Bait

IesusDomini:
I actually have presumed nothing,and I agree that most scientists don't care a fig if it was God who caused an event or not...just that the event happened, and here is the explanation of how it happened. As to the method of gathering evidence, I have no problem with the scientific methods either. What I have a problem with is with people who cart blanc disavow even the POSSIBILITY of the existance of God, a supreme being, whatever name you wish to use, without proof otherwise...even scientifically. And in order to disavow this existance, the purport to use "scientific evidence/proof" which in reality is really only THEORY, a hypothesis by their own definition. On top of that, they proclaim the Bible to be totally inaccurate and worthless because of someone's translation of it, and even worse, try to say that because a translation is in error, then God must not exist. This way of thinking insults both science and religion. Just because some monk in the 15th century counted genealogical timelines and concluded the earth is 6,000 years old...does NOT mean that is really what the Bible (or Torah)says. Just because one, or more, translations says David "slew" Goliath with a rock, and then again with a sword only means that there was some trouble in translation...period. Yes, I believe the Bible to be the infallable word of God in that the message it contains is infallible. But I also think that there have been errors made in translations over the years, and one must take that into account, and try to find what the message of a particular verse, passage, story is telling. WHY was that particular passage included, not whether one of God's names is spelled Jahweh, Yahweh, or YHWH. If the Bible does not say whether Adam had a navel, probably means that it is not important to the message that is being conveyed.
R.

Kosh

<sigh> [dramaic pause] Ron, you ignorant slu...
oops, just had 70's SNL flashback there....

Did you read that link I posted in the other
forum which refuted the gap theory?

Please cite references for this...

I'm sure that radioactive isotopes didn't form
for the purpose of giving us a dating method,
but it still serves as excellent evidence to do
so...

The problem is that this concept never appeared
before in the bible. The ENTIRE concept was
created out of whole cloth by the author of 2
Peter to address the problem that people were
beginning to realize that Jesus wasn't gonna
fullfill his prophecy of returning "before this
generation passes". So "Peter" comes up with
"well, God has a different timescale". The
concept did not exist prior to the penning of
2 Peter,nor is it bore out by any writings of
the OT.

That is NOT what the passage is claiming!
Ever heard the expression "Seems like just
yesterday"?

Agreed. Do you understand the theory of evolution?
Simple celled organisms were formed first (BTW,
that is the theory of Abiogenisis, and has NOTHING
to do with Evolution- some theories are that the
first form of life could have come on a meteor
from space).

Gorillas and Chimps have been taught to communicate with us using sign language.
Chimps also make simple tools to help them
get ants out of anthills, etc. The claim that
man is unique has not held up under recent
scientific research.

Even sea otters use rocks to open the shells
of sea urchins. That's tool usage.

Also, Modern man co-existed with Neanderthals,
who are not our ancesters,and did have simple
social organization and created art.

So much for that one...

Hate to break this to you, but that Hebrew word
regarding the Behemoth was translated using
modesty and puritan attitudes as a motivation.
The word didn' really mean "tail", but another
anotomical feature which the translators were
embarrased to admit...

That's quite an extrapolation. Did they show
that maybe 3 layers could form, and then extrapolate that to say that if 3 could form,
then millions could form as well? Do you realize
what an absurd leap that would be (assuming I
didn't just create a strawman for you).

Let me use a little bit of Ron Reasoning (tm) here. To a certain point? So they didn't get
millions of layers to form? So you don't know for
sure that they could form? Then you could be wrong,
And we could therefore be right.

Ice rings? Can you cite a reference for this
claim? Just how much ice do you think was up there? I realize you don't subscribe to this
theory but let's think about this... if there
was enough ice flying up there to flood the earth,
then where did all the water go when it was done?
Back into space?


C'mon Ron! That's the mid-Atlantic ridge, and
it's where the new crust of the earth is forming
due to volcanic activity. It's what causes
the tektonic plates to move around. This is not
theory, it is verifiable and can been seen to be
happening right now.

I happen to live right on top of the largest
one (Colorado) that goes for quite a ways.
BUT... they're not big enough to hold all the
water that you would need for your flood (and
under pressure no less!) If that were the case,
we'd all have wells and be selling the stuff like
Oil to California....

