My friend (and cartoonist) has written regularly to the "Letters to the Editor" for years. This is one of his letters:
Dear Sir,
In reply to Mr Dyer, as to where in the Bible the dimensions for the Ark are to be found, I suggest he read Genesis chapter 6, but by his mocking tone I suspect he does not find the Biblical account credible. Perhaps his vision is clouded by the cute, tiny fairy tale versions seen in the children’s section of libraries? Because of unbelief, many traditions and fanciful versions have been taught, but the Bible relates the story of the ark as history, and not some silly verbal tradition.
In reality, the biblical ark was in shape similar to a barge. It was designed to float, not sail, and its proportions have been found to be the best for any ocean-going vessel, because its length matches the distance between two average ocean wave crests. The nearest modern equivalent to the ark was the ‘Great Britain’ designed by Brunel in 1844 – length ten times the height and six times the width.
Notice also that Brunel had 1000 years of British shipbuilding experience to draw on, while Noah had none, yet Noah’s design was perfect for the job, and a template for modern shipbuilders.
Based on biblical measurements, (one cubit equal to 17.5 inches) the ark was longer than a rugby field, three stories high and half as wide. Its volume was approximately 1,396,000 cubic feet. In other terms the ark would have held 522 standard railway stockcars, or 8 freight trains of 65 cars each.
It had a displacement of about 20,000 tons and was the largest ship ever built until the Etruria in 1884. There is no doubt in was capable of holding comfortably all its passengers.
I would also like to add that Jesus affirmed the building of the ark, and the global flood that followed, to be a real historic event – Luke 17:27.
Yours sincerely, Richard Gunther.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Ark Dimensions
133 comments:
If Mr. Gunther has been writing letters like that all these years then he's been doing it wrong. If you start a letter "Dear Sir" you need to end it "Yours faithfully", not "Yours sincerely".
I'd be interested in the replies which the letters page got after his was published. Were they mocking ?
I'd like to add that Dumbledore affirmed the return of Lord Voldemort, and the death of Harry Potter's parents that followed, to be a real historic event.
There's no evidence of a global flood, though, so the idea is allegory at best.
And even with a craft that large, it still would have been unable to store 2 of every species, let alone the food and environment to sustain those beasts.
You can't take as credible anyone who uses logic and reason when it suits him, and then discards it in favor of an appeal to faith and emotion when it doesn't.
By trying to appeal to logic in an effort to disprove atheists' claims, you reveal your lack of faith in the Bible and God. Anyone who had such faith wouldn't feel the need to discredit people who disagree - because he would know the rightness of his beliefs with certainty.
Thank you Richard Gunther,
The question now remains, how was Noah able to find two of every of the millions or billions of species (most of which are now extinct) across the entire world, feed them, keep them alive, then perfectly redistribute them back into their habitats after the flood?
Even if we assume Noah only took two million species (the total amount of species cataloged and named), and gathered them at a rate of one pair per minute, it would take nearly 1,400 years just to collect them all.
Let's forget the fact that Noah would need a round-the-clock staff of thousands upon thousands to take care of the animals already captured.
An arc you mentioned can certainly hold many animals, but two of every species? Have you ever been to a zoo? It takes a lot of resources and space to take care of so many animals! O_O
Similarly, if Noah only took a conservative 2 million species, with the arc having 1,396,000 cubic feet of room, on average, each one of those species would receive 1.4 cubic feet of total living space.
In reality, 2 million species is only a small fraction of species currently in existence (somewhere between 5 to 500 million), and an even smaller fraction if you include extinct creatures like Dinosaurs (billions).
From an engineering standpoint, I'm highly skeptical that even with a ship the size of a modern aircraft carrier could you house, maintain, and collect millions of species then redistribute them perfectly in their habitats later.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
- Kaitlyn
Slamdunk. Excellent research, Richard.
Oh come now Ray!
If I didn't know better, I'd think you're highlighting the Bible's more ludicrous stories in an attempt to get a rise out of us logical clear-thinkers.
I'm pretty sure that Deep in your Heart of Hearts, you are of the belief that the Biblical Ark story is much less feasible than that of, say, Jack and His Beanstalk.
If the story of 'Jack' were written in Jacobean language, and boasted a faux genealogy linking Jack with Moses, via Havillah, Jehosophat and Jebediah etc etc (to give it some pretend validity), many Christians would hardly notice if someone slipped it into the KJV Bible in, say, Deuteronomy.
Stop deceiving yourself Ray, and come over to the side of Reason and Logic. You'd be much happier ol' sport.
Similarly, if Noah only took a conservative 2 million species, with the arc having 1,396,000 cubic feet of room, on average, each one of those species would receive 1.4 cubic feet of total living space.
Actually Kaitlin, it gets slightly more impossible from there. The volume of the ark doesn't take into account the structural elements needed to keep the ship from snapping like a twig, so you can easily subtract 20% from the ammount of space. More actually, because that's the number used for normal-sized wooden ships, it doesn't include the upscaling.
And that's ignoring the fact that Noah would still need access to the animals, so that's another (conservative) 10% gone on walkways.
And in the square foot left, you don't only have to keep the animal, you also have to put food and water for a little under a year of travel time.
Not to mention the problem that some animals only eat fresh foods, such as koalas
erikloza said: Slamdunk. Excellent research, Richard
If by "excellent research" you mean "math which yields a vessel fundamentally unable to support the kind, number and variety of species alive at that time", I agree completely.
Face it, fundies: your best argument for the existence of the Ark is "Because the Bible says so". It's certainly not supported by science, history, or in the case of Richard's letter, math.
Kaitlyn,
Let's not forget that Noah needed to bring along seven of every clean animal and seven of each bird:
Ceiling Cat den said Noah, "Liek goes into teh ark, joo and joo kittens, cuz joo coolz an' righteous an' stuff. In dis generashun. 2 taek wif u 7 of evry kind ov clean moo cow, male an' its wife, an 2 ov evry kind of unclean moo cow, male an' its mate. An' also 7 ov evry kind ov burd, male an' female cuz teh burdz are scaredz of teh commitments, an' also 7 ov evry kind ov burd, male an' female (for teh saem reason) 2 keep their various kindz livin throughout teh earthz. (Genesis 7:1-3)
Any one who has any experience with livestock will understand the impossibility of the Ark story.
The Ark could not have held enough food to feed two of every species on earth for a year, much less house them also.
I won't even bother to touch on the many, many other things which demonstrate the impossibility the flood story.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Will do.
First, how many of the "billions" of species absolutely had to be on the ark? That is, how many were land-dwelling animals that could not swim, float and/or fly for the length of the flood?
Second, when the Bible refers to "kinds," it's not talking about the modern classification of species. For instance, there are many different species of canines (genus Canis), but we know that some species descended from others. "Kinds" doesn't need to refer to all species of a given group - many of which probably didn't even exist back then.
Third, short-term care does not require oodles of resources and space.
Fourth, the "capturing" (nice term *rolls eyes*) of the animals was not done by Noah. He just built the ark. "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6:20, emphasis added). God gathered the animals and made them go to the ark. Given that the building of the ark happened between Noah's 500th and 600th years and likely took several years, there was plenty of time for the animals that needed to be on the ark to make the journey.
Finally, there is nothing that says the animals were all adult animals. Feeding and clean-up would be significantly reduced with younger animals.
How does that work for you?
There's no evidence of a global flood
There's no evidence because a group of people with a vested interest in the Bible not being 100% true say there's no evidence.
Noah's Ark as described in Genesis is, on the one hand, too small for the task described. Assuming that biblical "kinds" correspond roughly to modern genera, the total weight of the animals placed aboard, plus fodder for them all for a year, would have exceeded the Ark's displacement, meaning that Noah would have constructed the world's first, and last, gopher-wood submarine.
On the other hand, it is too large for a craft constructed of wood (no metal is described as part of the construction). There's a reason that ships of that size were not built prior to the 19th century: before metal construction, ships of that would require most of their internal space to be taken up with bracing, assuming you didn't want them to simply bend, leak, and break up shortly after launching. The shape may be good; the construction materials are not adequate to a ship that size.
Of course, there are additional problems: if we accept that all terrestrial tetrapods alive today are descendants of animals on the Ark, we have a problem accounting for the genetic variety in many species (especially if one wishes to argue that, e.g. lions, tigers, pumas, house cats etc. are descendants of a single pair of ur-felids aboard the Ark): chimpanzees, for example, have vastly more genetic variety within their species than H. sapiens does. Every land vertebrate species on Earth should show signs of having gone through a very narrow genetic bottleneck some 5000 years ago, if the Noah's Ark account is true, yet scarcely any of them do.
Slamdunk. Excellent research, Richard.
I do not believe that the words that you have employed are defined as you may presume them to be defined.
A few minutes of internet research have informed me that the SS Great Britain (a) had an iron-clad hull, iron reinforcements, and a steam-driven propeller; (b) was less than three-quarters of the ark's size; and (c) was prone to leaking and warping, as were all timber vessels of her size, which, according to underwater archaeologist Richard Gould, "were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships." The HMS Etruria, of course, was made of iron.
Noah's design was not "perfect for the job"; the notion of a seaworthy ship constructed entirely from wood, 450 feet long, and packed bow to stern with "passengers" is nothing short of laughable.
Since the ark is a figment of imagination that lives only in your head, you can make it whatever size you want it to in order to accommodate all the fictitious goings-on that you need to accommodate.
It is truly funny to watch findies trying to use science or maths to "prove" what are obvious fairy tales.
It's like trying to use cement to hold together a house made of bubbles.
Jinx McHue rambled...
"First, how many of the "billions" of species absolutely had to be on the ark? That is, how many were land-dwelling animals that could not swim, float and/or fly for the length of the flood?"
Uh, is this a serious question? It would be far easier to count the very few species that could 'swim, float and/or fly' for 40 days under the conditions you're positing. Yes, birds fly - but not indefinitely. Yes aquatic animals can swim - but they do so in specific and complex ecosystems that would be seriously damaged and changed by the type of flood you're describing.
"Second, when the Bible refers to "kinds," it's not talking about the modern classification of species. For instance, there are many different species of canines (genus Canis), but we know that some species descended from others."
So, you accept the diversification of species via natural selection do you? Nice to find another theist who understands and accepts evolution.
Don't try to place an arbitrary qualifier on this, now. Either species can descend from others or they can't. You can't accept evolution when it suits you and reject it when you dislike its theological implications.
"Third, short-term care does not require oodles of resources and space."
Substantiate this claim.
"God gathered the animals and made them go to the ark."
Why didn't God just create brand new animals after the flood? Or take all of the world's animals to somewhere that they'd be safe and return them afterwards? Why didn't God make all of the animals magically immune to the flood - just killing all of the humans?
"Finally, there is nothing that says the animals were all adult animals. Feeding and clean-up would be significantly reduced with younger animals."
Substantiate this claim. Show me where in your book it says that these animals were 'babies'.
...Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?
According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.
God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured.
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.
How many animals needed to be brought aboard?
Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)
But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.
The bigger problem would have been the construction of the Ark. But the Bible indicates that Noah did this under Divine guidance and there is no reason to believe he did not hire additional workmen.
How were the animals gathered?
Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two. Some have suggested this may have involved the origin of animal migratory instincts or, at least, an intensification of it. We also know that most animals possess the ability to sense danger and to move to a place of safety.
How could Noah's family take care of all those animals?
Once aboard, many have suggested that Noah's problems really began, with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.
Conclusion
It is evident, when all the facts are examined that there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of Noah's ark is a myth or fable. The facts support the view that Noah's ark was large enough to carry the number of animals required to repopulate the earth after the flood and that Noah and his family were capable of caring for the animals during their time on the Ark....
I love the mental gymnastics that fundies perform when the topic of the flood comes up. I've always wondered about the following:
1. Why did Noah not take plants on the ark?
2. If plants were not taken aboard, what did the herbivores eat after the flood?
3. How did Noah keep the rabbits from mating?
4. Did Noah have to take giants on the ark? They are around both before and after the flood. If so, how many did he take?
5. If Noah did not take a male and female giant, who did the giant reproduce with? Do you think it was painful? Are there any Renaissance painting depicting the event?
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
Please explain how aquatic organisms who require a specific marine environment would survive a global flood event. Specifically explain how aquatic organisms dependent upon specific salinity levels in their environment would survive given the effects of a worldwide flood.
It is evident, when all the facts are examined that there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of Noah's ark is a myth or fable.
What "facts" or "evidence" attests to the reality of a global flood event?
Alright TRKENT ,
Please explain to me why there ae no modern mammals on the same fossil strata as a t-rex,gorgonopsid or hyenadont.
If a flood occurred in the digs you should be able to find them all together and jumbled up. You should also be able to find a modern man buried in the same strata as the aforementioned creatures. And it should be readily apparent since someone had hypothesized that the dinosaurs were used as draft animals.
Also please feel free to explain the massive lava fields in the area of India and those in North America.
Jinx McHue said:
First, how many of the "billions" of species absolutely had to be on the ark? That is, how many were land-dwelling animals that could not swim, float and/or fly for the length of the flood?
Well, it's not "billions;" depending on whose estimates you trust, there are between two and 50 million species of animals on this planet. Most of those, of course, are "vicar species" that are very similar to and occupy the same ecological niche as similar species a few hundred miles away.
The flood lasted, according to Genesis, ten months until the first bits of land appeared and nearly 13 months until Noah, crew, and cargo disembarked from the Ark. That's a long time to swim, float, or fly, especially when one considers the flood started with 40 days of rain, which would be rather hard on creatures trying to float, swim, or fly.
Note that we're presumably talking about a mixture of freshwater from rain and salt water from the "fountains of the deep;" so you're talking about all sorts of marine creatures trying to deal with brackish water, when most of them are specialized for salt or fresh water. Corals are saltwater animals that cannot endure being submerged under water too deep for light to penetrate (and both logic and the "flood model" that calls for the flood to lay down huge depths of sediment indicate that those floodwaters are not going to be clean or clear).
Second, when the Bible refers to "kinds," it's not talking about the modern classification of species. For instance, there are many different species of canines (genus Canis), but we know that some species descended from others. "Kinds" doesn't need to refer to all species of a given group - many of which probably didn't even exist back then.
There's a problem there: for someone who rejects evolution, you're allowing incredibly fast speciation. Donkeys and horses (which, according to mainstream biology, split off from a common ancestor about three million years ago) must have split off from the ur-equine within a few centuries at most, since both species were known to, and distinguished by, the Egyptians from at least 1700 BC. Note that your proposal also implies that all land vertebrate genera went through a massive genetic bottleneck around 5000 years ago; this is compatible with cheetah genetics, but not with human genetics, certainly not with chimp genetics, and never even mind horse, zebra, and donkey genetics taken together.
Third, short-term care does not require oodles of resources and space.
Thirteen months is not "short-term" for these purposes.
Fourth, the "capturing" (nice term *rolls eyes*) of the animals was not done by Noah. He just built the ark. "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6:20, emphasis added). God gathered the animals and made them go to the ark. Given that the building of the ark happened between Noah's 500th and 600th years and likely took several years, there was plenty of time for the animals that needed to be on the ark to make the journey.
One wonders if God arranged for eucalyptus trees to grow along the entire route taken by the koalas. Even if Noah had no problems getting the animals aboard the Ark, there's still the problem of feeding and watering them, disposing of their waste, exercising them (preferably without being eaten or trampled by any of them), and keeping them from snacking on each other (this is a big wooden box full of stalls, not a zoo with concrete and steel barriers between the cages).
Finally, there is nothing that says the animals were all adult animals. Feeding and clean-up would be significantly reduced with younger animals.
A lot of young animals require more intensive care than adults. Those who do not tend to grow fast, so that no matter how small they were when they boarded the Ark, they'd be full-sized or dead by the time the flood was over. I'm betting on dead, personally, but Noah would have problems either way.
How does that work for you?
Not very well, frankly. Just to keep the Ark afloat and its cargo alive, you need such a string of miracles that make one wonder why God bothered with an Ark in the first place, since it clearly couldn't do the job without miraculous help.
By the way, do you attribute some significant portion of the geological column and the fossil record to the Flood? A lot of YECs and "flood geologists" do, but this seems to me to raise problems with the Genesis account. When the flood waters begin to subside, Noah sends out a dove, which returns (from its second flight) with an olive leaf in its beak. This would imply that the flood left trees and vegetation, if not standing, at least lying exposed on the ground, not buried under miles of sediments. If you take the Genesis account of the Flood seriously, the Flood can't explain, e.g. the layered strata containing various fossils of extinct species.
@trkent
Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.
Conclusion
It is evident, when all the facts are examined that there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of Noah's ark is a myth or fable.
When you say that 'perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified' then you have left the realm of science. You can't then go back and claim that there is no scientific evidence that it didn't happen. Your post contains several parts where you talk about what God might have or could have done. Of course the whole thing would be a miracle if it did happen. But Gunther's letter, and indeed your post, make it seem like there is some scientific reason to believe that it happened. There simply isn't any such evidence.
Jinx McHue quoting someone else:
There's no evidence of a global flood
There's no evidence because a group of people with a vested interest in the Bible not being 100% true say there's no evidence.
Thanks for lying, Jinx. Care to back that up now?
Didn't you get spanked enough by Glen Morton on TheologyWeb (before you had your hissy fit and left) about this kind of thing?
For those who care for the truth, they can go to Glen Morton's site Welcome to the DMD Publishing Co. Home Page and go to the section called:
Why Geology Shows Slow Deposition for articles showing why flood geology doesn't work.
You can also go to the Personal Stories of Creation/Evolution section where he details people who used to believe in Flood Geology until they got out into the field and saw that what they believed just didn't jive with reality.
An example article from that section: Steve Robertson Story: a Case History of What Happens to a Young-earth Advocate who works in Geology
After school, Steve went to work as a geophysicist in the oil industry where he, like me, became intimately familiar with the geologic data that contradicted the young earth position. I have only seen Steve in person once in my life but we have communicated via phone often over the past 12 years and have become friends. Like me, Steve has anguished about the discrepancy between what he was taught and what he saw for years. This is because the ICR/young-earth approach makes a person feel that rejecting a young earth is equivalent to rejecting the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Steve has graciously allowed me to quote from an old letter he sent me nearly 11 years ago in 1987.
Steve Robertson wrote:
"It is sad to say that I am one of those CHC/ICR graduates who has had a severe crisis of faith as a result of their ministry." Letter, Steve Robertson to Glenn Morton Dated Feb 22, 1987.
Steve further explains in the same letter,
"Of course, I should not fail to mention that you are correct in pointing out that we were not given all the data in our coursework at CHC. But they didn't do that maliciously; they simply were ignoring the data they didn't believe in themselves, and so would have no reason to think we needed to know these things. As I'm typing this I realize that this is not entirely true. They did tell us of the data that they didn't believe in when they were able to hold it up as an example of the intellectual bankruptcy or moral corruption of uniformitarian geology. The further I have gone I my experience from CHC, the more I have seen of their propensity to ignore the facts that don't fit their pet models. That is not acceptable to me. Raising problems for the evolutionists will never convince honest scientists unless accompanied by vigorous efforts to explain the full spectrum of geologic data, with a replacement for the present 4 billion year model. Even though I don't know what to think about resorting to different laws of nature in the past, I feel much better about that than to simply ignore pesky geologic problems!" Letter: Steve Robertson to Glenn Morton dated Feb 22, 1987.
If Jinx also cared about history he could read Ronald Number's book The Creationists and find out that the people who first refuted flood geology were originally believers in it until they learned too much about the physical world around them.
If one wants, one could go to the Natural Sciences section of the Christian board Theology Web and one can see these arguments being played out there. Glen Morton who is himself religious is a regular poster there, as Jinx well knows.
Maragon lied:
So, you accept the diversification of species via natural selection do you? Nice to find another theist who understands and accepts evolution.
