frapazoid:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html
16 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
religion in the forums?!?!
140
May 16, 2001 03:18 PM
First of all, a global flood can always be explaind with "it was something supernatural that we can't understand" There is really no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder why the god erased all the evidence. However, on the same premises it's possible to argue that a global flood occured last week, and the god has erased all evidence, including our memories from it. If someone claimed that, would you belive it? Probably not, so you really shouldn't be beliving the other flood either.
Here are just a few of the problems with the story of Noah and his ark:
1) The ark itself
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 90 metres, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 140 metres long. Could an ark that size really be made seaworthy?
2) The animals
There are many problems, with bringing the animals to the ark. Where did they come from? Did they go there by themselves? There would be lots of difficulties for certain animals, such as penguins to walk to where Noah lived. Som animals, such as koalas require a special diet. Where did he get that from? Some cave-dwelling animals require constant humidity. This would of course cause even more problems. Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
Some xians suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.
Getting all the animals aboard the ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark (Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the ark, one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
Also, tyreth, lots of animals cannot be brought on the ark as juveniles. Many of them require the care of older animals. Not all animals of course do require adult care, lots of them would be fully grown within a year or so. The bible (Gen. 7:2) also clearly states that "the male and his mate" are to be included on the ark. This indicates sexual maturity.
There were also not 2 of each kind on the ark. The bible states there were either 7 or 14 of each kind.
Like I said earlier, some species would require special food. Eukalyptus-leaves for the koala, mulberry-leaves for the silk-worm...For thousands of plant species, there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them?
Many animals also require their food to be fresh. It is, for obvious resons, impossible to get fresh food on board an ark that is out on an open sea. Many snakes will only have fresh, warm rats... Many animals will eat only fresh plants... So, how did Noah keep a supply of fresh food?
Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was edpecially like that before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. Thelarge quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?
The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
How did a crew of eight manage a menagerie larger and more diverse than that found in zoos requiring many times that many employees?
As you can see, all animals can impossibly have fit, together with food, aboard that ark.
The flood itself
First of all, there is no such thing as water in that quantity coming from underground. Or how was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. Noah would have been poached.
A global flood, would have produced evidence, contrary to what we can see today:
1) Why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
2)Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
3) How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 000 yrs.) climatic conditions.
4) Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater),(4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
The fossil strata
Most people who believe in a global flood - tyreth obviously included - also believe that the flood was responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. (The alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time sequence of several generations at least, would prove that some kind of evolutionary process occurred.) However, there is a great deal of contrary evidence. (Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory.)
There are lots of problems with this view:
1) The extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
2) The relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
3) How come coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them?
4) Why do small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata?
5) Why are artifacts, such as footprints, also sorted?
6) Why are no human artifacts found except in the very uppermost strata? If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
7) Why is ecological information consistent within but not between layers? Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
8) How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
*rain drops
*river channels
*wind blown dunes
*meteorites and meteor craters
*beaches
*footprints
*coral reefs
*cave systems
...etc.
All of these could impossibly have formed during a global flood.
9)How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
10) Well, I could go on, but I won't. I think most people get it. If you don't... I just might continue.
Species survival
1)Fish: Some fish can only live in salt water, others can absolutely not live in salt water. A global flood would obviously have killed off the other type of fish.
2)Coral: Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.
3)Diseases: Many deseases can't survive in other hosts than human. Noah & his mates weren't sick with multiple diseases through the entire journey, were they? Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.
Please, tell me if I shall continue?
Edited by - mr BiCEPS on May 16, 2001 7:56:45 PM
Here are just a few of the problems with the story of Noah and his ark:
1) The ark itself
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 90 metres, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 140 metres long. Could an ark that size really be made seaworthy?
2) The animals
There are many problems, with bringing the animals to the ark. Where did they come from? Did they go there by themselves? There would be lots of difficulties for certain animals, such as penguins to walk to where Noah lived. Som animals, such as koalas require a special diet. Where did he get that from? Some cave-dwelling animals require constant humidity. This would of course cause even more problems. Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
Some xians suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.
