Creationists -- Please answer David Attenborough for me...

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've posted so much evidence for the Flood

And so many people exposed how it was all nonsense.

, from the Ark's ideal ratios, to the vast animal graveyards in Arctic regions, to geologic and language evidences! There's been no 'debunking' of them, only counter-arguments...not the same thing.

lol.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its so important for God not to be real......they know what it means if he is.....do you think this is what creates the stress and the desperation in these posts? Its the mean-spiritedness that gives it away.....why can't they let believers believe......the same as they do.

We all have the same evidence but we interpret it very differently. Science cannot prove evolution ever happened with any concrete evidence and I believe that reminding them of this makes them angry. Every article I have ever read on evolution must use the language of probability, because there is no proof that any of it took place as they assume it did.... Why is it so hard to admit?

He's just incredibly annoyed by the manifest stupidity of 21st century people with access to the internet, believing in magic.


Can't say I blame him.


And no, it's not like we have the same evidence and interpret it "differently".

We just look at the evidence and go where it leads us.
You on the other hand, have your beliefs and whenever you encounter evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs, you just invoke god magic to "explain it away".

We don't get to do that. We don't get to invoke "magic" whenever it suits our argument.
We actually have to deal with the evidence. Because we care about being rationally justified in our beliefs.

While you only care about holding on to your a priori beliefs and you don't shy away of invoking god magic to make that happen.


When we have a model of the past, like for example a flood, and we come accross evidence like vegetation not being able to survive being submerged for that amount of time, to us that is enough evidence to show that the model must be wrong.

While in your case, you just say "ow, god used his god magic to protect the plants". And that, without any evidence off course. You just assert it. You invent it out of thin air, just to make the story work.

There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that could potentially refute your flood myth, because whenever you encounter such evidence, you just handwave it away with magic.

It's a very juvenile and irrational thing to do.

It kind of exludes you from any intellectual conversation on the topic.

 

[night912]

This would explain why vegetation could survive with light and moisture before there were creatures to eat them.
There is no mention of the water canopy having provided the water, but it would have created "hothouse" condi

I was referring to Noah's flood.

According to my understanding, the "kinds" mentioned in the Bible would probably refer to a "Family" of creatures. These 'families' cannot breed outside their own "kind"....and naturally within their own "Genus". producing a variety of species. In oceans filled with fish, we can see that they only reproduce with their own "kind".

There are genetic road blocks that prevent different species from continued interbreeding. e.g. a horse and a donkey, both being equines, can produce a mule, because they are members of the same 'family', but their offspring are sterile. That is the end of the line. Lions and tigers, likewise being felines, can interbreed but their offspring too are sterile.

When God said he limited all reproduction to their "kinds", that is what we see in nature. The two examples above would never interbreed in the wild, but are artificially produced by man. Its what makes all creatures readily identifiable, and classifiable.

Since the Bible does not tell us whether God assisted in the rapid reproduction and dispersion of these species, we can only assume that adaptation was a large part of their development as they traveled to new locations and adapted to new environments and food sources.

Yes. And there lies the problem that I mentioned. The problem of short time spans for a population to evolve to different species. I'm not even talking about evolving outside the "family." If god "assisted" in the rapid development of diverse species, then that would mean that evolution is of a supernatural mechanism and not by a natural one. Also, with rapid adaptation to new locations causing in the development of new species would means that animals today will also show that rapid development.

If "kinds" means creatures being limited by reproduction, then there are some contradictions. Because some species of the same "family" and/or "genus" cannot reproduce, while others can, including their offsprings. So with those genetic road blocks, there would also have to be new "kinds" being made as a result of evolution.

 

[nPeace]

So it's not just me. At least @Hockeycowboy answered "I don't know". The best @nPeace has done so far is to make it known he doesn't want to talk about it.

Don't want to talk about what?

Funny how when it comes to evolutionary biology, they'll go on and on for days, months, and even years, but when it turns to them explaining how they think certain things came to be they quickly get rather quiet.

Will somebody just punch me.
I'm absolutely amazed. Okay. I'm the obtuse one.
Did I not explain how created things came to be? What you were asking me... is it about creation or evolution?

 

[Etritonakin]

Cain's wife was his sister, the daughter of his parents. The people outside of Eden would then be his siblings, necies, nephews and other family members.

This would have to be the case if there were no other humans except those descended from Adam and Eve -and is the traditionally-accepted explanation -but it is definitely not specified. It is also completely unnecessary to assume there were no other humans simply because the bible focuses on Adam and Eve's descendants.
The fact that something is not included in the bible does not mean it is not also true.
The fact that something is included in the bible does not mean we understand what is written.
Assumptions are made and other assumptions are made to make things fit.
The biggest assumption is that Genesis describes the initial creation -but it does not -which is evident from studying the definitions of the Hebrew words -and from the context of other scripture.
Another assumption is that the earth being "formless and void" (or "waste and ruin") means there was no life on earth at all before the events which follow in scripture.
So on... so forth....
Scripture simply does not discuss much about what happened on Earth before Adam and Eve -but it actually does discuss some of it -including how it CAME TO BE waste and ruin before it was renewed as described in Genesis. It does not specify the Earth was completely lifeless.

