The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Or, in this case, made a duck - a gay necrophiliac duck:

The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae)

cordially,
Scofflaw

Obviously God has a sense of humour too

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Nothing - but the idea of man arriving where we are by evolution certainly implies the former stages were inferior, that we have improved with age. Therefore any who have more of the former characteristics than us could be deemed lesser humans.

No it doesn't. I think this point has been explained already, about 10 times :rolleyes:

"Inferior" and "improved" have no mean in a general sense in relation to evolution. Evolution does not improve, it adapts. We (life forms) don't improve along some general time line of evolution, the environment around us changes and we adapt to keep up. There are better adaptations, but you have to factor in the exact enviornmental conditions, so comparing humans today with humans 100,000 years ago is largely pointless because the enviornments aren't the same.

robindch

> a duck - a gay necrophiliac duck:

A stuffed model of which did a pub crawl of Dublin with Kees Moeliker (the researcher) as part of the Ig Nobel tour of the UK and Ireland in 2004. See pictures mostly taken by yours truly at:

http://www.improbable.com/ig/2004/ig-tour-UK/2004-tour-dublin-evening.html

Other folks in the photos include two friends from Trinity, Mark Abrahams (the organizer), and the English doctor who found out that the hippocampi of london taxi drivers were larger than normal, together with the dutch guy who carried out the first MRI of people having sex. Heterosexual sex, thank the stars. That's the Porter House in Temple Bar, btw.

A very strange evening indeed.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

http://www.improbable.com/ig/2004/ig-tour-UK/2004-tour-dublin-evening.html

Great website ... where can I find that MRI scan .... I'm seeing the future of porn!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

A stuffed model of which did a pub crawl of Dublin with Kees Moeliker (the researcher) as part of the Ig Nobel tour of the UK and Ireland in 2004. See pictures mostly taken by yours truly at:

http://www.improbable.com/ig/2004/ig-tour-UK/2004-tour-dublin-evening.html

Other folks in the photos include two friends from Trinity, Mark Abrahams (the organizer), and the English doctor who found out that the hippocampi of london taxi drivers were larger than normal, together with the dutch guy who carried out the first MRI of people having sex. Heterosexual sex, thank the stars. That's the Porter House in Temple Bar, btw.

A very strange evening indeed.

I'd forgotten that won an IgNobel, despite the fact that that's where I remembered it from, of course. Hmm. Could be a paper in that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lunoma

5uspect wrote:

Hey, long time watcher, this is my first post in this impressive thread . . . . .

. . . . . . I think people look for the "simple" answer to hard questions. "God did it" works for so many people as the concept of God is something that has been indoctrinated into most of us since we first learned to speak. Science comes much later unfortunately. which do you believe? . . . . . .

. . . . . .Religion tries to impose outdated and often clearly wrong morals on people. What is wrong with homosexuality in a society? who does it hurt? In a world where God is the supreme authority and the bible is his word, it only hurts God. otherwise no one we can actually prove exists is hurt. so why should we discriminate against real people that we know exist for fear of offending some supernatural being which we have absolutely no evidence of?

I think thats about enough of my incorherent ravings for now

Hi 5uspect! Now for my incoherant ravings!

Very good post. What you said is correct. I don't see why science and religion should conflict - they should try working together to make a better world but that is never to be unfortunately! Science and religion both offer unique things to our existance. Science has been around since the dawn of time. When the first person discovered something new. Science is the human discovery into our world, how things work, helping people (but can hurt people too). Religion is the discovery of existance outside of our plain in simeple terms. The belief of a higher being generally. Religion is unique also as it offers humans a sense of humanity, and shows people how to lead good lives. Unfortunately, too much can turn into fundalmentalism where one tries to enforce his/her beliefs u8pon others. It can help people but also hurt them as it can be used as a means of discrimination. So, somebody believes in Creationism and somebody else accepts Evolutionism. I don't see the problem - many people believe in different things but it doesn't mean we should try to cut off each other's arms over it. Fundalmentalism is a worrying thing. Islamic fundalmentalism is quite horrific as Islam is generally a nice religion when it is controlled. Likewise for my own religion Judaism. It sickens me that many Jews just went over to Israel and caused so much grief. I hate the Zionist movement and I hate Israel. I went there once and I'd never go back to that awful place again.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals in society. It seems to me that religious groups would have less problem with a serial killers walking around than a homosexual. What you said is true that many religious morasl are outdated. Of course the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong! Firstly, it is an old book and in them times, people weren't the best at accepting differences. Secondly, the Israelites like most religions wanted to increase their numbers. By having homosexuals, that means some people won't be procreating, which means that there are less members. The Greeks, Egyptians and Romans in fact permitted homosexuality as long as the homosexual has a child with someone. Bisexuality is probably the best term which a high proportion of Greece's society today is in fact bisexual. Discrimination is wrong. Full stop. There is no way it can be justified as being morally acceptable regardless if the Catholics or the Muslims down the road seem to think so. Like you said, that's why the UN is great. I've read the whole declaration and there is nothing wrong with it. The people who will be giving out are the religious fundalmentalists who seem to think it is alright to be bigots.

