Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Zealot]

SkeleTony69, now you're just being a plain dork.
You are the one who must read the subject again!
You asked questions, I answered them.
What the hell do you want from me?

[SkeleTony69]

You did NOT answer anything but your own misunderstandings of what the questions were!

IDIOCY...MAKING...HEAD...HURT.

MUST...IGNORE...ZEALOT!!!

[SkeleTony69]

Okay Zealot lets try and tackle just ONE of the problems.I will pick a simple(as in not hard to understand) one from my initial post:

Why do males have nipples?


Please do not repost the "Godandscience" link again.To the best of my knowledge the question is not addressed there and besides I want to hear a convincing refutation from one of you guys.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Zealot:

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.

The creation/evolution debate is rather like the flat-Earth/round-Earth debate: finding genuinely neutral sources is pretty much impossible. Given that both issues have long since been resolved, a person with no opinion on whether the Earth is flat or round would have to be very ignorant of geography, just as a person with no opinion on creationism or evolution would have to be ignorant of biology.

The closest you're likely to get would be some of the "Intelligent Design" (theistic evolution) supporters. But the pro-ID Discovery Institute refers to creationists as "guitar-strumming hilbillies" while some of its members make statements like "mutations cannot increase information" (false: they can, this has been observed to happen).

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Zealot

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.

You seem to have missed the whole metaphor of that story.

[Guynemer]

ARGH! Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! As if I didn't have to put up with people not listening enough in real life, I have to deal with it here!

I never, not once, called anyone uneducated. What I said was that people were being willfully ignorant. What that means is that you've been ignoring every piece of concrete evidence for evolution brought forward; you've closed your eyes, ignored thousands of years of progress in math and science and genetics, and refuse to acknowledge any facts that contradict the claim that evolution is a lie.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that the universe, life, and evolution were created/directed by some sort of deity or higher power. There is no scientific evidence to deny that. But there are volumes upon volumes of data supporting the theory of evolution. As DinoDoc asked, what the hell is problem?

[Robert]

both sides have their idiots and their wise men.
You must be an idiot to claim that everyone on 'the other side' is an idiot.

Believe me, I'm as frustrated as you are that you do'nt understand what I say, and that you can't see the point. That's why we disagree.

If you think everyone who disagrees with you is a complete idiot, you pherhaps should start to learn to debate. And you can think whatever you want, but it's really really not done to speak those shameless thoughts out in public.

Why can't you just act like you're mature ?
btw, I don't know who mentioned that I was the one that claimed the bible didn't got any errors / etc. Why don't you read my posts before you blame me.

Last: why is majority of my points not answered, while the thread grew insane ? Ignoring posts doesn't make the evolutionistic team look very clever.

You can just admit a point now and then. (like I did and will do again) or do you REALLY believe that all you say is right and all we say is wrong ?

In fact: people that think that way are really helpless. Theistic or atheistic.......... write it on the top of your monitor so you can read it everytime you debate: "I'm not infallable, not omniscient, and even I make mistakes"

good night my humble gods.

CyberShy

[SkeleTony69]

If it was not you Cybershy who stated this then I apologise as it was I who mistakenly identified you as the one to put forth the claim that the bible contained no errors(my memory is not what it used to be).

I have no problem admitting I am wrong when I am indeed wrong but why on earth do creationists insist that we concede that we are wrong(or be labled "arrogant" or "close minded")even if we have not been shown to be wrong?

I am unaware of any points you made that went unanswered so I will reread the thread later when I have time but this doesn't change the fact that pretty much every point in the entire case for evolution has gone unanswered and we have caught several out right lies put forth by your side(the false deathbed recantation of Charles Darwin comes to mind as well as the several scientific errors).

Show us to be in err,through logic,reason and ACTUAL scientific evidence rather than just say "you guys are wrong" and I will be first to admit such.

jack's analogy about the "flat earthers" is spot on and that is why we do not conced that there are "wise" people on the creation "science" side.

[SkeleTony69]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

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.

The funny thing here is that Bible literalists(I'm not saying you are one) are always literal until they run into a discrepancy which they cannot explain away and then we get the "well that is just metaphor" bit.It seems to "truly" understand the words of God,you have to fully understand the MIND of God(and if we can do that then what need have we of God?)!

I was merely pointing out substantial contradiction within the Bible which others claimed there was not any.

[Lars-E]

Skeletony69 you keep whining about ppl not answering your posts. What about my figtree post? I can't see that you answered it.

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

Theologians know nothing about theism? Is this the argument that's gonna turn us into evolutionists?

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Here's an example of Kurt Wise debunking a creationist claim.

Debunking?

