Caleb You Wrote: "So it would now seem that the only good argument that can be brought against Creationism is the possibility that the Earth is too small to hold a viable community of every living and extinct species at once? Hmmm" and maybe the whole field of paleantology (sp?), geology, biology, cosmology, etc etc....and last but not least the fact that you are yet to demonstrate a creator!!!!
" So it would now seem that the only good argument that can be brought against Creationism is the possibility that the Earth is too small to hold a viable community of every living and extinct species at once? Hmmm " No it would seem rather that creationism has no argument at all but to simply deny data and harp on evolution. You have done nothing here but point out any flaw you can in evolution and then use the same methods that you were harping about to prove your point. Where is your evidence that the world is 6000 years old? Where did you get that number? It has nothing to do with the observed, it is simply fitting the data into your theory. You explained how bad evolution was because it did this then you use it in your own theory. There is a serious double standard here. You have yet to show a shred of evidence that the world is 6000 years old or that a creator is required for anything. The best you can do is 'I don't understand how this could be so it must be a God that did it.' Not a good foundation considering that the same premises created Thor as I have said earlier. Lightning is impossible to naturally occur because it has not been done so it MUST be a god. It was not true than and it is not true now. The posts have come to this because of the ignoring of reality.
how dare you? such blashphomy will make you forget to feed the gremlins in your computer Caleb,Tony1 can only base thier words on a book that was written by the jews that is assimilated out of alot of sources,narators,versions not to mention that it did not come in english so whatever copy they(xtians) got is not even 100% the same as the jews one (even 99.999% is not the same as 100% caleb,tony1) jews do not deny that the bible was consructed by many people in different times out of spoken words at 1st infact jews do not belive the world is 6000-7000~ years old jews belive that humans as we know humans today started out 6000-7000~ years old. (not even muslems belive the world is 6000-7000~ years old(they think it is older than that and they think that humans as we know humans ,started around ~10000 years ago go t some islamic sites they extrapolate how they got that figure?!?) jews see the days of creation as cycles for what we jews concern it could have taken god 1 nano sec or 1 zilion² years there is no way to determine that. but again what can be expected out of xtians? they put people in jail that oppse the current "science" no matter if what they say is the truth or not. how does cloning humans differs from earth center of the univ,irational numbers and other issues?
let's review which lacks any transitional forms (with the <i>possible</i> exception of a few teeth and fragments -- Evolution predicts there should be more transitional forms than there are species -- each species would require an infinitude of minute, gradual changes). Also, the fossils we do find, show as much evidence of design as modern creatures today. With rock layers out of "order" radiocarbon dating in shambles. The fact that sedimentary rocks cover the entire Earth implies that the entire Earth was underwater. Marine fossils on mountain peaks showing that even the mountains were underwater. All the metorite craters are near or at the top of the strata, implying that the bulk of it was laid down in a relatively quick manner (quick enough so that no metorite impacted it while it was being formed). Oil and coal beds are still under pressure, implying that they are younger than 100,000 years (or else all the pressure would have dissipated. A basic principle of which is that life only comes from other life. Not to metion all that encoded information in DNA chains. DNA is the highest information density known to man. The entire library of the world could be encoded in a piece of DNA smaller than the size of a pin head. Yet information and encoding signals are strong evidence of intelligent design. (If you find an email on your computer, you don't expect it to come from putting together random letters -- somewone wrote it! DUH!!!) And then there's the fact that in biology, not only does life come only from other life, but theres also the fact that species (or occaisionaly higher levels such as genera) only reproduce to create their own kind (within certain limits), and that these kinds have <i>never</i> been observed to cross these lines and evolve into something new. Even in the fruit-fly mutation experiments, when they bred a line of mutated, eye-less fruit-flies, they eventually reverted back to