FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2001, 10:56 PM   #31
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Hey that is interesting, where can I find out more about anoxic basins?</font>
You can find everything you ever wanted to know about evolution from Talk.Origins. It really is a good site, very much oriented towards the scientific amateur.
 
Old 04-13-2001, 03:54 PM   #32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Freego:

Have you seen an elephant move, I have and they are much more nimble and quick than they seem. According to paleontologists, the larger dinosaurs were slow and unwieldy.
</font>


Still not as fast as a small, nimble dinosaur would have been I'm afraid. Or a cheetah for that matter. And anyway, just one of many examples I could have given. How about sloths - why don't we find them next to dinosaurs? And what about Pterodactyls - they could have survived for a whild by flying so should be found at the top of the fossil record. And birds are found contemporaneously with dinosaurs - they weold certainly have been faster.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How about the Noah story? Evolutionists generally believe in Panagea(sp?) correct? We creationists do too. We believe that flood's massive upheaval of the world shifted the continents. So animals did not have trouble getting to the boat. </font>
Still doesn't explain why the fossils of kangaroos, wallabies, and marsupials in general are found only in Australia and South America, while the fossils of placental mammals are never found in Australia, and only very recently in the S American fossil record after the formation of the Central American land bridge. Had the world been one big continent at the time of the flood they would have been free to move around much more. Nope - Panagaea broke up while the development of mammals was still at an early stage, and marsupials develped in the supercontinent which became S. America, Antarctica and Australia, while placental mammals developed independently on the Northern continent.

And anyway, this doesn't answer the question of how they got back after the new world was formed.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We talk about microevolution? It is quite possible that this happened after the flood.</font>
Sorry, but the development of a whole sub-family of marsupials, independent of placental mammals, within 4000 years, is definitely macro-evolution! Were evolution to occur at this rate we would certainly see major amounts of speciation within historical times, and probably within our own lifetimes. The fact that speciation is hard to observe is perfectly compatible with the view that macroevolution happend over millions of years, but it is utterly damning for creationists who taunt scientists for not observing it, and simultaneously say it only took a few centuries.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We assume that the types of animals were the same as back then, Microevolution does happen (look at all the dogs we have). </font>
Dogs are all the same species though. A terrier and a great dane can happily breed with each other. Kangaroos and wallabies are not the same species - they cannot interbreed. Kangaroos and wallabies are genetically much further apart than breeds of dogs, even though they may look more alike at first.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I believe that the genetic strain was much stronger in the days of Noah, they hadn't been fallen very long, and so it was possible for parents to have kids of different color. </font>
If I can make any sense of this, you seem to be saying that genetic mutation is caused by sin. The only responses I can think of are flippant or abusive, so I'll leave it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Bible says that Noah's sons were of three different appearances. This is where the various races found today come from.</font>
Sorry - Noah's son's children would have had to intermarry (if they weren't to become even more inbred than they would already have been). So everyone would have very quickly ended up looking the same again.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No, but sin had not mutated microbes in such ways yet.</font>
Germs are caused by sin. This is even funnier than genetic mutation is caused by sin.

If disease is a righteous punishment for sin, does that mean the use of antibiotics is wrong?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The food most probably was stored on ark, and the animals may have stayed there until more vegetation appeared.</font>
But you calculated that the animals took up about 75% of the space on the Ark. A year's supply of food (and then some) takes up a lot more space than the animal itself. Maybe you need to look at those sums again.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There was a great possibility that other trees were already beginning to grow. </font>
The seeds would all have been killed in the flood anyway. Noah would have had to have gone out and planted them himself.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We are thinking in todays terms, but these plants were still very unmarred by sin. Their growing rate may have been much faster.</font>
Are plants sinful too now? Or is the rate at which plants grow dependent on the amount of gay sex people have? I've been so silly. There was me thinking it was down to sunlight and soil conditions.

I've got a friend who's bothered by his neighbour's trees blocking the sunlight into his garden. I think I'll go and tell him that all he has to do is have some wife swapping parties every now and then, and the annoying trees will shrivel and die. Even if it doesn't work, it will still be fun.

