Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

reply to post by halfoldman


As with the theory of evolution,

Much has to be theorized in Creation.

After the flood there was the Ice age, this can be shown by the simple facts that the bible tells us that there was volcanic activity; springs of the deep, like Yellowstone for one, and the fact that we know there are fresh water springs in the oceans that are still flowing today.

This great activity would have shrouded the earth in a cooling blanket of ash and dust and evaporation from the super heated waters from the interior of the earth.

After the waters subsided the ocean levels would have been lower and migration would have been easier, for both animals and man.

Since the flood would have destroyed all of the vegetation the animals would have to spread out quickly to forage for the smaller vegetation to survive (grasses and such that grow in week to months), until the plants would have established. This process would not take but a couple of decades to do. Also they did not leave the are until a branch from an olive tree was brought back.

We know the seas were lower as we find many sites that are now under water.

To add note; God would have had babies of all the needed animals enter the ark as they would sleep more and require less food to maintain for the time spent upon the ark.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


If it slapped you in the face you would still deny it.

For radiometric dating to work you must have a know test subject, fact.

All test subjects are assumed to be the age suspected, fact.

Leaching in or out is never taken into account. fact

Past solar, geologic, volcanic, magnetic activity can not be tested for; in the increase or decrease in decay rates. This alone creates uncertain accounts.

www.mathematicsofevolution.com...

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

After the flood there was the Ice age, this can be shown by the simple facts that the bible tells us that there was volcanic activity; springs of the deep, like Yellowstone for one, and the fact that we know there are fresh water springs in the oceans that are still flowing today.

Which ice age? There were numerous ice ages in earth's history. And which global flood? There wasn't any unless you're talking about a local flood.

This great activity would have shrouded the earth in a cooling blanket of ash and dust and evaporation from the super heated waters from the interior of the earth.

Wait...are you saying the earth heated up so much, the water of a global flood evaporated? What's your objective evidence of that? We can tell the temperature for thousands of years back...at no point was it hot enough to evaporate all that excess water. Also, during earth's creation, the volcanic activity was a lot higher...yet not all the water evaporated

Since the flood would have destroyed all of the vegetation the animals would have to spread out quickly to forage for the smaller vegetation to survive (grasses and such that grow in week to months), until the plants would have established. This process would not take but a couple of decades to do. Also they did not leave the are until a branch from an olive tree was brought back.

Again, there's ZERO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for a global flood...if it had happened, there would be evidence other than the bible. It's likely that the flood as described in the bible was a local flood...which also explains why they didn't have to repopulate the entire planet from a giant wooden ship, which sounds beyond ridiculous by the way

We know the seas were lower as we find many sites that are now under water.

You might wanna look up plate tectonics on Wikipedia. Places that were previously under water can rise above it without the water level changing...and have done so in the past as is evident through sedimental and fossil evidence.

God would have had babies of all the needed animals enter the ark as they would sleep more and require less food to maintain for the time spent upon the ark.

Still makes it beyond crazy to believe in that hogwash story by taking it literally. One family, taking care of MILLIONS of species for months on a single wooden ship...complete and utter nonsense and lacking any objective evidence as backup.

For radiometric dating to work you must have a know test subject, fact.

All test subjects are assumed to be the age suspected, fact.

Leaching in or out is never taken into account. fact

Past solar, geologic, volcanic, magnetic activity can not be tested for; in the increase or decrease in decay rates. This alone creates uncertain accounts.

Test subject: Earth

What's age suspect??

What do you mean by "leaching in or out"?

Solar activity has no influence on radiation decay, and neither does volcanic and magnetic activity. And as far as volcanic activity's concerned, sure we can test for that in the past. Ice samples, sedimental samples...it's not that hard to show when volcanoes erupted in the past.

Fact is, we know how certain elements decay, and we know the margin of error. It's a FACT the earth is around 4.5bil years old...and it's also a fact that claiming it's only around 10k years old is beyond insanity.

What really baffles me is how some people are so hell bent on believing in something that is so demonstrably wrong.

reply to post by Kailassa


ridiculous argument. The fact is I was born on the 30th of July...there is no "fact" about what day the Earth was made. Thank you.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


So your gripe is that we can't specify the exact day and that we can only say it happened 4.5bil +/- 200 years ago??

