Should we take the bible literal?

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Gothmog


Well that was my point, the ice didn't melt so there must not have been a global flood. The ice shows no sign of ever having been covered with water. The global climatology from the period of time when modern man has walked the earth is well known and supported by numerous independent methods.

Scientific Creationism Compiled by Dennis Lindsay
Coral Reefs formed by sea creatures who can live only in warm waters have been found under the North Pole as well as in the continent of Antartica.

That means that it must have been warm there before. This is not the only evidence I'll be glad to give more.

 

[carlosMM]

Phydeaux, you are mixing up he Cenozoic and far earlier times - coral reefs under the north pole is BS in the first place (there is no land under it), but part of what now is e.g. the Baltic sea and adjoining landmasses used to lie in a position straddeling the equator in the Silurian to Devonian - that is about 450 to 360 millions years ago! The Cenozoic started around 65 million years ago!

I am still waiting for the book title!

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM
the wooden artefact was most likely touched with bare hands or stood around in a museum gathering (recent!) dust! Been there, seen that - a friend of mine got into troubles because he wanted to date artefacts from a cave around here and found that it was not possible as they had been in the museum collection for over 80 years and the dates were BS

also, as I said, being Leaky finds they were probably surfcae findss, not burried in hard rock. But even in rock you will have animal burrows - which can contain bones. Imagine a Fenek carrying off a piece of a carcass into his den....... Often, burrow structures get overlook - you ahve to know what to look for to see the difference! So things in the former, now collapsaed burrow get assigned to the same strat as thing that ORIGINALLY were in the rock....

Well how come not all the dates are the same? It's not that the dates where off, it's that the dates from one lab does not mach up with the date from the other lab.

Well I guess we do not know where they where found.

So why wouldn't the flood work? Most fossil's found are do to mud covering what ever it was, that could have happened with the flood sence the layers form side ways (I know that some one said that not all form side ways, but did not say which are not, and did not show how it worked, if I missed that sorry) it would have stured up the what evers then layed the down acording to there size every thing (but the things on the ark) would have been coverd and become fossils, that would also show why the sea bug is on the bottom because it was at the bottom of the sea.

Here is some more theorys on how the world was before the flood.

Scientific Creationism Compiled by Dennis Lindsay
3. The Pre-flood water-vapor canopy.
a.The same situation as the previously mentioned would be in effect if a canopy existed in the past.
b. The canopy would have a shielding effect against cosmic rays which would have a result in a lower rate of C-14 production.
c. Thus, tests would show greater than actual age for fossils dated by C-14 method
4. Amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmoshere.
a. The preflood ancient climate is believed to have been warm and tropical.
b. A possible reason for this warm climate may not only have been caused by a canopy, but also by a higher than present level content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
c. This speculation is deduced from the large amounts of carbon found locked up in coal and oil formed from plant and animal remains
d. If this is true, that the early atmosphere contained several times more Carbon Dioxide than the present atmosphere, then the atmosphere of the past would have a smaller proportion of C-14 produced and absorbed by plants and animals.
e. That is the ratio of C-12 and C-14 would be considerably different than present day ratios which are the basis for calculating ages of fossils dated by C-14 method.
f. these fossil plants and animals would give an older age by present carbon 14 dating methods.

Just add that to the manecit field and this,

Scientific Creationism Compiled by Dennis Lindsay
1. Cosmic Ray Intensity.
a. Radiation from the sun affects th amount of cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere.
b. It is a know fact that cosmic rays do very.
c. These variations in cosmic-ray flux are thought to be related to the sun spot activity.
d. If the cosmic rays are not constant, the production of C-14 will not be constant.

 

[carlosMM]

:lol.

Phydeaux, why do you not simply save us all the time and do check the site out that zippy provided?

Well how come not all the dates are the same? It's not that the dates where off, it's that the dates from one lab does not mach up with the date from the other lab.

mixed signals: partly old, partly new, depending on how much of the young contaminant is in your sample you get different results!

 

[Grille]

You have quite an interesting arguing style, Phyd.
If there's some theory or whatever not in your favour, you simply make a claim on your own (respectively use some other "book") or pick up selective pieces of other theories that are seperatated from their whole context which is simply ignored.
So following that opportunistic logic, I could write a book which contains only the sentence "The bible is wrong" and quote it all the time to give proof the bible is wrong.

Btw, care to make a coment on "evolution is the god of communism" which is essentially the conclusion of #145 from that FAQ of the site you linked earlier?
So evolution does exist indeed?

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux

Just add that to the manecit field and this,

btw, did you realize that both gothmog and I explained that your weird megnetic field theory is nonsense? It doesn't get better by combining it with other drug-induced fantasies out of a certain still unnamed book!

