• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Ark was built by an amateur, the Titanic by professionals, evidence of Arc

Steve

Active Member
Fatmop said:
Yeah, I do. If you have actually read them, and understood them, then I'm even more impressed; how could your mind possibly remain closed to the fact that your 'scientists' have been throughly debunked and refuted?
Maybe because they havnt been throughly debunked and refuted? Such statements just keep getting thrown around and everyone eventually believes them.



Fatmop said:
As for my "beloved" Talk Origins, don't you think we all sit back and mutter just the same things to ourselves about your AIG? Ask yourself which is more credible: science, working from evidence to conclusion, or religion, working from conclusion to evidence?
Of course i expect you think the same of AIG, well you see i think evolutionists see what they want just as much as any creationist. They are just as bound by there worldview, long age, uniformitarian assumptions etc.



MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
Uh, OK, but there remains the little problem that the world is in fact far from flat. But let us not have that little problem affect us.
True but both evolutionists and creationists would agree the the tops of the mountains we now have where once under water.
Difference is how they rose.
As i posted befor following from - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module...ion=view&ID=520
Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.
At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them!



MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
And please point me to one single geologist with an actual PhD. from a real university who maintains that there is evidence for a flood which has covered all the landmass on earth.
Austin, Steven A., Ph.D.
B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
B.S., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1968
M.S., Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 1970
M.S., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1981
Ph.D., Geophysics and Space Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1983

Englin, Dennis L.—Professor of Geophysics
B.A., Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA, 1968
M.Sc., California State University, Northridge, CA, 1970
Ed.D., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 1975

Colin W. Mitchell
Dr. Mitchell is a former international consultant in the development of arid lands based in the United Kingdom. He holds credits from Harvard University, an M.A. with honors in geography from Oxford University, an M.C.D. (master of civic design) from the University of Liverpool and a Ph.D. in desert terrain geography from Cambridge University. Dr. Mitchell has acted as a specialist consultant to 16 countries, including long-term assignments with Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, Morocco, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s appraisal of Ethiopia’s national land use planning policy. - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/mitchell.asp

Morris, John D. Professor of Geology
B.S., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1969
M.S., University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1977
Ph.D.. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1980

Emil Silvestru Ph.D
Dr. Silvestru earned his Ph.D in geology at the ‘Babes-Bolyai’ University in Cluj, Romania, (where he has worked as an associate professor) in karst sedimentology.
A world authority on the geology of caves, he has published 30 scientific papers, and co-authored one book. He was, until recently, the head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute (speleology = the study of caves) in Cluj. -http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/e_silvestru.asp

Andrew A. Snelling, B.Sc.(Hons), Ph.D.
Andrew is well qualified for the task of communicating the issues of Creation/Evolution to the layman and the professional scientist alike. Andrew completed a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Geology with First Class Honours at The University of New South Wales in Sydney, and graduated a Doctor of Philosophy (in geology) at The University of Sydney, for his thesis entitled A geochemical study of the Koongarra uranium deposit, Northern Territory, Australia. - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

find more at http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp if you want.
 

Steve

Active Member
Steve said:
Evolution is false acording to the bible because the bible clearly says God created in 6 days and gives the order of creation. Both the time and order evolution disagress with.
Fatmop said:
Boy, listen to yourself... have you ever asked WHY evolution disagrees with this? Do you have some idea about a giant science conspiracy to turn everyone into atheists, or what?
Evolution cant agree with it because its premise is that God didnt create the various life forms, it is a theory that tries to explain life only via natuaral processes. Thats why it disagrees with the bible.

Fatmop said:
Luther said a lot of things. Luther also is not some kind of deity, and is prone to mistakes.
So your saying the bible is compatible with evolution? Why do you even care as an atheist? Do you agree that scienctists that believe in evolution are also prone to mistakes? or are they your high preists who cant be questioned about their dogma, not that you would want to question them afterall no Creator = no absoulute morals/rules and no judgement right?
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Consider what luther said.
“When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”
Some other things Martin Luther said:
"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... "

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
So you believe that Martin Luther can be trusted on what the Bible says, and that what the Bible says is true? You therefore believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Steve,

You have as of yet failed to provide a scripture that explicitly states that evolution is WRONG. Nada, squat, zip. If God didn't see evolution as that important, then why are you belaboring the point? Speak where the Bible speaks, and in all else realise it is just man's opinion! Don't add to the Gospel by requiring others to reject evolution in order to accept Jesus. That's just WRONG. Obscenely so!

However, if you still want to be distracted by Satan, then who am I to stop you? Go in peace, but don't expect to be effective as you put up road blocks in way of non-believers.

BTW, the word translated as "day" in Genesis, means "warmth" or "working period". It DEFINITELY does not refer to a 24 hour period.

