent sinful choices of the son.

Analogies dont work well for this situation. The judge in your analogy doesn't have omnipotence and omniscient. He didn't cause the existence of the rapist, his son, their souls, the court room, all existence etc. so it just wont apply.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But that presupposes it immoral of God to create a universe in which He knows man will sin.

Well you have already defined "morality" as God's opinion as what is moral, so there is little point in me trying to argue that anything God does is immoral because you have defined that as an oxymoron.

God could drown a bag of kittens while closing an orphanage and burning down a hospital and you would say that was moral because God did it and "moral" is what God does.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You accept that He did not make man sin, but blame Him for allowing it to happen by virtue of creating the circumstances.

The point wasn't to blame him, simply to demonstrate that the only logical conclusion is that he caused it to happen, that he is the ultimate cause for it happening and that it could not have happened without him choosing for it to happen, not simply him allowing it to happen but him actually choosing that it would happen.

Why he would do that is a question for your religion. I don't believe any of this actually took place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What if God had a higher cause to serve, one that justified Him creating a universe in which man would freely choose to sin?

Well yes if that helps you sleep at night, fire away. You guys never seem to have any trouble finding blind faith to explain away troubling aspects of your religious doctrine.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That in fact is God's case - He is perfectly and infinitely holy, and all His decisions are likewise righteous.

See that becomes some what or a meaningless statement. Have you judged God to be perfectly holy (if so how?), or are you simply saying he is by definition (in which case it doesn't mean anything)

wolfsbane wrote: »

He chose to create a universe in which sin would enter, but in response to which He would redeem many sinners for Himself, by Himself paying for their sins.

That all seems a bit silly. Wouldn't it be easier simply to choose not to create a universe in which sin would enter?

I appreciate that you have to have faith that there must have been a reason why he had to create a universe where sin would enter, even if you haven't the foggiest idea what that reason is, but that is an assumption of your faith.

You can't explain to me what the reason is so it is some what disingenuous to expect others to simply assume this reason must exists.

What if he didn't have a good reason? What is he just is a bad god? You claim he is perfect and holy but how have you determined this?

wolfsbane wrote: »

If one accepts the concept of the God of the Bible, one must accept His decisions as always perfectly righteous.

One "must" do they? You make it sound like a mortgage application.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Another analogy: the judge sentences the rapist to ten years in prison and the rapist's son feels the shame and deprivation imprisonment brings on a family. He is embittered and when of age he gets involved in robbery and violence.

Is the judge at fault?

Yes, in that he caused that to happen. And the judge would probably be torn up if he know at the time that this would be the one and only possible consequence of him sentencing his dad. I know I would be if I knew beyond all doubt that an action I felt compelled to carry out would result in the death of someone.

But then it could, and probably would, be argued that the judge has a responsibility to sentence the rapist even if that means the son kills himself.

If you want to try and argue that the same applies to God, he had to create this universe despite knowing that it would result in the Fall of man you can go ahead but that seems a pretty silly argument and it supposes that God was confined to some particular course of action by events out of his control before the creation of the universe.

Remember the judge isn't God. It is again some what disingenuous to use an example where someone is forced down a particular path because of duty and lack of other options.

The judge couldn't create a different universe where the man wasn't a rapist. That wasn't in his power so he had to act within his abilities. God has no such restriction, or should have no such restrictions if we are to believe your religion's claim that he is all powerful.

You guys get annoyed when it is pointed out that Biblical view of God is very much like a powerful king, but you seem unable to help use analogies where you assign the same restrictions humans have to God himself.

But some what independently of the issue of blame can we at least agree that God caused the Fall to happen for what ever reason, that it happened because he choose for it to happen?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

1. Fully define what "genetic information" means.

2. Define how it can be reduced and (hypothetically if you like) increased and how we would test either case.

1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.

....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

"Evolutionists" (I assume you mean neo-darwinians as opposed to other theories of evolution) don't come in two groups. There is one theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. Creationists see two groups, those that agree with them and those that don't.



No he doesn't. That is simply changing what "intrinsic" means, like saying if God exists then he can create good bad things, or hot cold things.


The "truth" of his opinion is whether or not he holds it or not, whether or not it is or isn't his opinion. Does God hold the opinion X, yes or no. That is statement that is truth or false. .

But it no more becomes an independent property of the universe than my opinion or your opinion does. God's opinion that something is good exists only as his opinion. If you imagine a universe where the thing exists but God doesn't then his opinion is not a property of the thing, like its colour or its weight would be.

Again you are arguing the authority of something (God is correct in his opinions) not that something actually retains his opinion as a property of itself.