Sorry for ranting. I have a habit of doing so!

5uspect

I'm not sure religion and science can co exist. I think it was Plato that said people need equal amounts of Mythos and Logos in their lives. Mythos being ficticous stories/parables that offer moral insights into life and logos the rational understanding of our enviroment through observation. To me religion is Mythos masquerading as Logos. If you look at religion purely from the aspect of mythos that is fine as a sort of maral compass, however you cannot demand that your personal supersitiion replace or be added to established fact. By treating mythos as logos you take the purpose of the story too far and you end up with people who think its only a matter of time before the Death Star will arrive.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

To me religion is Mythos masquerading as Logos.

Good post.

If you aren't already a regular reader already you should pop over to the Atheist forum

5uspect

I don't often have too much time (in the middle of a PhD and experiments to be done) but I'll drop in for a look. Thanks!

Scofflaw

5uspect wrote:

To me religion is Mythos masquerading as Logos. If you look at religion purely from the aspect of mythos that is fine as a sort of maral compass, however you cannot demand that your personal supersitiion replace or be added to established fact. By treating mythos as logos you take the purpose of the story too far and you end up with people who think its only a matter of time before the Death Star will arrive.

To be fair, it's mostly the Creationists who confuse Mythos and Logos, although they are doing a good job of persuading people that religion and science are in opposition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

5uspect wrote:

I'm not sure religion and science can co exist......

I agree. I believe it comes down to their incompatible worldviews.

Worldview of science = naturalism
Worldview of religion = supernaturalism

Unfortunately, there is the odd foolish scientist/skeptic who have a "bench-top only" naturalism view and try to artificially separating methodological and philosophical naturalism.

Good luck with the Ph.D:)

Lunoma

It's man who prevents science and religion from co-existing. I can get them to co-exist for myself. I link them together as both help us and tell us more about everything. Both are important to me anyway. Then again I'm a very rationalist and realist person so maybe that's how it works for me!

On a global basis, science and religion being in alliance was never to be unfortunately as they keep conflicting (mainly thanks to fundalmentalists on both sides!:mad:)

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Top 20 or so states for juvenile homicides (descending rates):

Missouri 142 16.54
Louisiana 103 13.82
Maryland 138 11.12
Mississippi 25 10.2
Michigan 208 9.39
Wisconsin 118 8.87
Arkansas 48 7.59
Texas 367 7.33
California 621 7.27
New York 264 6.91
Florida 205 6.9
Georgia 91 6.11
North Carolina 96 5.8
Oklahoma 43 5.04
Virginia 77 4.84
Rhode Island 11 4.82
South Carolina 43 4.64
Arizona 46 4.53

cordially,
Scofflaw

There aren't very many juveniles in Arizona. that state is populated with retired Canadians and Northerners.:D

J C

I go away for a few days to France – and it takes me a day to read the new postings when I return!!!

ISAW
JC seems to be in a "causality trap" here. Einstein suffered from the same.

I know, and it is a very painful condition!!

However, it is greatly relieved by the receipt of a Nobel Prize!!!!


Wicknight
The laws of physics, which prove the distances of stars, proves you wrong.
The OBSERVATIONS of Astronomy indicate a Universe of INFINITE size.


Wicknight
The laws of chemistry, which prove abiogenis happens, proves you wrong.

There are no Laws of Chemistry that will spontaneously generate life – and the Biological Law of Biogenesis proves me RIGHT.


Wicknight
The laws of biology, which proves evolution can increase genetic complexity, proves you wrong.
Once again the Biological Law of Biogenesis proves me RIGHT – and ‘molecules to Man’ Evolution WRONG.


Wicknight
You can choose to ignore all this, bury your head in the sand, and refuse to accept anything that was not written down in a book 4000 years ago by a few men in a Middle Eastern desert

Just replace the words “4000”, “few men” and “Middle Easter desert” with
“150”, “one man” and “Kent”!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
As I have ALSO explained many times before, Evolution DOESN’T advance.
In fact, it’s supposed ‘diversity generation mechanism’ (mutation) actually DEGRADES genetic information.
ISAW
What do you mean? This suggests that later generations are not as "pure" as earlier ones.
Which is entirely in agreement with genetics. But you seem to be claiming that that species do the opposite of progress. what do you mean by diversity "degrades"?