<sigh>. there was no worldwide flood. There is not evidence of it. It is most likely that the flood
story (started in the epic of Gilgamesh with
DIFFERENT characters, and then borrowed by
the Jewish people) was a result of a catastropic
breaking of a natural damn on the Black Sea, circa
7000 B.C.

Kosh

You're absolutely right, which is why scientists
don't use seashells to determine the age of the
earth.

Administrators - who do we talk to about getting
a strawman graemlin made? Would it be to small to
get the words "if I only had a brain" in there
too?

Kosh

See below for text from this thread:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000606&p=2" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=42&t=000606&p=2</a>

from "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against
The New Creationism":

Dinosaurs, they claim, are mentioned in the Bible as the Behemoth and the
Leviathan. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) scientists say that the former
was probably a dinosaur because of its Scriptural description. They give away
posters of a seated man observing what appears to be an Apatosaurus with the
scriptural passage from Job: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he
eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force s in the
navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are
wrapped together" (40:15-17). At the Museum of Creation and Earth History,
our guide drew the children's attention to the phrase "he moveth his tail like a
cedar," noting that no animal we know of besides dinosaurs had a tail so large.
Scholars of biblical Hebrew would have to stifle a chuckle if they heard this
exegesis, for the King James translation utilizes the term "tail" as a common
euphemism for the male genital member. Stephen Mitchell's authoritative
translation of the book of Job removes the linguistic fig-leaf and renders the
passage somewhat differently: "Look now: the Beast that I made: he eats grass
like a bull. Look: the power in his thighs, the pulsing sinews of his belly. His penis
stiffens like a pine; his testicles bulg with vigor."

Still think Behemoth is a dinosaur, SoC? Dinosaurs were related to reptiles and
birds, neither of which have external genitals.

Oolon Colluphid

What bloody flood?! You do realise that it's usual to demonstrate there's something to explain, before you try to explain it, yeah?!

And again I ask: if there were no death during this time, just what the blue hell did animals eat? Where did all the exquisitely fashioned parasites live, and how did they not cause disease?

Yeah, but that's just the point. It's not that things are a certain way that we cannot figure out. We now know why they are as they are; and how they are is, just as if there were no creator involved. If there were a creator involved, he set things up to look just as if he weren't there really; indeed, he's gone out of his way to deceive us.

Why? On what grounds -- actual biological evidence -- do you think we are sooo different? Can you name a single bone, organ, protein, amino acid, etc, that is present in chimpanzees that is not present in humans too? (Can you name a single protein? ) Take another look at those skulls I posted above. Again I ask: which are the ape ones, and which are the humans?

And why then is it that birds contain genes for making teeth and full fibulas like their supposed reptile ancestors had? Care to define 'kind'?

Why make them from the ooze? Why not just make them? 'Allowed them to evolve from common ancestors' is the phrase you're looking for... ignoring the phenomenal waste of that method, and the odd mass extinction...

BWAHAHAHA! Go away and look up mallards and pintails, and llamas and vicunas. I'll give you a few more hints tomorrow when I can get at my refs. And, uh... "as close as"... hmmm... you don't mean 'as closely related', do you?

So the bible establishes very clearly that either 1. In God’s time, one of his days is equal to 1 thousand years of 24 hour earth days, or 2. God’s time does not count time…one day to God could be thousands, millions, etc. of years...i.e.: eons. Neither of these disagree with science, nor would science disagree with the Bible, if we hold these passages true. [/b][/quote]

I prefer to ignore them, as does science... unless you think the bible a useful science textbook. One so accurate that bats are birds, the earth is flat and rabbits chew the cud...

What, like, uh, something a little bit different from ooze... and that into something a little different again... and that into something a little different again... ? Looks pretty plausible to me. Repeat, oh, several hundred million times, and just how different could the descendants be, d'you think?

You clearly know nothing about chimps.

Eh? Since when? Care to tell me which evolutionary biology textbook or scientific paper that puddle of drivel oozed out of?

Well that's news to just about everyone who does science. Hey, just how many frigging theories would there be if they only had to pass one test?!

So, uh, quantum theory, relativity theory and the theory of gravity (it ain't a 'law', btw) are just unproven hypotheses? You, dear sir, are an ignoramus. NOTHING is ever proven in science. Proof is a luxury of mathematics, where you are defining the universe you're operating in to start with. With science, we are trying to find out what sort of universe we're operating in -- that's the whole point -- so we have to make do with merely all the evidence there is and any more we can gather. Empirical evidence, in other words. If you don't even know that, I'm not sure how you dare to criticise science.

