Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Likely. After all the creationists believe in the 9th commandment: You must lie.

It is a well-known fact that creationists lie often. Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, Walter Brown: they've all been caugght doing it! And creationist websites are full of "questions evolutionists cannot answer" that have been answered hundreds of times, "evidence" known to be false for many decades, and so forth. It's commonly known as "Lying for the Lord".

This is only about how he converted from evolutionism to creationism. See your bold letters? Where does he admit that the evidence support evolution?

You obviously don't know much about Wise. He's just about the only prominent creationist who is regarded as basically truthful. He has been labelled a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists.

You are lying, Lars. Nobody here has DENIED that most mutations are not beneficial (actually most are pretty neutral, but the "horrid" ones greatly outnumber the beneficial ones). That's where natural selection comes in.

Lying? Me being a raving lunatic religious bigot? That's right we believe in the commandment "You must lie". I didnt know that, neither that I was a mad religous terrorist. Because that's next, right?

You said (about harmful mutations) "I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet". You lied. You were caught. Live with it.

Funny, being one of the best students at it in university. But there's a great conspiracy going on. The great uni's like Harvard, Northwestern, etc are crap. Any more amusing stuff? Wanna resort to rethoric or semantics perhaps?

West Virginia take me home to meet the evolved hillbilles of the mountains.

Harvard, of course, teaches EVOLUTION. Like ALL real universities. Your pretense that 99.999% of all the world's scientists are "hillbillies" is surely a joke, right?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It is a well-known fact that creationists lie often. Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, Walter Brown: they've all been caugght doing it! And creationist websites are full of "questions evolutionists cannot answer" that have been answered hundreds of times, "evidence" known to be false for many decades, and so forth. It's commonly known as "Lying for the Lord".

I ask to everyone of you to not consider myself as one of those persons mentioned above. I do not know them, don't know what they say, and I don't care. But I also want to point out that evolutionists have already lied quite a bit.

I have a lot of questions to answer, but I'm at work and I think I've exceeded greatly the time I spared to Apolyton.

[Bosh]

No, the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah himself!
Was not!

You say that the book was written by several authors, but the unity of this book can surely be pointed by the expression "The Holy of Israel" which shows up 12 times from chapters 1 to 39, and 13 from chapters 40 to 66, in a total of 25 times. In the rest of the OT this expression only appears 6 times.
So one common phrase sticks around throughout, while stylistically most everything else shifts a good bit and this is proof that they're all written by the same person??

Even the Apostle Paul testifies the unity of the book and that Isaiah wrote his book
Irrelevant, as the two/three "Isaiahs" were lumped together before Paul's time.


dated to be from the end of the second century BCE
Again irrelevent, since the two/three "Isaiahs" were probably lumped together under Persian rule, which is when the bulk of the bible assumed its present form.

But there's other evidence of Isaiah's book authenticity. Beside Moses, he's the most quoted by the Christian Bible writers.
This proves all of the book was written by the same person how?

And there's abundant evidence in history and archeology which prove that the book is genuine, such as the historical narratives of the Assyrian Monarchs, and the hexagonal prism of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who made his own writtings about Jerusalem's siege
Right. All of the book was probably written at around the time of the events it discusses (with editing later of course) but as it talks about widely separated times it was written by two/three separate people. This is different from the book of Daniel, which was probably all written shortly before the Maccabean revolt.

Daniel will have to be for some other time.
NP

Any modern day experiments confirm your theory of beneficial mutations?
There's a great deal of evidence that the gene that makes most of us NOT lactose intolerant was a fairly recent mutation, there's plenty more examples like this.

What about 'evolution by leaps' which seemed to be a new craze a few years ago?
When the environment is disrupted and lots of ecological niches are freed up there tends to be a spurt of evolution until relative ecological balance is restored, but this still takes millions of years. A good example of this is the differentiation of mammals after the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Newton's mechanics have been proven right.
Actually they've been proven wrong by Einstein quite a while ago, but they're still a useful way of modeling everyday physics.

You need to tell tham about evidence for macroevolution.
The split between macroevolution and microevolution is quite arbitrary, kind of like the difference between, say, grey and dark grey and creationists have never been able to explain why there should be a magic barrier that allows X amout of evolution but no more.

Would you please give me the probabilities for this to happen?
Its immensely improbable that evolution would result in the species that we have today, (just like if you shuffle a deck of cards having the exact order of cards that you have is IMMENSELY improbable) but not that it has occured at all.

Seems like the writer of Samuel II thought God provoked David, while the writer of Chronicles saw satan behind the story.
Good, this is all we need, the admission that the writers of the Bible are fallible. A lot of Christians wouldn't make the above kind of statement. The logical question now is, of course, how do you separate out the true and the false bits of the bible?

can't find any contradictions
The bit about Chronicles and Samuel is exactly the kind of contradiction we're talking about.