Please consider this passage:

II Peter 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. NIV

I read NOTHING about debunking evolution, the Big Bang theory, or Santa Claus in there. Perhaps you are spending time where it should not be spent?
 

Steve

Active Member
NetDoc said:
Steve,

You have as of yet failed to provide a scripture that explicitly states that evolution is WRONG. Nada, squat, zip. If God didn't see evolution as that important, then why are you belaboring the point? Speak where the Bible speaks, and in all else realise it is just man's opinion! Don't add to the Gospel by requiring others to reject evolution in order to accept Jesus. That's just WRONG. Obscenely so!
shall i repeat myself?
Already done it - ""But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" - Mark 10:6
You want more, theres plenty. How bout the first few chapters of Genesis?
Or does it have to have the word "evolution" - many sciptures rule out the possibility of evolution yet you would rather compromise on them then on the theory, your choice but dont fool yourself into thinking that the bible is compatible with the theory.
Either Jesus was right when he said God made us male and female at the beginning of creation or he wasn't. Either the order of creation in Genesis is correct or its not - get the point!?



NetDoc said:
BTW, the word translated as "day" in Genesis, means "warmth" or "working period". It DEFINITELY does not refer to a 24 hour period.
Actually the word "yom" which is translated as day always means a normal day when it is qualified with a number(er the first/second )or "morning"/"evening". In Genesis it has all 3 - Im not sure how God could have made it much clearer.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Steve said:
shall i repeat myself?
Already done it - ""But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" - Mark 10:6
Which beginning? How did he create them? It doesn't answer THOSE questions: you only ASSUME the answer. Where does it state "Thou shalt not believe in evolution"???
steve said:
Or does it have to have the word "evolution" -
Now you are getting the picture! You are making a statement NOT supported by ANY scripture and in doing so, you are adding to the scriptures. It's JUST your opinion and NOTHING more.
Steve said:
Either Jesus was right when he said God made us male and female at the beginning of creation or he wasn't. Either the order of creation in Genesis is correct or its not - get the point!?
Genesis is not concerned with HOW God made us (or the rest of the world) just that HE WAS RESPONSIBLE for it. After all, he created all of the physical principles and laws including evolution. Are you willing to call God's creations "evil"??? God has no porblem with evolution: He invented it!
Steve said:
Actually the word "yom" which is translated as day always means a normal day when it is qualified with a number(er the first/second )or "morning"/"evening". In Genesis it has all 3 - Im not sure how God could have made it much clearer.
I would get a different dictionary then my friend. Yours seems to be as flawed as your stance against evolution.

For the non-believers: God created evolution and there is nothing in scripture that says any differently. Please don't think that ALL Christians (or the scriptures) hold this narrow minded view.
 

Fatmop

Active Member
Evolution cant agree with it because its premise is that God didnt create the various life forms, it is a theory that tries to explain life only via natuaral processes. Thats why it disagrees with the bible.
OK, good. I meant it in a more meaningful way, though... science is based on observation. Scientists have observed evolution time and time again. Evolutionary theory exists in its present form today because it is a well-tested and accepted rule for a wide variety of scientific fields. Now, who are you going to trust? The men and women who study the Earth, or the men and women lounging in their armchairs and dreaming up gods?

Maybe because they havnt been throughly debunked and refuted? Such statements just keep getting thrown around and everyone eventually believes them.
This is ludicrous. Who are 'they?' What scientists can you produce? I count exactly one in that long post of yours who might seem credible in the field of GEOLOGY. Now weigh that one against the thousands of geologists who tell you that one single global flood could not possibly have deposited hundreds, nay thousands of feet of vertical strata with fossils occurring unique to each. Can you say 'crackpot?' And, just to back yourself up, show me some of Steven Austin's work. Show me where he even pretends to prove that the flood could have done all this. Show me his scientific studies, peer-reviewed or no.

So your saying the bible is compatible with evolution?
Actually, that's not what I was saying at all. I was merely pointing out that the appeal to authority was a rather weak argumentative device. However, to humor you...

Why do you even care as an atheist?
I care because I respect the beliefs of others - to a point. Most of the Christians and other theists I know are thoughtful and intelligent people who accept their religion as a major part of their life - and who also acknowledge the truth of evolution and the sciences. If they can reconcile their beliefs with what we know about the world today, more power to them.