I mean that mutation (which is the supposed ‘engine of evolutionary progress’ from primeval molecules to Man) is OBSERVED to always DEGRADE i.e. destroy genetic information. – and it therefore shows NO POTENTIAL to account for the observed vast quantities of tightly specified genetic information in ALL life (including Mankind).


Originally Posted by J C
However, the fact that Evolution doesn’t advance (a fact on which you also apparently agree) is logically devastating for a mechanism that Evolutionists maintain accounts for the ‘advancement’ evident between Muck and Man.
ISAW
You are committing a common error . Biological "evolution" is not the same as social "evolution" . When you add social judgements that we are somehow "better" than cave men you are not judging it from a biological perspective.

I WASN’T making any social judgements about ‘Cave Men’ – in fact I believe that these people were fully Human descendant from Adam and Eve - and therefore fully equal in all respects to today’s so-called ‘Modern Man’ – but without our current technology.

I was actually making the point that Evolution shows no potential to account for the observed INFORMATION ‘advancement’ evident between simple organic molecules (AKA Muck) and ALL life (including Mankind).


Originally Posted by J C
Natural Selection does indeed ADAPT populations to changing environments and/or allows populations to exploit new ecological niches – but it uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so.
ISAW
You are suggesting that based on the fact that all species are made of the same stuff that no new species arise. Everything is also made of elements but that does not mean new chemicals are not created.

No, I am not.
I accept that speciation is observed to rarely (and RAPIDLY) arise within Created Kinds – using pre-existing genetic information.
I also accept that Natural Selection occurs thereby allowing populations to ADAPT to changing environments and/or allowing populations to exploit new ecological niches – but it ALWAYS uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so


ISAW
Are you now claiming that someone (Sir Isaac Newton) is to be admired for their ability in spite of their moral or religious views? do you admire Satan's ability?

I RECOGNISE the manifest great abilities of Sir Isaac Newton (and the vastly greater abilities of the originally brightest angel in Creation).
However, I don’t share ALL of Sir Isaac Newton’s faith position and I share NONE of Satan’s.


ISAW
It is argument from authority! If you claim Newton was right about something than re state what you claim he was right about.

Newton WAS a Scientist of considerable authority who studied the OBSERVABLE evidence for Direct Creation and concluded in the affirmative. His faith position was an entirely different and separate matter - upon which I offer no opinion as a scientist.


ISAW
If you believe creation science is linked to Christianity it does in fact! Do you accept the religious views of a heretic and believe that his views on religious beliefs are dictum? By the way Newton's science was also not correct enough to explain some things we observe.

I believe that Creation Science is Science, full stop. Just like all other Scientific Disciplines, Creation Science contains within it’s ranks people of different faiths and none.

As a Christian, I accept the authority of the Word of God in the Bible as the final arbitrator on matters of FAITH. I equally accept the God-given free will of all other persons to hold different religious views.

As a Scientist, I have found that Newton’s Laws have continued to remain valid whilst being tested repeatedly for several hundred years.


ISAW
But it is in your view coming from a common Christian belief. If one of the authorities is a heretic then you accept his scientific view even if he is heretical in a christian sense?

In a word, yes.
If somebody tells me that they have counted two plus two and found that they are four, I would accept their conclusion without further consideration of their personal beliefs.
Equally, if a professing Christian were to claim that the resultant answer is five I might form the opinion that they were ‘mathematically challenged’.

I don’t understand your concept of a ‘common Christian belief’ – do you mean all people who have a saving faith in Jesus Christ?


ISAW
So you accept Newton was a heretic but you suggest we should listen to his arguments about his religious beliefs being connected to science? And that those beliefs are correct?

Scientist don’t deal in BELIEFS – they deal in hard facts and observed reality (like falling apples causing temporary contusions to an unprotected head).

Newton’s Laws are ‘iron cast’ scientific observations and not ‘beliefs’ as you have termed them. Ditto for his assertion of a recent direct divine creation based upon his observations.


ISAW
So you know that based on probability muck was made into man but it couldn’t have evolved?

I know that no chemical, biological or physical processes have ever been observed to produce an increase in information without an ultimate input of outside intelligence.

I also know that the mathematical probability of producing the sequence for a simple useful protein using undirected processes is so small as to rule it.

As a scientist, I do not rule out the possibility that life gradually evolved through intelligent intervention – but I see no unambiguous evidence for such gradual evolution.

J C

ISAW
Do you subscribe to Behe's "Irreducible complexity" theory?
Yes.


ISAW
Is it true that you do not believe that apes and man had a common ancestor then?
Yes.


ISAW
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.
I agree, but the correct technical term is ‘Genetic Drift’ – rather that the more amorphous concept of ‘Evolution’.


ISAW
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution.

