The Texas Board of Education on Wednesday heard public arguments for and against a current science standard that requires students to be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.
The State Board is looking to update its state science standards and will vote on new guidelines next spring. The hearing on Wednesday was open to public comments on the proposed revisions to the state's science curriculum.
The current science guidelines, known as Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS, require that students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories, including evolution.
The board is considering whether to retain the current mandate, change the language to say "strengths and limitations," or eliminate the reference altogether, as a review panel had recommended.
Despite being just three words long, the phrase has stirred up a heated debate among educators, parents, and interest groups.
Those who support retaining the decade-old reference say it provides students a balanced viewpoint on evolution and allows them a chance to come to their own conclusions.
Those who oppose keeping the current standard say the "weaknesses" language undermines evolution while opening the door for religious teachings like creationism in the classroom.
A majority of board members are in favor of retaining the "strengths and weaknesses" requirement. They dismiss concerns by critics who say the board's intent is to sneak religion into the classroom.
"There's no one on this board that is trying to inject intelligent design or creationism," Board Vice Chairman David Bradley told the Houston Chronicle. "They are trying to whip up into a frenzy over something that is not going to happen. But by trying to remove strengths and weaknesses, yes, they will get a fight."
Around 90 people had signed up to testify before the board on Wednesday, The Associated Press reported.
Steven Schafersman with Texas Citizens for Science urged the board to remove the reference, saying, "Scientific theories are strong. They don't have weaknesses," according to AP.
Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Texas Free Market Foundation, wanted the reference to stay.
"This is just another attempt to stifle academic freedom and to ban any kind of free and open science inquiry on this issue," Saenz, who had planned to testify, told AP.
Critics of the reference say the "weaknesses" requirement harms science education. But Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank on intelligent design, said the requirement actually helps academics.
"It's a facade to pretend that there are no scientific weaknesses of evolution, and not teaching the scientific weaknesses to students will prevent them from learning about the facts of biology, and it will harm their critical thinking skills," Luskin told the Chronicle.
A survey released last week of science professors from public and private universities in the state found that 95 percent of respondents said they want evolution to be the only theory of the origin of life taught in public schools. A vast majority of those surveyed also said students would be harmed if the state requires the teaching of the "weaknesses" of evolution.
Proponents of keeping the "strengths and weaknesses" language, however, have downplayed the survey, saying a "culture of intimidation" prevents scientists from voicing any objections to evolution. They also point out that it was conducted for Texas Freedom Network, an organization which has actively lobbied for the teaching of evolution in public schools.
"It’s a self-selecting survey," Luskin told the Star-Telegram. "There’s a well-documented culture of intimidation that makes scientists uncomfortable expressing their doubts about Darwinism. This just serves to reinforce that climate of intimidation."
The new science standards adopted by the board next year will remain in place for the next decade.
agent, you wrote:
"The records Manetho left with regards to the dates between 60--800 BC which correlated to the 21-24 dynasties in no way supports a noachian flood. You're the one who's attempting to twist things here."
Sorry, you're the one misreading and twisting my words. In the few comments I've added to this story, I wrote about Egyptian chronology only; I never wrote anything about a flood.
Again, you must be confusing me with someone else. Go back and read closely, and you will see for yourself: I never wrote anything about a flood in reference to this article.
Good night, agent, and have a great weekend. I'll catch you next week.
Got it, it flopped around on limited limbs. It didn't have to *walk* in a typical sense, and yes, they acknowledge this.
"he postulates those dynasties existed only in Manetho's mind. Got it? Stop twisting my words already."
The records Manetho left with regards to the dates between 60--800 BC which correlated to the 21-24 dynasties in no way supports a noachian flood. You're the one who's attempting to twist things here.
Agent, I'm going to give this one more try before giving up. Please read my words carefully; read what I write, not what you think I wrote.
1. Acanthostega- I don't care what it was. My point was you think you, with your computer background, know better than Coates, et al. That's amazing.
2. Peter James + Dynasties 21-24: I never said there were no global events 800-600 BC, nor did Peter James. He questions their existence because they left no records though literacy was all around them; he postulates those dynasties existed only in Manetho's mind. Got it? Stop twisting my words already.
"Peter James claimed that the reason there are no records for Dynasties 21-24 is that they did not exist."
Here's the problem though, the timing at which the Egyptian Dynasties 21-24 took place would have been around 600-800 BC, and regardless of Egyptian records, we have tons of other civilizations which kept records well over 1000 years prior to this. Regardless if the Egyptians didn't document this time period, or if it didn't survive to this day, suggesting the global events from 700 BC era 'didn't exist' is asinine.
"the forelimb could never have flexed from the elbow to lie in a fully load-bearing posture." (Vol 347, p. 67)"
So, what does that matter? Lungfish and mudskippers have less than this and they still manage to move from pond to pond. 'full load bearing weight' signifies it couldn't walk in a typical locomotion gape, but this doesn't mean it couldn't use them in a pushing/thrusting motion to skirt along the ground.
"Flop? Slither? Maybe, but not walk; the limbs could not support it AT ALL."
They perhaps could have supported it in water, after all the buoyancy matters. Who cares, I never said it had to walk to make it from pond to pond, using such limbs would suffice.
Agent, yes, let's be clear. You still contend, as you did back then: "They assert it couldn't walk in the typical locomotion of terrestrial animals, as the limbs couldn't support its weight well. Though it didn't need to 'walk' in the typical sense, it's life persisted around water."
Notice the wording of your response: "it couldn't support its weight WELL." Coates and Clack, 2 of the world's 3 best experts on Acanthostega, write in Nature: "the forelimb could never have flexed from the elbow to lie in a fully load-bearing posture." (Vol 347, p. 67) "Couldn't support its weight WELL"? That means it did not "walk" or even support its weight IN ANY SENSE on land. Flop? Slither? Maybe, but not walk; the limbs could not support it AT ALL.
Now, about your comment: "Get this, the 21-24 Dynasties, as you mention, correlated to a date of around 600-800 BC, and this time period you claim didn't exist? Honestly now."
What's the matter, you haven't had your afternoon coffee yet? I did not claim the period 800-600 BC did not exist; how you can twist that question from what I wrote defies imagination. I know you are smarter than that.
You cited the Wiki site. I read it. Your Wiki source included Peter James and his book Centuries of Darkness. Peter James claimed that the reason there are no records for Dynasties 21-24 is that they did not exist. Therefore, Manetho was wrong, and the Egyptian timeline should be compressed.
Eusebius (writing much closer to Manetho and the history in question) stated that four kings of Egypt reigned simultaneously. If these four dynasties (not 21-24) were concurrent, then the traditional timeline should be compressed even further. James and others believe we should reduce the timeline by as much as 600-700 years. When this is done, Egyptian history lines up with the much more reliable Assyrian and Biblical chronologies.
agent, yes, but men who were superintended by God's Holy Spirit, they wrote in their own language and writing style but they were superintnended by God's Holy Spirit so the Word of God would convey the truths that God wants us to know and obey.
Yet you disagree with the PhDs at the Univ of Chicago. How is it that you know more than they do?"
I don't think they define it or others like it as simply a fish. They assert it couldn't walk in the typical locomotion of terrestrial animals, as the limbs couldn't support its weight well. Though it didn't need to 'walk' in the typical sense, it's life persisted around water.
Though with it's modified limbs this doesn't mean it couldn't use its limbs like a mudskipper does in slithering and seeking new ponds as others dried up or ran low on food, this is partially what they would have served a purpose for. Such limbs need not be *perfected* for covering mass distances of long durations to be used to move about. They would only be needed to move from pond to pond in such cases.
"I was repeating the argument of Peter James in his book Centuries of Darkness, which you neglect to mention, is on the Wiki site you cited earlier. Your source, I repeated it, you disagreed. How do you do that?"
Get this, the 21-24 Dynasties, as you mention, correlated to a date of around 600-800 BC, and this time period you claim didn't exist? Honestly now.
agent,
"Acanthastega" yeah, yeah, we'll to you it's a fish. A fish with legs, digits, pelvic and pectoral bones using such limbs, lungs and such, but a fish to you."
It doesn't matter what I think: you asked me to look at the Univ of Chicago site, I did; you asked me about it, and I answered. I never proclaimed myself an expert in evolutionary matters. You do, or at least act like it, tho your background and education are not in biology. Yet you disagree with the PhDs at the Univ of Chicago. How is it that you know more than they do?
"he argues that the reason there are no records for Dynasties 21-24 is simple: they did not exist;"
Hmm, but those dynasties (21-24) would have been around at the time of 800-600 BC, and not even Christians don't think this time period didn't happen. Maybe you mistook something?"
I was repeating the argument of Peter James in his book Centuries of Darkness, which you neglect to mention, is on the Wiki site you cited earlier. Your source, I repeated it, you disagreed. How do you do that?
"Acanthastega" yeah, yeah, we'll to you it's a fish. A fish with legs, digits, pelvic and pectoral bones using such limbs, lungs and such, but a fish to you.
"he argues that the reason there are no records for Dynasties 21-24 is simple: they did not exist;"
Hmm, but those dynasties (21-24) would have been around at the time of 800-600 BC, and not even Christians don't think this time period didn't happen. Maybe you mistook something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_dynasty_of_Egypt
anyhoo.
"Who is telling the truth? God or man?"
Star, I am trying to get this, you invoke an appeal to authority as if that trumps it, but that's a logical fallacy already. Worse yet, you ignore the fact that men, yes men, penned the bible. An inspiration of god penned by men.
Agent,
Sometimes you crack me up. "Funny, b/c that's not what Britannica says regarding the Egyptian Dynasties and the dates of rulers and records kept. Where does mathetes cite his comments on reduction of 700 years?"
After all the times you have written off the top of your head, without citing your sources, you would throw that charge at me? You think I'm making this up? Here:
Peter James, Centuries of Darkness - he argues that the reason there are no records for Dynasties 21-24 is simple: they did not exist; Manetho invented them (he was wrong in a number of places). Also check out Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs and Rohl's A Test of Time. Would you like page numbers with that, sir?
"mathetes or Britannica, choices, choices, hmmmmmm."
I like that one too. You were the one who contradicted PhD paleontologists at the Univ of Chicago re:Acanthastega, so I can't give material which contradicts Britannica? They aren't going to cite in their article: they might not sell as many encyclopedia sets.
Also, I stand by my previous statement: "Egyptian chronology is based on the Sothic cycle (which no one completely understands)"
You said: "Oh, I think so, it's essentially the same thing as the Julian calendar system, the differences is dating is nominal at best."
You cited Wiki as you often do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle
However, you write as if it were settled, when in fact, the page actually described a number of arguments against using the Sothic cycle since it is still under considerable debate. See, I not only read the full page, I look on the discussion page as well. Anyone reading the whole thing would see that my original statement is an accurate description of the Wiki Sothic cycle page.
gmg, you read my mind, but you must admit he is good at dodging bullets!:)
Ifeelfine,
Maybe you need to go back and re-read your posts. You provided the site on China's history in answer to someone else's question. I went ahead and perused the site and only then did I start posting, by challenging your claims based on the information given at the very site you provided (a site that was supposed to support your claim that China had written historical records pre- and post-flood.
So you see, I have only ever attempted to address the specific information you provided as your "proof", and you have yet to deal with my answer to your original specific information.
Boy, trying to get you to deal with a single issue at a time, an issue that you presented, is like pulling teeth. Do you only pursue a single subject as long as you think you have the upper hand? Do you EVER back down when a claim you make is shown to be in error? Shown by way of your own cited source no less. I'm surprised that you aren't claiming that the source I am quoting is not valid....except I guess you wouldn't want to do that with your own source, now would you?
YOU address the issue and quit running, after all, it was your issue in the first place, so now address the information from that site already!!!
Who is your source of truth ifeelfine72, God or man?
ifeelfine72
God says in His Word that He created man in His image and likeness.
Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Evolution says that man is nothing more than, macroscopically speaking, a mutated ape.
Is God lying? Or is evolution wrong?
ifeelfine72
Isaiah 54:9 (King James Version)
9For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.
God said that the flood was global. Who is telling the truth? God or man?
ifeelfine, GMG did when he showed you the source you cited to support that view was bogus, so now you need to cite another source that supports your point of view.
ifeelfine72
>>>GMG: you need to go back and re-read the source then, because it did not say there is no recorded history around that time in China.<<<
According to the website
Ancient China Timeline
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/timeline.htm
the earliest evidence of a writing system as well as the first historical record didn't occur until the Shang Dynasty (1766-1050 BC).
So we can say that there is no written record of previous dynasties in China.
Please identify what the record(s) were of the previous dynasties.
agentorange: Star finds that site reputable because it supports her worldview.
GMG: I asked you a question about answering the underlying concerns that history continued while and right after the flood supposedly happened. You have yet to address that specific concern and instead focus on one particular site - address the issue already and stop running.
Funny, b/c that's not what Britannica says regarding the Egyptian Dynasties and the dates of rulers and records kept. Where does mathetes cite his comments on reduction of 700 years?
mathetes or Britannica, choices, choices, hmmmmmm.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/180468/ancient-Egypt/22297/The-5th-dynasty-c-2465-c-2325-bc
"Egyptian chronology is based on the Sothic cycle (which no one completely understands) "
Oh, I think so, it's essentially the same thing as the Julian calendar system, the differences is dating is nominal at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sothic_cycle
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/555068/Sothic-cycle
agentorange
Thanks for sharing your family's religious beliefs and practices.
I have prayed for your Aunt's salvation.
agentorange
Egypt does a flood story where humanity was wiped out with a flood and then repopulated. Here it is:
Taken from
Summaries
http://library.thinkquest.org/29064/summaries/egypt_flood.html
EGYPT -- FLOOD
Ra was warned by the Watery Abyss that humans had grown too rebellious, so he took Hathor and ordered her to punish the people.
Hathor went to earth and slew millions of humans. The streets of the town of Chetenuten began to run like a river with blood because of her horrific endeavour. So much blood drained into the Nile that it overflowed the riverbanks, and the bloody water flooded the land, destroying everything. This water eventually ran into the sea, which overflowed as well. Hathor began drinking this horrible mixture of blood and water.
Ra was displeased with Hathor's work, as he had only wanted to punish, and not destroy, the human race. So he asked Thoth, the wisest God, for help. He then told the Goddess Sektet to mix together dada, fruit and barley to make beer. The beer was then to be mixed with human blood, in the hopes that it would attract Hathor.
Ra's servents were then ordered to pour out the mixture on the remaining land near Hathor. The beer became a great sea, and Hathor was drawn to it by the smell of the blood. She drank the beer until she was so intoxicated that she staggered off to sleep, leaving the last few humans behind.
From those humans, earth was repopulated.
Ra left the upkeep of earth to Thoth from then on, and he went off to rest on the back of the great cow of heaven. Thoth taught humans how to be civilized.
agentorange, you said "Additionally, we should also note that according to Biblical literalists, the noachian flood would have occurred around some 4000 years ago, which is odd, as it would have occured right during the 5th and 6th Egyptian Dynasties and whiped them out. But there is no indication of it from them. They go on in their historical accounts as if it never occurred, and there is no evidence that massive populations were wiped out as a result."
mathetes' post on Sat Nov 29 6:53pm gives the best answer to your statement. I will post it here:
"Unas, last king of the 5th Dynasty, was the first to include writing in his tomb. Typically dated to period mentioned below, but probably not correctly. Egyptian chronology is based on the Sothic cycle (which no one completely understands) and Manetho, an Egypitan priest living in the 3rd century BC. Manetho wrote a history of Egypt best he could, but he made mistakes: he identified 30 separate dynasties, when in fact the last king of one dynasty was the father of the first king of the next dynasty (hardly separate). Further, dynasties ruled concurrently on several occasions, so the entire Egyptian chronology should be shrunk as much as 600-700 years. Thus, Unas and the whole 5th dynasty probably fits best in the 18th century BC, not the 24th or 25th century BC."
Hi star
I spelt it wrong it's wadi not waddi, duh!!!don't know where I got the double d from, my tutor would love that . Anyway, a wadi is the result of flooding in dessert conditions, apart from the final result they give good information about deposition and the kinetic energy and resulting sorting etc..of rocks by the water. Last year I spent some time studying rivers and deposition rates and the resulting sorting in enviromental site, its very interesting.
Great to hear you are studying this subject. I'd like to suggest that maybe you try and find a local geological society. They are always great fun, and its good rather than just to read about rocks and fossils to go out and actually look at them with like minded people. I'm certain the U S Geological Survey has details of such groups in your area, or you can google them.