I accept that animals beget their own kind. Dogs/canines beget other types of dogs/canines, usually through the NON-natural manipulation by humans. Scientists have claimed to have "proven" evolution by making one group of fruit flies not breed with another groups, but guess what - they're all still fruit flies. The same goes for the recent experiment involving bacteria. The started with bacteria and then ended with bacteria. Gosh, who'd have thunk it! Yet they caterwauled "EVOLUTION PROVEN!" at the top of their lungs, trying to drown out people noting the obvious flaws.
Substantiate this claim.
Better yet, how about you substantiate the claim of monkey to human evolution without resorting to using imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings?
Since you cannot, however, I will simply direct you to all the various pet-sitting businesses around the country. They keep animals for people on a short-term basis and do not need a lot of space, resources or man-power to do so.
Show me where in your book it says that these animals were 'babies'.
It's simple logic. What's easier for a small group of people to take care of: an adult lion or a young lion? Pretend you're God and decide which one you'd want your followers to care for.
You can really tell how frustrated the atheists are getting because of all the logical answers they're receiving. Their "rebuttals" tend to degenerate into one- or two-line wisecracks lacking intelligence and substance.
Jinx McHue said...
"There's no evidence of a global flood
There's no evidence because a group of people with a vested interest in the Bible not being 100% true say there's no evidence."
Even if anybody were to accept your asserted (yet unproven) conspiracy among scientists as having a vested interest in the Bible not being 100% true, how does that stop you from providing evidence of a global flood?
How did animals (such a polar bears, penguins, etc. travel to Noah through (and to) environments in which they cannot survive?
What was the composition of the water flooding the earth? How did salt water/fresh water fish survive in a homogeneous mix of water that would have existed after a global flood?
Where did all the insects go during the flood?
Where did all the water go after the flood? In fact, where did all the water come from?
Why don't ice cores or tree rings show any evidence of a global flood?
How did all the plants survive?
How can there be the genetic diversity we see among animals if they came from a single pair of parents a few thousand years ago?
@TRKent
Shame on you for plagiarizing.
@Jinx McHue
Thanks for correcting me. Your input is actually very helpful, and it's nice to know when I'm wrong.
You wrote:
First, how many of the "billions" of species absolutely had to be on the ark? That is, how many were land-dwelling animals that could not swim, float and/or fly for the length of the flood?
I don't know. I'm being conservative with my 2 million species estimate.
Similarly, fresh water fish would have had to be taken aboard too assuming the entire world turned into an ocean. So there would have to have been some sea creatures, some amphibians, and all birds since they cannot fly indefinitely.
By the way, wouldn't dumping that much water on the surface of the Earth create a lot of heat? You would think it would obliterate and melt away any rock layers and fossils on the surface of the Earth. Although, I'd need numbers to make any definitive statement.
Second, when the Bible refers to "kinds," it's not talking about the modern classification of species. For instance, there are many different species of canines (genus Canis), but we know that some species descended from others.
Actually, there's only one species of dog. The great dane and the chihuahua are the same species. So dogs would only constitute a single species of the 2 million I guesstimated.
Third, short-term care does not require oodles of resources and space.
Actually, taking care of an animal for 170 days does take a lot of resources, especially if they are young. Anyone who works with animals or a ranch or in a zoo will tell you that.
Fourth, the "capturing" (nice term *rolls eyes*) of the animals was not done by Noah. He just built the ark. "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6:20, emphasis added). God gathered the animals and made them go to the ark.
This I did not realize. Thank you for correcting me. So are you saying that two Koalas swam from Australia to Noah? Did fresh water fish flop all the way from their ponds in North America, across the ocean, to Noah? I'm having trouble imagining polar bears swimming from the arctic to the desert.
Finally, there is nothing that says the animals were all adult animals. Feeding and clean-up would be significantly reduced with younger animals.
But the amount of care required is intense. Young animals often need round-the-clock attention.
Could a wooden barge support the weight of all those animals? Could it support the weight of itself? Wood isn't all that strong of a material. I would imagine most of the ark would have to have been buttressing to keep it from collapsing on itself.
mjarsulic said...
I love the mental gymnastics that fundies perform when the topic of the flood comes up. I've always wondered about the following:
And I love the pointless and foolish questions of skeptics who don't care about the truth but show their distain for God through mockery and sarcasm. It reminds me just how blind and bitter I use to be towards Christ and how much mercy He's shown me over the years.
Jinx McHue said, "You can really tell how frustrated the atheists are getting because of all the logical answers they're receiving. Their 'rebuttals' tend to degenerate into one- or two-line wisecracks lacking intelligence and substance." I was wondering. Would "There's no evidence because a group of people with a vested interest in the Bible not being 100% true say there's no evidence" be among "one- or two-line wisecracks lacking intelligence and substance"? Don't get me wrong. I do see wisecracks coming the atheist side. But that's not all I see coming from the atheist side. I see logical challenges to the flood story.
Jinx McHue replied to Maragon:
So, you accept the diversification of species via natural selection do you? Nice to find another theist who understands and accepts evolution.
I accept that animals beget their own kind. Dogs/canines beget other types of dogs/canines, usually through the NON-natural manipulation by humans. Scientists have claimed to have "proven" evolution by making one group of fruit flies not breed with another groups, but guess what - they're all still fruit flies. The same goes for the recent experiment involving bacteria. The started with bacteria and then ended with bacteria. Gosh, who'd have thunk it! Yet they caterwauled "EVOLUTION PROVEN!" at the top of their lungs, trying to drown out people noting the obvious flaws.
Telling us that living things yield descendants only of their own "kind" does not contradict evolutionary theory, unless you can provide some rigorous definition of "kind." A common ancestor giving rise to both humans and gorillas is just hominids giving rise to descendants that are still hominids. An earlier common ancestor giving rise to both humans and lemurs is just primates giving rise to descendants that are still primates. A yet earlier common ancestor giving rise to both humans and penguins is just amniotes having descendants who are all amniotes.
Note that if you want to get the number of land vertebrates on the Ark down to some manageable number, you need to allow for very rapid evolution ("within kinds," of course), much faster than has actually been observed. Presumably, for example, you want horses and zebras to share a common ancestor aboard the Ark (a mere 5000 or so years ago, rather than the three million or so years since their last common ancestor according to evolutionary theory). Yet humans and chimpanzees differ, genetically, only about twice as much as horses and zebras: presumably, twice as much time would suffice to produce the two species from a common ancestor.
Substantiate this claim.
Better yet, how about you substantiate the claim of monkey to human evolution without resorting to using imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings?
Proconsul, Propliopithecus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus, and H. heidelbergensis exist in museum drawers and exhibits, not just in drawings. Of course, those are just the fossils; the strongest evidence for common ancestry of humans and other primates are shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses (along with other genetic and morphological homologies) in the genomes and anatomies of living primate species.
Since you cannot, however, I will simply direct you to all the various pet-sitting businesses around the country. They keep animals for people on a short-term basis and do not need a lot of space, resources or man-power to do so.
Let's see them do it with bears, big cats, apes, monkeys, sloths, etc. for thirteen straight months. Find me a pet-sitting facility that will keep thousands of animals (and if some of them are babies, make that growing animals that need even more care and attention) for a solid year, with only eight people to do the work, for over a year.
Show me where in your book it says that these animals were 'babies'.
It's simple logic. What's easier for a small group of people to take care of: an adult lion or a young lion? Pretend you're God and decide which one you'd want your followers to care for.
A lion cub would be half grown by the end of the flood, if it lived that long (a lot of cubs die before reaching their first birthday: apparently they're not that easy to take care of), and rather dangerous (and then, of course, it has to live another year after getting off the Ark, onto a drowned, dead world, before it's old enough to mate). Using baby animals lessens (slightly) the amount of space needed, but increases the amount of care (even if it somewhat decreases the odds of being eaten or trampled while giving that care). And of course baby animals eat more per unit of body weight than adult animals.
You can really tell how frustrated the atheists are getting because of all the logical answers they're receiving.
Could you please identify the "logical answers" to which you refer?
Better yet, how about you substantiate the claim of monkey to human evolution without resorting to using imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings?
It is fundamentally dishonest for you to respond to a request that you substantiate a previous assertion that you made with an entirely unrelated request. Additionally, your willful ignorance of the extensive data in support of the theory of evolution does not constitute negation of that data.
Jinx McHue whined...
"I accept that animals beget their own kind. Dogs/canines beget other types of dogs/canines, usually through the NON-natural manipulation by humans."
It's called 'artificial selection'- When humans use selective breeding to promote traits in animals or plants that they find appealing.
"Scientists have claimed to have "proven" evolution by making one group of fruit flies not breed with another groups, but guess what - they're all still fruit flies."
It's clear to me that you have zero scientific training and little to no understanding of basic scientific principles.
Do you understand WHY it is significant that these flies would no longer mate? Of course you don't. And it's your self-imposed ignorance(it sickens me that you're PROUD of it) that prevents you from learning that animals that have speciated are no longer capable of successfully mating(or they mate with incredible difficultly and produce offspring that are sterile - ie mules). These flies can no longer mate for the same reason that cougars and lions cannot mate - they've diverged too far from their common ancestor for their genes to be compatible; and yet, they're both Felidae.
How does your worldview account for the diversification of species via selection? Please explain how you can be certain that animals can change in small ways over time but that these animals couldn't accumulate large changes over time that may result in specification.
"trying to drown out people noting the obvious flaws."
Please explain the 'obvious flaws' - be specific and also, please list your scientific qualifications that allow you to speak with any authority on PhD level evolutionary biology. Do you also run around telling people who are more educated than you that their PhD level experiments in Physics or Chemistry are flawed?
"Better yet, how about you substantiate the claim of monkey to human evolution without resorting to using imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings?"
Once again, you're ignorant - and it's probably self-imposed.
I'm not allowed to post links on this blog, but if you'd like to leave a comment on my blogs or email me, I would be more than happy to direct you to the ridiculously large amount of scientific documentation we have proving human evolution and tracing its pathway.
By the way, evolution doesn't suggest that humans come from monkeys - and if you had any idea about what you're discussing, you'd know that.
"Since you cannot, however, I will simply direct you to all the various pet-sitting businesses around the country. They keep animals for people on a short-term basis and do not need a lot of space, resources or man-power to do so."
LOL. Are you really trying to equate a kennel for domesticated dogs and cats with the care of wild animals? Really? You also make the grievous error of assuming that these infant animals could survive without their mothers. Do you have any idea how long mammals like lions, bears, wolves, etc are dependent upon their mothers? Do you understand that these mammals require their mothers milk to develop and survive?
You're not solving any problem for Noah by suggesting he had baby animals aboard - you're creating 10 more.
"It's simple logic. What's easier for a small group of people to take care of: an adult lion or a young lion?"
An adult lion. Go ask a zookeeper. Adults require far less frequent feedings and are more independent.
However, the simplest logic here is not that Noah had baby animals on his ark. The simplest logic points to the notion that this story is allegorical in nature, not literal.
Aside: The post title should be spelled "Ark Dimensions"
Jinx quoting Maragon:
Substantiate this claim.
Better yet, how about you substantiate the claim of monkey to human evolution without resorting to using imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings?
As you said to Maragon: Thanks for lying, Jinx.
From a site you refuse to learn from: TalkOrigins in the Fossil Hominids area Creationist Arguments: Overview section:
Some transitional fossils are often mentioned in creationist literature, typically Java Man and Peking Man, and sometimes ER 1470. This is probably because most creationists, knowing little about the fossils and copying their information from other creationist sources, are under the mistaken impression that these fossils have been shown to be either ape or fully human. When creationists do perform their own evaluations, they show a surprising inability to agree on which fossils are apes and which are humans, exactly what one would expect if evolution had occurred and intermediates existed.
If you actually wanted to learn something instead of lying about "imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings" you could look around there, and even check the link in the section I quoted above. There are actual fossils (not "imaginary" which you creationists can't make up your minds about whether they're human or ape).
Explain if they're not transitional forms.
Jinx
Since you cannot, however, I will simply direct you to all the various pet-sitting businesses around the country. They keep animals for people on a short-term basis and do not need a lot of space, resources or man-power to do so.
How many of them keep watch over the supposed 18,000 animals over a years period in a boat on a VERY stormy sea, Jinx?
Show me where in your book it says that these animals were 'babies'.
It's simple logic. What's easier for a small group of people to take care of: an adult lion or a young lion? Pretend you're God and decide which one you'd want your followers to care for.
Could you show us the bible verse that says that they were babies please? You still haven't done that...you've just assumed, using "human" logic. Logic isn't the bible's strong suit: talking serpents, raising of the dead, talking donkeys, walking on water...
Jinx McHue said...
You can really tell how frustrated the atheists are getting because of all the logical answers they're receiving. Their "rebuttals" tend to degenerate into one- or two-line wisecracks lacking intelligence and substance.
I'd advise you to read the replies that people like bart, maragon, kaitlyn and stevenJ are giving, Jinx.
They're the ones being "logical"; they're looking at the physical possibilities of your ark myth.
While you're at it, you could stop projecting so much.
To all commentors,
I'm enjoying and appreciate the serious and well researched debate regarding the story of Noah and the flood. I wish I had something to contribute.
I'm hoping Ray posts on the snake in the Garden of Eden. A talking animal debate is overdue.
Since Ray often uses a comment as a jumping off point for his posts, Ill try to get the debate started.
If God didn't create some animals with the ability to speak, please explain T.V. shows and movies like Mr. Ed, Francis the talking mule and Babe, pig in the city. How could you make a movie about a talking pig without casting a talking pig? HMMMM????
Let the debate begin!
Maragon said:
Uh, is this a serious question? It would be far easier to count the very few species that could 'swim, float and/or fly' for 40 days under the conditions you're positing.
I can't be bothered looking it up but although the rain lasted forty days, didn't the flood last a year or so?
But I think all the atheists are missing the obvious point here - it worked because God wanted it to. He could have shrunk all the animals into tiny little things smaller than ants. In fact, I bet that's mentioned somewhere in the original bible but got messed up in translation.
Thank you to all who responded with rationality to these absurd, supernatural claims.
Ray has censored all my responses.
BF
Jim McHue said: You can really tell how frustrated the atheists are getting because of all the logical answers they're receiving. Their "rebuttals" tend to degenerate into one- or two-line wisecracks lacking intelligence and substance.
1) Fundamentalist present? Check
2) 2 line wise crack present? Check
3) Pot calling the kettle black? Check
... and mate
trkent tried hard and said:
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
I used to keep coral reef aquaria. If the temperature altered by more than a few degrees for more than a few days without relief, things died. If I didn't balance the salinity and specific gravity by compensating evaporation, or if I over-compensated, things died. Even today, coral reefs are bleaching due to a tiny but sustained increase in temperature.
In short, things don't survive sudden, substantial and sustained changes to their environment.
Oh, unless a magic being intervenes and makes them survive anything, but then, that kind of renders the whole Ark story redundant really, doesn't it?
kaitlyn asked nicely:
This I did not realize. Thank you for correcting me. So are you saying that two Koalas swam from Australia to Noah? Did fresh water fish flop all the way from their ponds in North America, across the ocean, to Noah? I'm having trouble imagining polar bears swimming from the arctic to the desert.
You'd think the humans would have noticed the weird behaviour, followed the animals then killed Noah and taken possession of the Ark when the plan became apparent, wouldn't you?
Jinx McHue joked:
... I will simply direct you to all the various pet-sitting businesses around the country. They keep animals for people on a short-term basis and do not need a lot of space, resources or man-power to do so.
Steven j took him seriously and answered:
Let's see them do it with bears, big cats, apes, monkeys, sloths, etc. for thirteen straight months. Find me a pet-sitting facility that will keep thousands of animals (and if some of them are babies, make that growing animals that need even more care and attention) for a solid year, with only eight people to do the work, for over a year.
You forgot to mention the Tyrannosaurus and Brontosaurus and so on Steven.
The pet-sitting business in our town hates it when people dump dinosaurs on them for more than a couple of days. But the money's good.
reynold pointlessly offered advice:
Aside: The post title should be spelled "Ark Dimensions"
or Ark Dementia?
One of the first things a lion would do after leaving the ark is to track down an antelope and eat it. Seems like several groups of animals would go extinct due to predation within the first several months after leaving the ark or else the predators would starve.
Ethan said...
And I love the pointless and foolish questions of skeptics who don't care about the truth but show their distain for God through mockery and sarcasm. It reminds me just how blind and bitter I use to be towards Christ and how much mercy He's shown me over the years.
The story is nothing more than mythology. Growing up, I had a Catholic education and Noah's story was either the first or second biblical accounts that I dismissed as mythology. And that was when I was in second grade. I think the most amazing thing about the story is the fact that there are still people who take it literally. To believe in God, you do not have to take every word in the bible literally. I haven't seen the numbers, but I would assume that most people do not. I would argue that taking the bible literally is only setting yourself up for disappointment somewhere down the road. You have every right to take Noah's story at face value, even though it is logically and intellectually bankrupt. Also, I have every right to ridicule the story and ask questions about it.
I do not think any of my questions were foolish, based on the nature of the story. Plants would have had to survive the flood. Animals would have needed plants after the flood. Animals mating during the voyage could have caused population problems in small quarters. The stuff about the giants was me poking fun how ridiculous the story of Noah and the flood is.
Some better questions may be for what reason do you take this story to be historic? How did a global flood that killed everyone on the Earth, have very little interruption on the Lagash dynasty in Sumer. Do you find the story to be ridiculous at times?
Rays
Does Richard Gunther have Downs Syndrome?
Andy said:
But I think all the atheists are missing the obvious point here - it worked because God wanted it to. He could have shrunk all the animals into tiny little things smaller than ants. In fact, I bet that's mentioned somewhere in the original bible but got messed up in translation.
I call POE. Tag, you're it.
Jinx McHue said
Better yet, how about you substantiate the claim of monkey to human evolution without resorting to using imaginary transitional species which only exist in drawings?
Who the #### cares about fossiles in human evolution? Fossilization is a rare event and there is no way to proof that the fossiles that have been found, had surviving offspring.
Todays evolution research is based on DNA (which Darwin didn't even know) and comparing the genomes of different species either proof, that there is an evolutionary process going on or that a "designer" made an immense effort to make life look evolved.
You are free to believe the second, but science just don't work that way.
It really doesn't matter to science if there is a God or not, but our methods work fine if we assume that He didn't have His fingers in it after the big bang (or even before, but I don't know enough about physics to say something about that)
If there is a God he follows his rules
@Andy
you wrote:
But I think all the atheists are missing the obvious point here - it worked because God wanted it to. He could have shrunk all the animals into tiny little things smaller than ants. In fact, I bet that's mentioned somewhere in the original bible but got messed up in translation.
If God could do something like that, why bother with a flood and ark at all? ;)
trkent,
Thanks for your very well written explanation of the design of the Ark and how every creature needing to be on board for protection during this JUDGEMENT could easily have fit, with room to spare.
And as for the survival of the creatures that live in the water, GOD provided the protection they needed, just like HE always does. I appreciate how you so thoughtfully spelled out for these poor, ignorant and blind people, the FACTS.
Don't be discouraged by the scoffers that so boldly show their ignorance and inability to reason honestly. If anything, we should be encouraged because these very people give much validity to the WORD OF GOD, since they are described perfectly in its' pages.
There are many silent people that come to this blog that are truly seeking and will be helped by what you so graciously shared with us.
It seems so easy to understand---why can't they see it? I guess it all boils down to WILLFUL IGNORANCE. Again, the scriptures speak often of these people, so I shouldn't be surprised.
May GOD richly bless you and your family!
Oh, here's another nice one, inspired by Kaitlin's post on temperature.
To cover the whole earth with water, you would need to raise the sea level 8,848 m (mount everest). Let's be kind and say that the average height of water is 7,500m.
Lets also assume that this water didn't come from to high up, let's say a mere 200km.
