Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Griffo

 

Do you take this information as fact?

I find it interesting that most individuals here at ATS deny a vast majority of information given from MSM or any other source and claim they are "disinformation agents". But when it comes to the sciences, they think it is 100% accurate and no way of being tampered with or someone intentionally misleading them......just seems....ironic.

A2D

Yes, it's all a giant conspiracy where all scientists working in geology, radiology, biology, physics, chemistry, and related fields hide the fact that the world is only 6k years old

Makes total sense!!

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Do you take this information as fact?

Yes

I find it interesting that most individuals here at ATS deny a vast majority of information given from MSM or any other source and claim they are "disinformation agents". But when it comes to the sciences, they think it is 100% accurate and no way of being tampered with or someone intentionally misleading them......just seems....ironic.

We don't think that science is infallible, that's why we do peer reviews and rigorous testing. Look at the nuclear fusion example, in the 80's two scientists (Fleischmann & Pons) claimed that they had discovered cold fusion. Other groups of scientists then attempted to verify this by recreating the exact set up in different labs, to no avail. They also re-examined this process in 2005 and came to the same conclusion.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


So basically, your answer is...



Yeeeeah, okay.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


No, that's not my answer at all. The OP has already been answered on numerous fronts. It's not my choice whether or not those answers are accepted. I mean, if I ask the doctor what I can do about treatment for my cancer, he can tell me that I can do chemotherapy or a number of other methods. It's then up to me whether I accept his answer as acceptable or not. I may choose to believe that chemotherapy is the right answer or I may not.

Science is by no means infallible. It is generally agreed upon, yes, but not 100% conclusive. There is room for error and that is purely my point.

Here's the thing....I know a lot of individuals that will say "creationists think they know everything for 100% certain without a doubt, ie their sky-daddy did it yadda-yadda-yadda".... That's not what I'm doing here.

I'm here to point out that that's what the scientific community is doing. Very few among the scientific community will admit that radiometric dating(the main-stay of dating) is indeed only a "working" science for now.

Just like Newton's work had to be recalculated and reevaluated and eventually proven to be incomplete by Einstein, so will everything else eventually.

In conclusion, radiometric dating, among other things, is an incomplete science. It is not exact. It is not infallible. It is only a guess that is commonly accepted.

History is rewritten virtually everyday. There are new discoveries that challenge our way of thinking all the time. I'd suggest you don't think too highly of your own "knowledge" because you may be very disappointed when you come to find out you're wrong.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

A guess is not tirelessly gathering data and assessing probability, trying to prove a theory false only to come up short time and time again. That's what science is, its trying to prove theories false. Why would dating methodology be the one and only theory in the history of modern science where all the different fields of science have a conspiracy to uphold? A scientist who proved otherwise would win the Nobel Prize. Is there some sort of conscious population mechanism at work that provides a barrier for the discovery of new ideas on dating? Or does Creationism merely make you happy. Science has always embraced new ideas, new possibilities, and feedback.

Various forms of dating have been calibrated to agree with each other. Atoms decay at a predictable rate, organic molecules use certain Carbon Isotopes differentially. Dating is rather elementary in the science world, with unusually high confidence levels for such geological time scales. Those that question are grossly uninformed and are content with bathing in the amniotic fluid of their own delusions.

Might I suggest reading a book. Once you actually read about the topic, its extremely obvious and easy to understand

Biblical fundamentalist literalism is just plain dumb.

Im sure a Biblical flood occurred, however, im inclined to think that it was LOCAL. And infact, and this is what prevents christians from understanding the bible properly, In Hebrew, the Bible doesnt say "all" the animals. It actually specifies animals that would be of use to Noah ie; domestic animals.

In anycase, you would think the first few words of genesis would indicate that many portions of the bible are to be understood strictly as metaphor, and not literal. To think of a talking snake, or two trees, or of G-d 'walking' in the garden is just plain silly. No adult can honestly be led to believe that any of this happened literally. It is symbolic. It is using physical language to speak of spiritual things.

Cant wait for the day when Christian fundamentalists come to understand this

reply to post by tinfoilman


You have an interesting point of view, but you're entirely wrong about one of your crucial points.
Evolution does happen in leaps and bounds, in response to environmental factors, this is true.
But it doesn't happen over the course of years.
It happens over the course of generations.
Your "10-20 years" for multi-cellular animals and your "about a month" for bacteria (clearly stating that you have no clue as to how bacteria function) are so wrong that it nullifies your entire theory.
You can have your opinion, which is fine...whatever.
But when you're interjecting your opinion as fact, and being wrong about it...well, then there's an issue.

I cannot explain the many discrepancies in the bible, but I will not say that the "other" explanation on as to how we got here is 100% perfect, and clearly explains every single thing about life.

The way I look at it, proponents of evolution are as fundamentalist as creationists. Usually replying with a "evolutiondidit" for every creationists utterance of "Goddidit".

Even if one happens to hold a stance that complexity(on the scale of, say, a cell) can only arise from pre-existing intelligence he will still be bundled with the rest of the others who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that "God put fossils in the earth to test humans".

Originally posted by AQuestion


I am sorry, what is your point? How did Darwin explain the Galapagos Islands habitat, he didn't even know how new the islands were. Read Kurt Vonnegut. You do not wish a coherent answer, you want one that is not. Sentience is and God is or sentience is not and God is not, pick. What is your question?

My question to you is... could you restate this in a coherent manner so I can figure out what you're talking about?

Originally posted by ArgentumAquila
Okay, I gotta reply to this!

First, please don't make fun at the Creationists. We (or at least I) acknowledge that it's tied to our religion, so yes, most of it has to do with belief. I admit to that.

Since I am a creationist, lemme try to explain best as I can. First off, I believe that the flood affected the whole world, not just 'their world'. I don't think Noah made stops for 40 days to pick up every species. Let me quote Genesis 6: 19-20
"19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
So, just to restate stuff, every kind of creature, though I do assume that some of them did change and alter over the years to give us other types of birds and animals that were not there in the beginning.

What I think is kinda funny (because it only just occurred to me before I responded to this), Is that according to Creation, mankind had only been alive for a few generations (although they lived for hundreds of years). So, as to how he got all the animals, I don't believe they were very far away in the first place. I don't believe there was enough time for the animals to, say, get to the other side of the world. So, I don't believe it could have taken that long to call all the animals back. But, also, I can't find the exact years in Genesis right now, but I do know he was building that ark for over 100 years, which would have given the animals enough time to get to him (and I believe that God called a pair of each animal to him). I mean, I think animals populate the land and sort of continue in a direction, so I think they sort of spread out over time, going further away, but not all at once. So I really don't think they were impossibly far. And again, if it took over 100 years to gather the materials for and to build the ark (I don't think there was any other boat like that ever seen before), I think there would have been enough time to at least get a pair of animals to the ark.

So if I understand your explanation, what you are saying is that the Moa wasn't really in New Zealand because it didn't have time to get there before the flood. Since creationism is based on the bible, where does it state that the animals were all nearby? Since the explanation is just made up stuff, the argument that god had UFOs come and move them with tractor beams has the same amount of evidence.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
I cannot explain the many discrepancies in the bible, but I will not say that the "other" explanation on as to how we got here is 100% perfect, and clearly explains every single thing about life.

The way I look at it, proponents of evolution are as fundamentalist as creationists. Usually replying with a "evolutiondidit" for every creationists utterance of "Goddidit".

Even if one happens to hold a stance that complexity(on the scale of, say, a cell) can only arise from pre-existing intelligence he will still be bundled with the rest of the others who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that "God put fossils in the earth to test humans".

Hi. Don't know the many discrepancies in the Bible. Seen a lot listed, but debunked. There are many good books clearing up these issues.

Over and over again people try to pit scientific fact against faith, as if they were trying to prove there is a God. Give up, for pete's sake. I believe in the young Earth, and the ability of God to make it so. My God can do anything He wants. To say otherwise would mean that He is not God.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Radiometric dating isn't a 'working' science, it's a tested, peer-reviewed, re-tested, etc method that's been used against items of known age and come up with consistent results in double-blind studies.

Also, atomic clocks. They work on the exact same principles.

reply to post by dontreally


*Citation needed*

I went into Genesis with a concordance and didn't find any evidence that it's talking about local animals or a non-global flood. 2 of every animal...then 7 of the clean ones and 2 of the unclean ones.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I'm sorry...but with regards to all instances of the diversity of life 'evolutiondidit' is a reasonable answer. I'd like to see an example in which the diversity of life cannot be explained in that manner.

reply to post by Jim Scott


...so you believe in a young Earth because it's possible for your deity to do it...and it's possible for your deity to do it because if it wasn't possible it wouldn't be a deity...so your argument is a circular argument.

We have more than enough evidence that the Earth is far from 'young'. Even on the universal time scale, it's about 1/3rd the age of the universe. Why do you claim that the Earth is 'young' in light of that?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


so explain the inconsistencies...

1)negative dating
2)all anomalous dates including soil from the moon dating more than a billion years older than the uniformitarian age of the moon...

while also taking into consideration...

1)Isotopic fractionation
2)formation of sample
3)known parent/daughter components(any loss verifies an inconsistency)

I'm expecting a swift reply...don't let me down.

A2D

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
I cannot explain the many discrepancies in the bible, but I will not say that the "other" explanation on as to how we got here is 100% perfect, and clearly explains every single thing about life.

The way I look at it, proponents of evolution are as fundamentalist as creationists. Usually replying with a "evolutiondidit" for every creationists utterance of "Goddidit".

Even if one happens to hold a stance that complexity(on the scale of, say, a cell) can only arise from pre-existing intelligence he will still be bundled with the rest of the others who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that "God put fossils in the earth to test humans".

Hi. Don't know the many discrepancies in the Bible. Seen a lot listed, but debunked. There are many good books clearing up these issues.

Over and over again people try to pit scientific fact against faith, as if they were trying to prove there is a God. Give up, for pete's sake. I believe in the young Earth, and the ability of God to make it so. My God can do anything He wants. To say otherwise would mean that He is not God.

All Im saying is that I believe it took an intelligence to create the universe and everything in it.
Im not trying to use science to prove God exists.... I mean does one need to be a scientist to be able to look at a complex machine and say it took pre-existing intelligence to produce it. Our computers, for example, is a complex machine which has different parts working together, all controlled by a non-material information code...
Apply the same logic to a living being (again different parts working together with an underlying "code", the DNA.) and its obvious that complexity on such a scale would have required a pre-existing intelligence to create it.

Unless someone can show me a real time example of something creating itself from scratch I wont be letting go of this view.

I'm still patiently awaiting those discrepancies and we haven't even reached the fun part yet....(neutrinos, cosmic radiation, leaching, volatilization...etc. etc...)

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I'm still patiently awaiting those discrepancies and we haven't even reached the fun part yet....(neutrinos, cosmic radiation, leaching, volatilization...etc. etc...)

A2D

Perhaps you'd like to explain what any of these things have to do with the Biblical flood story.

Your posts sound like the babble of a child who has just learnt to say 10 really long words.

Of course, human scientific knowledge can perfectly explain everything we need to know about life.

Remember kids, the human grasp on the world around us can give us all the answers. In the highly unlikely event that it doesn't, its no reason to invoke the "god of the gaps".

"Evolution of the gaps" is allowed, though.