Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

reply to post by MrXYZ


Actually the evidence is provided....

It's like this...

You have to have a certain degree of "faith" in what we call "evidence"
ie
"Believe" it is true or "believe" it is false

You make up your mind about what you accept as "true"

Some people choose to believe the OS from the 9/11 commission...
others don't....

Both parties have "reasons"(evidence) to "support"(faith) what they believe to be "fact"(opinion)....
(evidence to support their opinion)

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I'm sorry, that's sophistry right up there. We have evidence for our scientific claims, it's testable, it takes no degree of faith to accept it of any importance. Of course, it also takes the same amount of faith to accept testable and tested scientific claims as it does to believe that you are not in fact a super-intelligent hallucinating gold fish living on Uranus.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


you have to have faith that your tests are designed WITHOUT a particular outcome in mind...

for instance

look at the problem 2+2 = ?
instead of.... "how do i make 4?"

A2D

edit to add:
This is almost NEVER the case. People always have a question before they have the answer. It's the nature of things.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

you have to have faith that your tests are designed WITHOUT a particular outcome in mind...

for instance

look at the problem 2+2 = ?
instead of.... "how do i make 4?"

A2D
]

Hilarious coming from you. You draw a conclusion (god exists) before having evidence to back it up...and you are accusing others of the same, even though they presented objective evidence. Are you serious?

reply to post by MrXYZ


I didn't say you were the only one doing it.... I said this is almost always the case. I did not say I was an exception...

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


It's called a hypothesis. Now, please find me a consistent trend in scientific papers where the hypothesis (which is always stated in a proper scientific paper) is always reflected perfectly in the conclusion. Scientists are rarely surprised by their findings...because their findings are so consistently different from their preconceptions. They're only surprised when they get the answer they were looking for.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

It's called a hypothesis. Now, please find me a consistent trend in scientific papers where the hypothesis (which is always stated in a proper scientific paper) is always reflected perfectly in the conclusion. Scientists are rarely surprised by their findings...because their findings are so consistently different from their preconceptions. They're only surprised when they get the answer they were looking for.

Could you present a source for the underlined?
I mean, from what Ive seen , the (evolutionary)scientists seem to be working under the assumption that life "must have evolved" so their answers to questions are on the lines of "dunno, but evolutiondidit".

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

I mean, from what Ive seen , the (evolutionary)scientists seem to be working under the assumption that life "must have evolved" so their answers to questions are on the lines of "dunno, but evolutiondidit".

Could you present a source for the underlined?
2nd line

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


To begin with, I second john_bmth's request.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

It's called a hypothesis. Now, please find me a consistent trend in scientific papers where the hypothesis (which is always stated in a proper scientific paper) is always reflected perfectly in the conclusion. Scientists are rarely surprised by their findings...because their findings are so consistently different from their preconceptions. They're only surprised when they get the answer they were looking for.

Could you present a source for the underlined?

How about you just search several scientific papers here, try to find a few where the hypothesis directly matches the conclusion. Of course, you'll get a hypothesis which matches a conclusion often only if you're talking about papers where people are repeating the tests of other researchers.

I mean, from what Ive seen , the (evolutionary)scientists seem to be working under the assumption that life "must have evolved" so their answers to questions are on the lines of "dunno, but evolutiondidit".

No, they're working from the conclusion based on 150+ years of scientific research that shows that evolution has occurred, it occurring now, and will continue to occur.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, they're working from the conclusion based on 150+ years of scientific research that shows that evolution has occurred, it occurring now, and will continue to occur.

edit on 27/3/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

and creationists are working from the conclusion based on 2000+ years of biblical research that shows that God exists, He always existed, and He will continue to exist.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, they're working from the conclusion based on 150+ years of scientific research that shows that evolution has occurred, it occurring now, and will continue to occur.

edit on 27/3/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

and creationists are working from the conclusion based on 2000+ years of biblical research that shows that God exists, He always existed, and He will continue to exist.

WRONG! The basis of their research consists of scriptures, which only prove one thing...what people believed to be true 2000 years ago. Many of those believes, such as talking snakes, the sun coming into existence after the earth, humans just coming into existence in their current form without evolution, Noah's flood, and many many more are demonstrably false. But they represent what people backed then BELIEVED.

It's NOT objective evidence that would prove any of the actual claims in the bible. And just because you find some ruins of a city mentioned in the bible, doesn't mean the rest is all true. Just like wizards don't exist simply because London is mentioned in Harry Potter.

By the way, using bold font doesn't make something true

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
and creationists are working from the conclusion based on 2000+ years of biblical research that shows that God exists, He always existed, and He will continue to exist.

I'm sorry, but dogmatic acceptance based around a book that is consistently refuted on scientific and historical points is hardly equivalent to repeatedly tested scientific evidence. There is zero evidence of any deity.

