Is It Science?

[MorningGlory]

Let me explain it in another way. I have two huge dogs, both of them are rottweiler's crossed with African boerboel. It is fair to say that the two of them will have genetic information for rottweilers as well as boerboels in them, right?

I could theoretically breed them, and through artificial selection, get to something fairly close to a rottweiler. Black, stocky etc.

A Rottweiler and a Boerboel?

Actually what you would get if you bred them is a very burglar free neighborhood....

[LuftWaffle]

Let me explain it in another way. I have two huge dogs, both of them are rottweiler's crossed with African boerboel. It is fair to say that the two of them will have genetic information for rottweilers as well as boerboels in them, right?

I could theoretically breed them, and through artificial selection, get to something fairly close to a rottweiler. Black, stocky etc.

A Rottweiler and a Boerboel?

Actually what you would get if you bred them is a very burglar free neighborhood....

Hi Fez,

Yes, they're pretty scary looking indeed and make excellent guard dogs. But through that big tough exterior they have gentle hearts.

[Don Fanucci]

More opinionated twaddle, unsubstantiated generelisations and scientific snobbery. This is getting boring.

Umkay. Why would creationists not try to prove this? Geneticicst have.

It is not biblically valid nor scientifically vaild. Scientifically, you are talking about the floating mat theory.

Indeed, and curiously it isn't ridiculed when evolutionists propose that lizard populations reached certain islands floating on mats.

Seriously, do you guys even read the bible. The earth was covered with water. There was nothing for anything to swim to. Really, that's not hard to find in Genesis. See below.

10 months in the water would cause anything to rot, if anything were even around.

This is pure speculation on your part.

Again, do you guys just make up your own scripture?

Genesis 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

Who said these insects survived under water?

Please don't tell me you think that every insect flys.

Here you go again presuming God's will despite acting highly offended at the notion. God did exactly what he intended to do, and He is also quite capable of making His actions known in scripture. Don't you even dare pretend that your position is somehow honouring God. Don't you dare pull that nonsense when your entire figurative standpoint is based upon scriptura sub scientia.

So clarify for me. Genesis is pretty clear that God intended to wipe everything out. But you'll post the specific verses that argue otherwise.

I suppose it's what OES calls the "I know you are, but what am I" fallacy. Since I pointed out logical mistakes in your posts, now you're projecting it onto me.

Either way, the Bible doesn't give a denotative list of all the animals on the ark, but it does give an operational list. Living (Nephesh) creatures, that have breath in their nostrils and flesh. This is the qualifying criteria for being on the ark according to scripture. Using that operational definition I'm sure you can answer the amphibian question yourself, without wasting time diverting the thread.

No actually, I learned that God was precise with is wording. All the wording I read in Genesis tells me God intended to kill everything. He did not need to list everything, but that would assume that it was understood his intention to kill everything.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Don Fanucci

[LuftWaffle]

Umkay. Why would creationists not try to prove this? Geneticicst have.

Wow, you *know* what creationists would and wouldn't do?! Gosh, that's amazing. Perhaps Stan-Lee will feature you on Superhumans, under the subtitle "Omniscient Boy"

Assuming your use of the word "would" is a mistake and that you actually just meant that creationists haven't offered proof of baraminology and not that they 'wouldn't' offer proof? How exactly do you know that? Do you *know* that no proof for baraminology has ever been offered? For you to know that you'll have to know all creationist evidence.

So no matter how one looks at the statement, it's just plain foolish, and dare I say part of the venerable evolutionist tradition of making unsubstantiated claims based on nothing more than bluffery.

In the meantime, for me to refute the statement that "creationists would not try to prove baraminology", all I need to do is offer a single baraminology study to show that it is not the case that "creationists would not try to prove it."

How about Todd Wood's baraminology study of grasses? Will that do? Otherwise there are some published papers released by the Baraminology Study Group at the following address: http://www.creationbiology.org

Then there's Kurt Wise's baraminology applications to turtles in the 1990s

Ashley Robinson and David Cavanaugh's papers on baraminology in turtles, cats and primates.

Seriously, do you guys even read the bible. The earth was covered with water. There was nothing for anything to swim to. Really, that's not hard to find in Genesis. See below.