BW
Steve
"does the rest of your family have similar thoughts about God as you do?"
Some do, others quasi do, or in name sake only as they don't appear to sincerely know what's in the bible to be honestly considered 'Christian' in a any meaningful way let alone follow or attempt to follow the doctrine in a meaningful way. Others do not have a belief or are at the very least do not consider religion and or God significant or meaningful in their everyday lives.
A few are sincere in their beliefs, but they don't attempt to preach too often or put on a 'holly than thou are' facade. I would liken them to the existing demographics for religion/belief in the USA.
My parents profess a belief, but nothing enough to attend church let alone read the bible. I am more familiar with it then they are, as demonstrated with my past discussions on it many years ago. I think my dad is more of a Deist in his belief.
My parents disgust with largely organized religion and contempt for how some always abused its inherit power combined with the fact that they're largely skeptical of supernaturalism makes a deep sincere belief not easily attainable. Either one grows up believing talking snakes are legit, or they don't, and this is paramount to why Christianity and religions in general highly encourage the faith be grinded into the youth before they can think logically and conclude things based on evidence and rational thinking. As the OT says, get em while their young.
I have some cousins who go to Church at least 2-3 a month, but they were ignorant of many things in the OT such as not eating shellfish, so I don't think they too have REALLY read much of it (like many Christians I would suspect), or at least not much more than the pastor hints at reading. My aunt, the one I mentioned, only recently in the past 2 years has now began to engage in learning about Christianity/religion, and largely I suspect it's b/c she's noticed that as she's gotten older some of her acquaintances have died and so I suspect the fear of death has lead her to enquirer.
Star,
'What's so great about Christianity' Is a fair quality book supporting religion and in particular Christianity. It's focus is on appologetics, namely attempting to answer against the onslaught from the likes of Dawkin's, Hitchen's, Harris, Dennet, etc. It's on the 'New York Times best sellers list' and its author, D'souza, is honestly the only apologetic that from memory has fared reasonably in public debates with said non-believers.
He's not a voice for literalism though, he advocates a 'traditional Christian view', his words, not mine.
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
I chose the other 2 ID books simply for reviewing their work and I am looking to work with PvM (a poster, like me) and others from Panda's Thumb on critiquing it.
agentorange
When I was a kid I use to have a 22 caliber rifle. I was a pretty good shot. When I went to a co-ed summer camp in North Carolina (l lived in Miami Fl at the time) we use to do target shooting with a 22 caliber rifle and we messed around with a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun. Well, anyway, after about 8 weeks of camp (the camp went for 12 weeks), the boys competed with the girls on target shooting. I won the competition with the girls and then competed with the boy who won among the boys. We were even in our contest with one another up until the last shot. The stress of winning set in and I got nervous, the rifle became heavy, and I wasn't able to keep a steady aim on my target. Needless to say, my shot was more off from the bulls eye than my competition's so I lost. The prize for winning was several differnt kinds of candy bars. After our competition, the boy said to me, "You did good Pat" and he gave me one of his candy bars. That was nice of him. It made me feel good for him to acknowledge my shooting performance. I felt like we were near equals and that we were members of an exclusive shooting club.
I have shot a .22 hand gun and also a .35 handgun. The later had more kick to it.
The shotguns really had some kick to it and it was very loud. I use to like blowing away paint cans with it.
I don't have any guns now. I just trust God to take care of me.
believer,
Sad, but true!
agentorange, does the rest of your family (parents,grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings) have similar thoughts about God as you do?
<<<'What's so great about Christianity'>>>
Oh dear agentorange, I think you would have done better to have gotten a book written by a person who knows God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. What does a non-believer who has never had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ know about God, why we need His son Jesus Christ, and what the benefits (temporal and eternal) are of being a Christian?
steveh20
"Once again, many thanks for the hard work you put into the answer."
You are welcomed. I did the best I could. I am really new to this kind of stuff. Didn't start learning about evolution, fossil records, etc until Jan 2008.
steveh20
>>>One othet thing I would ask, are your predictions due to studying in class etc..or reading particular web sites, which you sometimes give links to?<<<
Mainly from the websites I have mentioned. Nothing from any class.
.
steveh20
>>>Its not quite what I was thinking of as I'm more interested in the sorting of rocks into fine medium and coarse that diffrent speeds and quantities of water bring etc... <<<
This flood, was it caused by just rain water or was it a result of the breaking up of the ground with water gushing out of the ground and water poring down from the sky at the same time like it was during Noah's flood? The results would be different depending on what caused the flood.
>>>If I had to pick out two points the first would be that your prediction of such good sorting by flood waters does not correspond with what we find.>>>
I would not expect the good sorting of animal fossils to be so perfect as 6) suggests.
My statements are incomplete and do not necessarily represent exactly what I was thinking or that logic would dictate. For example, "6) Land animals would be buried according to their ability to move quickly. Slower ones would be in lower stratas then those that can run swiftly." This is a general statement. There would of course be situations where animals that could run faster would be found with animals that are much slower but most of the faster moving animals would be found in higher strata.
What is a 'waddi'?
Many thanks star, you certainly put in a lot of hard work there.
Its not quite what I was thinking of as I'm more interested in the sorting of rocks into fine medium and coarse that diffrent speeds and quantities of water bring etc... If I had to pick out two points the first would be that your prediction of such good sorting by flood waters does not correspond with what we find. A good example would be a fosillised waddi which I was surveying last year in the north of England. This waddi was formed by flood waters when that area was a dessert 250 Ma. The flooding and the waddi that is produced is not what geologists call well sorted, rocks of all sizes are jumbled together and good sorting only occurs as the water slows down, with its eneregy decresing, when this occurs larger objects settle first, the same would happen with animals I would there expect to find worms and elephants (as an example). So I think your prediction of such sorting due to a flood would be incorrect, we can observe this in floods today and those in the strata. The second concerns marine fossils in mountains. This is due to the fossils being in rocks that where originally sea floor before continents converged creating an orogeny, a good example is the himalaya. One of the really intereting things is that the vegetation in the area as one moves upwards bears characteristics of when it grew at lower latitudes, i.e when the mountain range was at a lower elevation, fascinating don't you agree.
One othet thing I would ask, are your predictions due to studying in class etc..or reading particular web sites, which you sometimes give links to?
Once again, many thanks for the hard work you put into the answer.
BW
Steve
gmg, well said, but I've come to believe this about some people, he's got his mind made up so don't confuse him with facts and certainly not God's Will or Word!
"I suspect you are the same with the sources I mention. Right?"
You're honestly think comparing the works of some anonymous 'angelfire.com' or 'evolution-facts' to PloS, Cell, Harvard, Nature, National Geographic is even remotely rational in terms of weighing evidence?
Fair enough star, fair enough. I think we could both use a rest on that topic. =)
My parents live in MN and it was indeed a most restful and relaxing time. Sleep, ahhhh. =) I love visiting my folks and relatives, of course I'll be back. My dad's side, and many of my relatives are avid hunters (gun owners) and fishers and all out love nature. I ended up getting a Glock 17 (a gun) for my personal/home protection. I have a .22, but it doesn't give me the reassurance in case a robber broke in. My dad has tons of guns, as do many of my relatives, sorta just the culture in MN and elsewhere.
The week prior my aunt and I went into a Christian Book store in Maple Grove (Northwestern Bookstore) and picked up some books. 'What's so great about Christianity', 'The Design Revolution', and 'Intelligent Design 101'. I love to read.
agentorange, go spend some time reading what they have written. They comment on what evolutionists believe and why they disagree. Many quotes are given, some by evolutionists and some by creationists with the source of those quotes cited. I don't agree with everything that website says; I think some of their arguments are weak but I do think that they have better explanations for what we observe in nature for the stuff I have read thus far. I haven't read everything they have written so I can't speak to everything said on that cite. I don't agree with evolution and thus any explanation given by the sources you mentioned carry no weight with me. I suspect you are the same with the sources I mention. Right?
I do not know how long it will take. I will not respond to the topic of evolution with you personally any more until I am ready to discuss or say something about the current issues we have been discussing.
Since you stopped posting last week I figured you had gone to California to see your parents. Did you have a good time? Are you going to go back for the Christmas holidays? Yes, my thanksgiving was good.
star2, where does this 'evolution facts' site have the facts on evolution? I am wondering why you find it reputable, but not say, Nature, or Nat Geo, or Cell?
Any idea on how long you expect this might take? This is so we can mutually agree to move to another topic for the time being. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, I was away with family which is why I wasn't posting last week.
You will hear no more from me agentorange until I am ready.
"http://evolution-facts.org/what%27s_new.htm"
The irony of the sites name is befuddling, where the facts on evolution on this site?
"You will get it when I decide to give it to you"
Ahhhh, so you know, or want to give the illusion that you know that, but you are going to *Decide* it's right. Ok, but this just begs the question. If you know now, why aren't you deciding to give your objections now?
You will get it when I decide to give it to you.
"Yes, I will respond."
Yup, one of these days.......
"I have been working on it. But let it be known unto you young man I will not allow you to control me."
Working on it then. Star, keep in mind it was now over a month ago that the other article lists my response, and still we've yet to hear your objections. How much time do you need?
"The stuff you spew out too about evolution as well as the sources you cite is junk also agentorange. "
Oh, you mean Harvard medical school, HHMI, PLoS, Nature, National Geographic, Cell, etc. Huh? You're a big laugh star, first you think some garbage angelfire.com site is reputable, but this is just as bad.
star2, oh yes, back to the 'no way flood. Oh by the way, you never did rationalize/explain how all the species (again, some 6 million +) fit on the ark, plus their food, water, and disposed of waste for nearly a year.
Additionally, we should also note that according to Biblical literalists, the noachian flood would have occurred around some 4000 years ago, which is odd, as it would have occured right during the 5th and 6th Egyptian Dynasties and whiped them out. But there is no indication of it from them. They go on in their historical accounts as if it never occurred, and there is no evidence that massive populations were wiped out as a result.
Yes, I will respond. I have been working on it. But let it be known unto you young man I will not allow you to control me.
The stuff you spew out too about evolution as well as the sources you cite is junk also agentorange.
"agentorange, I will answer you when I decide. "
In other words....never. Look star, I meant what I said, and what I said referred to that the sources used are junk, as are the site itself.
Pretty cool, star.
steveh20
Sources: These ideas are a combination of my own thoughts and some insights from http://evolution-facts.org
The Word of God tells us that
1) God created the heaven and earth by His power, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15
He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Proverbs 3:19-21
19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.
2) God created the heavens the earth. From Genesis 1 and 2 we can say or deduce the following:
When God created the earth He created it fully functional. Marine life, birds, animals, humans, and all forms of plant life were created uniquely and in its complete state with the capacity to reproduce and having the necessary elements (bacteria, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, minerals, and etc) necessary for the continuance of its life.
Until the flood there was no rain. The ground was moisitened by a mist (Gen 2:6). This implies that there was an underground water source.
Plant life populated the entire earth. Marine life populated the bodies of water. Land animals, sky animals and humans eventually populated the entire earth.
The topology of the earth included mountains/hills (Deu 33:15). (continued)
continued
3) The following occured when the flood took place:
After all land animals that God chose to be preserved on the Ark entered the boat and Noah, his three sons, and their respective wives entered, God's judgment against the ungodly began. After 7 days the ground began to break up, with water gushing out. The rains from heaven followed. Continual breaking up of the land and the rains falling for a period of 40 days and forty nights resulted in the death of all land life (humans, beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air;).
4) Flood Perdictions:
A. Geologically
Since the earth was broken up continuously, the molten content of the earth escaped, and the underground waters gushed out from the ground for 40 days and nights I would predict that some or all the following would have occured:
There would be various layers of earth (stratas) that were formed very rapidly (in 40 days and nights), and they would be of various thicknesses, would not show erosion, would contain lava at various locations on the earth and would contain lava at various strata, show fragmented rocks, and contain foreign rocks (rocks that are not native to the location they are found in), would find cracks in the earth's crust, and the earth's topology would show that mountains and hills prior to the flood are now even higher showing various layers of earth laid on top of one another.
B. Fossil Record
I would predicit that
1) the lowest stratas would contain life that lived in the soil (bacteria, worms, etc) and marine life that lived near the bottom of the sea (marine invertebrates).
2) Marine life that could swim near the top of the water would be in a higher strata but not all marine life would die.
3) Reptiles would be buried higher than the fishes that died and were buried.
4) Plant life would be found, in general, with the reptiles.
5) Marine life would be found in areas where there was no seas, like on mountains tops.
6) Land animals would be buried according to their ability to move quickly. Slower ones would be in lower stratas then those that can run swiftly.
7) Would expect to find trees that are buried either upright, upside down, or in a leaning position that go through two or more stratas because the different stratas were formed very quickly.
8) Would expect to find rocks and animals fossils displaced from their habitat.
9) Would expect to find the same kind of animals in different stratas.
10) Would expect to find human made artifacts.
ifeelfine
>>>GMG: BTW, I don't "shoot and run" I typically tire of folks living in some alternate reality where logic doesn't seem to apply.<<<
The logic is that the history from the site in question states that written records were not in existence pre-flood, so your claim regarding China is null and void, unless you can find a source that disputes this source.
The logical deduction is that your assertation was incorrect. It is you that is hanging around in that alternate reality.
Your credibility is seriously undermined. It would appear that you are just fond of stating your opinions as fact and then belittling others when they attempt to factually debate your claims. It doesn't appear that you have any desire to actually discuss issues, but would rather operate under the "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" mantra. Pity you.
>>>
ifeelfine
>>>GMG: I asked you to address the underlying issue and you don't want to which must mean you're conceding the overall debate to me. You are clearly more interested in trying to pin what one particular site does or does not say on me (and while I will not concede that my site supports you, I will admit I should have vetted that particular site a little better) <<<
I was addressing the underlying issue, which was your assertation that China had ongoing written history pre- and post-flood. You still have not provided anything to back up your claim, and until you do it's simply posturing, I have provided information that specifies otherwise.
So no, instead you have conceded the debate to me.
Your logical progression is faulty. I can only assume you would rather stick your fingers in your ears while chanting "I'm right you're wrong, doesn't matter what anyone says na-na-na-na-na-na".
Blimey believer, football, now we have a conversation about important things.
Liverpool really should have beaten West Ham on Monday, now they are only one point ahead of Chelsea in the premier, they could have been three. I'll always remember the Champions league final,95, with Liverpool down 3-0 at half time, I wanted to leave the pub then, but my mate persuded me to stay 10 minutes, and they came back in the second half and won on penalties, the pub weht mad when that ball went in, it sure is the beautiful game!! It'll be interesting to see what happens to Chelski as the season progress, they where awesome at the start, as for Arsenal, they have a great young team, Wenger is brilliant at bringing forward young talent, yet at the season moves forward they never seems to keep the fire burning. That said Arsenal where beaten by Burnely (a smaller team) in the Carling cup last night 2-0, ha, ha, ha, ha.....Don't forget Man U are there with a game in hand, slowly grinding away.
Remember the words of the Liverpool manager Bill Shankley about football "It's not just a matter of life and death, it's far more important than that"
On a personal note there are two things I find that make the world seem a better simpler place one, is going for a ride on my bike, the other is simply kicking a ball about with friends.
agentorange, I will answer you when I decide.
<<<GMG: BTW, I don't "shoot and run" I typically tire of folks living in some alternate reality where logic doesn't seem to apply.>>>
The feeling is mutual ifeelfine72. Many times I have become weary of your worldview.
<<<"http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12c.htm "
nd not a single thing sourced, sited, or backed by an article of peer review. *Junk*>>>
I guess you really didn't read it agentorange because many sources were sited in the actual text.
"What would a sign of the flood be to you? "
Usually, some, creationists point to the Grand Canyon in America as an example for evidence for this flood, but they are unwittingly using a canyon which is comprised of numerous geological layers they also sometimes contend that were laid down (somehow?) at the same time as the flood or as the result of the flood.
It's heart warming to read back over the past days and notice not once did Star, or anyone, bother to refute my points earlier. I rest my case then. 2-0.
"http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12c.htm "
nd not a single thing sourced, sited, or backed by an article of peer review. *Junk*
ifeelfine, the only time you leave a site is when you don't have someone else who helping to fight your battles for you like viking and agent and your feet are being held to the fire. So don't play this haughty and arrogant game because that's all it is. On this site alone you've been asked several questions and have either chosen not to respond or give some bogus answer that makes no sense whatsoever such as my question to you about a statement God made to Isaiah in Isaiah 54:9 and you came back with something about it being a parable or an allegory which had absolutely nothing to do with what God said or the question I asked you.