To bring this all the way back around to the topic at hand...there is also no evidence of the flood account as told in Genesis. There is no narrowing of the gene pools of every single animal alive down to two/seven members at the exact same point.

A good example of a species that shows the markers of its gene pool narrowing severely would be cheetahs. There is more than enough evidence to show that there was a population crash in cheetahs around 10,000 years ago...something we should similarly find not as far back in every other species alive if the Genesis account is true. Of course, I already brought that up over here and nobody bothered to address it.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, they're working from the conclusion based on 150+ years of scientific research that shows that evolution has occurred, it occurring now, and will continue to occur.

edit on 27/3/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

and creationists are working from the conclusion based on 2000+ years of biblical research that shows that God exists, He always existed, and He will continue to exist.

People were doing biblical research 2000 years ago?
Could you please provide some proof of this 2000 year long research and what it involved?

reply to post by Kailassa


people were doing biblical research just like people were observing their surroundings and hence doing "scientific" research thousands of years ago....you do yourself a huge injustice by pretending to be so asinine.

A2D

The arguments are based on the understanding of what LIFE is....

Is LIFE the "Species"?

Or is it that, (not yet defined Scientifically) which Experiences the "Species" and its Environment it interacts with?

It is peoples definition of LIFE which governs their beliefs whether Scientific or not.

We know the accepted definition of life in Scientific terms, but in saying this, it can also control the outcome of the argument which may or may not be absolutely correct.

Scientifically speaking it is theorised that the “Species” is the one experiencing everything...

But this in no way is absolute, as there are many unanswered questions, where there is ongoing work being done in this area of Scientific development, involving quite heated dialogue at present.

Nothing is conclusive to date, and that is why many still work on the old theory that it is the species which experiences and not something else.

But as I have said there is ongoing work being done in this field. Its just not being published, because there are simply no conclusions to date.

To keep demanding a conclusion is ridiculous, as so far to date, there are no conclusions or theories (apart from the old theory because of a lack of knowledge) as this subject is almost too complex for the Species at this time.

reply to post by MrXYZ


The simple fact of the matter is, myself, and many other creationists are not aware of ANY scientific facts that demonstrably contradict the bible. In fact, we see precisely the opposite. The bible is scientifically accurate....

Paleontology...
Astronomy...
Meteorology...
Biology...
Anthropology...
Hydrology...
Geology....
Physics...

These are all branches of science that are accurately described in the bible.

Need references? You probably will...

The book of...
Genesis...
Leviticus...
Ecclesiastes...
Job...
Jeremiah...
Proverbs...
Psalms...
Isaiah...
Matthew...
1Corinthians...
2Peter...
Revelation...

You know...the bible isn't even written to be a scientific guidebook, but it's still correct...and thousands of years old to boot.

A2D

From work I have been in, involving one line of research, it clearly shows that what is experiencing the world as you know it, is Not the Species but involves Consciousness as the Observer.
There are may questions to be answered involving this.
The more answers the more questions it generates.

But regarding the Christian writings as well as the Roman collection called the bible it has become obvious these writings are Parables regarding the Soul as some would call it (but there are many interpretations of what the Soul may be.)

I personally refer to this Non Earthly body as the Soul because there is no other word in the English language as far as I know to describe this body or structure...



And you can find evidence of this structure in just about every country on Earth recorded as either décor or other expressions showing Components of the Structure.

This can be found in Government Buildings, Public Buildings, Palaces, Temples and other religious buildings of most religions.

Yet the funny thing is no one really knows what all these geometric structures are really about except a few individuals researching this area.

If we find the answers to this then we may, just may be able to understand what these Early writings are really about….

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Paleontology...
Astronomy...
Meteorology...
Biology...
Anthropology...
Hydrology...
Geology....
Physics...

These are all branches of science that are accurately described in the bible.

You're kidding, right?

Paleontology: In what way is the bible accurate in this case? The bible states animals (and plants/humans) were made by a deity in their current form. We KNOW that's not true as everything that lives today has evolved over millions of years. So in short, the bible is WRONG when it comes to Paleontology.

Astronomy: The bible states the sun was created AFTER the earth...which is wrong. It also states the earth is the centre of the universe, and that the earth is flat, the stars are fixed onto the sky, the stars are smaller than earth, and a ton of other hogwash.

LINK (in case you want the bible quotes)

Meteorology: The bible states god can influence the weather...but there's ZERO objective evidence supporting that.

Biology: The bible states birds existed before reptiles...complete hogwash as we know today. And again, it claims all lifeforms came into existence in their current form...which is obviously wrong. Oh, and lol @ talking snakes...

Anthropology: The study of humanity, really? Again humans didn't come into existence in their current form, we evolved.