Do you agree that scienctists that believe in evolution are also prone to mistakes?
Yes! That's why we need so many of them to check each others' work.

or are they your high preists who cant be questioned about their dogma, not that you would want to question them afterall no Creator = no absoulute morals/rules and no judgement right?
Well, seeing as I just answered the above question affirmatively, it's quite obvious what the answer to this should be. However, since you decided to get all nice and preachy on me, let's talk about judgment. On judgment day it will be you - and not me - who is condemned. It will be you - and not me - who is sent to the bowels of hell, covered in boiling Pesto sauce, with tiny little chives eating away at your soul for eternity. I, on the other hand, will be lounging in heaven, with its beer volcano and stripper factory - neither of which I actually plan on using, but it's nice to have them there.
 

Steve

Active Member
NetDoc said:
Which beginning? How did he create them? It doesn't answer THOSE questions: you only ASSUME the answer. Where does it state "Thou shalt not believe in evolution"???
Christ tells us which beginning, the beginning of creation. You cant seriously take Christs words as so meaningless? if your so unsure about what Christ meant by this statement which is so plain and obvious how can you put any weight in your understanding of his other words?
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? John 3:12
If you can show such willful ignorance to the implications of what your saviour taught, eg you dont believe him when he said God made male and female at the beginning of creation, and the order of creation as described in genesis, then i wonder why you dont ignore also the virgin birth or the miracles of Christ in the name of science? Although this comparison even isnt quite right because i do believe there is scientific evidence of the history described in the bible, yet you dont even seem open to the possibility of the bible being correct in the areas where it touches upon our earth history etc.


Steve said:
Or does it have to have the word "evolution" -
NetDoc said:
Now you are getting the picture! You are making a statement NOT supported by ANY scripture and in doing so, you are adding to the scriptures. It's JUST your opinion and NOTHING more.
I have included multiply scriptures that are compleatly contradicted if evolution is true, you are the one who has provided no scriptures supporting your conclusion and are instead adding millions of years to the bible, not to mention death and disease to Gods creation befor Sin. The bible specifically teaches such things to be a result of the curse which God put on creation because of our rebellion, hence pauls words "For the creation was subjected to frustration..." Romans 8:20
You deny the order of creation, a global flood (because if there was one as described in the bible then the layers would be the result of that and not millions of years), the order of creation, and the curse which was the result of mankinds rebellion. You tell me who is taking away or adding to the bibles teachings, and you do it because you are convinced everything evolved from pond scum over millions of years.

NetDoc said:
Genesis is not concerned with HOW God made us (or the rest of the world) just that HE WAS RESPONSIBLE for it.
Really? where is that taught in the bible? As ive already pointed out Christ often made reference to Genesis and details about creation in it. You keep telling yourself that because you think evolution is so well established that if the bible did teach contrary to it (which it clearly does) that you would need to give up on the bible, how about instead giving Gods word some credit when it makes claims about our history and what God did and HOW the earth came to be the way it is.


NetDoc said:
After all, he created all of the physical principles and laws including evolution. Are you willing to call God's creations "evil"??? God has no porblem with evolution: He invented it!
Now whos adding to the bible? Just befor you said that "evoltion" isnt mentioned yet you assert God used death and suffering to create his "very good" creation.
Also he does have problems with it, it contradicts clear teachings in the Bible and statement made by Christ himself.
You dont believe the theory because of the bible, you believe it because you think its true and you therefor willingly compromise on the bible seem content with the contradicts it brings up, eg thorns befor sin, couldnt be global flood(would mess your layers up if they had already been laid down over millions of years).

NetDoc said:
For the non-believers: God created evolution and there is nothing in scripture that says any differently. Please don't think that ALL Christians (or the scriptures) hold this narrow minded view.
For everyone: Peter warned that scoffers would come and deny that the flood happened.
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 2 Peter 3:5-6
Also everyone: Please dont think that all christians will compromise so easily and forsake clear teachings of their faith just to bow down to the anti-god theory of evolution. Many arnt so narrowminded as to think evolution is proven fact and many are open to evidence that history in the bible eg global flood was in fact reality.
 

Steve

Active Member
Fatmop said:
OK, good. I meant it in a more meaningful way, though... science is based on observation. Scientists have observed evolution time and time again. Evolutionary theory exists in its present form today because it is a well-tested and accepted rule for a wide variety of scientific fields.
No evolution is not observed or testable, natural selection is observed and testable but natural selection needs new information in the dna to be randomly added ultimatley by mutations befor it can select for this new feature.
Not only do you have to believe that all the information in dna, eg(construction of feathers, light sensitive cells etc) arose by chance but also that the mutation by itself was enough to warrent selection over its rivals. This presents a problem for things that require thousands of mutations befor they become useful because natural selection has no way of selecting for things that may eventually develop into a useful trait.
Also all the mutations we see are either corruptions of existing information in the DNA of rearrangement, this results in an overall de-evolution if you will, resulting in diseases and deformations etc. However this isnt to say in some cases mutations arnt benificial even though they ultimatley corrupt/switch off already existing features, for examples of how this applies to antibiotic resistance etc have a look at - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp


Fatmop said:
Now, who are you going to trust? The men and women who study the Earth, or the men and women lounging in their armchairs and dreaming up gods?
Ill belive the men and woman who study the Earth and believe in God.