GMG: BTW, I don't "shoot and run" I typically tire of folks living in some alternate reality where logic doesn't seem to apply.
GMG: I asked you to address the underlying issue and you don't want to which must mean you're conceding the overall debate to me. You are clearly more interested in trying to pin what one particular site does or does not say on me (and while I will not concede that my site supports you, I will admit I should have vetted that particular site a little better)
steveh20, I would hope not either but at the same time I believe true researchers would be honest enough to take their own biases into consideration before they present their findings or interpretations of them. By the way I've been watching the football standings, is this Liverpool team for real and what's happened to Chelsea and Arsenal? For some reason I took a liking for Arsenal while living in Europe, right behind Ajax, Bayern Munchen and right ahead of Juventus and Real Madrid.
Yeah, think there is something in what you say, I would be weary of those though who use it as an arguemnet instead of putting forward evidence.
steveh20, that's the way we should approach research but realistically I think most us whether purposely or inadvertently allow our preconceived ideas or beliefs to effect how we interpret data.
believer
Thats not how it works. We start with what the rocks suggest to us not what we think happened. That is why by interpreting the enviroments the rocks where formed in we find no world wide flood. Of course there are those who start witha flood and go from there, but I aim to be a geologist worthy of the name.
ifeelfine
You are so quick to call others names and accuse them of bad behavior. But I notice that you often play the hypocrite yourself. You're fond of telling people that they are not addressing the issue, and yet you drop issues that you have posted on as soon as you can no longer belittle them because they've presented too much of a good argument. You just don't like to ever have to say "whoops", do you.
You had some rather snideful comments to me, and I addressed them at 12:24 and 12:25 ll/30. The least you can do is give an answer to them. Or are you going to do what you so often do, and that's "shoot-and-run".
steveh20, but once again I sense you're basing that on a billions of years timeline rather than a thousands of years timeline, so I wonder what the geographic and geological differences would be and how scientists would interpret the data they have if they based it on the latter to include a global flood where the waters came from both above and below for 40 days and nights?
No, A flood would not produce the nine exoctic terraines of which these isles are composed,by exotic terraine I mean a geological area characterised by a distinctive geological history, these "docked" together to form the isles basement. A flood would then not produce the five lithotectonic units that "cover" (cover can also mean ,mountain range) these terraines. The British Isles is more than land surrounded by sea,and it has not always been that, once it was in the middle of a hugh dessert, when it sat on the Equator during the Permian as part of Pangea.
steveh20, what if this global flood caused the formation of the British Isles?
Actually star I'd be quite interested to hear from you what I should look for because I can then go to the geological maps and see if it is there. If the flood covered the UK say 4000 years ago it should be very obvious. So I have two very detailed maps(pub: British Geological Society), I'm all ready!
steveh20 - What would a sign of the flood be to you?
And yet Star right across England there is no sign of that flood in the geological record.
ifeelfine72
<<<You show respect to no one who believes differently than you.>>>
Examples please.
star: You are a hypocrite. You show respect to no one who believes differently than you. How dare you talk to me about respect - take a good hard look at what you wrote and reflect on those words yourself.
steveh20
star2 said: "The oil and coal reserviors tells me there was a world wide flood."
steveh20 said: " maybe you would like to elaboate a little further.."
Source: http://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12c.htm plus other source that I have read in the past and several TV programs on TBN.
Three reasons why I believe the coal reserviors that we have found indicate that they were not formed as evolutionists suggest but were created during a world-wide flood are:
1) The type of fossils found in coal seams such as
a. marine fossils such as fish, mollusks, and brachiopods
b. human remains and relics of various kinds have been found in coal seems datings back millions of yrs ago such as a human skull, 2 giant human teeth, gold chain, gold thread, steel nail, metal screw, wedged shaped object, and an iron pot.
2) Large rocks not native to the area have been found in coal beds all over the world.
3)Both petroleum and coal can be made in a comparatively short period of time.
Research scientists find that it is not difficult to make coal very quickly if you take a plant, twig, and etc, add some water with it and expose it to pressure, and heat.
Also researchers have found that animal flesh can be converted into oil through the same means by including water with it and exposing it to pressure and heat.
If man can do it so can nature.
Water, presssure and heat where the elements present during the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
steveh20, when Christ was on this earth He was both fully human and fully God, but I do agree with you if I understand you correctly that He also had to set aside some of His godly diety in order to experience His total humaness. But at the same time He never violated His diety. A good example is when He says no one but the Father knows when the Second Coming will occur, well if Christ is fully God how could He not know that and yet He wept over Jerusalem because He saw the impending destruction that would occur in 70AD. Why would He know one future event and not the other? I don't know if from a human perspective we can totally know the answer to that question, but both of these were future events. However, when it came to past events He knew them well from both His human knowledge and godly knowledge since He was present and even involved in these historic events.
steveh20, God's Word declares that Jesus Christ is God, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present. Therefore He was present when each of the events I mentioned took place. God said it that settles it, whether you or I choose to believe it is irrelevant to the truths taught in God's Word. But it would indeed be in our best interest to believe these truths as well. And at the same time I respect a person's right to not believe God's truths as taught in His Word.
believer
Maybe as the second person of the trinity Christ was present and saw(though being out of time and space,would he "see") those events but whilst a man any such thoughts on his personal knowledge is mere speculation on your part and is not something you can uphold. It is your right to hold those opinions if you wish but I think pushing it that you should expect others too. You have no idea what Jesus "knew" as a man, you need to be careful that you don't over emphasise the Godhood of Jesus at the exspense of his humanity.
ifeelfine72 - You are speaking disrespectfully. You say that you are a Christian, then act like one by speaking respectfully to people. Minicking the speech of ungodly men like agentorange is unbecoming for a person who claims to be a Christian. Clothe yourself in the image of Christ, not in the image of ungodly men.
ifeelfine, plus back to your earlier question, yes you can follow a timeline if it is totally intact, but there is no specific timeline given in the Bible other than genealogies which do not include specific dates which means your timeline could only note approximate dates.
ifeelfine, so now you're saying Christ wasn't present when these events took place?
ifeelfine, have you even read Isaiah 54:9 because if you did how in the world did you get a parable or an allegory out of a statement? Was God talking about a local flood or a global flood?
ifeelfine
Would like a response to my posts to you of 12:24am and 12:25am.
Believer: BTW, your answer to me - just more of the same - semantic gymnastics.
believer: Are you intentionally being obtuse? I've answered your questions several times now. Parable? Allegory? Does that ring a bell?
ifeelfine, are you ever going to answer my question to you with regards to Isaiah 54:9?
ifeelfine, not only did Christ take them literally, He was an eyewitness at each one of those events and He knew each one of those events was going to happen and He's known for all eternity. Plus, inerrancy does not mean everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, but that everything that is written in the Bible is literally the Word of God, but events recorded in the Bible did occur and can be taken literally with regards to the fact that they did happen as recorded in the Bible, such as a literal six day creation, a global flood, Jonah spending three days in the belly of a great fish, Daniel in the lion's den and his three friends in the fiery furnace, and so on. As for dates we can give approximate dates on major events based on historic data, but we can't give specific dates because God chose not to give us those dates or have them recorded, but that in no way impacts the fact that the Bible in its original autographs is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally God's Word.
believer: Don't you think if the Bible was to be taken literally that you could then follow it's timeline to get an exact date?
star: You don't know if Jesus accepted them as literal or not. You just don't know that.
ifeelfine, how would we know specific dates for events in the Bible when God does not give them, but me not knowing the date of the flood is not the issue at all, the real issue is rather than acknowledging you are wrong in this matter or you can't prove with any certainty that the flood was only local and not global you resort to taking cheap shots at those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and sadly you don't even understand what believing in the inerrancy of the Bible means. As far as dates are concerned at best we can only give approximate dates at best. And as I stated earlier with regards to the date of the flood there are several valid views with regards to the date of the global flood of Noah's day. That being said why don't we get back to discussing those issues where God in His Word is perfectly clear such as Isaiah 54:9 where God states He will never send a flood as He did in Noah's day and as we know there have been many local floods since then, so either God did not send a local flood in Noah's day, but rather a global flood or He lied to Isaiah and the nation of Israel, so which is it?
<<<I've never physically seen the miracles the Bible outlines and neither have you...>>>
ifeelfine72, God, in the name of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, has done many miracles for me and thru me. Though most of them are not the same kind as what Jesus did, like giving sight to the blind, the lame walking, the dead coming back to life, they are, nevertheless, just as much of a miracle as what Jesus did during His earthly ministry. However, one miracle, where He created something out of nothing, would be on equal par to Jesus restoring the lost flesh of a lepord. So I would disagree with you that I have not physically seen the miracles that Jesus did.
<<<I trust what Jesus said is true>>>
OK, Jesus accepted the Genesis account of creation and the story of Adam and Eve. Do you?
Jesus accepted the story of Noah and the flood. Do you?
Jesus accepted the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Do you?
Jesus accepted the story of Jonah and the whale. Do you?
All these stories Jesus accepted as literal and true. If what Jesus said is true then they must have happened as God said it happened in His word. Why are you rejecting some if not all of them if you "trust what Jesus said is true"?
star: I'm going to answer your question but how about you answer mine for a change instead of always asking more questions? I'm honest, I take the Bible by faith. I've never physically seen the miracles the Bible outlines and neither have you but I know in my heart they are true and I trust what Jesus said is true. But again, I don't have to take it all literally to believe it.
ifeelfine72
<<<You mean to tell me that the Bible is literally the Word of God >>>
If the Bible, in its original autograoh, isn't really the Word of God, then maybe Jesus Christ really isn't the Savior of the World. If He is not the Saviour of the world then you are still dead in your tresspasses and sin, lost and without hope, and of all men, most miserable.
believer: What must you believe?!?!?! You mean to tell me that the Bible is literally the Word of God and you can't pinpoint a date for the flood? For someone who takes it literally, don't you find that the least bit odd?
star, that's kind of my point with ifeelfine we can't specifically pin down the exact dates of the flood and there are several what appear to be valid options, so it comes down to putting one's trust in historical data that is not totally substantiated or putting one's trust in the inerrant Word of God on this matter. And God's Word clearly shows that it was indeed a global flood as opposed to a local flood. And based on what GMG and mathetes have shared it appears that ifeelfine's case is getting weaker and weaker.
Does anybody else find it interesting that the first writing in the Far East (Shang Dynasty) and the first writing in the Middle East (Tomb of Unas) were both in the 1700s BC? Coincidence? Probably not.
For another kick in the seat, look up the Tablet Theory of Genesis sometime. It was pioneered by RAF Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman and furthered by his son D.J. Wiseman, Prof of Assyriology. The elder's book was "Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis." He linked the "toledoth" phrases in Genesis to similar phrases in ancient Babylonian tablets. Genesis might not have been passed down orally, but on clay tablets written by eyewitnesses to the events described thereon.
star,
Thanks for going back and re-posting for ifeelfine the same info I had posted for him previously. I'm afraid, though, that his reference site did not give the information he had originally hoped for, and he does not want to admit it.
ifeelfine
>>>GMG: How about you address my underlying claim that recorded history
continued on in other parts of the world rather than trying to get
bogged down in the minuta of a particular website? I've listed several
examples now and you seem hung up on China at the moment.
Care to address Unas and some of the others?<<<
I am trying to address your underlying claim that recorded history
continued on in other parts of the world, specifically as regards your
assertation relative to China. However, instead of dealing with it in
China, using your own source, you would rather skate right over it and
move right along to other vague references. Could this be because your
source belies your claim?
Let's first put to rest your first claim and it's supposed "proof", shall we?
ifeelfine
>>>GMG: you need to go back and re-read the source then, because
it did not say there is no recorded history around that time in China.<<<
No, you need to go back and re-read the source, because, as I copied
from that source previously, it does state that the flood account was
active previous to written language/recorded history.
As listed by your source at
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/timeline.htm
c. 2205-1766 Hsia (or Xia) Dynasty
Legend says that this dynasty began when a man named Yu drained the
waters of the flood (a parallel story to the experiences of Noah).
He became the first king of the Hsia Dynasty.
c. 1766-1050 BC Shang Dynasty
The Shang leaves the earliest evidence of a writing system as well
as the first historical records
believer - I don't know enough about it to say. When was Jesus born? 4BC? When does AD begin? How many years transpired from Adam to 4 BC? When does AD begin and how many years transpired from the fall of Adam until then? Any ideas?
star2, but what would the BC date which starts from the birth of Christ back to Adam be, what you cited is from Adam to Noah.
ifeelfine72, believer, and all who are interested in what year the flood occured
The Word of God gives the geneology of Noah going back to Adam and Eve. The geneology includes the number of years each person lived starting with Adam. Assuming the marking of time began after the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, I have calculated, based on that information, when the flood happened. I found it to be 1656 years after the fall of Adam.
Adam - Year (after fall): 0000 -- Year Died (YD): 0930
Adam was 130 yrs old when he begat Seth and he died 930 yrs after his fall in the Garden of Eden (Gen 5:5).
Seth - Year Born (YB): 0130 -- YD: 1042
Seth was 105 yrs old when he begat Enos and he died when he was 912 yrs old (Gen 5:8).
Enos - YB: 0235 -- YD: 1140
Enos was 90 yrs old when he begat Cainan and he died when he was 905 yrs old (Gen 5:11)
Cainan - YB: 0325 -- YD: 1235
Cainan was 70 yrs when he begat Mahalaleel and died when he was 910 yrs old (Gen 5:14).
Mahalaleel - YB: 0395 -- YD: 1290
Mahalaleel was 65 yrs old when he begat Jared and he died when he was 895 yrs old (Gen 5:17).
Jared - YB: 0460 -- YD: 1422
Jared was 162 yrs old when he begat Enoch and he died when he was 962 yrs old (Gen 5:20).
Enoch - YB: 0622 -- YD: Didn't die but was raptured in 0987
Enoch was 65 yrs old when he begat Methuselah and he did not die but was taken (raptured) when he was 365 yrs old. (Gen 5:23-24).
Methuselah - YB: 0687 -- YD: 1656
Methuselah was 187 yrs old when he begat Lamech and he died when he was 969 yrs old (Gen 5:27).
Lamech - YB: 0874 -- YD: 1651
Lamech was 182 yrs old when he begat Noah and he died when he was 777 yrs old (Gen 5:31).
Noah - YB:1056 -- YD: 2006 --- Year of the flood:1656
Noah was 500 yrs old when God commanded him to build the ark. It took Noah 100 yrs to build the ark. The floods came when Noah was 600 yrs old (Gen 6:6). Since Noah was born 1056 yrs after the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden then the flood occured in 1656. Noah died when he was 950 yrs old (Gen 9:29).
ifeelfine, God's Word does not state specific dates in time with regards to when events occur so to say that because one does not hold to Ussher's chronological time table for the Bible than one does not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures is totally bogus. What I shared with you came from several sources, the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible for one. Plus how can you take God at His word but not take Him literally, what does God have to say for you to take Him literally?
believer: The date you stated is derived from the chronology / genealogy from the Bible - so how can you make the assertion that the Flood happened in a 5,000 year window? Anyway, you don't take God at His word if you don't believe the 2348BC number - so how can YOU say you take Him at his word? It looks more than a little hypocritical.
believer: I take God at His word just not literally - you know this and yet continue to push inspite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Instead of even attempting a debate why not say, "I don't care what the evidence is, I am going to take the Bible literally" instead of this charade of a debate that you are trying to have.
Star: How about you address the other points I made and how about you learn the definition of geology and evolution.
I only have a minute, but I'll add to the discussion about Unas.
Unas, last king of the 5th Dynasty, was the first to include writing in his tomb. Typically dated to period mentioned below, but probably not correctly. Egyptian chronology is based on the Sothic cycle (which no one completely understands) and Manetho, an Egypitan priest living in the 3rd century BC. Manetho wrote a history of Egypt best he could, but he made mistakes: he identified 30 separate dynasties, when in fact the last king of one dynasty was the father of the first king of the next dynasty (hardly separate). Further, dynasties ruled concurrently on several occasions, so the entire Egyptian chronology should be shrunk as much as 600-700 years. Thus, Unas and the whole 5th dynasty probably fits best in the 18th century BC, not the 24th or 25th century BC.
Sorry I can't stay. Keep the faith!