And the belief that God is correct in his opinions is a judgement call on your part in the same way that believing the UN charter is correct is a judgement call.

Christians of the opinion that God's opinion is correct are no different than anyone else determining moral and ethical issues. The idea that having God some how makes your beliefs objective over the subjective beliefs of others is simply an illusion


No it isn't. By definition if God exists and has an opinion on something that opinion isn't objective because he could hold a different opinion. He chooses his opinion which means it isn't objective.

For example my keyboard is black. It is always black due to the chemical make up of the materials and the way light works. It is black to me, it is black to you. It is black to everyone. If someone sees something other than black that is because a different process is taking place to make them see that but that can relate to the process for you and me.

My keyboard is black is not an opinion. It is a property of the keyboard, it is not a judgement of the keyboard.

To God my keyboard is black. For it to be something else could would have to change it to something else. Or he would have to change the definition of "black" to something else. To achieve any of this he has to change something about the universe because "black" is an intrinsic property of the keyboards.

Now "my keyboard looks bad" isn't. It is not an intrinsic property of the keyboard. It is a judgement of the keyboard, it is an opinion of the keyboard. It is not a fact of the keyboard.

If God says it looks bad that no more becomes a universal property of the keyboard (like "black" is) than if I say the keyboard looks bad. It is simply God's opinion of the keyboard.

You can believe if you like that God's opinion is the highest authority and therefore it looks bad is the correct opinion to hold of my keyboard, and all other opinions are incorrect, but again this does not make "it looks bad" a property of the keyboard. If God could have taken the other opinion, that it does in fact look really nice and he would not have had to have changed anything about the keyboard itself.

So again, you are arguing authority not objectiveness.

You still miss the point. God is the creator of all reality. That puts Him in a different position than anything He has created. Your concept of subjectivity deals only with the created, not the Creator. But you try to force Him into being part of our universe - that's where you err.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But that presupposes it immoral of God to create a universe in which He knows man will sin. You accept that He did not make man sin, but blame Him for allowing it to happen by virtue of creating the circumstances.
I don't accept that god didn't make man sin.

OK, let's hear your reasons:

Being truely omnipotent and ominscient means that every thing that happens, happens because god wants it to happen. God didn't create the circumstances without knowing all possible outcomes and knowing the actual outcome that would happen.

I agree with that, with the caveat that 'wants' be understood as deciding to permit this instead of preventing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What if God had a higher cause to serve, one that justified Him creating a universe in which man would freely choose to sin?
A higher cause than god?

No, a higher cause than preventing evil entering the creation.

Even if there is a higher cause, god is omnipotent and omniscient, surely he has a better way to do it than creating sin.

He did not create sin, He permitted it. And since He did so, I am happy that that was the best way to make creation. Perhaps there were others, involving no free-will, for example. But not as good as the one God chose.

Is he holy because all his decisions are righteous, or vice versa?

Vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If one accepts the concept of the God of the Bible, one must accept His decisions as always perfectly righteous.
If one actually beliefs he is omnipotent and omniscient than one must believe he caused man to sin.

No, as shown above, only that He permitted sin, not caused it.

Analogies dont work well for this situation. The judge in your analogy doesn't have omnipotence and omniscient. He didn't cause the existence of the rapist, his son, their souls, the court room, all existence etc. so it just wont apply.

Yes, human analogies are limited. But it at least shows how higher/righteous causes can be associated with evil consequences.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you have already defined "morality" as God's opinion as what is moral, so there is little point in me trying to argue that anything God does is immoral because you have defined that as an oxymoron.

God could drown a bag of kittens while closing an orphanage and burning down a hospital and you would say that was moral because God did it and "moral" is what God does.


The point wasn't to blame him, simply to demonstrate that the only logical conclusion is that he caused it to happen, that he is the ultimate cause for it happening and that it could not have happened without him choosing for it to happen, not simply him allowing it to happen but him actually choosing that it would happen.

Why he would do that is a question for your religion. I don't believe any of this actually took place.



Well yes if that helps you sleep at night, fire away. You guys never seem to have any trouble finding blind faith to explain away troubling aspects of your religious doctrine.



See that becomes some what or a meaningless statement. Have you judged God to be perfectly holy (if so how?), or are you simply saying he is by definition (in which case it doesn't mean anything)



That all seems a bit silly. Wouldn't it be easier simply to choose not to create a universe in which sin would enter?

I appreciate that you have to have faith that there must have been a reason why he had to create a universe where sin would enter, even if you haven't the foggiest idea what that reason is, but that is an assumption of your faith.

You can't explain to me what the reason is so it is some what disingenuous to expect others to simply assume this reason must exists.

What if he didn't have a good reason? What is he just is a bad god? You claim he is perfect and holy but how have you determined this?



One "must" do they? You make it sound like a mortgage application.


Yes, in that he caused that to happen. And the judge would probably be torn up if he know at the time that this would be the one and only possible consequence of him sentencing his dad. I know I would be if I knew beyond all doubt that an action I felt compelled to carry out would result in the death of someone.

But then it could, and probably would, be argued that the judge has a responsibility to sentence the rapist even if that means the son kills himself.

If you want to try and argue that the same applies to God, he had to create this universe despite knowing that it would result in the Fall of man you can go ahead but that seems a pretty silly argument and it supposes that God was confined to some particular course of action by events out of his control before the creation of the universe.

Remember the judge isn't God. It is again some what disingenuous to use an example where someone is forced down a particular path because of duty and lack of other options.

The judge couldn't create a different universe where the man wasn't a rapist. That wasn't in his power so he had to act within his abilities. God has no such restriction, or should have no such restrictions if we are to believe your religion's claim that he is all powerful.

You guys get annoyed when it is pointed out that Biblical view of God is very much like a powerful king, but you seem unable to help use analogies where you assign the same restrictions humans have to God himself.

But some what independently of the issue of blame can we at least agree that God caused the Fall to happen for what ever reason, that it happened because he choose for it to happen?

See my last post for much of this. But let me point out once again that there is a difference between positively wanting something (sin in this case) and choosing to let it happen. Both would involve a choice, but they are two different choices.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You still miss the point. God is the creator of all reality. That puts Him in a different position than anything He has created.

That is (again) irrelevant. Creating something does not infuse in that thing an opinion of it. The thing God creates is the same no matter what his opinion of it would be. It is defined by its properties, not what God thinks about it these properties.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

there is a difference between positively wanting something (sin in this case) and choosing to let it happen. Both would involve a choice, but they are two different choices.

I agree but then the idea that God would choose something he didn't want to happen is an oxymoron. You (again) instil God with the limitations of a human, rather than treating him as your religion says he is, a limitless being.

You are flipping between two incompatible positions, 1) that God didn't want this to happen but had to allow it to happen for some unexplained reason and 2) he did want it to happen for some unknown and unexplained reason.

You can believe there is some unexplained reason God wanted all this to happen, but there is no escaping the conclusion that he wanted it to happen and choose for it to happen.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

"Evolutionists" (I assume you mean neo-darwinians as opposed to other theories of evolution) don't come in two groups. There is one theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. Creationists see two groups, those that agree with them and those that don't.

Sorry, I missed this. No, by evolutionists I meant all who hold that the present biosphere came to be by the development from an original self-replicating molecule, through more complex cells, proto-fish, birds and mammals. Evolutionists differ among themselves as to the causes and certain details, but they all hold to the concept of goo-to-you evolution.

Creationists have their differences too. Generally the term refers to all who hold to the concept that the biosphere was created fully mature and functioning. We differ about the age of the earth/universe, for example. I and the sites I recommend are Young Earth Creationist.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree but then the idea that God would choose something he didn't want to happen is an oxymoron. You (again) instil God with the limitations of a human, rather than treating him as your religion says he is, a limitless being.

You are flipping between two incompatible positions, 1) that God didn't want this to happen but had to allow it to happen for some unexplained reason and 2) he did want it to happen for some unknown and unexplained reason.

You can believe there is some unexplained reason God wanted all this to happen, but there is no escaping the conclusion that he wanted it to happen and choose for it to happen.

I go with 1). But that does not make God any the less omnipotent. He is limited by His nature - He cannot sin, for example. Nor can He create an oxymoron - one hand clapping sort of things. Perhaps a free-will creation without the possibility of sin is just such an oxymoron, No?

Perhaps a free-will creation was the highest good? You know to the different?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is (again) irrelevant. Creating something does not infuse in that thing an opinion of it. The thing God creates is the same no matter what his opinion of it would be. It is defined by its properties, not what God thinks about it these properties.

The point was that God does not have opinons. He has the truth. He created all. You and I have opinions, which may or may not coincide with the truth.

wolfsbane

For those interested in engineering and archeology, this might be interesting:

Moving Big Rockshttp://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/moving_big_rocks

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The point was that God does not have opinons. He has the truth. He created all. You and I have opinions, which may or may not coincide with the truth.

You are getting side tracked by some what meaningless usage of the word "truth"

The truth of God's opinion is that it is his opinion. God believes X is either true or false depending on whether or not that is or is not God's opinion.

Saying God's opinion is "truth" is one of these meaningless religious phrases, like saying "God is love". It sounds nice but it doesn't actually mean anything when you examine it. God's opinion is his opinion. It's truth rests in if it is or is not his opinion. You can believe it has ultimate authority and try and argue that that is some kind of truth, but that is not the same thing as something being intrinsic.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I go with 1). But that does not make God any the less omnipotent. He is limited by His nature - He cannot sin, for example. Nor can He create an oxymoron - one hand clapping sort of things.

You should remember that when reading the above post. God can no more make his opinion an intrinsic part of reality than he can create an oxymoron.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps a free-will creation without the possibility of sin is just such an oxymoron, No?

No, I see no reason to believe that is true and I can easily imagine a universe where that would not be the case.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps a free-will creation was the highest good? You know to the different?

I fail to see how condemning the vast majority of human life to eternal suffering and torture was "the highest good" when even a lowly mortal such as myself and imagine a universe where such a thing would not be necessary.

Perhaps the early Biblical writers came up with an explanation for why men do bad things without really think about it too hard ....

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry, I missed this. No, by evolutionists I meant all who hold that the present biosphere came to be by the development from an original self-replicating molecule, through more complex cells, proto-fish, birds and mammals. Evolutionists differ among themselves as to the causes and certain details, but they all hold to the concept of goo-to-you evolution.

Again there is one theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. There is no theistic theory of neo-Darwinian evolution nor is there an atheistic theory of neo-Darwinian evolution.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

God does not have opinons.

Doesn't seem to like male homosexuals all that much.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Doesn't seem to like male homosexuals all that much.

True - but that is not an opinion, it is a reality. Opinions are for creatures, not their Creator, at least the sense that the Source of Reality cannot be put on a level with mere men.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Again there is one theory of neo-Darwinian evolution. There is no theistic theory of neo-Darwinian evolution nor is there an atheistic theory of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Which is why I was talking about evolution in the broader sense - that includes Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, Theistic and any other sort you may wish to name.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Perhaps a free-will creation without the possibility of sin is just such an oxymoron, No?
No, I see no reason to believe that is true and I can easily imagine a universe where that would not be the case.

OK, you've hooked me - let's hear it.

wolfsbane

From another thread:

ned78 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The details about the Ark can be examined in several creationist sites

Creationists? The same creationists who come up with this nonsense?

A very strange picture indeed - you do know it is an anti-creationist spoof, or are you really that gullible?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You also assume longevity has always been subject to the same enviromental and genetic factors as today.
I'm really not sure where to begin on this one, so I'll ask a question. Seeing as you've linked to a Creationists site ... do you really think that biochemistry was so different years ago, that someone could actually live to be over 600?

Sure - Man started out as perfect in body and mind, so it is no stretch to think he lived much longer nearer the the time of the Fall. Add to that enviromental change that may well have exposed us to genetic changes at the Noahcian bottleneck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Let me suggest that the people of old were no different from us in their gullibility. Those who believe energy can self-organise over billions of years into incredibly complex living organisms seem to me to be more gullible than the most ignorant idolator.
Of course we can believe that protozoa can evolve into sentient lifeforms. We've got fossil records showing the evolutionary links between species,

You've got fossils that you draw dots between.

and even last week on the Examiner newspaper, the Vatican Astronomer was quoted as saying that Creationism is hurting the CC,

That's good news.

and that Evolution is how the world developed over millenia (Albiet, with God's direction and influence). Are you saying the Vatican is also wrong?

Absolutely. It wouldn't be the first time for them.

Owen

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure - Man started out as perfect in body and mind, so it is no stretch to think he lived much longer nearer the the time of the Fall.

Honestly? This is where I'm out. If you're that sure that people lived to be 600, then there's is no possibility, chance, or hope of having an intelligent discussion with you.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.

....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.

Is there any mention of nylonase in Genesis?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

From another thread:

ned78 said:
A very strange picture indeed - you do know it is an anti-creationist spoof, or are you really that gullible?

tbh, it's hard to tell the difference.

You've got fossils that you draw dots between.

And - to extend your analogy - figured out where the other dots should go, if the theory is true. And found that they go there.

Edit: More like, drew the line and found that all the dots were in the right place.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

He did not create sin, He permitted it.

You dont seem to be getting this: God Created Sin. Before god started creating anything, there was only him, so there was nothing to go against his will, therefore no sin (according to your definition of sin). When he created humanity, he created their nature too, knowing full what their nature would lead them to do. To simplify it, just realise that in order for sin to exist, something needs to exist to sin and god created everything, knowing which of these things would sin and in what way they would do so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Vice versa.

