Jump to content

The Barbarian

Junior Member
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Neutral

3 Followers

About The Barbarian

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It is a very modern revision of scripture, invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century. Creationists revised it to read "reproduce after their kind", which the Bible does not. And no, evolutionary theory does not say what you imagine. Genetics has shown that all life on Earth is of one kind. Let it be God's way, instead of yours.
  2. Instead of putting your new interpretation on it, why not just let it be God's way? Once you set your pride aside, and let it be as it is, it won't trouble you any longer.
  3. Many great physicists were men of faith. Some were not. All of them were great physicists. If physics proves God, the proof is very subtle and incomplete. Einstein, for example, thought "der Alte" was the distant god of Spinoza, who had no interactions with men. Science is merely a method, by its very methodology confined to the physical universe. If your faith won't bring you to God, science cannot.
  4. The problem for you, is that it doesn't necessarily mean what you say it says.
  5. If it was plain, then almost all Christians would agree on it. But it's not plain. Since the is used in the Bible in various ways, there's no possible way to make it mean "global."
  6. You've merely assumed that eretz (meaning land, as in "this land" , "my land", "the land of Israel", etc. must always mean "global." It would seem, given the usages in the Bible, that you are fooling yourself.
  7. You've merely convinced them that "land" always means "entire globe." When they discover otherwise, what then?
  8. Which means "land." As in "the land of Israel." Or "my land." Or "hereabouts." And so on. NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin a prim. root Definition earth, land NASB Translation common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3). So that doesn't support a global flood, which the Bible does not say happened.
  9. Actually, it doesn't. You've merely assumed that "eretz" means "global." And of course, it does not. "Eretz Israel" does not mean the whole world.
  10. A basin. For example, what is now the Black Sea was once an inhabited land, with settlements, rivers, and mountains. Then about the right time in Biblical terms, the Mediterranean Sea apparently broke through, and rapidly submerged it all. In 1997, Walter Pitman and Bill Ryan of Columbia University proposed a controversial hypothesis: that the sea level abruptly rose about 7,200 years ago, due to salty Mediterranean water breaking through a natural dam across the Bosporus Strait and flooding the freshwater Black Sea — timing that they note coincides roughly with the biblical story of Noah’s Flood (see Geotimes, February 2004). The hypothesis is still disputed, and archaeologists, historians and oceanographers continue to search for evidence of Neolithic sites that might have been inundated by the rising sea. “Most of looking for these archaeological sites is an exercise in geology — looking for evidence of ancient shorelines,” Coleman says. Additionally, he says, geological training is necessary to sort out those ancient shorelines from modern sedimentary environments on the shelf, which are likely due to the density gradient in the Black Sea. That strong density difference, which keeps the sea’s layers mostly stable and in place, can still produce some interesting effects, Coleman says. For example, sonar pulses sent from the upper layer can bounce off the higher-density layer. Additionally, internal “waves” that never see the surface can travel along the interface between the high- and low-density layers of water, he says. Once those waves reach the shelf, they break. “At 150 meters deep, we see evidence of sedimentary bedforms that look like sand waves,” he says. Those bedforms can easily be confused for buried shorelines. Correctly interpreting evidence of ancient shorelines, therefore, requires understanding “landscape archaeology, or environmental archaeology” as well, Coleman says. “We’ve mostly identified places where paleoriver channels have flowed across the shelf, evidence of terrestrial flora such as grass growing, and peat deposits and deposits within cores that are evidence of an arid and subarid landscape,” he says. The researchers also identified sites with shoreline features such as smooth, well-rounded beach stones and intact bleached mollusk shells — a freshwater species dating to more than 7,000 years ago, he says. Such mollusks could only have lived in nearshore environments that became inundated and were preserved by rising sea levels. The team has also mapped the layers of sediment that lie underneath parts of the Black Sea floor, using a “sub-bottom profiler,” also mounted on the towfish Echo. The sub-bottom profiler sends sound pulses toward the seafloor. As in seismic reflection surveys, some of the sound reflects off the seafloor and some of it may penetrate it, providing information about the thickness, composition and slope of the seafloor’s layers. These data, collected about 15 to 30 kilometers off the coasts of northern Turkey and southern Ukraine and up to 50 kilometers off the coast of Bulgaria, could potentially be interpreted as representative of coastal and nearshore structures and paleo-shoreline deposits, Coleman says. The data also reveal that the sea hides other features fascinating to geologists and oceanographers, Coleman says. “We have compiled some geologic cross sections that show active slumping going on off the slope, and other geologic processes,” such as underwater landslides likely triggered by earthquake activity and turbidity currents, he says. http://www.geotimes.org/jan07/feature_BlackSea.html
  11. As you now realize, they show the gradual evolution of the blowhole from nostrils. It's why all the same tissues, nerves, bones, etc. are associated with both of them.
  12. And I explained to you that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So if the next generation of salamanders has a different allele distribution than the old generation, that, by definition, is evolution. You don't have to respond if you would prefer not to. We will understand. See above. I keep answering the question. Would you like to see it again? Right. Just as a change in allele frequencies did not cause our ancestors to evolve into something other than a hominid. We are just the last surviving kind of hominid. If all the different species of salamander died out, and only one species survived, that would be the same thing. But as you learned, speciation is always caused by a change in alleles. Would you like to see the evidence for that, again? Nope. You're still struggling with this because you don't get the genetics behind it.
  13. Creationists don't actually reject it; they just add some things to it, to make it more acceptable to them; they usually add "reproduce" to the verse. And I have to believe that they aren't aware of the insult they give God in this case; most of them would be appalled if some one said that their addition to scripture was "calling God a liar." As you recently learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So evolution is directly observed in those populations as the frequencies change . As I showed you, evolution within a species is sometimes called "microevolution" and evolution that produces new species (which even your fellow YE creationists realize happens) is called "macroevolution." Gerald Aardsma is a member of the Institute for Creation Research and a fellow therein. Here's his explanation for why the evidence does not support the YE creationist doctrines: Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago. Since my work is designed to defend the historical truth of the Bible against charges that what it reports as history is in fact fiction, I have not had much cause to talk about the ice-ages so far. (In my understanding of virtual history and the past, one can just accept what the scientists specializing in these fields are telling everyone is their best understanding/reconstruction of these past events. These reconstructions do not attack the historical integrity of the Bible in any way once one understands the concept of virtual history.) Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness. The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon. Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ... We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward. The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history---of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past---does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bible's claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago. Sincerely, Dr. Aardsma Amazing. But it's the only way possible to reconcile the evidence with YE beliefs. "Virtual history" is an illusion of a fallen creation, in his religion. Which makes no sense at all. Why not just accept the truth as it is?
  14. Already have. You just don't want to face it: 6 hours ago, omega2xx said: What I want you to explain, and I have ask you to do this several times, and you keep ignoring it, is to explain how a salamander remaining a salamander, is evidence of evolution. And I explained to you that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So if the next generation of salamanders has a different allele distribution than the old generation, that, by definition, is evolution. You don't have to respond if you would prefer not to. We will understand.
×
×
  • Create New...