Hi Star
I taking it that by polystrate fossil(its not actually a geological term I think) you mean for example a tree that appears to cross cut diffrent beds? If so, thats no problem, it just shows that deposition was very rapid. Sometimes people get confused (normally those with no geological background or those who just pick things up from the web)and think deposition always takes a great deal of time, this is incorrect.
Another reason why fossils beds will be found in out of sync as such is due to over isoclinal over folding or thrust faults which can be easily reconised, but I guess you know this already.
Now if you can come up with a rabbit in any thing say Cambrian, Ordovician, or Silurian, I will be impressed.
BW
Steve
ifeelfine, Ussher dates the flood at 2348BC, others say 2304 +/- 11 years, Unger and Ramm say long before 4,000BC, and most writers on the subject would place Noah between 5,000 to 15,000 years ago, but without satisfactory basis. Unas is recorded to have lived 2375-2345BC adjusting for the error factor he very well could not have even been born or was dead with regard to the flood. So the question is do we take God at His word or do we base our decision on historic data that has not been fully substantiated? I'll take God at His word, what about you?
ifeelfine72
>>>GMG: you need to go back and re-read the source then, because it did not say there is no recorded history around that time in China.<<<
According to the website
Ancient China Timeline
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/timeline.htm
the earliest evidence of a writing system as well as the first historical record didn't occur until the Shang Dynasty (1766-1050 BC).
So we can say that there is no written record of previous dynasties in China.
Please identify what the record(s) were of the previous dynasties.
steveh20
star2 said "The fossil record tells me there was a world wide flood."
Man has found polystrate fossils and fossils that exist in a lower strata than they should be. Evolution cannot explain this. The world wide flood can.
believer: 2350BC (or somewhere thereabouts)
ifeelfine, please cite the dates for Noah's flood and the source you used to determine that?
GMG: How about you address my underlying claim that recorded history continued on in other parts of the world rather than trying to get bogged down in the minuta of a particular website? I've listed several examples now and you seem hung up on China at the moment. Care to address Unas and some of the others?
GMG: you need to go back and re-read the source then, because it did not say there is no recorded history around that time in China.
Believer: The Unas reference was for whoever thinks that the flood was worldwide and killed everyone. Someone forgot to tell that to Unas who was the Pharoah right before the supposed worldwide flood, during and after. Kind of hard to do if it killed everyone, don't you think?
Oh, believer, the joys of living in a diffretnt time zone.
Seems to me that being limited to knowledge in time and space is part of being human as much as being under the same constraints, physically. As far as I'm concerned others can if they wish attribute to Jesus powers of unlimited knowledge etc, that is mere speculation on their part. If Jesus knew what was in a mans heart as the gospel writer reflects then it simply means he was a good judge of character. I think though that giving Jesus "extra powers" reflects something about those who hold such views and their "need" to present to the world a kind of Jesus Christ superstar saviour, me I prefer the carpenter from Nazareth, the one who has the wooden cup rather than the gold one, in the third Indiana Jones movie, if you get my drift.
Right whats up next for debate now, how many angels dance on a pin head?
S
Star
Lot of heat, but no light.
Steve
ifeelfine72
In Genesis 7:4, God told Noah that He was going to destroy every substance on the face of the earth. Every form of life was going to be destroyed from off the face of the whole earth. Noah's three sons and the animals on the ark were to repopulate the earth. In Gen 9:1 God blessed Noah and his three sons, Ham, Shem and Japheth and told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
Noah's three sons started having children. They all spoke one language. After God confused their language when they were building the tower of Babel, the children, and their children's children of the three sons of Noah began to separate and go their separate ways, and thus, over time, every area of the world was populated. Each tribe had it own language. Eventually, each tribe would have made some written way to communicate via their language, would they have not? Each tribe (race of people) would have their own language with their own alphabeth, and their own rules of grammar, would they not? We observe this to be true. Each written form of some kind of language had to happen after the flood. This is found to be true in the case of China because their earliest form of writing came after the flood. (continued)
continued
The flood was a major event in the lives of Noah and his wife, and his three sons with their respective wives.
Is it not human for previous generations to repeat the major events that they experienced to their children and children's children? Is it not human for family legends to be passed down from generation to generation? Is that not what we do today? If we do that today, would you expect Noah, and his three sons to be any different?
When a story is repeated time and time again isn't it true that the newest version of it is different than it was originally? Have you ever been with a group of people as a kid and played a game where someone makes up a story and tells person B what it is, and then person B tell person C, and person C tell person D until everyone in the group has heard the 'story'? What were the results? The newest version of the original story often bared little resemblance to the original story. Is that not true?
If Noah and his three sons passed on the story of the flood to their children and their children's children do you not think that details of the event changed? Do you not think that the final version that was recorded in written form was much different than what originally happened?
Historical record has over 500 civilization having some kind of story about creation and the flood. They differ from one another and from the account that God gave in His Word. But because they differ it does not mean that the original event did not happen because when people hear something they don't remember everything that was said, they put their own interpretation to what was said, and etc. That is what we do today and these people from the past are no different than we are.
Moses is credited with having written the first 5 books of the Old Testament. The history of the creation of the earth and heavens, and what happened until his birth was told to him by God, probably a portion of it during the two 40 days and nights that he fasted and spent with God on Mount Sinai.
God chose and inspired holy men to write His Word. "All scipture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Tim 3:16). The account that was given in the Word of God regarding the flood is trustworthy.
ifeelfine
>>>GMG: There are examples of recorded history right before the flood supposedly happened and right after - China, even Egypt. If all of the people were supposedly killed then how could there possibly have been written history right before AND right after?<<<
that's my whole point, the source you gave says that there WAS NOT written history prior to their flood account. And their flood account timeline is in a comparable timeline to the bible's. So again, there was no recorded history prior to the flood, as there was no written language until after the flood.
Did you even read the site's info that you provided? Did you even read the information I gave from that site? There was NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE previous to the flood account, so there was no recorded history "prior to" the flood and then "after the flood" with no break.
Do you have another site that is in disagreement with your first site, that says there was recorded history prior to and just after their flood account?
ifeelfine72
Yes, I did. God said in His Word that every form of life, which includes sea animals, sky animals, land animals and humans were created separately, thus making them unique creations. His Word makes no mention of one animal evolving from another as evolution says happened.
Genesis 1:20-27
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Now, state some evolutionary principles that the Word of God supports if you want creationists to give some serious consideration to the theory of evolution.
ifeelfine, who is your pharoah unas post addressed to?
ifeelfine, you did not respond to Isaiah 54:9 unless that was your attempt at saying I was taking verses out of context and if so please tell me how I took that verse along with the other verses I cited out of context. The reality is when you paint yourself into a corner you tend to cry foul or you simply get out of Dodge. So with regards to Isaiah 54:9 if the flood of Noah's day was only a local flood was God therefore lying to Isaiah and the nation of Israel when He clearly stated He would never allow what He allowed to happen in Noah's day to happen again?
Check out the pharoah, Unas
Believer: I did answer Isaiah 54:9, you just chose to ignore it.
believer: Your statements make it appear that you are more inclined to argue with a Christian brother and act out of pride rather have any meaningful debate.
GMG: There are examples of recorded history right before the flood supposedly happened and right after - China, even Egypt. If all of the people were supposedly killed then how could there possibly have been written history right before AND right after?
star: You gave me no such example.
GMG, to the last sentence of your last post, bulls-eye give the man a prize!:)
ifeelfine, plus I noticed you had no response for Isaiah 54:9?
>>>GMG: Google ancient chinese history. Recorded history continued right on right after the supposed worldwide flood that killed everyone but Noah and his family.<<<
According to the source you provided on chinese history, their written language, ergo, recorded history did not begin until after the flood. So how could it "continue right on after the flood", when recorded history did not exist before the flood?
You provided a link to prove your assertation, but it in fact seems to have disproved your assertation. Are you being purposely obtuse? Do you just refuse to acknowledge the point on China's "recorded" history via their flood timeline?
It appears that you have just flat out determined there could not possibly have been a flood, and you're just sticking to your story. Okay, that's fine, at least just admit that you refuse to concede the information as listed in your source on China's history. You certainly have the right to discount a history source.
Your posts make it appear that you perfer shoot-and-run arguments over positive debate.
ifeelfine, so the people who built the pyramids which are still considered one of the most awesome structures in the world, in fact I believe one of the seven wonders of the world, would have been to stupid to understand the science of evolution?
ifeelfine, if the out of context comment was addressed to me please cite those verses I have taken out of context and what does Jesus speaking in parables have to do with whether or not a global flood took place?
Galatians 1:9 - "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Jesus came to redeem part of the ape family? I think not, but people are free to try and degrade the image and likeness of God to that of an animal. If so, one might give weighty consideration to Gal. 1:9.
ifeelfine72 - " Whether you like it or not, you're a part of the ape family. Take a science class already."
God says in His Word that He created each life form uniquely and that humans were created in the image and likeness of God. I choose to believe what God says over what man says.
ifeelfine72, I gave you an example where evolution is not supported by the Word of God. Now you give me an example from the Word of God where evolution is supported by the Word of God. Prove your statement "Evolution is not directly opposed to scripture" if you want to be taken seriously.
star: Whether you like it or not, you're a part of the ape family. Take a science class already. Evolution is not directly opposed to scripture. Your argument about no room for evolution makes absolutely no sense.
ifeelfine72 - evolution says that you evolved from an ape. Something in that distant ape mutated that resulted in a divergence from that ape that eventually produced you, a human. Thus, according to evolution, you are nothing more than a mutated ape, macroscopically speaking.
However, God says in His Word that humans, Adam and Eve, were created in the likeness and image of God. There leaves no room for humans evolving from an ape since each of God's created forms of life were created uniquely with the ability to reproduce after its own kind.
Evolution is not supported by scripture. They are directly opposed to one another.
If you believe that you evolved from an ape, then you are nothing more than an intellectual animal.
Animals don't need Jesus. People do. Animals will not stand before God when they die to give account for the life they lived. People will. Jesus died for the sins of mankind not for the sins of animals. If you are nothing more than an animal, then why do you need Jesus?
If you asked the question : "Do you believe you evolved or are you made in God's image?" I would answer yes.
Star: How can I answer a question that isn't factual? . . . I know what you're asking and would be happy to answer it if you asked it in a respectful manner.
Answer the question ifeelfine72, are you a mutated ape like evolution says your are or were you created in the image and likeness of God like the Word of God says?
star: You shouldn't ask questions involving evolution when you continually demonstrate a lack of even basic knowledge of the subject and have shown that you are not interested in learning.
As for the creation account, I don't recall my exact statements but I believe that it is a story from God to people who couldn't possibly understand the creation of the Universe, Earth, and all life on our planet.
ifeelfine72 - evoultion says that you are nothing more than a mutated ape.
The Word of God says that you were created in the likeness and image of God.
Which is it for you?
ifeelfine72 - You have said in the past that the creation account in Genesis 1 supports evolution. In what ways?
ifeelfine72
What is an allegory to you? What is a myth? What is a parable?
Jesus spoke in parables more than almost anyone else in the Bible. Believer, surely you can get that? Star?
You certainly are hypocritical. When I bring up passages about slavery, women's rights, factual errors, biological errors, you use the worst semantic gymnastics to overcome them and yet, you expect me to roll right over when you use a couple of passages out of context.
steveh20, then you don't believe Christ was fully human and fully God when He was on the earth?
w, as a minimum that person certainly does not believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but in ifeelfine's case he says he does believe a flood occurred but not a global flood. At least that's how I read him.
steveh20 - What problem do I need to deal with?
star
To be really honest what ever word you call it, the problem is yours to deal with not mine, as I don't take the "Jesus knew everything and was never wrong" attitude you have to him.
Personally I put tsunamis down to earthquakes on the ocean floor which result in displacement of the water above, not God,.
Believer, you quoted Hebrews 11:7. If one who claims to be a Christian does not believe in the flood are they then saying that God warned Noah to save him from a myth?
ifeelfine, Isaiah 54:9, "For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again;" and yet we still have local floods and even tsunamis today, so was God lying to Isaiah and the nation of Israel?
steveh20 - yes, you are right about the proper use of the word lieing. A more accurate word for what I meant would be 'deceived'.
star, my understanding of a lie is to state something you know to be untrue, so no, he was not lieing. If Jesus was truely man then like us he had limited knowledge, don't attribute things to him that you have no basis for.
ifeelfine, 2 Peter 2:5, "and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly:" Hebrews 11:7, "By faith Noah, being warned of God about things not yet seen, in reverance prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."
Believer and all others, I going to have to admit to being full of pride over this one as I am quite happy to state that there has never been a world wide flood, now world wide glaciation about 700 million years ago is a possibilty and explains much.
Steve
ifeelfine72, Jesus and Peter said that there was a flood.
Jesus speaking:
Luke 17:27 - "They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."
2 Peter 2:5 - "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;"
No flood? Was Jesus lying? Umm... Is He really the Savior of the world?
ifeelfine, 2 Peter 3:5-7, "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." Please note the world was destroyed, but I guess Peter was wrong to.
ifeelfine, so you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no global flood, how can you do that considering you weren't there and the fact that God's Word states in great detail that there was. That is a pretty prideful statement on your part and especially since there is geological data to support the possibility if not probability of a global flood.
steveh20
star2 said: "Archaeological finds and eye witness accounts tells me there was a world wide flood."
Below are two websites that detail the archaelogical/eyewitness accounts of Noah's Ark.
1) Ron Wyatt, a Biblical Archaelogist found Noah's Ark. His webpage gives the details of his finds.
Noah's Ark
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm
2) There have been a large number of eye witness reports of seeing Noah's Ark on the great mountain of Ararat dating back as early as 1856. Go to
Planet Preterist
Thread: Purported Sightings of Noah's Ark
http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=XForum&file=print&fid=3&tid=172%2...
to read about them.
Part 2
An excerpt from Purported findings of Noah's Ark:
5. Russian Aviator and Czar's Expedition
In the days just before the Russian Revolution, a Russian aviator spotted a suspicious-looking structure in one of Ararat's obscure canyons. Russian infantry were sent to investigate on foot and reported a structure sunken on one end in a swamp.
On October 6, 1945, an article appeared in the White Russian publication, Rosseya, about Noah's ark, written by Col. Alexander A. Koor. In a letter to Mr. Eryl Cummings, Col. Koor wrote that in November 1915, he was stationed in the Ararat region, just NW of Great Ararat, during the war between Turkey and Russia, and that Koor had for many years known the family of Rujansky. Lt. Rujansky related to Koor that his brother was a member of the Russian party which found the ark-like structure.
The details of Lt. Rujansky's story as told to Col. Koor and as written by Koor in the publication Rosseya, are these:
"The expedition traversed a `wild and inaccessible area' with snowstorms and falling ice, until at last the ark-like structure loomed before them. It was a ship of huge size, 500 ft. in length, 83 ft. in width, and 50 ft. high (these measurements, using a 20-inch cubit, come close to the measurements given in Gen.6:15). The rear of the ship was in ice, but through the broken hatchways near the front of the boat, the party entered an upper room, a very narrow one with a high ceiling. From here, side by side, stretched rooms of various sizes, small and large. There was also a very large room, separated as if by a great fence of huge trunks of trees, possibly stables for the huge animals. On the walls of the rooms were cages, arranged in lines all the way from the floor to the ceiling, and they had marks of rust from iron rods which were there before. There were very many various rooms, apparently several hundred of them. It was not possible to count them, because the lower rooms, and even a part of the upper ones, were all filled with hard ice. In the middle of the ship was a corridor, overloaded with broken partitions.
The boat was covered on the inside and outside with some kind of dark brown color resembling wax and varnish. The wood was exceptionally well preserved except at the hole in the front of the ship and at the door hole at the side of the ship. The analysis of the wood showed it to be similar to cedar or the larch tree, which are related to the cypress family.
During examination of the surroundings around the lake were found on one of the mountain tops the remains of some burnt wood and a structure put together of stones which resembled an altar. The pieces of wood found around the structure were of the same kind of wood as the ark-like structure."
Of course a young earther or anybody else for that matter can interpret the geological history around here diffrently. However what we understand around here fits in really well with our understanding of the enviromental conditions as recorded in the rocks and also fits into a much bigger picture. You will have to fit a lot into the time scale you are thinking of, its just not there. Also there is as I wrote before no sign of any large flood, this goes for all of the South of England.
