LLC

Yes that sounds fine. We shall continue this thread elsewhere.

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C. How did sensitive marine life such as coral survive? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness. How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark. Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere. Host-specific diseases which don't kill their host generally can't survive long, since the host's immune system eliminates them. (This doesn't apply to diseases such as HIV and malaria which can hide from the immune system.) For example, measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood. Some diseases that can affect a wide range of species would have found conditions on the Ark ideal for a plague. Avian viruses, for example, would have spread through the many birds on the ark. Other plagues would have affected the mammals and reptiles. Even these plague pathogens, though, would have died out after all their prospective hosts were either dead or resistant. How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems. How could more than a handful of species survive in a devastated habitat? The Flood would have destroyed the food and shelter which most species need to survive. How did predators survive? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on? How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands? How were ecological interdependencies preserved as animals migrated from Ararat? Did the yucca an the yucca moth migrate together across the Atlantic? Were there, a few thousand years ago, unbroken giant sequoia forests between Ararat and California to allow indigenous bark and cone beetles to migrate? Why are so many animals found only in limited ranges? Why are so many marsupials limited to Australia; why are there no wallabies in western Indonesia? Why are lemurs limited to Madagascar? The same argument applies to any number of groups of plants and animals.

OldEnglishsheepdog, thanks for answering my questions with clarity. However, your responses bring new questions to my mind.

Sorry for my lack of clarification Shiloh;not from you. That was in response to some earlier discussion with OldEnglishsheepdog.

Viole, I never thought evolution and belief in a deity are completely incompatible. After all, theories such as evolution draw upon modern science - how were people back 2000 years ago to understand what we now know today to be true? It was impossible given their technological progress. I think as more scientific discoveries are made, and we learn more and more about the universe we inhabit, we must also change our interpretation of the bible and such texts. I always believed that religion was the answer to 'why' and not 'how'.

Very interesting . Now, back to the flood. In order for your assertions to be true OldEnglishsheepdog, the flood must have been world-wide. To me, this seems improbable, especially because there is only a certain quantity of water on Earth. Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go? How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood? Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up? How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions. Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up? How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits. How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter. How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

Ok. This is off-topic, but take it as comedic relief. Wouldn't a wooden vessel of the size mentioned in the bible have collapsed under its own weight when floating on water?

We are lucky to have so many fossils as it is! Fossils only form under rare conditions indeed.

Thank you OldEnglishsheepdog for actually providing evidence instead of telling me to 'look at the sky or a tree'. A lot of this information suffices as evidence to support the biblical claim of the flood and disproof for evolution. If you are trying to convince me that the Story of Noah's ark is in fact true, than all of this information is extremely relevant. However I do not accept the assertion that if we can prove the Bible to be true on one account, then it must be true on all accounts. The need for specific and relevant evidence for Creation still remains.

It is the best available explanation for the biodiversity we currently observe on our planet. This is kind of off topic, but it has been brought up a lot; Evolution does not account for the emergence of life. It takes over only after life had been created.

I'm glad that you don't read the Bible as a science textbook; I believe that no person should. However you still fail to provide empirically verifiable evidence for Creation. As mentioned before, evidence against evolution is not evidence for Creationism. We are looking for the most scientifically accurate explanation for the complexity of life we currently observe. Please read the whole thread before you comment next time.

Joe, thanks for your insight. However, for the sake of this conversation I am looking for the same type of empirically verifiable evidence that was demanded of me for my previous assertions.

