The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

We wouldn’t expect to find Humans in close proximity to dying hungry Dinosaurs in the Middle of Noah’s Flood!!!!

Maybe you want to look up the meaning of Straw Man JC, because your post is full of them :rolleyes:

First of all, why were they dying? You don't slowly die of a flood, like you do of a diease or injury. You are washed away and you drown, pretty quickly.

Secondly why were they hungry? The flood game pretty quickly, most land creatures would have been killed in the first few days. Up until that point they would have been perfectly happy.

Thirdly, and most importantly, a large number of dinosaurs were herbivors. Humans could have had settlements very close to these dinosaurs and had no problem, just as you have settle near wild horses.

The only logical explination for why dinosaur bones are not found with human bones is that dinosaurs died off millions of years before humans even evolved on the planet. That is what the evidence says.

J C wrote:

Dinosaur Drawings are indeed found on rock paintings – there is ONE in White River Canyon, Utah.

Those look pretty fake to me JC. The ridiculous smile on the dinosar is a bit of a give away.

J C wrote:

1. YES, Creation Scientists do research – that is the mission of all Science, after all – and Creation Science is no exception.

2. NO, Creation Science DOESN’T expect to find ‘migration trail fossils’ for the reasons already outlined on this thread – so they are not about to dig up Alaska to look for fossils that they don’t believe to exist!!

So they do do research, yet they refuse to look for the one thing that would prove the Flood actually happened ... how does that work?

J C wrote:

The Koala Bear obviously DIDN’T lose the genetic information to process Eucalyptus leaves – it had it from the time it was Created!!!

By that logic every animal everywhere has the ability to do anything it wants. Which is nonsense.

The koala bear didn't have the ability until it evolved it out of necessity.

J C wrote:

BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists believe that the Ice Age DELAYED Mankind’s settlement of Northern Eurasia and the Americas!!!

The ice age didn't happen in 2300 BCE :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

A generation wouldn't do so SUDDENLY - it would take about 33 years.

Firstly, 33 years is suddenly to increase production of food x5 (you are right, 10 surviving children is a x5 increase)

Secondly, at any one time the number of mouths to feed would be far far creater than x5, since to produce 10 surviving children each couple would have to produce approx 30-60 children.

This of course ignores the fact that it is physcially impossible for a women with an age of 33 (or anything old that 35 since fertility drops by a huge amount after that age) to produce 30 children, let alone 60, in her child bearing years.

Nature imposes a natural restriction that a human female can only produce a child every 2-3 years by greatly decreasing fertility in a the female while she is lactating (this is circumvented by modern bottle feeding, which some believe is a bad idea). A most an average female from that age could produce maybe 10 children, assuming she started sexual activity aged about 13-15. Based on mortality rates from that age she would be lucky if 3 survived passed the age of 5.

So instantly your x5 growth rate is out the window. It couldn't happen. You are down to a growth rate of x1.5 at the most, with a rate of about x0.5-x0.10 being far more likely (which is what historians believe the growth rate actually was) Of course x1.5 is still very high for that time, but it still means the population could not have grown fast enought to pouplate African and Asia in the very short time frame you require (approx 100-400 years).

It simply didn't happen JC

J C wrote:

I NEVER suggested that a 5x increase would be sustained indefinitely in each generation – after about 400 years, resource limitations would begin to bite at about the 500 million mark – and the rate of growth would begin to ease back to about 3 children per couple.

What?

If they don't hvae the resources in 400 with a huge labour force, they certainly won't have the resources 200 years after the flood, or 100 years after :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

But IF language evolved one would EXPECT that geographically close peoples would have considerable similarities between their languages.

Only if the lanugages evolved from each other. Which is why middle egyptian is very similar to pre-flood old egyptian (which makes no sense in a biblical flood context) and why egyptian in general is nothing like babylonan.

J C wrote:

If the Babel Dispersal had occurred then mutually incomprehensible languages should be the norm – and this is in fact the case

That doesn't explain all the post-babel langagues that are very similar to each other, or the languages that pick up exactly where the old culture left off.

The babel dispersal, like the flood, didn't happen.

J C wrote:

Different Language = Different Culture.

What nonsense. Maybe you should my Irish speaking friends they are completely different culture to me and you :rolleyes:

There is no biblical explination for why all the dispersed people not ony changed their lanugages but also completely abandoned their culture, history, religions, systems of government and then some how managed to adopt the pre-flood ones from the areas they were in.

