ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

Nick did come onto the forums for a while last night, but left without posting.

I always hope that the long silence we're hearing now is the sound that a fundie makes while reading a science textbook.
 
Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Answer: We will have to agree to disagree as in most cases. He still took 2 of every kind, but of the clean animals he took 7 pairs. I see where your coming from, but the further instructions in Ch. 7 did not void ch. 6. If God turned around and said but only 1 of each for the clean animals I would be more likely to question this.

In Christ,
Nick



Ossai [/B][/QUOTE]
 
Dr Adequate said:
Nick did come onto the forums for a while last night, but left without posting.

I always hope that the long silence we're hearing now is the sound that a fundie makes while reading a science textbook.
Click to expand...
Dr A wins my Optimism Award of the Day
 
Nick Harman said:
Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Answer: We will have to agree to disagree as in most cases. He still took 2 of every kind, but of the clean animals he took 7 pairs. I see where your coming from, but the further instructions in Ch. 7 did not void ch. 6. If God turned around and said but only 1 of each for the clean animals I would be more likely to question this.
Click to expand...
And all the many other questions we have been asking about... ?
 
Nick Harman said:
Except it lists 2 of every kind and then lists them.
Then it says 7 clean and 7 fowls – which were listed in the 2 of every kind.

Answer: We will have to agree to disagree as in most cases. He still took 2 of every kind, but of the clean animals he took 7 pairs. I see where your coming from, but the further instructions in Ch. 7 did not void ch. 6. If God turned around and said but only 1 of each for the clean animals I would be more likely to question this.

In Christ,
Nick
Click to expand...

But you are missing a very important verse, the Bible actually says:

"9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah""

This is not a matter of the Bible saying that God originally said "2 of each" then he later on changed his mind and said "make that 2 of each unclean but 7 of each of clean and fowl".

What the Bible clearly states that is even though God had said “7 of each of clean and fowl” only 2 went into the arc:

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"

Only by adding details not in the Bible can you reconcile this. And if the Bible can only be made sense of by adding details….
 
Ashles said:
Nick, that is a lie.
Nick: Take it easy, that statement does not make me a liar, it is not an attack on anyone, it is my belief, and one that used to be a reality to me. I used to be in denial of the Creator because the reality of the Creator means there is a judge and a judgement, and I like many do not want to face that reality.

The evidence actually leads us to the conclusions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a reality, and that the flood story is just a story not meant to be taken literally.
Nick: I said the evidence leads you to God, not age of earth or evolution (although I believe that also). Design testifies of a designer. No observed process will ever show non-living material creating life naturally. Those realities are strong evidence for a creator. The details are debatable, but the facts of life arriving naturally are in my opinion and the nation's opinion overwhelming. A poll I recently saw showed 4% of country believed in purely naturalistic explanation of origin of life. Many of the believers believe God used evolution.

If you wish to believe that God created a world in six days that merely appears in every way to be billions of years old then you are entitled to believe that.
But please don't lie and tell us the evidence doesn't indicate that the earth is really very old. This has been demonstrated to you in many different ways during the course of this thread with links, evidence and explanations.
Nick: We need to define the term lie. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood - per dictionary. Lying is not disagreeing. Call ignorant or stupid or dumb, but I am telling you what I sincerely believe and not to deceive. My purpose for coming into this forum was to offer up some alternative views. Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant, and read that I need to appologize. Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else. The job comment was not meant to be rude, but sarcastic. Lying is the German anthropologist, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, being forced into retirement form the university of Frankfurt for falsifying the dates of human remains, (per UK Telegraph via AiG.)

And why, exactly, would someone not want there to be a God? How do you come to that conclusion? Or is it yet another example of something you have been told and just believe without thinking about it?
Click to expand...
Nick: I would love to answer this question and I will later.
 
Nick Harman
Unlike you Darat actually bothered to read the full verse and put it in context. (BTW, if you had bothered to go back and check out page 3 like I suggested, you would have seen the verses in more context there)

Where did the water come from?

Where did the water go?


