Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Jack the Bodiless]

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.

...Where?

[Dauphin]

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?

Like many NT stories, it is made up of metaphor.

Think about it, if you still need help I will explain.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Where?

You mentioned some lying "creationists". I don't have the need to lie, and I always search for doubt-free sources in order to not lie.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Zealot


I expose from a scientific standpoint evolutionist inconsistencies, and then I'm acused of not be giving evidence of creationism. I try to show how reasonable is the existence of a Divinity, and I'm accused of not arguing from a scientific standpoint.
Uff...

Where's that hammer-banging smilie when you need it?

[rude comment]You haven't exposed anything except your own ignorance[/rude comment]

Seriously, though: your factual claims are specious and your hypotheses verging on sophistry. It's as though you simply ignore any evidence-real physical evidence-that people give you and continue to wallow in your pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why isn't radio-dating inaccurate due to the fact that God irradiated the Earth? Sure, why not. Maybe God's playing a practical joke. Dinosaurs never existed, humans have always existed, the Earth is 6000 years old. The only clue God gave us to this is that he didn't leave every single fossil of every single organism ever to walk the earth under evolution's conception in an easy-to-find location. Do you mind telling us why exactly the fossil record demonstrates evolution in action? Why forms which are the ancestors of later forms under the theory of evolution are always* found in older layers than their progeny? Why does no record of large mammals exist prior to ~60 million years ago?

Where's your evidence? Making the untrue claim that there are no "transitional" fossils? Of course there are.

Jesus. A 1 second google search on "transitional fossils" turns up this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Do you have any idea of how many speciations we're talking about over the course of the last 3 billion years? Maybe as many as a billion (that's right, with a "b"). Most of those are what we would consider minor changes, of course. Right now we have a pretty decent idea of most family-to-family transitions, but things are too fragmentary to have gained a complete linkage between all species.

Read any of the subsections (particularly the one about transition from reptiles to mammals). Notice how many steps there are, just on a family level? Each of those families might represent a few dozen distinct species only on the direct linkage, never mind any branches which don't lay on the line between reptile and mammal. Why are all of those steps found in order in the ground? Why are there no mammal-like traits found 400 million years ago, some 350 million years ago, even more 200 million years ago, progressing to fully-formed mammals perhaps 150 million years ago. Hey look; there's even a gap in there of 30 million years. They haven't found many mammal-like fossils from that time period due to geological uphevals. Why does that destroy the fact that those dozens of steps are found in order? There isn't a random placement of these steps, with a more mammalian species being replaced by a less mammalian one, followed by an even more mammalian one; there's a steady progression.

What's your problem with Archaeopteryx, by the way? It's the poster-species for transitional specimens. Look at the goddamned thing; it's half-bird half-reptile. Sure you're missing a few million years of evolution between dinosaurs and archaeopteryx, but archaeopteryx is located just where you'd expect it to be found; after the appearance of winged dinosaurs and before the appearance of true birds. People take entire frigging degrees based on learning about examples of evolution in action; this isn't based on vacuum for God's sake. Buy an evolutionary biology book. Do you think they made up the order of fossils out of nowhere?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
Another link the creationists won't bother reading(this one on the "probabilities" argument):

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

I skimmed thru this serious science article by the name of "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"

Here's a quote:

"4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. "

Again it's said that highly educated ppl don't understand or misunderstand probabilities. Now I know where you ppl get it from. Serious science papers. Your arguments keep boiling down to: The creationists do not understand the simplest calculations or science. This is due to lack of intelligence and lack of education - blatant ingorance .

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


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?

Perhaps, but there was a real need for intelligence just to come up with the idea of a lever. Remember that these people are starting with nothing. They don't know what force is, or gravity, or acceleration, or anything. If you've never been told that sharpening a stone by rubbing it against another stone would make it cut well, or ever seen a knife, would you come up with the idea? I really don't know if I would. It took a lot of intelligence (and dexterity) just to get things off the ground while your biggest concern is still that leopard who's been looking at you hungrily for the last hour. It was a lot to ask for populations to become tool-makers out of nowhere, but there was a lot to be gained even from an extremely crude stone blade.

[SkeleTony69]

And yes,I have visited the site Dinodoc linked to a few times.To put it simply it is apologetic nonsense.As mI said earlier I can use impossible twists of logic and semantic dancing to argue that The Lord of the Rings was a historical work rather than fiction and these same tactics are used to explain away(not very well mind you) the various errors(and only a portion of them) in the bible.

They chalk up anything they are not able to explain away as being the fault of translation(as if it even mattered why the supposed word of God was so mucked up...if the bible is in err then it should not be adhered to as an infallible source for anything).
The author claims that most of the errors are trivial but I mguess this is pretty subjective.I think describing the world as being flat(in a number of places in the bible) ordescribing insects as having four legs is no trivial matter when you are trying to assert the bible as being more accurate than conventional science.

There is a section titled "101 bible contradictions cleared up" but there is no attempt to address the THOUSANDS of contradictions/errancies one can find in the bible(go to skeptics annotated bible site for a pretty thorough list)

I was tempted to attempt to post a rebuttal covering everything said at the site but I soon realised the futility as this thread would be another 35 pages long with that and no one would likely address the points made just as the points made in the VERY FIRST POST in this thread remain unanswered!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
Did you even read the bit I linked to?I don't think so.

