Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
[B]-

Note from Lief: I found this next piece especially interesting
Myth:

Maya records indicate they came from other side of the sea, where the sun rises.
Mayans have Garden of Eden type myth.
Aztecs have Noah's flood account: Only two people, Coxcox and his wife, survived flood floating in a boat that came to rest on a mountain; Aztec inscription shows dove offering to children of Coxcox, born mute. Neighboring Mexican tribe adds details of animals and birds in boat. Tehzi replaces Coxcox, sent out raven that did not return, then dove that returned, then hummingbird that returned with a twig.

But...

The story of Coxcox is the one and only flood legend with possibly biblical elements for which there seems to be pre-missionary documentation in the form of pictographs. Or is there? According to Andree.... none of the early writers concerned with Mexican mythology, who could have heard the tale at the time of the Conquistadores or shortly after, ever mentioned a Bible-like flood legend, and he doubted that the interpretation of the pictographs was the correct one. In this he followed Don Jose Fernando Ramirez, conservator of the National Museum in Mexico City, who showed that the descriptions of the pictographs as given by Clavigero, Humboldt, Kingsborough, and others were all based on the same source, a picture map published by Gemilli Careri in Churchill's A Collection of Voyages and Travels, volume 4 [written in 1732]. Gemelli Careri had read into this picture the story of the Flood, and Humboldt and all the rest followed suit and accepted his interpretation. But according to Ramirez the "dove" was intended to be the bird known as the Tihuitochan, which calls "Ti-hui," and the picture actually represented the story of the migration of the Aztecs to the Valley of Mexico. The Aztecs are believed to have come into Mexico from farther to the north. Their traditions told how a little bird kept repeating "Ti-hui, ti-hui," which in their language meant "Let's go!" and their priests interpreted this as a divine command to seek a new home. Seven subtribes set out, six of whom established themselves more or less quickly in various parts of Mexico, while the seventh wandered for some time, looking for a sign in the form of an eagle sitting on a rock holding a serpent in its mouth. The promised sign was encountered at Lake Texcoco, and accordingly the city now known as Mexico City was founded on its shores in 1325. This, then, is the tradition historians believe is embodied in the picture writing in question; it was Gemilli Careri alone who decided that the bird in the picture was the dove giving out tongues. He himself admitted that the chronology was "not so exact as it should be, there being too few years allow'd between the flood and the founding of Mexico".... -- for the picture includes symbols telling the number of years spent in various places during the wanderings.

Gemilli Careri heard the story of Coxcox during his sojourn in Mexico in 1667, well over a hundred years after the first missionaries had arrived with Cortez and ample time for biblical details to have become superposed on indigenous Aztec myths and traditions. Other Mexican flood stories are quite obviously the Bible story transplanted to a more familiar local setting.

The various other Flood stories referred to include references to JesuCristo, St. Bartholomew, the Angel Michael etc.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acad...40/flood20.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Lief, glad to see someone jumping in to help carry the load for Rian, but I don't think the scattershot approach of your first two posts is a particularly useful way to discuss these issues. In some of your comments I had no idea what you were talking about.

The third one is better; pick one or two subjects and back them up.

Thank-you. Yes, with the other I was reading off my Dad's notes.

Originally posted by GrayMouser

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above pyramids are now known to date after 2300 BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Well, actual Egyptologists date the step pyramid to 2750 BC and the Great Pyramid to 2600BC, but that's neither here nor there.)

Even with a doubling rate of 19 years (which assumes nobody dies before reproducing, i.e. requires us to assume that a Bronze Age people populating a new land would have a zero mortality rate)

Assuming that 800 people went to Egypt and they all stayed there (no-one moved out to populate the rest of Africa or Arabia)

After 100 years, using ridiculously optimistic growth rates, you still get a population of under 30,000 - and half of them will be children; the adults would be pretty busy trying to feed all those new mouths. Not much manpower available for moving a couple of million limestone blocks.

Thanks for bringing that up . I'll enjoy answering that one.

I checked the math on my calculator. There are several things that don't seem to be taken into account, though. I'll save the most important of them for last.

Firstly, the culture at that time permitted the man to marry more than one woman. Harems were permitted. Jacob had more than one wife (Leah and Rachel), and this is not counting concubines (of which Abraham had at least one, mentioned in the Bible).