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Kailassa

 

ridiculous argument. The fact is I was born on the 30th of July...there is no "fact" about what day the Earth was made. Thank you.

A2D

I'm glad you can see through my argument. It's using creationist logic, so of course it's ridiculous.
Perhaps now you'll realise your argument, which I based this off, used exactly the same "logic".

All the spastic contortions of reason used to support the notion of the bible being literal truth are ridiculous, as are the silly, off topic sermons and veiled threats that believers fill these threads with.

The only reasonable place for a thread filled with creationist rubbish is the humour section, where we all know it's just for laughs. Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind creationism being taught in schools,
- as humour.

If God could manipulate the laws of physics to cause a global flood, he surely could arrange to have some flightless birds brought to Noah. This question assumes that the all the steps leading up the the deluge took place without Divine intervention. Why should we hamstring the creator and limit his ability to intervene in miraculous ways?

It was a Supernatural Event, Brought about by The LORD!

Book of Jasher, Chapter 6

1 At that time, after the death of Methuselah, the Lord said to Noah, Go thou with thy household into the ark; behold I will gather to thee all the animals of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and they shall all come and surround the ark.

2 And thou shalt go and seat thyself by the doors of the ark, and all the beasts, the animals, and the fowls, shall assemble and place themselves before thee, and such of them as shall come and crouch before thee, shalt thou take and deliver into the hands of thy sons, who shall bring them to the ark, and all that will stand before thee thou shalt leave.

3 And the Lord brought this about on the next day, and animals, beasts and fowls came in great multitudes and surrounded the ark.

Originally posted by Sparky63
If God could manipulate the laws of physics to cause a global flood, he surely could arrange to have some flightless birds brought to Noah. This question assumes that the all the steps leading up the the deluge took place without Divine intervention. Why should we hamstring the creator and limit his ability to intervene in miraculous ways?

Why should we assume there's some Big Guy poking around in our petri dish?

Our existence can possibly be explained through science.
Religious texts are no proof of god's existence.

Isn't it more likely that someone elaborated on an earlier flood experience, rather than some being constructed this world and then went about interfering with things in weird ways?

Think about it. Why is it so important to you to defend biblical inerrancy?
Is it fear of some hell which no-one has ever seen?
Is it fear that logic will disprove god?
Logic can never do that. Nothing in science can disprove god's existence.
However the creeds, myths and rituals of the world's many religions are not god, and are open to examination.

Originally posted by Faith2011
It was a Supernatural Event, Brought about by The LORD!

Book of Jasher, Chapter 6

1 At that time, after the death of Methuselah, the Lord said to Noah, Go thou with thy household into the ark; behold I will gather to thee all the animals of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and they shall all come and surround the ark.

2 And thou shalt go and seat thyself by the doors of the ark, and all the beasts, the animals, and the fowls, shall assemble and place themselves before thee, and such of them as shall come and crouch before thee, shalt thou take and deliver into the hands of thy sons, who shall bring them to the ark, and all that will stand before thee thou shalt leave.

3 And the Lord brought this about on the next day, and animals, beasts and fowls came in great multitudes and surrounded the ark.

Which Book of Jasher would that be?

A book of Jewish myths, and alternative name for the book of Genesis, a thirteenth century invention, or one of the many others?

And why is this book any more to be believed than Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
All Im saying is that I believe it took an intelligence to create the universe and everything in it.

Well, you can believe that all you want but you have no evidence to support that belief, and it's a silly belief in the first place.

Well, even something like "gradual change we can all believe in" still amounts to a belief that is not backed up by the evidence required.


...................................................................................................................................................... ......


Skorpion said:

Our computers, for example, is a complex machine which has different parts working together, all controlled by a non-material information code...

Madnessinmysoul said:

Non-material? I'm sorry, but since when does a computer have a supernatural component? Digital information is still material.

I was not talking about supernatural components.
When I say "non-material", I mean the INFORMATION contained in the SEQUENCE of alphabets and numbers i.e computer codes, that get our computers to do the things we want it to do. The information in itself is "non-material" and can be stored as data in our minds, our books, a notepad file etc. and then can be "applied" to a system designed to interpret the information.

The "hardware" of our computers needs to be designed to interpret the "software" to get it to work. I mean you can punch in a code meant for certain hardware to interpret and you get your desired effect. Type in the same code into something else, like say, a typewriter and you do NOT get the result the code was intended to produce. Similarly, while DNA is written in certain molecules, there is a SEQUENCE that makes DNA an INFORMATION code.