Your sudden repeated attempts to make it look like we don't read our bibles is yet another projection, isn't it? Because you've been found holding a scriptura sub scientia view, you find it necessary to transfer guilt by falsely accusing us of the same. It's so evident in how lame and desperate your attempt is though, afterall we're proposing no contradiction to scripture. Last time I checked, geological features don't float. Offering a verse stating that the mountains were covered says nothing about floating debris:

LuftWaffle: Insects could survive floating on debris

Don Fanucci: Ha! You don't read the bible, because it says the earth was covered with water.

See, how your statement doesn't actually follow, rendering your charge of biblical illiteracy completely impotent.

10 months in the water would cause anything to rot, if anything were even around.

This is pure speculation on your part.

Again, do you guys just make up your own scripture?

Genesis 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

The above is another feeble attempt, as demonstrated by the summary of salient points below:

Lufwaffle: Insects could survive floating on debris

Don Fanucci: The debris will rot in 10 months

Luftwaffle: That's pure speculation

Don Fanucci: How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

Round and round we go. Do you see why we think you're unreasonable? I'm saying that your claim that the debris would rot in ten months is pure speculation. Repeating that speculation in the form of a question doesn't make it any less speculative.

Who said these insects survived under water?

Please don't tell me you think that every insect flys.

Stellar logic...If it doesn't sink then it must fly!

Using that logic one must therefore conclude that ships, surfboards and flotsam actually fly. Or perhaps there's another option, floatation, such as what the insects possibly did atop debris during the Noahic flood.

When things float, they're not underwater and they're not flying either, weird huh?

So clarify for me. Genesis is pretty clear that God intended to wipe everything out. But you'll post the specific verses that argue otherwise.

Acting like I haven't provided verses isn't going to make the verses in post #12 disappear.

Speaking of verses, when are you going to respond to Mark 10:5-6 without relying on equivocation by building a "Jesus was wrong anyway" case? (Second request)

No actually, I learned that God was precise with is wording. All the wording I read in Genesis tells me God intended to kill everything. He did not need to list everything, but that would assume that it was understood his intention to kill everything.

You learnt that God was precise in his wording by forcing a face-value interpretive style on a single verse in order to disprove what God literally said? Okie dokie...

Edited March 30, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

At least one olive tree must have survived according to scriptures:

Genesis 8:11

When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Therefore your interpretation cannot be correct: God did not intend to kill everything

which was outside the ark.

In other words: either you accept Luftwaffe interpretation or you are saying that the Bible

is contradictory.

This objection is painfully weak.

On the other thread Shiloh mentioned that taking the Bible literally doesn't mean reading as though we are idiots, it means accepting the obvious intention of the authour.

If an account is written as an historical narrative, it is accepted as such. If it includes turns of phrase, they are accepted as such.

Really people, we understand how to use the common rules of language in absolutely every other situation without even thinking about it - if someone hands you a phone and says "It's your dad" you don't scream at them "My dad's not a phone!"

So pretending you have trouble using the same rules of interpretation here is unacceptable.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Umkay. Why would creationists not try to prove this? Geneticicst have.

Wow, you *know* what creationists would and wouldn't do?! Gosh, that's amazing. Perhaps Stan-Lee will feature you on Superhumans, under the subtitle "Omniscient Boy"

Assuming your use of the word "would" is a mistake and that you actually just meant that creationists haven't offered proof of baraminology and not that they 'wouldn't' offer proof? How exactly do you know that? Do you *know* that no proof for baraminology has ever been offered? For you to know that you'll have to know all creationist evidence.

So no matter how one looks at the statement, it's just plain foolish, and dare I say part of the venerable evolutionist tradition of making unsubstantiated claims based on nothing more than bluffery.

In the meantime, for me to refute the statement that "creationists would not try to prove baraminology", all I need to do is offer a single baraminology study to show that it is not the case that "creationists would not try to prove it."

How about Todd Wood's baraminology study of grasses? Will that do? Otherwise there are some published papers released by the Baraminology Study Group at the following address: http://www.creationbiology.org

Then there's Kurt Wise's baraminology applications to turtles in the 1990s

Ashley Robinson and David Cavanaugh's papers on baraminology in turtles, cats and primates.