Getting all the animals aboard the ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark (Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the ark, one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
Also, tyreth, lots of animals cannot be brought on the ark as juveniles. Many of them require the care of older animals. Not all animals of course do require adult care, lots of them would be fully grown within a year or so. The bible (Gen. 7:2) also clearly states that "the male and his mate" are to be included on the ark. This indicates sexual maturity.
There were also not 2 of each kind on the ark. The bible states there were either 7 or 14 of each kind.
Like I said earlier, some species would require special food. Eukalyptus-leaves for the koala, mulberry-leaves for the silk-worm...For thousands of plant species, there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them?
Many animals also require their food to be fresh. It is, for obvious resons, impossible to get fresh food on board an ark that is out on an open sea. Many snakes will only have fresh, warm rats... Many animals will eat only fresh plants... So, how did Noah keep a supply of fresh food?
Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was edpecially like that before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. Thelarge quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?
The ungulates alone would have produced tons of manure a day. The waste on the lowest deck at least (and possibly the middle deck) could not simply be pushed overboard, since the deck was below the water line; the waste would have to be carried up a deck or two. Vermicomposting could reduce the rate of waste accumulation, but it requires maintenance of its own. How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
How did a crew of eight manage a menagerie larger and more diverse than that found in zoos requiring many times that many employees?
As you can see, all animals can impossibly have fit, together with food, aboard that ark.
The flood itself
First of all, there is no such thing as water in that quantity coming from underground. Or how was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. Noah would have been poached.
A global flood, would have produced evidence, contrary to what we can see today:
1) Why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
2)Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
3) How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 000 yrs.) climatic conditions.
4) Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater),(4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
The fossil strata
Most people who believe in a global flood - tyreth obviously included - also believe that the flood was responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. (The alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time sequence of several generations at least, would prove that some kind of evolutionary process occurred.) However, there is a great deal of contrary evidence. (Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory.)
There are lots of problems with this view:
1) The extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
2) The relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
3) How come coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them?
4) Why do small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata?
5) Why are artifacts, such as footprints, also sorted?
6) Why are no human artifacts found except in the very uppermost strata? If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
7) Why is ecological information consistent within but not between layers? Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
8) How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
*rain drops
*river channels
*wind blown dunes
*meteorites and meteor craters
*beaches
*footprints
*coral reefs
*cave systems
...etc.
All of these could impossibly have formed during a global flood.
9)How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
10) Well, I could go on, but I won't. I think most people get it. If you don't... I just might continue.
Species survival
1)Fish: Some fish can only live in salt water, others can absolutely not live in salt water. A global flood would obviously have killed off the other type of fish.
2)Coral: Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.
3)Diseases: Many deseases can't survive in other hosts than human. Noah & his mates weren't sick with multiple diseases through the entire journey, were they? Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.
Please, tell me if I shall continue?
Edited by - mr BiCEPS on May 16, 2001 7:56:45 PM
140
May 16, 2001 03:54 PM
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html
What are you trying to say with this? "because I saw it on the internet, it's gotta be true" ?
The decreasing speed of light, also known in xian circles as "c-decay", was first formulated in 1981 by a Barry Setterfield. I am a little surprised that people actually still use this argument (but I suppose nothing with these lunes really surprise me anymore), especially since this turned out a major embarassment for xians, and even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it, because it was so flawed.
-------------------
I didn't want to start a new post - again - so i'll just edit this. JRaskell - had you read my entire post about the omnicience vs. free will, you would have noticed me writing that that would be the obvious counter-argument. It also states why that counter-argument is flawed.
Edited by - mr BiCEPS on May 16, 2001 5:03:12 PM
122
May 16, 2001 03:54 PM
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
frapazoid:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html
I read it.
Here are my problems with all of this;
1) The world flood.
This IS possible, if the polar ice-caps were
to completely melt and freeze over once again. I assume
God can do that. Well, let me explain
something; New species are found all the time. They still are.
He couldn't have known about ALL of them way back then.