Steve
believer: Santa Claus is an excellent example. It was a real guy who's story was changed significantly (and different by culture). I bet Noah really existed, I bet he even built a boat. I can promise you that he did not take two of every kind of animal and keep it on that boat for 6 weeks. I can promise you that there was no worldwide flood that destroyed everything.
GMG: Google ancient chinese history. Recorded history continued right on right after the supposed worldwide flood that killed everyone but Noah and his family.
steveh20, not sure I can but I'll try, if I meet you and somebody told me you were 110 years old, you being bent over and wrinkled like a prune would not surprise me and I would say it was the result of you being 110, but if I found out the person who told me you were 110 was wrong and you looked the same but were only 50 years old then the reason you look that way has to be other than your age because a normal 50 year old is not all bent over and wrinkled like a prune. Wouldn't the same be true if I look at a geological site through the eyes of an old earth proponent as opposed to looking at it through the eyes of a young earth proponent and thus I would interpret the evidence differently as well.
Hi believer,
I can't quite grasp what your getting at, sorry to be a thickie, could you help me out here?
Thanks
steveh20, being a novice in this area I am more considering the evaluation process of the evidence as opposed to the evidence. If I am looking at the evidence based on an old earth perspective would I say that since the earth is billions of years old for there to have been a massive flood in this area it would look like this as opposed to someone who views the evidence from a young earth perspective would say since the earth is only several thousands of years old for this to show evidence of a massive flood it would look like this. And both views would then have a different criteria for what it would look like.
It may be that you would like to elaborate a little further on some of those lines of evidence?
Because you stated what you believed and then went on to explain what had lead you to that conclusion. You went beyond just saying"because the bible says so.." but backed it up with what you believe to be tangiable evidence. Now I don't accept what you say regarding evidence but that does not mean that gives me a right to ignore you, belittle you, try to get one over you etc...
There is nothing wrong with politeness, in England it is the mark of a gentleman or so I am informed.
Steve
<<<Many thanks for your contribution to the debate, I appreciate it.>>>
In what way(s) steveh20?
Star
Many thanks for your contribution to the debate, I appreciate it.
Regards
Steve
steveh20, the Word of God tells me there was a world wide flood. Archaeological finds and eye witness accounts tells me there was a world wide flood. The fossil record tells me there was a world wide flood. The oil and coal reserviors tells me there was a world wide flood.
Hi believer
I think the answer to that will be no, if I have understood your question correctly. The stratigraphic column will be the same who ever does it as it represnts the order of diffrent rocks beneath my feet here, the order does not change what ever the "view" of the person doing it.
I hope thats the correct answer, let me know if I'm going up the wrong path so to speak.
Cheers
Steve
steveh20, would the findings be different if it was based on a young earth perspective as opposed to an old earth perspective, since the global flood of Noah's day is a part of the accounts that include a literal six day creation?
star, believer et al....
There is one easy way to settle the wide world flood matter and thats go and look at the rocks. I can confidently state that looking at the stratigraphic record for where I live there has been no such flood in the last 10,000 years. Certainly it was at the bottom of a shallow lake about 150 Ma with periods of marine trangressions but thats not the same as a flood we can tell that due to the composition of the sorting of the beds and the faunal enviroments. Of course the Alps then started to form about 60 Ma which greatly affected the area and you could say I live in their foothills..
So then, so sign of a flood what so ever.
I guess that sets me at odds with how many chinese?
Steve
believer,
Thank you, hope your Thanksgiving was a good one too.
We are celebrating with the whole family on Saturday so everyone can be there. Tonight we just had salisbury steak (but it was yummy too!!).
Ifeelfine,
Let's follow these posts on the flood for a moment.
Star pointed out that many many peoples have flood stories in their history.
You asserted that their histories continued unabated around these flood stories.
Star asked for specific information regarding your assertations.
You gave a site for reference to back up your assertation in regards to China.
I went to your site and read (surprised?). I then presented information
from your site to refute your assertation that China's recorded history
continued unabated before and after their flood account.
You now want to skip right over your assertation on recorded history, and
squabble over whether the flood stories are a myth?
You think we could deal with the issue of China's recorded history as it
pertains to their flood account first?
Hint: This is your que to say "whoops", guess my assertation does not
apply to China
PS. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving ;-)
ifeelfine72
Do you believe that Noah was an actual person?
If yes, then
Do you believe he was ordered by God to build a boat?
Do you believe that God had it rain 40 days and 40 nights?
Do you believe that before the flood that the whole earth was inhabited by animals and/or humans?
If no, then how far did they extend? What evidence do you have to support your belief?
Do you believe all flesh (human and animal) were wiped out in the flood?
Do you believe that Noah, his wife and sons and their wives were on the boat with Noah?
Do you believe that the earth was repopulated by Noah's three son and their respective wives? Do you believe that the animals on the boat is what God used to repopulate the land animals that were destroyed in the flood?
Do you believe that the flood was local or global?
If local, how far did it extend? What evidence do you have to support your belief?
ifeelfine, the only thing we were trying to show you is that the flood story is a part of many culture's history and needless to say for those of us who realize that the Bible is truly the inerrant Word of God were going to take God's Word for it with regards to the true story of the global flood of Noah's day as well as God's account of Creation as recorded in Genesis.
ifeelfine, so what is your mythical story of creation?
ifeelfine, if the worldwide flood did not happen then why would so many different cultures far away from each other all have a story/myth about it? Plus they don't believe that their culture's story is a myth. And many myths are indeed based on true stories such as the myth of Santa Claus.
GMG: That is a flood myth and not part of actual Chinese history. Every culture has its own flood myths and creation stories - each of them different. Are you suggesting Christians should believe all of them? So instead of 40 days and nights of flooding - we should now believe 22 years, like the Chinese myth?
DAniel Paul: "Let's all take time out to be thankful that most of us live in countries where we can post at a site like this without fear of the government or other religions showing up to arrest and/or kill us."
Yes, I agree we should be thankful that we are still free enough to enjoy expressing our religious belief buts those days will one day come to an end. Christian beliefs are the only beliefs that our government is trying to silence. It has already taken some of those rights away in some venues. How much longer will it be before all our rights are removed because we are considered intolerant, and exculsive because we preach that what God calls sin is sin, and that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God the Father and eternal life?
Let's all take time out to be thankful that most of us live in countries where we can post at a site like this without fear of the government or other religions showing up to arrest and/or kill us.
Our thoughts and prayers are with those who do not have the freedoms we so easily take for granted.
Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Check it out with the good old boys at AIG dp, I'm just running through the mechanics with you as I don't see any evidence in the geological record of a wide world flood so for me no canopy or anything like that ever existed. I'm certain I'm not surprising you when I write that and you apreciate my honesty.
Have a good Thanksgiving.
BW
Steve
"limey name dropper"
We have a fellow from England that works in our local Lowes (home store-building materials, paint, appliances, garden stuff...) who had a name tag made up which said his name was "Limey". It was SO funny to here these southern people come up to him and call him "limey"!!!
"Limey...can you help me down here?"
Ahh, you guys are missing something....
We have moisture in the air now. Water vapor is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. We are all concerned about damaging the ozone layer. In this case I am talking about the Stratospheric ozone layer. Follow me here...
"the ozone layer in the stratosphere over Antarctica was thinning." EPA website.
OK...why there? Nobody is using any measureable ozone killing stuff down there? Why there? Why not over LA? More cold...less humidity in the air...less moisture in the atmosphere=more impact.
I'm not saying it was solid water in the atmosphere. I'm saying the level of humidity was higher...that water condensed and fell to earth as the flood. That vapor did protect us from too much solar radiation and such much like a filter. When it went our world changed in many ways.
Take for example the geodesic dome. Even distribution of heat simply because of the round design. Now...presupposing that the vapor in the stratospher acted the same way our earth would be much different which would explain the tropical plant matter found at one of the poles.
Just food for thought.
GMG, thanks for your willingness to do the research on this issue, hope you and yours are having a blessed and safe Thanksgiving.
I thought his personal presentation was very good, he speaks well and in a very authoratative manner, and one on one he was pleasant and congenial. I do think though that his beard made him (and still does)look like one of those guys Harrison Ford lives with in "Witness".
Steve, I was not thinking that at all. Was he speaking in your town? What did you think about him + his presentation?
Should add that I've met Ken Ham (I know what your thinking, limey name dropper) he came and spoke in the sleeply little Sussex town I call home, a few years ago.
I'll take that as a compliemnt....hmm
:-)
Steve
Steve, you sound just like the scientists at Answers in Genesis.
(I just had to say that!)
they dismissed the water canopy theory some years ago for the same reasons. Who says great minds don't think alike?
DP
I gave it some more thought, that much water would also block out solar radiation from raching the Earths surface, who needs Gods judgement when theres nothing to kill?
Trust me just claim a miracle!
Hi DP
"What would the effect be if a large amount of water which was suspended above the earth (as in the sky) suddenly fell to earth? Enough water, let's say, that the earth could not absorb it all at once and it flooded the entire surface of the earth?"
Well before it fell to Earth it would increase the column pressure of the atmosphere to such that life could not exist, that increse in pressure would also raise the surface temp to such that all life would be killed, in other words, Earth would be like Venus, a hell hole. Also, the gravitational potenetial enrgy being converted to kinetic energy as the canopy fell would scorch the Earth, killing everything. Thats only the start of your problems with that extra biblical theory.
Honestly, you'd be much better of claiming a miracle, trust me on this one.
BW
Steve
The information as listed below from your site would indicate that there were no written records until after their flood account. Which would seem to be in opposition to your statement that ...You better look up the recorded history - China's written history keeps right on going - right through whent there was a supposed worldwide flood. The Chinese certainly didn't mention it.
third try
c. 1766-1050 BC Shang Dynasty
The Shang leaves the earliest evidence of
a writing system as well as the first
historical records
ifeelfine
Sorry, looks like the site left out some of my post. The last part shoud read:
c. 1766-1050 BC Shang Dynasty
• The Shang leaves the earliest evidence of a writing system as well as the first historical records
ifeelfine
>>>star: go back and re-read what I wrote. Notice I said that recorded history continued on - obviously it couldn't if there was a worldwide flood.<<<
According to information from the site you listed:
c. 2205-1766 Hsia (or Xia) Dynasty
Legend says that this dynasty began when a man named Yu drained the waters of the flood (a parallel story to the experiences of Noah). He became the first king of the Hsia Dynasty.
c. 1766-1050 BC Shang Dynasty
• The Shang leaves the earliest evidence of a writing system as well as the first historical records
This would seem to indicate that "recorded" history did not begin until after their account of the flood.
believer: To you and yours as well.
star: go back and re-read what I wrote. Notice I said that recorded history continued on - obviously it couldn't if there was a worldwide flood. Check this link out (it is to a univerity website)
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/timeline.htm
ifeelfine, heading to bed and hope you and your family have a safe and blessed Thanksgiving!
star2, thanks for the back-up and hope you and yours have a blessed and safe Thanksgiving.
ifeelfine72
excerpt taken from
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
"Flood Legends from Around the World
China
The Chinese classic called the Hihking tells about "the family of Fuhi," that was saved from a great flood. This ancient story tells that the entire land was flooded; the mountains and everything, however one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider this man the father of their civilization. This record indicates that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters were the only people that escaped the great flood. It is claimed, that he and his family were the only people alive on earth, and repopulated the world.
ifeelfine72
Yes the Chinese did mention a world wide flood. Do a little research on it and you will see.
excerpt taken from
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html
"Flood Legends from Around the World
"Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such as (CHINA, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions of a giant flood.
These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time."
ifeelfine, I should have said the words were ALL spoken by God as opposed to were spoken, since God did speak directly to some of the writers and they recorded what He said.
ifeelfine, plus inerrancy does not mean that the words written in the Bible were spoken by God since much of what the writers wrote were their own words as superintended by the Holy Spirit to record.
ifeelfine, "Similar flood stories are found all over the world. The Flood story is told by the Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquins and Hawaiians. Also one list of Sumerian kings treats the Flood as a real event," Systematic Theology, Volume One, page 449. Please cite me from other than your personal opinion that because God does not specifically condemn slavery that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God? So you can believe God can bodily resurrect a person specifically Christ from the dead and yet He can't create our universe in a literal six day period?
to steve, ifeelfine and agentorangex
Job 15
2 "Would a wise man answer with empty notions
or fill his belly with the hot east wind?
3 Would he argue with useless words,
with speeches that have no value?
4 But you even undermine piety
and hinder devotion to God.
5 Your sin prompts your mouth;
you adopt the tongue of the crafty.
6 Your own mouth condemns you, not mine;
your own lips testify against you.
7 "Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills?
8 Do you listen in on God's council?
Do you limit wisdom to yourself?
9 What do you know that we do not know?
What insights do you have that we do not have?
10 The gray-haired and the aged are on our side,
men even older than your father.
11 Are God's consolations not enough for you,
words spoken gently to you?
12 Why has your heart carried you away,
and why do your eyes flash,
13 so that you vent your rage against God
and pour out such words from your mouth?
14 "What is man, that he could be pure,
or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?
believer: I believe in the physical reserrection of Christ - I believe the tomb was empty. What does that have to do with evolution? Absolutely nothing.
If the Bible was literally the Words God spoke, then yes, it would absolutely speak out against slavery. Otherwise God must not have had much of a problem with it. Or are you telling me that one of the most evil plagues in the history of our world is really not that bad?
You better look up the recorded history - China's written history keeps right on going - right through whent there was a supposed worldwide flood. The Chinese certainly didn't mention it.
ifeelfine, do you or do you not believe in the "bodily" Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
ifeelfine, the Bible being literally the Word of God does not change simply because God does not specifically speak out against slavery.
ifeelfine, then why do many civilizations have a flood story in various parts of the world? And when does sin and the negative consequences of it enter our world? And was God lying when He looked out over all He had created and saw it was ALL very good, if we say evolution, be it theistic or otherwise, death and destruction would have had already occured when He said that? Plus you make the assumption history was being recorded at the time of Noah and I'm not sure that is correct.
Tom: Some scripture seems to encourage slavery - if it was bad, why would scripture tell you how you are to treat your slaves. If the Bible was literally the Word of God, it would in no uncertain terms make it very clear that slavery is an evil, evil thing. Lucky for me, I don't take it literally and have no such reservations or mental gymnastics to perform to sleep at night with my faith.
believer: None of those things had to literally, physically happen for the Word of God to be true - as a matter of fact, there couldn't have been a worldwide flood because if there were, recorded history in other parts of the world would have ceased and they didn't.
Perhaps shrinkage is a bad word for this application.
"Oceans open and close, mountains chains rise and are eroded away."
What would the effect be if a large amount of water which was suspended above the earth (as in the sky) suddenly fell to earth? Enough water, let's say, that the earth could not absorb it all at once and it flooded the entire surface of the earth?
DP
Re read what you have written. The reason there are seas is because oceanic crust(formed at mid ocean ridges) is heavier and floats lower in the mantle so water flows into the lower oceanic crust, where as continental crust is lighter and due to isoatasy, "floats" higher in the mantle, the mountains being formed when plates of continental/continental crust or continental/oceanic crust converge, this (rock density) is what gives the Earth its bi model profile. Nothing to do with shrinkage etc...Oceans open and close, mountains chains rise and are eroded away.
Steve
Okay Tom get back to me when you have a "Christian" (or at least what you term Christian)view on the diffrent orogenies that have occured during the past say 3 billion years especially the Bacadillion(2900Ga)Knoydart(850 Ma)Calodonian (380Ma). Your very kind but I'm not an expert as such just someone who has put in lots of study time, done the field work, and sat the exams, including with geologists whom I look up to and are Christians, shock horror!
DP
Sorry but you've completly lost me on the point your trying to make, my fault I'm sure.
Steve
ifeelfine, but do you believe in the "bodily" Resurrection of Christ?
"The Atlantic and Pacific (as we understand it today) did not exist when Pangea the last Supercontinent formed so to speak of such locations"
This is the basis of the point I'm making. One must first understand the proportions of change. If you took a cue ball (the white one from a pool table) and made it the size of the Earth, the tallest mountains would be much higher and the depths of the sea would be much deeper. In short, it doesn't take much change in the surface to bring dramatic changes to our typography.
With that in mind the concept is known as the canopy theory. The Bible speaks of the waters below and the waters above. It's a model like Venus except with water. The flood was a result of the waters above falling. Just like flooding today, the earth could not absorb all that water at once…so it sat on the surface. Eventually it was absorbed but like a sponge it expanded causing the plate shift we know today. It 'expanded' Pangea ripping it apart into the continents we know today.