Secondly, the men of the time period, for a period of time after the flood, continued to live exceptionally long lives. Noah lived 350 years after the flood. This means that in the early years, through the first few generations, at least, people were living a lot longer. They had more time to reproduce (possibly reproducing bastards; I don't know whether or not they were counted in the genealogies). So you wouldn't see very much death at that time, anyway.

Lastly, I don't count the date of 2500 BC as an exact date. The young earth dates we have seen in the accounts I brought up have varied to a broad extent. My Dad's research of the Old Testament has shown that the construction of the pyramids almost certainly took place at the time of Joseph. I will be pleased to give you this information, if you like. If we look at the timeline in Luke, we see that there are actually 14 generations between Joseph's generation and Noah's. That I think changes the scope of things by a large amount.

Now let's look at the ages again. Jacob lived to be 147 years old, and he's a long way down in the timeline from Noah's generation. Jacob comes right before Joseph, who lived 110 years.

So we have people living each for a very long period of time, giving birth to a certain amount of written down children, and very possibly a large amount more that aren't written down, and with fourteen generations to reproduce in, a huge amount more people would be produced.

With these factors taken into account, I hope the problem you see might be explained.



Of course, that leaves the questions of how I know Joseph's generation was the one in which the pyramids were built, and why people lived longer before the flood.

Both are questions that to answer, I'd likely have to give huge answers.

The answer having to do with the long ages of people also has to get into the flood, what types of effects it would have upon the environment, and what the environment would have been like before the flood. My Dad is capable of going into these questions in depth, and unfortunately I could only give you a rough idea of the effects taking place, if you wanted it.

The other has to do with chronology, and the mystery of the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period. I'm far better qualified to speak to you on that subject, the fourteen generations, if you're curious.

[jerseydevil]

I haven't read your whole thing - but i wanted to ask you this - where is the proof that man lived 350 years old? Why don't we live that old now - even with modern medicine? That is so fichtion - I can't belive you actually used it as supporting evidence. I will say this again - the bible is a work of FICTION - that being a prime example. I can not believe that you say that evolution is hard to believe - but yet you have no problem believing in fairy tales. Sorry - but that is how I feel.

I don't care if that is what you believe - just please start bringing ACTUAL science into your arguments instead of relying on the bible.

[edit] made it through your post- you sort of answered YOUR feelings on why man might have lived a long time. I might like to point out though that that is based on NO scientific evidence whatsoever.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I haven't read your whole thing - but i wanted to ask you this - where is the proof that man lived 350 years old? Why don't we live that old now - even with modern medicine? That is so fichtion - I can't belive you actually used it as supporting evidence. I will say this again - the bible is a work of FICTION - that being a prime example. I can not believe that you say that evolution is hard to believe - but yet you have no problem believing in fairy tales. Sorry - but that is how I feel.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't care if that is what you believe - just please start bringing ACTUAL science into your arguments instead of relying on the bible.

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? There is no proof that people couldn't have lived that long. I certainly understand that the onus is on us to prove that man could have lived that long at that point in time, but as I said in the previous post, I can only give a rough version of the theory, and Atheists could and probably would slam a lot of holes in it because of my lack of knowledge.

Thus I would prefer to simply leave the Bible passage without a scientific explanation, at this time. But let me remind you of this: simply because something is outside of your personal experience and understanding at the present time does not mean it doesn't exist, or can't be true.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
[edit] made it through your post- you sort of answered YOUR feelings on why man might have lived a long time. I might like to point out though that that is based on NO scientific evidence whatsoever.

I actually wasn't stating my feelings on why man might have lived a long time- I was stating why it is possible that there were decent sized populations at the time the Bible says there were.

[samwise of the shire]

The people in Finland generally have stronger and larger jaws than other people. That's because of their language with complicated consonants.

But where did the language come from? People generally don't create such a difficult language on their own...and because it's not the enviornment that shaped the speech, then we have to wonder where in Middle Earth that certain language came from. I personally believe that the incident at the Tower of Babel recorded in the Bible is a good explanation.

!The theory of evolution says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about what happens after death.

Actually according to the Evolutionary theory something DOES happen after death...nothing. You die, you get turned into dirt. According to atheistic Evolution that's what happens when you die, because atheistic Evolution does NOT believe there is a God. When it comes to belief in God though, there is a chance for something else, something better at the end. Is that so horrible?
Yeah the other end of the story isn't as pleasant, because it deals with the punishment for sin, but that's where Jesus comes in. Evolution btw is the belief that everything came out of nothing by chance, and that as time progresses everything evolves into something better. That's a simplified version, but hey I'm not a dictionary.