having eyes. Natural selection is only used to weed out harmful mutations -- not produce new species. It is a documented fact that mutations are never helpful to an organism -- only destructive. The Earth's decaying magnetic field, the receeding Moon, the amount of dust on the Moon, the slowing of the Earth's rotation, the "erosion" of comets, the Poyting-Robertson effect, the rings of Saturn all point to a young Solar System. Gravitational time dialation allows the rest of the universe to have a different age than the Solar System under certain circumstances -- circumstances that may be evidenced by the expansion of the universe and the CMB. The energy in the Cosmos is winding down, implying that it was, at one time, supernaturally wound up. The Earth's atmosphere cannot be older than 10-12,000 years, due to the amount of Helium in it, and taking into account sources of replenishment and the rate of Helium escape. The Missippi River Delta, which has been extensively studied, shows a size of about <b>4000</b> years. Any older, and it would be larger, any younger, and it would be smaller. The amount of salt and Sediments in the Oceans also point to a relatively young age. In the Dead Sea (a smaller system than the Oceans, and one that is easier to measure) date back only to 13,000 yrs or less. To "fit" this data to the Evolutionary model would require the Jordan River (in the past) to be purer than distilled water!!! The oldest tree rings on living trees point back to a date around 3275-4000 B.C. The oldest civilizations appear around 2-3,000 B.C., and are fairly well-developed, with agriculture, writing, building, religion, etc... Did you know ancient peoples could even produce electricity? Known rates of population growth trace the entire population back to one family somewhere around 3300 B.C. Not to mention the fact that a few dinosaurs are still alive: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Okay, so the one in this picture is a pliesiosaur, and has been dead for a little while -- but not <i>that</i> long!) ~Caleb
Oh, by the way -- about those Chineese myths; When missionaries went to translate the Bible in Chineese, they found some neat things in the language. For instance, the Chineese have a word for "ark" -- it is a pictograph composed of the symbol for a vessel + the symbols for eight mouths (or eight people). Interestingly, the Bible tells us that there were 8 people on Noah's ark. Also, the three religions that have dominated China are Confucianism (dates to 500 B.C.), Taoism, and Buddhism (both date to 1st century B.C.) "Prior to this time, the Chinese empire served only one God... and kept a strict moral code. They called their god Shang-Ti, meaning heavenly emperor." (Tax and Callender, 1960, quoted in: Taylor, Ian, <i>In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order</i>,TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1992) ~Caleb
Just answer this simple question... Was this translation written before the great flood or after, and where can I find the proof of either? (other than the fiction in the bible, and by someone who hasn't any religous belief, because that would be biased proof)o.k. that was two questions.
Shanghaid Caleb Quote Caleb “When missionaries went to translate the Bible in Chineese, they found some neat things in the language. For instance, the Chineese have a word for "ark" -- it is a pictograph composed of the symbol for a vessel + the symbols for eight mouths (or eight people). Interestingly, the Bible tells us that there were 8 people on Noah's ark.” What did this pictograph denote in spoken Chinese? Boat, vessel, crew, fishing boat, junk, or a large boat carrying an unbelievable amount of animals? Quote Caleb “Also, the three religions that have dominated China are Confucianism (dates to 500 B.C.), Taoism, and Buddhism (both date to 1st century B.C.)” These Chinese “religions” are actually philosophies or teachings, with Buddhism, inherited from India, the first real religion per se. (Taoism is more commonly referred to as Daoism) Quote Caleb "Prior to this time, the Chinese empire served only one God... and kept a strict moral code. They called their god Shang-Ti, meaning heavenly emperor." (Tax and Callender, 1960, quoted in: Taylor, Ian, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order,TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1992)” The Shang (c. 1750 - c. 1040 BC) civilisation were quite possibly the most bloodthirsty pre-modern civilisation. They liked human sacrifice -- a lot. If a king died, then more than one hundred slaves would join him in the grave. Some of them would be beheaded first. Some of them were just thrown in still alive. Nice dudes. Shang-Ti the Heavenly Emperor (or “son of heaven”) was the divine ruler not a God. But no Caleb, even though I would love to equate the above bloodthirstiness to a better known monotheistic religion of great note, the Shang religion was based on the belief that many gods and spirits were part of nature. These Gods controlled all things, and called upon their ancestors to help influence the Gods. (Ancestor worship) Chief priests made daily sacrifices to appease the gods. Take care
