Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]He was stating a problem with the Biblical chain of events. Am I not allowed to rely on what the Bible says to explain why what the Bible says is not certainly off?

Well, yes, that would certainly be the logical thing to do. Like when I try to explain some of the misconceptions about Christianity in the Offshoot thread by using Bible verses. You don't have to believe that the Bible is true, but if you're going to complain about the Bible being inaccurate, or complain about a piece of doctrine that you think is in the Bible but isn't, then it's logical for me to use the Bible to fix the error.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
yes. you are correct. The bible, a book filled with little stories designed to explain primitive Man's world and answer those difficult questions in a manner in which primitive Man could understand and relate to.

Now THERE'S a major Biblical misunderstanding which I will be glad to correct on the Offshoot thread when we finish up here! Ru, if that's what you think the Bible is for, I have a BIG disagreement to register! But let's shelf that for now ....

[Rían]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Rian did not want a bunch of people in support of her claiming that the proof for creation is the bible did she?

She intended this topic to be for real scientific evidence that could possibly convince evolution supporters.

Again, sorry for starting up a thread and then leaving for a few days (but we had a terrific coupla parties!!! )

I should be able to post every afternoon this week.

And again, Lief was entirely correct to use the Bible in answering GrayMouser's (IIRC) question, since he was questioning the numbers given in .... the Bible.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Khamûl
According to the vapor canopy theory, the canopy is not the main source of the water for Noah's flood.

Genesis 7:11 -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

The 'springs of the great deep' seem to indicate that not only did the water come from the sky, but also from within the Earth.

Thanks, Khamûl, you saved me from getting out of my chair and looking up the quote

(This subject might be dead now, but I"m just methodically working thru the thread. The Flood was a one-time catastrophic event (God said He would never flood the world like that again) with many important ramifications, and was not a mere ice-age meltdown. Again, answering a Biblical objection with a Biblical reference )

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Problem is bub, that the hominid record simply does not support a long lived human. Average ages certainly don't tend to extend much beyond 40.

This made me wonder something, Sheeana - approx. how many fossils of human/human-type critters (there's that technical word again ) do we have?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Now THERE'S a major Biblical misunderstanding which I will be glad to correct on the Offshoot thread when we finish up here! Ru, if that's what you think the Bible is for, I have a BIG disagreement to register! But let's shelf that for now ....

It's not a misunderstanding. I also believe that. The belief of the bible is just that a BELIEF. If you don't believe in god then all it is is aquivalent to Grimms Fairytale or the Odessey or any other book out there.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
As to the extgrodinary ages described in the bible, you must remember that there is a limit to the number of times our DNA can replicate, without being part of a stem cell, gamete, etc. Even adding extrodinary living conditions and allowing say a 50% increase in age (very generous) 350 years is still well outside all modern limits of age. So, Sheeana is right, this requires a significant genetic variation.

But you're trying to work backwards, Cirdan, from today's ages, whereas the creationist model would be that Adam and Eve's descendants were closer to the ideal state of the initial human creation before sin started taking its toll on all life. And there isn't any genetic load/burden either, which is why Seth's wife would be his sister, and there is no genetic problem with that. And that's why the laws about not marrying close relatives were not in place until many years later, when the genetic load increased (and possibly because other problems with marrying your sister became more and more evident - "Don't you go around telling me what to do, honey - I changed your diapers for you when you were just a snotty nosed baby!")

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't have time to really reply to all your stuff Lief - Cirdan and others can handle it. But I have a question here. What does the fact that "The World Book" mentions just stone tools and fire have to do with the many other inventions that had to come about? You want a long list of inventions? It would impossible to list everything - as I have said - look at just the wheel, or baskets, or as you have mentioned paint. ALL these things were at one point in time inventions. You don't look at them as such - because you take them for granted. Everything we have done and do - had a start and was at one point in time an invention.

The wheel was invented by the Sumerians, if I recall correctly. I might be wrong on that . . . I looked it up and my World Book doesn't have the wheel!

Those were inventions. But judging by the rate with which we have invented things, (Before Christ, when our population was much less) inventions were taking place at a very rapid rate. Baskets also weren't an invention that happened once and then spread everywhere. They were developed all over the world. Painting style and the paints themselves, if the radiocarbon dates are correct (which there is strong evidence that they are not), would show that for 25,000 years there was no change in painting ability. So if you want to use paint as an example of man's ingenuity . . . (forgive me )

In any case, while I'll try to avoid belittling those inventions in making my point . . . it wouldn't take 2,000,000 years for those early inventions, and the other inventions, to take place. You know what Neanderthalls were capable of. Those were some of the earliest forms of humanoids. Judging by the awesome ingenuity humans have displayed over the past 5,000 years, and the skill and precision with which they operated 2,000,000 years ago, it is difficult to believe that those few discoveries were all that was made. The Neanderthalls seem to have been around as intelligent as humans. While agriculture might have been a limitation, your own evidence has demonstrated that plainly it wasn't that much of a limitation.