You say the flood killed the Dinos? Wasn't Noah supposed
to have two of each on his boat? Looks to me like he messed
up a bit. Maby being 1 person alone building a huge ship,
he couldn't fit them in. It must admit it probably would
have been difficult caring for a T. Rex anyway.
Also notice how none of the ancient civilizations know
about Dinosaurs. So there is some cave-man drawing in
a cave, of all places. He draws a goat. He draws a cow.
A pack of raptors runs by at 60mph. He takes no notice.
Must have been a boring artist.
2) Creation! Like all religions, that world started around
the same time as human civilation. Coincidence? Probably not.
Humans always tend to put ourselves at the top; We came
first, we are the most intelligent, even though we drive
SUVs, etc. Also, everyone religion I have ever heard of
bases itself around the knowledge of the time period.
I can understand that if a human wrote it, he wouldn't
know about much more than the common knowledge. Then
again, the Bible tells us God told them. Anyone can
write a book that claims God told the authors.
A new religion, like unarius, believes in aliens.
Of course, they are idiots even by today's standards.
I'm not going into that, but that have physics that
would make even Stephen Hawkins laugh out loud.
About the light speed slowing? Interesting..
So, in theory, eventually it would slow down so much
that it would affect out vision. Stuff would be visibly
lagging. It would affect our minds.
Also, note the rate. Around 1% or so in the last 300 years..
First, I should mention that they didn't have very accurate
atomic clocks back in 1750. It is redicules to accept 300year
old estimates of this type of science. Our clocks are simply
improving, and we get more accurate measurements. So we see
a little change in our estimates. Even at that rate,
it wouldn't be enough for us to see much more than a few
thousand lightyears further. In theory, the universe has
only been around 10k years, so at that slow-down speed it
couldn't have been much higher back then anyway.
3) History. The thing is that if these sorts of global events
happened, the whole world's history would be affected.
All the ancient folks seem to know about the dark ages,
but no global flood. If it wasn't a global flood, than there
is no way for it to kill ALL the dinosuars. Just the ones
that lived around the black sea.
What about craters and such? It seems that if all
the meteors and asteriods found over the world have hit
in the past 10k years, we would have history of them.
The only possibilty of them causing the kind of damage
that physics say the would without anyone noticing would
be if it were to happen at the same time as the dark ages,
which was caused by a volcanic explosion.
4) Perfection. A perfect being should logically be able
to create something else that is perfect. Or maby not
perfect, but not as messed up as we are. Not nearly.
He doesn't seem too perfect at convincing me.
5) Conversion. I feel should mention I used to be
a Christian. In fact, up until about a week ago I was
still kind of in a "maby it's possible" mindset.
After all this, I have little doubt that is has the
credibilty of the the Norse myths.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. No, I don't need some higher
power to tell me not to kill people, I don't need some
higher power to give my life meaning. Meaning? What meaning?
By the beginning of the creation of the Universe,
he has known everything I intend to do. The choices are
mine, but why did you have to "test" Adam and Eve if he
knew the outcome? Why did you go through the trouble of
creating everything if he knew what would happen?
I just don't buy it.
Edited by - Frapazoid on May 16, 2001 5:01:21 PM
220
May 16, 2001 04:44 PM
"because it obviously, since it knew what was going to happen - wanted it to happen that way. Otherwise it would have created it in another way."
Nowhere do you offer a reason as to why you believe God actually WANTED things to happen a certain way, and why he would have created it in such a way as to have every single microcosmic event play out as he planned before he created it. Is it not possible to say he created the Universe without WANTING to know how the future was going to lay out, while still knowing how it was going to lay out anyways? Given the idea that God wanted humans to have free will, I don''t find it unreasonable to think that could be the case at all.
''I want to create a man in a woman in my own image, and watch them grow, interact, die, and return to me in heaven. I want them to live their lives as THEY want to, not as I want them to. I know they will sin. I know they will listen to the snake and eat from the forbidden apple. I know this is what THEY will CHOOSE to do. I will still create them, still give them the free will to do what they want to do, knowing full well what it is they are going to do. Why? Because I want them to have free will, that''s why.''