Ossai
 
Darat said:
But you are missing a very important verse, the Bible actually says:

"9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah""

This is not a matter of the Bible saying that God originally said "2 of each" then he later on changed his mind and said "make that 2 of each unclean but 7 of each of clean and fowl".

What the Bible clearly states that is even though God had said “7 of each of clean and fowl” only 2 went into the arc:

9 "Two of each came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had command Noah"

Only by adding details not in the Bible can you reconcile this.
Nick: I do not deny this statement for a second. My point is that it is an argument of silence. This particular scripture does not break it down into clean and unclean. Could it be error, yes. Does it prove error, that it didn't happen they way the scripture says. NO. My logic is that the bible is infallible to I chose my interpretation over yours and both could possibly be correct but only 1 is.
Click to expand...
 
Nick Harman said:
He still took 2 of every kind
Click to expand...
Nick, what exactly do you mean by "kind?" it is apparent that you don't mean "species," as you earlier said:
You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.
Click to expand...
Presumably "kind" is a broader term than species, as it was possible to take "2 of every kind" without taking every species, but what exactly does it mean?
 
Nick Nick Nick
Rudeness comes in many different forms,one of them being not listening(thoroughly reading posts and links)pertaining to science your attempting to "refute".Using faith alone to justify your belief in the impossibe being possible is something I can respect although not agree with.OTOH using bad science,illogic and general nonsense to back up a belief cannot be respected.Good grief,this is a critical thinking forum what did you expect?I hope it wasn't that we'd all fall out of our chairs prostrate before the lord after finally getting wind of the truth.
 
Nick Harman said:
Nick, that is a lie.
Nick: Take it easy, that statement does not make me a liar, it is not an attack on anyone, it is my belief, and one that used to be a reality to me. I used to be in denial of the Creator because the reality of the Creator means there is a judge and a judgement, and I like many do not want to face that reality.
Click to expand...
Nick the evidence has lead me exactly where I have explained it leads me to, and I have backed up my explanations, so you either understand what I am saying and thus are lying, or you are not very bright, or you refuse to listen to the opinions of others.
Lying is really the most charitable of the three options.
If there were a judgement I would have no problems facing it - some people have the ability to lead moral lives without need of an instruction book.

The evidence actually leads us to the conclusions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a reality, and that the flood story is just a story not meant to be taken literally.
Nick: I said the evidence leads you to God, not age of earth or evolution (although I believe that also). Design testifies of a designer. No observed process will ever show non-living material creating life naturally.
Click to expand...
If you can't be bothered to read the links we provide and the information available then there's not much hope for you. Shutting your eyes and covering your ears singing "I can't hear you lalala" doesn't change the facts.
So your last statement there is a lie if you have read the information I provided. And if you haven't read it then you are continuing to argue from a position of deliberate ignorance. Why would you want to do such a thing?

Those realities are strong evidence for a creator. The details are debatable, but the facts of life arriving naturally are in my opinion and the nation's opinion overwhelming. A poll I recently saw showed 4% of country believed in purely naturalistic explanation of origin of life. Many of the believers believe God used evolution.
Click to expand...
The opinion of the majority is irrelevant to whether something is true. Most people believed the sun went round the Earth for thousands of years. Guess what? They were all wrong.
Most people are not very scientifically educated - this appears to be sadly even more true in America than most western countries.

If you wish to believe that God created a world in six days that merely appears in every way to be billions of years old then you are entitled to believe that.
But please don't lie and tell us the evidence doesn't indicate that the earth is really very old. This has been demonstrated to you in many different ways during the course of this thread with links, evidence and explanations.
Nick: We need to define the term lie. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood - per dictionary. Lying is not disagreeing. Call ignorant or stupid or dumb, but I am telling you what I sincerely believe and not to deceive. My purpose for coming into this forum was to offer up some alternative views. Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant, and read that I need to appologize. Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else. The job comment was not meant to be rude, but sarcastic. Lying is the German anthropologist, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, being forced into retirement form the university of Frankfurt for falsifying the dates of human remains, (per UK Telegraph via AiG.)
Click to expand...
A time when a scientist is incorrect, or fraudulent does not somehow invalidate all other research into a subject.
Would a list of creationists who have come to accept evolution prove to you that evolution is real? Of course not. So what a single scientist does is irreleveant to other research that is still well carried out.