TTFN, Oolon

Bait

Hi Kosh,

Yes, I read the article you sent me to from AIG, and I don’t necessarily agree, nor disagree with it’s reasoning. For one, the fact that Adam died at age 930 years…less than 1,000 years but way more than 1 day. The only way I can see to reconcile that with itself, is to take Psalms and 2 Peter at their word. Just the supposition that the Hebrew word that was used for “day” depicts 24 hour days, does not necessarily negate the 1,000 years theory. Remember, the Bible also explicitly says a “day” is as a thousand years to God…using the SAME Hebrew word for day as is used in Genesis.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Ron, did you even read the article I posted
in the other forum with the refutation of the
day-age theory? The reasoning in it was quite
sound, and you seem to be simply ignoring the facts of both science and what the Bible
explicity says just so you can believe what you"feel" may be right (in order to reconcile the bible with science).

&gt;&gt;&gt;Archeology has already shown that the walls
of Jericho fell several hundred years after the
city was abandoned, not caused by an attack by
Joshua. So that's at least one datapoint to
disprove your comment.

Bait: Well, actually Archaeology shows that it may have fallen by earthquake, occupied or otherwise. The only part of Archaeology that really seems to disagree with biblical accounts is within timelines. More and more evidence that from a historical perspective, the characters (kings, etc.) mentioned in the Bible, and many of the events are being confirmed by archaeological finds. It’s the dates that seem to be in conflict the most.

quote:


..even in the time period set by YEC, because science has established rocks, etc. as being 45 billion (or 4.5, whatever)is like if I built a house, told you it was a week old...you test the concrete by all of your scientific tests, find the rocks are 45 billion years old, then call me a liar because your science says so.


&gt;&gt;&gt;So to stick with your analogy, you would have us
believe that God had this planet warehouse
somewhere from which he pulled the materials to
form the earth (and solar system) and that the
earth looks old because stuff was sitting in the
warehouse for a long time? Unfortunately for
these claims, geologists have developed a very
good understanding of how planets form, especially
the outer crust. Please educate yourself on
this stuff (Patrick can provide some excellent
material on it if you'd like).

No, what I was saying by the analogy is that geologist has a general understanding of these things based upon their current testing methods. Their “theories” are adjusted all of the time, because of new discoveries that blow away their previous thinking. Is it possible that the “materials of the Universe” are billions of years old?…YES. Does testing that materials necessarily prove the age of the earth? NO.
quote:


&gt;&gt;&gt;The problem is that this concept never appeared
before in the bible. The ENTIRE concept was
created out of whole cloth by the author of 2
Peter to address the problem that people were
beginning to realize that Jesus wasn't gonna
fullfill his prophecy of returning "before this
generation passes". So "Peter" comes up with
"well, God has a different timescale". The
concept did not exist prior to the penning of
2 Peter,nor is it bore out by any writings of
the OT.


Says you…by what evidence do you have that was Peter’s intention. BTW…that reference I did give you that did appear earlier in (Psalms).
quote:


&gt;&gt;&gt;Also in Psalms 90:4 : “For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past.”

&gt;&gt;&gt;That is NOT what the passage is claiming!
Ever heard the expression "Seems like just
yesterday"?

Again, by what evidence…yes, a thousand years seems like yesterday to God. Because a thousand years is like a day. Gotcha on this one homey.

&gt;&gt;&gt;(I said)As a gentleman pointed out, science is not exact...and all of it is educated guesses. At 4.5 billion years, a 1% descrepancy is 45 MILLION years...even worse is if you chose the 45 billion years with 1% descrepancy...that is 450 MILLION years (almost 1/2 billion years off).


&gt;&gt;&gt;No one (no scientists, or anyone here) have
claimed the earth is 45 billion years
old with a 1% error. So why even bother to point
out that it would be 450 million year error?
That is called a strawman argument, where you
fabricate a claim and attribute it to your
opponent so you can then tear it down. This is,
unfortunately, a common tactic of creationists.
Please refrain from doing that here

I was not fabricating a claim, actually Oolon Colluphid did on his Feb. 15 post (8:38 am) trying to correct me when I said 4.5 billion years (the actual correct time). I agree that it is a tactic, often used on me…thought I’d return the favor (but it was not directed at you personally). I will refrain from using this tactic, if you do.