So, each gram of water dropping from that height gains 1960 joules of energy. Assuming pure water, that's enough to raise the temperature of the water with 468 degrees kelvin. Starting at absolute zero, that would be a temperature of 195 degrees celsius, or 383 fahrenheit.
So, drowning would be the least of Noah's trouble. If he survived the superheated water coming down, he would still be horribly mutilated by the sheer force of the falling water.
To compare: The heaviest rain we know is the rainforest kind, soaked in a seconds, ow-my-face type of rain is 70mm/hour. For 7.5 km of rain to fall in 40 days, would require 7.8 meters of rain to fall each hour.
So, if Noah survived being flash boiled and being crushed to death, only then would the problem of surviving a year at sea on a flimsy wooden boat filled with starving animals become an issue.
I have a question for you "brilliant" evolution believers.
Someone sent in this question to answers in Genesis and they gave their answer. I would like for you to try your best to explain how this could happen over millions of years.
Also, are you aware of the "rapid" laying down of layers found at Mt. St. Helens, just like those found in the grand canyon?
Actually, the whole area affected by that volcanic explosion, depicts very well some of what we see all over the world, caused by the great JUDGMENT of the worldwide flood in Noah's day.
(By the way, it was more than just a flood, it involved all natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclonic storms, etc.)
It's funny how we don't see any of this talked about by pseudo-scientists that trust in evolution.!
******************************
Polystrate Fossils
Q. What are polystrate fossils, and how are they a problem for evolution?
A. Evolutionists believe that most of the layers of sedimentary rock on the Earth’s surface were laid down slowly over millions of years. Most of these layers contain fossils of plants and animals.
Here’s the problem for evolutionists! There are a number of places on the Earth where fossils actually penetrate more than one layer of rock. These are called ‘polystrate fossils.’
For example, at The Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposed to have been laid down over millions of years.
The fact is, the trees had to be buried faster than it took them to decay. In other words, there’s NO WAY these layers could have been laid down slowly over millions of years. The trees would’ve rotted well before then and not fossilized.
Genesis gives a better explanation – Noah’s Flood, which occurred a few thousand years ago. Just more evidence that fits with the Bible.
—Excerpt from Answers … with Ken Ham radio program, December 23, 1998
Andy said: Oh, unless a magic being intervenes and makes them survive anything, but then, that kind of renders the whole Ark story redundant really, doesn't it?
I'm in the middle of a conversation with another Christian at the moment (not a fundamentalist). We're discussing the inclusion/exclusion of gnostic texts within the Bible.
My point: the fact that certain writings were excluded implies that the Bible is (at best) incomplete - or at the very least, muddied by human interference.
He responded: God influenced the councils to include the proper texts.
---
He's basically saying that a omniscient and omnipotent being influenced *some* people, and then realized that other people were writing too. So, in order to prevent humanity from ruining/dilluting His wisdom, he influenced a council to pick and choose the coirrect texts.
Sure don't seem like the actions of a perfect deity - more like those of an imperfect human society. Why not write the book and make it *pop* into existence? Or even have only 1 person write it?
Over and over and over, Christianity is eager to explain away the imperfections in the language, tone, content and method of creating the Bible with "God did it".
Rarely do they sit down and actually consider the consequences of such an explanation, and compare it against the reality of the Bible they hold in their hands.
It just doesn't make sense.
Jinx McHue:
You can really tell how frustrated the atheists are getting because of all the logical answers they're receiving. Their "rebuttals" tend to degenerate into one- or two-line wisecracks lacking intelligence and substance.
LOL. Thanks, Jinx! I needed a good laugh....
But, seriously, you apparently aren't reading the same posts I am. Care to rebut Steven J? Or do his answers not contain enough intelligence or substance for you to be bothered with?
If you try, please don't fall back on the "insert miracle of God here" tactic for the parts you can't explain that creationists typically fall back on. Those don't count as logical scientific answers.
He used advanced technology which looked to the people of the time like MAGIC.
Remember the RAINBOW!
He guides us towards our NEW WORLD, a new planet he will take us to - in the sky (HEAVEN)
Read John 12:47
So why did all the marsupials go almost exclusively to Australia? Are you really trying to say that all those weird animals that exist only in that one part of the world somehow wandered back there after the flood without getting eaten on the way?
Storeytwin A said...
I have a question for you "brilliant" evolution believers.
That's an insult that's going to bite you in the rear very soon. I've noted your attitude here and I'm going to give it right back to you.
Someone sent in this question to answers in Genesis and they gave their answer. I would like for you to try your best to explain how this could happen over millions of years.
Also, are you aware of the "rapid" laying down of layers found at Mt. St. Helens, just like those found in the grand canyon?
Actually, the whole area affected by that volcanic explosion, depicts very well some of what we see all over the world, caused by the great JUDGMENT of the worldwide flood in Noah's day.
(By the way, it was more than just a flood, it involved all natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclonic storms, etc.)
It's funny how we don't see any of this talked about by pseudo-scientists that trust in evolution!
Here's a tip: When you make an accusation like that, make sure that it's actually TRUE, ok? Then you won't look so stupid.
It's funny how the ignorance of creationists is used as evidence for their beliefs. Not very "brilliant" is it?
Storytwin, start doing some reading and maybe you'll learn something.
Here. Go to the TalkOrigin archive, go to their search function, and type in "polystrate trees", and then do the same for "mount st. helens" and "grand canyon".
More bull that's refuted by the reading list I just gave
******************************
Polystrate Fossils
Q. What are polystrate fossils, and how are they a problem for evolution?
A. Evolutionists believe that most of the layers of sedimentary rock on the Earth’s surface were laid down slowly over millions of years. Most of these layers contain fossils of plants and animals.
Here’s the problem for evolutionists! There are a number of places on the Earth where fossils actually penetrate more than one layer of rock. These are called ‘polystrate fossils.’
For example, at The Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposed to have been laid down over millions of years.
The fact is, the trees had to be buried faster than it took them to decay. In other words, there’s NO WAY these layers could have been laid down slowly over millions of years. The trees would’ve rotted well before then and not fossilized.
Genesis gives a better explanation – Noah’s Flood, which occurred a few thousand years ago. Just more evidence that fits with the Bible.
—Excerpt from Answers … with Ken Ham radio program, December 23, 1998
@Storeytwin A
I see you have not yet realised the awesome power of Google, because if you had, and if you had thought to enter "Polystrate fossils", the third hit would take you to talkorigins where it is explained perfectly, with sources and attributions.
You'll also see that this "problem" was solved a hundred years ago, do try to keep up.
Again, all the signs point to a non-flood scenario, but here are some things we would expect to see if the flood did happen:
1 - Massive floodplains instead of deep canyons.
2 - a perfect uniformly distributed fossil layer, where all fossils are at the same depth
3 - Antarctic ice dating back to the date of the flood and no further
4 - The fossil record would show a total extinction of all species at the same time, only to reemerge identically.
5 - Massive depositions of in-land topsoil into the sea.
6 - No deep-sea chasms
7 - No significant topsoil in areas with underlying rock
8 - No sandy ridges or hills (they're formed by ice ages) as the rush of water would flatten them
9 - No Drumlins or Moraines
I could go on for quite a while, but when evidence this obvious cannot be found, you can say without a shadow of a doubt that it didn't happen.
Also, are you aware of the "rapid" laying down of layers found at Mt. St. Helens, just like those found in the grand canyon?
I am aware of no layers at Mt. St. Helens that are analogous to the composition of the layers of the Grand Canyon. The sediment layers of Mt. St. Helens are composed of volcanic ash, which is far more easily eroded than the layers found in the Grand Canyon. Additionally, the walls of the canyon at Mt. St. Helens are angled, unlike the vertical walls found in the Grand Canyon. Beyond this is the incredible size difference between the two structures.
Actually, the whole area affected by that volcanic explosion, depicts very well some of what we see all over the world, caused by the great JUDGMENT of the worldwide flood in Noah's day.
(By the way, it was more than just a flood, it involved all natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclonic storms, etc.)
Please cite geological evidence to substantiate your assertions.
It's funny how we don't see any of this talked about by pseudo-scientists that trust in evolution.!
There are likely two reasons for this. The first is that the events that you reference do not directly relate to biology, thus most biologists would not be directly researching such events. The second reason is that thus far no scientist has observed any evidence in support of the events that you claim occurred.
Storeytwin:
I have a question for you "brilliant" evolution believers.
Someone sent in this question to answers in Genesis and they gave their answer. I would like for you to try your best to explain how this could happen over millions of years.
Also, are you aware of the "rapid" laying down of layers found at Mt. St. Helens, just like those found in the grand canyon?
Actually, the whole area affected by that volcanic explosion, depicts very well some of what we see all over the world, caused by the great JUDGMENT of the worldwide flood in Noah's day.
(By the way, it was more than just a flood, it involved all natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclonic storms, etc.)
It's funny how we don't see any of this talked about by pseudo-scientists that trust in evolution.!
My my...aren't we cocky? The only reason you don't see it being talked about is because you obviously haven't looked for any information not coming from AIG.
Polystrate fossils weren't a problem for old-earth geologists in the 19th century. That hasn't changed. I know Ken Ham would like to return scientific understanding to the Middle Ages which isn't surprising that he's still behind the times.
Here's one answer Ken Ham (and you) could have found by just spending a couple of minutes looking....
The Short Summary
These fossils are reasonably common, and have been mentioned in the scientific literature for well over a century, under the name upright fossils or in situ trees. No well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them. Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid.
Geologists agree that the numerous upright fossils couldn't have all been buried at the same time.
There is a Usenet FAQ on this.
How Long Can A Partly Buried Tree Stay Standing?
Big trees commonly stay upright for years and even decades after death. Some "drowned" trees can even keep living, if they are tolerant of waterlogged conditions. For example, at Reelfoot Lake in Tennessee, there are some bald cypress trees that have kept growing in the lake since an earthquake submerged them in 1812.
Some upright fossils had rotted-away interiors by the time their burial was final. So, in those cases, the tree may have stood dead for some time. The typical height of upright fossils is on the order of two meters, so many of these fossils represent only the base of the original tree. The top of the tree presumably rotted.
How Quick Was The Process Of Burial?
To tell this, geologists look at the material surrounding the fossil.
It is possible the material is a sandstone made of wind-deposited sand. Some sandstones are essentially fossilized sand dunes. We know that in the modern world, sand dunes move fairly quickly. For example, the Sleeping Bear Sand Dunes, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, have been known to cover trees ten meters high in just a few years.
It is much commoner for these fossils to be buried by volcanic ash, or by a debris flow caused by an eruption. As Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo showed, a single eruption is all that's needed, and even an intense pyroclastic flow does not flatten all of the trees. The Tertiary Period fossil forests in Yellowstone National Park, USA are of the volcanically-buried type.
It is even more common for these fossils to be found in sandstone or mudstone which gives evidence of being river-deposited. A rock of this type sometimes has layers which are each several meters thick. Many of these upright fossils are in Carboniferous Period rocks with coal deposits. There, they are often rooted in the top of the coal seams or in fossil soil deposits, and are buried in an overlying sedimentary rock. The upright fossils of Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada are of this type.
In the present day, deposition just like this can be done by floods, by natural levee breaches, and by course changes of river channels. Such floods often repeat themselves several times per decade, particularly in a basin area which is sinking. Each repetition would leave one layer.
All known upright fossils were buried in days, a year or so, or else periodically across perhaps a few decades. They occur all over the world, because swamps, river deltas and volcanoes also occur all over the world.
Are Such Fossils Forming Today?
Yes. A modern example of slow burial is this forest, which is turning into this marsh. Wood buried in such marshes is almost immune to rot.
When Mount St. Helens erupted several hundred years ago, the debris flow buried trees. Those buried trees are just like the ones found at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park. They have already started to mineralize into "petrified logs", but it was still possible to carbon date them. [7]
Could One Flood Cause Them All?
There are at least three lines of argument against this.
The first argument is that the fossils aren't all found on one single level of the Geologic Column. Some are from the Devonian Period, well before the dinosaurs. Some were buried long after the dinosaurs went extinct. This is what you would expect if each burial was caused by a small, local event. And, there are differences, depending on where they are found. For example, giant lycopod trees are only found in Carboniferous Period rocks, and cypress trees aren't found below the Cretaceous Period. The same comment applies to their leaves and spores and pollen. But this is exactly what you would not expect if a single, global flood had washed over them. Surely the flood would have ripped many trees up, and dropped them elsewhere. Or if not the trees, at least the pollen.
The second argument is that some upright fossils were transported to where they are now. Others are clearly still in place (in situ), because they are still rooted into a fossilized soil. The transported trees have had their root systems ripped, but the in situ trees still have the small, fine rootlets in place. It does not seem possible for a single global event to transport some trees and not others.
The third argument is that there are some upright trees which are on top of other upright trees. We know that the upper tree grew after the lower one was buried, because the uppper tree is clearly in situ.
An example of this is a burrow pit near Donaldsonville, LA. When they excavated backswamp clays to rebuild the adjacent levee, they uncovered three levels of upright cypress forests buried on top of each other beneath the recent floodplain. These polystrate trees are buried within recent Mississippi River deposits that are only 4,000 years old. The much older upright trees in Yellowstone Park are similarly layered.
References
The following references are selected from the ones posted to Usenet's "talk.origins" by Andrew MacRae and Keith Littleton. More can be found in the Usenet FAQ.
[1] Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama, Gastaldo, R. A. (1990) in Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. R. A. Gastaldo and others, Guidebook for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. pp. 41-54.
[2] Sonar and scuba survey of a submerged allochthonous "forest" in Spirit Lake, Washington, Coffin, H.G., 1987. Palaios v.2, p.178-181.
[3] Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington, Coffin, H.G., 1983. Geology v.11, p.298-299.
[4] Tree-ring dating of pre-1980 volcanic flowage deposits at Mount St. Helens, Washington, Yamaguchi, D. K., and Hoblitt (1995). Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 107, no. 9, pp. 1077-1093.
[5] The recent upright trees of Mt. Hood, Lawrence, Donald B., and Elizabeth G. Lawrence (1959) Mazama vol. 40, no. 14, pp. 10-18.
[6] Prehistoric buried forests of Mount Hood. Oregon, Cameron, Kenneth A., and Patrick T. Pringle (1991), Geology vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 34-43.
[7] Burial of trees by eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington: Implications for the interpretation of fossil forests, Karowe, A.L. and Jefferson, T.H., 1987. Geological Magazine v.124, no.3, p.191-204.
[8] The fossil cliffs of Joggins, Ferguson, L, 1988. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
[9] A classic Carboniferous section; Joggins, Nova Scotia, Gibling, Martin R. 1987. In Centennial Field Guide, Volume 5, Northeastern Section of the Geological Society of America Roy, D.C. (ed.), p. 409-414
There you go. The final three objections pretty much destroy the possibility of a Noachian world-wide flood such a short time ago.
Storeytwin A said...
"I have a question for you "brilliant" evolution believers......"
Storey, before you copy and paste some recycled gibberish here from AiG, would you please wander on over to Talk Origins and check that they haven't already de-bunked it in their 'Common Creationists Claims'?
Thanks.
Here's your answer(a copied answer to match the amount of effort you put into your original post):
"Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades. "
"Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones. These trees have extensive root systems with rootlets that penetrate into the underlying sediment, which is either a coal seam (i.e. compressed plant material), or an intensely-rooted sandstone or mudstone (i.e. a soil horizon). Dawson considered and rejected anything but an in situ formation for these fossils, and his interpretation is closely similar to current interpretations of sediments deposited on river floodplains. An interesting feature of these examples is the presence of vertebrate fossils (mostly small reptiles) within the infilling of the stumps.
The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations.
One of the best, and longest-known "fossil forest" occurrences is a locality known as Joggins, in Nova Scotia. It is Carboniferous in age, and was first described in detail in the late 1800s. Here is a quote from Dawson 1868 (pp. 179-180) on the nature of the trees at this locality, in a beautiful cliff section over 1km thick:
"In the [stratigraphic] section in the preceding chapter, the reader will observe the words 'Underclay, Stigmaria [a type of fossil tree trunk]' frequently recurring; and over nearly every underclay is a seam of coal. An underclay is technically the bed of clay which underlies a coal-seam; but it has now become a general term for a fossil soil [Dawson's emphasis], or a bed which once formed a terrestrial surface, and supported trees and other plants; because we generally find these coal underclays, like the subsoils of many modern peat-bogs, to contain roots and trunks of trees which aided in the accumulation of the vegetable matter of the coal. The underclays in question are accordingly penetrated by innumerable long rootlets, now in a coaly state, but retaining enough of their form to enable us to recognize them as belonging to a peculiar root, the Stigmaria, of very frequent occurrence in the coal measures, and at one time supposed to have been a swamp plant of anomalous form, but now known to have belonged to an equally singular tree, the Sigillaria, found in the same deposits (Fig. 30). The Stigmaria has derived its name from the regularly arranged pits or spots left by its rootlets, which proceeded from it on all sides. The Sigillaria has been named from the rows of leaf-scars which extend up its trunk, which in some species is curiously ribbed or fluted. One of the most remarkable peculiarities of the stigmaria-rooted trees was the very regular arrangement of their roots, which are four at their departure from the trunk, and divide at equal distances successively into eight, sixteen, and thirty-two branches, each giving off, on all sides, an immense number of rootlets, stretching into the beds around, in a manner which shows that these must have been soft sand and mud at the time these roots and rootlets spread through them.
"It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone, and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2ndly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes [these are local tidal marshes, some with recently-buried forest layers in the peat and sediment]. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position."
There is very little, with the exception of terminology, that would be different in a "modern" interpretation of these features, and Dawson has much more detail on the other sedimentological features found at Joggins that support his interpretation. Dawson records well over a dozen horizons with large upright trees, and smaller ones are even more common. The section at Joggins can still be visited today, and is particularly well-known for the small reptile fossils found there (they often occur inside the upright tree stumps, apparently they fell in the hollow stump). There are usually a few upright trees exposed on the shore, although the rapid erosion of the 10m+ high cliffs means the exposed examples change every year.
Given that an "in place" occurrence was convincingly determined by observations made in the 19th century for this and many other "fossil forest" localities, it is surprising that these conclusions have not been recognized by modern "young Earth global flood" [YEGF] creationists as clear evidence of non-global-flood deposition for much of the geologic record. They often hinge their current arguments on the occurrence of upright trees in Yellowstone National Park, point to their volcanic setting, and then point to floating upright trees floating in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens [2], and say, "See? They could be transported during the flood.". This argument is completely fallacious, because most "fossil forests" do not occur in volcanic deposits, and do have the fragile roots of the stumps tightly penetrating into the surrounding sediment, often into a paleosol (fossil soil) [besides Joggins, see also 3]. One occurrence is even associated with dinosaur footprints on the same surface, on top of a coal seam [4, 5, 6]. The "transported floating upright stumps" model [2] is a complete red herring that does not apply to the vast majority of "fossil forest" occurrences.
As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.
One of the most compelling features of Dawson's comments, from a YEGF creationist's perspective, may be the closing remarks of his book, in the conclusion section on p.671. Statements expressing similar sentiments can be found in most geological books of the period (e.g., Murchison's "Siluria", where the Silurian and other Paleozoic systems are first defined):
"Patient observation and thought may enable us in time better to comprehend these mysteries; and I think we may be much aided in this by cultivating an acquaintance with the Maker and Ruler of the machine as well as with His work."
Dawson has no theological problems with the conclusions he drew, which are basically similar to the ones drawn by geologists now. Many other geologists of the period were devoutly religious, and clearly expressed the fact in their publications.