Before Adam and Eve, Earth was the first estate of Lucifer and the third of the angels who rebelled...
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Isa 14:2How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

Note that Satan and the demons had ALREADY rebelled and been cast BACK DOWN -which is why Satan was able to interact with Even in Eden in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If scientists are your gods, their writings are your scripture, and science is your religion, then how are you any different....?

You need as much faith as we do to believe what cannot be proven. To us, God created what scientists study...they are a long way from knowing it all.....but they like to pretend that that they do....

Because scientists are not gods, their writings are not scripture and science is not a religion in any sense of the word. There is no faith required in science and in fact, faith is shunned and pushed aside as useless. Faith is not necessary when we're dealing with carefully collected observations and measurements - aka empirical evidence.

But you already knew that. You're just one of those people that insists on dragging science down to the level of religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just saying, parasitic worms in people's eyes does not prove that God is not real. Because I believe evil also exists; not just God.

Perhaps God originally made these worms to punish evil doers. Or perhaps He didn't make them evil at all and they were twisted. After all, we humans are beginning to delve into genetic engineering. There is no reason I know of that would prevent Satan from doing so also. But now (either way) these worms are also feeding on innocent people. I don't know. I'm speculating that it's probably not God's doing.

But ... you're the kind of person that not just questions the existence of God but also of good/evil also. That's your opinion, but from my perspective parasites that feed on humans is not a good reason to not believe in God.

Um okay.

Perhaps you could explain what this has to do with my point about claiming that beings exist when nobody has ever demonstrated that the do actually exist in the first place. Rather, it's just assumed that they do and stated matter-of-factly that they do. You seem to be claiming that Satan is a real entity now as well ... ?

I do agree that existence of parasitic worms in people's eyes doesn't prove that God isn't real. It may be a point or two against the idea of a loving God creating the world though, if such things were included in that God's creation. Perhaps there is a terrible god who hates his creation and enjoys watching us all suffer - that would make more sense to me. But who knows. Until someone can demonstrate there are god(s), I will remain unconvinced that god(s) exist. It's the only rational position to hold, in my opinion.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Grief man, calm down! It seems you’re stressing out...that’s not healthy.

I am literally laughing at your willful ignorance, here. It's hilarious to watch you twist actual reality itself, in order to preserve your delusions.

Magic! Your answer for everything is .... Magic.

Why don't you cast one of your spells (prayers) to make me stop?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Grief man, calm down! It seems you’re stressing out...that’s not healthy.

Notebook: Okay, Class-- notice how the above poster 100% ignores the point of the quote, in order to go on a personal attack.

Note there is nothing in the above that has argumentative merit.

Note the above poster must admit that he uses MAGIC to "explain" his idiotic and immoral bible.

 

[nPeace]

No.


I don't know what you mean by "this topic". Do you mean the topic of how you believe the features of the organism that causes river blindness came to be? Do you mean evolutionary biology in general? Do you mean creationism?


No.


Yes.


The only question in your prior post was this: What don't you understand about, "reproducing according to their kinds"?

So to answer, I took your statement "By creation, there is , not one branching tree, but a garden of trees. From these trees, evolution has been occurring" as an indication that your answer to the questions I had been asking about the organism in the OP was along the lines of you believe God created the original "kind" of this worm, and it only developed all the things necessary to inflict river blindness after that, and did so via evolution. That's exactly what I said in my reply. You responded:

I'm not here to discuss evolution.
I have said how creation occurred. If you have a problem with it working, then you can tell me how it cannot work.

Secondly, there is no one mechanism agreed upon, on how evolution happened, and by evolution in this case, I am referring to adaptation, and not the extrapolated idea suggests, which no one agrees on how that happened.

However, to repeat, the OP is about creation. I am under no obligation to discuss hotly debated evolutionary mechanisms with you.
Also if you are just here to ask questions, and ignore questions addressed to you, then I will not be responding to your posts.​

That seems to be where we're at. You simply do not want to talk about how the various traits of the worm came to be. IMO, that's extremely revealing.


No, I think it's clear to everyone now that this is something you just don't want to talk about.


No, it isn't. It's more of a stereotype "conversation" with a creationist, where we chase you guys around and around trying to get you to answer questions, until you eventually shut the whole thing down. The only mystery is what you'll do to shut it down.

...with ridiculous questions, yes... while being unreasonable and dishonest about it.

 

[nPeace]

So again, it's not just me. @nPeace seems to be under the impression that this lack of understanding is a failing on my part, which is interesting given how he keeps saying I don't understand while simultaneously saying he doesn't want to talk about it.

Kinda looks like he's deliberately avoiding an uncomfortable topic, eh?

Let's hear again what it is I don't want to talk about, and since you understand, surely you must be able to say why, as well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Its so important for God not to be real...

100%, absolutely FALSE. There you go-- lying yet again about what others do and think.

Does that ever bother you? To lie about other people as often as you do?

....they know what it means if he is.....do you think this is what creates the stress and the desperation in these posts? Its the mean-spiritedness that gives it away.....why can't they let believers believe......the same as they do..

"mean spiritedness"? Dude! We are not the ones telling people they are born worthless, and Magically Deserving Of Infinite Torture!

We all have the same evidence but we interpret it very differently. j.

What? Do you mean Magic? Because you must invoke magic to make your bible even work at all!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

...with ridiculous questions, yes... while being unreasonable and dishonest about it.

Irony duly noted, considering how dishonest you are, with respect to what other people think.

 

[tas8831]

Nope. Harry Potter talks about London. The bible talking about places that exist? In no way validates even ONE claim, let alone the Magic ones.

So you are incorrect yet again.



For a certain value of "archaeologist"? Sure-- people with an agenda -- and as such, are absolutely not trustworthy.

In any case? See above. Notebook: Nothing in Exodus is real, by the way-- nothing happened in there.

Same for Genesis-- 100% myth-- none of it happened in actual history.

I don't get that line of argumentation - I have written many times that I HOPE some, even much of the bible is at least somewhat 'real' - I should hope that the places mentioned and even many of the people discussed are/were real, lest the entire thing be fiction.
But that Jericho was a real place does not - at all - lend credence to any of the magical/supernatural things claimed to have occurred there, shouting angels and trumpet blasts and all that. If that were an archaeologist's standard of evidence, then we must accept that Aphrodite took on human form and fought at Troy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I do believe the Bible states 'matters of fact'.

This belief didn't come gradually, but after intense study of it. Everything I see in the world, from people's attitudes to current world events, seems to verify what is written in it

This is what I said to you:

"How do we know those two people existed and how do we know they had "perfect" immune systems?
How was that demonstrated? So but the onus is on you, since you're stating this stuff so matter-of-factly."


How does your response above address what was said in my post?

 

[tas8831]

I've posted so much evidence for the Flood, from the Ark's ideal ratios, to the vast animal graveyards in Arctic regions, to geologic and language evidences!

I am very curious - how is it that a boat's dimensions are evidence for a flood?

And there is no geologic evidence for a world-wide flood.

And Arctic graveyards - but no such graveyards... EVERYWHERE as we should expect from a WORLD-Wide event.

 

[tas8831]

This is what I said to you:

"How do we know those two people existed and how do we know they had "perfect" immune systems?
How was that demonstrated? So but the onus is on you, since you're stating this stuff so matter-of-factly."


How does your response above address what was said in my post?

It is the creationist way to ignore the failures and nonsense of their own positions and claims.

Deeje once claimed that bacteria had immune systems - and would never admit error to that obviously false claim. It is in their indoctrination to be this way. They have been told they are worthless except for Jehovah's love for so long that they have their very sense of self invested in propping up the reality of bible tales.
Sad, really.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact that something is not included in the bible does not mean it is not also true.

"also"?

The fact that something is included in the bible does not mean we understand what is written.

Nore does it mean that it is correct, just because it's written in some book.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since this Being is said to be eternal and immortal.....he had no beginning and will have no end......can you comprehend infinity? He didn't come from anywhere....he always was and always will be. When science can explain this, then you will have your answer.

I notice you say "said to be eternal." But not so said by ME, nor by a lot of other people.

And since this "being" never makes any sort of appearance that science can observe, science can have nothing to say about it. Same as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, science must remain forever mum on that, too.

 

[tas8831]

I've posted so much evidence for the Flood,

Yes, yes... Rather than resurrect a 2 year old thread, I will just post some of that amazing 'evidence' you've presented here...
This example it is most interesting - primarily in its blatant internal contradiction... I have highlighted it in red...

"Ample Carrying Capacity. The passenger list of the ark was quite impressive. Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each,” were to be taken aboard. ....—Ge 6:18-21; 7:2, 3.

... It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. ...That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

... only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats....

So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

... Finally, after a year and ten days from the time the Deluge began, the door again was opened and all aboard disembarked.—Ge 7:11; 8:4, 14."

-- Excerpt taken from Ark — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Creationists go extra-biblical to save the bible tales. Every time. That or rely on miracles.

Anyway - look at that major internal contradiction:

"...living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each,” were to be taken aboard."​

But...

"...the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two"​

Amazing - 'Bible says EVERY sort of flesh should be taken onto the ark... well... but it was probably really just the basic 'kinds' ....

But what about those 290 mammals larger than sheep? This is a funny ploy - that there are more mammals smaller than rats than there are larger than a sheep, hey, no problem! This makes the ark story TOTALLY plausible!!!
So, 290 pairs of mammals larger than a horse - or is it 7 pairs if they are clean? - no problem for an ark so big... right?

What are those 290 mammals, and how many counted as the non-biblical escape clause kinds'? According to this pictogram:

Bison are clean, meaning, according to some, that 7 pair of them were to be on the ark. According to the Wiki, "...European bison can weigh from 800 to 1,000 kg (1,800 to 2,200 lb)." Lets go with an average - 2000 lb.

Just the 7 pair of the bison kind represent about 28,000 lbs of bison. The Wiki tells us that "European bison feed predominantly on grasses... an adult male can consume 32 kg of food in a day." Creation dot com claims they were on the ark for 364 days.(not the 375 JW does - and yes, I am aware of the wiggles that the YECs use - they could have been babies, blah blah blah - not buying it - none of that is stated in Genesis).

So, just for the bison, 600 year old Noah (I read somewhere that those ages are actually months, which would be more reality-based, putting Noah at 50 when he built the ark) had to load some 3.5 million Kg of food - 8 million pounds of food. I found various estimates for water consumption - let's say 10 gallons/day. About 50,000 gallons. Now, one will be tempted to claim that it was raining for 40 days, so they didn't need to store water!

Ok, but what about the 324 days they were on the ark and it wasn't raining?

Bottom line, just for the Bison-Kind, we need space for them (~10 feet long, ~4 feet wide) 40 sqft/bison - 560 square feet for the Bison Kind (that is if they were packed like sardines; also, ~6 feet tall, so ~3300 cubic feet).

Now back to that food and water - a gallon of water takes up about 0.13 cubic feet, so 6500 cubic feet of water.
For the food, for simplicity I will use a bale of hay as a reference - I found on the webs that "The dimension of a small bale held together by three strings is approximately 16” high x 22” wide x 44” long and usually weighs 100lbs. " - so, 8 million/100 = 80,000 bales, at 16x22x44 hay bale size = ~10 cubic feet = 800,000 cubic feet.

So, 800,000+6500+560 = 807,060 cubic feet JUST FOR BISON-KIND.

According to biblestudy.org, the total volume of the ark was 1.5 million cubic feet - using an 18 inch cubit. AIG prefers a 20.4 inch cubit - I will just pad the volume up to, say, 1.8 million cubic feet.

But that is just open space - the ark had 3 floors, and you would need internal bracing, ramps/stairways, enclosures, etc. - all of which take up space. None of the ark size estimates I came across even mentioned any of that - but let's say all that accounts for, say 70,000 cubic feet - so we are back down to about 1.73 million cubic feet.

So, 1.73 million cubic feet total usable ark volume - 807,000 cubic feet for animal, food, water storage for the bison kind = 923,000 cubic feet left...


That is, almost HALF of the entire internal volume of the ark is needed JUST to fit in the bison and its food and water!

Then we have cattle - 14 of them.

Deer - 14 of them.

Elk, moose, reindeer - 14 each of them.

And the elephant Kind? Just 1 of them (but to account for all of the Elephantids, gomphotheres and such - that will require a good amount of post-flood macroevolution!), but they are bigger and eat more than any of the above.

And dinosaurs - 1 seismosaurus kind and the ark is keel-up..


Bottom line - it really does not matter one hoot if the ark could have floated on paper, or even in real life - it could not possibly have held all it needed to by virtue of Jehovah's command to bring living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each" or 7 pairs of clean animals, no matter what the smaller ones were.

Even if I omit the water storage and arbitrarily half the amount of space needed for the Bison-Kind, this is DEVASTATING for a reality-based ark tale.

The creationist is forced to remove themselves from the arena of mere plausibility of the ark floating, and rely 100% on God magic to make their tale possible, and thus, creationism is NOT reality-based, or scientific.

Oh - and a question - why are these critters "abominations"? Didn't Jehovah create them? Why did Jehovah create abominations?
Deuteronomy 14:1-29
“You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. “You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. ...

ADDENDUM: I just realized I made a math error - a bale of hay is closer to 8.6 cubic feet, not 10 - I don't feel like re-doing all the calculations, but I also don't think it really matters - even if the result is that the Bison-Kind, their food and water only take up 1/4 of the ark, it STILL shows, when one considers all of the other large mammal-Kinds that need to be accommodated, that the ark story CANNOT actually do what it is described as having done, whether it 'floats' or not.