I agree that Evolution is a BELIEF in the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors – but I have never OBSERVED any repeatably verifiable evidence that unambiguously supports this belief.


ISAW
You believe speciation does not occur?
I accept that speciation is OBSERVED to rarely (and RAPIDLY) arise within Created Kinds – using pre-existing genetic information.


ISAW
You believe that there were no homonid species ata the same time as humans. How about neanderthals or cro magnons?

Neanderthals and Cro-magnons were both fully Human.


ISAW
Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors.

We should distinguish abiogenesis from evolution here.
You may indeed distinguish between abigenesis and evolution, if you wish.
However, the ‘biological information problem’ still remains for the materialist, or indeed the theist, who relies on materialist mechanisms (that have never been observed) to account for the production of the vast quantities of tightly specified information stored in the DNA of all living organisms at all points from single cells to Mankind.


ISAW
When it comes to nearby galaxies one may have errors of hundreds of thousands of years but the distances are in millions or tens of millions of light years.

I accept that the Universe is infinite – and therefore I do accept that some stars may be billions of light years away.


ISAW
There are more than twenty ways of estimating distance. Only parallax is direct. The next most common use variable stars and are calibrated by parallax. If you are suggesting that rr Lyra oe Cepheid variables are an inaccurate method and do not show objects thousands tens of thousands and up to millions of light years away then please post some evidence.

The evidence must be posted by the claimant to the validity of these measurements – not the other way around.
If I claim that Dublin is a million light years distance from Galway the onus is in me to DIRECTLY prove this claim – not on you to disprove my assertion.

If I have a speculative hypothesis that Dublin is a million light years distance from Galway I should be protected in holding this view under the principle of Academic Freedom – but I cannot claim scientific authority for my hypothesis without repeatably observable proof for such a conclusion.


ISAW
To suggest a method is not trustworthy because it is indirect is plainly silly!
As a scientist, I will accept any indirect measurement PROVIDED the ASSUMPTIONS are clearly stated. I would point out, however, that the assumptions of indirect methods of astronomical measurement PREVENT definitive conclusions being reached about Supernovae being hundreds of thousands of light years away.


ISAW
The Bible is apparently an indirect record of Gods teachings and history. To reject one indirect method for another indirect record is plainly preposterous.
The Bible is a faith-based book that I believe to be the direct Word of God. It is therefore strictly outside of the Scientific Realm and therefore the Scientific Method cannot be applied to it (and Creation Scientists don’t make any scientific claims in this regard).
However, no repeatedly observable (ie scientific) observations have ever been made that conflict with The Bible either.
Accepting in faith the validity of the Bible (as in Biblical Christianity) DOESN’T invalidate the imperative of direct observation / measurement of anything for which one wishes to claim Scientific validity.


ISAW
You are just making the same point: That because a method is indirect it is not reliable. But it is reliable. It is not as accurate but it is reliable within the error perameters.

Any indirect method is ONLY as accurate as it’s ASSUMPTIONS. By definition it’s assumptions are just that – hypothetical assumptions.


ISAW
the cluster method is a form of parallax measurement! The cepheid variable method has been verified by the use of parallax measurement to the same stars.

You are describing TWO indirect measurements with one (the Cepheid Variable) based upon the other (the Cluster) method.
The handful of Cepheid distances now definitively known, do not constitute a statistically significant sample from which to draw scientifically valid conclusions about the distances of all other Cepheids


ISAW
Really? how do you measure "statistical significance"? what is "scientifically valid"?

Half a dozen stars don’t constitute a statistically significant sample amongst billions of stars.


Originally Posted by J C
The Universe is probably infinite – reflecting the infinite majesty of it’s Creator – and the fact that there WASN’T a Big Bang
ISAW
Your evidence it is infinite is?

Galaxies are OBSERVED at the very limits of resolution of our most advanced instruments – the circumstantial evidence therefore indicates the possibility of an infinite Universe.

The Word of God in Ps 19:1 claims that “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (NIV).
Although not definitive (as the Psalms are not literal constructs) it does provide compelling support for a belief in the proclamation of the infinite glory of God via an infinite Created Universe.


ISAW
Do you really believe gamma ray bursters all occur within say 6000 ly? Or in the past 6000 years within a few light years? Do you realise the energy coming from them? Life couldn't survive one close by.

But 300 Light Years IS an enormous distance – to put this distance into perspective we should remember that the diameter of our own Solar System - as measured by the orbit of Pluto is only 14 Light HOURS – and our Sun is like an ordinary star when ‘viewed’ from the distance of Pluto.

Equally, we should remember that Novae and Supernovae are NOT the result of a complete release of ALL of the energy in a star – only a fraction of the total energy is released in all cases.