Apparently, many 19th century geologists share a common philosophical framework with modern creationists, but, strangely enough, modern creationists come to completely different conclusions from both the 19th century geologists and current geologists. The common appeal by modern creationists to an "atheistic" or "humanistic" philosophical framework that "taints" the interpretations of science is quite ridiculous in light of the strong beliefs of many historical scientists, particularly in geology. Why should creationists still have a problem with their conclusions, more than 100 years later?
Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation. "Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop using it."
Storeytwin A said...
[i]I have a question for you "brilliant" evolution believers.
Someone sent in this question to answers in Genesis and they gave their answer. I would like for you to try your best to explain how this could happen over millions of years.
Also, are you aware of the "rapid" laying down of layers found at Mt. St. Helens, just like those found in the grand canyon?
Actually, the whole area affected by that volcanic explosion, depicts very well some of what we see all over the world, caused by the great JUDGMENT of the worldwide flood in Noah's day.
(By the way, it was more than just a flood, it involved all natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclonic storms, etc.)
It's funny how we don't see any of this talked about by pseudo-scientists that trust in evolution.![/i]
Really, no scientists have addressed this? John William Dawson (a Christian and also a scientist) dealt with the "Polystrate" fossils found in The Joggins, in Nova Scotia all the way back in 1868 (you have to wonder why Mr. Hamm failed to mention this).
As Mr. Hamm said "Evolutionists believe that [i]most[/i] of the layers of sedimentary rock on the Earth’s surface were laid down slowly over millions of years." What you fail to grasp (and Mr. Hamm fails to mention by a slick use of words) is that no geologist (you know, the people who study these things) claims that [u]every[/u] stratum required millions or even thousands of years to lay down.
In fact some can be laid rather quickly, like those in former river beds which experienced flash flooding, those that were around active volcanoes at the time, areas where there was river course change, etc. Where you find "polystrate" fossils, they just happen to be around these areas (i.e. if there was global flood, you expect to find them all over the place). After the explosion of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, there was a quick burying of the surrounding areas by deposits of volcanic ash and rivers causing "polystrate" houses and telephone polls. The process is well known and not controversial. There is, however, no evidence that any "polystrate" fossils were caused by a great flood.
Before posting what scientists are willing to talk about, maybe do just a bit of research from other sources (heck wikipedia has a nice little article on it). These "polystrate" fossils have not only been known but have been addressed and explained without invoking a "great flood" for over 150 years.
Storeytwin A said...
I have a question for you "brilliant" evolution believers.
Someone sent in this question to answers in Genesis and they gave their answer. I would like for you to try your best to explain how this could happen over millions of years.
Why? So far as I know, no mainstream ("evolutionist") geologists think these particular layers took millions of years to lay down.
Also, are you aware of the "rapid" laying down of layers found at Mt. St. Helens, just like those found in the grand canyon?
The strata of the Grand Canyon are, variously, sandstone, shale, and limestone, and contain a variety of fossils of marine invertebrates (different species in different layers). The layers deposited by Mt. St. Helens are volcanic ash and do not contain fossil deposits. The two systems are not "just like" one another.
Actually, the whole area affected by that volcanic explosion, depicts very well some of what we see all over the world, caused by the great JUDGMENT of the worldwide flood in Noah's day.
(By the way, it was more than just a flood, it involved all natural disasters, such as earthquakes, cyclonic storms, etc.)
There is no mention, in the Genesis account of Noah's Flood, of earthquakes, cyclonic storms, or volcanic eruptions (invoked by some "flood geologists" to explain layers of igneous rock between water-laid strata). You add inventions of fallible men to the allegedly infallible biblical account.
It's funny how we don't see any of this talked about by pseudo-scientists that trust in evolution.!
Well, yes, I suppose that if you regard evolutionists as pseudo-scientists and liars, it is funny that they don't disseminate pseudoscience and lies. If you regard them as scientists like other scientists, though, their failure to help AiG spread its errors is more understandable.
******************************
Polystrate Fossils
Q. What are polystrate fossils, and how are they a problem for evolution?
A. Evolutionists believe that most of the layers of sedimentary rock on the Earth’s surface were laid down slowly over millions of years. Most of these layers contain fossils of plants and animals.
Actually, there are places (such as the Green River Formation in Wyoming) where there are millions of layers of rock, stacked one atop the other, with each individual thin layer thought to have been laid down over one year. There are also thicker layers, especially volcanic layers, that are thought to have been laid down in a fairly short time.
Here’s the problem for evolutionists! There are a number of places on the Earth where fossils actually penetrate more than one layer of rock. These are called ‘polystrate fossils.’
For example, at The Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposed to have been laid down over millions of years.
The layers are not supposed to have been laid down over millions of years. Geologists are perfectly aware that thick layers of mud or sand can be deposited in a few days, and often are: such purely local flood layers occur in many places in the geological and archaeological record. In other parts of the world, polystrate fossils were buried by (shades of Mt. St. Helens!) multiple deposits of ash from volcanic eruptions.
The fact is, the trees had to be buried faster than it took them to decay. In other words, there’s NO WAY these layers could have been laid down slowly over millions of years. The trees would’ve rotted well before then and not fossilized.
Mainstream ("uniformitarian") geology does not assume that the history of Earth has been an uninterrupted series of mild spring days, or that all geological processes occur at the same slow, constant rates (granted, Darwin did tend to assume that, but other geologists have modified his and Lyell's ideas). As you yourself implicitly note, there are volcanic eruptions that lay down thick layers of ash and/or lava in a short time, and then nothing for thousands of years. There are rare but geologically significant local floods and storms. There are meteor and even asteroid impacts. What there wasn't was one single global hydraulic catastrophe that explains everything from the Grand Canyon to polystrate fossils.
There is no problem in assuming a succession of purely local floods that layed down many yards of sediment in a few days. A single, worldwide flood, that laid down several miles of sediment in a single year is more of a problem (e.g. where did all that water come from, where did it all go, and why are there no modern species' fossils, or human artifacts, under the sediments supposedly laid down by this global flood?).
Genesis gives a better explanation – Noah’s Flood, which occurred a few thousand years ago. Just more evidence that fits with the Bible.
On the other hand, there's another problem that this article apparently omits: there are several layers of these buried forests at The Joggins. There are forests on top of forests, all rooted in layers of hardened clay or coal. How does a single global flood explain multiple layers? Some creationists have supposed that these forests are trees rooted up and swept in from all over, and deposited here by the flood, but this doesn't explain very well why so many of them are standing up, and doesn't explain at all why their roots are still embedded in layers of soil. On the other hand, multiple small, local floods over millions of years, with new forests growing (and being flooded) atop layers that buried older forests, does explain these polystrate trees.
—Excerpt from Answers … with Ken Ham radio program, December 23, 1998
You guys brings up such great questions.
Just to respond, I am going to take Maragon's post and reply.
Most civilizations in or around the Mesopotamian area have a history of a catastrophic flood that wiped out mankind except for one man and his decendants. That is the first peice of evidence I would like to propose.
Secondly Y chromosomal studies point back to an earlier point for women than men which would problem be because Noah and his sons were related and the wife and daughters would not as we would expect in a biblical model.
The object of this event was to wipe out mankind, not the animals and I think I might have an idea why. This is my own personal belief and I have no evidence other than Scripture to propose it and I am not 100% of its truth. But it is a "possibility." I believe it is possible that Adam and Eve had children before the fall of mankind and these children's children were somehow superior to the rest. They were giants so to speak. There was a problem with this and the evil that was occurring as a result was more than problematic. There is no reason to suppose that technology wasn't on the advance. After all, some artifacts suggest that there were some toying around with batteries etc in the ancient world. So God not only destroyed that whole group of men and women but the animals in the area except for what was brought to the Ark.
There is the possibility that this is Atlantis. I saw a documentary on Atlantis that would suggest that it might be, of all places, in the Mediterranean.
There is also evidence in the fact that mankind spread out from that point into the rest of the globe. The timing of this event may have been as far back as 30,000-50,000 years or more. The dates are not clear and the genealogies that most Christians look to clearly contain some gaps. This is the part that I have many questions about and have not come to any firm conclusions. The first generations from Adam to Noah seem to contain exact dates. The rest seem vague to me.
So the whole earth as they knew it was covered with water and the people were destroyed. This explains why other animals were not included but the animals in the area.
The cartoonist is right about the dimensions of the boat. It was perfectly suited for its design.
"Second, when the Bible refers to "kinds," it's not talking about the modern classification of species. For instance, there are many different species of canines (genus Canis), but we know that some species descended from others."
So, you accept the diversification of species via natural selection do you?
I do too. I just do not believe it is the sole mechanism for speciation nor do I think that it plus genetic shift and mutation are adequate to explain how life diversified so radically and with obvious design. However, natural selection is a truth where it comes to varieties within a species.
Nice to find another theist who understands and accepts evolution.
Don't try to place an arbitrary qualifier on this, now. Either species can descend from others or they can't. You can't accept evolution when it suits you and reject it when you dislike its theological implications.
And vice versa. Why should your science be concerned about God? Are you interested in the truth or not even if it includes God Almighty?
"Third, short-term care does not require oodles of resources and space."
Substantiate this claim.
The boat was only needed for a year.
"God gathered the animals and made them go to the ark."
Why didn't God just create brand new animals after the flood?
This question alone is the main reason I selected this post to comment on. I love this question. Everyone assumes something about God that is emphatically false. The assumption is that God "could have" just snapped His fingers and life appeared. Balderdash. God created this world with incredible timing, patience, long suffering and details. It is so obvious that it took billions of years because that's how long it takes. God doesn't operate this way. Creating creatures, as you well know, is no easy enterprise. It takes such a long time to create creatures perfectly suited to their habitats and environments with the right amount of O2 and sunlight to create atmosphere and many other helpful conveniences for mankind. I believe the answer to your question then is that God didn't create new animals because the whole process would have had to have started all over again and that would have been a very ineffective use of the time and energy it took to get to that point.
Or take all of the world's animals to somewhere that they'd be safe and return them afterwards?
It is through the authority of man that His work is accomplished such as this. I can hardly think of any example once mankind is on the scene where God does not work through man's authority.
Why didn't God make all of the animals magically immune to the flood - just killing all of the humans?
God doesn't work through magic. He works supernaturally naturally through His creation and authority.
I think the jury is still out on this event but the biblical model would show that mankind began to spread out at this point, DNA testing will point back to it and it will further show that there was an historical catastrophic flood that wiped out all the homo sapien sapiens with the exception of Noah and his family.
Blessings, Maragon. I am praying for you!!
Vera
kaitlyn asked nicely:
@Andy
you wrote:
But I think all the atheists are missing the obvious point here - it worked because God wanted it to. He could have shrunk all the animals into tiny little things smaller than ants. In fact, I bet that's mentioned somewhere in the original bible but got messed up in translation.
If God could do something like that, why bother with a flood and ark at all? ;)
Ahh,you atheists just don't get it do you? God works in mysterious ways. He did it that way because He knew what He was doing and you don't. You can't even make it rain, never mind flood an entire planet, so how would you know what's required?
So here's what happened. He made Noah build an Ark (presumably threatened eternal damnation if he didn't build it). He magicked all the animals to the Ark then shrunk them till they fit. He didn't need to shrink them a lot because the Ark was like the Tardis.
This is why the logical atheists here aren't making any sense. They're comparing the Ark to boats when they should compare it to quantum-driven space modules.
Then He made it rain - quite a lot really. And millions of people and animals suffered really horrible deaths in mudslides and floods. Even the fluffy bunnies and koala bears that hadn't really done anything wrong were caught up in the slaughter. Sorry Kaitlyn, I know this will upset you but you have to understand God loves everyone and everything but, like I said before, He works in mysterious ways.
Noah bobbed about on the somewhat large, semi-brackish ocean for a year or so and feasted on all the land and sea creatures that died horrible deaths and floated on the ocean's surface. In fact, there were so many dead bodies floating around that even ordinary humans could appear to walk on water for a while. I believe this is how Noah exercised and fed the midgetised dinosaurs.
When the flood waters finally all ran away to .... (err?)
...somewhere...
Noah let the animals go and they ran away everywhere and started, err, well, making babies (tee hee). Then God magicked a few hyenas and vultures to clean up the rotting carcasses that were, well, everywhere.
Noah and his family built houses with nice ocean views and started, err, well, making babies :)
This is all covered in the textbook but it's not always easy to understand the way those old people wrote stuff.
Whateverman said...
Face it, fundies: your best argument for the existence of the Ark is "Because the Bible says so". It's certainly not supported by science, history, or in the case of Richard's letter, math.
Where is the "evidence" to support this claim?
I wonder how some people can "believe" something that is contrary to the Bible and yet not believe that the Bible is in fact, the most accurate book ever written. There is no other book in history to have the historical backing that the Bible has. Read Josh MeDowell's "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdirct" and you will see that the record history is well documented and supported. For anyone to say other wise would have to say that the Jews, Egyptians and many other people groups never existed not to mention that those who make such a claim have not done their homework.
But then again, it sure is nice to rely on another persons idea of fact rather than actual fact.
I will try to answer all of you with this one comment. It looks like I've hit a nerve.
Sorry if I sounded cocky, but I've just about had enough of the silly games you people play.
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
I'm into "truth"!
Here is something you might want to chew on. I found this teaching by Robert L. Dabney written around 1878. Now this is truthful writing.
Just so you won't accuse me of quote mining (your favorite argument), here is a huge chunk of the beginning of this mans teaching concerning "evolution". To find the rest, google R. L. Dabney Systematic Theology. I dare you to read this.
********************************
Section One—Defending the Faith
Chapter 2: Evolution
Syllabus for Lecture 3:
1. State the Evolution Theory of man’s origin, in its recent form; and show its Relation to the Argument for God’s existence.
2. Show the Defects in the pretended Argument for this Descent of man by Evolution.
3. Does the Theory weaken the Teleological Argument for the Existence of Personal God?
See "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man," by Dr. Charles Darwin, "Lay Sermons," by Dr. Thos. Huxley, "Physical Basis of Life," by Dr. Stirling, Lectures (Posthumous) of Prof. Louis Agassiz, "What is Darwinism?" by Dr. Ch Hodge, "Reign of Law," by the Duke of Argyle.
Relation of Evolution To Teleological Argument.
In the previous Lecture, I concluded the brief examination of the atheistic theory, accounting for the Universe as an eternal series, with these words: "Genera may begin or end, but never transmute themselves into other genera." We found the fatal objections to the scheme of a self-existent, infinite series uncaused from without, in these facts: That no immediate antecedent was adequate cause for its immediate successor: And that the previous links in the series could not be cause; because totally absent from the rise of the sequent effect. HenceIn that the utter fallacy was detected, which seeks to impose on our minds by the vague infinitude of the series as a whole. We were taught that no series made up solely of effects, each contingent, can, as a whole, be self-existent. Thus that evasion of the atheist quickly perished.
Obviously, if there is any expedient for resuscitating it, this must be found in the attempt to prove that the law, "Like produces Like," is not the whole explanation of the series. We have demonstrated that, by that law, it is impossible the series can be self-existent. The best hope of Atheism is, then, to attempt to prove that the Like does not produce merely the Like; that the series contains within itself a power of differentiating its effects, at least slightly. Hence materialists and atheists have been led in our day, either by deliberate design, or by a species of logical instinct, to attempt the construction of an "evolution theory." The examination of this attempt becomes necessary in order to complete the argument for God’s existence, on this, the last conceivable point of attack.
No Novelty.
The evolution hypothesis is, indeed, no novelty. It is, after all its pretended modern experiments, but a revival of the "atomic theory" of the Greek atheist, Democritus, adopted by the Epicurean school. Its application to the descent of man from some lower animal, has often been attempted, as by Lord Monboddo, who almost exactly anticipated Dr. Chas. Darwin’s conclusion. In the eyes of some modern Physicists, however, it has received new plausibility from the more intelligent speculations of the Naturalist La Marck, and the "Vestiges of Creation" ascribed to Mr. Robert Chambers. But it appears in its fullest form, in the ingenious works of Dr. Chas. Darwin, "Origin of Species," and "Descent of Man." I therefore take this as the object of our inquiry.
Natural Selection and Survival.
This Naturalist thinks that he has found the law of reproduction, in animated nature, that "Like produces Like," modified by the two laws of "natural selection" and a "survival of the fittest." By the former, nature herself, acting unintelligently, tends in all her reproductive processes, to select those copulations which are most adapted to each other by the latter, she ordains, equally without intelligence, that the fittest, or ablest progeny shall survive at the expense of the inferior. These supposed laws he illustrates by the race-varieties (certainly very striking) which have been produced in genera and species whose original unity is admitted by all, through the art of the bird-fancier and stock-rearer, in breeding. The result of these laws, modifying the great law of reproduction, would be a slight differentiation of successors from predecessors, in any series in animated nature. This difference at one step might be almost infinitesimal. This conatus of Nature towards evolution, being totally blind, and moving at haphazard, might result in nothing through a myriad of experiments, or instances, and only evolve something in advance of the antecedents, in the ten thousandth case; yet, if we postulate a time sufficiently vast, during which the law has been blindly working, the result may be the evolution of man, the highest animal, from the lowest form of protoplasmic life.
(check out the rest of it)
Storeytwin A said:
I will try to answer all of you with this one comment. It looks like I've hit a nerve.
No, you've clearly stated something that (unlike Ray's various mockeries and dogmatic assertions without evidence) concerns a matter of empirical fact, so people can address your arguments with empirical facts. It's a pity that your arguments are so wrong, but still, thank you for actually posting something of substance.
Sorry if I sounded cocky, but I've just about had enough of the silly games you people play.
I suppose bringing actual evidence and logic into play is a cruel thing to do when debating a creationist.
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
Geologists get to decide. Now, in some cases (e.g. the Green River formation), the myriad layers each consist of separate spring and fall layers, like the varves found at the bottoms of glacial lakes. The conclusion that they were laid down annually is based on the fact that similar layers are laid down annually in existing lakes. In some cases, sediments either contain volcanic rocks or are intersticed with volcanic debris that can be dated radiometrically. If you have two datable layers of igneous rock, with sedimentary rocks sandwiched between them, it's sensible to assume that the sedimentary rocks were laid down during the measured time interval between the volcanic deposits. Of course, they may not have been laid down at a constant, slow rate: geologists will have to decide this based on various factors.
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
Much of this material was discovered by creationists, who, unwilling to consider that the GOD of the universe had woven pointless lies into the very fabric of the Earth, were forced to conclude that the Earth was much older than Christians had originally imagined, that creation was much more protracted than the original "creation week," and that Noah's Flood could not explain any great portion of the geological column. Are you so desperate to avoid learning the facts that made them decide this?
I'm into "truth"!
You're into having your prejudices confirmed. Most people are, of course, but there's no reason to make it the central principle, proudly proclaimed and upheld, of your intellectual existence.
Here is something you might want to chew on. I found this teaching by Robert L. Dabney written around 1878. Now this is truthful writing.
You ought to be aware that in the subsequent 130 years, additional evidence, unknown to and even unimagined by Mr. Dabney (e.g. I doubt very much that he would have even conceived of shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of humans and other primates, given that in 1878 no one knew that genes existed), has been discovered.
Just so you won't accuse me of quote mining (your favorite argument), here is a huge chunk of the beginning of this mans teaching concerning "evolution". To find the rest, google R. L. Dabney Systematic Theology. I dare you to read this.
"Quote mining" is ignoring the fact that the context of a statement often profoundly affects its meaning: the exact same sentence can mean quite different things depending on the sentences around it. Generally, when creationists quote distinguished scientists seeming to attack evolutionary theory, we suspect quote mining; when they quote theologians and preachers, we tend to suspect that they are conveying correctly the thoughts of the person being quoted.
I've read Dabney's article. He doesn't really seem to understand natural selection: his arguments imply that he isn't thinking in terms of a population of individuals that vary among themselves, producing all sorts of offspring that vary in different (and sometimes new) ways from one another. It isn't a matter of blindly trying one thing after another; it's a matter of blindly trying many different things at once, and keeping only the things that work.