So...if a computer program (information) emerged from a pre-existing intelligence, one can safely conclude that DNA (also information) emerged from a pre-existing intelligence.





...................................................................................................................................................... ......


Skorpion said:

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.

Madnessinmysoul said:

You're using the logical fallacy of false analogy. There is no good reason to treat the natural world as analogous to man-made objects.

"There is no good reason to treat the natural world as analogous to man-made objects."

It is only your personal opinion that the natural world need not be analogus to man-made objects. Sure, one is "natural" and the other is "manmade" but since both have certain levels of complexity and sophistication, its not unreasonable to hold that complex forms of life on the earth could only have emerged from a higher intelligence.

To use the difference in physical properties between the two to classify it a as "false analagy", is in itself fallacious. Complexity IS complexity, regardless of the nature of the entity in question... much like how a lifelike pencil sketch and a lifelike oil painting have their share of differences, but also have their origins in someones artistic abilities. Surely, you wouldnt look at a pencil sketch and an oil painting, and then based on the medium of the picture, go on to deduce that only one of them took artistic ability to create. Anybody would overlook the material difference and appreciate the "art" contained within both pictures.


...................................................................................................................................................... ......


Skorpion said:

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

Madnessinmysoul said:

So your idea of an argument is to present a straw man and then say that unless that straw man is proven true you won't change your mind? I'm sorry, but the logical fallacy

sensors are going off all up in this thread.

nO Straw man here.
A non-theistic view on the origins of life pretty much implies that "life was created "from scratch Without an intervening intelligence"... or did I miss something?

Originally posted by Faith2011
It was a Supernatural Event, Brought about by The LORD!

Using caps doesn't make it true

Objective evidence please

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Philosophies, it's plural there.

Oh. Right. The bible to you is a combination of different pagan viewpoints.

Wow, right off the bat with a straw man. Now, I do admit that there are quite a few pagan influences within the New Testament, they're sparse in the Old Testament. The Old Testament has about four different sources within it. The Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronimist.

Now, the difference is clear if you compare Genesis 1 (Elohist) to Genesis 2 (Yahwist).

Then there's the clear difference in philosophy between the four Gospels. The clear difference in philosophy between the Pauline letters and the Gospels is also another point I'll just toss out there.

Isnt true though. To someone who actually knows the meanings of these allegories!

So...special pleading? Wow.

I never said the Bible isn't allegory.

You said in a earlier discussion of ours that the Bible isnt allegory, or elements of it isnt allegory, like Leviticus, Numbers and parts of Deuteronomy. Which im sorry to say isnt true.

Of course parts of it aren't allegory. Of course, you'll just disagree with me even though I demonstrated to you that your allegorization of genealogies was bunk.

You disagree with me...but you have no evidence to support your points. I'm not going to take you at your word.

I'm sorry, but Homer isn't a philosopher.

Youre playing with words now.

No, I'm understanding the development of philosophy. The first philosophers were the pre-Socratics. Do a bit of reading.

Earlier you said metaphysics constituted a philosophy.

There are no metaphysics in the works of Homer.

Therefore, Homer is philosophy, as is Hesiod.

...non-sequitur, your premises don't lead to your conclusions. I'll agree that metaphysics is philosophy, I just don't see the metaphysics in Homer and Hesiod.

It is a much deeper philosophy than the later philosophy of Greece was.

Wow, someone is calling Homer deeper than Plato and Aristotle.

In point, the later philosophy was an EXTENSION of the earlier Homeric/Hesiodic/Oprhic metaphysics in external matters.

Says someone who hasn't bothered to study philosophy. How is Plato's idea of the world of 'forms' an extension of mythological Greek thought? How are Aristotle's ideas of substance, potentiality, and actuality based on Homeric ideas?

The former deals more with psychology than with how to live, which the later philosophers deal more with.

So you're just going to continue putting forth unsupported assertions? I'm sorry, but how does pre-philosophical Greek mythology deal with psychology?

Im not saying there werent divergent schools of thought. Obviously there were. But the Hellenistic spirit was expressed through the metaphysical epics of Hesiod/Homer.