A lot of creationists use the Grand Canyon as an example of a world wide flood - that makes no sense. It could not have been caused by a great flood - only by being carved by the river rushing through it after millions of years.

You say that with such certainty Hobbit...were you there? Mount Saint Helens...beautiful mountain with snow caps...she explodes in 1980. All the snow caps melt, rushing down the mountain in a torrent, carving 100 ft CANYONS (the main word being Canyons) at the base of the volcano...in a day, or less. So what's keeping a HUGE lake (indeed an ocean) from going over a natural dam and carving the Grand Canyon? Where did the lake come from? The flood. Of course unformity makes it impossible. Streams don't run at the same rate now as they used to. The earth was WAY different ages ago...I think we can agree on that.

From the website previously referred to...and for that matter, I've seen living trees almost buried by mud, sand and dirt, in many different locations- what's so strange about that?

Hmmm, so you're saying that it takes shorter for trees to be buried than the theory states?

And the young earth theory is ridiculous. The earth hasn't changed that much since written records for thousands of years. Now you're telling me that in the past things happened overnight and now just slowed down to a crawl. Also - why isn't "god" creating any new creatures? Did he suddenly go on strike?

God doesn't HAVE to...he created male and female so that they could carry on their lines. So all animals have a common ancestor...each of those ancestors with the genes nessecary to have different races or species of whatever animal they are. The only reason we can't do that is because our gene pool is depleting because of the Curse...aka mans sinful nature. Once again that's where Jesus comes into the picture.

The reason most early civilizations have flood myths is because they all lived on the banks of big rivers which often flooded.

Why then in EVERY flood story is there a big wooden floating box, boat etc? You could just run up into the hills, stay there for a couple of days, and then come back down if a river near you flooded. But in every single one of those stories has the gods getting angry with the people, sending a flood, 2 people survive by devine intervention, and a whole bunch of animals go with them. They ALL have that in common.
I think I covered at least a little something from everyone. As far as E=MC2 is concerned...isn't it just a theory? I ask that because I'm not just testing you.
Cheers,
Sam
ps. if I didn't cover everyone forgive me please. I'd probably have run out of room.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
But where did the language come from? People generally don't create such a difficult language on their own...and because it's not the enviornment that shaped the speech, then we have to wonder where in Middle Earth that certain language came from. I personally believe that the incident at the Tower of Babel recorded in the Bible is a good explanation.

This is the most ridiculous thing i have heard - more ridiculous than believing that humans lived 350 years and that's how we populated the planet in such a short time.

Do you know NOTHING of the origin of languages and how they evolve and change?

Actually according to the Evolutionary theory something DOES happen after death...nothing. You die, you get turned into dirt. According to atheistic Evolution that's what happens when you die, because atheistic Evolution does NOT believe there is a God.

Actually - evolution says absolutely NOTHING about death and what happens afterward - nor does it deny a god. It just shows SCIENTIFICLY through research how humans and animals came about.

When it comes to belief in God though, there is a chance for something else, something better at the end. Is that so horrible?

It is if you are truly blinded by your faith and can see past it - as I believe is the case with you and Lief.

Yeah the other end of the story isn't as pleasant, because it deals with the punishment for sin, but that's where Jesus comes in. Evolution btw is the belief that everything came out of nothing by chance, and that as time progresses everything evolves into something better. That's a simplified version, but hey I'm not a dictionary.

Chance has nothing to do with evolution. if it was chance - then things would change for no reason. There are reasons for evolutionary changes though.

You say that with such certainty Hobbit...were you there? Mount Saint Helens...beautiful mountain with snow caps...she explodes in 1980. All the snow caps melt, rushing down the mountain in a torrent, carving 100 ft CANYONS (the main word being Canyons) at the base of the volcano...in a day, or less.

I've been to both Mt St Helens and to The Grand Canyon - you obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you are comparing the two.

So what's keeping a HUGE lake (indeed an ocean) from going over a natural dam and carving the Grand Canyon? Where did the lake come from? The flood. Of course unformity makes it impossible. Streams don't run at the same rate now as they used to.