He also doesn't seem to quite grasp that "natural selection" is a metaphor, and doesn't imply that anything is actually doing any selecting. Rather, the point is that not all offspring survive, and those that do are not a random sample of all offspring, but tend to be the offspring whose particular traits best suit the environment. In keeping with this, he doesn't seem to grasp that "best suiting the environment" is not the same thing as "strongest," or that the "struggle for survival" is rarely a deliberate war between individuals. Rather, some individuals are better at getting food, or avoiding becoming food, or finding a mate, or avoiding parasites or infections. These may not be the largest, most impressive individuals (small size means smaller dietary requirements), or the most agressive (time spent fighting is time not spent finding food and shelter, and it may be time spent being hurt).
He does not address Charles Darwin's arguments concerning the fossil record (i.e. that it is very incomplete: hardly any individuals become fossils, and not all environments are conducive to fossilization). He doesn't seem to grasp the logic of small, incremental improvements (e.g. any fossil one finds will be the descendant of earlier successful organisms, so will have functional systems already), or that "degraded genera" are not things the theory predicts (natural selection will weed out defective organisms rather than allow their traits to spread through entire species and genera).
It's not at all clear why he thinks that species cannot migrate from where they originally evolved to other areas: unless they run into fitter competitors, or into regions utterly devoid of any resources they can use, why should they not be able to so migrate?
In his argument that selection cannot proceed without a mind or a plan, he may be pardoned for not being aware of the work on genetic algorithms (computer programs that emulate mutation and natural selection to design everything from computer programs to aircraft wings) that would not, after all, be done for a century after his death. But still, I think such programs rather undercut his argument, as does, e.g. the evolution of adaptions from penicillin resistance to the ability to digest nylon in cultures of E. coli.
His argument that natural selection cannot account for mind is a pure argument from personal incredulity.
In his discussion of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the theory, he puts too much evidence on supposed eyewitness testimony (as though eyewitnesses never lied or were mistaken or misunderstood), and downplays the vital role of circumstantial evidence. In this way, he dismisses without even mentioning Darwin's arguments from the nested hierarchy of life, the biogeography of species, and the distribution of vestigial structures and similar structures serving dissimilar functions (while dissimilar structures, such as bat wings and bird wings, may serve similar functions: odd, if one assumes that commonalities reflect a common designer).
He is of course pardonably and necessarily ignorant of all the transitional fossils, and the evidence from genetics and embryonic development, gathered since his death. Nonetheless, such evidence tends to undercut his case.
Storeytwin A said...
I will try to answer all of you with this one comment. It looks like I've hit a nerve.
Sorry if I sounded cocky, but I've just about had enough of the silly games you people play.
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
Bull. Those "extensive, wordy explanations" do answer the questions. It's been shown that some of those "questions" like Polystrate fossils had been answered for over a century!
Such is the state of creation science that it's not even caught up to that point yet.
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
There's only one thing I can do. I can point out that StorytwinA is wrong again in her assertion that the TO people are trying to "discount God". Several of their contributers are Christian.
Glen Morton, Steven Schimmrich, Ken Miller, just off the top of my head.
I'm into "truth"!
No, you're into what you want to hear. I've never seen such an example of willfull ignorance as you've just shown. Well, we tried.
Just don't go running around lying that we've never shown any evidence for our side. We have and you've ignored it.
And people wonder why the atheists on this board are "rude"??
Great. Ignorant and proud of it! Gotta love whatever educational/religious system that makes people like StorytwinA.
So she's given lots of facts that totally refute what she regurgitates out and is told where she can look them up, and she both refuses to look at those facts and refuses to do further reading.
No wonder people like Comfort are able to take people like her for a ride.
If she'd bother to read and learn anything she'd know that, but she won't.
When one is that stupid, there is no help. So be it.
storeytwin_a said...
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see." (Jonathan Swift)
Blogger Storeytwin A said...
"I will try to answer all of you with this one comment. It looks like I've hit a nerve.
Sorry if I sounded cocky, but I've just about had enough of the silly games you people play.
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
I'm into "truth"!"
Since you have already determined what is "true" and what is "false" and refuse to actually look at the evidence compiled by scientists, there really is no point in debating, is there? You obviously are only interested in getting your information from those who meet you prejudged belief of what is the "truth," like Ham. You took his word at face value without even minimal research and asserted blindly and snidely that scientists cannot explain and refuse to address "Polystrate" fossils. When people pointed out that these were addressed and explained over a hundred years ago, you accuse us of giving you a wordy explanation.
Here is a short one. Volcano goes boom or river floods over and buries trees very fast in volcanic ash, water, mud, etc. These cause rapid fossilization in that area (like I said if there was a great flood you would expect these "polystrate" fossils to appear all over the world and not just happen to appear in areas where scientists would expect rapid fossilization). If you don't know how geologists can determine which layers are laid down rapidly, take an intro geology course or read a geology textbook. Hint: they can tell by the material that makes up that strata whether it is made from volcanic ash or mud or something else.
At least us "crazies" are here willing to listen to the other side of the argument. It is just that the creationists keep raising arguments that have have been convincingly explained by scientists for a long time. You are not even willing to go read about the evidence because you have already decided what the truth is and will only take your information at face value from those with a admitted vested interest in the literal truth of the Bible.
storeytwin a said...
"I will try to answer all of you with this one comment. It looks like I've hit a nerve. "
You didn't hit a nerve, dear, you just asked a question that was so stupid and so easy to refute that you got many many answers doing just that.
You give your copy/pasted evangelism far too much credit - you're only convincing yourself.
"Sorry if I sounded cocky, but I've just about had enough of the silly games you people play."
The same to you.
I love talking to theists. I love debating. I love having a frank exchange of ideas. I hate people like you, though. You don't want to have an exchange of ideas, you don't want to talk, in fact - you don't have any ideas of your own. You just mindlessly regurgitate what you've read elsewhere without even checking the validity of your word salad before expecting others to accept it as true.
"Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions."
I'll bet you a million dollars that you didn't even bother to read all of our answers - if you had, you wouldn't ask such juvenile and easily answered questions.
No one 'decides' when the layers were laid down - we examine the evidence and determine what has happened based on that. Evidence based reasoning - you should give it a try.
"And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe."
So in other words, you have no desire to have any exchange of ideas or bother to learn the truth - you just want to impose your own version of things on other people.
You should count yourself lucky that there are millions of people who want to learn, dear, or else modern science and technology wouldn't exist.
Under what authority do you call scientific literature fallacious? Do you have a PhD in some scientific discipline that would give you the knowledge to condemn something as fallacious? Do you challenge all PhD's on the validity of their life's work - or just when it may contradict something you want to believe?
"I'm into "truth"!"
So are we. You know how you can tell? We demand EVIDENCE for everything that we believe. Testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence. Not just your, Ray's or some books say so.
"Here is something you might want to chew on. I found this teaching by Robert L. Dabney written around 1878. Now this is truthful writing."
You're vacuous.
Do you really think that this bit of writing hasn't been rebutted umpteenth times by the scientific community?
Do you have any idea how many times we've seen these arguments?
Do you understand that even a laypersons understanding of evolution is enough to rebut these claims?
1) There are no transitional forms.
2) "Like" only produces "like".
3)Atheism = Evolution.
4) Natural Selection can't account for something complicated(ie humans).
Do you REALLY think that scientists haven't addressed these points? If you do, you're willfully ignorant and patently dishonest(although you've already shown this to be true).
I won't bother reading the rest of your article - if the man cannot properly understand diversification via natural selection, then there's nothing new he can say that hasn't been debunked ad nasusem.
Most civilizations in or around the Mesopotamian area have a history of a catastrophic flood that wiped out mankind except for one man and his decendants. That is the first peice of evidence I would like to propose.
The prevalence of myths involving floods in civilizations that lived near flood plains does not constitute evidence of a gloabally-spanned flood.
Secondly Y chromosomal studies point back to an earlier point for women than men which would problem be because Noah and his sons were related and the wife and daughters would not as we would expect in a biblical model.
Please explain how predictions are derived from a "biblical model".
The cartoonist is right about the dimensions of the boat. It was perfectly suited for its design.
You need to establish the reality of the event before you can address the validity of models regarding a boat.
I do too. I just do not believe it is the sole mechanism for speciation nor do I think that it plus genetic shift and mutation are adequate to explain how life diversified so radically and with obvious design.
Please identify and describe other mechanisms, and explain why you assert that design is "obvious".
And vice versa. Why should your science be concerned about God? Are you interested in the truth or not even if it includes God Almighty?
I do not believe that your statement constitutes a logical response to the previous inquiry.
The boat was only needed for a year.
This does not constitute substantiation of the previous claim. Even one year of care of an extensive collection of various animal pairs will require significant resources, for reasons that others have explained.
This question alone is the main reason I selected this post to comment on. I love this question. Everyone assumes something about God that is emphatically false. The assumption is that God "could have" just snapped His fingers and life appeared. Balderdash. God created this world with incredible timing, patience, long suffering and details. It is so obvious that it took billions of years because that's how long it takes. God doesn't operate this way. Creating creatures, as you well know, is no easy enterprise. It takes such a long time to create creatures perfectly suited to their habitats and environments with the right amount of O2 and sunlight to create atmosphere and many other helpful conveniences for mankind. I believe the answer to your question then is that God didn't create new animals because the whole process would have had to have started all over again and that would have been a very ineffective use of the time and energy it took to get to that point.
It is your position, then, that God is not omnipotent? Additionally, what is the rational basis for the limitations and requirements that you have stated above? What physical processes have you observed that has led you to postulate such limitations?
It is through the authority of man that His work is accomplished such as this. I can hardly think of any example once mankind is on the scene where God does not work through man's authority.
You are saying, then, that God is limited?
God doesn't work through magic. He works supernaturally naturally through His creation and authority.
Please explain the fundamental difference between "supernatural" works and magic.
I think the jury is still out on this event but the biblical model would show that mankind began to spread out at this point, DNA testing will point back to it and it will further show that there was an historical catastrophic flood that wiped out all the homo sapien sapiens with the exception of Noah and his family.
As you have thus far refused to describe a "biblical" or "creation" model, I have conducted independent research upon the claim of such a model and I have uncovered the explanation presented by "Reasons to Believe" document upon their website. Unfortunately, what they claim does not constitute an actual scientific model. As an example, the first stage of the alleged model's chronology states flatly that a "miracle" occurred, however such is not permitted in a scientific model. The third stage does not appeal to a miracle, however it does claim that there was an event of "cleaning of the interplanetary debris and transformation of the earth's atmosphere", yet no physical description regarding how those events were accomplished is offered. A scientific model must describe events, not merely claim that an event occurred. The remainder of the chronology continues with similar assertions of undefined and undescribed events. Without definition or description, however, there is no logical means by which predictions regarding the occurrence of these events can be made and thus the model is untestable. As the model appears to be untestable, there is no logical means by which any event could be asserted to be logically consistent with the "biblical model"; a model that invokes no described or defined processes cannot yield useful predictions.
storeytwina said: "And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe."
And you are proud of willful ignorance? You don't even consider other points of view which makes you a typical close-minded fundie nutbar.
Storeytwin:
I will try to answer all of you with this one comment. It looks like I've hit a nerve.
You didn't hit any nerves with me. I'm quite amused actually.
Sorry if I sounded cocky, but I've just about had enough of the silly games you people play.
By silly games, you must mean the fact-based logical arguments you are getting.
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
What questions would those be? Did you actually read any of the answers we gave you? You claimed evolutionists couldn't account for polystrate fossils, and if you'd read the answers we gave you, you would acknowledge you were wrong. Or did you give up because they were too "extensive" and "wordy"?
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
If you aren't going to read the answers we take the time to supply you with, why bother asking us for them in the first place?
I'm into "truth"!
No you aren't, as evidenced by your above statement.
Here is something you might want to chew on. I found this teaching by Robert L. Dabney written around 1878. Now this is truthful writing.
Just so you won't accuse me of quote mining (your favorite argument), here is a huge chunk of the beginning of this mans teaching concerning "evolution". To find the rest, google R. L. Dabney Systematic Theology. I dare you to read this.
So, you challenge us over polystrate fossils, ignore our answers since they aren't convenient to your case, then rapidly shift gears into a new subject.
Sorry. I'm not going to play with you any longer. It's a waste of my time since you've made it clear you won't listen to any answers you get anyway.
Maragon,
I can't find this post by Storytwin at least not within this thread.
Storytwin, if you're out there. Please go to Reasons to Believe. You will find a world of evidence to support the biblical account from an old earth standpoint exactly as science has discovered as truth.
Anyway, just wanted to comment on a few things you said, Maragon.
You give your copy/pasted evangelism far too much credit - you're only convincing yourself
Are we talking about God and your personal repentance here or how old the earth is?
You just mindlessly regurgitate what you've read elsewhere without even checking the validity of your word salad before expecting others to accept it as true.
Do you check things out? Without prejudice, have you looked at the materials from Reasons to Believe or listened to some of the podcasts with an open heart and mind? Although you have assumed so, I do not discount science or the evidence it produces. On the contrary, I embrace any point of truth. I believe in some aspects of natural selection and genetic shift to explain how variations within a species are produced. There is much validity to this research. What I do not accept is that this is the means for creation in every instance and that this is what determines speciation. I think mutation is grossly lacking as an explanation, as has been researched in science. If there is a natural explanation, that isn't it. The Bible shares the creation of Eve by taking DNA from Adam and tweaking it. So changing DNA and adding what is necessary to create something different and seeing that relationship is not against a biblical model. This is what we would predict.
No one 'decides' when the layers were laid down - we examine the evidence and determine what has happened based on that. Evidence based reasoning - you should give it a try.
And as Dimensio and Stephen have pointed out so often, it is still a theory because of the possibility of new evidence emerging.
So in other words, you have no desire to have any exchange of ideas or bother to learn the truth - you just want to impose your own version of things on other people.
As for me, within the field of science, that is not my heart on the matter. I like learning about what is going on. For me, it only serves to give me a clearer picture of who God is. If I have to make up facts or explain things as happening solely by a supernatural means, then I have to explain many things in this life in that way, which ultimately leads me to make faulty decisions. As I was saying earlier, our beliefs lead to actions.
You should count yourself lucky that there are millions of people who want to learn, dear, or else modern science and technology wouldn't exist.
This is probably the truth. I hate to admit it but to uncover the truth, these folks have had to stand against a lot of flack. But historically speaking, they brought it on themselves. The science/church cold war has been going on because science attacked the church first. The church did not respond perhaps the way it should have. Also, atheism used science to push Christianity out of the ps for its own religious views. Guaranteed, the response couldn't have been for science to take jurisdiction over the church. Thankfully, many Christian scientists have practically laid down their lives to seek God on this matter. Actually, I think it was important for the YEC movement to do research toward that end because we needed to exhaust that possibility before seeing that these "days" were eras or time periods. All research is necessary to come to an understanding of the truth.
Under what authority do you call scientific literature fallacious? Do you have a PhD in some scientific discipline that would give you the knowledge to condemn something as fallacious? Do you challenge all PhD's on the validity of their life's work - or just when it may contradict something you want to believe?
Now, now, Maragon. If you take this position, you are no better than the church that said the same. If someone is saying something fallacious, we need to investigate it and you don't have to have a PhD to do that. Education does not always equal wise. At every turn you seem to think that your education gives you the upper hand over people who do not have education. I would rather be a ditch digger and make it into heaven believing in a 6 literal day world view than act with pride all my life and end up in hell's fire. And in the end, so will you.
"I'm into "truth"!"
So are we. You know how you can tell? We demand EVIDENCE for everything that we believe. Testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence. Not just your, Ray's or some books say so.
An invisible holy God set me free from sin. He set many others free from sin. That is our testimony and what our faith produced. We know God. That is my own personal evidence. God requires for you to come to Him by faith. Grace is the power that causes this to happen. But grace is not given to the proud. It is given to the humble of heart. Humility is not being self-critical. I think the best definition I've heard for this is simply understanding that you are not responsible for all your achievements but that God and others have invested time and energy into you to get you to where you are. Your beauty is a gift from God and your parents. Just being born in this nation alone is something to be grateful for. You could have been born Cuban today and seen your house blow away. Your education is the result of many people investing their time into you. Your parents sacrificed for that as well. Many young people do not have those advantages. Gratefulness conquers pride. You can't think you're all that when you recognize just how much you have to be grateful for.
As to your four points-
1) There are no transitional forms.
Although you can surmise that these animals became other animals over time, most mtDNA testing of such things is now raising questions on this matter.
2) "Like" only produces "like".
What are we calling "like?" Cats only produce other cats. Dogs produce only other dogs in their species which could include wolves etc. Cats do not produce dog creatures. Dogs do not produce felines. The variations within these groups are obviously linked.
3)Atheism = Evolution.
I wouldn't say that atheism equals evolution but that atheists believe that the universe and hence the earth was created solely through natural means of which evolution plays a minor role. Of course, so far abiogenesis is a dead end for you. But any time this is brought up, you claim it isn't part of the Theory of Evolution. So for the sake of your lack of the knowledge of history, I will concede. Nevertheless, for your whole personal atheist worldview, abiogenesis must be true and my friend, the evidence does not support such a notion. Once again, we see the biblical model supported.
4) Natural Selection can't account for something complicated(ie humans).
Yes, that is true in the case of homo sapien sapiens which continue to support evidence of those created in the image of God even from many thousands of years ago. The human anatomy is similar to animals but different. It is not this that is "complicated." It is the inner working of man that makes him higher than the animals and not complicated but complex. Let's see you write a piece of music like Mozart.
For once, Maragon, no name calling. Just talk normal. We can talk like two adults. Thanks.
Vera
There's only one thing I can do. I can point out that StorytwinA is wrong again in her assertion that the TO people are trying to "discount God". Several of their contributers are Christian.
Glen Morton, Steven Schimmrich, Ken Miller, just off the top of my head.
It is also noteworthy to mention Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian convinced by the work of C.S. Lewis who fully accepts the validity of the theory of evolution and the reality that all extant biodiversity -- including Homo sapiens sapiens -- is related through common ancestry while still accepting that humans have a unique spiritual nature. Also worthy of mention are Robert T. Bakker, an evolution-accepting and religiously outspoken Pentecostal minister whose initially controversial postulates regarding homeothermic dinosaurs have been vindicated since their initial publication, and Theodosius Dobzhansky, Eastern Orthodox Christian who noted that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
It is clear that any individual who claims that those who accept and even promote (through research and publication) the validity of the theory of evolution are universally "desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe" are either willfully ignorant of reality or willfully dishonest. As I have observed that such individuals have typically done absolutely no research at all regarding the subject of evolution, the former possibility is likely the most commonly applicable explanation, however those who have already been corrected on the subject yet continue to make the claim -- such as Ray Comfort -- are without excuse of ignorance, and thus are engaging in willful dishonesty.
And as far as my going to your suggested website to "learn" from, it's not going to happen, because I don't much care for reading the fallacious material written by people desperate to try and discount the GOD of the universe.
It is irrational and dishonest for you to comment upon the motives and accuracy of writers whose works you refuse to examine.
Vera,
I read your response to Maragon.
I know Maragon, and you are no Maragon, honey.
You are like a person who has had a house built around them. You like to think the carpenters have you in a beautiful dwelling, but in reality they have played a great trick on you and the outside of the house looks like it was built by a team of seven year old kids.
Your problem is that you dare not walk out through the door and actually take a look at your imagined beautiful home. You stay inside out of fear that what you may find will contradict what it is that you hope to be true.
PS You crack me up when you say, "the evidence does not support this or that," meaning that you read at RTB that "they" say the evidence doesn't support this or that. RTB has never done a lick or research and never will.
lonomoholo,
You said: "And you are proud of willful ignorance? You don't even consider other points of view which makes you a typical close-minded fundie nutbar."