Or perhaps because they MUST have free will, for whatever reason. You are assuming to know what an omnipotent and omniscient being would want, and what that being would choose to do based on what he wants, and I see no foundation for justifying that assumption.
Nowhere do you offer a reason as to why you believe God actually WANTED things to happen a certain way, and why he would have created it in such a way as to have every single microcosmic event play out as he planned before he created it. Is it not possible to say he created the Universe without WANTING to know how the future was going to lay out, while still knowing how it was going to lay out anyways? Given the idea that God wanted humans to have free will, I don''t find it unreasonable to think that could be the case at all.
''I want to create a man in a woman in my own image, and watch them grow, interact, die, and return to me in heaven. I want them to live their lives as THEY want to, not as I want them to. I know they will sin. I know they will listen to the snake and eat from the forbidden apple. I know this is what THEY will CHOOSE to do. I will still create them, still give them the free will to do what they want to do, knowing full well what it is they are going to do. Why? Because I want them to have free will, that''s why.''
Or perhaps because they MUST have free will, for whatever reason. You are assuming to know what an omnipotent and omniscient being would want, and what that being would choose to do based on what he wants, and I see no foundation for justifying that assumption.
May 16, 2001 04:51 PM
You say that the bible is written by several people that are influenced by god. Well, then that means that the bible could all be bs. How do you know that those men wernt drunk or something when they wrote the bible? So really, you are trusting the text of a bunch or random people. Why would you belive people you didnt even know, making all these wild aligations?
On another note, How can you be sure any of the bible is true? Take the book of revilations (i think thats the one). That book is full of monsters and beasts and crazy stuff that christians say is purly symbolic. Well if that much of the bible isnt true, why would the rest be?
tyreth, noah put 2 of every animal on the ship, or so he says... otherwise how would there be offspring?
also, how would the ant-eater and the ant survive? the ant-eater needs ants to live, and 40 days is a long time to not eat. If he ate the ants, there would be no ants, and the ant-eater would still starve. This goes for most other animals too.
On another note, How can you be sure any of the bible is true? Take the book of revilations (i think thats the one). That book is full of monsters and beasts and crazy stuff that christians say is purly symbolic. Well if that much of the bible isnt true, why would the rest be?
tyreth, noah put 2 of every animal on the ship, or so he says... otherwise how would there be offspring?
also, how would the ant-eater and the ant survive? the ant-eater needs ants to live, and 40 days is a long time to not eat. If he ate the ants, there would be no ants, and the ant-eater would still starve. This goes for most other animals too.
140
May 16, 2001 05:13 PM
What caused it to make things the way they are is not actually relevant - yes, It was a mistake to type that it "wanted things to be this way". But whatever caused it to make everything, exactly the way it is, knowing everything that would happen in it, still makes everything predestined.
So, now who's assuming to know how an omnipotent being thinks?
uhm, there are still 3 possibilities.
Edited by - mr BiCEPS on May 16, 2001 6:25:54 PM
quote:
Is it not possible to say he created
the Universe without WANTING to know how the future was going to lay out, while still knowing how it was going to lay out anyways?"
So, now who's assuming to know how an omnipotent being thinks?
uhm, there are still 3 possibilities.
Edited by - mr BiCEPS on May 16, 2001 6:25:54 PM
166
May 16, 2001 05:20 PM
Why doesn''t every one who replyed to this thred ask gamedev to make a new message board: " PROGRAMMERS AND GOD "
122
May 16, 2001 06:45 PM
LOL!
I just went to creationscience.com, they''ve got some really great stuff there, it should be on Saturday Night Live or something
I''ll just quote what they say:
>>No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever
>>been observed. If evolution had occurred on earth, one would
>>expect at least simple forms of life,such as microbes, would
>>have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon
>>and Mars, therefor God only created life on Earth."
>>"the entire Earth was never molten, and it did not evolve by gravitational accretion."