GIVE ME THE NTITLE OF THE BOOK AND THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR!!!!

 

[Gothmog]

That means that it must have been warm there before. This is not the only evidence I'll be glad to give more.

That is not evidence that it was warm there before as pointed out by carlosMM. If you have any other evidence you are welcome to present it.

As I said before the climatologies for the period while modern man has walked the earth (200000 years or so) agree between the ice cores at the poles and the sea floor sediments as well as various other records (lake bottoms, stalagtite cross sections, etc).

I know that some one said that not all form side ways, but did not say which are not, and did not show how it worked, if I missed that sorry

I went through a detailed explanation of how different layers of sediment are dated in the Neanderthals thread.

Edit: here is a link to the page http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...&display=&highlight=neanderthals&pagenumber=5

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Gothmog
I went through a detailed explanation of how different layers of sediment are dated in the Neanderthals thread

So what? He doesn't to listen!

 

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by zippy
I think this site has everything I want to say on the subject

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc

Very good link

 

[Smidlee]

Evolutionists has a Huge advantage over Creationists(scienctist) . money! because Creation science doesn't sell as good as evolution science does . so the creationists are badly outnumbered. so even if the creation was right ( of course I believe they are but not because of science)they will have a tough time proving it by science .the problem is the average believer doesnt care as much for science as a unbelievers ( i know there are some exceptions)

the biggest problem with science (any science ) is simplicity. examples : what holds everything together? what is light ? what is that stuff between here to the moon we call space? what is a magnetic field? what is gravity? what hold an atom together ?
i know that science trys it best to answer these questions ( I couldnt do any better) but the answers always come down to a theory. you got to accept a theory by faith just like the Bible. of course all faith isnt blind. here is both examples
evolution view point : Noah's flood couldn't have happen because how did all those animals fit in that boat and then once the flood is over how did they cross the ocean to every island and continent ? good question
creation view point : How is it that the flood is recorded in history across different nations,tongue and even the oceans? another good question ( of course some believe everyone back then was morons and we are so full of ourself today)

the problems is we are in the 21st centeny looking back trying to predict how everything happen with onlythe knowledge we have today. as far as we know water could have been H3O instead H2O (I'm not saying I believe this ;only a point). God could still be creating new creatures right now as we speak( well as i type lol). If man is in God's image then it makes sense the God is still creating just as man love creating new music, new art, new video game , new movie,etc,etc. also there is no way of proving if God changed the laws of physics since the flood either.
So that is my opinion: " God is still moving in His universe and not asleep."and no science can prove or disprove this since God is over science ( God did creat within me a new heart so i can't be nothing but a creationists)

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Originally posted by Pikachu

That is simple. When God created animals he wasn't very creative. He simply modified the same code a little for each species. Why should he invent life several times? That would be a waste of time.

And turning people into salt isn't?

God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient. Ideas like "too much effort" or "waste of time" don't apply to him. It takes the exact same amount of effort to create one planet as it does to create forty, namely, none.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

i know that science trys it best to answer these questions ( I couldnt do any better) but the answers always come down to a theory. you got to accept a theory by faith just like the Bible.

Misunderstanding of the concept of theory. Old hat also Argument to Ignorance, logical fallacy. Moving on...

creation view point : How is it that the flood is recorded in history across different nations,tongue and even the oceans?

Because big floods happen and because most people are imaginative. Can we agree to file this under the "No Sh*t Sherlock" category? Moving on...

( of course some believe everyone back then was morons and we are so full of ourself today)

Equal mental capacity, far fewer schools

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by carlosMM


well, can you name the 'base' genera for the following:

Cows
Anteolpes
Pigs
Goats
Deer
.....


if there was only(!) microevolution - why do we find species that are obviously ancestors of several, further back of all of these groups?

they are all obviously different creatures, and i would say none of them could possibly share an ancestor (a close one at least) even in the concept of evolution. you could at least have gone with the horse/donkey one which is a little harder to answer.

Originally posted by Mescalhead


Time doesn't exist for God.

Bouya-kasha!

hehe, got him there

Originally posted by Sir Eric


You've got to be kidding me!!! have you ever taken a good look at what is out in the world?
Do you know that there are more different species of insect on this planet then there are people?

Have you looked at at least one specific family/genera and gotten to know the individual differences from one species to another?
Look at spiders (a favourite of mine), Here in Australia there are 70 families of different spiders. within this family there are 430 genera whch consist of almost 2,000 differnt species. Each one slightly differnt from the other!
Not to mention Marsupials, we are the ONLY country in the world that has all 3 sub-class' of living mammals!.
We also have over 86,000 different species of insect here and are discovering new one even today!

Does this sound like a there is not much differnce inbetween species?
Each one of those different creatures is a specilist in one way or another, hardly a by-product of a lazy God as implied by yourself.