***************************
Dear, I've been through 16 years of school, earning my degree in Math and minor in Biology, and had all of this evolutionary propoganda cramed into my head. I don't need any more. I am quite aware of what they teach, why would I want to read anymore of their garbage?
So you see, it's not a matter of willful ignorance, it's a matter of----I've heard enough to make up my mind. It is not provable and it is stupid.
Your silly little theory can't even give people an answer to where time, space and matter came from.
Do you really think that it's honest to just skip that part and make up the rest??
Storytwin;
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
You don't want questions to be answered you silly woman. You want to hang on to your belief that God did it.
You don't want truth. You want to believe. You don't want light. You want darkness.
And you quote Robert L. Dabney. He was just another divine loony like you.
storeytwin a ironically responded:
Just who gets to decide which layers were laid down rapidly and which took millions of years? You people give your extensive, wordy explanations that go on and on and on but never really answer some vital questions.
...then she pasted about 150 paragraphs of quoted text from somewhere.
As for the layers of mud, I think the atheists again miss the point here. Dinosaurs were really big and all mammals are really small.
This means that the dinosaurs couldn't swim for as long as the mammals could and they sunk a lot faster and deeper. For this reason, the dinosaurs are found in deeper layers than mammals.
If this doesn't do it for you then consider that God can put the fossils in whatever darned layer He wants to. Call it "deistic licence". That will surely convince you because that's the truth.
Vera;
Everyone assumes something about God that is emphatically false.
The only people who assume anything about your God are those who believe.
I personally don't assume anything about your God. Just as I don't assume anything about Zeus, Thor, Unicorns, Fairies, Goblins, Santa or any other imaginary characters.
Do you speak in tongues?
For those of you that try to force millions of years into the Genesis record, holding to the gap theory or something like it, here is some great commentary from the Defenders Study Bible by Dr. Henry Morris.
In an attempt to accommodate the supposed evolutionary geological ages in Genesis, theorists postulate a long gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, in which it was hoped these ages could be pigeon-holed and forgotten as far as Biblical exegesis was concerned.
This gap theory, however, requires a worldwide cataclysm at the end of the geological ages in order to account for the globally inundated and darkened earth described in Genesis 1:2. The cataclysm, in turn, is hypothetically connected with the fall of Lucifer in heaven (Isaiah 14:9-14) and his expulsion to the earth (Ezekiel 28:12-15), though such a cataclysm is nowhere mentioned in Scripture.
However, in addition to its obvious contradictions with other important and clear Bible passages (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 20:11), the gap theory is self-defeating geologically.
The geological age system (which is the necessary framework for modern evolutionism) is based entirely on the principle of uniformitarianism, a premise which precludes any such world-wide cataclysm, and requires the interpreting of earth history by the extrapolation of present slow geological processes into the remote past.
The concept of geological ages is based entirely on a uniformitarian explanation of the fossil beds and sedimentary rocks of the earth's crust, which would all have been destroyed by the postulated pre-Adamic cataclysm.
Thus, any attempt to ignore or explain away the supposed great age of the earth by appeal to the gap theory makes an unnecessary and abortive compromise with evolutionism, and displays a lack of understanding of the geological structures and processes to which evolutionists appeal in postulating their long ages.
The real answer to the geological ages is not a pre-Adamic cataclysm, but the very real cataclysm of the Noahic Deluge, which provides a much better explanation of the fossil beds and sedimentary rocks, eliminating all evidence of geological ages and confirming the Biblical doctrine of recent creation.
(At this point, Dr. Morris refers the reader to his notes on Genesis 6-9 in the Defenders Study Bible for more details.)
(Here is Dr. Morris' take on the space/time/matter continuum.)
No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. All begin with the space/time/matter universe, already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have "evolved" into its present form.
Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a "big bang" and then developing through natural forces into complex systems. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personified as different gods and goddesses. But very significantly, the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1.
Appropriately, therefore, this verse records the creation of space ("the heaven"), of time ("in the beginning") and of matter ("the earth"), the tri-universe, the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos.
The Creator of this tri-universe is the triune God, Elohim, the uni-plural Old Testament name for the divine "Godhead,"a name which is plural in form (with its Hebrew "im" ending) but commonly singular in meaning.
The existence of a transcendent Creator and the necessity of a primeval special creation of the universe is confirmed by the most basic principles of nature discovered by scientists:
(1) The law of causality, that no effect can be greater than its cause, is basic in all scientific investigation and human experience. A universe comprising an array of intelligible and complex effects, including living systems and conscious personalities, is itself proof of an intelligent, complex, living, conscious Person as its Cause.
(2) The laws of thermodynamics are the most universal and best-proved generalizations of science, applicable to every process and system of any kind, the First Law stating that no matter/energy is now being created or destroyed, and the Second Law stating that all existing matter/energy is proceeding irreversibly toward ultimate equilibrium and cessation of all processes.
Since this eventual death of the universe has not yet occurred and since it will occur in time, if these processes continue, the Second Law proves that time (and therefore, the space/matter/time universe) had a beginning. The universe must have been created, but the First Law precludes the possibility of its self-creation.
The only resolution of the dilema posed by the First and Second Laws is that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
The so-called big bang theory of the origin of the cosmos, postulating a primeval explosion of the space/mass/time continuum at the start, beginning with a state of nothingness and then rapidly expanding into the present complex universe, contradicts both these basic laws as well as
Scripture.
Tomorrow, the large hadron collider begins operating. They are looking for the elusive Higgs boson, or the God particle. If they would only look into the Bible they would find what they are looking for, for FREE!
StoryTwin hath mastered the art of cut and paste! Everybody give her a hand. Did you learn how to use the shortcut keys yet?
But alas... You go ahead and quote another apologist. The nice thing about being right is that I can quote both believers and non believers in support of reality.
Are you really trying to witness to us Godless heathens, or are you just playing to your fellow cultists?
drbenway,
You said: "You don't want questions to be answered you silly woman. You want to hang on to your belief that God did it.
You don't want truth. You want to believe. You don't want light. You want darkness.
And you quote Robert L. Dabney. He was just another divine loony like you."
***************************
Hey,
Thanks for the compliment! I've never been called "divine" before.
You flatter me so!!
Andy said: "Dinosaurs were really big and all mammals are really small.
This means that the dinosaurs couldn't swim for as long as the mammals could"
That made no sense at all...
Storeytwin said: "I've heard enough to make up my mind. It is not provable and it is stupid."
I find it rather ironic that you'd claim "the inability to prove something" discredits that something. After all, you've already rejected "provability" by claiming you don't need evidence to believe in Creationism.
You don't value proof in the first place, so why would you criticize an idea that can't be proven?
Storeytwin quoted: Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a "big bang"
This is a patent lie. Nowhere in the modern understanding of evolution is the phrase "big bang" mentioned; nor is there an assertion that evolutionary processes on earth have anything to do with life in the universe as a whole.
Dimensio
The prevalence of myths involving floods in civilizations that lived near flood plains does not constitute evidence of a gloabally-spanned flood.
Right but within these "myths" were names similar to Noah's.
Please explain how predictions are derived from a "biblical model".
From Who was Adam? pg. 67
Molecular anthropologists find the large discrepancy between the dates for mtDNA Eve and Y chromosomal Adam perplexing. To explain this difference, scientists suggest that males living prior to y-chromosomal Adam failed to pass along their genes and hence their genetic fingerprint. This lack of inheritance could occur if all their descendants had died out. As a lone survivor, y-chromosomal Adam, born around 50,000 years ago, thus happened to have his genetic fingerprint take over the entire human population.
RTB's human origins model actually predicts this discrepancy between the maternal and paternal dates. Because of the Flood, the most recent common ancestor for men traces to Noah, not Adam. In contrast, women's common ancestor traces further back, closer to Eve, because the wives of Noah and his sons were probably not directly related to one another.
A recent study, reported in 2004 by molecular anthropologists from the University of Arizona, offers another explanation for the differences between the mtDNA and y-chromosomal dates for humanity's origin. These researchers noted that mtDNA dates were consistently twice those measured using y-chromosomes for three population groups (Khroisan, Mongolians, and Papua New Guineans.) This constant difference goes beyond mere coincidence and reveals a pattern in the data. They also failed to detect any evidence in the y-chromosomal data for the so-called selective sweep that would have occurred if y-chromosomal Adam were a lone survivor among many different males.
The researchers suggested that mtDNA Eve and y-chromosomal Adam lived at the same time and that the disparity in the mtDNA and y-chromosomal dates is not real. Rather this difference reflects a larger effective population size for females than for males.
This explanation makes sense in light of the Flood account, because a single y-chromosome sequence would be represented by Noah and his sons. The wives of Noah and his sons would have had up to four different mtDNA sequences, making it appear as if the effective population size of the femal lineage was larger than the male lineage.
One final note: The difference in mtDNA and y-chromosomal-DNA dates are not as great as they may seem. As already discussed, when heteroplasmy is factored in, the mtDNA Eve dates may well come in under 100,000 years ago. In addition, some of the differences could reflect methodological differences between the two techniques. A study that examined the paternal and maternal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born since 1972 attests to this idea. Based on the research, it appears that mtDNA manifests a greater microevolutionary rate than y-chromosomal DNA. This difference is due in part to a 10 percent shorter generation time for the maternal line. Still, once methodological differences are accounted for, there seems to be a difference between the maternal and paternal dates for humanity's origin, as predicted and explained by RTB's model.
Please identify and describe other mechanisms, and explain why you assert that design is "obvious".
It is your position, then, that God is not omnipotent? Additionally, what is the rational basis for the limitations and requirements that you have stated above? What physical processes have you observed that has led you to postulate such limitations? You are saying, then, that God is limited?
Yes. Just a few things the Bible says that God cannot do are deny Himself, lie or be tempted with evil. There may be one more. I believe God limits Himself by creation although He knows a lot more than you or I about this universe, its physical laws, quantum physics, alternate dimensions etc. So He can do things mankind cannot do, which is miraculous to us. He can reproduce an eyeball for someone because He knows how to put those things together.
I have observed the physical process I've noted in creation itself as it tests out to be. Since God says to test and to prove all things, then I must believe that we are testing things as He prescribed. For example, after He said, "Let there be light" and there was an explosion as evidenced by general relativity, the universe was full of unfathomable heat and radiation. In fact, this was one of the points made as to why space travel would be out of the question because a space ship would not be able to stand those levels of heat and radiation. The fact that the earth was hit with a Mars sized rock at just the right timing to produce the moon to create the just right atmosphere is another proof to me of God creating this universe with limitations and working in and through them. Then lastly and most importantly, I know God's will has not always been done here. You know, if I were Him, I would probably work this thing like a chess game and make people do my will. But see, He doesn't apparently operate that way.
We were watching a piece from the History Channel today on the Black Death, which to me, epitomizes these observations into God's character. It was very interesting. It is the kind of thing the atheists would hold up as class example A in which this world does not make sense. They estimate that 50% of Europe died very quickly. The worst of it was the so-called Christians. Of course, I was very impressed with the physician that worked diligently to keep notes and also sought God in his life. From what I was observing, he seemed to me to be a genuine Christian. Anyway, the rest were ridiculous and not even in the ballpark as to what Christianity is all about. The flagellants that whipped themselves, then murdered people (some Jews) and then fornicated were the sorriest lot of all.
But the last comment these people made explained to me why God allowed this to happen. These are the kinds of things that make perfect sense to a senseless situation. You see, there was a labor shortage after this in the major way and according to these secular experts (not necessarily Christians) they were in dire need of help, which forced them to start creating technological advancements of which the printing press was the most remarkable. And lo and behold, this put the Scriptures in the hands of the common man. Within 300 years, the Separatists, Puritans, Quakers and Pilgrims (to name a few) came to this country for religious freedom because they no longer were content to live within the confines of the false prophets and ridiculous church of England. In every step, God works through natural means to produce His will supernaturally naturally. They still have no clue the mechanism for the swift advancement of this plague even though they are fairly sure it was the Yersinia pestis. But it was obvious that the quick spread of it is still a mystery.
Please explain the fundamental difference between "supernatural" works and magic.
God allows His works to be tested. Hocus pocus is all about being secretive and deceptive.
As you have thus far refused to describe a "biblical" or "creation" model, I have conducted independent research upon the claim of such a model and I have uncovered the explanation presented by "Reasons to Believe" document upon their website. Unfortunately, what they claim does not constitute an actual scientific model.
I hope my above excerpt from Who was Adam? explains that these things must be elaborated on just as you would expect.
As the model appears to be untestable, there is no logical means by which any event could be asserted to be logically consistent with the "biblical model"; a model that invokes no described or defined processes cannot yield useful predictions.
As seen above, it most certainly can.
Vera
Whateverman said:
"This is a patent lie. Nowhere in the modern understanding of evolution is the phrase "big bang" mentioned; nor is there an assertion that evolutionary processes on earth have anything to do with life in the universe as a whole."
*************************
Oh that's right, your theory just keeps on evolving. But wait a minute, isn't that what todays experiment in Europe with the large hadron collider is all about, recreating the "big bang"?
I guess you're not up to speed either!
Right but within these "myths" were names similar to Noah's.
Can you cite specific examples? I am unable to locate any flood myth other than the one detailed in Genesis involving a name similar to Noah's.
From Who was Adam? pg. 67
The fundamental premise of the excerpt that you have referenced is flawed. This fundamental flaw is that "Y-chromosomal Adam" is said to have lived no less than 60,000 years ago, which is outside of any timeframe given for a "global flood"; more recent data indicates that the timespan may even be greater. It should also be noted that Y-MRCA does not imply that only one man and his male offspring were the only male humans extant at any point in human history; it means that any other extant male lineages eventually produced only female offspring (which would not carry a Y-chromosome and thus could not be traced further back).
Another fundamental problem with the assertion that a "biblical model" predicts such a finding is that no physical mechanism is offered as a basis for such a prediction. Instead, it appears as though a genetic finding is being incorporated as support for a pre-existing religious claim. I am able to find no prediction of the finding made by proponents of the "Biblical" flood prior to its discovery, thus it appears that the explanation that the finding supports a "biblical prediction" is actually an ad-hoc explanation. Moreover, no reason is given to substantiate the assertion that a global flood ever occurred.
Yes. Just a few things the Bible says that God cannot do are deny Himself, lie or be tempted with evil. There may be one more. I believe God limits Himself by creation although He knows a lot more than you or I about this universe, its physical laws, quantum physics, alternate dimensions etc. So He can do things mankind cannot do, which is miraculous to us. He can reproduce an eyeball for someone because He knows how to put those things together.
Nonetheless, you assert that God is not omnipotent. I am not suggesting that you are incorrect; I am merely noting that your position is relatively uncommon as compared to those who assert that God is "all powerful", that he is omnipotent and that with God "all things are possible".
God allows His works to be tested. Hocus pocus is all about being secretive and deceptive.
I made no reference to "hocus pocus". I merely requested clarification regarding the difference between the "supernatural" and magic.
I hope my above excerpt from Who was Adam? explains that these things must be elaborated on just as you would expect.
It does not. Your excerpt still provides no mechanisms or processes incorporated in a "biblical model".
As seen above, it most certainly can.
You are incorrect. Unless a "biblical model" incorporates specific defined processes, it is impossible to logically derive predictions from it. The "prediction" that is described in your excerpt is an ad-hoc explanation, however it explains no mechanism by which a globally-spanning flood could have occurred, nor does it cite any evidence of the occurrence of such an event. That currently extant human lineages can be traced to a single male individual is not itself evidence of the occurrence of a globally spanning flood, as a number of other equally viable -- if not more viable -- explanations can also explain such a genetic bottleneck.
drbenway said: "StoryTwin hath mastered the art of cut and paste! Everybody give her a hand. Did you learn how to use the shortcut keys yet? "
*********************
That's Storeytwin (not storytwin) to you mister!
Actually, I typed it all by hand from my Bible! You see, I come from the dark ages where all we had were typewriters, but I'm learning.
@Vera,
Science often makes very specific predictions, for example, fire a rocketship into space and calculate exactly when and where it will go.
Does the bible make any specific predictions about things that have happened since it was written and/or will happen in the next year or so?
And by "specific predictions" I mean "not hidden in riddles requiring translational gymnastics to fit an event after the fact".
whateverman said:
"I find it rather ironic that you'd claim "the inability to prove something" discredits that something. After all, you've already rejected "provability" by claiming you don't need evidence to believe in Creationism."
********************************
Actually, I do have evidence that has proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. My evidence is "experiential".
When I humbled my pride-filled self by looking into the mirror of GOD's perfect law (the 10 commandments) and saw my sinful self as GOD see's me (from HIS perspective of righteous perfection) and repented of my sins to GOD and placed my complete trust in JESUS CHRIST to save me, I stepped from the realm of just believing into the realm of experiential knowing.
HE revealed HIMSELF to me and HE will to you, just as soon as you come to HIM humbly.
Now I "know" that HE is GOD of the universe and also my personal Savior, and not even the threat of death can make me deny that.
You can call me a "creationist" but I'm just a true believer in GOD and HIS HOLY WORD.
The universal deluge and the ark are articles of faith. The numerous scientific problems with the flood and logistical problems with the ark are well documented in these posts.
Evangelical Christians are fond of rejecting much of Biblical criticism as "isogesis" rather than "exegesis." I put it to you that science and engineering are equally unfriendly to isogesis.
I do not accept the accusation of materialism when I say that literal Bible reading is possible, but that it must be seen to conform to obvious, common sense facts. It puts you in the category of believing in a flat earth in the center of the universe as late as the 17th century, when the Greeks knew better in the 3rd century BCE.
Ray Comfort and Richard Gunther have run afoul of this here, in the area I would like to address. Historical shipbuilding.
Both the SS Great Britain and the RMS Etruria were iron hulled ships. There is a rich history of large all wooden ships: Grace Dieu, c. 1420, 219 feet; The Great Michael, c. 1511, 240 feet; The Vasa, c. 1628, 228 feet; L'Orient, c. 1791, 214 feet; The Rochambeau, c. 1865, 377 feet; and the more contemporary Appomattox, c. 1896, 319 feet.
The biggest wooden boat speculated on was the Ming Dynasty Chinese treasure ship of Zheng He, 15th century, which was speculated at 415 feet.
Each of these ships "pushed wooden ship design to it's practical limits." All of these ships were notably unseaworthy. Most of them sank in open water when they either flexed and broke in half or took water and sunk.
All of these ships had contemporary modifications including brass and iron rivets, iron cross straps, steel reinforced keelsons, and strake edge jointing (the last technology was available well back into classical times.
All of these required multiple donkey or steam driven pumps to keep them from taking on water from the flex created by their ambitious length. Still, they almost universally sunk, many on their maiden voyage.
In addition, although it does not negate the possibility of Noah's ark, the massive amount of timber required for even one of these ships defies a small building crew's capacity to build it, even on the biblical timeline presented.
The era of wooden ship warfare ended partially because of massive deforestation in Spain and Great Britain, created by the need for the lumber necessary for these vessels. Only in America and Canada were there proper resources.
Atheists and skeptics get into deep water (pun intended) when they argue biblical points.
Comfort and Gunther are equally out of their element in the argument over ship building.
It is possible to look at the universal deluge as either an allegory or an historically borrowed story. There is ample evidence for the latter. This can be done without damaging the message of scripture.
Where scientific fact and biblical truth are taken to be equally rigid and defensibly correct, the error in the disagreement between the two must necessarily reside in the incorrect doctrine, or the poor exegesis of the religious practitioner.
I think in the case of Creationism and Intelligent design this is certainly true. It is arguable that these errors are evident throughout their articles of faith.
Stoneytwig...
You say you typed all that from your bible. So what chapter was Dr. Morris responsible for?
It never ceases to amaze me how you revel in your ignorance.
Oh that's right, your theory just keeps on evolving.