It sounds like a massive world impact but if you keep in mind the cue ball it really isn't much of an effect. In fact, it wouldn't have effected the diameter of the earth that much at all but it would have spread the land masses about quite a bit.
steveO did I strike a nerve here? My Christian world view which is based on the Scriptures that we call the Bible starts with the creation of all we know in a six day period of time. That's were it starts. So with out being an expert as you seem to be, one who has my world view starts with that fact or maybe assumption as you would say and works from there. Do I have an answer for you to chew on nope, have others thought about mountain building and the why's and how's yep i can do a bit of research and see if i can get you an answer but I think it is suffice to say that for those with a Biblical Christian world view that the foundation starts at God created the world in 6 days.
Feelfine does Scripture encourage slavery or does it acknowledge it as a fact of life in which man in a fallen world has create slavery to subject others to do their will? I don't question your believe based just on you view of evolution but in all that you have written in these numerous posts that are in direct opposition to what Scripture clearly says.
Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
ifeelfine, with the literal six day creation we have God's perfect creation and a world free of death and destruction, we have man in a perfect relationship with God and God's perfect design for marriage and family is set into play. God wanted us to freely love and fellowship with Him and so He created us with a free-will and unfortunately Adam and Eve gave into the temptation that Satan set before them and sin entered into the world. As a result so did death and destruction and God had to put into play a plan that would allow us to have the original fellowship He created us for in the first place by allowing His only Son to come to earth and die for our sins. As far as the Global Flood of Noah's day not only is it a picture of Christ being the only way of salvation it also explains many of the questions of the appearance that the earth is much older than what it really is. It answers many of the geological and even biological issues that are raised in the age of the earth discussion. Whereas your view leaves many questions unanswered such as when does sin enter the human race and when do death and destruction enter our world and other issues of great importance to the Christian faith.
Cut to the chase Tom , whats the "Christian" world view of mountain building, one that differs from my world view (as you put it) come on, give us an answer....
Tom: Why does my understanding of evolution make my Christianity suspect? The slavery question actually hasn't been answered any better than the evolution question. What makes you think that mans understanding won't change again to accept evolution like it did to accept the abolishment of slavery? Nothing in the Bible dispells slavery - it only encourages it.
SteveO slander heavens why would you think I slandered you? feelfine better then you? I am better then no one cept I have surrendered to Him and His commandments and am forgiven--and dont use the slavery arguement that you always try to use, you have recieved answers from others about that arguement and it is a bit like beating a dead horse. Remember even the demons believe and tremble. Yet their fate is settled. Have you surrendered your life to Him----Remember you are to love the Lord God with all your Heart/soul/mind/strength. Jesus said you are His friends if IF you follow His commands. Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
believer: I do believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
star: believer was asking the same question I had answered a bunch of times and was equating two distinct biological processes which I already addressed - sorry if my frustration is coming out but you're (and believer) are believing what you want rather than what actually is.
believer: When are you going to answer my questions? What makes the Noachian flood, major doctrine? What makes literal 6 day creation integral to Christianity? Is Christianity any less beautiful because of it?
ifeelfine, did you not read my post because that is exactly what I said and that at the time those passages were written they didn't know about refection and they called it what they thought it looked like, chewing the cud. But once again what's your point as this has no impact whatsoever on the major teachings and doctrines of the Bible? You really need to stop reading the writings of atheists and start reading some solid books on the Bible such as "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" so you can get a better grasp on what inerrancy is all about so you won't keep wasting your time looking for these nit noid little issues that have no impact on the inerrancy of the Word of God whatsoever.
ifeelfine, so does that mean you don't believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
"Kissing the lips of fools"....please no serious petting!
ifeelfine72 - Your communications with believer is ungodly. You talk like agentorange, a product of you kissing the lips of fools.
Keep it up ifeelfine72 and you will end up becoming an atheist/agnostic/non-believer.
Tom: I figured your answer would somehow include that you are "better" than me because you understand Christ's love differently than i do or that I haven't surrendered my life to Christ like you have - hogwash. I am a Christian, Christ died for my sins, end of story.
Tom, do you believe slavery is ok?
steveh20
<<<I'm waiting to hear about the harsh enviroment you wrote about>>>
I made the statement:
"Even if life could begin, it would be killed off before it developed because of the harsh environment it finds itself in."
The conditions would involve heat and chemical composition of the earth and the atmosphere. This is what I thought at the time I made the statement in March 2008.
believer: In any case, that is not "chewing cud" - cud chewers are remnants like cows. Rabbits are not cud chewers - they are eating their own excrement for additional nourishment which is an entirely different biological process than reguritating your food and chewing it. Look it up.
believer: I've answered your question a bunch of times - pay attention now, there are a lot of different ways to tell the truth. Get that? There are a lot of different ways to tell the truth. Now go find a different strawman to burn.
Cripes Tom, you'd think writing such untrue things about me that I had written something to annoy you.
I forgive you for the slanders.
Anyway, moving on from the personal sleights, I'm intrigued, maybe you could explain to me what a "Christian" world view of mountain building would be?
Keep well
Steve
But you see feelfine that is the difference between you and I while I will always look at the evidence I look at it thru the Christian world view, not always understanding the why's or how's but trusting that He has the answers. You say that you have a strong sense of the Christian faith which is good but it also means you have not surrendered your life to this Jesus which I as well as millions of others have. And for the vast majority of us it is because the overall evidence for a Creator God and His Risen Son is so overwhelming that to reject Him is contrary to the evidence that can be presented. So it is not a blind eye as you say but from a world view that is proven to be true.
Steve----As I said you look at the evidence from a world view that says there is no God or at least there is no active God. So the evidence you present is from a view point that seeks an answer from nature,(which can be considered your god). Instead of pursuing an answer as to why things appear as they do from a Christian perspective you seek answers from the wisdom of man. That is the difference. There are answer that have been and are presented by learned men and women like yourself, but who pursue answers from a Christian world view and come up with valid answers as well. Thus that is why I say you have fallen for a lie, meaning a world view.
Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
Hi mathetes
Good to hear from you mate first the important bit, the football (thats bound to get me a thumbs down, you know what a sense of humour some around here have). Can't say I've heard of the place, hmm not sure about ladies playing football, i never looks quite right to me, just how unreconstructed am I!
Yep, know RATE, if I understand correctly they originate from AIG and ICR. Rather then get into a to and fro debate I think the kindest thing I can say is that if RATE did not exist then those organisations would have to invent it. I lump RATE in with Russel Humpreys (who is part of it I beleieve) and his time dilation solution to explain the starlight ditance problem (well not a problem for me anyway but for some...)
Keep well
Steve
Hi DP
Have not heard of the discussion you refer to but your question raises two points with me.
1.Which super continenet are you refering to?
2. The Atlantic and and Pacific (as we understand it today) did not exist when Pangea the last Supercontinent formed so to speak of such locations heas no meaning as such. I would point out though that the Tethys sea which was formed as a result of Pangea is now just the Medditeranian which means its location can be known and is not in doubt ,go to google images and look up Pangea to gauge its orientation etc...
BW
Steve
Jester
No, kind regards means just that, even to those who disagree with me.
Kind regards :-)
Steve
agent, the rabbit thing was a response to a feeble attempt by ifeelfine to negate the inerrancy of the Word of God.
agent, why do I sense we've been down this road before, because we have and nothing has changed most importantly God has not changed nor has His truths with regards to creation as we know it, but what also hasn't changed is His love for you that allowed Him to send His only Son to pay a price for you that only He could pay and He lovingly and voluntarily went to the Cross and died for all your sins past, present, and future so that you could have the opportunity to become a child of God if you would turn from your sins and turn to God by admitting that you are a sinner, as we all are, and you want to stop sinning and receive God's forgiveness for your sins by putting your complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ and that opportunity will never cease until you breath your last breath.
"hares practice refection it passes certain droppings and eats them, thus the hare appears to be chewing without taking fresh greens in its mouth. On its first passage through the gut, indigestible vegetable matter is acted upon by bacteria and can be better assimilated the second time through which is almost the same principle involved in chewing the cud."
Right, the rabbit eats the foliage first, then partially/quasi digests it, poops it out, then (at least sometimes) proceeds to eat the droppings to reabsorb the nutrients from the aforementioned dropping. It's INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED!
beleiver, "agent, you say that when we don't have an answer we cop-out by using God as the reason, but in reality that's the truth."
Some times, though generally you only opt for the 'God card' when such illogical claims are made, it's the only way of attempting to make sense of such things and still give the illusion that it's still valid. It's more or less like believing in magic. All hand waving, no verifiability.
"There is no way humanly possible to explain a literal six day creation without seeing God as the Creator"
There is no way to explain a 6 day creation period, creator or not, the evidence simply doesn't support it. Appealing to God/supernaturalism is a big cop out, it explains nothing and simply defers the ignorance to the next level. 'God did it' is thus becomes a 'get out of jail free card' and provides no verisimilitude of knowledge, that is why I care. No matter how profoundly illogical and absurd, 'god dun it' explains it away, and when it comes to science, this is not how it's done.
"and just because we can not explain it as DP says does not mean it did not happen as recorded in the Bible."
With no evidence backing it in the here in now, it doesn't support that it did occur that way either. Again, open to interpretation. Not explaining it means not having any answers, again hand waving.
"As I shared several months ago we can't prove love,"
We can't philosophically y prove most things, but that doesn't mean we can find and use supportive evidence to form conclusions about nature. I tried to emphasize that scientific studies can be done to demonstrate chemical and neural responses in the brain in response to visual, audio, stimuli. It's not much different than a lie detector test.
And the greatest act of love was when God allowed His Son to go all the way to the Cross and Christ voluntarily went all the way to the Cross and died for the sins of all mankind and He didn't have to and could have easily walked away, but thankfully He didn't."
If he's sent as a Lamb from the get go then no, he had no choice, Jesus being God and omnipotent would after all know such acts were required ahead of time, that is what omnipotent and omniscient means. Another pickle for you.
"But which is easier to believe that God could create the universe in six literal days or that He would allow His Son to die for our sins."
From my view, neither. It's the same response you'd give to a Muslim as they ask why you don't believe Muhammad rode a winged horse up to heave. Different religion, same level of affinity for religion, same difference.
"Considering God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever present I personally believe that the latter was far more difficult than the earlier."
If he is God in human form then he already knows (knew) what will/would occur regardless, so it's not like there was any 'free will' element in it. He was sent as a lamb.
ifeelfine, so now you're smarter than the writers of the Zondervan Pictorial Encylopedia of the Bible, plus I have shared with you at numerous times as have others with regard to the importance of the Genesis account of Creation to the Cross of Christ so I'm not going to again. Plus, as I've asked you before and you've never answered if the accounts in Genesis are nothing but myths and allegories then when does God finally start telling the truth? You reject the Creation account, the Global Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, more than likely Jonah in the belly of the fish, and yet you claim to accept the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or maybe you don't?
believer: Does the allegorical nature of those stories make Christianity any less beautiful?
believer: I thought you would say something like that - again biologically, you got it all wrong.
Why are literal 6 day creation stories and literal Noachian flood stories important to the revelation of Jesus? IE, why are they major doctrinal issues?
ifeelfine, but once again what does this have to do with any major doctrine or teaching found in the Word of God? It's amazing the trivial matters you can find to defend your rejection of major biblical doctrines such as the Genesis accounts of a literal six day Creation and the Global Flood of Noah's time.
ifeeelfine, hares practice refection it passes certain droppings and eats them, thus the hare appears to be chewing without taking fresh greens in its mouth. On its first passage through the gut, indigestible vegetable matter is acted upon by bacteria and can be better assimilated the second time through which is almost the same principle involved in chewing the cud. This process was not known of in biblical time but cud chewing was thus they referred to the process as chewing the cud. Most of this post is information from the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia.
believer: check out Leviticus 11:6 . . . and no, rabbits don't actually "chew their cud" - its just another biological fact for you to gloss over or brush under the rug.
Tom said: "feelfine His word never changes mans attempt to change it and twists its meaning to fit what they want to believe, such as you seem to do from the post i have read of yours is what changes."
And are you saying that you don't? Are you saying that you and only you have all the answers? I have a strong sense of Christian faith but am at least willing to look at the evidence and not turn a blind eye to it.
Have a happy and blessed Thanksgiving as well! :)
ifeelfine, it's not my worldview but a biblical worldview that I adhere to which says that God is involved in every area of our lives and world to include the scientific arena.
ifeelfine, since evolution is not a biblical teaching or doctrine your question makes no sense and where in the world did the issue of rabbits chewing their cuds come from?
believer: When AO is asking you a question, I've never seen it be a "God thing" it is almost always a "science thing." You make God a God of the gaps and that does nothing for any of us - I wish you could see beyond your worldview to see that.
believer: Do you see how the Biblical interpretation of this subject (evolution) might change? . . . Do Christians really believe rabbits chew their cud? Do you?
"who cannot grasp just how old the Earth is,"
A close examination of Genesis shows there is "in the beginning" and once there was light there was the first morning. My point? Just because the raw material quite old doesn't make the product that old.
A painter creates a painting in 6 days doesn't mean the canvas is 6 days old. Genesis 1 discribes a blank canvas "without form and void".
Am I correct there are different schools of thought concerning the 'super continent' that one says it comes together on the Atlantic side and one that says it comes together on the Pacific side? What if it does both, the Earth was smaller and the great flood caused it to expand ripping at what is now called plates?
"Kind regards..."
lol. i understand that steve is from england, where that means "in your face!"
Tom
Many thanks for your comments. I'm sorry that you feel accepting clear geological evidence, for example of a number of episodes of moutain building (and subsequent erosion) over the last 2 billion years is accepting a lie.
Kind regards
Steve
agent, you say that when we don't have an answer we cop-out by using God as the reason, but in reality that's the truth. There is no way humanly possible to explain a literal six day creation without seeing God as the Creator and just because we can not explain it as DP says does not mean it did not happen as recorded in the Bible. As I shared several months ago we can't prove love, but yet we believe it and we see expressions of it all around us and most especially as we approach the Christmas Season and I'm not talking simply about eros love, but phileo and agape love. And the greatest act of love was when God allowed His Son to go all the way to the Cross and Christ voluntarily went all the way to the Cross and died for the sins of all mankind and He didn't have to and could have easily walked away, but thankfully He didn't. But which is easier to believe that God could create the universe in six literal days or that He would allow His Son to die for our sins. Considering God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever present I personally believe that the latter was far more difficult than the earlier.
steve wrong veil check out 2nd Corithians 3:14-4:6
Gods blessing
In Christ
Tom
feelfine His word never changes mans attempt to change it and twists its meaning to fit what they want to believe, such as you seem to do from the post i have read of yours is what changes. Hope your Thanksgiving is grand
Gods Blessing
In Christ
Tom
Sorry Steve to hear you have forsaken the truth and fallen for the lie. I was kind of on the other side of the fence. And when I realized that there is God and that He did send His Son to die for me. I then looked at the evidence for this Christian world view and it is over whelming. I came to believe with out a doubt that it is true. Sure there are question marks and people who are deceivers out there that cause His name to be mock but the evidence is there and it is in abundance if one cares to look. Since to me and millions of other who believe His word has proven to be true over and over again and for me to believe in such a rather small thing as that He God created the world in 6 days isnt to hard based on how His word has been shown to be true over and over again. Anyway I hope one day that you follow the long and winding road back to the the straight and narrow path that leads to ever lasting life. Well be praying for ya.
Gods Blessing
in Christ
Tom
"The absence of evidence is evidence of absence., at least to an extent anyway. "
I don't believe it is evidence that we lack. I believe it is understanding that we lack.
Steve, thanks for being candid. I know you understand geology better than I do + stay up with research in it. Are you familiar with the RATE project? I'd be interested in your take on its research + findings.
Thanks.
PS: Know anything about Normanton? One of our best soccer ladies is from there.
I should add for good measure that I too argued against such things once.
Hello believer, hope your well.
In the same spirit there are those, not trained in the science of geology(for example) who cannot grasp just how old the Earth is, or just, how many mountain ranges have come and gone, or how the continents have traversed the planet over billions of years, or how rocks buried at 40km below the surface have been revealed as erosion has occurred over immense timescales. This problem will not go away no matter how many scriptures are thrown at it or men involve themselves in converluted arguements.
Keep well
Steve
"Just because we do not understand how God created the Earth in 6 days doesn't keep it from being true."
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence., at least to an extent anyway.