Actually, maybe this is a hypothesis which should be tested. I feel a research proposal coming on. Do you think I'll get funding for it?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The animals were created to be gentle and so carnivorous traits may not have appeared in the animals yet. This may have taken a few more years.</font>
So why do many fosilised animals have such huge teeth and claws? Teeth which are utterly useless for grinding up plants, but perfectly designed for slicing meat.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Seriously though, we can find evidence for this is found by the fish being contorted and curved (the tail many times bent around the head. The spines stick out and the fins are spread full, evidence of violent convulsions.</font>
I'm not familiar with the fossils you're talking about, but...

Meteorite impact?

Volcano?

Shockwaves from an underwater earthquake?

Again, is it just ancient fish, or a mixture of ancient and modern ones? Actually, I can guess.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Noah's family had been collecting food for 100 plus years, so I think that was not a problem. </font>
100 year old food? By and large would not have been edible by the time the flood came. Or does food decay because of human sinfulness too?

Actually, I've just noticed. According to your theory, genetic mutation is caused by sin, and was much greater then than now. Stunted plant growth is caused by sin, and is much greater now than then. So has the amount of sin increased or decreased since Noah's day?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The cubit measure I use is based on the Egyptian measure and the size of the antediluvian human, According to the Bible, they were quite a bit larger that we are now.</font>
So where are the fossils of these giants? Indeed, why are modern humans, if anything, taller than the largest fossils?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Jack, the Native Americans of both North and South America and the early European tribes all have flood stories.</font>
I've no problem believing that most cultures could independently come up with flood myths. This does not make them true. Floods happened all the time and were a major threat to early men - it would be surprising if they did not appear in their myths. Plus, people all over the world discovered things like the imprints of shells in rocks on hilltops. Now we know that this is due to the upthrust of rocks which were once on the sea floor. But to people with no understanding of science it could only be explained if the hills had once been underwater... hence the widespread tales of massive floods.

Sorry Freego, but explaining events like the flood in rationalistic terms is always going to be doomed to failure. If you just want to say "God did it - there is no way of understanding it" then fair enough. But since this would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis don't expect scientists to take it seriously. We'd rather base our theories on what we can actually observe and measure thank you very much.


[This message has been edited by Pantera (edited April 13, 2001).]
 
Old 04-13-2001, 05:48 PM   #33
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Freego:
How about the Noah story? Evolutionists generally believe in Panagea(sp?) correct? We creationists do too. We believe that flood's massive upheaval of the world shifted the continents.</font>
Okay, the Pangean landmass breakup is assumed to have occurred over the course of millions of years. 40 days would be far too short a time for this to occur--those continents would have been moving, and appears to be a gross violation of thermodynamics. Where did the energy to cause this come from, and where did it go? Why didn't the entire surface of the world burn off?
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So animals did not have trouble getting to the boat. We talk about microevolution? It is quite possible that this happened after the flood. We assume that the types of animals were the same as back then, Microevolution does happen (look at all the dogs we have). Dust mites- heh, I don't think Noah worried about them. A large misconception is that he collected the animals. Not true, God did. That was God's problem, not Noah's. I believe that the genetic strain was much stronger in the days of Noah, they hadn't been fallen very long, and so it was possible for parents to have kids of different color. The Bible says that Noah's sons were of three different appearances. This is where the various races found today come from. I don't know about germs, but it is also possible that since the world, again, was newly fallen, those things had not developed yet. Developed in the evolutionary since? No, but sin had not mutated microbes in such ways yet. The food most probably was stored on ark, and the animals may have stayed there until more vegetation appeared. But just because the bird came back with one olive branch does not mean that there was only one tree. There was a great possibility that other trees were already beginning to grow. We are thinking in todays terms, but these plants were still very unmarred by sin. Their growing rate may have been much faster.
The animals were created to be gentle and so carnivorous traits may not have appeared in the animals yet. This may have taken a few more years.
</font>
Okay, you keep mentioning that a property of "sin" causes genetic and material changes. How does it do this? How can you measure it? What generates this effect?

If you can't answer these questions, I suggest you stop trying to fit sin into a scientific theory. It makes no sense.
 
Old 04-13-2001, 07:04 PM   #34
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
But they WERE together, and always have been: they existed in the same general region, and could have shared myths. And it's interesting to note that, while many cultures have flood legends, the specifics of the Ark story are confined to the Middle East.</font>
That's an interesting point you bring up. It actually shows that time and distance from the original source lead to greater distortions. It doesn't necessarily mean the "myths" were shared and borrowed.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But the whole point is that there never was a Great Flood (though there was at least one local flood, the inundation of the Black Sea basin). Therefore shared myth (possibly based on a local flood) is the only explanation remaining. So where does this "equally plausible" nonsense come from? Are round-Earthism and flat-Earthism equally plausible</font>
But this local flood was a Great Flood, in that it wiped out the humans of that day- civilization was confined to the Middle East area.