Sorry but planets don''t evolve, natural selection? Evolution requires reproduction along with genetic mutation. When was the last time Earth had sex? And what is gravitational accretion?
>>"Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the
>>universe were infinitely old, everything should have the same
>>temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not
>>infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A
>>beginning suggests a Creator.a)"
No, it doesn''t (response to the last sentence).
>>"Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same
>>direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards."
Um... the planets spin in different directions, THAT MEANS THEY WERE MADE BY GOD! WOW!
>>"spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving
>>matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown
>>that life comes only from life. This has been observed so
>>consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of
>>evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that
>>life came from nonliving matter through natural processes."
LOL The beginning of life on Earth can only happen once, unless all life on Earth has died. Since we are alive we can not witness the creation of life. (DUH)
>>"Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their
>>lives to save another;sometimes the life of another species.a
>>Natural selection, which evolutionists say explains all \>
>>individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic >>(self-sacrificing) “individuals.” How could such
>>risky behavior ever be inherited, because its possession tends
>>to prevent the altruistic individual from passing on its genes
>>for altruism?
Most people do not sacrifice themselves. If they did they would all be dead by now because they have already sacrificed themselves. Wow that''s pretty complicated. Humans endanger their lives sometimes because if a mother endangers herself for her children, those children are more likely to survive, thus insuring that this trait is common because of natural selection.
>>"All species appear fully developed, not partially developed.
>>They show design. There are no examples of half-developed
>>feathers, eyes,b skin, tubes (arteries,veins, intestines, etc.),
>>or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not
>>100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed
>>organs. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a
>>wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became
>>a good wing.
That''s why lizards don''t give birth to birds, but sometimes the new lizards have bad legs... same reason why sometimes humans have bad legs, or are stupid, or have bad arms, or believe in God(sorry I just had to add that, I''m just kidding tho).
>>"A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive
>>generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any
>>natural or artificial process can cause an increase in
>>complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever
>>been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural
>>efforts to increase mutation rates.
Which century? The 16th? People only learned how to manipulate genes recently, check out all the people in China who would be hungry but are now fed because of genetically altered rice that grows much better.
>>"Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column
>>lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel
>>sounds. Because apes lack this long air column, they cannot make
>>clear vowel sounds. The back of the human tongue, extending deep
>>into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant
>>sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making
>>consonant sounds.b Even if an ape could evolve all the physical
>>equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a
>>“prewired” brain for learning language skills,
>>especially grammar and vocabulary."
A brain is part of the equipment for speech, some humans are born without it and can''t talk... is this supposed to prove that humans did not share a common ancestor with apes? Anyone else on this forum please explain.
>>"The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does
>>not imply they are vestiges of organs inherited from our
>>evolutionary ancestors.a As medical knowledge has increased, at
>>least some functions of all organs have been discovered.b For
>>example, the human appendix was once considered a useless
>>remnant from our evolutionary past. It now appears that the
>>appendix plays a role in antibody production and protects part
>>of the intestine from infections and tumor growths.c Indeed, the
>>absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never
>>happened."
Most vestigial organs that got in the way disappeared because of evolution, example of one that didn''t is ostrich wings.
>>"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of
>>animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells."
I don''t see how this is supposed to help the cause of "creation science" but the reason there are no forms of animal life with 2,3,4, or 5 cells is because by definition those are protists or plants.
>>"The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the
>>fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of
>>Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex,
>>diversified,a and dispersed—worldwide.b Few people realize
>>that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist
>>today.cComplex species, such as fish,d worms, corals,
>>trilobites, jellyfish,e sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods
>>appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual
>>development from simpler forms. These layers contain
>>representatives of all today’s plant and animal phyla,
>>including flowering plants,f vascular plants,g and vertebrates
>>(animals with backbones).h Insects, a class comprising four-
>>fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no
>>evolutionary ancestors.i The fossil record does not support
>>evolution."