Where did the ocean go? Where is all the water now?

The earth was WAY different ages ago...I think we can agree on that.

And were you there dfo you know this?

Hmmm, so you're saying that it takes shorter for trees to be buried than the theory states? God doesn't HAVE to...he created male and female so that they could carry on their lines. So all animals have a common ancestor...each of those ancestors with the genes nessecary to have different races or species of whatever animal they are. The only reason we can't do that is because our gene pool is depleting because of the Curse...aka mans sinful nature. Once again that's where Jesus comes into the picture. Why then in EVERY flood story is there a big wooden floating box, boat etc? You could just run up into the hills, stay there for a couple of days, and then come back down if a river near you flooded. But in every single one of those stories has the gods getting angry with the people, sending a flood, 2 people survive by devine intervention, and a whole bunch of animals go with them. They ALL have that in common.

Again blind faith. it's amazing locking yourself up into it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
But let me remind you of this: simply because something is outside of your personal experience and understanding at the present time does not mean it doesn't exist, or can't be true.

You might want to remember that about evolution - because that has a lot more SCIENTIFIC facts backing it up than the bible does. As for my own experiences - you don't know what they are really.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
But...

The various other Flood stories referred to include references to JesuCristo, St. Bartholomew, the Angel Michael etc.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acad...40/flood20.htm

I've looked at the article, and still need to finish reading it. I understand that legends can be transferred between different groups, and this can cause their spread. I don't really think that is an adequate explanation for all the similarities of stories, but I have to finish it.

[HOBBIT]

So far absolutely no scientific evidence on this topic........ *yawn*

Thanks for another good laugh Samwise

[Giroth]

thanks for another good laugh,HOBBIT......

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Giroth
thanks for another good laugh,HOBBIT......

Actually it's you guys that are giving us a laugh by pulling out biblical references to support your scientific claims.

[Giroth]

yo jersey,

I don't want to get into it with you again,but the bible has been proven true,and has been around MUCH longer than the evolution theory,though I know that doesn't matter,at least to you.It was written by many people of different backgrounds,while the evolution theory was mainly created by one man's idea.

but,don't look to me on this........you already know that anywayLOL......rian has got the better info,so don't start on it like in the evolution in schools thread....

have a nice weekend,

~Giroth

[Cirdan]

*nerg... disturbing me with pointless posts.*

What is the creationst explaination for the distribution and diversity of species after the flood? Kangaroos in Australia, monkeys in South America, bison in North America. Did Noah navigate the world distributing all the creatures? Surely you don't support the macro-evolutionary change of marsupials from something else? Or is it going to be rapid plate tectonics, with continents zipping around the globe?

It would be nice if our thread starter would determine a series of topics to work through instead of the dumptruck approach to topic introduction (*cough* LE *cough*). (And I was being polite as a different kind of truck also came to mind)

And Giroth... do you have anything to add? At least Samwise is bothering to make stuff up to discuss.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Giroth
yo jersey,

I don't want to get into it with you again,but the bible has been proven true,

How has it been proven true?

and has been around MUCH longer than the evolution theory,though I know that doesn't matter,at least to you.

NO it doesn't matter to me. It's not how long something has been around that matters. Religious people insisted for cneturies the world was flat and that the earth was the center of everything. If we continued to believe religion over science - it would have been impossible to send man to the moon or explore distant stars.

It was written by many people of different backgrounds,while the evolution theory was mainly created by one man's idea.

All science is based on man's ideas. I can pick up many books written by many different people - doesn't make the book true or reliable.

but,don't look to me on this........you already know that anywayLOL......rian has got the better info,so don't start on it like in the evolution in schools thread....

Why shouldn't I start on it here? Rian hasn't posted any proof on creationism - other than things to try proving why evolution is wrong. You can't prove a belief by debunking a scientific theory.

You cling to much to the bible me thinks.

[Giroth]

I am purely observing.
I don't feel like explaining my thoughts to you again,even though I could easily start giving out reasons for the things you mentioned in your last post.But I WON'T........why bother anyway.

jersey,

I won't bother with you,Master Quote......you are as stubborn as me.
but you don't understand christianity,methinks.....a true christian also believes in the bible.so can't possibly see what I'm coming from.
so back off,dawg..........