""My objection is the 'literalism over allegorical meaning' on such creation and flood narratives is moot in relation to say the overall meaning of the Sermon on the Mount."
Illusion is about making people see what you want them to see and keep them from seeing what you don't want them to see. This still doesn't change the laws of physics. So...what's my point? Just because we do not understand how God created the Earth in 6 days doesn't keep it from being true.
Quite often that whole "that's impossible" is simply our lack of understanding.
Also, one good point science fiction writers make is that more primative cultures discribe things they don't understand based on their own references. The writer of Revelations wrote about many things in terms he understood but were not accurate. Many times God used the 'privative' nature of those He wrote through to His advantage. After all, a bird with fire in it's belly is quite a good discription of an F-18....
believer, that is fine, my objection isn't that it can't be read or understood, or attempted to be. My objection is the 'literalism over allegorical meaning' on such creation and flood narratives is moot in relation to say the overall meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. People of your literalistic persuasion erect this false dichotomy, of 'this or nothing' and in this case it's either 'particular parts (only of your choosing, fancy that logic) are literal or it's myth'. But this is a false dichotomy. But why can't such parts be allegorical?
You bring up the strawman that if one doesn't take them literally, then they must be myths, but this isn't true, I am only advocating that they be interpreted more symbolically and metaphorically or allegorical in nature then as simply literalism.
The only reason you invoke the 'holly spirit' is b/c you know such parts are utter tosh and nonsense from a logical view point, or any other religious viewpoint so the only way to remotely make sense of them is to put the 'biblical glasses' on and pretend fitting all the words species on a boat is possible. It's called, disillusion. The same illogical thinking employed by Muslims in how they really think Mohamed rode a winged horse up to heaven.
The same condition applies for if you interpret it from a literalism view, from what page and section does the literalism end and then pick up again, and how to know. The door swings both ways here, so to be utterly dogmatic is asinine.
agent, and while not trying to sound arrogant there are some things taught in the Word of God that a non-believer simply can not grasp because God's Holy Spirit has not indwelt them and there are some believers who don't get it because they are not willing to be surrendered to the control of God's Holy Spirit. And while I see you as a very intelligent individual there are times I feel you can't grasp where some of us are coming from in our defense of certain issues. Plus there are times when we can't from a human perspective scientifically or even logically answer you because the issue and answer is indeed a God thing and I know you tend to see that as a cop-out but none the less it isn't because indeed it is a God-thing that our finite human minds cannot grasp.
agent, when a person becomes a true believer the Holy Spirit immediately indwells that person and as much as the believer allows Him illumines his heart and mind regarding the understanding of God's Word and yet at the same time there will be areas we can't clearly interpret with 100% accuracy simply because we're not God and there are some issues that are indeed gray. I had a Pastor who very wisely taught that there are some doctrines taught in God's Word that we must plant our feet in concrete and then there are some doctrines we dare not plant our feet in concrete. We as Christians need to allow God's Holy Spirit to show us when to plant and when not to plant. I also had a professor in college who shared that God's Word says what it means and means what it says, but doesn't always say what it means or mean what it says and once again the Holy Spirit will show us the difference if we let Him. To me personally the Creation account and Global Flood account are two of those issues that I believe we must plant our feet in concrete because they are paramount to our need of salvation and God's plan of salvation through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ.
believer, but don't you see, how comical is it that of all the most supposedly important things in life, the one thing religions use in revelation requires gross interpretation and therefore no 2 readers will ever interpret it identically. Sorta as follows...
God: God here, just wanted to air out some laws, rules and what not. But b/c I am not writing it directly and instead some men are for me, some of it will be easily read and direct, other parts will be ambitious and unintelligible, other parts will be esoteric, have fun interpretating which is which, but just don't kill each other over it!
Humanity: Cool, thanks!
This is why so many sects exist.
ifeelfine, also what Tom said was God nor His Word ever changes which is 110% correct, how people interpret God's Word may change but their interpretation whether right or wrong does not change God's Word.
ifeelfine, yes, but the Creation and Global Flood are not one of them found in the Word of God. Plus, mathetes did not say if a person does not reject evolution they can't be a Christian and in fact if you'll go back and read his post you'll see that.
monty python rocks!
what do texans know about evolution anyway? they're just a bunch of cow herding rednecks.
Tom: Never changes? Right, except in the case of slavery, womens rights and a whole slew of other things (Victorian era customs).
Mathetes: So you are saying that you cannot be a Christian without rejecting evolution . . . what other litmus test is there for Christianity, in your mind?
Believer: There are many ways to tell the truth, allegory included.
Hi Tom
Its not reallly a matter of lifting the veil(though I don't need to do that as the curtain has been wrent from top to bottom)but much more a matter of viewing the evidence,none of this changes though as to whether God exists or not.
Take what I'm studying at the moment, the rocks of Scotland. It is obvious from looking at the metamorphasied Lewesian gneiss overlain by the Torredian sandstones that immense periods of time have passed. Try as one might like to "believe" a particular interpretation of the bible the Earth is very very old.
I once did this, it made me very ill, I only got better when I followed the path the evidence pointed to.
Regards
Steve
believer/Daniel Paul/Mathetes/aobasoro as well as Jester and other that hold to the truth of Gods word I commend you all for fighting the good fight. It seems that for some who say they are believers and dont hold to the truth of scripture I feel sorry for them. Scripture does say that God will confound the wisdom of the wise and He does and will. That is why evolution believers need to change there theory so often and we who believe in this Creator God dont have to because He never changes. Him or His word never changes. Hopefully for ones like ifeelfine and steven20 and the intellectual agentorangex that the veil will one day be lifted and they will get a glimpse of the majesty and wonder of a Creator who loves us and died for us. Keep it up and may God Bless you have a great Thanksgiving we have a lot to be thankful for even today. In Christ Tom
Thanks dp and yes, good point about the pie tin, I used to be a baker, that should have been obvious to me!
Jester, I'm just joshing with dp, its a thing we do with each other,I understand you did not realise this, so no hard feelings on my part. I blame my parents, they used to let me stay up late to watch Monty Pythons Flying Circus, it was there that I learnt that, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition with its comfty cushions.......
BW
Steve
Now, now ... jester in the Kings court...play nice....
I believe steve suffers from the same issue that I have...odd humor.... I think it's a commonwealth thing....
If pi r square then why isn't there a square pie tin?
Job 15
Eliphaz
1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite replied:
2 "Would a wise man answer with empty notions
or fill his belly with the hot east wind?
3 Would he argue with useless words,
with speeches that have no value?
4 But you even undermine piety
and hinder devotion to God.
5 Your sin prompts your mouth;
you adopt the tongue of the crafty.
6 Your own mouth condemns you, not mine;
your own lips testify against you.
7 "Are you the first man ever born?
Were you brought forth before the hills?
8 Do you listen in on God's council?
Do you limit wisdom to yourself?
9 What do you know that we do not know?
What insights do you have that we do not have?
10 The gray-haired and the aged are on our side,
men even older than your father.
11 Are God's consolations not enough for you,
words spoken gently to you?
12 Why has your heart carried you away,
and why do your eyes flash,
13 so that you vent your rage against God
and pour out such words from your mouth?
14 "What is man, that he could be pure,
or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?
wow stevie. what a witty saying. considering it doesn't mean a darn thing, but it sure makes you sound like such a (t)wit.
ifeelfine, too many Christians just take things for granted and many have never studied Creationism and do not see how rejecting the truths taught in Genesis basically negates all other truth taught in the Word of God. Christians who thoughtfully believe in evolution have one thing in common they do not believe that the Bible in it's orginal manuscripts is the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God, literally God's Word. Plus as I and others have said time and time again, if the various accounts in Genesis and other books of the Bible such as the Creation account and the global flood of Noah's day are nothing but myths and stories then when does God finally start telling the truth?
Not all circles have the same radii.
;-p
"Most Christians accept evolution. "
Wow! You don't travel in my circles that's for sure!!!
ifeelfine,
RE: "Well then I guess you're in an exclusive club because there are lots of Christians that have no problems with evolution - are you saying they cannot be Christians unless they reject evolution?"
Since Star appears busy at the moment, let me comment till she returns.
1. Star is in an exclusive group: those who accept by faith that Jesus died for their sins and have received forgiveness based on that sacrifice. The group is open to all, but you must RSVP. She is also counted among those followers of Jesus who give higher priority to what God says than what man says.
2. Many claim to be members of both groups, but they only do lipservice to the membership covenant. They claim to be followers of Jesus, but do not take Him at His word or live by those words. Jesus believed in a literal Adam, and He should know since He was there (John 1:1-14).
3. Many Christians do accept evolution; in fact, it may be a majority of people who call themselves Christians. But numerical superiority does not equal truth, nor does it mean victory when the minority aligns itself with God.
4. Can a true Christian believe in evolution? Yes, though such a person must chip away at God's Word, calling Genesis 1-11 "myths" or "allegories" and not accepting it as it was inspired and written. The plain understanding of Genesis 1, as understood by Hebrews scholars like Gleason Archer, conflicts with the accepted story of the beginning of the solar system and life as we know it. They cannot both be right as written. If you would like examples, let me know.
Ifeelfine72, "but all of the evidence points to evolution to explain the diversity of life on our planet"
I would also add that the evidence found and tested allows for further predictions which are later upheld by more testing and further evidence. IE the discovery of DNA could have literally destroyed evolutionary theory as it was already implied that somehow via heredity traits could be mutable and passed on, they at the time simply lacked a material which would transfer such changes. There was good evidence changes were occurring from generation to generation, but the understanding and material based process of DNA was a big question as to how and why and with its discovery everything we knew about evolution could have been refuted.
If DNA, as the material of heredity, was shown to not allow for this, or didn't support it on the scale required for evolution to occur, evolutionary theory wouldn't have lasted. But it does and it has, and further research (ERV for example) have only further supported the theory, reaffirming the earlier predictions and evidence. To put it to an analogy for layman, it would be like finding consistent DNA evidence for a particular suspect of a crime of which all of the other evidence already consistently points to them and only them as the sole suspect.
In a sense, there is great elegance and beauty in this concept, for it explains not only how, why life diversifies, but it also demonstrates a sort of shall we
say Omnipotent wisdom in how regardless of all the things life has undergone and dealt with in numerous mass extinction events and the like, it like a Timex watch is still ticking and going on.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
-Charles Darwin (Origin Of Species)
Star,
Let me recap again, so as to avoid going off on a unrelated tangent and not addressing the topic, and original question you posted first.
The question posed to you is as follows. Do you have any objections to the following evolutionary processes?
Natural selection, genetic mutations, genetic drifting, genetic isolation, speciation (all 4 types), symbiogenesis, endosymbiotic sythensis. Keep in mind this is but a short list, there are many more that can referred to, but this is contigent on crawling first.
"Most Christians if not all that accept evolution are liberal believers at best."
In other words, they've perhaps read into just a tad, ya think? After all, if there wasn't any substantial evidence to conclude otherwise, they would think otherwise. If my 'liberal' you mean 'open minded' to the possibility based on consistent tested evidence, then yes.
"Catholics and Orthodox and some Protestant sects are not even born-again Christians with their anti-biblical doctrines of salvation,"
How long must this go on, really? Christianity has been splitting itself into various sects since its very inception, and frankly you personally decrying them to be wrong, simply for you own theological reasoning based on interpretation is asinine.
"I care not what man says about the origins of the heavens and the earth. The only account that matters is God's account in the Word of God."
And just WHO do you think penned, translated, edited, revised, and enhanced the bible itself? Yes, humanity. Inspired perhaps, but honey it was penned by men.
"I have made the distinct between abiogenesis and evolution with you and others on several articles. Below is an example of one such discussion."
It's not a distinction in your own words though star, you mention this as follow:
"It is foolish to even discuss how life developed (evolution) if it can't even get started to begin with (abiogenesis)."
They are separate, and not currently knowing the origins of one doesn't negate the studying of the other. Just like how we don't know how, where, why exactly Gravity originated from, we can still study its effects and processes in nature. Same difference with reference to the evolution of life.
"Either you don't understand what I write, or if you do understand, you ignore it so you can try to make me look bad in front of people who either never read the dialog betweenn us or don't remember it if they did."
Star, you've yet to explain A SINGLE objection to any of the evolutionary process as formentioned earlier which imply and support the evolution of life, in this you make your self look bad, you don't need my help there. I'll list some again to refresh: Natural selection, mutations, genetic drifting, genetic isolation, speciation (all 4 types), symbiogenesis, endosymbiotic sythensis. These are MORE than enough to get a basic understanding of the principles and processes involved which explain the evolutionary history, if you object to them, now's the time to explain.
"Your whole evolution process depends on life having got started in a certain state. If you can't answer what state it started out in and prove it"
That certain state as far as evidence can show is akin to the 'blue green algae', commonly known as Cynobacteria, which you'll note IS NOT a Eukaryotic cell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote
"Let us look at the odds of one protein molecule being created by chance."
Oh dear, somehow the concept of 'chemical bonding' has once again flown over the head of star. Details my dear, they matter. With chemical bonding it wouldn't be acting in accordance with pure 'chance' as the bonding predetermines how particular chemicals must behave given the environmental conditions, for example why oil and water don't mix well. The chemical bonding results in this, just as it results in the spontaneous formation of amino acids, and self replicating polymers.
Again, this is a 'origin of life' type question, and not related to evolutionary processes. Nice bane attempt.
"As complex as a single cell is, the odds that it can happen by chance is so astronomically small that the chance of that happening is zero."
Another strawman, star no scientists believe the current eukaryotic cells were the fist ones to be around, as per this is what the evidence suggests. The first cells were of the lesser complex variety (proeukaryotic), so you're strawman of a complex eukaryotic cell being required just died right there. Besides, didn't you even bother to read up on Endosymbiotic sythensis, this would have explained how the evolution to the complex eukaryotic cells occurred, but oh well you relish in strawmen. Besides, where do you even get your figures from, you cited nothing to back any of your math so they're entirely arbitrary numbers you're pulling from thin air.
"Even if life could begin, it would be killed off before it developed because of the harsh environment it finds itself in."
Not true star, today 'extremophiles' live in conditions which are utterly hostile to virtually all other organisms, they've been found in extremely cold, hot and hostile atmospheric and pressurized conditions that most life can't live in. They're microbial and the life there THRIVES in such conditions. For an example of this, refer to 'Tardigrade' or 'sulfar snots'. Ever been to Yellow Stone National park and noticed those toxic pools? Yup, organisms thrive in those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Bacteria-Snots-Form-Caves-42720.shtml
"It takes pure faith to believe that life got started by the means that abiogenesis scientists suggest because it is mathematically impossible for it to do so."
Yup, respond to why these are not sufficient models then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc
aobasoro - "Test all things and hold fast to that which is true."
Star: Well then I guess you're in an exclusive club because there are lots of Christians that have no problems with evolution - are you saying they cannot be Christians unless they reject evolution?
someone actually forgot the scripture that says LET GOD BE TRUE AND LET EVERY MEN BE A LIAR.human theoriesb are at best theories of men and they never last.the truth will always out run and overtake a lie evevn if the lie has existed for a million years.
Star
I'm waiting to hear about the harsh enviroment you wrote about
Thanks
Steve
Your worldview ifeelfine72 is that of a non-believer/atheist/agnostic and as a born-again Christian that is nothing to be proud of.
star: It is you who calls God a liar. Not some, but all of the evidence points to evolution to explain the diversity of life on our planet. You refuse to even look at the evidence for fear that it will ruin your worldview.
Hello Star
"Even if life could begin, it would be killed off before it developed because of the harsh environment it finds itself in."
Hope you are well, re what you wrote above. What harsh enviroments are you actually referring to, the early earh would have had at least one enviroment that would have protected life,and there would have been an abundance of chemicals and energy at it, in fact the phylogenectic tree points directly at just such one.
bw
Steve
agentorange
<<<"when are you going to stop calling God a liar?"
Again, anything....anything at all but even attempt to explain your objections. Integrity takes another holiday. If you need time to review, cool, but don't conflate the issue by moving the topic continually, it's disingenuous.>>>
My question was to ifeelfine72 not you and it was in regard to his cliams to being a born-again Christian. This is a Christian family (spiritual) matter that outsiders like you have no part in.
<<<Most Christians accept evolution. Catholics and Orthodox and some Protestant sects accept it, only a small branch of fundamentalists backwards folk like yourself doubt or reject it and other sciences.>>>
Most Christians if not all that accept evolution are liberal believers at best. Catholics and Orthodox and some Protestant sects are not even born-again Christians with their anti-biblical doctrines of salvation, so for them to believe in evolution says nothing. They are the outsiders not me and those who hold to the truths of God's Word.