I think perhaps you need to appreciate nature a bit more.
Much thought has gone into it whether you believe that God created it or it evolved, our planet is a truly amazing place.

well said
the world is an amazing place. IF you believe that it's been created by God, you can't take the side that there wasn't much effort put in. Every being on this planet is an amazing piece of work and a wonder of design genius

Originally posted by zippy

Jesus himself summed up his message as two commandments.

1) Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind and soul etc

2) Love thy neighbour as thy self

Anything else is window dressing.

a good point.
but although that is by far the most important part, there's still a lot more to get out of the bible, and IMO you can only get something out of it if you're prepared to take it literally. in several places it's called "the word of God" and if you aren't prepared to take the word of God as the absolute truth then you'd seem like a half-arsed christian IMO (no offence intended to anyone) - although in regards to evolution, it doesn't state one way or the other if it occurred - or what the original created animals were, so that's something to go on by beliefs.

also: RE: your link -
I can't believe that people would actually use most of those arguments, some are absolutely ludicrous (although i don't doubt that they have been, some people are crazy and make no sense. I guess i could take evidence enough from this thread ). and most of the rest are too sciency for me. It doesn't prove anything against the bible of course, but it certainly gives means to rebut some of the stupid claims people come up with.

Originally posted by Pikachu

I don't see much harm in taking the creation story literally, but I think it is more likely that it is meant as parable. The fact that it contradicts itself should make it obvious that it is not literally a true story.

what is this contradiction you speak of?

Originally posted by carlosMM
Phydeaux, you are mixing up he Cenozoic and far earlier times - coral reefs under the north pole is BS in the first place (there is no land under it),

dunno about the rest of it, but he said antartic which is south pole, which does have land under it.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
( of course some believe everyone back then was morons and we are so full of ourself today)

Equal mental capacity, far fewer schools

I think people back then were proboly smarter (think Pyramids).

 

[Grille]

by Smidlee:
Evolutionists has a Huge advantage over Creationists(scienctist) . money! because Creation science doesn't sell as good as evolution science does .

Yup, things that have flaws tend to be just shelf warmers...

so the creationists are badly outnumbered. so even if the creation was right ( of course I believe they are but not because of science)they will have a tough time proving it by science .the problem is the average believer doesnt care as much for science as a unbelievers ( i know there are some exceptions)

That's not a problem, but a logical phenomenon.
If the avarage (creation-)believer would actually care for a science, he'd stop being a creationist as a consequence...

he biggest problem with science (any science ) is simplicity. examples : what holds everything together? what is light ? what is that stuff between here to the moon we call space? what is a magnetic field? what is gravity? what hold an atom together ?
i know that science trys it best to answer these questions ( I couldnt do any better) but the answers always come down to a theory. you got to accept a theory by faith just like the Bible.

Maybe be it takes faith to accept a theory; respectively, the other way round, there are theories you would not want to put your faith on (like e.g. evolution, obviously).
As ``answers always come down to a theory'': Let's say a scientific theory was on same level as the bible. A certain scientific theory helps me to explain my observations in a certain system. (Dunno - the bible may eventually try to help you to explain in this very same system, too. Ok)
For example, I have a system where Newton mechanics apply. Fine, I could put up an equation of motion, compute some energy problem and what not - just to see that my observations in that certain system fit very well to the theory-based calculations. Now I change the system and notice Newton mechanis don't work here. You know what - I simply throw it out of the window! And just use another theory, that now applies! Let's say I want to make some calculations concerning a thing that travels with a velocity in the magnitude of light speed. I ignore Newton mechanics, I don't claim it to be true in my actual system. In fact, I say it's plain wrong in my current system. Yay.
Prob with bible for me here: it's claimed to apply in every system. If I now stumble across an observation that isn't described in the bible, explanations go like ``maybe...'', ``it could be that...'' - in any case an additional explanation that is not stated in the bible, but a private speculation (I can speculate as well and answer "maybe not...''). So why should I take it literally then? Why should I use a creation *theory* when the theory of evolution helps me explaining my observations?

 

[bobgote]

interestingly enough, some research done recently is hinting that the speed of light may not be constant...that there is resistance presented by space.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

A theory is not a matter of faith. Do you have faith in gravity or the presence of tiny bacteria that make you sick? Those are both "theories".

Read:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm

Not only that, Evolution is not even a Theory. It's a Fact. We can SEE that organisms change over time in the fossil record. Nobody is debating the absolute FACT that organisms can change over time, most likely due to changes in DNA.