You have convinced me that evolution is false and the approximated age of the earth (4.558 billion years) is far from the truth. If everything that has been said about the means by which evidence for these theories have been collected, plotted, and interpreted, there should be no reason for me, or anyone in the scientific community, to believe in them. Now that we got that out of the way, show me your empirically verifiable evidence for both creationism and the real age of the earth (about 6000-10000 years). Don't show me Bible verses (I know what the Bible says), show me the same type of evidence that you demanded from me for my previous assertions.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended. I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts. As a physicist with a keen understanding of radioactive decay and radiometric dating, It is pretty obvious to me that the methods in which the data in this Scholarly article were obtained were precise and accurate. In order for claims of the earth's age to be true (Thousands of years), either these scientists (and all others who repeated this experiment) must have made up their data, or made extremely grand errors (equivalent to misplacing a decimal point by five powers). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3YYTKC0-7Y&_user=130907&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1731651280&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=e246edfb91dd8ef1ca23023dd2d52202&searchtype=a False. Radiometric dating relies on a host of demonstrably false assumptions, and relies on compounding calculations all of which leave enormous room for error, and the end result of which is reconciled to expected results by the elimination of unwanted findings under the lable of 'outlyer' of the apologies afforded by 'contamination', 'leeching', or instrument sensitivity. I've already pointed out that you can't just advertise your propaganda. Make a case, if you can, and address the points I've already mentioned, or I'll just point you to another source that disagrees... Like Dr. Emil Silvestru, and accomplished geologist who's also a young earth creationist. See how that means nothing? Either you're participating in a discussion or you're white noise. Sure, radiometric dating is faulty and there is room for lots of error. This is why Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949 first demonstrated the accuracy of radiometric dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge for which the age was known from historical documents. After many repeated trials with objects of known age, the method was considered to be accurate with an error proportionate the respect age of the object being tested. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/110/2869/678 So, is the earth exactly 4.558 billion years old? Probably not. The date will probably change throughout this century as better technology is developed. Does this mean that it is possible for the Earth to be close to 6000 years as you suggest? Probably not. The error associated with this claim would be the same if calculated the distance from New York City to San Fransisco to be 7.4 yards.

First of all OldEnlighsheepdog, I would like to thank you for giving my post a worthy rebuttal. My debates with you have been very stimulating and informative, but unfortunately I have but no more responses. I can point you to studies and experiments proving that the earth is older than ten thousands of years, or that evolution is the best available theory to explain the complexity of life in the world we see; but I cannot force you to read them or understand them. Ultimately, I do not care what you or anyone else beliefs, as long as their is a rational justification. I think the most that anyone could do is to be a good person and live their life to the fullest.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended. I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts. As a physicist with a keen understanding of radioactive decay and radiometric dating, It is pretty obvious to me that the methods in which the data in this Scholarly article were obtained were precise and accurate. In order for claims of the earth's age to be true (Thousands of years), either these scientists (and all others who repeated this experiment) must have made up their data, or made extremely grand errors (equivalent to misplacing a decimal point by five powers). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3YYTKC0-7Y&_user=130907&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1731651280&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=e246edfb91dd8ef1ca23023dd2d52202&searchtype=a

The idea that supports this claim is called Natural Selection, which is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. In essence, organisms born with useful traits to survive in their environment will be able to spread their genes more successfully through a gene pool. Organisms born with anything less will die promptly. As to why the Discovery Channel termed such phenomena as "evolving", I am slightly confused. Evolution is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms over millions of years. It certainly isn't something observed in a lab overnight.

Shiloh357, Great post! I enjoyed reading your point of view. Personally, I feel that Creationism and Intelligent Design are both Blasphemous to some extent. Both work with the assumption that God would only have created in a certain way, and would not work through processes such as those that biologists, geneticists, and paleontologists study. And since the evidence is more than adequate to demonstrate that the history of life on this planet followed a course that is described in more-or-less accurate terms by mainstream science, with processes at work that are at least partially described and accounted for by mainstream evolutionary theory, there is only one conclusion that a religious believer who is well-informed about science can draw: Both young-earth creationism and intelligent design insult the Creator and demean creation. Although it is done somewhat less openly by proponents of intelligent design, both try to justify their insults addressed at God the Creator, ironically, by appeal to particular interpretations of a book they believe that He wrote. But which is easier to interpret - texts written in human languages, or scientific data? While scientists know better than to say the equivalent of "we don't interpret the data - we just read it," there is a sense in which this statement would make somewhat more sense, and be slightly more true, in the case of the natural sciences than in the case of reading texts. Furthermore, anyone can write a book claiming to be by or about God or to reveal the truth. It is much harder to make a planet, or life, let alone a universe. And so, if one believes that there is a Creator and wants to get an appropriate sense of the majesty, power, wisdom and activity of that Creator, should one look to texts written by people (whether divinely inspired or not) or to the creation itself? In essence, creation is a better witness to the creator

If you want evidence, i would suggest reading a book by the geneticist JT Bonner, or any other scholar who has dedicated their life to the study of genomes. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1n2Hv6BQHYQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=genes+natural+selection+complexity&ots=ErsA7NRxbh&sig=f2nkqnrvsFnQeXL53_R_higXKP4#v=onepage&q=genes%20natural%20selection%20complexity&f=false

In spite of his somewhat obscure claims and metaphorical writing style, Darwin was a great thinker. He was one of the first people to break away from the conventional belief that all things must be intelligently designed. Although he was wrong on some things, his methods of observation and intuition are remarkable for a person who had been indoctrinated without choice into the people dogma. We all can learn something from Darwin.