Fatmop said:
I count exactly one in that long post of yours who might seem credible in the field of GEOLOGY.
Why do you rule the others in that list out as credible? wouldnt you regard the field of Geophysics as aplicable to a global flood? and why not Emil Silvestru Ph.D who has a Ph.D in geology and also is a world authority on the geology of caves, he has published 30 scientific papers... etc? or the others scientists in that list?

Fatmop said:
Now weigh that one against the thousands of geologists who tell you that one single global flood could not possibly have deposited hundreds, nay thousands of feet of vertical strata with fossils occurring unique to each.
Perhaps if they wernt indoctrinated with unitarian assumptions throughout their education the numbers would be different?
and besides are we playing the majority determines truth game?



Fatmop said:
And, just to back yourself up, show me some of Steven Austin's work. Show me where he even pretends to prove that the flood could have done all this. Show me his scientific studies, peer-reviewed or no.
Here is an article title Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood that by both Steven Austin and Ph.D. Geologist Andrew A. Snelling -http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp

Heres anotherone describing much of his work - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/mtsthelens.asp


Also He contributed to the book Grand Canyon: A Different View and also in the article http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0106gc.asp it discusses some of his work.
Moreover, another contributor to Vail’s book, Dr Steven Austin, has presented a paper at a Geological Society of America conference on his discovery of massive numbers of nautiloid fossils (a squid-like creature) catastrophically deposited in a rock formation of Grand Canyon over hundreds of kilometers and including billions of nautiloids. The National Park Service even asked Dr Austin to write a monograph for them, explaining his findings.6

Dr Austin made his discovery, in part, because he believed the Genesis framework for interpreting the geology and history of the world. Evolutionists missed the story because they were not looking for evidence of catastrophe on such a massive scale.


He also has other articles where he discusses things liek K-Ar dating method. -http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp

but then i dont really expect you to read them with an open mind, if you read them at all. Afterall its your favorite website hosting much of his work :) and you know that nothing there can be true no matter what it presents.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
I don't remember postinhg on this thread, but I can't help but think, each time I see the topic "The ark was built by an amateur, the Titanic by professionals, evidence of Ark", the first thought that goes through my head is that the amateur did a better job than the professionals............at least, according to the Bible, Noah's Ark wasn't sunk on the maiden voyage.......:biglaugh:
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Steve said:
This presents a problem for things that require thousands of mutations befor they become useful because natural selection has no way of selecting for things that may eventually develop into a useful trait.
No, it does not. Furthermore, this has been addressed so many times one wonders whether its repetition here is an instance of deception or simple ignorance. For those not so committed to one or the other (or both), you might consider reading Dawkins' very fine discussion of this topic in Climbing Mount Improbable.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
No evolution is not observed or testable, natural selection is observed and testable but natural selection needs new information in the dna to be randomly added ultimatley by mutations befor it can select for this new feature.
Some examples of new species which have arisin within recorded history:

Seedless grapes (pretty self-explanitory)

Salmon (http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arc...1900salmon.html)

Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

and Mosquitos (having a little trouble trakcing down that one, it was on ABC news's site recently (2-3 months ago) in an article on the effects of global warming. Let me offer some more to make up for it.

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

Not only do you have to believe that all the information in dna, eg(construction of feathers, light sensitive cells etc) arose by chance but also that the mutation by itself was enough to warrent selection over its rivals. This presents a problem for things that require thousands of mutations befor they become useful because natural selection has no way of selecting for things that may eventually develop into a useful trait.
You have a large number of unsubstantiated assertions. For example, it was only one mutation which created sickle-cell. You also don't seem to understand the process by which DNA modification occurs. There are modifications which do indeed change several strands at once (viral insertion for example).

Also all the mutations we see are either corruptions of existing information in the DNA of rearrangement, this results in an overall de-evolution if you will, resulting in diseases and deformations etc. However this isnt to say in some cases mutations arnt benificial even though they ultimatley corrupt/switch off already existing features, for examples of how this applies to antibiotic resistance etc have a look at -
What is "off" and "on"? What is "information"? You are making up vague terms then making unsubstantaited assertions about them.

Which has more "information", sickle-cell or non-sickle-cell? Which is "benificial"?

Ill belive the men and woman who study the Earth and believe in God.
99% of them are old-Earth evolutionsts (looking at professional geologists).