Caleb, I'm sorry but all your counter evolution arguments as they relate to each of those fields are far from conclusive and infact are mere speculation. you wrote: "with the possible exception of a few teeth and fragments -- Evolution predicts there should be more transitional forms than there are species -- each species would require an infinitude of minute, gradual changes" I do not have the time to do the research but from what I know of each field the above statement is counter-intuitve. Evolution and darwanina (sp?) thoery would dictacte that species should be found in leaps forward rather then minute changes. A dramatic change to an ecosystem would force dramatic changes to the species found in said system. A minute change to the ecosystem would not force a recognisable event hence the lack of evidence for transitional forms. pushing on: "With rock layers out of "order" radiocarbon dating in shambles" Out of order...perhaps in localised regions which would suggest localised geological events...not unheard of Caleb. And certainly not out of line with an earth older then you suggest. "The fact that sedimentary rocks cover the entire Earth implies that the entire Earth was underwater" Doesn't mean it was underwater all at once now does it, the planet is a dynamic system and things change....i.e. seas dry out, rainforests become deserts, rivers change course, localised floods occur. Now on this flood reasoning...did noah have a Kangaroo on his ark??? and if so how did he get the pair??? (you don't need to answer that but it illustrates how ridiculous the flood story is). "All the metorite craters are near or at the top of the strata, implying that the bulk of it was laid down in a relatively quick manner " Yep it was laid down pre-atmosphere...and as I said above due to the dynamic systems of our planet craters have been erased..so what's your point??? "Oil and coal beds are still under pressure, implying that they are younger than 100,000 years (or else all the pressure would have dissipated. " and for the final time....the earth is not DEAD...it is dynamic and things will change. Although your observation of the crust might make you think there's not much going on, underneath it its still active things move pressures build.. if you want evidence visit a volcanoe or even a hot spring. Biology: "Natural selection is only used to weed out harmful mutations -- not produce new species. It is a documented fact that mutations are never helpful to an organism -- only destructive" Again if environments NEVER changed then you would have a valid point but they do and hence a mutation which aids a specices after an event of that type will see the species succeed. Maybe you should have put it in its correct context. As far as DNA goes fine I can't argue its a code which suggest design etc...but it doesn't suggest supernatural design, or a god, definetly not a young earth. Personally I'm inclinded to think life did get a helping hand ...and then the intergalactic genetists moved on. Cosmology: "The Earth's decaying magnetic field, the receeding Moon, the amount of dust on the Moon, the slowing of the Earth's rotation, the "erosion" of comets, the Poyting-Robertson effect, the rings of Saturn all point to a young Solar System. Gravitational time dialation allows the rest of the universe to have a different age than the Solar System under certain circumstances -- circumstances that may be evidenced by the expansion of the universe and the CMB. The energy in the Cosmos is winding down, implying that it was, at one time, supernaturally wound up. " Again you are assuming the rates of decay are constant, and that is just not the case. TIME DILATION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE FACT OF IT....TIME DILATION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE UNIVERSE TO BE DIFFERENT AGES IN DIFFERENT PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And finaly how does the missi' delta age the earth. Are you suggesting all rivers have existed from the time earth formed??? because that is plain ridiclous. Caleb, You have demonstrated why creationist thoeries are not generaly accepted as fact. All you pro god types take facts out of context and make mountains out of mole hills. Now as I said before I don't have time to research all those fields but I know enough about them to see your pro-god nonsense for what it is...badly resaerched and biased. Now if it was as obvious as you suggest don't you think it would be a scientificaly accepted fact??? Nice try with the pic of the whale blubber how you got a dino out of that is beyond me.