The Same And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 Almighty One See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. Deuteronomy 32:39-40 Who Hung On Calvary's Tree Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2 Is The One Who Called The Worlds Into Existence That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:9-10 And Yet He Calls Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47 Come Sinner I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Revelation 22:16-17 Come That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 Love, Joe Doesn't do it for me Joey. Anyone else have a reasonable answer that isn't a direct quote from the book I'm refuting? Why does God require bloodshed? How can this law that states bloodshed is required be imposed on the creator of everything? It seems like a very dark and merciless being that would insist on blood and death. You ask a very interesting question. Why does God require bloodshed? I am no expert in the field of polytheistic religions, but it is quite obvious that Abrahamic religions derive many concepts and ideology from predating religious dogmas. Bloodshed is one example out of many. Don't take my word for it though. I am sure there is plenty of scholarly research in the field that is available. I am pretty sure that Bart Ehrman has written a little bit on this subject. Research. In spite of popular belief, knowledge is not the tool of the devil.

I'm fine with all the theories being connected, they should be if they are all about the same universe, but at the same time much of the overall validity of theories doesn't rest on how X got there to set up what the theory explains. If it's all based on science, no God needed, and that is a problem for the faith, than the faith has a fundamental problem with the methodology of science. Science doesn't include God in anything (and at the same token it doesn't discount God, science just says it cannot be tested therefore it's essentially ignored) and works with what is testable, and if that is a problem (I suspect it is as I've seen several members here complain about the godlessness of scientific theory/model/hypothesis/law X more than once) than science should be seen (by whoever has a problem) as a godless philosophy/methodology that is at odds with Christianity. Either science is a valid methodology and you need to accept its silence on theological issues, or it isn't a valid way as it doesn't allow God, or even one foot in the doorway of the supernatural. Chance is an integral part, but look at it this way. Each human has about 6 billion base pairs of DNA per cell (all your cells have the same DNA). Each human has about 100 mutations before they're born. There is about 6 billion people in the world today, which means that has been enough mutations just from the people living today to completely redo the DNA sequence about 100 times. Now obviously this hasn't happened and neither evolution nor population genetics would allow such to happen, but I think it demonstrates how many mutations there can be in a population from generation to generation. A more realistic way of looking at it would be to think of each human as an "experiment" with about 100 mutations, have any sizable population (say even 10,000) and after a few generations you're bound to get a beneficial mutation or two. I could not find the thread, I went through hundreds of pages on our original agreement on the term we decided fit. I wasn't referring to any thread or previous conversation, sorry if it sounded like I was. My issue with the dogs thing is that it is very vague. A dog is a subspecies of wolf, so taking your statement literally would mean that demonstrating speciation would dispel your issue. However I know many creationists are fine with speciation, and you seem like the type to be of that persuasion. If that is the case, than it needs to be narrowed down otherwise it's open season on de facto moving the goal post until we can logically say that all life is of the same variety/kind. I could not find the thread we first started debating, where you said that you did not belive the Genesis account, I looked but I distinctly remember you stating just that. I am only stating what you have said. You stated that since I don't believe the Genesis account I must believe in a Godless processes that is at the whims of chance and everything lasted forever. That is a false dichotomy, not because of my stance on Genesis (I don't believe the account is literal) but because the alternative presented is not the only option. I like to see myself as defending science, not evolution specifically or the whole cascade of evolutionary theories from multiple disciplines. As I've taken various courses in a hodgepodge of sciences in high school and college as well as did a little reading on my own, I've found that I agree with mainstream science and that includes accepting the big bang, cosmological and stellar evolution, some things about abiogenesis, biological evolution, plate tectonics, an old Earth and so on. That is the science side of things, now as science doesn't say anything about God I'm free to believe or not believe as I see fit (coming from a purely scientific view). As a believer in God I have 3 basic options. I can forgo either science or God, or I can accept both; and as someone who has found truth in both I've decided to accept both. This isn't a scientific stance but a personal, metaphysical stance. When on the topic of scientific theories and such I try not to bring God into the equation because God simply isn't part of the equation. To add God in will take us out of science, and while I find such topics interesting it isn't science and I see no reason to go there when talking about science unless someone brings it up (not to mention theological arguments of this magnitude are much less concrete than