Originally Posted by J C
So the idea that SN1987A was 164,000 Light Years away is wishful thinking (on the part of Evolutionists) – and it is certainly NOT irrefutable evidence of an old Universe.
ISAW
You do not believe anything can be more than 6000 ly away?

Yes.
I believe that the Universe is infinite – and therefore many astronomical objects are potentially billions of light years away.

My point is that it is impossible to definitively measure distances beyond 300 light years and therefore it is impossible to SCIENTIFICALLY conclude that SN1987A was 164,000 Light Years away – and this Supernova is therefore NOT irrefutable evidence of an old Universe.

As a Scientist, I have found that Newton’s Laws have continued to remain valid whilst being tested repeatedly for several hundred years.

Eh, not in relativity or quantum mech... they're pretty outdated at this point

Your evidence it is infinite is?
...
Galaxies are OBSERVED at the very limits of resolution of our most advanced instruments – the circumstantial evidence therefore indicates the possibility of an infinite Universe.

The Word of God in Ps 19:1 claims that “the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (NIV).
Although not definitive (as the Psalms are not literal constructs) it does provide compelling support for a belief in the proclamation of the infinite glory of God via an infinite Created Universe.

Your evidence for something regarding the universe is "we dont know" + "the bible says so"? Come on

J C

ISAW
The claim here is that "man(kind) is older than Coal/Oil"

The claim is unsupported and much counter evidence dates the age of the Earth as older than the 6000 years ago of literal Bible translation.
There are several methods of dating which all agree with each other.

Geological column - qualitive but goes bak into geological time and offers species from specific epochs .

The Geological Column is evidence of the burial order and tectonic movements triggered by Noah’s Flood – and NOT an unambiguous proof of ‘great ages’.


ISAW
Dendrochronology - youngner specemins can use tree rings limit with petrified trees about a million years

Extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute.
Dendrochronology can only definitively age individual trees – any apparent overlap in the ring pattern between timber samples from different trees may be due to a coincidence of localised conditions in the growth patterns at two different times rather than proof of similar age.
The oldest tree to be aged using Dendrochronology was a Bristlecone Pine aged 4,867 years when it was cut down in 1963 – thereby giving a germination date of 2,904 BC. This is currently the maximum age established by Dendrology. However, even this age comes with a ‘health warning’ because multiple growth rings have been observed within the one year in some Pine species and this Bristlecone Pine is likely to be somewhat younger than it’s number of rings suggests.
The age of this tree is also interesting in that it coincides with the approximate aftermath of Noah’s Flood, i.e 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.


ISAW
radiometric dating - some elements such as Xircon have half lives which are ~ 30Ga twice the age of the Universe.

Radiometric dating methods are based upon unproven ASSUMPTIONS about the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed, the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant. These unproven ASSUMPTIONS prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn – and there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being dated at millions of years old.


ISAW
Chronomagnetic - Switches in the magnetic poles of the Earth every 28,000 years or so - extend into geological time - hundreds of millions of years
Another unproven (and unprovable) ASSUMPTION.


ISAW
In addition Eugene Shoemaker proposed a dating method of Moons and planets based on crate density. Unfortunatley for older moons like Earths moon so many craters have been caused that it is not reliable since you cant count craters which are concealed "under" other ones.

Another unproven (and unreliable) ASSUMPTION.


ISAW
There is other evidence such as extraterrestrial meteorites. Hubble expansion the Hydrogen Helium Ratio and the Cosmic microwave background radiation which point to and universe billions of years.

Some MAY be valid scientific hypotheses – but NONE are scientifically PROVEN.


Wicknight
The high of the surface of the Earth makes this impossible, since to cover even the tips of the small mountains in Ireland the entire sea level of the Earth would have to be raised about a kilometre……..

creationists like JC come up with ridiculous explinations, like the Earth was totally flat so the oceans could cover them, and then some how the ocean floor was pushed down and the land mass pushed up so all the water flowed into the ocean. That is ridiculous in the extreme, there is no know process that could cause that event, or known evidence that even suggests it happened or is even possible.

Is it REALLY ridiculous to believe that a planet with enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles) could be entirely covered by this water at some time?

Scofflaw in the next quote confirms that even Evolutionists believe in a WORLWIDE FLOOD!!!!!

I’d say that it was a pretty firmly based hypothesis – especially in view of the observation of fossil bearing sedimentary rocks on the said mountains you are referring to – and the enormous tectonic forces that the Earth is still capable of locally releasing.


Scofflaw
Of course an evolutionist geologist would accept that virtually all of the earth has been underwater at some point. In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date?

I can give you the date!!!!
It is 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.


