"Those whacky evolutionists!"

[Odin]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Just keep your evolution bull**** out of my face.!

Your the Bullsh!ter, and a BAM.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Why would it be silly? Until the earth and sun are created, there are no days as we know them.

Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?

ACK!

The Earth is created day one, so that is not an issue.

And no, there is no mention of any day other than an earth day (24 hours).

I am sorry, but if one begin to haggle over the meaning of words in the Bible, well, then, lots of fun then! After all, idoloatry really means.... The word is day, the same as in every time day is used. There is no textual evidence to make the claim that the length of that day is any different, and without textual evidence, there is no foundation for the claim.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by GePap


The Earth is created day one, so that is not an issue.

And no, there is no mention of any day other than an earth day (24 hours).

I am sorry, but if one begin to haggle over the meaning of words in the Bible, well, then, lots of fun then! After all, idoloatry really means.... The word is day, the same as in every time day is used. There is no textual evidence to make the claim that the length of that day is any different, and without textual evidence, there is no foundation for the claim.

True, according to my religion(non-practicing), the Bible has lost a lot of the words that were supposed to be in there. Dark Ages and such, when it was re-written things were removed.

That is the Mormon explanation for why the Bible is, at times, contradictory, and doesn't neccesarily tell it how it REALLY happened.

I find that to have a ring of truth.

ACK!

[GePap]

But we have now copies of ancient Aramaic texts pre-dating the Middle Ages, and the translations, at least for the first century AD are still close. And certainly do not add much in the way of forgotten words, though people may quibble about translation,: but I have not yet heard any significant changes to Genesis. Most of the new material is in the form of Gospels not included into the Canon of four, like that of Thomas.

[Tuberski]

The Mormons, my semi-religion, believe that all the little things you need to help you understand the Bible better are in the Book of Mormon.

I've read the BoM, not sure I believe it, but it is a pretty damn go story.

You should try it for that, if nothing else.

Lots of war, death and betrayal.

Of course, I also think it is somewhat racist towards native Americans.

ACK!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.

What exactly are "creation scientists?"

[Odin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What exactly are "creation scientists?"

Creation Scientist is an oxymoron, more like Psudscientists. They are the morons that slant evidence to deny evolution (like Diplomat.

Diplomat;

[Fez Mode]
You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.
[/Fez Mode]

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If the Flood occured, then we can expect the animals to have been deposited, and fossilized in a certain order. The fossil record confirms this order, lending credence to the Flood. So, believe it or not, creationists can study the fossil record.

Twice in the other thread I refuted this. You have never backed up this assertion, and you say it here a third time. I've shown you how the geologic record contradicts the Flood story. It does NOT appear as we would expect should the Flood have happened:

"How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)

why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.

why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.

why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?

how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.

why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.

why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]

why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].

why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer? "

These are just a few problems with the flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html

Even Da Vinci, hundreds of years ago, used simple common sense to show that the Flood was nonsense:

"What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood."

Once again, baseless claims! This was what I was talking about--uncritical and unthinking reiteration of common Creationist claims, regardless of any factual support for them or whether or not they've already been soundly refuted. You employ a scattershot method: Attack, get refuted, ignore refutation and post a different attack, get refuted, ignore refuation, etc. Then you come back to reposting attacks that have been refuted. Worse, you're just getting the attacks piecemeal from various Creationist sources without any sense of being coherent. Negative argumentation of this sort is devoid of merit.

Now, how is it scientists have directly observed quantum phenomena, when we can't directly see an atom, much less subatomic particles? We use observational inference. Learn the terms!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Odin
Creation Scientist is an oxymoron, more like Psudscientists.

That's my point. Creationism cannot be framed into a scientific theory even remotely, because its basis violates underlying foundations.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What exactly are "creation scientists?"

Creationists who show how creation would have worked scientifically, natch.

For instance, the scientific reasoning for T. Rex having such large, sharp teeth was because they were very useful for eating watermelons.*

But minor distortions of reality are apparently not uncommon in these sorts of environments. Apparently, St. Patrick was a Protestant.**

*True claim from a Protestant pastor! Apparently, all animals on Earth were vegetarians until the fall.

**True claim from a Protestant history book!

[Urban Ranger]

I suppose the reason why the T Rex had such powerful legs is they could run away from any would be watermelon snatchers.