Hydrology: The bible states Moses parted the seas...we know humans can't do that. And don't get me started on the global flood. Again, the bible is WRONG.

Geology: The bible states there was a global flood, but there's ZERO geological evidence supporting that.

Physics: The bible states the sky is like a roof over a flat earth, the corresponding quote is in the link above. It also states the sun was created before the earth, which is also physically wrong. And the stars aren't "stuck" to the sky or smaller than earth.

In short, the bible is WRONG in every single field you listed

Oh, and the bible isn't objective evidence for anything but what peopled BELIEVED to be true 2000 years ago. That's all it shows, the beliefs of ancient people. But many of those beliefs have been proven wrong by science...which should make you think about the other claims.

If one views the writings in the understanding it involves "Processing" and "Programming" techneques etc. the descriptions given, are very much as though the ancients understood that the Universe etc. you experience, is the product of an "intelligent animation like program", where the Earth is like as though on a "Program Stage".

Those who have used "animation programs" will understand this, but those who have never been involved in programming or animation programs, in no way will understand.

We don't have to look at what you experience in a material way, which is only the result and not the cause.

So we should not pretend to understand these ancient writings with blinkers on, but rather understand them in their true light and dealing with perhaps the "Animation Program" all is manifested through...

This approach may lead to knowing those things, which have never occurred to you before.

The Writings are Parables and the "Species" will never be able to understand them in their true context.

Many of the writings inform the reader they are "Parables". (For the observer and Not the Species)

So before we condemn or accept these writings, we should first know what they are really about, and not assume in ignorance or pretend, as though in denial of the true interpretation of LIFE, which may result in changing or updating the English dictionary.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

You're kidding, right?

Paleontology: In what way is the bible accurate in this case? The bible states animals (and plants/humans) were made by a deity in their current form. We KNOW that's not true as everything that lives today has evolved over millions of years. So in short, the bible is WRONG when it comes to Paleontology.

Astronomy: The bible states the sun was created AFTER the earth...which is wrong. It also states the earth is the centre of the universe, and that the earth is flat, the stars are fixed onto the sky, the stars are smaller than earth, and a ton of other hogwash.

LINK (in case you want the bible quotes)

Meteorology: The bible states god can influence the weather...but there's ZERO objective evidence supporting that.

Biology: The bible states birds existed before reptiles...complete hogwash as we know today. And again, it claims all lifeforms came into existence in their current form...which is obviously wrong. Oh, and lol @ talking snakes...

Anthropology: The study of humanity, really? Again humans didn't come into existence in their current form, we evolved.

Hydrology: The bible states Moses parted the seas...we know humans can't do that. And don't get me started on the global flood. Again, the bible is WRONG.

Geology: The bible states there was a global flood, but there's ZERO geological evidence supporting that.

Physics: The bible states the sky is like a roof over a flat earth, the corresponding quote is in the link above. It also states the sun was created before the earth, which is also physically wrong. And the stars aren't "stuck" to the sky or smaller than earth.

In short, the bible is WRONG in every single field you listed

Oh, and the bible isn't objective evidence for anything but what peopled BELIEVED to be true 2000 years ago. That's all it shows, the beliefs of ancient people. But many of those beliefs have been proven wrong by science...which should make you think about the other claims.

edit on 27-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Go figure, you didn't open the bible to actually see what I'm talking about....Here, I'll do the hard part for you.

Paleontology... There is no intimation of gradation, either in Genesis or the fossil record. Paleontology also reveals fossil facts that are consistent with corresponding effects of a unique FLOOD. There is also a mixture of simple and complex...This is all in Genesis...Just read it.

Astronomy...The mathematics and unique qualities of the Universe display God's wisdom and glory. You should read into things such as the Titus-Bode law. Kepler made some remarkable discoveries too, that orthodox science has yet to comprehend. The orbits of the planets, the precession of the equinox, the moons diameter and distance from the Earth are all interesting phenomena that absolutely demonstrate mathematical intelligence.
Of course, there are also other various text from the Bible that is consistent with astronomy today. Such texts supply information concerning the Earth being round, an expanding universe, and gravitationally bound star clusters...Job and other books

Meteorolgy...The jet stream, ecclesiastes 1:6
Air has weight, Job

Hydrology...Job 36:27-28 Amos 9:6

Geology...See the 7 days of creation in concordance with "Ages".
1st day = Proterozoic
2nd and 3rd day = Ordovician and Carboniferous
4th day = Permian
5th day = Cretaceous
6th day = Tertiary/Quarternary/Anathermal

To see what I mean....www.gira.ca...

Physics...the order of creation ie "In the beginning, God created the heavens (lattice or energy field) and the earth (normal matter)."
the atom...
the earth "suspended" in space...

In short, I don't think you've ever actually read the bible...only visited pages on the internet vainly trying to refute it....

A2D