"Though I have not seen all of Conrad's
specimens, I suggest that his material be considered with the greatest caution. It is very possible that most, if not all, his material is inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all"

I think that later they found that there were no "mammalian bones" there.

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

Unfounded to say the least based on your article:

"He is concerned that there are 'creationists' around who, because of their understanding of particular scientific issues, deviate from the scriptural foundation promoted so strongly by Dr Henry Morris, for example."

Creationists who deviate from scriptures - I would expect them to say anything. There's seems to be a controversy between serious creationists like the ppl atICR

and creationists who do not believe the bible.

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

Sadly, yes. This looked like an obituary where the writer mocks the dead. I am not surprised at Dawkins. He seems to have proven that God is dead. Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science - is that public understand of 'God is dead theology" and evolution? Seems like even some evolutionists in this thread is fed up with this guy.

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"?

There could be many reasons. But then again there's only 1 saving answer. Evolution is the solution.

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

Even Wise ic. Paranoia.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Guynemer
But there are volumes upon volumes of data supporting the theory of evolution. As DinoDoc asked, what the hell is problem?

There isn't really that much evidence for the theory of evolution - a least not enough to satisfy a skeptical scientist (like me!). There is a lot of evidence for certain areas: for example, evolution via mutation does occur in the laboratory in fruit flies, and carbon dating of fossils gives tells us the the Earth is older than the traditional 6000 years. There is also some evidence to suggest that the universe itself is approximately 14 billion years old (but you could dispute that).

However, there is absolutely no evidence for certain parts. For example, there is still no link between humans and apes. There are fossils of creatures which seem to fall in between but there are still big gaps. This is true for many other species too.

More worryingly, we have been completey unable to produce primitive life in the laboratory from inanimate matter. We actually have no evidence for the 'creation event' in the primordial soup. Was it one event (which may be extremely rare) from which all life on Earth spawned, or was there multiple events so that certain forms of life are completely unrelated? Did life even form here first at all? Perhaps there was monocellular life on an asteroid which impacted on the primitive Earth?

I personally feel that there will be some 'evolution-like' explanation, but I am certainly not convinced of Darwin's evolution via natural selection yet. There is just not enough evidence for it.

Remember Laplace's Theory of Evolution also looked correct until it was disproven by fossils.

I get a little bit annoyed when people say that if you don't believe in evolution you must be stupid. Skepticism in science is extremely valuable. Without it we are all poorer and scientific advance would be much slower.

Incidentally, not being convinced some theory is true doesn't mean you can't still use it in your quest for the real truth. Instead of typing this, I am supposed to be working on testing to see if Supersymmetry is present in nature, but I am by no means convinced that it is....

[KrazyHorse]

However, there is absolutely no evidence for certain parts. For example, there is still no link between humans and apes. There are fossils of creatures which seem to fall in between but there are still big gaps. This is true for many other species too

True, there is a gap in the fossil record which includes the probable splitting point between the great apes and hominids, but "Lucy" (she was discovered 15-20 years ago, wasn't she?) is a good example of an extremely early hominid (australopithecus afarensis) from ~4 million years ago. Her brain capacity was just about 1/3 that of modern humans and she stood (yes, stood) just about 4 feet tall with heavy bone structure and musculature. I wouldn't really consider her human, and between her and us there's a pretty good link-up through a half-dozen steps.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

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.

People are always amazed at how brilliant our ancestors were, often to the point of ridiculousness. Part of the problem is that due to their upbringing in the modern world they tend to think that the ancients had to work the whole idea out on a chalkboard, and then present it for peer review. They forget the power of the accidental discovery. The genius comes in the realization, the remembering, and most importantly the transmission of the idea.

For instance "the lever". A brilliant discovery. Of course the club is a useful lever par excellence. I have seen a nature film where a baboon picks up a (fairly sturdy) stick and strikes a lion with it, while others in the troop are throwing rocks and sticks and screaming like mad. How much of a leap is it to a biped hanging on to that stick out of fear (and having a free hand or two), and then finding other applications for the new force he has discovered, leverage?

I was watching another show on siege engines one night, and one of the archeologists was waxing on euphorically about how the ancients knew just how long to make the arm of the trebuchet to get the maximum efficiency, and how that sort of mathematics was not formally invented until centuries later. This again assumes the theoretic approach. I assume that in ancient times they did what me and my friends did, which is to adjust the fulcrum until the stone went no further. Hell, it's a lot quicker than inventing the math!

[Viper2263]

Ancient Sumerian texts record the event. I've read some of the ones relating to the flood. They also record a man building an ark. With more than one Civ recording the same event, your sources become more credible.