In Matthew we have the lineage of Jesus' ancestors through his mother Mary
Hmmm the 14 generation bit is the clincher here, I concede the argument.

And believe me, you'll be guilty.
Fairly strange for a God to set up impossible standards and then punish people for an eternity for not meeting said standards (ie all the Jews that lived in the BCs for example).

In that case an eye can only 'evolve' in 100000 to the 11th degree cases.
You're making the incorrect assumption that there's nothing between "eye" and "no eye." There's evidence (which I can dig up if you want) that eye evolution started as a patch of light-sensitive flesh that couldn't do anything besides tell the difference between light and dark and then went from there.

It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it
I'm willing to bet anything that this statement was taken COMPLETELY out of context (a favorite creationist tactic) or is a bald lie. I did some research on Eigen and what he supposedly said and I couldn't find the completely quote or even any references to when/where he said it in the bunch of creationist sites that came up when I searched for this quote.

Anyways there are millions of focciles and many have been found. Mammals, insects, etc. But where are the intermediates?
Every fossil (except the dead ends) is an intermediary.

Why the heck doesn't every specie have exactly the same kind of eye, if they had exactly the same time to "evolve"?
Um, if you think this is how evolution works you have a LOT of reading to do. Evolution is not teleological, there is no pre-determined "best" endpoint and species evolve all over the place.

Why didn't every ape evolve into humans?
Because populations were separated and some populations evolved into humans and some didn't. This kind of claim makes about as much sense as wondering why there are still wolves when dogs were bred from wolves.

You just stare into the sun for one hour without blinking or having any eye protection. What will happen? You'll go blind! Every one's following up to here, right? Now, didn't the eye mutate? Didn't it lost some properties?... My point is that there are some event-driven mutations
Um, no. This is kind of Lamarkian evolution NEVER takes place and going blind is hardly a mutation.

but you just can't answer how did life appear in the first place!
Abinogenesis =! evolution.

Because if evolution did happen there's no way Earth would bear so much bio-diversity.
Why?

What happened to oldfashioned science where you observe something in nature and then make a theory out of it?
You mean like looking at the fossil record and then making an evolutionary theory out of it, which is the only theory that is capable of explaining the fossil record?

From this you conclude that since there's an equal chance that any of the 200 is right - evolution which is one of them is right. This is more like an logical error. It doesn't make sense.
Wha????????

Now can you tell me why the bananafly has reached the pinnacle of evolution?
Evolution doesn't have pinnacles.

Even flies. There has been done mutation-experiments on the bananafly. Guess what? They all died like flies. So according to your logic this experiment denies the theory of beneficial mutations.
Wha??????????

I have pointed out a vast difference of opinion on evolution theory between scientists and ppl in this thread.
No you haven't, creationists are a miniscule (as in under 1%) minority among scientists.

There's no scientific evidence that apes stoped being apes at one given time, neither that men weren't still "men" at a given time!
Well humans are just another kind of ape, but there's plenty of hominid fossils that show the development of our ancestors to us.

But why are men the only "animal" who have fat as a heat-retaining system, as do fish
Fish aren't animals?

[b]could be needed in order to that amoeba to appear, and let me tell you: that's impossible[b]
Nobody argues that amoebas were the first life, it was probably something FAR simplier.

[b]In that case, have scientist discovered what the benefit of intelligence was in the human species habitat?[b]
Well once humans started walking upright, having an extra set of hands could do a lot of things with a little intelligence.

OK, so how does the ability to comprehend the mathematics behind quantum mechanics
The human brain is incredibly inefficient (because evolution hasn't had long to work with it), the brain we have evolved to take advantage of tools and to organize human groups more effectively, its just a nice side-effect that it can also figure out quantum dynamics.

The problem with this is that you assume that the flora is immutable
We do? How? Plants evolve the same as animals.

Dr. Wise
He's quite an exception, an honest creationist:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html

Yeah, and turn a blind eye to the ones that fail and they are many, but who cares, right?
Um, did anyone ever say that all mutations are beneficial???

that's enough reading for today, but I would really appreciate it if I got a responce out of Zealot about Daniel/Isaiah...

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You obviously don't know much about Wise. He's just about the only prominent creationist who is regarded as basically truthful. He has been labelled a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists.

You quoted something he said and said that he in there said that all the evidence points to evolution. Lying for whom?

You said (about harmful mutations) "I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet". You lied. You were caught. Live with it.