And we have explained several issues to you which you are refusing to listen to. So as I said above you are either not very bright, deliberately ignoring factual information, or lying.

If you read the information we provided you would understand why creationism is considered so implausible. If you subsequently choose to believe in it anyway then at least have the honesty to admit that you are doing so in spite of the evidence, not because of it.
 
Nick Harman said:

...snip...

Nick: I do not deny this statement for a second. My point is that it is an argument of silence. This particular scripture does not break it down into clean and unclean. Could it be error, yes. Does it prove error, that it didn't happen they way the scripture says. NO. My logic is that the bible is infallible to I chose my interpretation over yours and both could possibly be correct but only 1 is.
Click to expand...

So you accept you do not know how many of each "kind" Noah took into the arc?
 
Nick Harman said:
I used to be in denial of the Creator because the reality of the Creator means there is a judge and a judgement.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to take your word for it that that's how you feel and how you thought.

It's not in the least what I think.

For one thing, it's a stupid way to think. Not liking some idea is no reason whatsoever to think it untrue.

For another thing --- why would anyone dislike the idea? The Christian faith involves salvation for believers. Why should anyone be afraid --- why should you be afraid --- of the notion that God will judge you, find you saved by your faith in him and justified by Jesus, and take you to live with him in heaven for all eternity? That is not in the least a scary thought. The idea that when you're dead, you're dead, is much more scary. But different people are scared of different things. To speak for myself, I'm more frightened of death than I am of eternal bliss. But perhaps that's just me. I'm at a loss to see why you should actually dislike the idea which for the last two thousand years has been called, in one language or another, "The Good News".

Now, do you have anything more to say in favour of YEC or against science? Or have you shot your bolt?
 
Nick Harman said:
My purpose for coming into this forum was to offer up some alternative views. Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant, and read that I need to appologize. Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else.
Click to expand...
Let me just address this. Since coming here you have said:


The flood seems so foreign to you because you reject the word of the God who created and will judge you.

It is interesting to hear intellectuals scoff at a creationist

That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence.
(patronising insult, and factually incorrect statement)

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family
(to be fair Nick apologised for this one)

I do not need a non believer to tell me what the bible says, I realize the bible says more than that, just did't take the time. Later today I will directly quote it to you and it will not change my answer, you are straining gnats.

Noah would have never got that ark built with your mind set, he would have argued with him about every single detail!!! (humor intended) You are straining gnats here.
Click to expand...
Okay, not the strongest insults we have ever seen, but I think they are why some acusations may have been made towards you.

Also looking back over the thread there appear to be several questions now that you have promised to 'come back to' or answer in your next post and haven't.
Does this mean you can't answer them?
If you can then could you go back and answer those first before getting onto to the next ones.

For example MRC Hans' question about whether Noah took parasites, bacteia and vira.
Or Dr Adequate's question about taking animals to Australia (and of course everyone then subsequently forgetting that Australia or America exist).
Or his question about Galileo
Or my question about why would anyone not want there to be a God
Or my question about stone age man and his tools
Or Ossai's question about where the water came from and went to.

They're mounting up now.

Finally, as a side issue, just in case you still refuse to click on any links about abiogenesis here is some information that I have cut and pasted so you don't even have to follow a link about it:
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
Click to expand...
From here
There, now the next time someone tells you that life couldn't start from non-life you can correct them.

But as it says, that is all irrelevant to how evolution works.
 
Ashles said:
Okay, not the strongest insults we have ever seen, but I think they are why some acusations may have been made towards you.
Click to expand...

The most insulting thing he's said is that none of us want there to be a God. He's told us what he believes AND told us what we believe. When I pointed out how rude that was, he didn't even bother to reply.

"Many people have accused me of being rude, lying, arrogant..."

Don't forget hypocrite and un-Christian!