I care not what man says about the origins of the heavens and the earth. The only account that matters is God's account in the Word of God.
agentorange
<<<"I made the comment "evolution doesn't have the answers to the origin and diversity of life" not abhodim. "
Stated, bravo. But why is it you can't make the distinction and understand that evolution and life origins aren't the same thing?>>>
I have made the distinct between abiogenesis and evolution with you and others on several articles. Below is an example of one such discussion. Either you don't understand what I write, or if you do understand, you ignore it so you can try to make me look bad in front of people who either never read the dialog betweenn us or don't remember it if they did.
Your whole evolution process depends on life having got started in a certain state. If you can't answer what state it started out in and prove it to have been so then any discussion or theory on how it evolved over time is a waste of time and moot. (continued)
continued
Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?
Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:06 pm : 0 : 1 Flag Delete agentorange
Re:Meet Star2, she likes erecting strawmen arguements in which she puts abiogensis in place of evolution.
No, I am not. Why talk about evolution when life can't even get started (abiogenesis). It is foolish to do.
Deal with how life got started. Prove to me beyond all odds that life got started from non-life. If you can't, then all your arguments for evolution is nothing but empty talk.
Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology?
Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:27 pm : 1 : 1 Flag Delete Evoultion is overhyped hollow ideas. It is nothing but BS and should not be taught to young minds that are not equipped with the necessary critical thinking skills to see the hollowness of the ideas.
Evolution depends on life having started. It is mathematically impossible for life to get started let alone develop after that.
Let us look at the odds of one protein molecule being created by chance. A single protein molecule is made up of 20 amino acids. The odds that a single protein molecule can form from a random combination of the amino acids is 1 in n!
1 in 20! is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 or approximatelly 1 in 2.4 x 10^18. There is a 4.2 x 10^-17 % chance that the 20 amino acids will come together in the right combination to form a single protein molecule. That is 0.000000000000000042 % chance that just one protein molecule can form by chance.That, for all practical purposes is zero. There is a little bit more to the protein molecule than that so it is even worse.
As complex as a single cell is, the odds that it can happen by chance is so astronomically small that the chance of that happening is zero.
Even if life could begin, it would be killed off before it developed because of the harsh environment it finds itself in.
It is foolish to even discuss how life developed (evolution) if it can't even get started to begin with (abiogenesis).
It takes pure faith to believe that life got started by the means that abiogenesis scientists suggest because it is mathematically impossible for it to do so. It takes even more faith to believe that it developed into the diverse forms of life that we see and know about when life never even got started to begin with.
Evolution not a religion? Think twice.
Abiogenesis and evolution is a religion. To believe in it take pure faith because it not only is mathematically impossible for it to happen, there is no evidence to support it.
ifeelfine72, their D needs some major work, outsides of Sims I don't see to many impact players on D, and on O they're so one dimensional that I think even when ahead it makes it hard to hold a lead as they lack a legit running game. Their position is self inflicted, like I said, bad trades, free agency and drafts make it hard. The Giants look freaking unstopable, they are like the Cowboys last year.
"when are you going to stop calling God a liar?"
Again, anything....anything at all but even attempt to explain your objections. Integrity takes another holiday. If you need time to review, cool, but don't conflate the issue by moving the topic continually, it's disingenuous.
Hate to break it to you, but you're on the outside looking in on this one, you're on the fringe. Most Christians accept evolution. Catholics and Orthodox and some Protestant sects accept it, only a small branch of fundamentalists backwards folk like yourself doubt or reject it and other sciences. Evolution is no more of a threat to implying that God isn't involved with humanity than the discoveries of Newtonian physics defined gravity as not involving a direct action by God. Get over it.
"God told us in His Word how He created the heavens and the earth."
'Interpretation' ring a bell? Anyone?
"Then freeze the dead dude right afterhe dies so his chemicals don't break down chemically."
? Cryogenics (unless were talking absolute 0 Kelvin) it doesn't prevent entropy indefinitely. Though leave it to star to go of topic (again) and attempt to segue it into the conversation. Good grief, it took you all day to come up with that one? Honestly now, the topic never was abiogensis, nor was it reviving the dead. It was supposed to be on your objections to said evolutionary processes, so far I've had to ask about 9-10 times now and we're on pace to blow through another article before you explain your objections. Got integrity? Let me know when you're ready to object and crawl.
"Plausible explanations aren't good enough my dear friend."
And why not? That is how all science is done my dear, no hypothesis's, models, or theories in science are ever a matter of absolute fact or philosophically 'proofed'. They're built according to consistent supported tested evidence. It might suffice for you personally, but then again, you've yet to explain WHY, so your simply appealing to ignorance.
So let me get this straight here, you can supply a garbage personal article from 'angelfire.com' and think it's fully vetted and credible, but then when I refer to actual University case studies from Harvard as examples, and ask for your responses to natural selection, mutations, speciation, etc., somehow this doesn't suffice? Mkay lady.
Do you have objections (this is assuming you've read such articles, you've claimed to, but your responses indicate otherwise.) to those evolutionary processes I listed, or not? It really is that simple of a 'yes' or 'no' answer and then explaining your justification as to why you think yes or no.
Since we're on the 'wizard of oz' theme here, I think your persona would be that of the cowardly lion in which you're ineptness in responding to the questions exposes you further.
agentorange
<<<Doh, those carbon based molecules they're composed also breakdown chemically, so bringing them back (if at all) after being dead for a certain period of time is not possible. The entropy and breakdown would make such a thing impossible chemically.>>>
Then freeze the dead dude right afterhe dies so his chemicals don't break down chemically.
<<<"If abiogensisists"
Star, I listed those articles from Harvard, and they have some fair hypothesis which are plausible on how it started.>>>
Plausible explanations aren't good enough my dear friend.
ifeelfine72, when are you going to stop calling God a liar? God told us in His Word how He created the heavens and the earth. God's description is completely different than the evolutionist's description on how life came to be. Keep kissing the lips of fools and you will eventually not believe anything in God's Word.
star2, I wholeheartedly agree with your deleted post!!
AO said: "I've discussed this distinction with star at least 1/2 dozen times"
You've discussed it with her more than that, I can promise you that and yet she continues to be willfully ignorant.
star: When are you going to be interested in an honest conversation / dialogue about evolution? I have a prediction that you won't ever be because of what it might do to your worldview.
AO: I went to the Lions game like I said and for the first quarter they gave the Bucs a run - they were up 17-0 in the first quarter and then they turned into the plain old Lions for Q2-4 - outscored the rest of the way 38-3 for a final score of 38-20. Yikes!
agentwrote: "Agent, I read this as you do not believe life has an origin. Is this what you believe? "
No, I think you misread. It has to have begun somewhere somehow, my answer reffered to the persons question as below "
Thank you for responding. I certainly am not foolish enough to get into a discussion about abiotic/biotic, or any of those others scientific word discussions. I do not know nearly enough to argue any of it. I, do though, have doubts, which causes me to lean toward God as the Creator of this amazing creation. Science is fascinating. I believe it simply allows us to better understand how He created His creation.
"I made the comment "evolution doesn't have the answers to the origin and diversity of life" not abhodim. "
Stated, bravo. But why is it you can't make the distinction and understand that evolution and life origins aren't the same thing?
Since you've been hammering at Wiki (and hopefully others) do you have any objections to those evolutionary processes I earlier mentioned? If you need more time, works for me.
agentorange, I made the comment "evolution doesn't have the answers to the origin and diversity of life" not abhodim.
"abiogensisists don't know how life began."
I guess by once again going back to the only gap of temporal ignorance instead of listing objections to evolutionary processes, that you're conceding that the evolutionary history is correct then? If not, list objections.
"Once a live person dies then all those complex carbon based molecules cease to operate and they become inanimate."
Doh, those carbon based molecules they're composed also breakdown chemically, so bringing them back (if at all) after being dead for a certain period of time is not possible. The entropy and breakdown would make such a thing impossible chemically.
"If abiogensisists"
Star, I listed those articles from Harvard, and they have some fair hypothesis which are plausible on how it started.
"All your rants are nothing more than subterfuge agentorange."
And this ISN'T subterfuge in itself? =) Objections already.
"FYI Wizard of Oz I have been looking at wikipedia articles on these terms. "
And your objections are.......
abiogensisists don't know how life began. If they did then they could bring a dead person back to life.
Once a live person dies then all those complex carbon based molecules cease to operate and they become inanimate. If abiogensisists could explain how the inanimate became animate then they could prove it to be true by bring a dead person who is inanimate back to life (animate).
"evolution doesn't have the answers to the origin and diversity of life"
abhodim, see what I am up against? Like talking to a wall. I've discussed this distinction with star at least 1/2 dozen times in that evolution can't and doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life and still the same strawman comes up over and over like we're in a time paradox. This is why I demand she demonstrate she comprehends such terminology before going forward. If we can't mutually agree on the basics of terminology and processes, attempting to explain the overall history and evidence becomes rather fruitless. Again, like teaching a 3rd grader calculus who refuses to bother themselves with learning what the terms and implications are.
FYI Wizard of Oz I have been looking at wikipedia articles on these terms.
All your rants are nothing more than subterfuge agentorange.
"Agent, I read this as you do not believe life has an origin. Is this what you believe? "
No, I think you misread. It has to have begun somewhere somehow, my answer reffered to the persons question as below:
"My point is how this matter resolves the tranformation of abiotic components into biotic entities."
'abiotic' meaning not living, non replicating and 'biotic' meaning living, at least that's what he/she seems to imply.
In short, 'life origins' (abiotic to biotic) isn't the same as 'how life evolved' or more specifically, how proeukaryotic cells evolved to become eukaryotic cells.
"Have taken the time to check out at least the wiki site. Ponderous, eh?"
Decent, if not, try Brittanica or the articles cited therein. If you need *other* links on specifics, just ask.
Here, I hope you each can be bothered to read. If you insist I could just copy and paste them directly here, but that is rather uncouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Let's tackle these 3, if you have objections, list away.
agent wrote: "This is an 'origin of life' question, so in short, it doesn't."
Agent, I read this as you do not believe life has an origin. Is this what you believe?
"The limit per post is 3000 characters not words"
Sorry, I meant that. Still, I have given you the key words how many times now? 8-9? And I've described some already in the past. Don't the links I provide allow you to read on your own, after all, you likely wouldn't take little ol my word on it, right?
"plus you have in the past, as everyone, broken up your comments on two or more posts."
I have star both to you and others, the issue is in the end I get more subterfuge and so it's not very, shall we say, productive.
"can't explain step by steep how life evolved from rRNA to every form of life we see today."
No dear, I mentioned the key terms so we can establish you can crawl in the basics and so far you've yet to make it even remotely clear you can. Do you understand the terms as I've laid out or not? Do I need to hold your hand and recite them and spoon feed them to you, or can you not be bothered to read and research them on your own? Honestly now, have you no gumption?
Agento,
Have taken the time to check out at least the wiki site. Ponderous, eh?
Still, to not even offer a concise definition of your key concepts ... You lack a teacher's heart, AO. Science is not merely the discovery, but the disemination of information. Without this, it only become cultic knowledge, for only the few initates who take the time to pore over science manuals.
My advice? It's the teacher's motto: Stand and deliver!
me thinks that egolutionists dont want peeps to know about the weaknesses of their argument.
on three everyone
1
2
3
awwwwwwwwww....
agentorange, the Wizard of Oz:
"Please elaborate. Don't feel you have to be monosyllabic"
Are you serious? You're no better than her, you like her, want it verbatim spoon fed to you, all concepts, terms, with examples and all on here? '3000 word comment limit' kinda makes this not the ideal forum. Wouldn't you at least like to, you know, read up on it from you own research to establish their veracity?"
This is a smoke screen on your part agentorange. The limit per post is 3000 characters not words plus you have in the past, as everyone, broken up your comments on two or more posts. So, one can conclude that you really don't know and can't explain step by steep how life evolved from rRNA to every form of life we see today. Like I said, you are the Wizard of Oz. You make everyone think you are big, knowable guy with the words you throw around but when we challenge you to the nitty gritty (details) you are very small, unknowing guy. You aren't the hot shot you want us all to believe you are plus evolution doesn't have the answers to the origin and diversity of life that people of your persuation try to convince everyone that it has.
"Please elaborate. Don't feel you have to be monosyllabic"
Are you serious? You're no better than her, you like her, want it verbatim spoon fed to you, all concepts, terms, with examples and all on here? '3000 word comment limit' kinda makes this not the ideal forum. Wouldn't you at least like to, you know, read up on it from you own research to establish their veracity?
I suggest you refer to the Internet (something like Google) Here are a few to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Familiarize yourself with the background on each at least so we can begin to move forward. If you have a specific one that you find objection with, then explain why.
Natural selection, mutations, speciation, genetic drifting, genetic isolation, endosymbiotic synthesis, symbiogenesis, to name just a few.
Agento,
A colleague has advised me that my request would be a faux pas in poster etiquette. Respond at your leisure.
Still, curiosity is lkilling this cat. Ah, curious as ever.
Agento,
Would love to be patient on this one, but you know how fast these CP posts go to archives.
Take the bull by the horns and define away. Would love to hear your imput on it. Star can catch up.
"My point is how this matter resolves the tranformation of abiotic components into biotic entities."
This is an 'origin of life' question, so in short, it doesn't. I earlier was responding directly to her proeukaryotic to eukaryotic cell' question and I was attempting to stay with that topic, but she never replied as to why they're not plausible or acceptable (frankly I doubt she bothered to read anything on them) examples and instead moved back to the origins of life question. Most disingenuous.
"but am amazed that you haven't defined clearly your key topics of symbiogenesis and endosymbiuotic synthesis."
Star asked for the 'how' processes, and I mentioned such processes as a hint to her needing to read up on them and then after having the cursory background we could go forward. Still waiting. She doesn't like that idea, I think she prefers being spoon fed, as if this forum were the ideal place. She has the Internet at her finger tips, she really there is no excuse on her part.
abhodim, go to the begging of this article (and the one listed below), star2 asks for how proeukaryotic cells evolved to become eukaryotic, I mentioned earlier in another article that she needs to demonstrate her objections to the processes and concepts (mentioned many times, natural selection, mutations, speciation, genetic drifting, endosymbiotic synthesis, symbiogenesis, etc.) and hopefully demonstrate she comprehends the terminology before we can realistically move forward.
I tried to explain to her that attempting to explain the entire evolutionary history without the background of such concepts and a general knowledge of biology is akin to a 3rd grader asking to learn calculus without the underpinning knowledge, and then refusing to learn said concepts and still stubbornly decrying calculus to be bunk. This is in essence her stance.
We went back and forth and she continued to stonewall and engage in subterfuge. Anything, anything at all but to answer her objections to said concepts.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/comment/20081101/scientists-theologians-gather-for-vatican-conference-on-evolution.htm
Agento,
OK, I'll bite. I've been waiting for a break in the stalemate myself, but I'm less upset with Star than you. I note your credentials throughout the posts, but am amazed that you haven't (unless I'm missing something and haven't thought through all these posts) defined clearly your key topics of symbiogenesis and endosymbiuotic synthesis. My point is how this matter resolves the tranformation of abiotic components into biotic entities. I will allow for ignorance and propose that you explain these processes fully.
I am a teacher, and if any of my students tries to replace carefully exposited thought with jargon and high-blown phraseology ... well, let's say an A+ isn't in their future. Same in this case, your master's degree notwithstanding. The simple story of Hans Christian Anderson stated clearly that finely crafted words and gilded rhetoric could do well to sing the praises of the Emperor's New Clothes. Hang style ... give substance.
Please elaborate. Don't feel you have to be monosyllabic. Be as polysyllabic as you feel, but speak your piece clearly. If nothing else, steer me to a website that does the trick.
An open exchange of ideas is what I have come to love at CP, and, granted, that wasn't happening twixt agento and star. Now, let's have some straight talk.
AgentOrange: That's what I thought - I know you are not into that and figured you wouldn't be bringing it up. Yeah the Lions are pretty bad - I have a feeling they will win at least one game this season - especially since signing Daunte. My wife, brother-in-law and I are going to the game tomorrow. I just have a feeling they might be able to make a game of it.
star: I see some of the things you say to AO and how dismissive of him you are - so right back at ya' with the vaguely ominous threat of divine retribution.