Where are the metaphysics? You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

A very disgusting example being Aphrodites creation from the foam of the blood from Uranous severed penis. I doubt you even understand what this means.

Well, there are various interpretations of it.

...um...Machiavelli added political meaning to the idea of a centaur...just like Hobbes added meaning to the idea of a leviathan.

Nice. That i guess is easy to say. So, in other words, there is no signifiance, or meaning from your perspective in the myths and fables of the ancients. It was pure nonsense, then?

Wow, more straw men. I've already told you to stop inserting words in my mouth, it is not a trash can. There are meanings, but they're psychological and archetypal meanings. They're also not meanings that we cannot arise at rationally.

Aye. The truth is what Machiavelli percieved in the Centaur. Centaurs obviously did not exist. And the ancient Tuscans or Greeks didnt believe they existed. Nor unicorns, or dragons. They are symbols. Metaphorical creations of the human imagination.

...well, there's no evidence to say that they didn't believe they existed. So you're just going to go with this "I'm going to make entirely unsupported assertions while shoving words in other people's mouths" position?

A centaur combines the motifs of a Human, and an animal. That is the combined idea here.

Man, you must be from the department of redundancy department.

Thus, the archetypal reality Machiavelli expects a prince to assume is one who is conscienceless when necessity demands him to be.

Except that Machiavelli derived that meaning from a subjective perspective, the combination of human and animal doesn't necessitate that. It's a non-sequitur idea from Machiavelli, he was using a metaphor that isn't logical.

To act like a centaur, is to be completely deviant from the traditional case for morality - which is a biblical admonition.

Technically, to be a centaur meant to be lustful...

I know it helps your arument to make the ancients stupid, and retarded...

This is why I'm done, because you're not engaging in a discussion with me, you're engaging in a discussion with a strawman that you labelled as me.

The ancients weren't stupid, but they also weren't the best judges on everything. They had some good ideas, but they clearly missed some points. Hell, my favorite ancient is one you entirely ignored (Aristotle).

There's also Pythagoras, hell of a guy. I still use some of the stuff he came up with.

I study philosophy, I read mythology. I enjoy the ideas and see the usefulness in understanding human life through mythology. Mythology was an equivalent to ancient fiction...because that's all religion is, it is fiction. These days we have secular fiction, we don't need to give our stories cosmic significance.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Mathematics isn't fact, it's abstraction.

Please, tell me what 10 is. 10 is an abstract concept, it is an arbitrary label found in a single set of mathematics. Not all mathematics is base-10. Indian mathematics is traditionally base-12, based on counting the three segments of the four fingers rather than the fingers themselves.

Hell, look at a circle. How many degrees are in a circle? 360? Well, if you want to label is as such. You can subdivide a degree, but we get 360 from Babylonian traditions.

Once more, Mathematics is abstract, it isn't fact. It is a system that is created to be internally consistent and to reflect reality.

Facts are imprecise things. Facts are "The room is 70 degrees F", which is an approximation.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
All Im saying is that I believe it took an intelligence to create the universe and everything in it.

Well, you can believe that all you want but you have no evidence to support that belief, and it's a silly belief in the first place.

Well, even something like "gradual change we can all believe in" still amounts to a belief that is not backed up by the evidence required.

Well, that's my avatar, not a scientific position. Of course, pure gradualism doesn't account of evolution, but it was the first evolutionary idea and it kicked off the whole theory. Darwin isn't the end of evolutionary theory, he was a beginning. We have 150 years of evidence that shows the fact of evolution.

I was not talking about supernatural components.
When I say "non-material", I mean the INFORMATION contained in the SEQUENCE of alphabets and numbers i.e computer codes, that get our computers to do the things we want it to do. The information in itself is "non-material" and can be stored as data in our minds, our books, a notepad file etc. and then can be "applied" to a system designed to interpret the information.

I'm sorry, but I've yet to see an instance of immaterial information. Information is definitively material as it has to be stored in a medium. Just like heat is material as it cannot exist without material.

Furthermore, what the hell do you mean by "INFORMATION"

The "hardware" of our computers needs to be designed to interpret the "software" to get it to work. I mean you can punch in a code meant for certain hardware to interpret and you get your desired effect. Type in the same code into something else, like say, a typewriter and you do NOT get the result the code was intended to produce. Similarly, while DNA is written in certain molecules, there is a SEQUENCE that makes DNA an INFORMATION code.