Seriously, do you guys even read the bible. The earth was covered with water. There was nothing for anything to swim to. Really, that's not hard to find in Genesis. See below.

Your sudden repeated attempts to make it look like we don't read our bibles is yet another projection, isn't it? Because you've been found holding a scriptura sub scientia view, you find it necessary to transfer guilt by falsely accusing us of the same. It's so evident in how lame and desperate your attempt is though, afterall we're proposing no contradiction to scripture. Last time I checked, geological features don't float. Offering a verse stating that the mountains were covered says nothing about floating debris:

LuftWaffle: Insects could survive floating on debris

Don Fanucci: Ha! You don't read the bible, because it says the earth was covered with water.

See, how your statement doesn't actually follow, rendering your charge of biblical illiteracy completely impotent.

10 months in the water would cause anything to rot, if anything were even around.

This is pure speculation on your part.

Again, do you guys just make up your own scripture?

Genesis 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

The above is another feeble attempt, as demonstrated by the summary of salient points below:

Lufwaffle: Insects could survive floating on debris

Don Fanucci: The debris will rot in 10 months

Luftwaffle: That's pure speculation

Don Fanucci: How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

Round and round we go. Do you see why we think you're unreasonable? I'm saying that your claim that the debris would rot in ten months is pure speculation. Repeating that speculation in the form of a question doesn't make it any less speculative.

Who said these insects survived under water?

Please don't tell me you think that every insect flys.

Stellar logic...If it doesn't sink then it must fly!

Using that logic one must therefore conclude that ships, surfboards and flotsam actually fly. Or perhaps there's another option, floatation, such as what the insects possibly did atop debris during the Noahic flood.

When things float, they're not underwater and they're not flying either, weird huh?

So clarify for me. Genesis is pretty clear that God intended to wipe everything out. But you'll post the specific verses that argue otherwise.

Acting like I haven't provided verses isn't going to make the verses in post #12 disappear.

Speaking of verses, when are you going to respond to Mark 10:5-6 without relying on equivocation by building a "Jesus was wrong anyway" case? (Second request)

No actually, I learned that God was precise with is wording. All the wording I read in Genesis tells me God intended to kill everything. He did not need to list everything, but that would assume that it was understood his intention to kill everything.

You learnt that God was precise in his wording by forcing a face-value interpretive style on a single verse in order to disprove what God literally said? Okie dokie...

Why is it that so often evolutionists go totally un-phased when you point out all the logical fallacies they employ?

How do they suppose they can reach sound conclusions, even while you're displaying their inability to avoid fallacious reasoning?

Have you noticed that Don relies almost entirely on unsubstantiated interpretations that required a rational analysis in order to arrive at a sound conclusion, and when we frequently point out that he's committing a logical fallacies he tries to brush it off as though he needn't concern himself with anything so pedestrian as philosophy... but still he seems to think hes logical somehow, anyways?

I seriously don't get it.

[j102]

More opinionated twaddle, unsubstantiated generelisations and scientific snobbery. This is getting boring.

Umkay. Why would creationists not try to prove this? Geneticicst have.

It is not biblically valid nor scientifically vaild. Scientifically, you are talking about the floating mat theory.

Indeed, and curiously it isn't ridiculed when evolutionists propose that lizard populations reached certain islands floating on mats.

Seriously, do you guys even read the bible. The earth was covered with water. There was nothing for anything to swim to. Really, that's not hard to find in Genesis. See below.

10 months in the water would cause anything to rot, if anything were even around.

This is pure speculation on your part.

Again, do you guys just make up your own scripture?

Genesis 8:5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

How much terrestrial vegetation could survive underwater that was not freshwater and not seawater?

Who said these insects survived under water?

Please don't tell me you think that every insect flys.

Here you go again presuming God's will despite acting highly offended at the notion. God did exactly what he intended to do, and He is also quite capable of making His actions known in scripture. Don't you even dare pretend that your position is somehow honouring God. Don't you dare pull that nonsense when your entire figurative standpoint is based upon scriptura sub scientia.

So clarify for me. Genesis is pretty clear that God intended to wipe everything out. But you'll post the specific verses that argue otherwise.

I suppose it's what OES calls the "I know you are, but what am I" fallacy. Since I pointed out logical mistakes in your posts, now you're projecting it onto me.