It is nonsense. It didn't happen.

J C wrote:

Many plants DID NOT survive the Flood.

Actually JC no plants could have survived the flood.

J C wrote:

Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water.

As I have explained to you already the bible describes the flood taking place in winter JC. There were no seeds.

The only seeds were on the ark. And ignore the ridiculous idea that two of every land animal could have fit on the ark (approx 6 milion individual animals :rolleyes), there certainly would not have been enough seeds to feed the 6 million animals when they got off and proceeded to multiple by a rate of x5)

It didn't happen JC. Let it go.

Rev Hellfire

Any chance the next person to post here could do a
Previously on The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy… and do one those one minute intro's for us, because 134 pages of reading is excessive.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Any chance the next person to post here could do a
Previously on The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy… and do one those one minute intro's for us, because 134 pages of reading is excessive.

To summarise:

Anyone fancy a debate about creationsism?

The Atheist wrote:

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

J C wrote:

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

The rest they say 'Is history'

Dades

Originally Posted by The Atheist
I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

And so I learned - never underestimate other people's... well let's just say other people.

Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Any chance the next person to post here could do a
Previously on The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy… and do one those one minute intro's for us, because 134 pages of reading is excessive.

Note that I'm biased - I'm an atheist and a scientist.

Some handy abbreviations: ICR (Institute for Creation Research), AiG (Answers in Genesis Creationist website), TO (TalkOrigins anti-Creationist website), YEC (Young Earth Creationist), OEC (Old Earth Creationist, or Theistic Evolutionist).

Handy terminology: Creationists (believe in Biblical inerrancy and a literal reading of the Bible, esp. Genesis), Evolutionists (scientists, people who accept the theory of evolution and the general scientific worldview - the term is not accepted by them, and is used for convenience).

Creationists: God created the world in six days 6000 years ago, and all the evidence agrees with this. The worldwide Flood happened as recorded in Genesis - man and dinosaur were contemporaries. Materialistic science does not recognise this, because it makes atheistic assumptions that mean the supernatural is excluded. Scientists are forced to conform to the atheistic view by peer pressure, and this is also why Creation Scientists (who do not make materialist assumptions, and who form a large, respectable, and growing number) are unable to get published in peer-reviewed journals (recite suppressed Creationists). This happens because belief in evolution is just that - belief. The theory of evolution is full of holes (recite problems), as are the dating methods used to support it (recite problems).

Evolutionists: No evidence whatsoever suggests a young Earth, unless badly misinterpreted. In particular, the Flood is in complete contradiction of the entire modern understanding of geology. Science is by nature materialistic, because you can do anything you like with the supernatural except produce a repeatable phenomenon. There is no worldwide conspiracy of scientists, and the writings of "Creation Science" are rejected, quite properly, because they are pseudo-scientific gibberish. "Creation Scientists" are a tiny minority who put their religious convictions before their objectivity - literally, in the case of ICR, where this is a requirement of membership. There are fewer "Creation Scientists" in all disciplines than there are biologists called Steve. Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is no more a belief than acceptance of the Theory of Gravity is. The problems that YECs propose in the Theory of Evolution and dating methods are nearly all based on misunderstandings, incorrect assumptions, actual prejudice, or are outdated - in any case, YECs simply assume that a problem with evolution means they're right.

HTH,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

This is your LUCKY DAY!!!

Oh, Lord - did he really say that? I shall have to go and lie down.

flabbergasted,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Any chance the next person to post here could do a
Previously on The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy… and do one those one minute intro's for us, because 134 pages of reading is excessive.

Young Earth Creationists Arguments -

Radiometeric dating is based on unfounded assumptions about the rate of decay of certain radioactive material. Because these assumptions are unfound, and because obvious mistakes have been shown using radiometeric dating, all radio meteric dates are suspect and as such do not prove the Earth is older than 6000 years.

Abiogenes is impossible. It is impossible that a group of self replicating molecules could have formed into such complex structures such as cells. Something must have artificially made these structures (ie God).

Macro-evolution is impossible. It is not possible for mutation or any other process to cause genetic information to increase in complexity, or to endow the life form with new attributes or abilities. All mutation can do is re-arrange the genetic information so life forms discover new abilities inside their pre-endowed ability range. All life forms were given these inital ability ranges by God when they are created, since He knows everything they need to be able to do now, and everything they will need to do in the future.