DNA is a 4 symbol digital code, so what? Nobody is arguing with you there. But there is nothing immaterial in DNA.

So...if a computer program (information) emerged from a pre-existing intelligence, one can safely conclude that DNA (also information) emerged from a pre-existing intelligence.

Fallacy of false analogy. You've yet to prove that a computer code and DNA are the same sort of thing nor that information requires a pre-existing intelligence. The majority of the information in the universe would be considered useless drivel. The positions of dust particles in the air is information, but that information isn't dictated by any intelligence.

Randomized numbers are also information...

It is only your personal opinion that the natural world need not be analogus to man-made objects.

No, it's a statement of fact. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be and that you've not made your case. I mean, living things are ridiculously complex. As in overly complex at times. We're not even all that well made. If you compare something natural with something artificial you'll realize that artificial things are always simpler than their natural counterparts.

Sure, one is "natural" and the other is "manmade" but since both have certain levels of complexity and sophistication, its not unreasonable to hold that complex forms of life on the earth could only have emerged from a higher intelligence.

...except that the complexity is different. A man-made structure is less complex than a naturally occurring cave. The cave is also a lot more sophisticated. Do we have to then conclude that all caves are intentionally created by a direct intelligent agency?

A non-theistic view on the origins of life pretty much implies that "life was created "from scratch Without an intervening intelligence"... or did I miss something?

Well, you're assuming that complex modern organisms were the original sort of 'life'. And you're also assuming that the only way to prove evolution and abiogenesis is to watch it all occur in a human lifetime....so yeah, straw man.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Not at all. We do not know exactly what the Earth looked like when the ark was built. It could have easily been one supercontinent in which flightless birds could easily travel to Noah in the 100 years it took to build the ark.

So you're saying that God called all the animals and they (for a few generations of course seeing that few animals live 100 years) travelled from wherever they were to the ark? That is just scary stupid

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, the margin of error we use in carbon dating the earth is relatively small given the timescale. Anyone who says the earth is less than at least 4.5bil years is talking complete nonsense...or getting info from such hogwash sites as bibletruths.net

You cannot carbon date the earth. Carbon 14 dating is only used for um carbon dating up to roughly 60,000 years.

4.5 billion years? Why not a nice cool round 4 billion or 5 billion? What kind of dating method can possibly be that accurate? That is just scary stupid

Another thing. Isn't carbon dating based on an ASSUMED amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere or something like that? I remember reading that ages ago.

reply to post by Lannock


There are many different ways to date an object; carbon dating is one of them. We can also use uranium, potassium, chlorine, for example. We use date objects, the range of which can be as short as 10 years (Tritium) to 100 billion years (Samarium).

reply to post by Lannock

You cannot carbon date the earth. Carbon 14 dating is only used for um carbon dating up to roughly 60,000 years.

4.5 billion years? Why not a nice cool round 4 billion or 5 billion? What kind of dating method can possibly be that accurate? That is just scary stupid

Before you call stuff stupid, you might wanna read up on it, or else it's you who's gonna look stupid

Carbon 14 isn't the only radiometric dating method, just fyi...so of course we can figure out how old the earth is. LINK

Don't forget to add that early earth was closer together as in one Continant and after the Tower of Bable God scattered men all over earth and confused the languages. The main concen here is that as long as every animal had the full set of genes God could in his own will use them again, the important thing was the covanant relationship with man, since most animals and humans became genetically corrupted through angelic activity
( Today science is doing the same thing, the Nazis were also interested in the perfect human ) and God had to start over again.
There were giants in those days so it meant them being wiped out too.
Is it not good for us the that the bones have become dust or burnt to dust by Moses because if they were around today I am sure some genius would try and resurrect them again in some secret lab like area 51 or something.

reply to post by Kailassa


People Need Faith To Believe! Ask, And God Will Give You Faith.


So we see that faith is a free gift from God and comes to us at our salvation (Rom 5:1 and Rom 4:5). In Acts 14:27 we read that Jesus had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles meaning that salvation was now freely available to all through Christ. In Acts 17:31 we read " ... having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." The underlined two words come from the same Greek word that is elsewhere interpreted as faith but in a different tense. Thus it is like a verb and could read " ... having faithed to all men ...” When God gives faith to people, He faiths to us the absoluteness of the truth of Christ.