The THEORY of Evolution deals with the possible EXPLANATIONS for the FACT of Evolution. The theory tries to show HOW - natural selection, genetic mutation, adaptive radiation, punctuated equilibrium, and allopatric speciation are some of the big concepts behind that theory. For non-biologists or bio students:

natural selection - differentiated success in reproduction. The organism fittest for survival reproduces most often and eventually dominates the gene pool.

genetic mutation - changes in DNA in the sex cells of organisms due to random mutation, cosmic rays, other factors not yet fully understood. It's important to point out that the only way for a mutation to get passed on if it's in a sex cell, and that sex cell becomes a new organism.

adaptive radiation - one species diversifies rapidly when presented with new opportunities. Darwin's finches are a classic example.

punctuated equilibrium - evolution occurs most rapidly after natural disasters [or after colonization of new empty land] because competition for established or new niches is much less.

allopatric speciation - organisms of the same species in different locations can adapt to different environments and become reproductively isolated [they cannot mate because of physiognomy, behavior, location, etc]. Sympatric speciation [one species becoming several while remaining in the same location] is less common because the population drags all changes back towards the mean.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Smidlee
Evolutionists has a Huge advantage over Creationists(scienctist) . money! because Creation science doesn't sell as good as evolution science does . so the creationists are badly outnumbered. so even if the creation was right ( of course I believe they are but not because of science)they will have a tough time proving it by science .the problem is the average believer doesnt care as much for science as a unbelievers ( i know there are some exceptions)

That is BS, and you know it! There are so many idiotic projects funded by the usual agencies to look for the arc and investigate bible texts and so on that real scientists like me get angry.

And the big thing is: a SCIENTIST finding that something is the way the creationists say will say so - while a Creationist will not admit he is wrong. That is because the scientist starts with a theory and tries to falsify it while the Creationist starts witha fixed believe and then just assembles that evidence which may be contorted into supporting his believe.

the answers always come down to a theory. you got to accept a theory by faith just like the Bible. of course all faith isnt blind. here is both examples

yes, it always comes down to a theory. until that theory has been tested so rigorousely that it becomes widely accepted. You dom not have to believe it, you are welcome to have a go at disproving it. And you do not need faith - you are SUPPOSED to doubt!

evolution view point : Noah's flood couldn't have happen because how did all those animals fit in that boat and then once the flood is over how did they cross the ocean to every island and continent ? good question

and about tenthousand other questions!

creation view point : How is it that the flood is recorded in history across different nations,tongue and even the oceans? another good question ( of course some believe everyone back then was morons and we are so full of ourself today)

hehe, what does that tell us abot the flood? have you ever thought that through?

come on, what is the easy, simple, probable answer?

that wherever humans settle there are floods, usually the springtime variety. And there will be bigger ones every few years. And 'century-flood' even less often - but they will ruin peoples lives and they will
a) remember it
b) blame it on God(s)
c) tell their children!

the problems is we are in the 21st centeny looking back trying to predict how everything happen with onlythe knowledge we have today. as far as we know water could have been H3O instead H2O (I'm not saying I believe this ;only a point). God could still be creating new creatures right now as we speak( well as i type lol). If man is in God's image then it makes sense the God is still creating just as man love creating new music, new art, new video game , new movie,etc,etc. also there is no way of proving if God changed the laws of physics since the flood either.
So that is my opinion: " God is still moving in His universe and not asleep."and no science can prove or disprove this since God is over science ( God did creat within me a new heart so i can't be nothing but a creationists)

yes, there may have been miracles. and no, water could NOT ahve been H3O. OR you must assume that God went and totally changed the way subatomar particles work

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by bobgote

what is this contradiction you speak of?

Genesis 1 - God creates plants on the second day, fish and birds on the fourth day, animals on the fifth day, and finally humans, male and female at the same time.

Genesis 2 - God creates Adam first, then plants and animals afterwards.

The order is different.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by bobgote
Cows
Anteolpes
Pigs
Goats
Deer

they are all obviously different creatures, and i would say none of them could possibly share an ancestor (a close one at least) even in the concept of evolution. you could at least have gone with the horse/donkey one which is a little harder to answer.

Are they? they are all artiodactyles...... actually, antelopes, cows, goats, deers are all pecora..... And there is a rich history of artiodacyles, some leading to todays animals, some dying out without descendants.......

lookie!

both from Carrol, R.L (ed.) (1993): Paläontologie und Evolution der Wirbeltiere. 684 pp. Thieme, Stuttgart.

Phylogeny of Artiodactyla:

and
Diacodexis, an early artiodactyl from the Lower Eocene (Rose 1982). size= +/- rabbit

dunno about the rest of it, but he said antartic which is south pole, which does have land under it.

sorry, my misread.

coral reefs in antarctica.... let me get my books and check.......
http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm

check the position of antarctica - yes, colar reefs in the time frame I have given before are possible - back the the climate was entirely different (which has to to with one big ocean and one more or less big landmass)