Either way, the Bible doesn't give a denotative list of all the animals on the ark, but it does give an operational list. Living (Nephesh) creatures, that have breath in their nostrils and flesh. This is the qualifying criteria for being on the ark according to scripture. Using that operational definition I'm sure you can answer the amphibian question yourself, without wasting time diverting the thread.

No actually, I learned that God was precise with is wording. All the wording I read in Genesis tells me God intended to kill everything. He did not need to list everything, but that would assume that it was understood his intention to kill everything.

are you familiar with the phrase circular reasoning? your trying to use what scriptures say to try to disprove what scripture says

where's the logic in that kind of reasoning?

[Guest]

Faith

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

It's What's For Dinner

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

____________

_________

______

___

.... relies almost entirely on unsubstantiated interpretations that required a rational analysis in order to arrive at a sound conclusion.... I seriously don't get it....

Seriously

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Does God Lie

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

At Anytime?

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

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. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3:5-6

Love, Your Brother Joe

____________

_________

______

___

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies Matthew 15:19

We cannot too often insist upon it that religion is a matter of the heart. It is the besetting sin of man to forget that God is a spirit, and that worship rendered to God must be of a spiritual kind. Idolatry is the full carrying out of this mischievous propensity. Instead of adoring the Great Invisible, and giving him the love of the heart, man sets up a block of wood or stone, and, burning incense and performing genuflections before it, he cries, "This is my god." Where this idolatry does not assume the very grossest form it takes another, which is equally as objectionable in the sight of God.

Man pleads that he cannot worship God with his heart unless his memory is assisted by some outward object, and then he smuggles in his idol, and gratifies his depraved nature with will worship and outward formalism. God requires soul worship, and men give him body worship; he asks for the heart, and they present him with their lips; he demands their thoughts and their minds, and they give him banners, and vestments, and candles. Where man is hunted by very shame from outward superstitions, he betakes himself to anything sooner than yield his heart's love to his Maker, submit his intellect to the great Creator's teaching, and render all his faculties to the service of the Most High. --C.H. Spurgeon

[enoob57]

Let me explain it in another way. I have two huge dogs, both of them are rottweiler's crossed with African boerboel. It is fair to say that the two of them will have genetic information for rottweilers as well as boerboels in them, right?

I could theoretically breed them, and through artificial selection, get to something fairly close to a rottweiler. Black, stocky etc.

A Rottweiler and a Boerboel?

Actually what you would get if you bred them is a very burglar free neighborhood....

Just with half the breed a clean getaway would be very difficult with a dog attached

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

This objection is painfully weak.

It was not my intention to cause pain :-(

But since I started to read the Bible more carefully, I see a lot of things that are not clear to me.

For instance, I do not see how that olive tree manage to survive the flood. This seems to

indicate that not all vegetation was not killed by the flood.

Life is defined in the Bible as that which has life-blood, "because the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14).

Plants aren't included in that definition because their sap is not considered blood.

Another thing I do not understand is what kind of food the lions, tigers, polar bears, etc. ate during

that year.

It seems that everything ate plants at the time "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so" (Genesis 1:30) and this didn't seem to change until after the fall "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything" (Genesis 9:3).

This is reflected in the re-establishement of the natural order in the millenium, seen in Isaiah "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox" (65:25).

But in any case, Noah was commanded "You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them" (Genesis 6:21), so we can speculate but ultimately we're told it was covered and the logistics aren't detailed.

I am perfectly aware of my ignorance in interpreting (or literal reading) these verses correctly: for

instance, when it is literal and when it is only a figure of speech. For that I need your more expert help.

It reads like any historical account. If it says someone went somewhere and did something, then they did. If the description of what happened includes turns of phrase like the sun rose, then it's using turns of phrase.

It's just the common rules of language, like the phone ringing and someone saying "It's your husband'. You don't have to pause to think about whether or not they're saying your husband is a phone, or if he's just using the phone to communicate with you.

The fact that it's such a struggle for so many people to apply the common rules of language that are always accepted in every case to the Bible I think demonstrates people's eagerness to impose fault on it and dismiss its clear message, demonstrating the conviction that it is true.