Let's examine if the Bible speaks of a global or local flood. It sounds like it speaks of a global flood because of phrases like "all the surface of the earth" and the like.

Genesis 41
56 When the famine had spread over the whole country, Joseph opened the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe throughout Egypt.
57 And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world.

The famine was severe in "all the world". Now when we read that, do we interpret it to mean that every single nation on the entire planet came to Egypt? But it says "all the world" right?

1 Kings 10
24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.

Ah, there it goes again.

Romans 1
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

Colossians 1
6 that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth.

Now is Paul speaking of the entire planet or the Roman Empire?

2 Peter
5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Here Peter says "the world of that time was deluged". Now what do we think he means by that?

Notice that in the first 9 chapters of Genesis the geogrphy is primarily restricted to the Mesopotamian region. Even in chapter 11, the world is still inhabiting one common region.

The word "world" is almost always used with respect to people, not the planet. It is more logical to conclude that Genesis speaks of local flood, because that will be all that is needed to destroy humanity since they inhabited one region.

Freego seems to be a little mistaken. Some tend to forget that on the third day, God commanded the waters to be "gathered unto one place and let the dry ground appear." This is what caused the effects we see on mountains rocks, etc.

Jack: you don't see what I mean by equally plausible?
 
Old 04-13-2001, 08:27 PM   #35
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Originally posted by TrueThinker:
But this local flood was a Great Flood, in that it wiped out the humans of that day- civilization was confined to the Middle East area.

The word "world" is almost always used with respect to people, not the planet. It is more logical to conclude that Genesis speaks of local flood, because that will be all that is needed to destroy humanity since they inhabited one region.


Then what do you make of archaeological excavations in China, India and elsewhere that show full-blown civilizations in many parts of the world. Civilization was NOT confined to the Middle East area at the time, but spread over many parts of the world.

Michael


 
Old 04-13-2001, 09:42 PM   #36
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by turtonm:
Originally posted by TrueThinker:
But this local flood was a Great Flood, in that it wiped out the humans of that day- civilization was confined to the Middle East area.

The word "world" is almost always used with respect to people, not the planet. It is more logical to conclude that Genesis speaks of local flood, because that will be all that is needed to destroy humanity since they inhabited one region.


Then what do you make of archaeological excavations in China, India and elsewhere that show full-blown civilizations in many parts of the world. Civilization was NOT confined to the Middle East area at the time, but spread over many parts of the world.

Michael

</font>
The question then becomes what is the date for the flood. The Bible remains silent on the issue. Nowhere does it say that the flood happened in 2500 B.C. or later. When reading Genesis (prior to Abraham), it seems that the stories are speaking of very ancient days.

There was a time when civilization was confined to one region. Modern humans didn't pop up on all corners of the Earth at the same time.



[This message has been edited by TrueThinker (edited April 13, 2001).]
 
Old 04-13-2001, 10:07 PM   #37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by katlynnhow:
If I understand it correctly, according to the Bible all the creatures were vegetarians prior to the flood.

Genesis 1:29-30
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Evidently there were no carnivores until after the flood. Not that this solves the impossibility of the ark!
</font>
So you're assuming since it doesn't make any mention of meat for food that God actually commanded them not to eat meat?

The Bible makes no mention of carnivorous activity. The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs either. So are we to assume that neither is true? Doe we really expect the Bible to talk about everything?
 