The author of course forgot all monerans, protists, fungi, etc. leading up to the animal and plant species, but it is obvious to anyone with any brains that the fossils of small animals are much less obvious. Look! I found the imprint of a one-celled organism on this rock! Just because it is hard to see in fossils does not mean it does not exist. This phenomenon is known as the Cambrian and explosion, and as is the case with most phenomena which require a bit of thought to answer, many attribute this to God.
>>"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many
>>fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of
>>their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly,
>>before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants
>>quickly decompose.) Many other animals, buried in mass graves
>>and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and
>>rapid burials over large areas.c These observations, together
>>with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut
>>across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong
>>evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were
>>deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years.
>>Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The
>>worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death
>>and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic
>>flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.d
If I responded to this I would be flogging the horse that was already killed, ground up, mashed into a pulp and incinerated by Mr. Biceps. (not literally, as any fundamentalists here might think, please don''t call the SPCA)
>>"If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
>>result of evolutionary sequences, an absolutely unbelievable
>>series of chance events must have occurred at each stage."
It happened slowly, and the most efficient method survived. Asexual organisms evolve MUCH more slowly than sexual organisms so the sexual organisms dominate.
>>"If life is ultimately the result of random processes or chance,
>>then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are
>>thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long
>>series of accidents. Therefore, your thoughts would have no
>>validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance,
>>or natural, processes.a By destroying the validity of ideas,
>>evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution.
>>
>>We have all heard it said that humans use only a small fraction >>of their mental abilities.b If true, how did such unused
>>abilities evolve? Certainly not by natural selection, because
>>those capabilities are not used. Why do human thought processes
>>exceed that required for evolutionary success?"
I don''t see how something being the last of a long series of events must be invalid. I have not heard it said that humans use only a small fraction of their mental abilities, but obviously the author of this site is a brilliant example.
There is a lot more that is very easy to debunk but I won''t bother, I think I have made my point that most science that "proves" religion is based on nothing.
About free will, if God knows everything he knows everything he is about to do, if God can do everything then he can surprise himself. These two things are mutually exclusive, he can not be omnipotent and omniscient. This has nothing to do with making something more perfect than himself, so don''t say you''ve already discussed it because of that lame rock thing, they are kind of similar but are not the same.
If God knows exactly what everybody is going to do, he knows what he is going to do, and knows the outcome of any experiments he is going to do, so it is quite pointless for him to judge others based on what he knows they are going to do.
jRaskell: So your saying God did not want things to happen they way they did? Even though he knew exactly what the results of anything he did would be because he knows everything? Even though he could easily make almost ''perfect'' people because he can do anything?
wrenhal: If a Satan worshipper comes to kill my kid he will soon get to worship his deity in person.
LOL I''d like to see someone try to refute Mr. Biceps'' flood debunking, that would be interesting
Tyreth: Riemannian space has been thouroughly disproven, and I''m sure Rieman is hiding his face in shame. In the future people will not find any documents from modern times which we say the Earth is flat, unless they find documents from those morons who still think it is, lol. Anyways it''s all fine that now we use the term "four corners of the earth" well most people dont but some do, because everyone knows the earth is round. On the other hand, the Bible COINED the term "four corners of the earth"
BTW if man was created in God''s image...
why aren''t we flying omnipotent invisible men?
where did women come from?
Is God transexual?
Where did Black people come from?
Or if God was Black, where did White people come from?
Why would God have legs and arms?
Where does God go to the bathroom?
Why do we have toes? (just wondering what they''re good for to a God, unless he wanted to be able to count to 20)
Why would we be slower and weaker than most other animals?
etc.
Also a lot of people asked this but nobody answered, if you did answer and I missed it please respond.
How is Christianity more right than any other religion?
-David
I just went to creationscience.com, they''ve got some really great stuff there, it should be on Saturday Night Live or something
I''ll just quote what they say:
>>No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever
>>been observed. If evolution had occurred on earth, one would
>>expect at least simple forms of life,such as microbes, would
>>have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon
>>and Mars, therefor God only created life on Earth."
>>"the entire Earth was never molten, and it did not evolve by gravitational accretion."