"Go back to the posts and see how many accusations have been made against me and then check how many accusations I have made against anyone else."

You've been a rude and arrogant hypocrite. You're not listening to us, but still judging and condemning us. You can't walk into a group of people, wrong them, and then compare the number of accusations they make about you to the number of accusations you've made about them. You are in the wrong and that's why these accusations have been made. Instead of being a man and admitting fault, you're compounding it with this childish persecution act.

Now I can add to my list: you are an unrepentant rude and arrogant hypocrite.
 
Nick, here's another question for you to think about.

Scientists, who study science and nature, overwhelmingly endorse evolution, whatever their religious faith. Doesn't this worry you? As you'll have seen by now, the fundie tracts you quote are full of childish mistakes about science and nature. Doesn't this worry you?

If there was anything to be said for YEC, why would their pamphlets be filled with such crass errors? If they were sincere and conscientious, wouldn't they try to get rid of these errors --- which are easy to check --- instead of perpetuating them? I'll repeat my plea. As you cannot rely on these people for the simplest piece of scientific information, you yourself must learn to be conscientious. You must check your facts.

As it is, we are not looking at the same evidence. I look in a book on paeleontology to find out if there are intermediate forms. You look in a fundie tract. I look in a book on biology to find out if "all we ever observe is loss of information". You look in a fundie tract. I look in a book on archeology to find out how the pyramids were built. You look... where? Another fundie tract, maybe? I look in a book on geology to find out if there is evidence of a global flood. You look in a fundie tract. I read Darwin to find out what the theory of evolution is all about, and discover that it's all about inheritance, random variation, and natural selection. You read a fundie tract, and find out that it was "all about life from non-life". (I think Darwin gets to say what his own theory is.) I read Stephen Jay Gould's books to find out what he thought about intermediate forms. You read a fundie tract. (Again, I think Stephen Jay Gould has the last word on what his opinion is.)

I look at the scientific evidence. You look at propaganda stuffed with falsehood and written by non-scientists who have done no research themselves except to look at other fundie tracts. You and I --- and scientists and fundies generally --- are not looking at the same evidence. Scientists are looking at the evidence. Fundies are looking at books written by other fundies, which is not "the same evidence", nor, indeed, "evidence".

You say it is "interesting" to see "intellectuals" (by which, judging by the context, you mean peeople who know more about science than you do) scoffing at YEC. It is indeed interesting. It's so interesting, you might start wondering why. Why, Nick? Why do the people with knowledge of science and nature, of whatever religious faith, so overwhelmingly endorse evolution, and why are the YECs so pitifully ignorant of science and nature --- and so unconcerned with accuracy --- that their tracts are riddled with ridiculous falsehoods? Think it over.
 
Slightly OT questions:

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but YEC and fundies belive the Bible holds the truth, that all parts of it are true and holy.

Is the above correct? If so, please keep on reading. If not, sorry for the ignorance and please ignore the following.

Do YEC and fundies follow everything that the Bible commands?

Dietary restrictions (how to prepare the food included), how to wear, ritual baths, questions regarding the purity of people, sacrifices, etc. Do they follow them?

If not, why?
 
C.N: try reading the Acts of the Apostles.

The New Testament does away with a lot of the Old Testament taboos. Christianity is founded, in part, on the idea that we can't take a literal intepretation of the O.T. as a moral guide. The question we're asking here is whether we can still use a literal interpretation of the O.T. as a science textbook.

You and Nick both are raising questions that don't really belong in this debate.

Let's talk about science versus YEC!
 
Sorry, but I don´t think so (using tortuous logic).

See, is there any part of the NT that states the Genesis story is still valid? Are there parts of the OT taken as obsolete by Christians but not stated as obsolete in the NT? If not, then YEC are babbling over something that their own sacred text has deemed obsolete. So, the whole debate is futile, for the word is with science, since the Bible would have nothing to say about it. Do fundies acknoweledge the the way the NT was pasted?

I could continue digressing over what sort of omni-everything deity would need to correct its own rules, but that would be OT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom