The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR CHILD RIGHT!


One Nation, "Under GOD"





One day, a six-year-old girl was sitting in a classroom.


The teacher was explaining evolution to the children.


The teacher asked a little boy:



TEACHER:


Tommy, do you see the tree outside?



TOMMY:


Yes



TEACHER:


Tommy, do you see the grass outside?



TOMMY:


Yes.



TEACHER:


Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.



TOMMY:


Okay.


(He returned a few minutes later)


Yes, I saw the sky.



TEACHER:


Did you see GOD?



TOMMY:


No.



TEACHER:


That's my point.


We can't see GOD because HE isn't there.


HE just doesn't exist.



A little girl spoke up wanting to ask the boy some questions.


The teacher agreed.



LITTLE GIRL:


Tommy, do you see the tree outside?



TOMMY:


Yes.



LITTLE GIRL:


Tommy do you see the grass outside?



TOMMY:


Yessssss!



LITTLE GIRL:


Did you see the sky?



TOMMY:


Yessssss!



LITTLE GIRL:


Tommy, do you see the Teacher ?



TOMMY:Yes



LITTLE GIRL:


Do you see her brain?



TOMMY:


No.



LITTLE GIRL:


Then according to what we were taught today,


she doesn't have one.



II CORINTHIANS 5:7 "

FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT "

padraigmyers

BrianCalgary wrote:

SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR CHILD RIGHT!


One Nation, "Under GOD"





One day, a six-year-old girl was sitting in a classroom.


The teacher was explaining evolution to the children.


The teacher asked a little boy:



TEACHER:


Tommy, do you see the tree outside?



TOMMY:


Yes



TEACHER:


Tommy, do you see the grass outside?



TOMMY:


Yes.



TEACHER:


Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.



TOMMY:


Okay.


(He returned a few minutes later)


Yes, I saw the sky.



TEACHER:


Did you see GOD?



TOMMY:


No.



TEACHER:


That's my point.


We can't see GOD because HE isn't there.


HE just doesn't exist.



A little girl spoke up wanting to ask the boy some questions.


The teacher agreed.



LITTLE GIRL:


Tommy, do you see the tree outside?



TOMMY:


Yes.



LITTLE GIRL:


Tommy do you see the grass outside?



TOMMY:


Yessssss!



LITTLE GIRL:


Did you see the sky?



TOMMY:


Yessssss!



LITTLE GIRL:


Tommy, do you see the Teacher ?



TOMMY:Yes



LITTLE GIRL:


Do you see her brain?



TOMMY:


No.



LITTLE GIRL:


Then according to what we were taught today,


she doesn't have one.



II CORINTHIANS 5:7 "

FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT "

Substitute Santa Clause for God and that makes just as much sense.

Defuse bombs by faith, not by sight!


Your story is a little contrived anyway

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

One day, a six-year-old girl was sitting in a classroom.

The teacher was explaining evolution to the children.

*Groan*

I got another one ..

One day a six-year-old girl was sitting in a classroom

The teacher was explaining the resurrection of Christ to the children.

A little girl put her hand up and explained how her father sexually molestes her every morning before she goes to school. Everyone says thats terrible


The moral of the story is that the resurrection of Jesus is actually about fathers wanting to moleste their daughters before school .. er ... wait, sorry .. what?

:rolleyes:

BrianCalgary, that is such a ridiculous story I'm not sure where to start. You simply drop in "the teacher is explaining evolution" and then jump to the teacher trying to explain to their class room that God doesn't exist. Is that supposed to link back up to the evolution you very briefly mention at the top?

The simple fact of the matter is there is nothing in the theory of evolution that even mentions God, let alone comments on the likelyhood of his existance.

It is only religious people who say that if evolution is true then God doesn't exist. Evolution is standing in the corner going "stop putting words in my mouth"

BrianCalgary

Lighten up. It was a joke.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Lighten up. It was a joke.:rolleyes:

So is low fat butter, but I don't see my hips laughing!

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

So is low fat butter, but I don't see my hips laughing!

o.O

J C

Wicknight
As has already been explained to you JC, M-Eve and Y-Adam were not the first man and woman. They are simply the most recent common ancestors that everyone one earth shares.

I see.

Evolutionists believe that our common ancestors were a female ‘thing’ that lived 150k years ago and a male ‘thing’ that lived 50k years ago.

This makes no sense – but then again everything else about Macro-Evolution makes no sense either.

On the other hand, Creation Science has discovered that the mutation rate of the Mitochondrial DNA present in our cells indicates that we are all descended from one woman who had zero Mitochondrial mutations less than 10,000 years ago. i.e. she was perfect and she therefore didn’t have any ancestors herself.

Creation Science has also discovered that the mutation rate of the Y-Chromosome DNA present in all male cells indicates that all men are descended from one man who had zero Y-Chromosome mutations less than 10,000 years ago. i.e. his Y-Chromosome was genetically perfect he therefore didn’t have any ancestors himself.

Sounds like Adam and Eve to me - but then this conclusion is only based upon scientific obsrvations!!


Wicknight
I'm not saying we know for certain which model actually happened. There are a large number of competing theories, and it is kinda hard to know for certain without time travel.

So you ARE saying that Evolution is based on SPECULATION, that is not amenable to scientific OBSERVATION – and therefore it IS a faith based position – or more accurately a multiplicity of faith-based MODELS.


Original quote by JC
Perhaps Wicknight could provide us with an Evolutionary STORY about where all of the sediment originally came from.
I’ll tell you my STORY – if you tell me yours first!!
Quote Scofflaw
Well, see, when you have hundreds of millions of years to work with, the observed sedimentation rates do rather build up, small though they are generally observed to be. That's catastrophic events aside, obviously.

That’s a rather good STORY Scofflaw – well done!!
But you haven’t explained WHERE all of the sediment came from originally.


I’ll take you out of suspense – and tell you my STORY about where all of the sediment came from.

Some of it came from volcanic ash, the break-up of existing rock and the washing away of existing sand and silt.
However, most of the sediment probably came from the release and flocculation of massive subterranean waters with sediment and Calcium Carbonate in suspension from enormous caverns under the surface of the earth (the fountains of the great deep).


Scofflaw
Do a Google image search for "quartzite thin section" - see the way the grains have grown into each other. That's not a cementing agent, it's heat and pressure. That's why the Sugarloaf stands up like that.

The reason that The Sugar Loaf Mountain "stands up like that" is because it is made from GRANITE – which is an IGNEOUS Rock.
Heat and pressure WERE indeed involved in Granite production, because it was derived from MAGMA!!!

However, Sedimentary Rocks are formed by sedimentation and cementation processes – with no requirement for pressure!! The relative strength/hardness of different sedimentary rocks primarily depends upon the quality and quantity of their cementing agents,

However, when great overburden pressures are applied and/or vulcanisation occurs nearby METAMORPHOSIS can occur leading to the formation of quartzite.


Scofflaw
Please look up "unconformity". There's one or more on virtually every geological map, and an unconformity is a widespread erosion surface. Again, JC, it's amazing you can even pretend to yourself that you know what you're talking about.

Please DO look up “UNCONFORMITY”.

Unconformities are caused by changes in the angle of the bedding plain due to upthrusts/downthrusts and/or by temporary localised breaks during sediment deposition.

They are NOT evidence of millions of years being ‘lost’ at the unconformity, as Evolutionists like to claim – and which the following evidence disproves:-

1. Polystrate fossils are often found going right through the unconformity.
2. A lack of erosion features such as channels in the rock layers at the unconformity.
3. Delicate surface features such as ripple marks and footprints are found preserved on the surface of the rock underlying the unconformity indicating that erosion DIDN’T take place.
4. A lack of fossilised soil layers or root and plant imprints at the unconformity indicating no substantial time break.
5. Classic dykes and pipes – where sand/water mixtures have squeezed up through the unconformity from the underlying layers – indicate that the underlying layers hadn’t hardened before the unconformity deposition re-commenced.
6. The existence of ‘living fossils’ challenge the great age differentials attributed to different rock layers.
For example fossil starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams and snails – that are dated at over 500 million years old by Evolutionists look like those living today. Equally, some of these fossils are missing from intervening strata that supposedly represented many millions of years of evolutionary time, again indicating that these strata do not represent time but the order of Flood deposition.


As I have previously said, any gradual stop/start process over millions of years should have layers of organic material interspersed between almost every sedimentary layer – and this is patently not the case.


Wicknight
Yes there is. Its called natural selection. You start off with one simple self replicating molecule. You add an energy source (the sun) and you let it replicate away for a billion years. Eventually over those billion years mistakes in the replication process with produce different molecules.

So we’re all one HUGE MISTAKE then.

You are making the following GREAT leaps of FAITH:-

1. That the Earth IS billions of years old.
2. That an undefined and unidentified self replicating molecule spontaneously arose.
3. That the energy from the sun could have any positive effect on such a putative molecule.
4. That undirected mistakes propelled the development of the complex ordered living systems that we observe today.

I think that Materialists are actually people of VERY GREAT FAITH indeed!!

God doesn’t believe in Materialists – and I can see why!!!


Wicknight
Because 40 trillion trillion litres would not just fall from the sky in one single go JC, even by Biblical descriptions. There would not be world wide instant death.

MOST of the water did NOT “fall from the sky” – it welled up from underground.

The Flood processes also did NOT happen in “one single go” – the Flood itself lasted 40 Days and the follow-on processes lasted many more YEARS!!!


Wicknight
Lithification in solid rock does require over burden pressure JC. Unless you are claiming that the sediment layers dried while under water

Concrete doesn’t have to DRY to set.
In fact, it WILL set underwater without ANY overburden pressure – ditto for Sedimentary Rocks!!


Wicknight
Creationists have never explained where all the water from the Flood retreated to after the flood

I will rectify that situation immediately!!!

** Hint :-

* If you live near the sea, take a look out your front window.

* If you do not live near the sea take a day-trip to your nearest beach and look out over the WAVES!!


Wicknight
Not the average dinosaur species JC, the average dinosaur.

So the question we should presumably all get ‘hung up about' is:-

Was a modal dinosaur the size of a mean sheep or was a modal sheep the size of a mean Dinosaur? - or maybe it was the relative size of a median sheep and a median Dinosaur that was the same!!

I believe that this question will help to induce sleep if you think about it repeatedly - and long enough!!!


Wibbs
Lovely, but what about the metamorphic rocks that are found in sedimentary deposits? What about conglomerates? You can find sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks of all types, all together in the same rock. How do you explain that with a single flood?

The Flood aftermath processes lasted many years.
All kinds of interesting and unusual geological structures were formed during this period – including Conglomerates.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I see.
Evolutionists believe that our common ancestors were a female ‘thing’ that lived 150k years ago and a male ‘thing’ that lived 50k years ago.

This makes no sense – but then again everything else about Evolution makes no sense either.

Our "common" ancestors were humans JC, humans. Not "things".

I think the problem here is you aren't getting the idea of common ancestor. It isn't the first human, or even the first female. It is simple a female, in the distant past, that all females alive today contain genetic code from.

There would have been thousands of other women (hundreds of thousands) alive at the time as Mitochondrial Eve, but their genetic information either died out, or did not spread to enough of the human population

J C wrote:

So you ARE saying that Evolution is based on SPECULATION, that is not amenable to scientific OBSERVATION – and therefore it IS a faith based position – or more accurately a multiplicity of faith-based MODELS.

No, I'm saying the nature of the first self replicating molecules 4 billion years ago is based on speculation. Very little evidence exists of what they were like, we only really know what the environment was like. But it is amenable to scientific observation because we have observed self replicating molecules in natural environments like those found on earth 4 billion years ago.

Evolution, or "macro"-evolution as you Creationists like to call it, is a well established scientific theory, as well established as macro-erosion which you so often quote as being the process involved in the Biblical Flood.

I assume you have never actually observed a world-wide Biblical flood before, so I also assume your assumptions on what actually happens are based purely on faith ... no? Ok so, then have Creationist Scientists simulated a world wide Biblical Flood in a lab? Or on a computer? Or simply using maths? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

So we’re all one HUGE MISTAKE then.

If that makes it easier for you to understand the process of natural selection then yes, humans (and all live) could be catogorised as one HUGE mistake in the process of a simple self-replicating molecules replication process 4 billion years ago.

If no mistakes ever happened in the replication process the Earth would only contain the remains a huge number of tiny identical self replicating molecules.

J C wrote:

1. That the Earth IS billions of years old.

4.6 billion to be exact.

J C wrote:

2. That an undefined and unidentified self replicating molecule spontaneously arose.

True, that is speculation. But we have shown it is possible to occur in nature, and we are here aren't we, which would lead one to conclude it did happen in nature.

Makes a little more sense than saying a supernatural god magically placed us all here out of thin air, doesn't it?

J C wrote:

3. That the energy from the sun could have any positive effect on such a putative molecule.

Not sure what you mean by "positive" there JC. You are applying purpose to simple laws of nature and natural processes.

Molecules combine when given energy from an external source, based on the laws of chemistry and physics. You only have to look at the rust on your car to see that. Is the rust on your car a positive or negative effect? I guess it depends on if you like you car, but the iron molecules bonding with the oxygen aren't aware of your perception of their effects, or even what their effects are.

If you want to claim the development of the first self replicating molecules on Earth process is "positive" be my guest. But you are bringing metaphysics into science. It is what it is. The chemical reactions taking place in the seas of Earth 4 billion years ago lead to life on Earth. You can view that as positive because it made you exist. But the same laws of chemistry lead to expansion of the Sun that will eventually destory this solar system and every planet in it. That would, certainly for the people living on Earth, be quite negative.

J C wrote:

4. That undirected mistakes propelled the development of the complex ordered living systems that we observe today.

Again, not sure what you mean by "undirected". You are again bring in purpose where it is not needed.

A mistake in the replication process of a simple self-replicating molecule will produce a new molecule. If this molecules is better at surviving and multiplying than its parent molecule it thrives better than the parent. Molecules that share the design of the parent are eventually replaced by molecules that share the design of the child, as these new molecules do better in the environment.

On the other hand if the child molecule is not better suited to the environment, it is unable to replicated itself, and that design of molecule disappears very quickly.

This process is not "directed" by any intelligence, nor is any intelligence necessary. The mistakes in the new molecule design occur due to natural mistakes in the replication process (nothing in nature is perfect). The ability of that molecule to survive is determined on the environment it finds itself in.

J C wrote:

MOST of the water did NOT “fall from the sky” – it welled up from underground.

Ok, 40 trillion trillion liters of water cannot, under any geological process known, simply sit underground until God needs it. For a start where underground?

J C wrote:

The Flooding process did NOT happen in “one single go” – it lasted 40 Days and the follow-on processes lasted many more YEARS!!!

In geological terms a 40 day flood is "one single go". A fast flowing river will erode 1 cm of rock every year. 40 days is nothing.

J C wrote:

Concrete doesn’t have to DRY to set.
In fact, it WILL set underwater without ANY overburden pressure – ditto for Sedimentary Rocks!!

*Groan*

For the last time JC, sedimentary rock is not concrete.

You either know very little about concrete or very little about sedimentary rocks, or very little about both.

J C wrote:

Creationists have never explained where all the water from the Flood retreated to after the flood

I will rectify that situation immediately!!!

** Hint :-

* If you live near the sea, take a look out your front window.

* If you do not live near the sea take a day-trip to your nearest beach and look out over the WAVES!!

JC, that makes about as much sense as .. well .. any of the other nonsense you are talking about.

The only way the flood waters could have flowed into the "sea" is if the "sea" wasn't there to start with. The earth is a closed system when it comes to water. The water has to go some where.

The water that could have covered the entire Earth cannot just flow into the sea. Why? Because it was already covering the sea! Unless you imagine some magical barrier between the land and the big hole in the ground known as the sea floor, that some how broke allowing all the water to flow into the big hole and form the seas.

Its like saying you are going to drain half your bath tub by flowing the water from one side of the tub into the water of the other side. Try it JC, it doesn't work.

J C wrote:

The Flood aftermath processes lasted many years.
All kinds of interesting and unusual geological structures were formed during this period – including Conglomerates.

You have observed this happening in nature? Has anyone observed this happening in nature? Ok, has it ever been modeled? Does it fit known geology?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
As has already been explained to you JC, M-Eve and Y-Adam were not the first man and woman. They are simply the most recent common ancestors that everyone one earth shares.

Mitochondrial Eve being the most recent common female ancestor, and Y-Chromosome Adam the most recent common male ancestor.

Imagine for a moment that you and I are first cousins - we share a common grandfather - and he is our most recent common male ancestor. Imagine further that by digging into our genealogy we are also distant cousins through our mothers - we have our mothers' great-great-grandmother in common (we live in, say, Cavan, rather than Arkansas) - that woman is then our most recent common female ancestor. The two lived in entirely different generations of our family tree.

J C wrote:

Wicknight
I'm not saying we know for certain which model actually happened. There are a large number of competing theories, and it is kinda hard to know for certain without time travel.

So you ARE saying that Evolution is based on SPECULATION, that is not amenable to scientific OBSERVATION – and therefore it IS a faith based position – or more accurately a multiplicity of faith-based MODELS.

Some models may offer testable observations or features that are testable by experiment (such as the "warm puddles" model), others may not be testable (such as the "god did it" model). Obviously, neither Creation nor the Flood are repeatable or testable events, which is kind of ironic.

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
Well, see, when you have hundreds of millions of years to work with, the observed sedimentation rates do rather build up, small though they are generally observed to be. That's catastrophic events aside, obviously.

That’s a rather good STORY Scofflaw – well done!!
But you haven’t explained WHERE all of the sediment came from originally.

Well, it is, of course, a very long story. It is fairly straightforward, though, in outline - early plate tectonics produced some granite, the granite accumulated into small rafts much like scum on a boiling pot, the small rafts collided and sometimes stuck - this process eventually formed the continents. Continents, being above water, are eroded by rain, and the sediment flows back into the sea. Much as we observe today, really.

J C wrote:

I’ll take you out of suspense – and tell you my STORY about where all of the sediment came from.

Some of it came from volcanic ash, the break-up of existing rock and the washing away of existing sand and silt.
However, most of the sediment probably came from the release and flocculation of massive subterranean waters with sediment and Calcium Carbonate in suspension from enormous caverns under the surface of the earth (the fountains of the great deep).

Possibly one of the silliest stories ever, and bearing absolutely no relation whatsoever to the observed world. You could equally well claim that God used the Flood to clean out Heaven's toilets.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Do a Google image search for "quartzite thin section" - see the way the grains have grown into each other. That's not a cementing agent, it's heat and pressure. That's why the Sugarloaf stands up like that.

The reason that The Sugar Loaf Mountain "stands up like that" is because it is made from GRANITE – which is an IGNEOUS Rock.
Heat and pressure WERE indeed involved in Granite production, because it was derived from MAGMA!!!

This is the Sugarloaf in Wicklow, right?

J C wrote:

However, Sedimentary Rocks are formed by sedimentation and cementation processes – with no requirement for pressure!! The relative strength/hardness of different sedimentary rocks primarily depends upon the quality and quantity of their cementing agents,

However, when great overburden pressures are applied and/or vulcanisation occurs nearby METAMORPHOSIS can occur leading to the formation of quartzite.

No, as anyone who has done even a small amount of petrology can tell you. Your "explanation" is childishly inadequate.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Please look up "unconformity". There's one or more on virtually every geological map, and an unconformity is a widespread erosion surface. Again, JC, it's amazing you can even pretend to yourself that you know what you're talking about.

Unconformities are caused by changes in the angle of the bedding plain due to upthrusts/downthrusts and/or by temporary localised breaks during sediment deposition.

They are NOT evidence of millions of years being ‘lost’ at the unconformity, as Evolutionists like to claim – and which the following evidence disproves:-

1. Polystrate fossils are often found going right through the unconformity.
2. A lack of erosion features such as channels in the rock layers at the unconformity.
3. Delicate surface features such as ripple marks and footprints are found preserved on the surface of the rock underlying the unconformity indicating that erosion DIDN’T take place.
4. A lack of fossilised soil layers or root and plant imprints at the unconformity indicating no substantial time break.
5. Classic dykes and pipes – where sand/water mixtures have squeezed up through the unconformity from the underlying layers – indicate that the underlying layers hadn’t hardened before the unconformity deposition re-commenced.
6. The existence of ‘living fossils’ challenge the great age differentials attributed to different rock layers.

As I have previously said, any gradual stop/start process over millions of years should have layers of organic material interspersed between almost every sedimentary layer – and this is patently not the case.

All of these features help identify minor erosion surfaces, or breaks in sedimentation, rather than unconformities. Not all erosion surfaces are evidence of "millions of years, as evolutionists like to claim" - some indicate gaps of a few years, whereas some represent huge timespans, such as the Carboniferous sediments (c.320My) deposited unconformably on Precambrian (c. 1.5Gy?) in southern Donegal. In one place near Ballyshannon, you can see a crinoid (sea-lily, more or less) in Carboniferous sediment still attached to the rocky seafloor of Precambrian psammite it grew on.

Mostly, of course, you don't get soil layers under the sea. If you want to see soil layers between rocks, I recommend the Giant's Causeway in Antrim, where you can see typical red tropical soil layers (lithified) between the lava flows. Some nice pictures of unconformities with channels and potholes can be seen here or here.

As to the delicate structures like ripples that are preserved - yes, they indicate lack of erosion. They also, for that reason, usually indicate a relatively brief period of non-deposition, which means that they're not an unconformity. They can still be preserved, of course, if the overlying sediment that originally preserved them is stripped off again - a good example is where sand ripples are buried in mud (which is usually what preserves fine structures): after lithification, the mudstone is still softer, and will be preferentially eroded, exposing the ripples in the sandstone again.

An unconformity is generally taken to represent sufficient time for lithification to have taken place. It need not be angular.

J C wrote:

4. That undirected mistakes propelled the development of the complex ordered living systems that we observe today.

You seem to think mistakes are the force that propels evolution forward - they are not. Mistakes are mistakes. It is that some of these mistakes are useful, and that these are preserved, where the enormus numbers that are harmful are weeded out, that drives evolution.

Did you ever play the little board game called "Mastermind"?

J C wrote:

Wicknight
Lithification in solid rock does require over burden pressure JC. Unless you are claiming that the sediment layers dried while under water

Concrete doesn’t have to DRY to set.
In fact, it WILL set underwater without ANY overburden pressure – ditto for Sedimentary Rocks!!

Some will, some won't. Some limestones set very fast, but sandstones require at least some initial cementing agent to set, and clays need not set at all.

J C wrote:

Wibbs
Lovely, but what about the metamorphic rocks that are found in sedimentary deposits? What about conglomerates? You can find sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks of all types, all together in the same rock. How do you explain that with a single flood?

The Flood aftermath processes lasted many years.
All kinds of interesting and unusual geological structures were formed during this period – including Conglomerates.

Not that any Creationist has any usable ideas on how - this is just hand-waving to pretend to explain away a problem. The problem is suffciently technical that the Creationist can defer to the Creationist who is "expert" in this field, discover that there isn't one, and blame a worldwide scientific conspiracy for there not being one.

wicknight wrote:

Ok, 40 trillion trillion liters of water cannot, under any geological process known, simply sit underground until God needs it. For a start where underground?

This paper covers Creationist models rather more sensibly than JC is likely to.

Scofflaw

Wibbs

J C wrote:

Creation Science has also discovered that the mutation rate of the Y-Chromosome DNA present in all male cells indicates that all men are descended from one man who had zero Y-Chromosome mutations less than 10,000 years ago. i.e. his Y-Chromosome was genetically perfect he therefore didn’t have any ancestors himself.

Where is this "research". All the studies I've read suggest that the Y chromosome has serious mutations going back millions of years. So much so that for a while there, some scientists worried for it's future survival. No worries though. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-06/wifb-rom061603.php

Sounds like Adam and Eve to me - but then this conclusion is only based upon scientific obsrvations!!

Again, where's the peer reviewed research?

That’s a rather good STORY Scofflaw – well done!!
But you haven’t explained WHERE all of the sediment came from originally.

I'll make it simple. Billions of years of erosion=sediment

Some of it came from volcanic ash, the break-up of existing rock and the washing away of existing sand and silt.
However, most of the sediment probably came from the release and flocculation of massive subterranean waters with sediment and Calcium Carbonate in suspension from enormous caverns under the surface of the earth (the fountains of the great deep).

No offense, you seem obsessed with calcium carbonate. The rest is frankly mad.

6. The existence of ‘living fossils’ challenge the great age differentials attributed to different rock layers.
For example fossil starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams and snails – that are dated at over 500 million years old by Evolutionists look like those living today. Equally, some of these fossils are missing from intervening strata that supposedly represented many millions of years of evolutionary time, again indicating that these strata do not represent time but the order of Flood deposition.

Eh, no they don't. While living fossils may look like some of those fossil ancestors. There are morphological changes in nearly all of them. As an example the lingula brachiopod family has undergone many changes and extinctions in it's very long existence. Also it can be pretty much found all the way along the timeline. Starfish have changed radically in many cases. This as an argument just doesn't hold up.

So we’re all one HUGE MISTAKE then.

Only if you take the concept of mistake" in human terms.

You are making the following GREAT leaps of FAITH:-

Not really.

1. That the Earth IS billions of years old.

Provable by many different means.

2. That an undefined and unidentified self replicating molecule spontaneously arose.

We know the molecule. We know how some of it could arise. We don't know precisely how. Yet

3. That the energy from the sun could have any positive effect on such a putative molecule.

It only had to have a positive effect once and clearly it did.

4. That undirected mistakes propelled the development of the complex ordered living systems that we observe today.

Again it depends on how you define mistake. Check out linky on how chaos can bring order.

http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/7112.html

God doesn’t believe in Materialists – and I can see why!!!

There's me thinking he was supposed to believe in everyone.

The Flood processes also did NOT happen in “one single go” – the Flood itself lasted 40 Days and the follow-on processes lasted many more YEARS!!!

I smell a get out clause in the follow on processes

Concrete doesn’t have to DRY to set.
In fact, it WILL set underwater without ANY overburden pressure – ditto for Sedimentary Rocks!!

Some concretes will, some will not. Whatever scientific discipline you claim, it's hardly chemistry.

I will rectify that situation immediately!!!

** Hint :-

* If you live near the sea, take a look out your front window.

* If you do not live near the sea take a day-trip to your nearest beach and look out over the WAVES!!

Hint, that's not enough to cover all the land.

Was a modal dinosaur the size of a mean sheep or was a modal sheep the size of a mean Dinosaur? - or maybe it was the relative size of a median sheep and a median Dinosaur that was the same!!

I believe that this question will help to induce sleep if you think about it repeatedly - and long enough!!!

So you're wrong then? When faced with answers you don't like you repeatedly stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly.

The Flood aftermath processes lasted many years.
All kinds of interesting and unusual geological structures were formed during this period – including Conglomerates.

And heeeeere's that get out clause. Nonsense, pure and simple. Conglomerates, with many different rock types, from many different eras are one of the more obvious nails in the coffin of young earthists and no amount of unspecified post flood processes can explain them away.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

more obvious nails in the coffin of young earthists and no amount of unspecified post flood processes can explain them away.

Along with most geological phenomona.

For example stalactites. It has been claimed by Young Earth Creationists that stalactites can grow very quickly. That is very true, of some stalactites. What it ignores is that stalactites in limestone don't and more importantly cannot

The process that creates limestone stalactities cannot be speeded up significantly by increasing water flow. Not without chaning the laws of chemistry, which I suppose a Creationist could argue God did do, but then you have to ask why?

It is simply not possible that these structures could have formed in such a short time as 6-4 thousand years. That alone would debunk young earth creationism, but factor in the fact that oxygen isotope messurements of stalactites indictes outside temprature, and these not only match up with other stalactites, but also match up with the estimated dates of previous ice ages. So much independent verfication.

Prompting JC's cries of "you can't trust isotopes" - If you believe the isotope messurement is wrong, why are they all wrong to the same degree. What are the odds of that happening? They are all wrong in exactly the same manner? Also if they are all actually wrong, why do they match up with independent estimates of ice age patterns? You like to go on about odds a lot, but the odds of a world wide error like that in so many different fields with so many different articles of evidence is trillions and trillions and trillions to one.

Another nail in the coffin is that we have tree ring records going back further than 8000 years that do not record a world wide Biblical Flood, or the massive volcanic distrubance JC mentions. Never mind the fact the the massive geological distrubance necessary for JC's theory to hold would have vapourised all life on earth with in a few seconds.

Creationists often attack the tree record by using examples of trees that are known to be bad at recording tree rings as example, ignoring the fact that scientitist know about these bad record keeping trees and therefore don't use them.

And they point out that extra rings sometime appear in ring records, ignoring the fact that rings are more likely to not appear than appear. And then you get into an intresting paradox with the Creationist, because if rings do fail to appear that could explain the missing information about the Biblical Flood, but then it would put the Earth as being much much older than the Bible says .. interesting to watch them battle that one out

There are so many nails in the coffin of young earth Creationism its hard to know where to even start. It is such a debunked theory, by nearly ever field and area of science, you wonder how anyone can rationialise this belief to themselves. But then I guess religion does strange things to you.

Assyrian

JC wrote:

Most fossils were drowned. Some were partially eaten by hungry carnivores as the flood proceeded apace and footprints of MANKIND and Dinosaurs were left in mud as they tried to flee from the deluge – and these footprints were then covered in more sediment and fossilised.

Animals in a forest fire run for their lives. They don't stop for a bite to eat along the way. Would a flood be any different?

I presume it is the dinosaur tracks in Paluxy Texas you are talking about. Do you realise the 'mantracks' there, though still hyped by some creationists are such poor evidence that even Answers in Genesis rejects them as evidence of human footprints?

Creationists are right about there being dinosaur prints there. The problem is the dinosaur prints in Paluxy beds lie on top of strata hundreds even thousands of feet thick. There is Glen Rose shingle, more sandstone like Paluxy, further layers of shingle and sandstone, then Permian, Pennsylvanian and Mississippian. The Pennsylvanian and Mississippian strata are from the Cambrian period. All supposedly laid down in the flood. There are multiple strata above the Paluxy sands too.

The dinosaurs weren't just walking along before the flood and their prints left behind as they fled. They were walking over thousands of feet of sedimentary rock Creationists claim were also laid down in the flood. Even more layers were deposited on top of their tracks. How were these were these tracks made in the middle of the flood? Did some of the dinosaurs get out of the ark and walk? How did they walk on sediment being laid down deep under water in a cataclysmic flood?

http://www.cretaceousfossils.com/stratigraphy/stratigraphic_correlation_ao_large.htm

I herewith quote (from the Report in post#1607)
“The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments”

Not only did the T Rex bone ‘break’ – it sounds like a compound fracture to me!!!!!

Yup, the fossilised bone broke, but there is no report of blood squirting out. You only got gunk oozing out in the lab after the fossil fragments was soaked in acid and the solid mineralised bone dissolved away.

I see.

I often wondered why our cat was so fastidious about covering its poo in sand – she was obviously preserving it for posterity!!!

Assyrian – there ARE actually amazing little BACTERIA and other saprophytes out there that break down dead organic material – usually in a matter of weeks!!!

Quite true, when the bacteria and saprophytes can get to work, but mummies and mammoths show you simply can't extrapolate back from the rat you cat left under the sofa.

Apples and Oranges!!

To explain, both Creationists and Evolutionists accept that Dinosaur fossils are generally much OLDER than mummified Mammoths. The Evolutionary timeline would place them at 100 million and 10,000 years respectively.
Equally the Creationist timeline would place them at about 5,000 and 2,000 years respectively.

The time difference would account for some of the ‘meat loss’. The methods of preservation (fossilisation v freezing/pickling) would explain the remainder of any ‘meat yield’ differences!!

What? Mummies have only been around 2000 years? Perhaps Cleopatra built the the pyramid of Khufu? And there are mummies much older than that. I thought creationist believe the mammoths were frozen around the time of the flood or shortly afterwards?

While Egyptians used salt to speed up dessication, mummies form naturally too. In fact the older mummies all formed naturally. Characterising mummification as 'pickling' is quite inaccurate. Bog bodies 10,000 years old (not sure what that is in Creationist years ) show that preservation can occur just as easily underwater as long as there is little oxygen. A dinosaur surrounded by dead vegetation trapped underwater, would easily match condition in European bogs. Bacteria decomposing the dead leaves would use up the oxygen very quickly. With layers of sediment above and below, preservation should be even easier than in bogs. So where is all the meat?

Assyrian

Zombrex

Assyrian wrote:

So where is all the meat?

Maybe God got hungry and ate it all ... that theory makes as much sense as all the other Creationist ones

Your point about foot prints between sediment layers, that if you follow the idea of the Biblical Flood, must have been made during the flood is excellent.

Well I mean the whole idea of a single 40 day flood causing thousands of layers of sedimentary rock is ridiculous in the extreme, and I almost feel silly arguing with JC over such nonsense (last time I checked New Orleans wasn't now under 5 feet of solid rock) But that example really shows, in science a 5 year old could understand, that it didn't happen like it is described in the Bible.

Saying that though i am sure JC can come up with some wacky theory about how it could have happened. Maybe a load of dinsoars stood on top of each other to weigh down the bottom dinosar so he could walk around underwater.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

How's that any different to the idea of the non religious "stick" then?

No difference, if we can guarantee the stick.

I mean, to someone you're explaining it to the only difference is that there is a very real police force who may catch you or a possibly non-existent entity which doesn't seem to have cared thus far catching you.

I'm not arguing that the wicked are restrained by merely hearing the gospel. It is believing it that changes them. My point is that atheism has given them a comfort-zone for any sort of behaviour: there is no inevitablility about consequences for their actions. If they believed there were eternal consequencies, that would give them pause.

Why not explain the consequences that it can definitely be shown to have on people around him? That way he sees the reason it's wrong is because people are suffering.

Here is the irrationality of moral atheism: 'it's wrong is because people are suffering'. Why is that wrong, if you are an atheist? One could just as readily say being kind to one another is wrong. On what basis can an atheist say it this or that is morally wrong?

I mean with your version, if god didn't have a problem with it (hypothetically, so don't protest otherwise!) then you'd be happy with that?

Correct. God reveals right and wrong, it's not something we know without His work in our conscience.

If people are suffering the only reason you see to want to stop it is because of your god? Not because they're actually suffering, whether needlessly or otherwise?

Basically, Yes. I mean, some people deserve to suffer - indeed we appoint people to make them suffer in prison, by way of fines, etc. We would rather they didn't do the crime and need not do the time, but that is up to them.
However, God teaches us to sympathize even with our fellowmen who suffer for their sin. We seek to recover them from their sin, remembering that but for the grace of God we would be just like them.

Surely the most effective way to get someone to understand why something is wrong is to show them why rather than a "god says so" thing? I don't think the god says so approach is included in the "why", either...

A God-says-so approach gives a reason for behaving well. If one rejects the existence of God, then the reason too is rejected. Atheism can give no reason for good behaviour. If the circumstances permit, vile behaviour will bring more personal benefit than good behaviour. Both theism and atheism have the same material restraints on offer: the police, approbation by society, reactions of our family, etc. It is when these restraints are ignored that the absence of a spiritual restraint proves critical.

What about peace in yourself and a loving relationship with those around you for the simple sake of it? Surely this can be achieved without need for some external commanding force.

It certainly can. But there is nothing to make this attractive to someone who finds his pleasure in exploiting others. You can give him no reason why he should adopt your compasionate attitude.

If you didn't have any god, would you be as interested in such a thing?

Maybe - depends on the circumstances. If I was middle-class, surrounded with folk aspiring to the same values, it is likely I would not abandon that for life as a drug-dealer. But my self-centred wickedness might show itself when I abandon the wife of my youth for a newer model, or when I raid the company pension fund to feather my nest.

If I come from a working-class background, I might not be willing to earn the minimum wage and try to gradually improve myself. I might find it more attractive to deal drugs, rob pensioners, etc. I would need some better reason not to than an irrational appeal to be nice to one another. Someone would have to tell me why.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

All of those are references to ritual impurity, which is perhaps the largest religious idea that Christianity-for-the-Gentiles dropped. I'm not sure how you can get from there to "Christian" morality without really really wanting to.

You had asked about these moral requirements of the OT and why Christians had dispensed with them: those are the reasons I gave. God's eternal Law is not altered.

Unfortunately, this contains a standard opt-out clause - it's a circle (albeit a "virtuous" one!) that assumes that really being a Christian makes a man good - so if he ain't good, he ain't a Christian. All that proves is that "good people are acceptable as Christians" rather than "Christians are good people".

I agree. But we don't have to prove our genuineness to any but the only One who will know for certain anyway. There can be a Judas unknown in the very best of Christian circles. He was a thief from the beginning of his Christian profession, and the 'son of perdition' at the end of it. Christians are not expected to know the true heart in any but themselves. They are expected to work on what they see outwardly: the Christian who falls into sin and does not repent is to be excommunicated from the church.

I don't deny for a moment that Christianity sets a potentially high standard of behaviour - but so does Roman Stoicism, and of the two, I marginally prefer the latter.

I agree - many philosophies/religions put restrains on behaviour - they give reasons not to sin. I'm not sure what reason Stoicism offers, but Atheism cannot do so.

On the other hand, I am rather at a loss to understand what "destruction" the Great Evangelical Revival saved 18th Century England from. It appeared, to the contrary, to be doing rather well. Unless of course you mean perdition, which again leads you into a circle.

I was thinking of the Terror, the consequence of the moral decadence of French society.

The Victorian era, which you appear to hark back to as some kind of golden age,

Far from it. Great Christian leaders, such as C.H. Spurgeon, laboured to evangelise the masses and to care for their welfare. The morality of society was low, among rich and poor alike.

an era of extreme poverty and vicious crime - the reason it does not appear so generally criminal as the 18th century is that the middle classes were sufficiently numerous to ghettoise the problems, and sufficiently literate to write the histories.

Indeed. Again, the Revival of 1859 in Britain and Ireland was a big factor I believe in averting a bloody response to suffering like that of Russia 1917. I think it was Marx who said he expected a revolution in Britain before one in Russia.

I can't see where that differs from "an inescapable, eternal stick", except perhaps by adding "an eternal carrot".

Exactly: I can't think of a better incentive.

The very fact that I could not persuade such a man to atheism, or through atheism and evolution, however, tells you everything you need to know - his actions are nothing to do with these things. They are entirely attributable to his own selfishness and lack of care for the future. Most people get over this (to at least some extent) by the time they're 30, which is one reason why most crime is committed by younger men.

No, it tells you that atheism and evolution have no reason to give him to behave well. His inate selfishness cannot be challenged by them. That most moderate their behaviour with age simply indicates their weariness with the competition. The fittest survive and move on perhaps to more lucrative or less risky forms of selfishness.

Wolfsbane, you're tilting at windmills here. All that you've said here suggests that you know what you're up against in a hoodie - the same lazy self-justifications that have always let the sinner get along. For some bizarre reason you've focussed on a scientific theory as somehow responsible for sin - it won't stick, I'm afraid.

Just for these last generations - atheism and evolution have given a reason for a selfish lifestyle, by removing any reason to behave otherwise.

Sinners are the same people they always were, and the justifications are the same too - "it doesn't really do any harm", "I can give it up any time I like", "why shouldn't it be me that gets the money", etc etc. These people aren't atheistic evolutionists - they are people who are as lazy about their morals as about their faith.

Those excuses certainly are evergreen. But my point is they have been given a respectable ally in the rise of atheism and evolution to the status of unquestioned fact.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

No difference, if we can guarantee the stick.

But you can't.
It's even more dubious than prison - at least one knows a prison is there; one has heard stories of going to court and terms in prison and knows that it happens because people come back from prison to tell them. People don't come back from heaven or hell.

I'm not arguing that the wicked are restrained by merely hearing the gospel. It is believing it that changes them. My point is that atheism has given them a comfort-zone for any sort of behaviour: there is no inevitablility about consequences for their actions. If they believed there were eternal consequencies, that would give them pause.

If. Whereas it's quite clear to anyone that there are consequences right here on earth. Not just to them, but to others.
Some christians might think it's fine to do as they please with regards to violence etc, mouth a few words of confession, and then think there are no consequences. They believe in your religion and your consequences but are convinced they're not going to suffer them.
People can be innately selfish, not just any particular branch. If they're determined to find a comfort zone for their actions, they will do it regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

Here is the irrationality of moral atheism: 'it's wrong is because people are suffering'. Why is that wrong, if you are an atheist? One could just as readily say being kind to one another is wrong. On what basis can an atheist say it this or that is morally wrong?

Correct. God reveals right and wrong, it's not something we know without His work in our conscience.

And yet here appears irrationality to my eyes - you don't have any problem with people suffering if god says so.
If god had had it written in the bible "prostitution is a-ok", would you care about it so much? Would we even be discussing things? If your reason is only "god said so" without a further explanation of even "god says it's wrong because...". It's only "god says it's wrong and this will happen".
All living things can suffer and can feel pain. All living things deserve not to.
From a selfish point of view - I don't want to suffer - and from a more compassionate point of view - I don't want my loved ones to suffer - and then extending this all around.
I don't need a god to tell me that suffering is wrong; I can see and feel it for myself, in what I feel and what I see others feel.

Basically, Yes. I mean, some people deserve to suffer - indeed we appoint people to make them suffer in prison, by way of fines, etc. We would rather they didn't do the crime and need not do the time, but that is up to them.
However, God teaches us to sympathize even with our fellowmen who suffer for their sin. We seek to recover them from their sin, remembering that but for the grace of God we would be just like them.

But for our own actions we would be like them. Our own actions.
It is no mysterious force that keeps me in my home - my own actions keep me here. And so on. Theirs keeps their away from them.

A God-says-so approach gives a reason for behaving well. If one rejects the existence of God, then the reason too is rejected. Atheism can give no reason for good behaviour.

A different reason is not no reason at all; it's just one you don't personally accept. Just as someone else may not accept yours and instead accepts another.

If the circumstances permit, vile behaviour will bring more personal benefit than good behaviour.

Actions have consequences. All of them. I know I'm arguing from a slightly different point of view to the atheists here - I think? - but I'm sure we can see this.
Follow this man's life along - perhaps he starts off having it good, but what about getting into debt for his drug habit? What about dying a horrible death from his drug intakes? Plus so many more things I could add on.

Perhaps in the short term it would appear to bring more personal benefit, but it doesn't stay rosy forever - that I would bet!

It certainly can. But there is nothing to make this attractive to someone who finds his pleasure in exploiting others. You can give him no reason why he should adopt your compasionate attitude.

If he is so persistent in questioning, neither can he have a reason to believe in a god if he has none already. It just adds another stick to try to avoid

Maybe - depends on the circumstances. If I was middle-class, surrounded with folk aspiring to the same values, it is likely I would not abandon that for life as a drug-dealer. But my self-centred wickedness might show itself when I abandon the wife of my youth for a newer model, or when I raid the company pension fund to feather my nest.

If I come from a working-class background, I might not be willing to earn the minimum wage and try to gradually improve myself. I might find it more attractive to deal drugs, rob pensioners, etc. I would need some better reason not to than an irrational appeal to be nice to one another. Someone would have to tell me why.

I am disappointed you call this irrational, wolfsbane, particularly when you claim your own god insists on love for your fellow humankind.

wolfsbane

Assyrian said:

So did God make an enemy that would touch his people, or did it get out of hand?

Yes, He made an enemy for them, for all His people were born sinners, Ephesias 2:3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

There was no barrier to the resurrection, or to 'walking with God' before we sinned, hence the figurative picture of the tree of life in the garden of Eden. Sin cut us off from God and our mortality locked us in a lost eternity.

So, Adam would have naturally died and then been resurrected. Earth would have been populated by mortal men and immortal resurrected men. You TEs certainly throw up interesting ideas.

Not Biblical ones, however. The sentence of death on Adam was In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”Genesis 3:19. Returning to the ground was part of the curse.

There are problem for people who want to take Luke's genealogy literally. Are 'Seth the son of Adam' and 'Adam the son of God to be taken in exactly the same literal manner?

Both are to taken in the normal sense: Seth was born of Adam by sexual relations with his wife. Adam was the son of God by the means God described in Genesis 1 and 2: God made him from the dust of the ground. To question this is to question Jesus' conception. He was the son of God, not by sexual relations with Mary, but by the Holy Spirit joining Jesus' divinity to man's humanity (Mary's egg). Neither Jesus' nor Adam's special creation contradict the validity of Luke's genealogy.

But the biggest problem with the genealogy is that Luke only describe it as the 'supposed' genealogy of Christ.

Amazing what TEs will do to avoid the plain testimony of Scripture! Luke says nothing about it being a 'supposed' genealogy. He describes Joseph as being supposed to be His father (knowing that Joseph was not):
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Creationist site don't

I'm not qualified to dispute the scientific detail, so I leave that to you and the creation scientists to thrash out.

A single pair just gives you four sets of chromosomes.

Hmmm. So the varieties of dogs we have today could not have come from a single pair on the Ark? That would mean the varieties of man we have today could not have come from a pair of humans. We have a spectrum of colours; heights from pigmy to Tutsi; eye types; hair types; etc. Does this mean the human race is not all descended from Adam and Eve after all? Maybe the first europeans in Australia were right when they shot the Aborigines as game? Or kept a pigmy from the Congo in the New York Zoo? Maybe there are different stages of evolutionary development in homo sapiens? Some races more fit than others? Ah, the mind-expanding possibilities of evolution. :rolleyes:

'Survival of the fittest' is the catchphrase of Social Darwinism, not biological evolution. In evolution success often goes to the animals that learn to cooperate, who sacrifice themselves for their young or for their sisters and cousins. It goes to the species that breed prolifically, which is after all the very first commandment in the bible. It is really Survival of the Luvingest.

Seems to me both sexual promiscuity and aggressiveness are the balances of nature: rabbits and lions both being successful, but quite opposite in the means they use. Amongst humans, the same factors are at work, alongside the 'caring' element. Even the hoodie may care for his own, but at the expense of others. The male lion has sex with all it can, and kills all other cubs that its own.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmmm. So the varieties of dogs we have today could not have come from a single pair on the Ark? That would mean the varieties of man we have today could not have come from a pair of humans. We have a spectrum of colours; heights from pigmy to Tutsi; eye types; hair types; etc. Does this mean the human race is not all descended from Adam and Eve after all? Maybe the first europeans in Australia were right when they shot the Aborigines as game? Or kept a pigmy from the Congo in the New York Zoo? Maybe there are different stages of evolutionary development in homo sapiens? Some races more fit than others? Ah, the mind-expanding possibilities of evolution. :rolleyes:

Hmm. That is a particularly nasty little picture - I hope you don't think of this kind of thing regularly! In the timescale given from the Flood, it is not possible for micro-evolution to give rise to the variety within species that we see today from a single breeding pair, unless, as JC asserts, those on the Ark had entirely different genetic characteristics from modern representatives of their "kinds", somehow containing within themselves all the genetic material necessary to give rise to that variety. This would suggest that God planned the Flood long before he told Noah, or that antediluvian animals & plants were all of this genetically-maximal variety. If the latter, why have they changed, and when did they change? If the former, it is not recorded that way in the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

You had asked about these moral requirements of the OT and why Christians had dispensed with them: those are the reasons I gave. God's eternal Law is not altered.

You may have missed my point, abstruse as it is. The dispensation that Paul is suggesting that Jesus gave relates entirely to ritual impurity, not to any other anathematised behaviours. Now, if you assume that those prohibitions in the OT that look like ritual purity are ritual purity, then you get to dispense with the prohibitions on mixed clothing and the like. On the other hand, you can't dispense with the Biblical rules on slavery. Alternatively, you can argue that the new dispensation covers all the OT prohibitions, in which case you dispense with slavery, but also with homosexuality.

Furthermore, there appears to be no record of Jesus' teachings on homosexuality, although we do have an unequivocal opinion on divorce.

wolfsbane wrote:

I was thinking of the Terror, the consequence of the moral decadence of French society. Again, the Revival of 1859 in Britain and Ireland was a big factor I believe in averting a bloody response to suffering like that of Russia 1917. I think it was Marx who said he expected a revolution in Britain before one in Russia.

One more thing Marx was wrong about. I don't think you can actually lay the blame for the French Terror, or indeed the French Revolution, at the door of "moral decadence". It belongs fair and square in the arena of politics, and the political decadence of the ancien regime. At the time of the Revolution, French tenants were still little more than serfs, and ocupied a very similar position to Irish tenants, who also rose, famously, in 1798. Consider that French landlords still had private prisons at the time of the Revolution.

The English had revolted, of course, in the 1640's, and later in the 1600's there were other rebellions, such as Monmouth's in the south-west, which were bloodily repressed. That left England "inoculated" against such revolutionary responses to suffering, partly through the political adjustments which had occurred as a result of the Glorious Revolution.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:
I can't see where that differs from "an inescapable, eternal stick", except perhaps by adding "an eternal carrot".

Exactly: I can't think of a better incentive.

It's an extremely good incentive, but not a moral one - it's simply God's might making right.

wolfsbane wrote:

It tells you that atheism and evolution have no reason to give him to behave well. His inate selfishness cannot be challenged by them. That most moderate their behaviour with age simply indicates their weariness with the competition. The fittest survive and move on perhaps to more lucrative or less risky forms of selfishness.

I agree - many philosophies/religions put restrains on behaviour - they give reasons not to sin. I'm not sure what reason Stoicism offers, but Atheism cannot do so.

Most atheists will happily give reasons why someone should behave well. In general, they derive from "do as you would be done by", and appeal to the same basic moral sense that Christian morals do. I know you will disagree with that statement, but, being an atheist, I don't accept that God exists - therefore Christian morals are just as "man-made" as any I might suggest.

I would put it to you, therefore, that accepting Christian morality requires a step of faith - the acceptance of God, through Christ. Atheist morals also involve a step of faith - the belief that it is wrong to do wrong to others, for which sound reasons can be given, even through self-interest. One is a step of faith, the other is a step of faith. You prefer one, I prefer the other. Our putative hoodie can choose either, and may choose neither.

wolfsbane wrote:

Just for these last generations - atheism and evolution have given a reason for a selfish lifestyle, by removing any reason to behave otherwise.

Those excuses certainly are evergreen. But my point is they have been given a respectable ally in the rise of atheism and evolution to the status of unquestioned fact.

Except that most people are not atheists, in any sense that I would, as an atheist, accept. That they are not Christians in any sense that you would accept does not make them atheists. If you ask people, the majority in the West will say "Christian" - and that may not be your particular sect, but I'm afraid it certainly doesn't make them atheists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe there are different stages of evolutionary development in homo sapiens? Some races more fit than others? Ah, the mind-expanding possibilities of evolution. :rolleyes:

Only if you don't understand genetics or evolution.

For a start genetics has shown there is no real difference, genetically, between the classical forms of race (black, white, yellow, brown) in humans. There certainly are differences, but you find as much genetic difference inside what is know as a "race" than between them. The idea of race can only be quantified if you already know what to look for (eg, genetics markers that signal a person is from Asia).

Secondly, something cannot be "more" evolved than something else. Evolution adapts creatures based on their environment. We for example cannot fly. Birds can. Are birds more evolved than us, or are we more evolved than birds? We have incredable brain power, far in excess of any bird, but if a lion was about to eat me I cannot fly away to safety. A cat can see 10 times better than a human. A dog can smell 100 times better than a human. Neither can build computers. Who is more evolved? The question depends on the context it is asked. In general terms the question is meaningless

Thirdly, you are applying morality to the process of evolution. Why may I ask, do all Creationists do this when science itself doesn't?

As I explained else where in the this thread, 5 deer are being chased by a leopard. The weakest deer gets eatten and the others run away. Is there a morality leasson in the way this example of nature works. No, of course not If anyone then though based on that story that the correct thing to do was all the mentally handicapped people to lions I would give them a smack in the head.

What do you mean by some races are more "fit" than others? More "fit" for what?

There is no moral philosophy presented by evolution, any more than saying there is a right and wrong to be learnt from watching electrons dance through metal.

Also the idea that an atheist suddenly losses all morality once he rejects the idea of supernatural gods is frankly highly insulting. Some of the most "moral" people in the history of humanity have been atheists. All that happens if you are an atheists is the realisation that morality comes not from a God, but from humanity itself. The morality still exists.

And quite frankly I find it a little worrying that you seem to believe that Christians are only moral because they are afraid of God. You should follow a set of morals because you believe in them, not because you are scared of punishment. That leads very quickly to the abandonment of morality when it is believed it runs no risk of punishment, the famous example being the excuse "God is on our side", used for horrific acts of war through out the centuries.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

And quite frankly I find it a little worrying that you seem to believe that Christians are only moral because they are afraid of God. You should follow a set of morals because you believe in them, not because you are scared of punishment. That leads very quickly to the abandonment of morality when it is believed it runs no risk of punishment, the famous example being the excuse "God is on our side", used for horrific acts of war through out the centuries.

An extremely good point. If you believe that the Bible condones war for a particular purpose, then you automatically condone war for that purpose. If it suggests killing for a particular transgression, what argument do you have against it?

In many places, of course, the Bible is open to interpretation, so you have a little bit of wriggle-room to exercise your own sense of morality, atrophied though it is likely to be!


cordially,
Scofflaw

bmoferrall

Assyrian wrote:

If you want a good liberal free perspective have a look at the book Reason Science and Faith by Roger Forster and Dr Paul Marston. Roger Forster is the founder of Ichthus Christian Fellowships in the UK, Graham Kendrick's church. At 480 pages, it is probably easier to read if you buy a copy, but it is available as a free download from http://www.ivycottage.org/group/group.aspx?id=6826

Thanks for the link; I've managed to read chapter 7 so far (would be quicker if I wasn't too stingy to print it out).

Who would have thought that Genesis 1-3 would have been analysed with such forensic and mathematical rigour as far back as 100AD, and even in OT times? It seems this has been a hot topic for millenia!
Assuming the analysis in this book is accurate (and I've no reason to believe it isn't), it shows clearly that a 'simple' literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, and in particular days as 24-hour periods, was not the prevailing one in historical Christianity.
Some of those who were bold/brave enough to interpret Genesis in the light of their contemporary science have been made to look quite foolish with the passage of time, and in particular those who denounced alternative interpretations to theirs as heretical. Conversely, those who characterised their interpretations as tentative and speculative, and who were tolerant of alternative views, have been made to look wise in the light of history and scientific progress. I think there are obvious lessons in this for us today. If this world continues for another 2000 years the scientific picture will obviously change dramatically again, potentially making current theories completely redundant.
'Flood geology' was seemingly held in some disdain right from its inception (late 1700s) and virtually disappeared from view for a long period, before being resurrected in the recent past and presented erroneously as the prevailing view of evangelical christians since it was formulated. With all due respect to its current proponents, I think it seems pretty clear that flood geology as a 'catch all' explanation for observed geological and archeological phenomena is deeply flawed, and that the universe is indeed a lot older than 6000 years; nothwithstanding my lack of scientific knowledge, I think it's also sensible to conclude from the empirical evidence that physical death/predation did take place amongst other creatures before Adam appeared (whether by direct creation or via evolution), and that 6000 years of 'micro-evolution' cannot explain the diversity we see today.
As for evolution, seemingly a popular view from and since Darwin's time was that human evolution (such as its extent may have been) was somehow special and distinct, and not subject to the same progression from lower orders as other creatures, extinct or otherwise (I'm speculating here as it's not fully expounded in this book). How these folk would have reacted in the light of recent developments in evolutionary theory is anyone's guess.

It will be interesting to see how further chapters attempt to reconcile human evolution with Genesis.

robindch

> Why may I ask, do all Creationists do this when science itself doesn't?

Creationists live in a strange parallel universe which is built according to how they'd *like* it to be built, rather than how it actually *is* built. Postings to this thread have suggested a creationist ignorance of how things work which frequently strays into the comical, so it's not difficult to understand why this ignorance will also include a deep lack of knowledge about the people and the process which discovers how things work.

Science is big, takes a lot of hard work to understand, and suggests the existence of more colors than the simple black and white that creationists can see. Creationism, on the other hand, is a tiny, but intensely self-aggrandising idea which suggests that the black-and-white world they see is real -- us versus them, good versus evil, knowledge is bad and will lead you astray (cf, the apple from the garden of eden).

It's also useful for the leaders of the lucrative creationist movement to set up hate figures in the disembodied notions of "science" and "scientists", so that should a creationist ever be accidentally exposed to either of them, he'll be able to reject them immediately. Attaching corrupt ethical values, or even worse, the antithetical atheism, to "science" and "scientists" makes this Pavlovian rejection even easier to program into your average creationist.

So that's why this creationist behaviour has evolved -- it's simply helps to spread creationism more effectively!

Assyrian

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, He made an enemy for them, for all His people were born sinners, Ephesias 2:3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

You seem to keep missing the point that Paul describes death as the enemy of God. Did God create something so evil, it was his enemy, the last enemy he destroys?

So, Adam would have naturally died and then been resurrected. Earth would have been populated by mortal men and immortal resurrected men. You TEs certainly throw up interesting ideas.

So Enoch is still wandering around then?

Not Biblical ones, however. The sentence of death on Adam was In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
[/b]Till[/b] you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”Genesis 3:19. Returning to the ground was part of the curse.

Sounds to me like a life sentence of hard labour, rather than a death sentence. The sentence was 'By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread'. The duration of the sentence was 'till you return to the ground'. So, the big question is, why would Adam die and return to the ground, was this an other part of the sentence? No the reason for his death is given in the verse. 'For out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.' Adam would die because because he was made of 'dust' in the first place. Then the only thing that could have stopped his natural body growing old and dying, the tree of life, was put out of his reach.

This is exactly how Paul interprets our, and Adam's, mortality.

1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Man was created like us, flesh and blood, perishable. The reason he was perishable, not imperishable, is because he was from the earth, a man of dust. Adam was mortal because God made him from dust, from the earth.

Both are to taken in the normal sense: Seth was born of Adam by sexual relations with his wife. Adam was the son of God by the means God described in Genesis 1 and 2: God made him from the dust of the ground. To question this is to question Jesus' conception. He was the son of God, not by sexual relations with Mary, but by the Holy Spirit joining Jesus' divinity to man's humanity (Mary's egg). Neither Jesus' nor Adam's special creation contradict the validity of Luke's genealogy.

It is a genealogy, yet you have to talk a completely different meaning for 'son of God' than you do for 'son of Seth'. One refers to literal biological parenthood, the other takes 'son of' in anything but the normal sense. Of course if you want to say Adam was the son of God the same way Jesus was, you run into even deeper problems with a four person Trinity.

Amazing what TEs will do to avoid the plain testimony of Scripture! Luke says nothing about it being a 'supposed' genealogy. He describes Joseph as being supposed to be His father (knowing that Joseph was not):
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

The 'as was supposed' is attached to the only verb in the whole genealogy 'being'. The whole genealogy, son of...of...of...of is given as Jesus genealogy by that verb, except it is his 'supposed' genealogy.

I'm not qualified to dispute the scientific detail, so I leave that to you and the creation scientists to thrash out.

That is the problem, most ordinary people aren't qualified to dispute the details. Creationist sites publish their claims for ordinary Christians who simply don't have the training and skill to see how bad their arguments really are.

Hmmm. So the varieties of dogs we have today could not have come from a single pair on the Ark? That would mean the varieties of man we have today could not have come from a pair of humans. We have a spectrum of colours; heights from pigmy to Tutsi; eye types; hair types; etc. Does this mean the human race is not all descended from Adam and Eve after all? Maybe the first europeans in Australia were right when they shot the Aborigines as game? Or kept a pigmy from the Congo in the New York Zoo? Maybe there are different stages of evolutionary development in homo sapiens? Some races more fit than others? Ah, the mind-expanding possibilities of evolution. :rolleyes:

So called Christians had no problem massacring and enslaving the natives before Darwin came along. They just used the bible and religion as justification. After all the savages 'had no souls', or they were Hamites under a curse. I doubt that famous Irish American Gen. Phil Sheridan was being influenced by Darwin Origin of Species when he said "the only good Indians I ever saw were dead", (usually quoted as The only good Indian is a dead Indian.)

Who says we all came from a single pair? Didn't you know that Adam means 'Man'. Genesis is the story of creating mankind. Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Adam when they were created. Adam is a 'them', male and female. Basically Adam was the first Mr Man.

And if you want to know who is more fit, just try wandering in the outback for a few days.

Seems to me both sexual promiscuity and aggressiveness are the balances of nature: rabbits and lions both being successful, but quite opposite in the means they use. Amongst humans, the same factors are at work, alongside the 'caring' element. Even the hoodie may care for his own, but at the expense of others. The male lion has sex with all it can, and kills all other cubs that its own.

I think humans have made the leap of empathy beyond caring for our immediate family as the lions do. But Jesus had no problem seeing the care of a chicken for it's young as a reflection of God's love. The fierceness of the lion is used by God as an image of himself too. God also describes himself as a warrior. Adam was told both to be fruitful, and to conquer the earth and subjugate it. Survival of the Luvingest also includes fiercely protecting your own.

Assyrian

Assyrian

Thought you might appreciate this.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5129/1324/1600/noach.1.jpg

Assyrian

J C

Assyrian
But the (Genesis) account describes a periods of creation that broadly match the geological history of the planet, with each period of creation followed by a numbered day.

You must be joking, Assyrian!!

Let’s examine how an interpretation of the DAYS of Creation as being EONS of Evolutionary Time would actually ‘stack up’ when applied to the Genesis 1 account of the origins of the Universe and all life therein.

If the FIRST DAY of Creation was actually the first EON of Evolution then we have a problem straight away.

The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the Theory of Evolution and it’s ‘fellow traveller’ the Big Bang Theory postulates that empty space and the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter.
Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!

The Biblical account of The SECOND DAY of Creation describes a process of dividing ABUNDANT WATERS on the Earth into two parts – while Evolutionists postulate that a FIERY HOT Earth was formed from interstellar dust – with water obviously arriving much later (by some unknown process).

The Biblical account of The THIRD DAY of Creation states that dry land appeared and life started with MACROPHYTE TERRESTRIAL plants – while Evolution postulates that the first life was MICROSCOPIC and AQUATIC.

The Biblical account of The FOURTH DAY of Creation states that the Sun and the Stars were created, i.e. AFTER plants were created on the Third Day – while Evolution postulates that the first life evolved billions of years AFTER the Sun had come into existence.

The Biblical account of The FIFTH DAY of Creation states that all aquatic life (including marine mammals) and birds were created – while Evolution postulates that early animal life evolved into fish but that birds and marine mammals evolved millions of years afterwards via intermediate amphibian and reptilian ancestors. In addition marine mammals are supposed to be amongst the ‘last arrivals’ because Evolutionists postulate that they actually evolved from land mammals who ‘returned to the sea’ and land mammals weren’t created until the SIXTH DAY according to Genesis 1.

The Biblical account of The SIXTH DAY of Creation states that land mammals, INVERTEBRATES and REPTILES were created i.e. AFTER birds and marine mammals were created, on the Fifth Day – while evolution postulates that INVERTEBRATES were amongst the earliest multi-cellular creatures to evolve and reptiles WERE ANCESTRAL to birds.
The Biblical account also states that Man was directly created by God on the SAME day as all of the other land-based animals.

I hasten to add, as a scientist, that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is a reasonable Sequence IF Gradual Evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would have had to evolve into ever-higher life forms over enormous lengths of time IF (and it is a big IF) that Evolution is TRUE.
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.

Creation Science coherently explains how life was actually CREATED EXACTLY AS GENESIS SAYS IT WAS. Creation Science research also PROVES this to be true using objective, repeatable (i.e. scientific) means.

In summary, if the Days of Creation were literal 24 hour days, Genesis provides a rational, coherent and scientifically verifiable account of the origins of life and the early history of the Earth and of Mankind.

J C

Assyrian
How do you get raindrop marks in layers of sediment settling out under water? How do animals walk on layers of sediment forming in water deep below the ark? However it is a lot easier to preserve a mark if the mud is let dry out a bit before it is covered again.

Of course coprolites are really interesting (if you are into that sort of thing). You know the way you can tell how recently a neighbour dog has left his calling card, older turds are dried out and cracked. It is the same with fossilised dino poo, you get the ones that were covered in silt when they were still fresh and others that had a chance to get dried out and cracked first. Difficult in the middle of a flood.

To argue that fossilised ‘raindrop marks’ DISPROVE Noah’s Flood is certainly a novel form of argument – but Evolutionists never cease to amaze me with their ingenuity!!!

All of the above phenomena were either deposited / created in the days preceding the Flood, during localised recesses during the Flood or much more recently in localised fossilisation events.


Assyrian
Creationist site don't tell you of polystrate trees where the tree has sent roots up into each layer as it was being buried...

SOME polystrate trees are fossilised in situ. The fact that sedimentary layers with adventituous tree roots may be several metres deep but clearly had to be laid down in less than 100 years – actually DISPROVES evolutionists ‘millions of years’ Geology – which ascribes ‘millions of years’ to these metres deep sedimentary layers due to it's gradualist assumptions.


Assyrian
This is pretty disingenuous. You realise that any erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers utterly disproved the claim that all the layers formed in one great flood?

It is not in the least disingenuous – Creation Science recognises that there are examples of LOCALISED RECENT sedimentation and fossilisation events (where erosion, etc would be observable).
The vast majority of sedimentation events did occur during Noah’s Flood as proven by the absence of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between THESE layers.


Robin
It's not any more necessary for most recent common male ancestor and the most recent common female ancestor to be contemporaneous, than it is for my grandparents had to be born on the same day!

Your grandparents obviously DIDN’T need to be born on the same day – but THEY DID need to live with each other at the same point in time and space in order to reproduce!!!

Ditto for the FIRST man and the FIRST woman!!!

Evolutionists propose the bizarre idea that the common male and female ancestors of ALL of Mankind lived 100,000 years apart!!



Scofflaw
Imagine for a moment that you and I are first cousins - we share a common grandfather - and he is our most recent common male ancestor. Imagine further that by digging into our genealogy we are also distant cousins through our mothers - we have our mothers' great-great-grandmother in common (we live in, say, Cavan, rather than Arkansas) - that woman is then our most recent common female ancestor. The two lived in entirely different generations of our family tree.

The logic of your argument MAY apply in the PARTICULAR situation chosen by you above.

However, it certainly DOESN’T apply when you claim that the common male ancestor of ALL OF MANKIND lived 100,000 years later than the common female ancestor of ALL OF MANKIND.

The common male and female ancestors of ALL OF MANKIND must be BY DEFINITION the first man and the first woman AKA Adam and Eve.

BTW Creation Science has established that the mutational regressions indicate that BOTH this man and this woman lived less than 10,000 years ago.


Wicknight
If we know life can happen like that, and we are here (proving life did happen some how) it is logical to assume that life happened like, or at least in a similar way, to what we model it did.

But we DON’T know that "life can happen like that" – Evolutionists don’t even know what the ‘that’ was.

It is not in the least logical to assume that life happened according to a ‘model’ that is little more than the belief of some person or another.


Wicknight
The only system of "quality control" is if the mistakes in replication produce a better molecule or not. If they don't then the molecule does not replicate better and eventually "dies off" since it cannot compete against the current standard molecule.

You are confusing chemistry with LIFE.
Chemical molecules are neither ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than each other and the impact of the environment is essentially neutral upon them. Salt is salt, Methane is Methane, Glucose is Glucose, etc, etc.

These molecules don’t ‘die off’. They either react with other chemicals within the Laws of Chemistry to form other EQUALLY SIMPLE molecules or they break up into their constituent atoms.

Life is in a league by itself when it comes to ‘reproduction and survival’ –and indeed these terms can only rationally be applied to living organisms.
Robin is indeed correct when he says that “the current theory of evolution says *nothing* about anything which doesn't produce offspring.”

The idea that common salt might be a defendant in a paternity case brought Glucose is indeed quite ridiculous.

Molecules DON'T mate - they merely react, or not as the case may be.


Wicknight
think the problem here is you aren't getting the idea of common ancestor. It isn't the first human, or even the first female. It is simple a female, in the distant past, that all females alive today contain genetic code from.

There would have been thousands of other women (hundreds of thousands) alive at the time as Mitochondrial Eve, but their genetic information either died out, or did not spread to enough of the human population

It is stretching credulity to breaking point to suggest that one particular female is the DIRECT ANCESTOR of ALL Mankind – EVEN THOUGH she lived contemporaneously with hundreds of thousands of other females.
Presumably most of this putative woman’s contemporary female colleagues (hundreds of thousands of them as per your idea) would also have produced lines of descent from themselves – but you are claiming that the ONLY line of descent to every man, woman and child on the planet is the one back to this particular woman.

Under the circumstances proposed by you, it would be a genetic and mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY for ANY female to be a common ancestor to ALL of Mankind – what you are actually describing are hundreds of thousands of women who are common ancestors to varying proportions of Mankind.


Originally posted by Wicknight
Creationists have never explained where all the water from the Flood retreated to after the flood

Originally posted by J C in response

I will rectify that situation immediately!!!

** Hint :-

* If you live near the sea, take a look out your front window!!!

Wibbs
Hint, that's not enough to cover all the land.

The waters of the Flood ran off the land and into the sea as the land rose out of the sea in huge up thrusts that were counterbalanced by the huge down-thrusts that created the Ocean Basins - that we observe today beyond the Continental Shelves of the World.

Please bear in mind that there is enough WATER on Earth to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles) if the Earth’s surface was smooth i.e. without the contrasting topography that we observe today.


Wicknight.
For example stalactites. It has been claimed by Young Earth Creationists that stalactites can grow very quickly. That is very true, of some stalactites. What it ignores is that stalactites in limestone don't and more importantly cannot.

The process that creates limestone stalactities cannot be speeded up significantly by increasing water flow. Not without chaning the laws of chemistry, which I suppose a Creationist could argue God did do, but then you have to ask why?

It is simply not possible that these structures could have formed in such a short time as 6-4 thousand years. That alone would debunk young earth creationism, but factor in the fact that oxygen isotope messurements of stalactites indictes outside temprature, and these not only match up with other stalactites, but also match up with the estimated dates of previous ice ages. So much independent verfication.

How about less than 50 years to produce a 3 metre stalactite!!!

I have recently personally inspected an access shaft in a mine that was cut into limestone rock in 1962 i.e. 44 years ago. I personally inspected a 3 metre column stalactite stretching from the roof of the shaft to it’s floor!!!

The age of this column is therefore a MAXIMUM of 44 years because the shaft was cut into virgin limestone in 1962.

I don’t believe that the Laws of Chemistry were changed to facilitate this event nor do I believe that it was a Divine miracle – it is just proof that the assumptions upon which 'millions of years' ideas are based are ‘seriously out of kilter’ with REALITY!!

Equally, there ARE enormous differences in the relative sizes of stalactites in all limestone caves. This proves that stalactites DO form at radically different RATES - and one of the obvious reasons for the size range IS differences in water seepage rates.


Scofflaw
Many and various, eh? And to think that people like Einstein and Hawkings can only manage one. Alas, JC, that makes a mockery of your claims to be a scientist.

I can assure you that I EARNED my qualifications from the National University of Ireland.

Why is my training in multiple scientific disciplines a problem for you Scofflaw?

Does it not give me ‘overview’ STRENGTHS that perhaps even Einstein objectively LACKED?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Evolutionists propose the bizarre idea that the common male and female ancestors of ALL of Mankind lived 100,000 years apart!!

Your great-great-great grandmother, and your father didn't live in the same time period, or have sex with each other (I hope), yet they are both your accestors

There is nothing in the theory of M-Eve or Y-Adam that say they had sex with each other, just that they are the common ancestors on the male and female sides respectively.

J C wrote:

The common male and female ancestors of ALL OF MANKIND must be BY DEFINITION the first man and the first woman AKA Adam and Eve.

No, not in the slightest. You are really not getting the concept of common ancestor.

A common ancestor of all female siblings and all your female cousins on your mothers side is your grandmother.

A common ancestor of you and all your brothers and all your male cousins on your fathers side is your grandfather.

Your fathers father, and your mothers mother, unless you are from Alabama, didn't have to have sex with each other for this idea to work.

J C wrote:

But we DON’T know that life can happen like that – Evolutionists don’t even know what the ‘that’ was.

Yes we do, these models work and are backed up by evidence of modern replication of self-replicating molecules.

J C wrote:

It is not in the least logical to assume that life happened according to a ‘model’ that is little more than the belief of some person or another.

Belief has very little to do with it JC.

You don't have "faith" that 2+2 equals 4. You know it does. Likewise, these very complex models are not based on guess work, belief or faith, they are based on the study of the natural laws of chemistry.

J C wrote:

You are confusing chemistry with LIFE.
Chemical molecules are neither ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than each other

They are if they are self-replicating. The "better" or "worse" is a measure of the molecules ability to replicate itself. If a molecule can replicate itself faster, and survive longer than its parent it is considered "better"

J C wrote:

and the impact of the environment is essentially neutral upon them.

The impact of the environment effects the replication. For example, if the temprature drops there is less engery for replication available. Molecules that replicate using less energy will survive, those that need a lot of energy won't.

J C wrote:

These molecules don’t ‘die off’.

If a self replicating molecule cannot replicate anymore it "dies off" in that the system produces no more new molecules. Of course the old atoms are still around, but then nothing really "dies off", when you die your atoms just turn into new structures.

J C wrote:

Life is in a league by itself when it comes to ‘reproduction and survival’ –and indeed these terms can only rationally be applied to living organisms.
Robin is indeed correct when he says that “the current theory of evolution says *nothing* about anything which doesn't produce offspring.”

Well it is up to you whether you consider a simple self-replicating molecule life or not. It does produce "offspring" though, by its very nature of being self-replicating.

J C wrote:

The idea that common salt might be a defendant in a paternity case brought Glucose is indeed quite ridiculous.

I would hope so, considering neither salt or glucose are self replicating molecules.

J C wrote:

It is stretching credulity to breaking point to suggest that one particular female is the DIRECT ANCESTOR of ALL Mankind – EVEN THOUGH she lived contemporaneously with hundreds of thousands of other females.

The DNA doesn't lie JC. Besides it isn't stretching anything, it was predicted long before evidence for M-Eve was found in the mDNA that she would exist. There are 6 billion humans, 150,000 years ago there were only a few thousand. Of course the genetic code from these few thousand is going to spread to most people on Earth.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

Many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve have descendants alive today. However, only Mitochondrial Eve produced an unbroken line of daughters that persists today — each of the other matrilineal lineages was broken when all the women in a particular matriarchal ancestry had only sons, or no children at all.

In other words, once a matrilineal line of decent was broken by the woman dying before having children, having only sons, or simply having no children, that line is not considered.

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent female ancestor of all women on Earth with an unbroken matrilineal lineage.

J C wrote:

but you are claiming that the ONLY line of descent to every man, woman and child on the planet is the one back to this particular woman.

No, I'm not. M-Eve is simply the most recent unbroken matrilineal line of decent. Y-Adam is the same paterilineal unbroken line of decent.

Of course there were other lines, but these mix up very quickly so it is not possible to identify them.

If humanity started from only 2 people they would have gone extinct a long long time ago

J C wrote:

Under the circumstances proposed by you, it would be a genetic and mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY for ANY female to be a common ancestor to ALL of Mankind – what you are actually describing are hundreds of thousands of women who are common ancestors to varying proportions of Mankind.

That would only work if these "proportions" never mingled with each other, that you said "right you have some kids and stick them on one corner of the Earth, and you have some other kids and stick them on another, and make sure you never meet". That is ridiculous. This early population would have mated with in the group repeatable, mixing M-Eve's DNA with all the other decendents from the other women.

J C wrote:

The waters of the Flood ran off the land and into the sea as the land rose out of the sea in huge up thrusts that were counterbalanced by the huge down-thrusts that created the Ocean Basins - that we observe today beyond the Continental Shelves of the World.

What "downward thrust"?

The sea "hole" wasn't there to start with, you just said the Earth surface was flat. Where was the water flowing to create this downward thrust. Water flowing over a smooth flat surface will not cause any downward force at all, beyond its weight. And the weight of the water would not have been enough to have a see-saw effect on the "land" to thrust it up to "counterweight" the water flowing over the "sea".

So what was either pushing the water down or pulling the land up? Because neither would have taken place on their own.

J C wrote:

How about less than 50 years to produce a 3 metre stalactite!!!

As I said, the fast growing stalactites often quoted by Creationists are not limestone stalactites. They are most commonly gypsum stalactites

J C wrote:

I have recently personally inspected a shaft in a coal mine that was cut into limestone rock in 1962 i.e. 44 years ago. I personally inspected a 3 metre column stalactite stretching from the roof of the shaft to it’s floor!!!

Well it wasn't made of limestone. Most likely it was gypsum, which is very common in areas of coal formation.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Many and various, eh? And to think that people like Einstein and Hawkings can only manage one. Alas, JC, that makes a mockery of your claims to be a scientist.

I can assure you that I EARNED my qualifications from the National University of Ireland.

Why is my training in multiple scientific disciplines a problem for you Scofflaw?

Does it not give me ‘overview’ STRENGTHS that perhaps even Einstein objectively LACKED?

Well, curiously, I'm an NUI graduate in science myself. Are you suggesting that you've graduated repeatedly from the NUI with multiple majors in science, or do you simply mean that like all science undergrads you attended various different units during your (single) degree? Also, did you transfer at any point, or did you graduate in science? I appreciate these are relatively personal questions, but you do refer to your scientific credentials quite often, so the matter is germane to the debate.

Also, as a matter of interest, was it UCD, and in the 80's? You remind me very strongly of someone in the audience at a Creationist lecture in 1986...

in curiousity,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis 1, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.

Yes.

Of course, astrophysics needs to be wrong too, and a lot of physics. And the mining and petroleum industries. And archaeology. Also most history. And large chunks of genetics. The deep structure of the earth and continents is obviously not really anything like it looks like it is. Most studies of radioactivity are probably flawed too. And the plant-breeding industry is clearly wasting its money breeding from mutants - no good can ever have come of it. Obviously a good deal of botany and zoology will need to be fundamentally revised. Every other religion on the planet will clearly need to be told to stop. A lot of Christians (so-called) will need to go to re-education. Oh, did I mention chemistry needing a good shake-up? And those guys "breeding" software through genetic algorithms - they're obviously faking their results.

Perhaps Creation Science will rise to the challenge of revising all this science, once it no longer has to battle unbelievers?

"I shoot the Hippopotamus with bullets made of platinum..."
Scofflaw