Sorry but planets don''t evolve, natural selection? Evolution requires reproduction along with genetic mutation. When was the last time Earth had sex? And what is gravitational accretion?
>>"Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body. If the
>>universe were infinitely old, everything should have the same
>>temperature. Because temperatures vary, the universe is not
>>infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. (A
>>beginning suggests a Creator.a)"
No, it doesn''t (response to the last sentence).
>>"Backward-Spinning Planets. All planets should spin in the same
>>direction, but Venus, Uranus, and Pluto rotate backwards."
Um... the planets spin in different directions, THAT MEANS THEY WERE MADE BY GOD! WOW!
>>"spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving
>>matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown
>>that life comes only from life. This has been observed so
>>consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of
>>evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that
>>life came from nonliving matter through natural processes."
LOL The beginning of life on Earth can only happen once, unless all life on Earth has died. Since we are alive we can not witness the creation of life. (DUH)
>>"Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their
>>lives to save another;sometimes the life of another species.a
>>Natural selection, which evolutionists say explains all \>
>>individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic >>(self-sacrificing) “individuals.” How could such
>>risky behavior ever be inherited, because its possession tends
>>to prevent the altruistic individual from passing on its genes
>>for altruism?
Most people do not sacrifice themselves. If they did they would all be dead by now because they have already sacrificed themselves. Wow that''s pretty complicated. Humans endanger their lives sometimes because if a mother endangers herself for her children, those children are more likely to survive, thus insuring that this trait is common because of natural selection.
>>"All species appear fully developed, not partially developed.
>>They show design. There are no examples of half-developed
>>feathers, eyes,b skin, tubes (arteries,veins, intestines, etc.),
>>or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not
>>100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed
>>organs. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a
>>wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became
>>a good wing.
That''s why lizards don''t give birth to birds, but sometimes the new lizards have bad legs... same reason why sometimes humans have bad legs, or are stupid, or have bad arms, or believe in God(sorry I just had to add that, I''m just kidding tho).
>>"A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive
>>generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any
>>natural or artificial process can cause an increase in
>>complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever
>>been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural
>>efforts to increase mutation rates.
Which century? The 16th? People only learned how to manipulate genes recently, check out all the people in China who would be hungry but are now fed because of genetically altered rice that grows much better.
>>"Because the human larynx is low in the neck, a long air column
>>lies above the vocal cords. This is important for making vowel
>>sounds. Because apes lack this long air column, they cannot make
>>clear vowel sounds. The back of the human tongue, extending deep
>>into the neck, modulates the air flow to help produce consonant
>>sounds. Apes have flat, horizontal tongues, incapable of making
>>consonant sounds.b Even if an ape could evolve all the physical
>>equipment for speech, that equipment would be useless without a
>>“prewired” brain for learning language skills,
>>especially grammar and vocabulary."
A brain is part of the equipment for speech, some humans are born without it and can''t talk... is this supposed to prove that humans did not share a common ancestor with apes? Anyone else on this forum please explain.
>>"The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does
>>not imply they are vestiges of organs inherited from our
>>evolutionary ancestors.a As medical knowledge has increased, at
>>least some functions of all organs have been discovered.b For
>>example, the human appendix was once considered a useless
>>remnant from our evolutionary past. It now appears that the
>>appendix plays a role in antibody production and protects part
>>of the intestine from infections and tumor growths.c Indeed, the
>>absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never
>>happened."
Most vestigial organs that got in the way disappeared because of evolution, example of one that didn''t is ostrich wings.
>>"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of
>>animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells."
I don''t see how this is supposed to help the cause of "creation science" but the reason there are no forms of animal life with 2,3,4, or 5 cells is because by definition those are protists or plants.
>>"The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the
>>fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of
>>Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex,
>>diversified,a and dispersed—worldwide.b Few people realize
>>that many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist
>>today.cComplex species, such as fish,d worms, corals,
>>trilobites, jellyfish,e sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods
>>appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual
>>development from simpler forms. These layers contain
>>representatives of all today’s plant and animal phyla,
>>including flowering plants,f vascular plants,g and vertebrates
>>(animals with backbones).h Insects, a class comprising four-
>>fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no
>>evolutionary ancestors.i The fossil record does not support
>>evolution."
The author of course forgot all monerans, protists, fungi, etc. leading up to the animal and plant species, but it is obvious to anyone with any brains that the fossils of small animals are much less obvious. Look! I found the imprint of a one-celled organism on this rock! Just because it is hard to see in fossils does not mean it does not exist. This phenomenon is known as the Cambrian and explosion, and as is the case with most phenomena which require a bit of thought to answer, many attribute this to God.
>>"Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many
>>fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of
>>their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly,
>>before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants
>>quickly decompose.) Many other animals, buried in mass graves
>>and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and
>>rapid burials over large areas.c These observations, together
>>with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut
>>across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong
>>evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were
>>deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years.
>>Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The
>>worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death
>>and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic
>>flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change.d
If I responded to this I would be flogging the horse that was already killed, ground up, mashed into a pulp and incinerated by Mr. Biceps. (not literally, as any fundamentalists here might think, please don''t call the SPCA)
>>"If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
>>result of evolutionary sequences, an absolutely unbelievable
>>series of chance events must have occurred at each stage."
It happened slowly, and the most efficient method survived. Asexual organisms evolve MUCH more slowly than sexual organisms so the sexual organisms dominate.
>>"If life is ultimately the result of random processes or chance,
>>then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are
>>thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long
>>series of accidents. Therefore, your thoughts would have no
>>validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance,
>>or natural, processes.a By destroying the validity of ideas,
>>evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution.
>>
>>We have all heard it said that humans use only a small fraction >>of their mental abilities.b If true, how did such unused
>>abilities evolve? Certainly not by natural selection, because
>>those capabilities are not used. Why do human thought processes
>>exceed that required for evolutionary success?"
I don''t see how something being the last of a long series of events must be invalid. I have not heard it said that humans use only a small fraction of their mental abilities, but obviously the author of this site is a brilliant example.
There is a lot more that is very easy to debunk but I won''t bother, I think I have made my point that most science that "proves" religion is based on nothing.
About free will, if God knows everything he knows everything he is about to do, if God can do everything then he can surprise himself. These two things are mutually exclusive, he can not be omnipotent and omniscient. This has nothing to do with making something more perfect than himself, so don''t say you''ve already discussed it because of that lame rock thing, they are kind of similar but are not the same.
If God knows exactly what everybody is going to do, he knows what he is going to do, and knows the outcome of any experiments he is going to do, so it is quite pointless for him to judge others based on what he knows they are going to do.
jRaskell: So your saying God did not want things to happen they way they did? Even though he knew exactly what the results of anything he did would be because he knows everything? Even though he could easily make almost ''perfect'' people because he can do anything?
wrenhal: If a Satan worshipper comes to kill my kid he will soon get to worship his deity in person
.LOL I''d like to see someone try to refute Mr. Biceps'' flood debunking, that would be interesting
Tyreth: Riemannian space has been thouroughly disproven, and I''m sure Rieman is hiding his face in shame. In the future people will not find any documents from modern times which we say the Earth is flat, unless they find documents from those morons who still think it is, lol. Anyways it''s all fine that now we use the term "four corners of the earth" well most people dont but some do, because everyone knows the earth is round. On the other hand, the Bible COINED the term "four corners of the earth"
BTW if man was created in God''s image...
why aren''t we flying omnipotent invisible men?
where did women come from?
Is God transexual?
Where did Black people come from?
Or if God was Black, where did White people come from?
Why would God have legs and arms?
Where does God go to the bathroom?
Why do we have toes? (just wondering what they''re good for to a God, unless he wanted to be able to count to 20)
Why would we be slower and weaker than most other animals?
etc.
Also a lot of people asked this but nobody answered, if you did answer and I missed it please respond.
How is Christianity more right than any other religion?
-David
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement