Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

Claim:

Ancient people thought the earth had to be supported in space. The Bible, on the other hand, says "He [God] suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7). This shows divinely inspired accuracy.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 200.

Response:

1. Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy. Job 38:4-6 refers to earth having a foundation and footings, in direct contradiction to the idea that it is unsupported. Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by pillars. Many verses throughout the Bible refer to a solid firmament.

2. There is no reason to believe that any of these passages are intended literally as representing Hebrew views of geography. A verse later in the chapter (Job 26:12) refers to Babylonian mythology, saying that God slew Rahab (= Tiamat). This is likely intended as no more than a denial of Babylonian mythology, in which Marduk created the cosmos from Tiamat's body. The reference to stretching the earth over nothing may similarly be a denial of another religion's views common at the time.

Claim:

The Bible describes medical and sanitary practices remarkable for the time. It says you should bury your excrement (Deut. 23:13). It requires people to wash themselves after touching a dead body (Numbers 19:11-22). It notes that the eighth day after birth is the safest time to perform circumcisions (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:2-3).

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 204-206.

Response:

1. Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy. Genesis 30:25-33, for example, describes a breeding program based on sympathetic magic.

2. Deuteronomy 23:9-14 is not about hygiene. The purpose of burying excrement is so God will not be offended by seeing anything indecent and turn away. The idea is religious; uncleanliness would make one unfit for a religious war. There is also a danger that exposed excrement could be found by the enemy and used magically against one (Scott 1979).

Numbers 19:11-22 is not about hygiene. It refers to ritual purification conducted by sprinkling water, not washing with it. The purification is to be done not immediately after touching the body, as good health practice would demand, but on the third and seventh days. Whoever fails to perform the ritual is unclean and must be ostracized from Israel. Basically, it is a superstitious taboo. Similar taboos against people who have touched dead bodies appear to be universal in Polynesia (Frazer 1993, 206). Furthermore, unless they have died from pestilence or have been decaying for a few days, dead bodies are no less clean than live ones.

3. The Bible does not include directives that really would indicate good medical practices, such as burying feces downhill from the source for drinking water, and washing ones hands in clean water in circumstances that really would prevent spreading dangerous germs.

4. Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge to account for knowledge of good health practices assumes the ancient Hebrews were idiots. People can often see the results that come from bad practices.

References:

1. Frazer, Sir James, 1993. The Golden Bough. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth.
2. Scott, D. Russell, 1979. Deuteronomy. In: The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Eiselen, C., E. Lewis and D. G. Downey, eds., New York: Abingdon Press. Citing Frazer, Golden Bough vol. i, pp. 327f.

Claim:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchern

reply to post by Triarchic


SHOW ME Triarchic!!!!


What's up? You in Joplin? OT just got back for a lil' while....man i got alot to read from you....


Thank you so much for the thorough investigation....


Also I've got about 3 pages to catch up on...not tonight, I'm afraid....

Later this week hopefully...if you will can you summarize your findings?

OT

I agree. Great thread

Originally posted by Conclusion

I agree. Great thread

Conclusion!!!!!!!


Been gone for a while...anniversary thang....can't go into all the details....or SHE'D kill me...


OT's honored that this thread has garnished such brilliant folks....

uok?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

Lol. Thx. Man this thread has went throught the roof.

Congratz. The information here unbelievable.

Oh. and Congrats on your Anniversary.


[edit on 24-8-2009 by Conclusion]

reply to post by Triarchic



Dude, you left, after all that???????????

What's up with that??????????

Oh, I'm sorry....you must be married....OT get's it

Or you are doing your due diligence....pls research www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll be here...


btw, wow.... great work from ya!

OT

Here are the rest of the responses....

Wait until I start dealing with the Logical Fallacies that have been utilized in this thread by you (OldThinker) and other posters.

# The first law of thermodynamics says matter/energy cannot come from nothing. Therefore, the universe itself could not have formed naturally.
www.talkorigins.org...

# Given all the species that exist and have existed, there should be billions of transitional fossils in the fossil record; we should have found tens of thousands at least.
www.talkorigins.org...

# If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.
www.talkorigins.org...

# The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed ad hoc to explain away the embarrassing gaps in the fossil record.
www.talkorigins.org...

# Sequences of transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry. For example, with the fossil whale transition, which evolutionists consider as good a series of transitional fossils as one could hope to find, the fossils show extinct side lineages at best. Even if we had a fossil of every individual in the lineage, we could not verify direct ancestry. Fossils cannot show evidence of descent with modification even in principle.
www.talkorigins.org...

# For you Matrix Dude....

Evolution cannot explain consciousness or free will.
www.talkorigins.org...

# Evolution does not explain how humans became so intelligent.
www.talkorigins.org...

# Evolution is a religion because it encompasses views of values and ultimate meanings.
www.talkorigins.org...

# Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.
www.talkorigins.org...


I have read no new arguements from any ID'ers, YEC, or even OEC... Please review the links I am about to provide. They are to youtube user pages and will answer absolutly all of your claims. If they don't then please ask me and I will find some one else who can.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com... (I recommend starting here)

www.youtube.com... (Here)

www.youtube.com... (And Here)

www.youtube.com.../uploads/8/DShCZTbHEhk

I apologize to the mods for posting many many times... and for not just posting portions of parg. and then linking to the rest of the article. I will do that from now on.

I also apologize to the readers of this forum for posting all the articles.

Beware, I will call you out on the use of logical fallacies and I expect the same in return.

Anyone ever read Genesis? Entertain story if you ask me.

Originally posted by Triarchic
Here are the rest of the responses....

Wait until I start dealing with the Logical Fallacies that have been utilized in this thread by you (OldThinker) and other posters.

# The first law of thermodynamics

My "arch" friend.....

slow down bro....

did you miss I recognized your thoroughness...and just jumped through...to...a...."wait until....!!!!!" statment?????

It appears OT's your enemy? Am I wrong? Or is OT another dumb fundi?

Are you preparing for battle? lil' ole OT got you pumped? Maybe i should re-check my words....huh?

Come on now big boy????

Where u at?

OT says....wwwwwwwoooooooooooooooosaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Originally posted by GenLo
Anyone ever read Genesis? Entertain story if you ask me.

I agree, the word of God, shows God's humor....


where u at with the creator of the universe friend?

OT "representin the IAM THAT IAM...ever thought that thru

????????


life=no game here!!!!

reply to post by OldThinker

I agree, the word of God, shows God's humor....

Shows he's a sadistic prick if you ask me - creating something to fail and then blaming it for itsown failures. In a universe governed by causality, leaving no room for freewill, anything that happens is the only actual possible outcome - meaning that what people choose to do in their lives is completely predetermined by the forces that made them - which you claim is god.

God must therefore send people to hell for the sake of sending them to hell. Such a being deserves no praise.




...So OT, hows the research into Sumer going? I listened to that Tony Campolo thing - don't know why you asked me too.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Kashish777
Design requires a designer

Did you design your personality?

....

Jezus, thank you for the time and multiple posts here, and asking the right questions...I have not the time, today at least, to review them all...hopefully the boss will be so less demanding later in the week,...and I can get to them???

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


Sorry I just had a lot to say after my readings.

I am currently in Columbia, MO... Going to school at the University of Missouri i.e. MIZZOU going for a BA with a focus in Finance.

20 years on the earth and trying not to waste the rest of it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Jezus

 

So mind is not represented by consciousness, but is some entity that is unknown even to itself? What then is mind?

That is a good question...

What is self after all?

The make up of memories and learned responses?

Their could even be things affecting your self that you yourself do not even remember...

I completely believe in evolution as it is an observed phenomenon but it is guided by the "actions" of observers...

An action any where from a plant leaning towards light to a monkey deciding weather to run or fight...

Evolution seems to have given our eternal minds a pretty amazing vehicle though...

Our "minds" seem to have become more and more expressed through the evolving vehicle.





[edit on 24-8-2009 by Jezus]

Personality requires no designer...

Animals, including humans, are born with in-built instincts to perform adaptive behaviors. These instincts include many reflexes and relatively straightforward behaviors, such as food-seeking behavior. But, as animal behavior gets more complex, there are in-build instincts which are correspondingly more complex (e.g., food storing behaviors). Thus, personality in humans is considered, from an evolutionary perspective, not be qualitatively different in origin than the drive in dogs, for example, to bury their bones, or squirrels to store acorns. It's just that human personality is even more complex.

"The evolutionary perspective of personality probably makes most sense when considered in conjunction with other perspectives. Evolutionary psychology can seen, for example, as a theoretical platform which underlies the human personality. At birth, everyone starts from scratch, with a unique genotype, some inbuilt instincts (including a temperament), and a pre-wired capacity to learn certain kinds of behaviors. Biological processes, psychodynamics proceses, behavioral processes, social shaping processes, etc. then unfold, interacting with the individual's genotype, to dynamically create the unique psychological characteristics of the individual. All the time, however, this shaping occurs within certain parameters layed down by the genotype, which itself is a synthesized expression of the knowledge of human evolution about what seems to be adaptive, stored and conveyed through genetic code."

Rest of the article... (wilderdom.com...) Which I did in fact read.

I'll also include this article on the topic. www.personalityresearch.org... which is very interesting in that it parallels the development of civilization and the human "personality".

reply to post by OldThinker


OT The logical fallacy of argument from authority frequently comes up in your posts regarding "The many famous scientists who believed in god", or "Belief in god is the reason for all of these great scientists" etc... I am generalizing here but you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

Originally posted by Triarchic
reply to post by OldThinker

 

OT The logical fallacy of argument from authority frequently comes up in your posts regarding "The many famous scientists who believed in god", or "Belief in god is the reason for all of these great scientists" etc... I am generalizing here but you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

Is it permissible for me, to post this...would you, as a student, get that? Absolutely no!!!!!

And you know it....


Fallacy, huh? Here's a bet...you ready? Let's put 20 years on each "philosophy" ok?

let's check back in 24 Aug 2029, ok? and respectfully, politely...see, who's approach is still standing?

I say this, not, to piss you offf....


or....

win an ATS argument....


= = = = =

You should u2u welfhard, he's your UK counterpart friend...smart, young, exciting, ready to conquer the world!!!!!!


but NIAVE!

oh well, I'm glad you eventually addressed me....

I agree, with.... Arno Penzias, a Nobel prize in physics, who said, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."


OT's apart of that supernatural plan...for 4 decades....ready, willing and able to stand the test of TIME...you?

Praying you are, friend!!

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

You should u2u welfhard, he's your UK counterpart friend...smart, young, exciting, ready to conquer the world!!!!!!


but NIAVE!

Naive? That's rich - you even spelled it wrong!

Also I'm not from the UK....

Praying for you OT..... To get a bloody grip.

Originally posted by Welfhard
......I listened to that Tony Campolo thing - don't know why you asked me too....

Welfhard, that was a huge step, according to the ole guy...thank you so very much!



Patient OT