Why do you rule the others in that list out as credible? wouldnt you regard the field of Geophysics as aplicable to a global flood? and why not Emil Silvestru Ph.D who has a Ph.D in geology and also is a world authority on the geology of caves, he has published 30 scientific papers... etc? or the others scientists in that list?
What is the percentage of scientists in America who are creationists? I'll answer that for you, it's less than 5%.

What are the percentage of geologists, physicists, biologists, and other American scientists in fields related to the age of the earth or formation of species who are creationists? <1%.

Add to that the fact that I've looked at the claims of many of the most well known creation-scientists and been able to personally find fundamnetal flaws in their data, and you've got an unsupported and unsupportable assertion.

I suspect your study of evolution has been very similar to someone who'se taken an "abstince only" sex-ed class and called it a study of birth-control. It's a pseudo-scientific lecture of misleading facts and information which is, put simply, wrong.

Perhaps if they wernt indoctrinated with unitarian assumptions throughout their education the numbers would be different?
So it's a conspiricy? OK, prove your claim.

and besides are we playing the majority determines truth game?
The person responding to your "my scientist determines truth" game.

Here is an article title Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood that by both Steven Austin and Ph.D. Geologist Andrew A. Snelling -
I've read it. The short version is "it's wrong". To make a really easy visualization, there's the problem that the grand-canyon doesn't resemble land under a flood. If you would like to see what that looks like
Drum-Heller-Channels.jpg


You also get formations such as the pothole seen above. The Grand-canyon has a very different geography and is missing all the earmarks of a massive flood. Instead, it shows the results of the long erosion of the Columbia river.

It also does not make layman sense, as a global flood would have carved global canyons... and yet we have vast flat areas of similar material in the region without canyons (and without rivers to form them).

He also has other articles where he discusses things liek K-Ar dating method. -http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i3/argon.asp
Which has been addressed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

but then i dont really expect you to read them with an open mind, if you read them at all. Afterall its your favorite website hosting much of his work :) and you know that nothing there can be true no matter what it presents.
You mean like the open mind you don't read the data with?
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
1. There is not enough water on or around the earth to flood the entire planet.
The water wasn't all from earth.
Gen7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen8:2-3 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.


MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
4. Impossible to acquire 2 million breeding pairs of animals in a human lifespan.
My understanding is that most of those species are either aquatic or insects. apparently there needed to be at the most 30,000 species on the ark.

MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
5. Impossible to build a wooden boat big enough to even get a small portion of those breeding pairs on board.
The ark was large enough to hold 30,000 species on one deck.

MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
I really would have thought anyone who could turn on a computer and navigate to this website would have a firm grasp of why a worldwide flood did not and could not happen.
I really thought that anyone who could turn on a computer and navigate to this site could also navigate to sites that give alternative and plausible explanations and counterexplainations for both side of the argument. Get your facts straight before trying to impugn others.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Gen7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
True, the Biblical claim is that the dome (raquia) called "sky" which seperates the waters above from the waters below (note that neither exists in reality) was opened, and some of the waters above were allowed to fall into heaven and onto the Earth.

The water would have drained then into the endless depths of the deep.

Of course, this requires a cosmology which does not, in reality, exist (one where Earth is in a bublle formed by the raquia.

My understanding is that most of those species are either aquatic or insects. apparently there needed to be at the most 30,000 species on the ark.
Likely most are insects. So what? From what random-number-generator did you come up with 30k?

The ark was large enough to hold 30,000 species on one deck.
Debateable.

I really thought that anyone who could turn on a computer and navigate to this site could also navigate to sites that give alternative and plausible explanations and counterexplainations for both side of the argument. Get your facts straight before trying to impugn others.
There isn't enough water to cover the Earth. There is no geological evidence of a global flood. There is no palentological evidence of a global flood. The biological support (midocondrial drift) does not support a "reset" of the populations 5k or so years ago. Such a vessel is beyond the ability of wooden construction to accomplish in a seaworthy manner. Such a vessel could not have been conducted in only a few hundred man-years with bronze-age tools. There is no method by which species on other continents could have arrived, nor returned (how did large non-aquatic animals get to Australia).

The actual dispersement of floria and fauna (which runs in patterns) is contrary to the flood mythology. Simple rationality says this makes no sense as a method for an omnipotnent God to accomplish a goal that also makes no sense in light of the modern Christian view of God.
 

Steve

Active Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
No, it does not. Furthermore, this has been addressed so many times one wonders whether its repetition here is an instance of deception or simple ignorance. For those not so committed to one or the other (or both), you might consider reading Dawkins' very fine discussion of this topic in Climbing Mount Improbable.
Hi Duet, call it ignorance - enlighten me if you will?
 

Steve

Active Member
JerryL said:
Some examples of new species which have arisin within recorded history:
New species are not examples of evoltiont, Creationists believe in speciation. Although with a big difference, they believe the ancestors of the various species had the information in their DNA for the species we see today and this information was selected against in different situations producing different distinct species of the same kind of animal, This does not involve the DNA code for new features being produced though eg feathers being randomly generated via chance mutation or lightsensitive cells where there previously was no DNA code to produce such a cell.

JerryL said:
Seedless grapes (pretty self-explanitory)
Your right it is and it is not evidence of evolution. It is a loss of a feature, not the formation of somthing new etc.

JerryL said:
Your link dosnt work..

JerryL said:
Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")
Again, speciation, but what new DNA code was produced that made them? Your example is not a supprise to creationists, who expect to see speciation.

JerryL said:
and Mosquitos (having a little trouble trakcing down that one, it was on ABC news's site recently (2-3 months ago) in an article on the effects of global warming. Let me offer some more to make up for it.
i see...

JerryL said:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292
Again speciation....

JerryL said:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
and?

JerryL said:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
DR. Arthur Jones who has has a B.S. (Hons) from the University of Birmingham in biology; an M.Ed. from Bristol University and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Birmingham. Said the following regarding cichlid fishes.
Developmental studies then showed that the enormous cichlid diversity (over 1,000 “species”) was actually produced by the endless permutation of a relatively small number of character states: 4 colors, ten or so basic pigment patterns and so on. The same characters (or character patterns) appeared “randomly” all over the cichlid distribution. The patterns of variation were “modular” or “mosaic”; evolutionary lines of descent were nowhere to be found. This kind of adaptive variation can occur quite rapidly (since it involves only what was already there) and some instances of cichlid “radiation” (in geologically “recent” lakes) were indeed dateable (by evolutionists) to within timespans of no more than a few thousand years. On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.
- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/jones.asp
 

Steve

Active Member
Steve said:
Not only do you have to believe that all the information in dna, eg(construction of feathers, light sensitive cells etc) arose by chance but also that the mutation by itself was enough to warrent selection over its rivals. This presents a problem for things that require thousands of mutations befor they become useful because natural selection has no way of selecting for things that may eventually develop into a useful trait.
JerryL said:
You have a large number of unsubstantiated assertions. For example, it was only one mutation which created sickle-cell. You also don't seem to understand the process by which DNA modification occurs. There are modifications which do indeed change several strands at once (viral insertion for example).
So is your point that because sickle-cell was created via one mutation that a lightsensitive cell can be too, or that a single mutation can produce feathers where there previously where none, or bone where code for bone previously didnt exist etc.
Viral insertion also requires that the information already exists elsewhere etc.

Steve said:
Also all the mutations we see are either corruptions of existing information in the DNA of rearrangement, this results in an overall de-evolution if you will, resulting in diseases and deformations etc. However this isnt to say in some cases mutations arnt benificial even though they ultimatley corrupt/switch off already existing features, for examples of how this applies to antibiotic resistance etc have a look at -
JerryL said:
What is "off" and "on"? What is "information"? You are making up vague terms then making unsubstantaited assertions about them.
:biglaugh: is that your escape route? what is information? surly you know even just via the context i used the term what i was refereing too. Is the idea of information a myth to you JerryL, erase all the code on your hard drive and see if theres a difference when you turn on your PC. The difference is information stored via the binary code on your HD. In no other area would someone pretend that information or code is so vague and the terms meaningless as they do when discussing how the information required for eg to build a feather in the DNA arose.



JerryL said:
99% of them are old-Earth evolutionsts (looking at professional geologists).

What is the percentage of scientists in America who are creationists? I'll answer that for you, it's less than 5%.

What are the percentage of geologists, physicists, biologists, and other American scientists in fields related to the age of the earth or formation of species who are creationists? <1%.
Im curious where you got your stats from? Also like i said befor do you just believe majority because you think they are alway right?

JerryL said:
Add to that the fact that I've looked at the claims of many of the most well known creation-scientists and been able to personally find fundamnetal flaws in their data, and you've got an unsupported and unsupportable assertion.
Do you believe that evolutionists dont have unsupported and unsupportable assertions?
I could say the same about my reading of alot of evolutionist material when i read it.


JerryL said:
I suspect your study of evolution has been very similar to someone who'se taken an "abstince only" sex-ed class and called it a study of birth-control. It's a pseudo-scientific lecture of misleading facts and information which is, put simply, wrong.
I suspect your study of evolution has been with blinkers on, swallowing what your feed and genrally following the crowd. Your repeated statements about how its "simply wrong" etc do nothing for your cause. You dont think ive heard them befor? I use to accept evolution and millions of years, do you suppose that when i became a creationists i just stoped thinking? Perhaps your arrogant about your position and stance on evolution and thats why you immediatly regard anyone who believes their is evidence against evolution as unintelligent and or ignorant. Thats certainly the impression you give me. As if you think "how could he be so stupid?" but never once considering that those who do believe it esspecially the qualified scientist may actually be onto somthing.