You have shown yourself that 2 million years ago, men were just about as intelligent as we are now. We have seen within the last 5,000 years (since the beginning of writing) that we have awesome powers of learning and discovery, and even from scratch (the Aztecs, who, though they may have had agriculture in the start out, originally were slaves of the early tribes) can form awesome things.

If men were that clever so long ago, then plainly technology should have been on their side. They had the time and skill- and the advantage of numbers.

Since they had the time and skill, and could increase in numbers exponentially (as from mathematical data, we know they do) then there was no substantial limitation on their "spreading forth and inhabiting the world" as happened in the Bible, after Noah.

A mess-up in dating is required by this change. There is strong evidence for a radiocarbon shift (see my notes on Page 2), which would have messed up the dating. Whether there are different dating problems for the fossils, I don't know, but it is plain that there are dating problems with those fossils.

The mathematical problem with population growth rates further escalates the problem already demonstrated by lack of invention (which, as we know they can very definitely invent, IS lack of invention).



So basically, we know men loved to learn and invent back then, and they love to learn and invent now. Within only a few thousand years, swords became outdated. Within only a few thousand years, horses became outdated. Within a few thousand years, ships have become outdated (we have planes). We have information that these were developments of recent man and were outdated by recent man. With recent man, we do have thousands of discoveries. With ancient man, we don't, despite his 2 million year skulking on the planet.

So there lies the case, still unsolved. Cirdan, I'll have to open it to you to go after. If anyone else wants to come at it, they're welcome to.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not a misunderstanding. I also believe that. The belief of the bible is just that a BELIEF. If you don't believe in god then all it is is aquivalent to Grimms Fairytale or the Odessey or any other book out there.

Then I'll have to clear up that misunderstanding for both of you

Or at least we can have an interesting discussion on it

[Lief Erikson]

RÃ*an! I'm delighted to see you back . Glad to hear you had a pleasant July 4th, we did too. We're going through the series of video tapes, "Liberty," right now.

Wonderful thread you have created here . . . during my past four days off (this is the last of a four day weekend for us), I have taken immense enjoyment in debating with our friends here and learning from my necessary background research. It's been fun .

Unfortunately, I'll have to get off for a week. Samwise will be leaving too, because she's going on vacation. So though we've been plowing along in the thread, we're going to have to leave it to you. Sorry for supporting you like this . I've got vast amounts of school work on school days. If I'm very, very lucky, I might be able to get on during one of the school days, but the likelihood of that is extremely small.

[Rían]

Thanks, Lief It's always a pleasure posting with you, you are both intelligent and polite I'll miss you and Samwise Check in when you can! Why are you having school now?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But you're trying to work backwards, Cirdan, from today's ages, whereas the creationist model would be that Adam and Eve's descendants were closer to the ideal state of the initial human creation before sin started taking its toll on all life. And there isn't any genetic load/burden either, which is why Seth's wife would be his sister, and there is no genetic problem with that. And that's why the laws about not marrying close relatives were not in place until many years later, when the genetic load increased (and possibly because other problems with marrying your sister became more and more evident - "Don't you go around telling me what to do, honey - I changed your diapers for you when you were just a snotty nosed baby!")

And the scientific evidence supports this how?

And Happy July 4th Rian. Believe it or not I don't dislike you - I just highly disagree with you on this topic.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not a misunderstanding. I also believe that. The belief of the bible is just that a BELIEF. If you don't believe in god then all it is is aquivalent to Grimms Fairytale or the Odessey or any other book out there.

I gave you a lot of evidence from "The Case for Christ" on this subject, much of which is as yet unanswered. If you don't believe the Bible is correct, and there is strong evidence saying it is, then the onus is on you to offer a more likely explanation for the evidence. And remember that the explanation has to be MORE LIKELY. You are not allowed to use the argument that any spiritual experience or miracle is unlikely, and anything is more likely than that, for that argument is fundamentally flawed, as has been demonstrated many times. It stems from the belief in Atheism.

So please answer those posts, while not using that argument. The prophesies, the witnesses, and corroborative evidence, all needs to be answered and explained.

Meanwhile, so do all the Christian experiences with Christ, and the fact that he manipulates their circumstances so completely. Just today, for example, I shot up a prayer asking the Lord for a sign of his power to make abrupt changes in physical things, as well as things in the spiritual realm. Of course, I have observed him make and fulfill multiple prophesies to me personally, and I have huge evidence in my 200 or so page spiritual journal, but I wanted a sign of his miraculous power.