Old 04-13-2001, 10:45 PM   #38
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Freego:
Yow! First if I am parroting any stuff that is not true, I apologize right here and now. I have tried to pull stuff from the best resources I could find.</font>
No offense, but you have done a bad job. These arguments you present are really nothing spectacular, in fact they are the standard Creationist propoganda, and are easily refutable.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">My biology book speaks of wood in the carbinoferous age as much stronger than the wood found today. To call this extraordinary would be going against what biologist today assert.</font>
No it would not, because you failed to research this subject sufficiently and are thus misrepresenting what paleobiologists actually have discovered about the trees in the Carboniferous.
First, since you clearly are speaking of the extraordinarily different plants and not mere Carboniferous versions of modern-day trees, I will confine myself to explaining those. That being said, I come to the
Second point: those trees were not actual "trees" anymore than a dolphin is a fish. These "trees" were in fact just gigantic versions of club mosses, catails, reeds and other such plants.
Third, their insides were quite spongy and weak, so much so in fact that if they died and dried out, they would literally "wilt". They were only kept up by staying alive and relatively well.
Fourth, they were only "strong" in that their bark may have been exceptionally tough, but this would hardly give them some exceptional capability in strength and support for building things, because their insides were still weak.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Have you seen an elephant move, I have and they are much more nimble and quick than they seem. According to paleontologists, the larger dinosaurs were slow and unwieldy.</font>
Most dinosaurs were no bigger than a human, and were quite a lot faster - certainly faster than big, lumbering mammals like elephants or hippos.
Furthermore; how do you explain the burial of everything from pterosaurs to fast little therapsids? These are all found underneath higher mammals, even really heavy ones.
Oh and finally, why don't we see mice, rats, rabbits, weasels, etc.,buried with their primitive Mesozoic counterparts?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How about the Noah story? Evolutionists generally believe in Panagea(sp?) correct? We creationists do too.
We believe that flood's massive upheaval of the world shifted the continents. So animals did not have trouble getting to the boat.</font>
Typical of a Creationist: deny something until the evidence is too persuasive to ignore, then, instead of embracing said evidence, twist and distort it to an insane degree in order to make it fit with your absurdities.
Would you care to explain, in Scientifically valid reasoning:
1-What force drove the continents to move so fast?
2-Why they suddenly "stopped" within historic times?
3-How they did not shatter to pieces due to the tremendous forces of their sliding over, onto, or into each other?
4-Where is the evidence for this happening?
5-Why this outrageous and unsubstantiated theory should be accepted over the reasonable, factual idea that the continents moved around slowly over millions of years?

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A large misconception is that he collected the animals. Not true, God did. That was God's problem, not Noah's.</font>
Your appealing to the supernatural in an attempt to explain away the flaws in your theory.This is completely unscientific and unintelligent.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I believe that the genetic strain was much stronger in the days of Noah, they hadn't been fallen very long, and so it was possible for parents to have kids of different color.</font>
Interesting. Can you present any facts to support this assertion?
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Bible says that Noah's sons were of three different appearances.</font>
Where does it say that?
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This is where the various races found today come from.</font>
We have historical records of the major Old World races going back at least 4,000 years. How did all those races evolve in such a short time? They couldn't.
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I don't know about germs, but it is also possible that since the world, again, was newly fallen, those things had not developed yet. Developed in the evolutionary since? No, but sin had not mutated microbes in such ways yet.</font>
This theory is so ludicrous that one could make a reasonable case that labelling it as a mental dissorder would be completely logical.
 
Old 04-14-2001, 07:02 AM   #39
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:
So you're assuming since it doesn't make any mention of meat for food that God actually commanded them not to eat meat?

The Bible makes no mention of carnivorous activity. The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs either. So are we to assume that neither is true? Doe we really expect the Bible to talk about everything?
</font>
You must excuse me, TrueThinker, but I believe you are mistaken. Consider the following....

Genesis 1:29-30 (pre-flood)
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Genesis 9:1-3 (post-flood)
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Isaiah 11:6-9 (prophesy)
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

I think it seems clear enough.... before the fall, they were vegetarians and according to the prophesy, they will be again some day.

If you believe the Bible, that is.
 
Old 04-14-2001, 07:30 AM   #40
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by TrueThinker:
The question then becomes what is the date for the flood. The Bible remains silent on the issue. Nowhere does it say that the flood happened in 2500 B.C. or later. When reading Genesis (prior to Abraham), it seems that the stories are speaking of very ancient days.

There was a time when civilization was confined to one region. Modern humans didn't pop up on all corners of the Earth at the same time.
</font>
First, by simply adding up the ages given in the Bible, the Flood must have occurred between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago. There is some "give" in the figures, but generally that's when people say it occurred.

Second, civilizations did arise in several areas at once. Archaeologists argue, but there were two independent ones in China alone, not to mention the Middle East, SE Asia, Central America, etc. Are you claiming that all civilizations diffused from one source? Nobody takes that idea seriously.

Michael

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.