Steve said:
Perhaps if they wernt indoctrinated with unitarian assumptions throughout their education the numbers would be different?
JerryL said:
So it's a conspiricy? OK, prove your claim.
Are you trying to tell me that if evolution and the evidence against it was both shown without bias that the numbers would still be the same? unitarian assumptions are a given in education regarding our past, yet there is alot of evidence suggesting that its a faulty assumption.



JerryL said:
I've read it. The short version is "it's wrong". To make a really easy visualization, there's the problem that the grand-canyon doesn't resemble land under a flood.

You also get formations such as the pothole seen above. The Grand-canyon has a very different geography and is missing all the earmarks of a massive flood. Instead, it shows the results of the long erosion of the Columbia river.
Your comparing very different types of floods and expecting the same results.


JerryL said:
It also does not make layman sense, as a global flood would have carved global canyons... and yet we have vast flat areas of similar material in the region without canyons (and without rivers to form them).

Which has been addressed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
You think that adreeses it? This is my point - you believe its refuted and then go around saying its all been refuted yada yada yada...
The problem here is that if you test somthing of a known young age and it yeilds old results you know somthing is wrong. Creationists believe the earth is arond 6000 years so any results using this method will be wrong because its already been shown that if the rock is young it will return faulty results. Also for an evolutionist to say that the method proves old ages is faulty as well because it can only ever produce old ages no matter what the real age.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
New species are not examples of evoltiont, Creationists believe in speciation. Although with a big difference, they believe the ancestors of the various species had the information in their DNA for the species we see today and this information was selected against in different situations producing different distinct species of the same kind of animal, This does not involve the DNA code for new features being produced though eg feathers being randomly generated via chance mutation or lightsensitive cells where there previously was no DNA code to produce such a cell.
Not most of the creationsists of whom I am aware.

OK. tell me what, on a genetic level, is "information". As an example, tell me which of the folloing strands has more "information"

GATTACTTACAGGCTG
GATTCTGGTACGTCGG

DR. Arthur Jones who has has a B.S. (Hons) from the University of Birmingham in biology; an M.Ed. from Bristol University and a Ph.D. in biology from the University of Birmingham. Said the following regarding cichlid fishes.
You do like your appeal to authority huh?

Developmental studies then showed that the enormous cichlid diversity (over 1,000 “species”) was actually produced by the endless permutation of a relatively small number of character states: 4 colors, ten or so basic pigment patterns and so on. The same characters (or character patterns) appeared “randomly” all over the cichlid distribution. The patterns of variation were “modular” or “mosaic”; evolutionary lines of descent were nowhere to be found. This kind of adaptive variation can occur quite rapidly (since it involves only what was already there) and some instances of cichlid “radiation” (in geologically “recent” lakes) were indeed dateable (by evolutionists) to within timespans of no more than a few thousand years. On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.
Your authority isn't very bright (or he's dishonest, take your pick).

Since species designation is not related to color, pigmit patterns, and so on; but rathery based on interfertility in a practicle envyronment, he's talking about non-species-effecting traits as though they were. Do you think he's trying to mislead, or that he just doesn't know any better?

So is your point that because sickle-cell was created via one mutation that a lightsensitive cell can be too, or that a single mutation can produce feathers where there previously where none, or bone where code for bone previously didnt exist etc.
I'm waiting for you to answer the question.

is that your escape route? what is information? surly you know even just via the context i used the term what i was refereing too. Is the idea of information a myth to you JerryL, erase all the code on your hard drive and see if theres a difference when you turn on your PC. The difference is information stored via the binary code on your HD. In no other area would someone pretend that information or code is so vague and the terms meaningless as they do when discussing how the information required for eg to build a feather in the DNA arose.
Is that your escape route? Rhetoric? Rearrange your leggos and see of the information is different.

I noticed that you dodged every question related to information. What is it, which strand (above) had more, and whether sickle-cell was added or removed information.

Im curious where you got your stats from? Also like i said befor do you just believe majority because you think they are alway right?
The University of Cincinatti did the only science-wide study of which I am aware. You can find their numbers reproduced here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

The field-specific data I'd have to refind, though the Steve project is anticdotally interesting.

Do you believe that evolutionists dont have unsupported and unsupportable assertions?
Answer your own question. Do you beieve that creatonists have unsupported and unsupportable assertions?
I could say the same about my reading of alot of evolutionist material when i read it.
You can say most anything. Feel free to personally find fundamental flaws in accepted evolutionary theory and post them here.