I did not lie. Pl said that evolution had been proven and came up with mutation experiments. They failed to mention that most mutations were harmful. Live with it.

Your pretense that 99.999% of all the world's scientists are "hillbillies" is surely a joke, right?

Pretense? You're mixing and confusing stuff. I only said take me home to WV. I did not mean to joke about scientists. Come on. You can see my sig in some posts - it is about WV - a famous country song. I was playing with my sig.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
Its immensely improbable that evolution would result in the species that we have today, (just like if you shuffle a deck of cards having the exact order of cards that you have is IMMENSELY improbable)

Good point.

It is impossible to believe in evolution theory, but I still believe it
I'm willing to bet anything that this statement was taken COMPLETELY out of context (a favorite creationist tactic) or is a bald lie. I did some research on Eigen and what he supposedly said and I couldn't find the completely quote or even any references to when/where he said it in the bunch of creationist sites that came up when I searched for this quote.

This was stated in a religious book. The scientist in question won the prize in the 40s. If it was a lie? Hopefully not.

...creationists are a miniscule (as in under 1%) minority among scientists.

Thus being wrong. Like the scientists in the medeval times. As has been mentioned in here the dogma of evolution seem to have the same dominating place today like the dogmas of the church in older times.

[SkeleTony69]

Another link the creationists won't bother reading(this one on the "probabilities" argument):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html

[SkeleTony69]

...and a rather blatant example of biblical errancy which I do not suspect the creationists will be able to address:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8926.htm

It concerns the "fig tree story" from the gospels of Mathew and Mark.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
that's enough reading for today, but I would really appreciate it if I got a responce out of Zealot about Daniel/Isaiah...

Well, since you asked with good manners...

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
No, the book of Isaiah was written by Isaiah himself!
Was not!

You say that the book was written by several authors, but the unity of this book can surely be pointed by the expression "The Holy of Israel" which shows up 12 times from chapters 1 to 39, and 13 from chapters 40 to 66, in a total of 25 times. In the rest of the OT this expression only appears 6 times.
So one common phrase sticks around throughout, while stylistically most everything else shifts a good bit and this is proof that they're all written by the same person??

That is his style! What everything else "shifts a good bit"? What are you expecting as style?!? What are you doubting about? No, better, why are you doubting about?

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
Even the Apostle Paul testifies the unity of the book and that Isaiah wrote his book
Irrelevant, as the two/three "Isaiahs" were lumped together before Paul's time.

Zhu, I don't know what's going on in your mind, but you're sure not thinking straight! You're accusing my statement as irrelevant, and you only argument that Paul wasn't alive when Isaiah was? Don't you get that Isaiah was part of the Jewish history? And that Paul was an attorney, which means he was educated? Get this straight: the reason the Bible is valid is because of both arqueologic findings and because it's backed by Jewish history!

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
dated to be from the end of the second century BCE
Again irrelevent, since the two/three "Isaiahs" were probably lumped together under Persian rule, which is when the bulk of the bible assumed its present form.

Probably?!? How can I give credit to someone who just criticizes without providing evidence to doubt what I have argumented? Where did you get that idea of lumping the book when Persian arrived at Babylon?

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
But there's other evidence of Isaiah's book authenticity. Beside Moses, he's the most quoted by the Christian Bible writers.
This proves all of the book was written by the same person how?

It's part of Jewish history! It was known by the people! That's why it was never refuted!

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
And there's abundant evidence in history and archeology which prove that the book is genuine, such as the historical narratives of the Assyrian Monarchs, and the hexagonal prism of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who made his own writtings about Jerusalem's siege
Right. All of the book was probably written at around the time of the events it discusses (with editing later of course) but as it talks about widely separated times it was written by two/three separate people. This is different from the book of Daniel, which was probably all written shortly before the Maccabean revolt.

How can I explain this without insulting you?
It is so immature to think that one is either a liar or an opportunist. Yet, this is what you have been calling to Isaiah, to Jews who lived in the time of Isaiah, to Jews who lived under Roman domination, to the copy-writters of the scrolls, to historicians, arqueologists, and you even consider dumb those who believe in it!
And you still have the nerve to discard the authenticity of a book without showing any evidence whatsoever! I don't think I'm going to waste my time with you on Daniel's book. You just don't care if I'm showing reliable information or not!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
...and a rather blatant example of biblical errancy which I do not suspect the creationists will be able to address:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8926.htm

It concerns the "fig tree story" from the gospels of Mathew and Mark.

Oh I loved this one! I didn't even need to do any research!
My grandfather had 2 fig trees in his yard. And I love figs, btw. When Mark and Mathews say that it wasn't fig season it to not allow people to think that every fig had already been harvested. Because fig trees always have figs, even the little, immature ones. So, if they hadn't been harvested before, and the tree didn't have any fig in development, it wasn't going to give any figs anytime. It was unfertile!