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Even scientifically it is unlikely animals came from ooze though.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Agreed. Do you understand the theory of evolution?
Simple celled organisms were formed first (BTW,
that is the theory of Abiogenisis, and has NOTHING
to do with Evolution- some theories are that the
first form of life could have come on a meteor
from space).

Sorry, got ya mixed up with someone else. It was put to me elsewhaere as evidence that some scientist created ooze in a lab, which is evidence of evolution. Shazzaam…we actually agree here.

&gt;&gt;&gt;I also put to you, from a scientific standpoint, what are the chances (odds) that out of all of the species of animals, or even from just species of Ape, (monkey, etc), ONLY ONE SPECIES, ONLY HUMANS have developed to have intelligence enough to create all of the things we have created, or even to debate theories as we are now?


&gt;&gt;&gt;Gorillas and Chimps have been taught to communicate with us using sign language.
Chimps also make simple tools to help them
get ants out of anthills, etc. The claim that
man is unique has not held up under recent
scientific research.
Even sea otters use rocks to open the shells
of sea urchins. That's tool usage.


Not really, how many gorillas have you seen lately put together a television set? How many chimps have you seen make a car? (oops, almost said fly to the moon):-)

&gt;&gt;&gt; Also, Modern man co-existed with Neanderthals,
who are not our ancesters,and did have simple
social organization and created art.
So much for that one...

That one you got me on…don’t have an answer.

&gt;&gt;&gt;So? Recent history tells us that. And the Bible even says that (see Job concerning behemoth).


&gt;&gt;Hate to break this to you, but that Hebrew word
regarding the Behemoth was translated using
modesty and puritan attitudes as a motivation.
The word didn' really mean "tail", but another
anotomical feature which the translators were
embarrased to admit...

Uh, that’s a new one on me too…care to spot me an URL to show me where you got this info? I’ve NEVER seen this argument before. So my first question, what animal would have that “feature” big enough to compare it to a cedar tree (other than a dinosaur)? Hey…I’m impressed. Love to get some of those wheaties.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Ok, I’ll address this, and not avoid it. First, he says it is “a bit unlikely”…but he does not say it is impossible, causing his argument to fail right there, by his own words. Unlikely events happen all the time in nature. I’ve read where they have duplicated layering effects in a lab, at least to a certain extent, giving evidence to the possibility of millions of layers of sediment in one year, etc..


&gt;&gt;&gt;That's quite an extrapolation. Did they show
that maybe 3 layers could form, and then extrapolate that to say that if 3 could form,
then millions could form as well? Do you realize
what an absurd leap that would be (assuming I
didn't just create a strawman for you).

Thought I’d post this argument for you (from a chemist) showing it is not such a leap.

Quote:

Excerpt From 1998 “Problems with a global flood?” by J. Sarfati

Isaak: “How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.”

Answer: The self-sorting mechanism described above explains that. It’s simply nonsense that the layers would have to form slowly, and/or one at a time. The evaporite mechanism fails to explain the variation in the number of layers between the same pair of volcanic ash layers. More importantly, it fails to explain why there are fish and other fossils many different layers. They would have decayed if they were on the bottom for thousands of years being slowly buried layer by layer (the varves are 0.1 mm thick in one of the fossil-bearing sections). This applies even if the water was low in oxygen. (The excuse that alkaline conditions might have preserved them from decay is preposterous — we use alkali in our dishwashers because it breaks down organic matter! [On the “No Answers in Genesis” website (see critique), one of the thralls (lacking advanced science qualifications, as usual with that site) attempted a rebuttal to this: “We use alkali to clean dishes because it cuts grease. Organic matter is then removed by physical forces — a dishcloth in case of hand washing, a spray of water in an automatic washer. Mildly alkaline conditions might in fact protect the skeleton of a fish from both bacterial attack and softening from long-term immersion in water.” This person doesn’t even know why alkali “cuts grease”—it is by catalyzing the hydrolysis (breaking up) the ester linkages in the fat molecules (incidentally soap is produced this way), and alkali also catalyzes the hydrolysis of the amide bonds in proteins. In fact, alkali is more dangerous than acid in the eye, for example. So the idea of tissues being preserved by alkali is indeed preposterous]) See Green River Blues, Creation 19(3):18–19, June–August 1997…