I suspect your study of evolution has been with blinkers on, swallowing what your feed and genrally following the crowd. Your repeated statements about how its "simply wrong" etc do nothing for your cause. You dont think ive heard them befor?
I suspect your study of creation has been with blinkers on, swallowing what your feed and genrally following the crowd. Your repeated statements about how its "simply wrong" etc do nothing for your cause. You dont think ive heard them before?

I use to accept evolution and millions of years, do you suppose that when i became a creationists i just stoped thinking? Perhaps your arrogant about your position and stance on evolution and thats why you immediatly regard anyone who believes their is evidence against evolution as unintelligent and or ignorant. Thats certainly the impression you give me. As if you think "how could he be so stupid?" but never once considering that those who do believe it esspecially the qualified scientist may actually be onto somthing.
So you admit that you are entirely dismissive of me based on the pantamime of who I am that you've put up before considering what I've actually said?

Are you trying to tell me that if evolution and the evidence against it was both shown without bias that the numbers would still be the same? unitarian assumptions are a given in education regarding our past, yet there is alot of evidence suggesting that its a faulty assumption.
In the fields? Yes.

I've got a better one. If the evidence for young Earth and old Earth were shown without bias to only agnostics, what would the numbers be?

In fact, if the evidence is actually there; how come there are no YECs who didn't come to it from a religious belief? No Buddist YECs, no Athiest YECs, No Daoist YECs?

Your comparing very different types of floods and expecting the same results.
Your source is comparing river erosion to a volcano blowing up. How are those more similar?

You think that adreeses it? This is my point - you believe its refuted and then go around saying its all been refuted yada yada yada...
You think that AIG proved it? This is my point - you believe its proven and then go around saying its all been proven yada yada yada...

The problem here is that if you test somthing of a known young age and it yeilds old results you know somthing is wrong. Creationists believe the earth is arond 6000 years so any results using this method will be wrong because its already been shown that if the rock is young it will return faulty results. Also for an evolutionist to say that the method proves old ages is faulty as well because it can only ever produce old ages no matter what the real age.
Some people are aware at geology isn't evolution. Others like to muddle the water as much as they can... so they jump between "evoltuion" and "old Earth", they cite AIG without supporting it, then attack TalkOrigins without discussing what it says. They assert all sorts of vague terms (like "information") then just get patronisin when called on it. They assert something is true based on an appeal to authority, then cry foul when their authorityin being the *vast* minority is pointed out. They question the motives of their opponent while ignoing that their position is based not in fact, but in religion.

Would you like to know why the Earth is old? OK. My favorite.

In the middle of the Atlantic is the mid Atlantic ridge; it's an area of seperating plates which move apart at (IIRC) 2" per year. This rate of expansion can actually be measured be caliper in Iceland.

There are some interesting things we find when we start looking at the seabed moving out from there.
1. The rock dates older and older (averaging about a year per 2") as we move out.
2. The magnetec alignment of the rock (which is fixed when the rock solidifies) occurs in reversing bands which match on opposite sides, and whose rate of change is consistant with the expected dates of magentec pole inversion (which is computed seperately) base on that same 2" per year.
3. The fracture-dating method (which can be used on many of the involved rocks) counts the number of electron fractures in crystal lattice. These cannot start occuring until the crystals form (solid rock) and accumulate over time. They date rocks out to billions of years.

So. What's your actual data? What's your response to TalkOrigins's claim regarding the K-Ar issue. You've poked fun at me and them but not actually addressed it. What is "information"?
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Steve said:
Hi Duet, call it ignorance - enlighten me if you will?
You can go to your local library and borrow the book by Richard Dawkins or you can read the short essense below::D
Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins
Chapter 8

Richard: What do you think the wildflowers are for?

Juliet (daughter, age 6): Two things. To make the world pretty, and to help the bees make honey for us.

Genesis 1:27-30

27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God. He created him: male and female. He created them.

28 And God blessed them: and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living things that moves on earth.”

29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you:

30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”: and it was so.

Man has ‘dominion’ over all living things, and the animals and plants are there for our delight and our use, medieval Christendom attitude – read Sir Keith Thomas ‘Man and the Natural World’.

Reverend William Kirby (19th century) – Louse was an indispensable incentive to cleanliness.

Bishop James Pilkington (Elizabethan time) – Savage beasts fostered human courage and provided useful training for war.

Animals have been thought privileged to share in our punishment for Adam’s sin.

Henry more (1653) – Cattle and sheep had only been given life in the first place so as to keep their meat fresh ‘till we shall have need to eat them. Animals are actually eager to be eaten: “The pheasant, partridge and the lark. Flew to thy house, as to the Ark. The willing ox of himself came. Home to the slaughter, with the lamb. And every beast did thither bring. Himself to be an offering.”
</H1>
 
Top