" The Earth's decaying magnetic field, the receeding Moon, the amount of dust on the Moon, the slowing of the Earth's rotation, the "erosion" of comets, the Poyting-Robertson effect, the rings of Saturn all point to a young Solar System." I thought we already covered the receding moon. IF YOU TAKE A STRAIGHT CALC THEN THE EARTH COULD BE 100 BILLION YEARS OLD. It is not a straight calc so you have to make assumptions. The only problem is the creationists are making horrible assumptions to get the moon to prove their worldview. Sorry rambler. He is not assuming the decay of the moon is constant but rather that it increases by leaps and bounds the further you go back through time. What about the amount of dust on the moon? Do you think there is not enough? At one time NASA was worried that a moon mission would sink into the dust on the moon. Millions of micro impacts would have made the dust on the moon many feet deep. Upon landing on the moon we find the astronaught(sp?) only sink a few inches. However there is more than a few inches of dust. It is actually quite deep. The problem is there is no atmosphere and no filling in-between the dust particles. Dust would settle and become almost as hard to sink through as rock. It is like expecting us to sink through dirt. The erosion of comets? How is that supposed to date the earth. Dou you even understand where comets come from? The rings of Saturn? This one I have to hear. What is the problem there? " Gravitational time dialation allows the rest of the universe to have a different age than the Solar System under certain circumstances -- circumstances that may be evidenced by the expansion of the universe and the CMB." No it does not. You do not understand time dilatation. TIME DIALATION ONLY ALLOWS FOR THE REST OF THE UNIVERS TO LOOK YOUNGER, NEVER OLDER. The observer always sees their surroundings as younger than themselves. Under NO circumstance can it go the other way. " In the Dead Sea (a smaller system than the Oceans, and one that is easier to measure) date back only to 13,000 yrs or less. " Actually the Dead Sea as you know it is most likely much younger. Around 3500 years ago. It happens to be the origin of Noah's ark.
Thanks FA_Q2 I appreciate the help Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wanted to add, I've read a few articles and I have seen a very good documentry where secular scientists and christain philosophers investigate the flood. Both came to a similar conclusion the flood myth originated from the dead sea, some 15000 years ago. It also demonstrated that there were very civilised cities at the time capable of technologies beyond those of the first egyptian dynasties. There are fossil records to prove it. The other common thing found in all those civilisations was that they all shared a common myth about a local flood that devastated their civilisations....and guess what caleb they all say that at the end their god told them to mark this event it placed something in the sky as a reminder that it will never happen again. It predates the bible story but it sounds alot like the story of noah....so again christianity borrowing from pagan beliefs. However the point is that the flood myth is just that a myth based on a geological event....and it makes for a great pro-god story so I'm not surprised the christain propaganda machine latched on to it. Someone should have told those people that they were living on a planet that god hadn't as yet created....15000 years ago caleb...and not a single mention of dinosaurs....
*Originally posted by Rambler A dramatic change to an ecosystem would force dramatic changes to the species found in said system.* This is true. However, the change usually results in death, rather than evolution. * A minute change to the ecosystem would not force a recognisable event hence the lack of evidence for transitional forms.* If it isn't recognizable, then how can it be called an event? *Doesn't mean it was underwater all at once now does it,* Not by itself. However, there is that one book that describes the event. *Personally I'm inclinded to think life did get a helping hand ...and then the intergalactic genetists moved on.* That kind of thinking simply relocates the problem to the issue of where those came from. *You have demonstrated why creationist thoeries are not generaly accepted as fact. All you pro god types take facts out of context and make mountains out of mole hills. Now as I said before I don't have time to research all those fields but I know enough about them to see your pro-god nonsense for what it is...badly resaerched and biased. Now if it was as obvious as you suggest don't you think it would be a scientificaly accepted fact??? * Of course, pro-evolutionists are stuck with intergalactic geneticists to explain evolution, because nothing on earth explains it. The humor in that is starting to hurt my sides. The solution to the creation-vs-evolution debate is apparently science fiction. *and it makes for a great pro-god story so I'm not surprised the christain propaganda machine latched on to it.* As stories go, few match the intergalactic geneticist fable. Except for the cosmic semen ("panspermia") idea hatched by Sagan. In real life, things like that are called fairy tales.