So anything god does is righteous? Regardless of what he does? Does that not make righteousness subjective to what god does? So righteousness is just what god does, it has no other meaning?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, human analogies are limited. But it at least shows how higher/righteous causes can be associated with evil consequences.

But conveniently forgets that these higher causes have completely brought into existence everything that has caused these evil consequences to occur. I think in this particular part of the argument, analogies just miss the point.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps a free-will creation without the possibility of sin is just such an oxymoron, No?

But what about a free will creation without the possibility of flight? or time travel? or omnipotence and omniscience? Why is the possibility of sin needed to avoid the oxymoron and yet many various ways to sin are disallowed. Who knows how many people would sin if they had the ability to do so in powerful ways?

AtomicHorror

Dear J C,

I'm very sad to see that after all my hard work you're still not willing to address my rebutals of your silly answers or take the time to refute my answers to your own questions. Now we're on to a new set of questions and those haven't been resolved. Should I take it that you concede on both points?

J C wrote: »

1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.

A full definition would require that you define what you mean by "information". That word has several related but distinct meanings. I'm also not sure what you mean by "functional specific biological components", is that "functional-specific" or "functional, specific"? I know you'll see this as pedantic, but science requires exact and unambiguous meaning.

J C wrote: »

2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein,

Again with the spontaneous, single-step majick. This doesn't happen in evolution and the only people suggesting otherwise are creationists.

A new gene doesn't just pop into existence. New bases and chunks of DNA are frequently added to the genome, but these are typically non-coding. A new gene can emerge either by one of these stretches of non-coding DNA becoming coding or by the duplication of an existing gene to a new locus followed by its modification.

J C wrote: »

or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.

There are countless examples of this.

CCR5d32, a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy. This confers AIDS resistance in homozygotes and delayed onset in heterozygotes. As the function of CCRs are multiply redundant, the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes. This means there is a net gain in function.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You've got fossils that you draw dots between.

Wolfie, do you really think that it's as arbitrary as that? It's not even close. The tree-structures built from the fossil record and the genetic record aren't even a mere "best-fit" approximation. You see, we didn't build the tree of life at all- it's clearly there whether we draw those lines or not. We're not doing this on the basis of "looks a bit like", but on the basis of unique character combinations. At some point I hope to do a blog entry with nice pictures to illustrate that concept, but for the moment consider the question of why most land animals fit into two groups with unique characteritics.

Why do all the land animals with camera-style eyes also have a backbone? Why do all of the land animals with compound eyes lack a backbone but possess an exoskeleton made of chitin? These two groups do share characteristics, but why are there so many characteristics that are not merely unique to those groups, but only ever found in conjunction with other specific traits? Take the two questions above and reverse the relationships and they no longer hold true. There are eyeless species with a spine, there are compound-eyeless species with an exoskeleton. So one trait depends on another in all observed cases. But it seems we can't combine those characteristics any way we like. We can't find any examples of organisms with compound eyes and spinal columns made of bone. We never see vertebrates with exoskeletons nor insects with eyes like ours.

So the combinations of characteristics we see are not uniformly distributed. They're tied to each other in various relationships. They form a tree structure all by themselves without our interference. That's just not refutable, it's plain to see. The nested nature of the tree is also not refutable, so it can't be argued that all of the known species radiate directly from a single node. They all seem to have branched from it at multiple layers. Again, this is irrefutable, though rarely addressed by creationists.

So the tree exists. We're not just drawing lines between fossils. The nature of the tree is what creationists argue against, not its existence nor its structure. It is left to biologists and creationists to explain the existence of this tree of life.

Glenman

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis? Could the story about Noah's Arch be true? Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

Gurgle

Glenman wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis?

For a start, this is not claimed in the book of Genesis. Its been calculated from the Blah beget Bleh.... trail using average generation gaps.

Could the story about Noah's Arch be true?

Nope, its a fairytale to describe the Wrath and Vengence of God Mk I.

Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

Nope.
Are you 9?

Zombrex

Glenman wrote: »

Is there any evidence to back-up the theory that the World is only about ten thousand years old which is claimed in the Book of Genisis?

Yes, the Bible.

Glenman wrote: »

Could the story about Noah's Arch be true?

When you have a supernatural omnipotent deity anything can be true

Glenman wrote: »

Are the Dinosaurs extinct because they could not fit in the arch?

Dinosaurs aren't extinct, they evolved into birds.