The theory of evolution has never incorporated the "Big Bang" theory. Your statement has no basis in reality.
But wait a minute, isn't that what todays experiment in Europe with the large hadron collider is all about, recreating the "big bang"?
The experiments conducted using the Large Hadron Collider are intended to address a number of inquires stemming from research in the subject of physics. Some of these inquires relate to conditions that are proposed to have been present just after the event of the Big Bang, though no experiment with the Large Hadron Collider is an attempt to "recreate" the Big Bang itself. Additionally, no experiment conducted with the Large Hadron Collider will directly relate to biological science, thus the experiments conducted with the Large Hadron Collider will have no relevance to the theory of evolution.
It would appear that you are unaware of the scope of the theory of evolution. It would be advisable to study the theory of evolution prior to attempting to address the validity of the theory. If you believe that either the Big Bang theory or the experiments conducted with the Large Hadron Collider have any relevance to the theory of evolution as it exists now or as it has ever existed at any time in the past, then your knowledge of the subject of evolution is so deficient as to deny you any credibility when speaking on the subject.
Storeytwin A
Actually, I do have evidence that has proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. My evidence is "experiential".
When I humbled my pride-filled self by looking into the mirror of GOD's perfect law (the 10 commandments) and saw my sinful self as GOD see's me (from HIS perspective of righteous perfection) and repented of my sins to GOD and placed my complete trust in JESUS CHRIST to save me, I stepped from the realm of just believing into the realm of experiential knowing.
HE revealed HIMSELF to me and HE will to you, just as soon as you come to HIM humbly.
Now I "know" that HE is GOD of the universe and also my personal Savior, and not even the threat of death can make me deny that.
You can call me a "creationist" but I'm just a true believer in GOD and HIS HOLY WORD.
Well, this may count as evidence to you, but you can hardly expect it to count as evidence to anyone else.
As I'm sure you are aware, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Scientologists, and UFO abductees all have their own experiential evidence to relate. But you're not convinced by those accounts are you?
Storeytwin ignored what I'd said earlier, and went on with another display of faith: HE revealed HIMSELF to me and HE will to you, just as soon as you come to HIM humbly.
Your experience is/was personal. It may be powerful for you, but it's not credible evidence to anyone asking for evidence.
Let's get back to my original point, however. How can you discredit evolution by claiming it's "not provable", but then assert the creationism (which is nearly the definition of the term) is truth?
I'm not asking you to display your faith again - I'm asking why evolution "not being provable" is your reason for dismissing it?
Storeytwin said: "Oh that's right, your theory just keeps on evolving. But wait a minute, isn't that what todays experiment in Europe with the large hadron collider is all about, recreating the "big bang"?
I guess you're not up to speed either!"
Story, I'll say it again several times because you're being willfully ignorant:
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe
>This means that the dinosaurs couldn't swim for as long as the mammals could and they sunk a lot faster and deeper. For this reason, the dinosaurs are found in deeper layers than mammals.
You do realize that there were small dinosaurs too? You know, bird sized and even smaller? Also, there have been some pretty large mammals that have walked the earth but are now extinct and we still don't find those in the same strata as dinosaurs - ever. I wonder why that is? One more thing to consider - there were aquatic dinosaurs. Why did none of them apparently survive the flood?
whateverman said:
"The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe"
******************
How convenient, you just don't deal with it.
Without the Bible, you can't explain it.
How convenient, you just don't deal with it.
It is not a matter of "convenience" that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of the universe; it is a matter of scope. The theory of evolution addresses events that occur within populations of living organisms. As such, it cannot be applied to any other type of system, which includes the formation of the universe and as such a different scientific explanation is required for addressing the subject. As there does exist an explanation that addresses the formation of the universe, your claim that it is not "dealt with" is also demonstrably incorrect.
You claimed to have taken a minor in the subject of Biology; your apparent lack of knowledge on this subject is somewhat puzzling given your stated education. I have had no formal college education in any biological science, yet I am fully aware that the formation of the universe could not be explained by any biological theory, including the theory of evolution.
Without the Bible, you can't explain it.
Your assertion is simply not correct; the Big Bang theory provides a well-supported explanation for the formation and current appearance of the universe. I am unaware of any supported explanation for the formation and current appearance of the universe that can be derived from the Bible, or from any other religious text.
whateverman said: "The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe"
Storeytwin said: How convenient, you just don't deal with it.
Without the Bible, you can't explain it.
You're making even less sense than usual. The theory of evolution, your assertion otherwise not withstanding, does not claim any hypothesis about how the universe came into being.
The fact that you're ignoring this while continuing to babble incoherently about the ToE makes your opinions, really, seem nonsensical.
You care about being perceived as an intelligent person, don't you?
Dimensio said... about Storeytwin A
"You claimed to have taken a minor in the subject of Biology; your apparent lack of knowledge on this subject is somewhat puzzling given your stated education."
That is because she is LYING (hmmm... what does your religion say about that). She is a clown shoe and really should be ashamed of her willing ignorance. People really should just ignore her as she has stated an unwillingness to even consider or address what other people say. She cannot debate, cannot use logic and cannot have a reasonable conversation and therefore is not worthy of adult debate or conversation. I would encourage everybody to leave her at the kids' table where she belongs.
storeytwin a decided to limit her reading to creationist texts and asked and answered the following:
Q. What are polystrate fossils, and how are they a problem for evolution?
[snip]
Genesis gives a better explanation – Noah’s Flood, which occurred a few thousand years ago. Just more evidence that fits with the Bible.
With an instantaneous flood covering the entire globe, nothing would have escaped fossilisation as it would if geologists were correct. So, if Ken Ham is right, for once, polystrate fossils are presumably the standard kind of fossil and presumably are found everywhere?
whateverman remarked:
Andy said: "Dinosaurs were really big and all mammals are really small.
This means that the dinosaurs couldn't swim for as long as the mammals could"
That made no sense at all...
Well, Creationists keep telling us the only way to understand is to take a walk in their shoes. I gave it a try. It did feel a bit silly.
storeytwin again rejected research and said:
Actually, I do have evidence that has proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. My evidence is "experiential".
Every morning for as long as I can remember, I've sprinkled pepper in my front garden. My mother and father did the same, before me and I believe their parents did it too.
The purpose of this is to ward off tigers. I know it works because I've never seen a tiger anywhere near here.
I'm not sure how far back the practice goes but since there are no wild tigers roaming anywhere in Australia, experiential evidence suggests the practice goes back to before tigers existed. And since the evidence is experiential, it cannot be disputed.
So please storeytwin, if you are not doing so already, start sprinkling pepper in your garden lest you fall prey to one of the striped beasts. My experience is beyond question.
eric turned to research and said:
This means that the dinosaurs couldn't swim for as long as the mammals could and they sunk a lot faster and deeper. For this reason, the dinosaurs are found in deeper layers than mammals.
You do realize that there were small dinosaurs too? You know, bird sized and even smaller? Also, there have been some pretty large mammals that have walked the earth but are now extinct and we still don't find those in the same strata as dinosaurs - ever. I wonder why that is? One more thing to consider - there were aquatic dinosaurs. Why did none of them apparently survive the flood?
God made the small dinosaurs big too, just so they'd sink to the same layers. And he made the big mammals small for a bit.
Aquatic dinosaurs? You mean fish? Noah used them all to feed the animals on the boat. Tyrannosaurus have big appetites.
Anyway, God works in mysterious ways you know.
Dimensio
however those who have already been corrected on the subject yet continue to make the claim -- such as Ray Comfort -- are without excuse of ignorance, and thus are engaging in willful dishonesty.
I think you are equally dishonest because you share this theory in terms of it occurring solely by nature as though this aspect is fact by asserting and arguing that life could have evolved without a God.
1. How did animals mutate from one type of respiration to another even incrementally without dying?
2. How did their anatomy change in areas where it would have done gross injury to parts that needed to be protected such as the brain and spinal cord without perfect design?
3. How do you explain repeatable evolution?
4. How do you explain 3 billion years of microbes suddenly becoming complex?
5. Do we see a progression that fits the luminosity of the sun and a progression toward mankind?
6. Do these facts fit the testable biblical accounts that say that a Creator God, who is Spirit, was the energizing means and voice behind these occurrences?
7. Do we see any other planet in our galaxy that contains all the necessary parameters to support life? The statistical odds of a planet doing such as thing is 1 chance in 10^182.
For demonstration please see my blog under the March area called Statistical odds of the universe. Actually, I think they have revised those statistics to 1 chance in 10^215. There are 96 bibliography references for support.
Those are just questions involving evolution only. Your evolutionary theories need a God for support. He is real!!
Vera
dale
PS You crack me up when you say, "the evidence does not support this or that," meaning that you read at RTB that "they" say the evidence doesn't support this or that. RTB has never done a lick or research and never will.
Right because they use the peer reviewed scientific research and then demonstrate how it fits the biblical model for creation. So are you suggesting that the peer reviewed research is somehow in error and we just can't know any truth? If you took ten minutes to read and check out their bibliographies, you would see that they are standing with science.
You are like a person who has had a house built around them. You like to think the carpenters have you in a beautiful dwelling, but in reality they have played a great trick on you and the outside of the house looks like it was built by a team of seven year old kids.
Your problem is that you dare not walk out through the door and actually take a look at your imagined beautiful home. You stay inside out of fear that what you may find will contradict what it is that you hope to be true.
I appreciate your defending your friend. Sadly, while you erroneously believe you are helping her, you are, in fact, her worst enemy.
My house on this earth is brittle, temporal, and decaying. So when I step outside and look at it, I see reality. I would say this is more a picture of you than me. I think it is you that steps outside hoping to see perfection when in fact, you and your life are nearing an end. This body I live in is the same as yours in terms of decaying.
The more I try to win you to Christ, the more I suffer persecution and personal attack and not necessarily from you.
As the poet said,
I'm just a poor wayfaring stranger
A traveling in this world of woe
There's no sickness, toil, nor danger
In that bright land to which I go.
I'm going there to see my Father
I'm going there no more to roam
I'm just a going over Jordan
I'm just a going over home.
Wish you could go too, dale!
And Maragon.
Vera
Storeytwin A
Do you really think that it's honest to just skip that part and make up the rest??
Such an excellent point!!
Vera
drbenway
Everyone assumes something about God that is emphatically false.
The only people who assume anything about your God are those who believe.
I personally don't assume anything about your God. Just as I don't assume anything about Zeus, Thor, Unicorns, Fairies, Goblins, Santa or any other imaginary characters.
By assuming that the God of the Bible is n different than the aforementioned characters, you do make an assumption. The question you need to ask yourself is what is the physical proof? The physical proof is the Word of God. Then second question you have to ask is, "Does the Word of God match what we would expect from what we see in the record of nature?" "Is the Bible testable?" "Are other holy books testable in the way we would expect?" "Does the Word of God fit the record of nature?"
Vera
Verandoug replied to Dimensio:
however those who have already been corrected on the subject yet continue to make the claim -- such as Ray Comfort -- are without excuse of ignorance, and thus are engaging in willful dishonesty.
I think you are equally dishonest because you share this theory in terms of it occurring solely by nature as though this aspect is fact by asserting and arguing that life could have evolved without a God.
1. How did animals mutate from one type of respiration to another even incrementally without dying?
Which animals? Vertebrates already had lungs andgills before they first crawled onto land. While evolving lungs (in the ocean), of course, they were breathing mainly through gills. Most shallow-water fish can survive some time on land without their gills drying out and becoming useless; modern lungfish (and some fish, like "walking catfish", without lungs) can survive long periods out of water. Presumably, not merely lungs but the amoung of life lived on land increased incrementally: early tetrapods would have returned to water to lay eggs, and may have spent (like some amphibians today) most of their life there; with the degree of terrestriality gradually increasing over time as gills became less important.
2. How did their anatomy change in areas where it would have done gross injury to parts that needed to be protected such as the brain and spinal cord without perfect design?
Again, you don't seem to grasp the whole concept of "massive testing in parallel." One species gives rise to many similar species, each with many local populations, each with many individuls, each persisting over millions of generations. There are a great many different mutations. Many of these modify parts of the anatomy in ways that are severely detrimental to the organism; these mutants tend to die young without offspring, so such mutations are unlikely to show up in the fossil record and have very little effect on the species. Rarer mutations alter anatomy in beneficial ways, and such mutations are much more likely to be passed on and to affect both the species and the fossil record.
3. How do you explain repeatable evolution?
Similar selective pressures preserve mutations with similar effects, so that different lineages converge on similar (but not identical) structures. How do you explain that pterosaur wings, bird wings, and bat wings are such different modifications of forelimbs? I mean, we see one basic wing pattern in ostriches, penguins, condors, hummingbirds, and swallows, while we see a different basic wing pattern shared by insect-eating bats and giant fruit bats.
4. How do you explain 3 billion years of microbes suddenly becoming complex?
First, a symbiotic combination of different archae and bacteria produced the first eukaryotic cells around two billion years ago. There are, today, eukaryotes that are neither unicellular microbes nor anatomically complex organisms, but simple colonies of identical cells. The most primitive true animals, the sponges, are basically just huge colonies of barely-differentiated cells themselves: chemicals on the surface of the cell that are used for various purposes in single-celled organisms are used to bind cells together and signal them to modify themselves in various ways to produce different tissues. The appearance of structural complexity is not that sudden even in the fossil record, and some stages were not likely to be preserved in the fossil record.
5. Do we see a progression that fits the luminosity of the sun and a progression toward mankind?
I would say no. As I've noted before, the geological record indicates that climates have grown warmer and colder on Earth in cycles that correlate only very roughly to long-scale changes in solar luminosity (there have been repeated ice ages and periods of hot, wet climates). And if life has been progressing steadily towards humankind, then what was that whole interval with the dinosaurs about? For that matter, what are new world monkeys, or paranthropines, or any number of primate lineages well off the track leading to us, about?
6. Do these facts fit the testable biblical accounts that say that a Creator God, who is Spirit, was the energizing means and voice behind these occurrences?
It's not at all clear, no matter what Hugh Ross or Fuz Rana might say, that a Spirit with an "energizing voice" is a sufficiently detailed hypothesis to have testable consequences. What, e.g. ought we expect to find when we compare the sequences of shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other species? Is there some theological reason that early, mammal-like amniotes would arise to dominate the late Permian and early Triassic ecosystems, only to be displaced and pushed into marginal niches by the rise of the dinosaurs?
Certainly one needs a rather free reading of the biblical account combined with a rather hand-waving approach to the scientific evidence to assert that the latter matches the former.
7. Do we see any other planet in our galaxy that contains all the necessary parameters to support life? The statistical odds of a planet doing such as thing is 1 chance in 10^182.
We could not see such a planet even if it existed; all extrasolar planets detected are gas giants detected by their gravitational effects on their stars. I do not trust calculations on the odds of a planet being suitable for life; there is too little we know about the ways life can be organized, or the conditions that can support it, or the ways planets can produce those conditions, or the ways solar systems and planets are formed, to make such calculations very accurate.
For demonstration please see my blog under the March area called Statistical odds of the universe. Actually, I think they have revised those statistics to 1 chance in 10^215. There are 96 bibliography references for support.
Lord Kelvin, a rather more renowed physicist that Hugh Ross is ever likely to be, kept revising his estimates of the maximum possible age of the Earth downward throughout his career, from perhaps 100 million years to a mere 20 million years (with, of course, the possibility that it might be even younger). Near the end of his life, he was informed that the existence of radioactive decay tossed all these estimates into a cocked hat. I think it is quite possible a similar fate awaits Dr. Ross's calculations of the odds against life-bearing planets.
Those are just questions involving evolution only. Your evolutionary theories need a God for support. He is real!!
Is not your last statement (indeed, your entire post) the very epitome of the "god of the gaps" argument? How does it differ from the argument, that might have been advanced three centuries ago, that science cannot explain lightning so it must be a superntural manifestation of divine wrath?
We could not see such a planet even if it existed; all extrasolar planets detected are gas giants detected by their gravitational effects on their stars.
This is not accurate anymore. Extrasolar terrestrial or suspect terrestrial planets have been observed outside of the Sol solar system. It can be concluded that many of these planets are not conducive to any currently conceivable form of life, although one -- Gliese 581 c, in orbit around the red dwarf star Gliese 581 -- is believed to be in the extremes of the "habitable zone" of its star.
You are correct, however, that detection of such planets is fundamentally difficult, and it is also difficult to determine whether any given extrasolar planet calculated to be in the habitable zone of its star is otherwise hospitable to life of any kind. Moreover, it will likely never be possible to search other galaxies for signs of habitable planets.
Morris is HUGELY wrong on the idea of how many species could survive in water.
Rain is freshwater, as would be the groundwater coming from the "fountains of the great deep."
Noah would have had to build a giant aquarium to save all saltwater fish who could not survive the changing saline levels.
On the other hand, the freshwater fish would be in similar danger, as the massive amount of flooding would commingle fresh and salt water.
That said, I came here via another blog that had a post on the latest Skeptic's Circle, and I can't see why people who understand the fact about biological sciences waste this much time trying to correct religious fundamentalists' self-delusions.
Gadfly said: "I can't see why people who understand the fact about biological sciences waste this much time trying to correct religious fundamentalists' self-delusions."
Speaking only for myself, I come here for several reasons:
1) Very infrequently, it's possible for people stereotypically (dogmatically?) at odds to come to an agreement. I hope to either observe or take part in these occasions
2) I enjoy debate
3) The idiocy here is both meddening and entertaining at the same time.
4) This blog sharpens my own opinions about such subjects.
So, I'm a bit of an idealist philosopher with a streak of masochism :)
Vera asked:
1. How did animals mutate from one type of respiration to another even incrementally without dying?
Maybe I misunderstand the question but don't we actually witness this today in frogs and some salamanders where gills give way to lungs as the animal develops?
Why should we assume such a transition should lead to death when it's clearly working well for these creatures?
Vera also asked:
7. Do we see any other planet in our galaxy that contains all the necessary parameters to support life? The statistical odds of a planet doing such as thing is 1 chance in 10^182.
Why limit the search to our Galaxy?
Also, isn't it the case that you assert the truth of God because you know God and experience God?
Given this, do not the experiences of UFO abduction survivors prove the truth of extraterrestrial life such that, regardless of the odds, we aren't alone? Does your Bible mention these other civilisations?
Gadfly said...
...I came here via another blog that had a post on the latest Skeptic's Circle, and I can't see why people who understand the fact about biological sciences waste this much time trying to correct religious fundamentalists' self-delusions.
I hope you came from my blog (you didn't leave a comment! Did you like the toon?).
The reason people spend time refuting the dogma here is because other people read these comments. The biblical dogma has to be balanced with reason so readers don't believe their made-up "facts" are actually as irrefutable as the creationists assume they are.
I've learnt more about evolution and the bible here than I ever knew before. It's actually got me researching it a little.
Andy
Science often makes very specific predictions, for example, fire a rocketship into space and calculate exactly when and where it will go.
Does the bible make any specific predictions about things that have happened since it was written and/or will happen in the next year or so?
And by "specific predictions" I mean "not hidden in riddles requiring translational gymnastics to fit an event after the fact".
I think Romans 1 and 2 Timothy 3 do a very precise job of explaining this day and time and why the problem is happening. I mean, in 2 Timothy 3, you might say that all those things could be seen throughout our history but one must admit the young people in abundance are extremely disobedient to parents today as is evidenced with the overwhelming number of young people in the juvenile court system, number of teenage pregnancies etc etc. Trucebreakers are people that do not keep their word and I think divorce is part of that.
You know, (this is a true story) when I was a child, my dad used to watch Perry Mason. Being a naive young person, I had no idea of the real way that people are. But in my child mind, when someone got up on the witness stand and put their hand on the Bible and said they would tell the whole truth, with all my heart, I believed, "Now, they have to tell the truth because they swore to tell the truth." I honestly thought that if Perry had said, "Did you do it?" They would have to tell the truth. Even as a child, I wanted the truth. :-) Anyway, people think nothing today of lying.