Yes, I did! How do you think I explained why Jesus was expecting to find figs?

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
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?

1a. He was born as a human, why shouldn't he? Everybody knows that we eat to feed our cells in order to have energy! This is a dumb question...
1b. Well, this is a good question though. I can't see why, but for the reason he was hungry, and was curious, or was looking for birds which feed themselves with figs (my grandpa lost a lot of figs because the birds ate them all before they were mature for us to eat).
1c. As I said before, the fig tree should have any fig on it, even the little and immature ones. Since the fig tree didn't have any, it was just consuming the earth's nutrients without giving any fruit. It was a useless tree.
1d. the visible effects were only seen in the following morning. The tree died, but without being any "entertainment show".

I'm not quoting anywhere, I'm just using common sense, for a guy who knows quite a bit about fig trees.

[SkeleTony69]

Originally posted by Lars-E


I skimmed thru this serious science article by the name of "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"

Here's a quote:

"4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. "

Again it's said that highly educated ppl don't understand or misunderstand probabilities. Now I know where you ppl get it from. Serious science papers. Your arguments keep boiling down to: The creationists do not understand the simplest calculations or science. This is due to lack of intelligence and lack of education - blatant ingorance .

And again,instead of addressing the points made or offering refutation you choose to whine about what you percieve to be a hidden insult to your intelligence.I am insulted by christians every day of my life here in the US and they are completely unaware of the fact that they are being insulting or bigoted.STill,when they present their theism as science,I attempt to understand,consider and thus far point out flaws in their arguments rather than whine about the fact that they consider me inferior for being an atheist (and what's more I can show WHY they are being bigoted and not just make some bald assertion as you have done here).

[Zealot]

Originally posted by SkeleTony69
I was tempted to attempt to post a rebuttal covering everything said at the site but I soon realised the futility as this thread would be another 35 pages long with that and no one would likely address the points made just as the points made in the VERY FIRST POST in this thread remain unanswered!

Ok, ok, don't yell!

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

About those who personally insult you, you just have to say that Chist wouldn't ever treat you that way!
And try to find Christians who are both respectable and have some scientific knowledge about theism.

[SkeleTony69]

Originally posted by Zealot


Yes, I did! How do you think I explained why Jesus was expecting to find figs?



1a. He was born as a human, why shouldn't he? Everybody knows that we eat to feed our cells in order to have energy! This is a dumb question...
1b. Well, this is a good question though. I can't see why, but for the reason he was hungry, and was curious, or was looking for birds which feed themselves with figs (my grandpa lost a lot of figs because the birds ate them all before they were mature for us to eat).
1c. As I said before, the fig tree should have any fig on it, even the little and immature ones. Since the fig tree didn't have any, it was just consuming the earth's nutrients without giving any fruit. It was a useless tree.
1d. the visible effects were only seen in the following morning. The tree died, but without being any "entertainment show".

I'm not quoting anywhere, I'm just using common sense, for a guy who knows quite a bit about fig trees.

Again...your post betrays the fact that you did NOT read the page or bother to address the issues.We are not talking about your grandfather,or YOUR supposed knowledge of fig trees,or birds eating figs.If you bothered to read you would notice the gospel accounts do not say "Jesus destroyed the tree but it took a whole day to die".The gospel of Mathew says the tree was destroyed by Jesus IMMEDIATELY and the gospel of Mark contradicts this.VIOLA!!Biblical contradiction!
Also,as I said we are not talking about a regular mortal like your grandfather...we are talking about the allegedly infallible SON OF GOD!

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lars:

Here's an example of Kurt Wise debunking a creationist claim.

This is a creationist article in which Wise addresses being called a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists.

And Zhu has already given a link to Sadly, an Honest Creationist.

I haven't found a specific reference to Wise's admission that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (not everything is on the Net, after all). But why else would an atheistic "evolutionist" like Dawkins, who loathes creationists in general, call Wise an "honest creationist"?

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.

Evolution consists of mutations and natural selection. Both have been observed, therefore evolution has been "proven".

Of course, the claim that all species on Earth have definitely been produced entirely by Darwinian evolution is un-proveable. Therefore it is not scientific: inherently unfalsifiable claims have no place in science.

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

Certainly not! I am claiming that creationists produce absolutely nothing but lies.

[SkeleTony69]

Originally posted by Zealot


Ok, ok, don't yell!

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

About those who personally insult you, you just have to say that Chist wouldn't ever treat you that way!
And try to find Christians who are both respectable and have some scientific knowledge about theism.

Quit reposting links already shown to be lacking in refutation.There were dozens of points made in that first post alone and the link you are hoping can bail you out does not begin to adequately address the issues.Surely you can pick out at least several points yourself and offer some rebuttal ...?

How do you know "Christ would never treat me that way"?He treated many others(according to the bible) much worse.Do you know the mind of god/christ so well and yet are ubnable to hold your own in a debate with an atheist like me?

[DinoDoc]

Damn, you people! Can't you have one debate without it turning into a war of the pedants over irrelevancies? Get back to debating evolution and entertain me!

Re The post below this one: Posts no longer count here so there is no reason to split your posts up in order to get your count up.

[SkeleTony69]

Find some christians who posess scientific knowledge about theism???


ROTFLMFAO!!!