As soon as the car stopped and my Grandma and I stepped out, she started talking to me about God's power over physical things as well as spiritual things, and how she had received healing for my sister, and she knew my sister would be healed of her spine curvature. I have yet to see whether that comes about, but the immediate answer to prayer is merely one of dozens and dozens of such experiences.

Other Christians have spoken of much more powerful things, and I could as well. Simply wanted to bring up today's .

So there are huge amounts of things that rational explanations must be given for.

RÃ*an, it might be better if you saved that line of discussion for the Offshoot thread.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Man didn't have time to do very much while he was still a hunter. When Man started to cultivate the land, he suddenly had much more spare time to do things. He didn't need to use all of his brain capacity to hunt and stay alive any longer. He finally got a lot of spare time to discover new things and invent news inventions.
And after Industrial Revolution, Man could discover and invent things even faster.

Do you think cultivation is recent? When do you think people started cultivating the land? In the Bible (again, only referring to the Bible to show where creationist info comes from), Noah himself does farming, and plants a vineyard. Also, altho history is my weak point, I would think that cultivation goes a looooonnnng way back. Any info on that, anyone?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Thanks, Lief It's always a pleasure posting with you, you are both intelligent and polite I'll miss you and Samwise Check in when you can! Why are you having school now?

I'm homeschooled, and SATs are this fall .

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, it might be better if you saved that line of discussion for the Offshoot thread. [/B]

Yes, I was trying to send it over there, but I just couldn't resist answering JD ... you know how we women are

I would indeed like to discuss that on the Offshoot thread when we're done here, and I hope you can join us, Lief, along with JD and Ruinel and Hobbit, who have all brought up similar objections.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Do you think cultivation is recent? When do you think people started cultivating the land? In the Bible (again, only referring to the Bible to show where creationist info comes from), Noah himself does farming, and plants a vineyard. Also, altho history is my weak point, I would think that cultivation goes a looooonnnng way back. Any info on that, anyone?

Yep. Sorry to disappoint you, but it dates back to 10,000 BC. However, don't worry . I discuss those things at length later on, it gets better . (forgive the arrogance, Jerseydevil, I just feel that I have far from lost the argument)

[jerseydevil]

Again - I don't have time to respond to your whole post. I will respnd to this though...

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
In any case, while I'll try to avoid belittling those inventions in making my point . . . it wouldn't take 2,000,000 years for those early inventions, and the other inventions, to take place. You know what Neanderthalls were capable of. Those were some of the earliest forms of humanoids. Judging by the awesome ingenuity humans have displayed over the past 5,000 years, and the skill and precision with which they operated 2,000,000 years ago, it is difficult to believe that those few discoveries were all that was made. The Neanderthalls seem to have been around as intelligent as humans. While agriculture might have been a limitation, your own evidence has demonstrated that plainly it wasn't that much of a limitation.

What do you mean Neaderthals? I think that is where you are running into problems too. Before Homo Sapiens - humans didn't have the brain to remember and create a lot of tools. They're brains were severly limited as indicated by the sloping foreheads. Neaderthals were no where near as intelligent as modern humans.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, I was trying to send it over there, but I just couldn't resist answering JD ... you know how we women are

I would indeed like to discuss that on the Offshoot thread when we're done here, and I hope you can join us, Lief, along with JD and Ruinel and Hobbit, who have all brought up similar objections.

Are Ruinel and HOBBIT online? (looks at the clock) It's getting a little late, and I've already provided multiple lengthy posts in that thread. You'll find that mine is the most recent post there, actually, at this point. I discussed the case for Christ with GrayMouser and Jerseydevil quite a bit, and really enjoyed the discussion.

Oh, and thank-you very much for recommending "The Case for Christ" to me . Although I can't say that it's entirely because of you that I read it (it was required for my learning at the Wednesday youth group), you were an influence, and I'm recommending it to other Christians as well.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And the scientific evidence supports this how?

As far as the first sentence of mine you quoted, I was describing where this element of the creationist model came from. As far as the rest of the quote, I would certainly say that science supports genetic burden, wouldn't you? The theory of evolution also contains elements that are posed, not proved, then evidence is examined to see if supports what has been posed.

And Happy July 4th Rian. Believe it or not I don't dislike you - I just highly disagree with you on this topic.

And happy 4th to you, too, JD! I always enjoy the good info you have in your posts on American policy and history. But your compliment is kinda "damning by faint praise" , altho I don't think you meant it to come off that way (at least I HOPE you didn't...) Do you LIKE me, or just NOT DISLIKE me? Not that it matters in scientific discussions, but I just wondered .... I like you and think of you as one of my Entmoot friends, altho we certainly seem to misunderstand each other alot. I'll always be extremely grateful for your very kind offer to show my in-laws around NY when they were there on a stop-over. I'm so sorry my father-in-law got sick and they couldn't meet you - I would have enjoyed meeting you by proxy

And no one ever commented on if they thought I was pretty or not ....