I just wanted to see what all you people were saying........
but giroth just poked her head in,
and now she's part of the fight,I suppose.....heheheheh

~Giroth

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Giroth
I am purely observing.
I don't feel like explaining my thoughts to you again,even though I could easily start giving out reasons for the things you mentioned in your last post.But I WON'T........why bother anyway.
...
I just wanted to see what all you people were saying........
but giroth just poked her head in,
and now she's part of the fight,I suppose.....heheheheh

~Giroth

That's the problem. Observing is a quiet activity. This is not a fight, it is a debate. Debates require discussion of ideas. Do you see where I'm going with this? Put up or...

[Giroth]

you don't get it......I didn't mean a REAL fight...........I was just making a comparison.

I am not nearly in the mood for debating,at least not THIS kind of debate,where my ideas and thoughts are laughed at and disrespected.......it's uneven here.

think of it this way;the world came to be,
and some people think it has to do with evolutionism,and some think creationsim.
Both have their own evidence,as well as disagreements, in their ideas.because I disagree with you or these other evolutionists doesn't make ME wrong,nor does your disagreeing with me make YOU wrong.

as for putting up or getting out,
I think I'll get out soon.It's like staying in a fight even when your outnumbered;your gonna get hurt.....if you know what I mean.

Good day,

~Giroth

[Jonathan]

Some things are true whether you believe it or not.

I don't think you can discuss science if you have poor knowledge of it.
Like evolution. If you haven't studied the theory of evolution enough, it's easy to say that it's all wrong and give arguments for your cause. But how can you determine if your arguments are correct if you lack the basic knowledge of it?
I've not read the Bible so I can't really make an opinion of whether God was right or wrong to flood the world for 40 days and nights or if Abraham was good or evil when he was willing to sacrifice his own son to God. This is not my "field of expertise" so I don't come with crazy arguments about it.
But I'm quite good at science, i.e. geography, linguistics, evolution etc. I've entered deeply into my studies for many years, and will for many years yet to come.
I can recognize good scientific arguments about the creation of the world or the origin of species when I see them. And lots of the creationists' arguments are bad, if not completely wrong. Some arguments may seem scientific and it might be hard to say they're not, but if you let a specialist scratch a little on the surface on the arguments, he'd be able to say if the arguments're right or wrong quite fast.

Some things are true whether you believe it or not. The Earth is, contradictory to the beliefs of many people, millions and millions of years old according to real science. Animals evolve and new species arise. Languages also arise and evolve. These are facts and whether or not God created the Earth, animals and languages, the facts are still practicable. Gods creations are old and changeable.
You can always believe in God, but unless you want to deny scientific facts, you shouldn't come with quasi-scientific myths which state something untrue.

[Cirdan]

The real problem creationists have with that faith vs atheist evolution is that many christians don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and do accept evolution, some even going as far as theistic evolution. I think it is a weakness of faith to fear the possibility that the bible is incapable of describing the logically complex idea a universal creator god would actually be. It's just putting man-made limitations on god. The bible was written by men who didn't have a word for "million". They lacked the knowledge to understand what would be needed to comprehend any adaquetely detailed description of a creation event.

[Giroth]

I have read about evolution a little.I don't buy it,but that's me.

and cirdan,the bible WAS written long ago.....of course they didn't have a word for million........that was hundreds of years ago,for crying out loud.It doesn't make them stupid.
I don't base my entire life on it,so you know.Just one of those things that come up when the topic comes up.I'm no bible thumper.*sigh


I am not coming up with something untrue;give me some respect,guys.perhaps our beliefs are somewhat linked;god created the world and such through evolution,I don't know.
some things are true about MY beliefs as well,Jon,even if you disagree with them.
I like to think I have more to learn in life,no matter how old I get or how smart I may get in the future.I'm 14, dawg;I got more to learn.But I suppose you COULD just look at everything as that you know how it is,and what you believe is nothing but true.but will a person learn anything if they think they already know all about it?at least I'll listen to your arguments for evolutionism;most aren't good in MY opinion either.

well,I'm outta here.No more replying in this thread,no matter what names you call me, how you insult me,or any questions you ask.It's completely useless.why do I bother,or have I ever bothered?I'm completely outnumbered.

I respect your thoughts,so please do so in return for me.I'll just hover back on over to the anything post,entertainment forum,and all that other jazz,like I always do
See you all later.

Have a nice day,

~Giroth