Vera
Dimensio
Can you cite specific examples? I am unable to locate any flood myth other than the one detailed in Genesis involving a name similar to Noah's.
I could. If you had truly done a search, you could too.
The fundamental premise of the excerpt that you have referenced is flawed. This fundamental flaw is that "Y-chromosomal Adam" is said to have lived no less than 60,000 years ago, which is outside of any timeframe given for a "global flood";
How do you know this? It doesn't fit the YEC version, that is for sure.
Another fundamental problem with the assertion that a "biblical model" predicts such a finding is that no physical mechanism is offered as a basis for such a prediction.
Excuse me? There are two. The Bible and DNA evidence.
, thus it appears that the explanation that the finding supports a "biblical prediction" is actually an ad-hoc explanation.
I don't think you really want to investigate this because I am giving you supporting evidence. Supporting physical scientific evidence is not "ad-hoc." If the ancient text is correct per what we test, then it is not done for any other purpose but to show you that God prevails and reigns over heaven and earth.
It does not. Your excerpt still provides no mechanisms or processes incorporated in a "biblical model".
I have done that several times.
Unless a "biblical model" incorporates specific defined processes, it is impossible to logically derive predictions from it.
Almost every single page contains something testable. There are specific dates, predictions, human character predictions, and highlights of scientific data. God was not willing to place a book on science within the Bible because 99.999999999% (I made up that number) of all the people that have ever lived would not have a clue. We didn't know a microbe existed until less than 100 years ago. How long has mankind been around? How many people would wait that long to understand a microbe? How many people would be confused by microbes? There is pertinent scientific information that points to God.
Nonetheless, you assert that God is not omnipotent.
You misunderstand. It isn't so much that God can't but that He won't because it would leave this universe untestable. God knew that mankind, created in His image, needed to be able to test His creation to know He is real. If He works outside of those confines, then the record of nature no longer matches the text and man is left to either a) reject God or b) believe that reality is irrelevant because God used untestable supernatural means to fill in the blanks. The latter leads to a person who is superstitious and disregarding of reality. This too can lead to discouragement.
This is so important for you to understand. There were several reasons that God did not appear to man. One was that it would force man to choose Him totally disqualifying his free will. Secondly, it would have caused man to be without hope much like the angels that rebelled. In the way that He has this set up with faith, there is the possibility for redemption even in you who have spent hours dismissing Him and persuading others to dismiss Him. God is willing to receive you through repentance and reconciliation to Him. He caused this universe to be testable so that you would see He is real.
So God works within the confines of His creation and then works supernaturally naturally. One point that this article will bring out is that it apparently rained 40 days and 40 nights. This would take a supernatural work using something very natural - rain.
As I said, many cultures have flood stories. Although, wikipidia is anti-Christ, they do have an article under Deluge calling it mythology that contains quite a few flood accounts. Granted most of these are not the true account as we would imagine from people who are not getting direct revelation from God. Remember Moses got his account or should I say, no doubt, his corrected account from God on Mt. Sinai.
Vera
Stephen,
You are a wealth of knowledge. I must say.
In a nutshell (hardy hardy)
Lungfish - You hypothesize that fish evolved from gill breathers to lung breathers or both over time because .....? Is there any evidence of an animal that becomes more and more attracted to the water or vice versa purely by a natural mechanism without man's help? And even though mutations for the most part do not produce a good outcome by natural means, the fish eventually produced its first alveoli along with gills through mutations and then... it eventually came up out the water over millions of years? Is this how you see it? It is a marvelous theory but... it is still just a guess. What I predict and propose is that God was conditioning this earth for the survival of mankind. The soil alone had to be conditioned and prepared for higher types of plant life and the symbiotic relationship they would produce.
Dinosaurs were designed for the oxygen content during these time periods. I bought the iTunes TV show, Dinosaur Fight Club. What I've been doing is what RTB does in that I am trying to be alert to times when these scientists have to admit that there is a design involved. I have heard that word being used.
Why would God create dinosaurs and then cause them to go extinct? One is that they are part of the means of producing the fossil fuels. Big animals like that make for lots of fuel that would be needed for man. We are precious to God. He didn't want us to be crushed on our first day out of the box if you know what I mean.
Repeatable evolution - you must listen to the new podcast that RTB put out concerning some new evidence on wingless birds. It would seem that they are not related as was expected. Apparently it was once hypothesized that they were related when the land was connected. Now that theory is apparently being shown in error.
See, where you accuse me of filling in the gaps with God. I want to say that you are filling in the gaps with a mechanism for organization, which has no intelligence to mechanize itself. I could perhaps believe that one animal had one beneficial mutation and survived to produce offspring like itself. But on the whole, this is not what is seen in biology.
I had to check this out. According to wikipedia, the sponge has no circulatory system. So what evolved next especially since they also said there are very few sponges in the fossil record. It would not be surprising if coral reefs were some of the first things created.
First, a symbiotic combination of different archae and bacteria produced the first eukaryotic cells around two billion years ago
How was this proven a fact?
I would say no. As I've noted before, the geological record indicates that climates have grown warmer and colder on Earth in cycles that correlate only very roughly to long-scale changes in solar luminosity (there have been repeated ice ages and periods of hot, wet climates). And if life has been progressing steadily towards humankind,
Right, which is even further evidence against evolution. I mean how do these creatures survive when the earth is so turbulent?
It's not at all clear, no matter what Hugh Ross or Fuz Rana might say, that a Spirit with an "energizing voice" is a sufficiently detailed hypothesis to have testable consequences.
You misunderstand. You must have something to test to build your model from. In your model, you suggest that the first cell came from we know now where and began to reproduce. Then after 2 billions years, it produced eucaryote cells that eventually grouped together as sponges. Then little slugs came next and worms that became fish all by themselves.
To just say there is a God and hey, let's prove it doesn't hold any water. But, if the Bible is true and God is true, then there are certain features of creation that would suggest that there is intelligence going on that matches the biblical account of creation (not just the ones in Genesis but the ones in Job, Isaiah, Psalms, etc). The Bible claims to be a book inspired by a Holy Creator God. One Psalm, as you have probably already heard many times in your life says, "All the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens and the earth."
As to the astrophysics of this ministry, I think you might be incorrect in your assumptions about Hugh Ross and what he knows. I don't think though that the man is pumped up about his intelligence. He seems to be genuinely humble. God has blessed him as much as any man with a great capacity for mental calculations etc. He apparently subscribes to the scientific journals and can comprehend what is being shared. What he is doing is taking the evidence as it comes in to support the biblical model. They make predictions and then when the scientific journals through experimentation show certain conclusions, they bring those to light as further evidence to support the Bible and a Creator God. Their web site contains hundreds of papers and pieces of documentation concerning creation.
At any rate, I really think you should do more investigating into this before you turn up your nose. I probably don't do their ministry justice.
Vera
Vera
Dimensio
This is not accurate anymore. Extrasolar terrestrial or suspect terrestrial planets have been observed outside of the Sol solar system. It can be concluded that many of these planets are not conducive to any currently conceivable form of life, although one -- Gliese 581 c, in orbit around the red dwarf star Gliese 581 -- is believed to be in the extremes of the "habitable zone" of its star.
You are correct, however, that detection of such planets is fundamentally difficult, and it is also difficult to determine whether any given extrasolar planet calculated to be in the habitable zone of its star is otherwise hospitable to life of any kind. Moreover, it will likely never be possible to search other galaxies for signs of habitable planets.
OK, I'm picking myself off the floor. You know I hear these things but when someone makes a different observation, I think I might have misunderstood. I have some knowledge of biology but astrophysics is brand new to me. Thank you for sharing this! I believe if I understand this correctly, that the size of the gas giants helps us understand whether or not they can support life by the way they would pull on the earth sized planet's orbit. This means that even if we can't see the smaller planet, we can rule out the possibility of life as we know it because of these precise parameters. Is that right?
Vera
Andy
Why limit the search to our Galaxy?
RTB's forte, imvho, is astrophysics. Apparently to have a planet that supports life, we must have one that is in a spiral galaxy. According to present research, of all the galaxies out there, only 6% are spiral. When they look at the center mass, it is usually either too big or too small. I listened to a DVD that RTB did called Journey to Creation. It did a good job of explaining all this.
Apparently there is a new instrument they have just come out with that is going to be able to discover the dark matter mystery or at least that is the hope.
Vera
Andy
Maybe I misunderstand the question but don't we actually witness this today in frogs and some salamanders where gills give way to lungs as the animal develops?
Why should we assume such a transition should lead to death when it's clearly working well for these creatures?
You may have missed this earlier but we were talking about the fetal evolution or in this case the tadpole evolution. The physical attributes of oxygenation for a fetus in the womb are completely different than when they are born. There is a substance called surfactant that keeps each individual alveoli open. This is not produced until close to the end of the last trimester. Yes, we can see evolution in the birth process but fetuses are very delicate creatures that cannot transition to respiration outside the womb without a great many things happening. For example, the circulation of the fetus bypasses the lungs for the most part. When the umbilical cord is clamped a host of pressure changes occurs. The ductus arteriosis spasms shut, the foramen ovale shuts and that baby better start crying in the big way to get those lungs open. It is a pure t miracle. That part is obvious when you see the process go amiss. There is a huge difference in fetal development and a species eventually creating a whole new genus. The only way to prove positive that this is true is through extensive DNA analysis and I must say I am encouraged that the evidence is falling in God's court. Go to iTunes and listen to the new podcast on RTB on flightless birds. It is really good.
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
Lungfish - You hypothesize that fish evolved from gill breathers to lung breathers or both over time because .....? Is there any evidence of an animal that becomes more and more attracted to the water or vice versa purely by a natural mechanism without man's help? And even though mutations for the most part do not produce a good outcome by natural means, the fish eventually produced its first alveoli along with gills through mutations and then... it eventually came up out the water over millions of years? Is this how you see it? It is a marvelous theory but... it is still just a guess. What I predict and propose is that God was conditioning this earth for the survival of mankind. The soil alone had to be conditioned and prepared for higher types of plant life and the symbiotic relationship they would produce.
The evidence is the distribution of lungs (and swim bladders) among the various species in the nested hierarchy (the tree pattern of similarities and differences among species) of living fish. Lungs are found among members of a large group of fish that include all the fish with swim bladders, and include land vertebrates (and sea vertebrates like sea snakes, marine mammals, etc.).
Lungfish don't have alveoli; alveoli are a feature peculiar to mammalian lungs. Birds have huge numbers of parabronchi that serve the same function (increasing the surface area of lung available to absorb oxygen). Cold-blooded animals make do with simple sacs, outpouchings of the esophagus, and not connected to the gills. Fish can absorb small amounts of oxygen directly through the skin of their mouths and esophagi; lungs represent the result of a series of small improvements to this ability to supplement the oxygen they absorb through their gills. Once lungs are in place, a fish would have the ability to spend at least a small amount of time on land where its gills no longer worked.
Again, there's no need for most mutations, or even a large minority of mutations, to be beneficial. In any generation (especially when we're talking about fish, or most cold-blooded organisms, or even most warm-blooded organisms), most offspring die without reproducing anyway. Think of a single mated pair of birds, laying several eggs in a nest for several seasons in a row. If most of those eggs hatched into birds that themselves went on to lay eggs that mostly produced breeding adults, we'd be buried ten miles deep in robins! Let's not even get into the tiny, tiny chances of a single fish egg surviving to lay eggs of its own. Bad mutations simply increase the chance that this individual (the one with the bad mutation) rather than that one (its sibling with neutral or even, perhaps, a beneficial mutation) dies young. Bad mutations in a few offspring have very little effect on the species as a whole, or even on the parents' chances for passing on their genes to some surviving offspring. Again, think "massive testing in parallel."
Why would God create dinosaurs and then cause them to go extinct? One is that they are part of the means of producing the fossil fuels. Big animals like that make for lots of fuel that would be needed for man. We are precious to God. He didn't want us to be crushed on our first day out of the box if you know what I mean.
Animals make up very little of our fossil fuel, according to most geologists and paleontologists (there is a fringe but not quite deranged theory that most oil is not even of biological origin at all, in which case animals would make up virtually none of our fossil fuels; I mention this purely for the sake of completeness). Remember that triangle of predation in your biology textbook: a lot of plants at the bottom, a smaller number of plant-eaters above it, and a handful of top predators at the narrow peak? Plants make up the vast majority of the biomass in any ecosystem; they have to, because otherwise, what would there be for animals to eat? Because of this, plants make up, also, the vast majority of the biomass from which fossil fuels come (and of course, there's no reason to suppose that the tiny contributions made by dinosaurs could not equally well have been made by any other sort of animal biomass: the same plant mass that can support on 20-ton sauropod can support can support a million 20-gram lizards).
Repeatable evolution - you must listen to the new podcast that RTB put out concerning some new evidence on wingless birds. It would seem that they are not related as was expected. Apparently it was once hypothesized that they were related when the land was connected. Now that theory is apparently being shown in error.
Ratites (flightless -- not strictly wingless, although the kiwi comes close -- birds) are all still paleognaths (a particular group of relatively primitive (in their jaw structure, especially) birds. It appears that they are not, indeed, all descended from a single flightless ancestor, but that flight (and various adaptions for flight, such as a keel on the breastbone to anchor flight muscles) was lost several different times in a single group of weak-flying birds. Of course, flight was lost several times in other groups of birds (think penguins, or, for that matter, dodos); this doesn't appear all that mind-blowing a discovery. It was really more surprising to find out that the raptors (birds of prey) were not monophyletic, and that falcons are not particularly closely related to eagles and hawks. But again, the need for flight puts severe constraints on how birds are built, and the needs for airborne predation impose other constraints that narrow the range of possibilities of how these birds can look.
As for points you raise in portions of your post I haven't copied: true, sponges have no circulatory system. Sponges have no organs or distinct tissue types at all. The most primitive animals built up of multiple layers of tissue wouldn't have needed circulatory systems (or gills, etc.): they would have been quite small and able to obtain oxygen directly through their skin, and food would have been digested by whatever cells lined the body cavity and would have been distributed directly to adjacent cells without much in the way of a transportation system. Again, you must not think of something like a cow, or even a goldfish, which somehow exists without a heart or breathing organs and try to figure out how those could arise; start with very tiny, very simple cup- or worm-shaped creatures whose organs start out as slight specializations in certain regions of the tiny, fairly simple body.
The "symbiotic" origin of the cell is strongly supported by comparisons of DNA between different portions of the cell: our nuclear DNA is most similar to the genes of archae, very primitive single-celled prokaryotes (like bacteria, but not really bacteria). Our mitochondria have their own genes, which are most similar to the genes of Rickettsia bacteria. The chloroplasts of plants (which actually carry out the work of photosynthesis) are genetically very like cyanobacteria (blue-green "algae," except they're not really algae), a very ancient sort of photosynthesizing bacteria. We seem to be, at the cellular level, put together out of parts drawn from all over the prokaryote tree of life.
And in nature, we see organisms having beneficial mutations and passing them on to offspring all the time. It's easier to see in bacteria and plants (antibiotic resistance, or plants that can grow on soil poisoned by mine tailings), but we see it in insects that can resist pesticides. Mutation and natural selection is ubiquitous in biology.
You may still be thinking of "mutations" as "an entire new organ appears from nowhere;" that is not expected and is not seen. There are, occasionally, duplications or eliminations of organs (legs reduced in number in shrimp, bones increased in number or changed in shape in some amphibians, etc.), but normally mutations that produce new structures do so in tiny increments, each producing some slight modification in an already-existing structure.
Stephen
Hold the phone. Are you telling me then that this lung in the lungfish is not a lung as we know it? Where is the mammal's first lung coming from then? Where is the fish with the first alveoli? See, I didn't know this.
You have said it yourself that the fossil record is a very small picture. So do we know how many dinosaurs lived and died over the millions of years they were around? I realize plants make the majority of fossil fuels but dinosaurs were very useful in acclimating this world to oxygen levels suitable for mankind and they also did a great work with the soil. I think their most important function was to show one of God's clearly seen invisible attributes.
Thank you for more of your insights. The fact that bacteria and viruses played a role in creating life to me again points to a Creator. If no Creator were present, bacteria would be no problem because all these things cause problems for mankind. But when you realize that they have a relationship to man and plants and that there is a type of engineering design involved, that makes these things good and beneficial.
You may still be thinking of "mutations" as "an entire new organ appears from nowhere;" that is not expected and is not seen.
I personally never believed that, but I thought that the natural evolutionist did. I am a biblical creationist that sees that things evolved from simple to complex. How God did this to me is fascinating. I believe He was actively involved by inserting pressure and change when needed and by tweaking DNA. These supposed extreme mutations were the result of the hand of a Creator God.
Vera
Verandoug replied to me:
Hold the phone. Are you telling me then that this lung in the lungfish is not a lung as we know it? Where is the mammal's first lung coming from then? Where is the fish with the first alveoli? See, I didn't know this.
Well, come to think of it, fish lungs aren't lungs as you know them, assuming you only know human lungs. But they are lungs, and they give every indication (e.g. position, function, embryology) of being homologous with human lungs, bird lungs, reptile lungs, etc. Fish, amphibian, and cold-blooded reptile lungs are basically just simple sacks. Mammals (and so far as I know, only mammals) have alveoli; unless you call some Permian or early Triassic cynodont a "fish," then fish never developed alveoli. How exactly alveoli evolved is not something I know; a quick google search indicates that some of the genes involved in the change have been identified, but the complete process may not have been reconstructed. But the basic principle is simple: modify lung development to increase surface area without increasing the size of the lung (which means dividing up the lung with little pockets to create more surface). Coelurosaur dinosaurs did a similar thing, but dividing the lungs up into "parabronchi" that allow for air to flow constantly in a single direction rather than reversing its flow as in mammals. Note, again, that this is not an "all or nothing" phenomenon: lung surface area and complexity can increase incrementally.
You have said it yourself that the fossil record is a very small picture. So do we know how many dinosaurs lived and died over the millions of years they were around? I realize plants make the majority of fossil fuels but dinosaurs were very useful in acclimating this world to oxygen levels suitable for mankind and they also did a great work with the soil. I think their most important function was to show one of God's clearly seen invisible attributes.
Well, I suppose one can argue that we don't know. Indeed, since there's a disagreement over whether some dinosaurs were warm-blooded or not (and if some were, which ones were), it's hard to construct a model of how many dinosaurs an ecosystem could support (warm-blooded animals need much more food than cold-blooded ones). But it's obvious that even if all dinosaurs were cold-blooded, plant biomass has to be vastly greater than animal biomass. Plants aren't turned into animal biomass with 100% efficiency, and furthermore some plants have to survive to breed the next generation of plants, so there have to be a lot more tons of plants than there are tons of animals. Again, it's not clear to me why dinosaurs were more useful to "acclimating this world to oxygen levels suitable for mankind" than an equivalent mass of, say, mammal-like reptiles would have been.
Thank you for more of your insights. The fact that bacteria and viruses played a role in creating life to me again points to a Creator. If no Creator were present, bacteria would be no problem because all these things cause problems for mankind. But when you realize that they have a relationship to man and plants and that there is a type of engineering design involved, that makes these things good and beneficial.
Vera said:Why would God create dinosaurs and then cause them to go extinct? One is that they are part of the means of producing the fossil fuels.
A God that made a hundred billion stars in a day had to make dinosaurs to break down into fossil fuels over millions of years just for us to use? Sorry Vera, but that borders on the wrong side of credulous. Plus, given the problems fossil fuels are causing us, it would seem somewhat short-sighted of Him.
Anyway, wouldn't a kilogram of plankton make just as much fossil fuel as a kilogram of tyrannosaurus? Extinction isn't necessary in order for individuals to die and break down.
Post a Comment