Could you please spread out what I just wrote?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Really? I think it took a genius to come up with the concept of a lever, while the ability to do inner products and calculate geodesics can be taught to even the stupidest undergraduate.

I would think that someone stupid can be told how to make and use a lever more easily than they can be told how to solve Shrodingers wave equation. Don't you?

When a particularly bright ape made the first flint knife, then all of sudden what had been merely a useful weapon in an ape's arsenal became their most important aspect. Once an animal makes the leap to tool-making and invention as a fundamental part of their behaviour (as opposed to the merely incidental behaviour of termite-twiddling we've seen in our evolutionary cousins) then there's an enormous evolutionary pressure put on them to further develop this ability.

Spark to a flame. I can accept that theory. But did we overshoot the requirement? Given that Neanderthals and our less intelligent brothers died out, possibly due to us, I guess not.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
...and a rather blatant example of biblical errancy which I do not suspect the creationists will be able to address:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8926.htm

It concerns the "fig tree story" from the gospels of Mathew and Mark.

"Why would Jesus look for figs on a tree outside season? He cursed the tree and it withered away".

This is a story with more verses but the site you provided don't touch on them. After Jesus curses the fig tree he teaches the disciples a lesson on faith, proclamation and prayer. The emphasis is on the lesson he gave. Jesus sought an opportunity to teach the disciples something. It was not uncommon for him to do things in an unsual way. BTW, Jesus was amongst other things a Teacher.

Now, this is my simple spontaneous response to this based on what the scriptures say. I'm sure there are theologeans who have more profound insight.

DiniDoc provided a link where apparent bible contradictions are refuted:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/contralinks.html

Have a nice day!

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lars:

You quoted something he said and said that he in there said that all the evidence points to evolution. Lying for whom?

I certainly did NOT claim that Wise said that in the quote I provided. So, ironically, this is another lie by you.

You said (about harmful mutations) "I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet". You lied. You were caught. Live with it.

I did not lie. Pl said that evolution had been proven and came up with mutation experiments. They failed to mention that most mutations were harmful. Live with it.

YES, most mutations are harmful. So what? That's where natural selection comes in. Harmful mutations are IRRELEVANT to evolution, they get eliminated. But what you actually said was "No one in here believed it" (...that most non-neutral mutations are harmful). We DO believe this. Your claim that we do not is an invented claim, otherwise known as a "lie".

[SkeleTony69]

Originally posted by Zealot


Oh I loved this one! I didn't even need to do any research!
My grandfather had 2 fig trees in his yard. And I love figs, btw. When Mark and Mathews say that it wasn't fig season it to not allow people to think that every fig had already been harvested. Because fig trees always have figs, even the little, immature ones. So, if they hadn't been harvested before, and the tree didn't have any fig in development, it wasn't going to give any figs anytime. It was unfertile!

Could you please spread out what I just wrote?

??? What are you talking about?!?!?The issue here was cybershy's(IIRC) claim that no contradictions/errancy existed in the Bible and this qualifies as errancy and contradiction on several levels!
Did you even read the bit I linked to?I don't think so.

Here are the major points to remember since you are too lazy too read:

1)In BOTH gospels it is stated that Jesus went looking for figs on a tree when it was not fig season(even if figs were always in season this amounts to errancy in the bible).

1a) Why was the son of God hungry?
1b)What sort of moron looks for figs on a tree when it is not
fig season?!?
1c)Is it rational to kill a tree for not bearing fruit out of
season?
1d)The first account says that the tree was withered
by the following morning,but in the second Jesus
immediately destroys the tree!Which is it?

Please go read the actual page so you can get a better understanding of the actual accounts and the problems of errancy with those accounts.

[SkeleTony69]

And why are you asking me to "spread out what you just wrote?What the hell does that mean?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lars:

I certainly did NOT claim that Wise said that in the quote I provided. So, ironically, this is another lie by you.

Where did he say it then? You came up with something he supposedly said and then provided a quotation.

YES, most mutations are harmful. So what? That's where natural selection comes in. Harmful mutations are IRRELEVANT to evolution, they get eliminated. But what you actually said was "No one in here believed it" (...that most non-neutral mutations are harmful). We DO believe this. Your claim that we do not is an invented claim, otherwise known as a "lie".

We DO believe this? Do you believe evolution has been proven? If so please provide the paper where it's proven and the name of the guy that won the Nobel Prize for writing it.

As far as lying goes:
Are you trying to prove the conspiracy theory that creationists produce allmost nothing but lies?