Originally Posted by bluewolf
As for noah's ark,
http://evolutionofgenesis.homestead.com/Zuisudra.html
hmm
Wicknight
It is interesting, but is it true? Can't find any references. If it was it would really blow the whole Young Earth out of the water

Quote from said document
“The Biblical story of the epic deluge was originally written by Mesopotamian pagans at least 1,000 years earlier.
The original story is written in the Akkadian language of Sumer on stone tablets bearing cuneiform letters. At 4,000 years old, these are the oldest syllabic texts on Earth. “

Interesting that 4,000 years ago is about 300-500 years AFTER the likely date of Noah’s Flood. It is indeed interesting and probably an inaccurate account of Noah's Flood. If you want the definitive account read Gen 6-10.


Ancient relatives of today's plants and animals may have survived Earth's oldest, longest winter, when the planet was covered in a deep sheet of ice.
Sound like the ‘Nuclear Winter’ type event that followed Noah’s Flood AKA the 'Ice Age’.


Odd-shaped mounds of dirt in Australia turn out to be fossils of the oldest life on Earth, created by billions of microbes more than 3 billion years ago

Or created by microbes in the very recent past!!!

A dirt mound 'hanging around' for 3 billion years – I thought I had heard it all – but this really ‘takes the biscuit’!!!

I must go investigate the next pile of manure that I come across for evidence of ‘billion year old microbes’.


Wicknight
It is well documented that mountain ranges can't form in a few days. Those marine fossils formed under the water, and tectonic activity, taking hundreds of thousands of years, eventual moved the rock to high mountains.
Ever see a volcano LOCALLY explode or an earthquake LOCALLY move land several metres into the air?
Now think about what such processes could do operating on an unprecedented worldwide scale – in concert with enormous underground water caverns collapsing all over the Earth!!!


Lunoma
So, somebody believes in Creationism and somebody else accepts Evolutionism. I don't see the problem - many people believe in different things but it doesn't mean we should try to cut off each other's arms over it.

I fully agree with your suggestion for academics to have the Academic Freedom to ethically pursue knowledge wherever it may be found.

Or created by microbes in the very recent past!!!

A dirt mount hanging around for 3 billion years – I thought I had heard it all – but this really ‘takes the biscuit’!!!

I must go investigate the next pile of manure that I come across for evidence of ‘billion year old microbes’.

Such a wonderful scientist you sound like.

Matthewthebig

J C wrote:

I WASN’T making any social judgements about ‘Cave Men’ – in fact I believe that these people were fully Human descendant from Adam and Eve

Em if Adam and Eve were the first people ever and they had 2 children, both male, where did everyone else come from?

And another question how old do you belive the world is?

Son Goku

Okay, my resolve is broken.

My point is that it is impossible to definitively measure distances beyond 300 light years and therefore it is impossible to SCIENTIFICALLY conclude that SN1987A was 164,000 Light Years away – and this Supernova is therefore NOT irrefutable evidence of an old Universe.

JC, why do you even bother posting?
It is difficult with Euclidean geometry to measure those distances, but with Riemannian geometry it is simple and has been done for the past eighty years that way.

SN1987A is 164,000 light years away JC, no matter how broken your caps lock key is.

But 300 Light Years IS an enormous distance......
Equally, we should remember that Novae and Supernovae are NOT the result of a complete release of ALL of the energy in a star – only a fraction of the total energy is released in all cases.

If a supernova occured within 300 light years of us JC, we would be dead. All the stars energy, except the binding energy, is released. Which is an enormous amount of energy.

The OBSERVATIONS of Astronomy indicate a Universe of INFINITE size.

They don't. The presence of higher order octaves in the WMAP studies is huge evidence against an infinite universe.

Of course this won't matter, as you don't know what higher order octaves are. None the less you will still criticise this with some vague retort like "where are these octaves I do not SEE them!!!!!one!!!".

What is your area of science JC, specifically?
Aside from the "numerous and varied" you claimed earlier.
You seem to be criticising everything from fairly advanced bioinformatics, right through to General Relativity.
Nobody has the training necessary to do this at a scientific level JC.
So either you are lying or you are qualified in one, maybe two areas and are trying (unsuccessfully) to extend your reach into other areas.

5uspect

J C wrote:

Radiometric dating methods are based upon unproven ASSUMPTIONS about the radioactive content of the rock when it was formed, the belief that no radioactivity was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that rock has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in the radioactive decay has remained constant. These unproven ASSUMPTIONS prevent any reliable dating conclusions being drawn – and there are many examples of known recently formed rocks being dated at millions of years old.

you could say:
CREATIONIST methods are based upon unproven ASSUMPTIONS about LIFE when it was formed, the belief that no COMPLEXITY was added/subtracted externally throughout the period that that LIFE has existed and the assumption that the rate of change in GENETIC DRIFT has remained constant. These unproven ASSUMPTIONS prevent any reliable RELIGIOUS conclusions being drawn – and there are many examples of known recently formed RELIGIONS being dated at millions of years old.

J C you can't seriously argue that one or two scientific methods are lacking absolute definitive proof with absolutely no experimental uncertainity are completely wrong and then go and pull out the magic book and and tell us to go read genisis for proof of Noahs flood. Thats like saying the sign post here in Limerick says Tipp town is 60km but say thats inaccurate cos that song says its definately a long way...

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Is it REALLY ridiculous to believe that a planet with enough SEA-WATER to cover the entire planet to an average depth of 2.7 Kilometres (or 1.6 miles) could be entirely covered by this water at some time?

Scofflaw in the next quote confirms that even Evolutionists believe in a WORLWIDE FLOOD!!!!!

I’d say that it was a pretty firmly based hypothesis – especially in view of the observation of fossil bearing sedimentary rocks on the said mountains you are referring to – and the enormous tectonic forces that the Earth is still capable of locally releasing.


Scofflaw
Of course an evolutionist geologist would accept that virtually all of the earth has been underwater at some point. In the Archaean, prior to the formation of continents, the entire world would have been underwater! Did he give a date?

I can give you the date!!!!
It is 2,500 +/- 300 years BC.

Even cheekier than wolfsbane, although it's very interesting to see how you misinterpret what I said.

There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, although there is a model of earth evolution that suggests that the world was covered with water prior to the production of the continents (and thus effectively consisted entriely of oceanic crust). In addition, almost every part of the world is known to have been underwater at some time (based on sedimentology), but not at the same time.

Neither of these points should be taken to support your ridiculous notions!

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

I must go investigate the next pile of manure that I come across for evidence of ‘billion year old microbes’.

Have a look at the pile by your feet. It contains evidence of 2000-year old errors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Do you consider those who commit sectarian crimes to be "non-religious"? That seems rather a strange way of looking at it.

Almost always. Let me explain:
1. Most 'sectarian' crimes are not motivated by disagreement on theology, but by ethnic competition. It is more British/Irish than Protestant/Catholic. It so happens that the respective ethnic origins mainly correlate to the respective religious affliations. So if you want to beat up a Taig, someone coming from Mass is a likely candidate. If you want to do the same for a Brit, your local church or Orange Hall will provide indications of suitable targets. Mostly it is just watching to see where they live, as we live mostly segregated here. A Rangers or Celtic top is another good indicator.
2. From my experience, most of those actively involved in the late killing campaign were not devout members of any religion. Most were in fact very godless. There were exceptions, especially in the Republican camp. A few of their leaders did seem religious. Especially in the early days, a few Christians were involved in the Loyalist groups. The slide into wanton brutality, robbery, extortion and drug-dealing caused them to remove themselves. Many Republicans were of course militantly socialist and anti-religion. That was true of an element of Loyalism too, but mostly they were ungodly patriots or just ungodly thugs with an eye to power and profit.
3. Unlike most of my Evangelical brethren, I do not regard the Troubles as mere criminality. I accept it was a war. And in war, even good people use force to accomplish their ends. As in all wars, the justness of their cause is the debate. One side at least must be fighting an unjust war. But war it is, nevertheless.

Pointers to stats, or (apologies) pointers to pointers...:

I note there is debate about the reality of the profession of faith of many. I can certainly say that most of those who call themselves 'born again' show no sign of being so. They think God is a vending machine for their lusts and the underwriter of an insurance policy against hell.

In addition, even where credible professions of faith exist, some will prove by their eventual actions that they were deceivers from the beginning - just as Judas walked with the disciples unnoticed for over three years, but was a thief from the beginning.

Finally, even true Christians can fall into sin. If they commit adultery and for a time refuse to repent, their spouse may justly divorce them.

What "dangers" flow from "illicit sex"? And while I'm asking, what is illicit sex? Is all sex outside marriage "illicit sex"? Does that mean I've had "illicit sex"?

Illicit sex is that outside the marriage bond. The dangers are STDs, unwanted pregnancies, violence from spurned lovers who feel used. We see it all around us.

Not knowing your circumstances, I can't say if you have had illicit sex. Again, from my experience, most men have.

To be frank, I wouldn't worry about Nazi thugs if they were coming out of church, wolfsbane. Not because they're more godly, and therefore somehow more moral, as you like to claim, but because their actions are highly constrained by social norms in that context, where the opposite is true in the city centre at night.

Let me suggest it is not the locality that restrains the person of faith, it is their beliefs. In the real world, those who are coming out of prayer-meetings are very unlikely to go somewhere else and mug someone. The religious person in the city centre late at night will not be beating up passersby.

As above. It's clear that you are simply making an assumption that fits your prejudices. You have no way of knowing whether the godless are those coming out of church (as you've pointed out yourself), while the gangs of youths are actually Christian skinheads.

Certainly some unbelievers do attend church. But the type of unbeliever who does so is also very unlikely to have the mindset of the hedonist. They usually have some awareness of God and are restrained by that knowledge. And young Christians do wander in groups too, but they are very much less in evidence in our estates. So again, the real world has real threats from gangs of godless youths and they are the ones most likely to be encountered if you walk through our estates.

Illicit sex is that outside the marriage bond. The dangers are STDs, unwanted pregnancies, violence from spurned lovers who feel used. We see it all around us.

Married people most certainly do suffer from unwanted pregnancies and domestic violence. Perhaps STIs as well. And rape.
Or perhaps you don't believe a husband could ever rape his wife.

5uspect

wolfsbane, do you really believe that just because a couple aren't married in the eyes of your particular religion or law that they are comitting an evil against society? How does this hurt anyone if the couple is comitted when having kids or using contraception otherwise?

Why should monotheology have a monopoly on monogamy? (say that ten times fast!)

You seem to think that in Ireland today that the greater sexual freedom we enjoy is a bad thing and we should go back to the repressed, fearful, days when the church ran the country. We're still picking up the pieces from this.

If a society behaves in a manner that gives everyone a fair go at living their life free from any form of oppression (sexual, religous or other) then that shouldn't conflict with the basic ideals of any religion. When religion tries to restrict the actions/freedoms of real people solely for fear or upseting their imaginary god, it has overstepped its mark.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Except that the similarities are many - too many for coincidence. Therefore, they are talking about the same flood, with "Moses'" account being the datably later one, and containing many borrowings.

No coincidence. They are both reports of the same event, passed down to the descendants of the survivors. As to Moses account being later, it is only true that Moses was later, not the account he passed on. You are reading into it that he borrowed from the other account rather than passing on a separate account of the same incident.

Except that all our choices are (a) known by God, (b) encompassed by God, and (c) take place in a world created by God. Accessory before the fact.

Yes, God could have made us unable to sin. He does not say why He chose not to. The closest He comes to answering our objections is the words He inspired Paul to write:
Romans 9:14-24: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%209:14-24;&version=50;

As maybe, but one is harmful in the eyes of both God and Man, one only in specific sectal interpretations of God.

Actually, sex with children has 'respectable' advocates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile_activism and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

I will specifically ask that no attempt is made to confuse or link paedophilia with homosexuality during this discussion. That is an old old accusation without any foundation in reality - heterosexual paedophilia seems to be a good deal more common, if rates of child abuse by men of female children are anything to go by.

I agree that paedophilia involves both sexs as perpetrators and victims. My point was the defence of being born gay is used also by many paedophiles about their orientation.

However, in my experience many who have sex with kids are not exclusive: they are more interested in sex than where it comes from. They shag (pardon the shorthand) whatever is available. Women, men, kids, animals - though will have preferences. Pure hedonism motivates them more than a perverted desire that arose as a reaction to something in their childhood, which would be the case of exclusive or strongly biased perversions.

I dare say most paedophilia is of the hedonist type - heterosexuals who take whatever extra opportunities that come up to express themselves.

I have dealt with both types in prison.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Er, not if they were all killed in the flood

Eight persons were not killed in the Flood. It was their descendants who wrote the accounts.

Quote:

No, its like saying having red hair (a genetic abnormality) is part of nature, which it is. God places homosexual nature in the genes of some people. They have no choice, they are the way God made them. Therefore God has made homosexuality part of nature, part of the natural, since we are made in the image of God, and God is perfect (I'm told).

Hatred, bitterness, lust, pride, envy, etc. are all part of our nature. They are endemic, world-wide. But they are not the way God originally made us to be. Neither is being homosexual.

Well no offense wolfbane, but there is only so many different ways I can say this, you are wrong. It has been scientifically proven that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature, in human species and other species. It is genetic, and as such the way God made you.

It undoubtedly occurs in nature. The point is, is it the nature as God originally made it to be, or a perversion of it? Cain murdered his brother Abel - it was certainly a 'natural' thing to do, if we accept nature red in tooth and claw, as we see throughout the animal kingdom. But is that the nature God made us for? No. He made us to dispaly His image in holy, happy relationships to Himself and one another. Man's Fall in Eden marred all that. The nature we see now is a mixture of the good and bad.

Does God not control his nature?

Being perfect, it requires no control.

5uspect

So are you acknowledgeing that two gay men or women can be in love and have a deeply comitted relationship just as much as a man and a woman?

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Wicknight said:

Being perfect, it requires no control.

Nature is far from perfect, we are a product of nature and we've done a great job taking care of the place. The Earth is a relatively stable open system, but like all systems it is imperfect and finite