science, or that me talking about it would probably have little to no meaning seeing as how I and almost everyone else here differs on more concrete matters let alone more esoteric conversations). Another way to look at is that I see a thread about how evolution doesn't work and it is usually trying to use some sort of scientific argument against it. To go against what is said logically I need to address it scientifically which means I need to leave God at the door so to speak; whether God was involved in the process or not doesn't change what science has uncovered, only if we are willing to have an extra metaphysical layer of ideas about it that isn't related to scientific methodology. Hi D-9 I'd like to make a few comments your post and highlight where I believe you're not perhaps seeing the full picture. Science flowered in the West, due to the fact that the Christian worldview leads a person to believe in an orderly universe. We worship a God of order and it is this belief that drive the pioneers of science, people such as Tesla, Newton, etc. To say that science has nothing to do with religion complete ignores the history of science. There 's this misplaced fear that introducing religion thinking into the sphere of science will allow superstition and appeals to magic and miracles to take hold of science. This, I believe is an unfounded and perhaps deliberately inflated objection. It is precisely those pioneers of science, who believed in a creator and believed that they were following the thoughts of God, that eliminated the pagan superstitions that abounded before. History proves that belief in a creator isn't a science stopper, but quite the contrary, science was born and raised in the Christian West. I also think that you're confusing what science is, with what it ought to be. I totally agree that scientists should follow the evidence and that objectivity should rule, but the problem is this simply doesn't happen in reality. To say that science isn't concerned with debunking theism flies in the face of all the historical cases where precisely this happened. I think the latest example is Hawking's recent publication wherein he declares philosophy to be dead and God not needed. In the 1920s you had J Harlan Bretz who was ridiculed for claiming the Channeled Scablands were produced by a flood. Edwin Hubble admitted that redshifts are evidence for a privileged planet but that such an idea is unwelcome. To say that science has no bias for- or against God is simply naive. Lastly I think a fundamental question is the philosophical bias, not just within science itself, but in choosing science as the tool for investigating origins in the first place. As I said in an earlier post there are various types of truths and there are various tools for finding a truth. I'm not going to use science to determine the beauty of a painting because science isn't the right tool for determining that kind of truth. Likewise I'm not going to use science to determine the value of a certain moral action, because science isn't the tool for that. The tool you choose greatly affects what you're looking for and also greatly demonstrates what you think you're looking for. Therefore the very fact that the burden of explaining origins is loaded onto science's shoulders, shows the assumption that science is the tool that can answer these questions. Since science is only concerned with material, by that very fact betrays the strong philosophical bias toward materialism. So in summary: 1. The idea that the practising science in the context of a supernatural creation, and taking that into account will somehow hamper science is false based on the history of science. 2. The idea that science is neutral where theism is only conceptually true, but in practise this is demonstrably false. 3. Science's allocation as only tool for explaining origins is a positive and deliberate philosophical choice in favour of materialism and against the divine. Science is the testing of observation and empirical data against claims using carefully constructed procedures designed to eliminate human error and bias. Faith is belief something in spite of the evidence. That is why it is called 'Faith'. Merriam Websters: Faith (noun) - firm belief in something for which there is no proof Just because the Catholic church patronized science for many years does not mean they are similar. At the core, they are two separate ideologies.

It never made sense to me either and there's a good reason for that. It's because it DOESN'T make any sense. 'This doesn't make sense to me.... so... GOD did it.' Perhaps the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you haven't thought about it? Or maybe because you haven't done any research on it? Oh, I get it. Your ignorant intuition is greater than that of a scientist who has dedicated their entire life to studying the evolution of sexes among organisms. There are some things, although may go against natural human intuition, that are true, and you have to accept this. To the scientists of middle-aged Europe, it was inconceivable that the earth could be anything but a flat landscape, more or less a sphere. Since this landscape was finite, wouldn't people fall off the edge if they drifted to far? As it turns out, the earth was a lot larger than was originally conceived. Not only that, it was, in fact a sphere! In spite of all pre-conceived notions, after doing some scientific investigation, scientists were able to figure out that force of gravity from the earth was enough to retain all objects on its surface! I'm not an expert in the field of evolutionary biology, so i do not have a satisfactory answer to your question. Instead of sitting around basking in your ignorance, I would suggest doing some research or perhaps reading a book by a scholar in the field.

Excuse me if I am wrong, but you failed to answer his question.