The Earth was created 6000 years ago, by God. He also created the universe around the Earth in the state it is now. Some YEC such as JC argue that the stars and planet in the heavens are actually much closer to Earth than we originally believed, that they are all with in a few thousand light years. Therefore there is no problem with light reaching us from far away stars since no start is beyond 6000 light years so all light has reached us. There are a wide range of Creationists theories on this, JC's is just one. Others believe God speed up light so it would reach us, others believe God created the stars and the light about to hit Earth so we wouldn't miss it (all YEC seem to believe the stars are gift from God).

The first humans, created when the Earth was created were Adam and Eve. All humans are decended from them. YEC claim that such inbreding would not cause genetic problems because Adam and Eve had "prefect" DNA, and as such no errors could be produced by their children mating with each other. It took a number of years for the genetic structures to degrade, causing modern day genetic dieases.

In approx 2300 BCE God sent a world wide flood to destroy all of humanity and land animals. Only Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wivies survived the flood, in a massive Ark that contained 2 of each animal species destroyed by the flood (approx 2-3 million animals), along with food to feed these animals for an indefinate period (I will leave it up to the dear reader to work out how big the ark would have to be). The flood took 40 days to cover the earth, and then lasted for another 150 days before it began to desend.

When asked to explain how the flood covered the entire surface of the Earth the YEC explination is that the Earth was a lot flatter than it is now, and that during the flood land masses shifted significantly, causing the formation of mountain ranges such as the Alps and Asian high lands. This massive movement, along with sediment caused by 190 days of the earth being under water, explains most sedimentary rock formations, as well as the earths oil deposits and fossils.

After the flood the 6 surviving humans began to repopulate the Earth. With a birth rate of 10 surviving children the easily repopulated the Earth in with a few hundred years, before the birth rate dropped to 3 suriving children. When asked how this rapidly expanding populating managed to feed itself, YEC claim that seeds from plants would have survived the flood by floating on top of the water, and when the flood ended they would have replanted and caused a surge of vegitation to grow over the fertile land. This seems to contradict the Bible which claims that the flood happened during a northern hemisphere winter, when no plants would have been in the process of seeding.

The fact that so many different human cultures are found through the world is explained by the Babel story, in which God fearful of the ability of mankind with their common language, split the languages of all humans into different types, stopping humans from working together. When asked to explain how this equates to the humans also adopting other human cultures from the original Babylonian one of Noah, YEC claim that languages = culture, so if a group of people have been given a new language they will automatically take on a new culture, completely different from their original one.

Scofflaw

Wicknight, that's far better than mine...I take my hat off to you! You probably ought to put a disclaimer at the top though...

impressed,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Wicknight, that's far better than mine...I take my hat off to you! You probably ought to put a disclaimer at the top though...

impressed,
Scofflaw

I agree. After 10 mins of writing I was still explaining Genesis, I have been following with amazement, shock, horror and interest, but I must admit that I am stumped by ”in which God fearful of the ability of mankind with their common language, split the languages of all humans into different types, stopping humans from working together” I fail to understand that one at all. Why/What on earth was God fearful of ???
Purrrrplexing indeed.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

OK. Thanks! Two more questions (one is clarification), if that's alright?

Sure.

1. So your belief in God is entirely contingent on the correctness of the Bible?

Yes, seeing that God is not just any god, but the God who is revealed in the Bible.

2. How important is your belief in God to you?

Hmm. I'll have to be careful not to mislead you here.

My belief in God is only as important to me to the extent God is real. If He could be shown not to be real, then my belief in Him would be instantly abandoned. As He is real, then my belief in Him is paramount in my life.

robindch

> I have been following with amazement, shock, horror and interest

Sometimes, I find it's a bit like watching a slow-motion car crash...

> God fearful of the ability of mankind with their common language
> split the languages of all humans into different types, Why?

Impossible to tell. The text of the bible is actually worth reading a bit more closely on this, and prompts a few questions:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%2011:1-9;&version=31;

• Why does god refer to himself in the plural?
• How high can you build a brick tower in the desert heat using tar as mortar? Tar? Up to the clouds? er...
• The passage implies that heaven(s) is physically above the earth, consistent with later assertions that various prophets etc flew there.
• Should creationists be worried about the rise of English as a world language?
• Why would people "scatter" if they don't have a common language? In reality, history shows that people form a pidgin and usually stay where they are.
• The entire episode is less than 200 words. Why has it had such a strong impact on religion?

btw, good job Wicknight.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

You probably ought to put a disclaimer at the top though...

Along the lines of "This is all nonsense and has been proved completely wrong a number of times"

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I see. In other words, although science actually contests the scientific nature of Creationism, you wish it nevertheless to be debated as accepted science?

That illustrates the problem - you say science contests the scientific nature of Creationism, we say it does not. It is evolutionist science, establishment science, or as you put it 'accepted' science that contests our view.

Certainly I can see why you would want that, but I fear I cannot see how it is possible. Can you see another route to your goal?

No, but I'm not a scientist. Maybe they have suggestions.

Let Creation Science publish an original piece of research (no, you don't have to get it into the peer-reviewed journals) that, from the principles written down in Genesis, establishes something that materialistic science cannot.

Not sure what sort of thing you are thinking of. Surely both sides deal with the same evidence and only offer differing explanations?

Fairly straighforward, surely? Not quite, of course, because of the problem of interpretation. The Creationist explanation of the Grand Canyon, for example, does not fit the bill, because it has not established anything that materialist science cannot.

Exactly - or to put it another way, the materialist science explanation of the Grand Canyon does not fit the bill, because it has not established anything that the Creationist explanation cannot. An article that refers to some of this: Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! by Andrew Snelling http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/nature.asp#r8

I can work on the definition here, but essentially, if that is done, then I for one will happily fight to have that work published in a peer-reviewed journal, and debated in the appropriate academic media.

Seem reasonable?

Very.

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

I agree. After 10 mins of writing I was still explaining Genesis, I have been following with amazement, shock, horror and interest, but I must admit that I am stumped by ”in which God fearful of the ability of mankind with their common language, split the languages of all humans into different types, stopping humans from working together” I fail to understand that one at all. Why/What on earth was God fearful of ???
Purrrrplexing indeed.

Fearfull might be the wrong word. Pissed off might be better. God was pissed off that humans, through their common lanuage, could achieve anything they set their mind to. So he broke up their common lanaguge.

God of love indeed

How exactly humans could achieve anything just because they had a common language is a bit beyond me, since the airline industry has a common language of English, and still crash into each other all the time

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

Along the lines of "This is all nonsense and has been proved completely wrong a number of times"

Also don't forget to copyright it!

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

How exactly humans could achieve anything just because they had a common language is a bit beyond me, since the airline industry has a common language of English, and still crash into each other all the time

Engineering and science generally has english as a common language, today we send men through the "heavens" on a regular basis. Genetists play god in the lab evert day. Do creationists fear another dispersal? Or is the end nigh?

Matthewthebig

Armegeddon out of here

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Not sure what sort of thing you are thinking of. Surely both sides deal with the same evidence and only offer differing explanations?

Exactly - or to put it another way, the materialist science explanation of the Grand Canyon does not fit the bill, because it has not established anything that the Creationist explanation cannot. An article that refers to some of this: Sedimentation Experiments: Nature finally catches up! by Andrew Snelling http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/nature.asp#r8

Well, a good example that has come up would be anomalous fossils/skeletons (koalas in India), and a splendid example would be anomalous fossils/skeletons along the "migration routes" that animals & plants would have to have followed back from the Middle East to their destinations. I really cannot see how a naturalistic explanation would arise for such a thing.

BTW, there is no point in quoting Snelling at me - following the discussion we had (quite some time ago now) I no longer regard him as credible, I'm afraid. His comments on the paper he used as his starting point (and which I also read) showed either mendacity or incomprehension - and since several of the points he specifically said the author did not address were very obviously there in the paper in black and white - I tend to think the former.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

So not a report so, a set of beliefs you cannot verify.

No, Diogenes:
Report: An account presented usually in detail. That covers the Genesis account.
Beliefs: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. My response to the report.

Like your claim modern scientific evidence re cosmic radiation and lifespan, and finally when challenged you admit that theres no scientific evidence, you're dressing up what is a belief system with scientific jargon to make it seem plausible.

You are very confused in your thinking, as the example of 'report' and 'beliefs' demonstrated. My claim was that modern science suggested cosmic radiation could be a mechanism capable of reducing mankind's longevity. It was you who thought I said science proved mankind once lived for 900 years.

I'm sorry the most common verbs in those articles are "If" and "Suppose" "likely".

Yes, that is how real science approaches possible historical events.

In fact the only thing it doesn't hypothesis is about the bible. Which is presented as irrefutilable fact.

Yes, that is how real Christian theology approaches the Bible.

The science is forced to bend around it, torturously.

We beg to differ.

I'll say again; theres not a shred of evidence there that mankind used to live to age 700 and this was cut short by cosmic radiation.

The only evidence is the report. Cosmic radiation is a possible explanation of how it happened, if the report is true.

I'm aware at the painful debate that took place, the tedious rebuttals on your and others part. I was not swayed or was I convinced.

Given your comprehension skills, I'm sort of glad about that.

But don't give up. Salvation is not obtained by the wisdom and understanding of this world. Ask God for true wisdom and understanding so that you can find Him. That's more important than even understanding how the Creation and Flood came about.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

No, Diogenes:
Report: An account presented usually in detail. That covers the Genesis account.
Beliefs: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. My response to the report.

You are very confused in your thinking, as the example of 'report' and 'beliefs' demonstrated.

The only evidence is the report. Cosmic radiation is a possible explanation of how it happened, if the report is true.

Tsk tsk, wolfsbane. If the report is not true, then it is not a report, but a story. It is true according to your beliefs, which makes it, from your point of view, a report - but your beliefs are contingent on it being true, and being a report.

Diogenes is not the one who is confused, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

robindch said:

A very even-handed answer, but one that doesn't actually say anything. Try again? Tell me why you feel comfortable and happy to use what people whom you insult as "Nazi"-like make for you? Aren't you perhaps biting the biotechnological hand that feeds you?

Hey, I'm wearing trainers from Vietnam, shirts from China. If I were to boycott everything but what a genuine Christian made, I would be living very meagerly or expensively.

I take it you do not use anything developed by creationists? http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=642 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/reporter/414/section13.htm

Anyhow, on a separate topic, and in the spirit of free and open enquiry that we evolutionists are known for one our siude, but not on yours, I took the liberty of looking up that quote that you have in your .sig, the one about the sacred cows and hamburger (and not "hamburgers"!). Turns out that it's almost invariably attributed to Mark Twain (see here and here). I did try to find any attributions to Dresden James, but yours was the only one.

Thanks for that, Rob. I took it from another site that gave DJ as the source. Maybe DJ had used it in the plural form and that site thought it was his ? BTW, I can't find the source in Twain, e.g. http://www.twainquotes.com/freefind.html

Interestingly, DJ did have one worthwhile thing to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dresden James
The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.

Seems to me he could have been talking about creationism. Or christianity

Or evolutionism.

DJ did have another pertinent observation:
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."Hmm, which side on this debate has been branded as raving lunatics?

ps: Unlike Jonathan Wells (of the ten copyrighted creationist questions-fame) you are free to use the fruits of my research as you want!

I appreciate that - I'll update my signature.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Tsk tsk, wolfsbane. If the report is not true, then it is not a report, but a story. It is true according to your beliefs, which makes it, from your point of view, a report - but your beliefs are contingent on it being true, and being a report.

You haven't heard of a false report, or a mistaken report? You haven't read the tabloids? :eek:

Reports may well be just stories, but the term report conveys no sense of its veracity or otherwise, just that it is an account given by someone.

Diogenes is not the one who is confused, I think.

More accurately, not the only one, going by the above.

robindch

> Hey, I'm wearing trainers from Vietnam, shirts from China. If I were to
> boycott everything but what a genuine Christian made, I would be living
> very meagerly or expensively.

I'm not asking you to restrict yourself to things made by christians, but rather -- again -- asking you why do you not reject the things that you say are developed and produced by people whom you insult as being Nazi-like? Why don't you exercise the courage of your considerable convictions and dump the lot? To me, it looks like opportunistic selfishness on your part.

> I take it you do not use anything developed by creationists?

Thankfully not suffering from arthritis, I haven't had to use the fruits of the good doctor's labors, knowingly or otherwise. But again, as any treatments that he'd have come up with will have gone through rigorous peer-review, trial and approval processes, I'd be quite happy to use them if I had to, and thank him for them. I've nothing against creationists, or anybody else, when they're doing science by the rules of science.

> The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its
> victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully
> and unawaredly enslave themselves.

Unfortunately, much as you'd like to, you can't apply this to mainstream biology for two simple reasons: (1) there is no central administration, despite your daft and baseless claims of it somehow being "estalishment" and (2) the people who support it in this forum and elsewhere are most emphatically not ignorant about what they're doing. On any level.

However, this apt quote can be applied to you and your side of the argument -- you've admitted that your scientific knowledge is very limited and over the last while, have referred principally to AiG, to whom you seem to have devolved all the tough work of having to work out what to accept. AiG = administrator; wolfie = unwitting victim.

Touché, I'm afraid, m'dear!

5uspect

Wolfsbane, you say you're not a scientist. So why don't you just stop reading AiG for a few weeks, infact delete it from your bookmarks, go get a science text book or two and start learning about how exaclty it works. Do some experiments. Look at how assumptions are made and justified. Hop on over to google scholar to search for peer reviewed papers. (if you can't get access I'm sure one of the many scientists here will sort you out). If your having any difficulty with some particular things ask and we'll try to help. Don't try to prove that huge chunks of science are wrong on the basis of one website. You seem to put as much faith in AiG as you do the bible.

The great thing about science is that you can perform experiments to prove your ideas. If you cannot afford to do so the literature regarding the work done by others is there is a clear and transparent form.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I'm not asking you to restrict yourself to things made by christians, but rather -- again -- asking you why do you not reject the things that you say are developed and produced by people whom you insult as being Nazi-like? Why don't you exercise the courage of your considerable convictions and dump the lot? To me, it looks like opportunistic selfishness on your part.

I don't have great moral requirements of unbelievers. Red fascists/Brown fascists/ White-coated fascists, etc. - all my fellowmen. But most folk, including most scientists, are not fascists. They may be ruled by them, but are mostly decent sorts.

Thankfully not suffering from arthritis, I haven't had to use the fruits of the good doctor's labors, knowingly or otherwise. But again, as any treatments that he'd have come up with will have gone through rigorous peer-review, trial and approval processes, I'd be quite happy to use them if I had to, and thank him for them. I've nothing against creationists, or anybody else, when they're doing science by the rules of science.

Same here. It is evolutionist science that is rubbish. Good old intelligently-designed drugs, procedures, machines - that's what real science is about.

Unfortunately, much as you'd like to, you can't apply this to mainstream biology for two simple reasons: (1) there is no central administration, despite your daft and baseless claims of it somehow being "estalishment" and

You're in denial.

(2) the people who support it in this forum and elsewhere are most emphatically not ignorant about what they're doing. On any level.

You being one of them, are blissfully and unawaredly enslaving yourself. Of course you will think you are not ignorant of what is going on, while the process of indoctrination saps your wit.

However, this apt quote can be applied to you and your side of the argument -- you've admitted that your scientific knowledge is very limited and over the last while, have referred principally to AiG, to whom you seem to have devolved all the tough work of having to work out what to accept. AiG = administrator; wolfie = unwitting victim.

Your learning has had its bounds set by the presuppositions of your superiors and reinforced by your peers.
Establishment = administrator; rob = victim.

Touché, I'm afraid, m'dear!

If the cap fits...;)

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

Wolfsbane, you say you're not a scientist. So why don't you just stop reading AiG for a few weeks, infact delete it from your bookmarks, go get a science text book or two and start learning about how exaclty it works. Do some experiments. Look at how assumptions are made and justified. Hop on over to google scholar to search for peer reviewed papers. (if you can't get access I'm sure one of the many scientists here will sort you out). If your having any difficulty with some particular things ask and we'll try to help. Don't try to prove that huge chunks of science are wrong on the basis of one website. You seem to put as much faith in AiG as you do the bible.

I have read other sites, including evolutionist ones. I see where observational science leaves of and historical science begins. Evolution is part of the latter, and its pretences to be factual rather than interpretative are no more than dogma of scientism, not science.

The great thing about science is that you can perform experiments to prove your ideas. If you cannot afford to do so the literature regarding the work done by others is there is a clear and transparent form.

Maybe you can point me to the experiments that changed one type of creature into another - you know, the fish to mammal thing?

J C

The vast number of ‘straw men’ now on this thread constitute a fire hazard!!!!


STRAW MAN NUMBER FIFTEEN!!
Scofflaw

That would mean that all those mammoths and Neanderthals are pre-Flood, right? Oh dear - but that would mean that their DNA is an example of pre-Flood DNA, wouldn't it? But that can't be right, because it's just like modern DNA, which it can't be, can it? Besides, wolfsbane said the Neanderthals were descended from Noah, just a couple of posts back! That can't be the case, because we have Neanderthal fossils!

You're all confused, Scofflaw!!!

Neanderthals were all FULLY Human and Mammoths were all Elephantidae – right from the moment of their Creation.

The fossilised Neanderthals and Mammoths are Humans and Mammoths that were drowned in the Flood.

The non–fossilised remains of both Neanderthals and Mammoths are mostly of post-Flood vintage!!!


STRAW MAN NUMBER SIXTEEN!!
Scofflaw

Dum dum dum de dum....

An Evolutionist music score ? :eek:


STRAW MAN NUMBER SEVENTEEN!!
pH
while you're here J C any chance of answers to 2638

The Koala lives almost entirely on eucalyptus leaves. This is likely to be an evolutionary adaptation that takes advantage of an otherwise unfilled ecological niche, since eucalyptus leaves are low in protein, high in indigestible substances, and contain phenolic and terpene compounds that are toxic to most species

The Koala Bear was CREATED with the ability to digest Eucalyptus leaves.


STRAW MAN NUMBER EIGHTEEN!!
5uspect
Hang on, it (The Koala) was created with the ability do endure toxins? I thought when God created the world in six days he gave all animals (and Man) the all plants to eat. As Wolfsbane has pointed out poisonous plants occurred as a result of the fall. So if god created Koala's when he created all the animals with the ability to eat posionous leaves (not to mention all the other animals who can endure toxins) doesn't that mean god expected adam and eve to fail?

1. The Koala was created with the ability to digest Eucalyptus leaves – in this case “one Bear’s meat is another’s poison”!!!!
2. The Eucalyptus tree produces medically important substances.
Like all medicines, if you use them correctly they work and if you don’t they CAN poison you.
3. God, being omniscient, KNEW that Adam and Eve would fall – but He didn’t make them do it!!!

The Eucalyptus tree was Intelligently Designed to provide food for Intelligently Designed Koala Bears and medecines for Intelligently Designed Humans!!!

STRAW MAN NUMBER NINETEEN!!
5uspect
it is accepted that the god in the OT is an aggressive one.

God ISN’T aggressive - He is a Just and Loving God.

He visits His justice on those who don’t repent
- and He saves those who do.


STRAW MAN NUMBER TWENTY!!
5uspect
I thought creationists were allergic to big numbers?

Creationists LOVE big numbers.

Ones like 10^^1,800,000 which are the odds against of the Human Genome sequence evolving from scratch!!!

robindch

> B]wolfsbane[/B I don't have great moral requirements of unbelievers.

Oh well, yet another question duly stuffed into the drawer marked 'Unanswered'

> But most folk, including most scientists, are not fascists. They may
> be ruled by them,

I'd like to follow this thought up a bit, if you don't mind.

In my experience, religious people tend towards hierarchicalism, by which I mean that they feel able to deal only with decisions about information (and the rules which govern it) which are defined according to strictly-demarcated hierarchical lines. It follows from this that religious people do not seem to accept that (a) information and rules may be arrived at consensually, without a hierarchy which defines it, and therefore (b) they tend to assume that a hierarchy msut exist, even if there isn't one.

Can you comment on whether or not you feel that this is an accurate or an inaccurate summary of the epistemological framework that you use?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Report: An account presented usually in detail. That covers the Genesis account.

How is Genesis "in detail"

Genesis skims over huge events in a couple of lines. No where is there detailed descriptions of what exactly happened.

No where in the Bible can you find out how exactly God created life, or in what order.

No where in the Bible can you find a detailed description of the Noah flood, where it started, how it moved across the earth, any form of time line.

The babel tower is handled in something like 3 lines.

John Doe

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm, which side on this debate has been branded as raving lunatics?

Oh, this is brilliant! In your brave new world, in order to win a debate one must be branded a raving lunatic by the majority of people! Touché, Wolfsbane, touché.