Your welcome rambler. As for the Noah story: Read gilgamesh(sp?). A story much older than the story of Noah. It comes from a civilization that is farther advanced then it should have been. It is located near the Dead Sea. Civs were found under the Dead Sea to account for their origin. It seems that the Dead Sea flooded and covered 3 civs and the rivers they were located on. In the story of gilgamesh there are many parallels with noah. Gilgamesh was warned about an upcoming flood because the gods were upset at mankind. He was spared and ordered to build a boat. The animals were loaded in sevens as well. After the flood had ended both men had offered a sacrifice to the gods or god. Both men boarded with their families. There are a few differences though. The flood was longer in the story of Noah. Noah's world was flooded because of evil and gilgameshe's world was flooded because the gods could not sleep. The world was top noisy. The stories run very parallel and it is very likely noah was derived from gilgamesh.
I CANT BELIEVE I AGREE WITH TONY1 Couldn't have said it better myself. Evolution is SCIENCE Creation is FICTION Thanks Tony1
*Originally posted by FA_Q2 The stories run very parallel and it is very likely noah was derived from gilgamesh. * The stories run very parallel and it is very likely Gilgamesh was derived from Noah. BTW, isn't "Gilgamesh" the Hittite or Akkadian word for "Noah?" *Originally posted by DEVILDOG Evolution is SCIENCE Creation is FICTION * You have trouble writing. I have corrected your post for you. Evolution is SCIENCE FICTION. Creation is. You have failed to think for yourself, and are still parroting what they told you in school. Try to remember that you were a little kid when they told you all those fairy tales. You've probably (hopefully?) dispensed with believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, so now it is time to dispense with the other fairy tales you learned as a child. I don't know what it is with adults who think it is a great joke to tell kids fairy tales, but do you really think the same people who told you about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny suddenly stopped feeding you bullshit when the subject of evolution came up?
" The stories run very parallel and it is very likely Gilgamesh was derived from Noah. " No, since Gilgamesh was first. " BTW, isn't "Gilgamesh" the Hittite or Akkadian word for "Noah?" " No. Christians like you make it look like that because the stories are similar and you don't want to admit Noah is a fallacy.
*Originally posted by FA_Q2 the stories are similar and you don't want to admit Noah is a fallacy. * the stories are similar and you don't want to admit Gilgamesh is a fallacy.
You don't feel that you yourself still seem to be parroting what they told you in church? Maybe it is time you dispense with the fairy tales. Since the discussion is about evidence... How do we know that the effects of Down Syndrome are not an evolutionary mutation. All victims born with Down Syndrome appear to have the same features. We also know that in each case the 23rd chromosome did not separate. They are definitely human, and can be easily distinguished from others. Almost like cats, you can tell the different species, but they are still cats. BEFORE I GET HATE MAIL MY COUSIN WAS BORN WITH DOWN SYNDROME. I AM NOT PICKING ON THEM IT IS JUST A THOUGHT.
*Originally posted by DEVILDOG You don't feel that you yourself still seem to be parroting what they told you in church?* They don't preach the stuff I say in church, most of the time. What a lot of churches preach is exactly identical to what you say. Oddly enough. *How do we know that the effects of Down Syndrome are not an evolutionary mutation.* Because evolution isn't real.
Opinions vary tony1 If I followed my upbringing I would agree,(I was raised catholic), but I choose to think for myself. Therefore I cannot agree with that statement. Anything better to argue your point?
" the stories are similar and you don't want to admit Gilgamesh is a fallacy." Gilgamesh IS a fallacy with very little truth in it. Noah is the same. The have the same truth, a flood that consumed 3 cultures. I admit they are wrong and I have evidence. Where is yours?