End quote:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Lastly, there is evidence, and scientific theory that there MAY have been ice “ring(s) around the earth at one time, and that the ring may have collapsed into the earth, causing a deluge (also explaining how various animals were seemingly frozen mid-chomp while eating.) A canopy of “water “ overhead would logically have the entire earth in a “glasshouse” type of effect, being tropical in nature, and would explain many other passages in the Bible, as well as answering a myriad of geological questions.

Ice rings? Can you cite a reference for this
claim? Just how much ice do you think was up there? I realize you don't subscribe to this
theory but let's think about this... if there
was enough ice flying up there to flood the earth,
then where did all the water go when it was done?
Back into space

No, actually absorbed into the subterranean floor.(which is still happening today btw), and in forming deeper oceans (there's a theory that the earth did not have oceans as great as they are today.) Some say ice rings, some say water canopies…here’s one example.


<a href="http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r05.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r05.htm</a> – canopy theory

This is from a non-Christian view btw…admitting that there is a possibility that a canopy could have been around the globe…the part they are having a hard time with, is how much water could it hold, and would it be enough to account for the flood (conclusion was no…but possibly).

There seems more evidence of this theory than most others, including the “crack” (located in the Atlantic Ocean).

C'mon Ron! That's the mid-Atlantic ridge, and
it's where the new crust of the earth is forming
due to volcanic activity. It's what causes
the tektonic plates to move around. This is not
theory, it is verifiable and can been seen to be
happening right now.

Bzzzzz….wrong…check out:

<a href="http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfigures.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonicsfigures.htm</a>

– moving tetonic plates theory (to go with the cracking of mantel, and releasing waters from beneath).
The moving of the plates ALONE could account for the flood. I’m still looking for the other URL…momentarily lost it, but here are some others for you to read for kicks (below).

&gt;&gt;&gt;. Both are “scientific” theories (not necessarily by pro-biblical flood scientist btw). Each would explain a worldwide flood, and neither are unfeasible.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&lt;sigh&gt;. there was no worldwide flood. There is not evidence of it. It is most likely that the flood
story (started in the epic of Gilgamesh with
DIFFERENT characters, and then borrowed by
the Jewish people) was a result of a catastropic
breaking of a natural damn on the Black Sea, circa
7000 B.C.

Besides the fact that almost every major civilization has a “flood” story…civilizations from all around the world? Here's a couple:
Noah’s ark: <a href="http://www.exchangedlife.com/wyatt/noah.html" target="_blank">http://www.exchangedlife.com/wyatt/noah.html</a>
Flood & Grand Canyon: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp</a>
I've more...as I'm sure you have.

Gotta run, catcha on the flip.
Ron

theyeti

Ron, to see problems with the global flood, check out this formal "debate" (which wasn't much of a debate): <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000010" target="_blank">The Viability of Flood Geology</a>. The global flood is simply untenable, and most of the arguments in the links you provide can be trivially refuted with even a minimal amount of geological knowledge. In short, it's a bunch of BS. The person to talk with though is ps418; I'm not very knowledgeable about geology (though I've seen the above arguments soundly refuted enough times to do it myself).

theyeti

hezekiah jones

So, the biblical accounts are entirely correct, it's just the dates that are a little off? Come on.

This is patently untrue, Ron. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Unfortunately this is the wrong forum to discuss these issues.

Oolon Colluphid

WTF??

Feb 15, 8:38 am:

1/100 x 4,500,000,000 = 45,000,000 doesn't it??!

I cannot see anything else relating to a definite statement on dates. So just what the <a href="http://www.loughman.dna.ie/general/4mymofo.html" target="_blank">feck</a> did I fabricate, eh bozo? I demand that you explain yourself or retract that libel.

I also assume that since you have not replied to a single one of my points, you cannot answer them.

Oolon

Kosh

Ron, Oolon is correct of course. And since for
the first someone's pissed him off enough that
he's started substituting American slang in place
of British Colloqueisms (just how the hell do
you spell that anyway?).... please apologize!