Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[xianghua]

I don't understand. Perhaps you could respond to my comment about it (post #362)

yep. you said that:

"But unless it was morphologically and genetically identical to the wing of a bat, it could not be said to be a "bat wing." And if it was, the theory of evolution would essentially be falsified"-

so lest assume that we have found a fossil of dig with a bat wings. why its impossible that a bat wings will evolve again? have you heared about the pterosaur?:

Pterosaur - Wikipedia

 

[pat34lee]

The video shows the oceans appearing after the land, whereas Genesis 1 says just the opposite.

The video doesn't start at the beginning, and doesn't show small oceans that would have been there. The person who made the video believes in evolution and that the time frame was millions of years. I'm saying it occurred from the flood and continued for centuries, making it possible for animals to spread to the ends of the earth before the continents and islands completely separated.

 

[pat34lee]

Because speaking the earth into existence isn't exactly what I call science ... do you?

Science just describes what is. Pseudo-science, like evolution, creates stories for what they think happened but cannot observe or test.

 

[Speedwell]

yep. you said that:

"But unless it was morphologically and genetically identical to the wing of a bat, it could not be said to be a "bat wing." And if it was, the theory of evolution would essentially be falsified"-

so lest assume that we have found a fossil of dig with a bat wings. why its impossible that a bat wings will evolve again? have you heared about the pterosaur?:

Pterosaur - Wikipedia

Are you saying that the wings of a pterosaur are genetically and morphologically identical to a bat's wing? Or merely similar in form and function? The second is convergent evolution. The first would all but disprove evolution. So which is it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

And you'll be wrong then.

Faith is NOT a pathway to truth, no matter how you twist it around.
"just believing" something, will not tell if your beliefs are valid, justified, correct,...

Evidence will. And when you have evidence, you have no need for "faith".

Faith, as I understand it, is the only way to the truth of those things that are discerned by the spirit.

Muslims have faith in the Quran.
So, do you agree that the Quran is "truth"?

No? Then you have just proven yourself wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

HI stamp,

The believer is not so concerned with physical evidence.

Yep. You can certainly repeat that a couple of times....
That is exactly why "the believer" is rarely, if ever, correct/justified in his beliefs.

You see, for us, if all we're going to entertain as truth is only what we can find physical evidence for, then we'd never make it to Jesus.

Yep. You'ld never make it to leprachauns hiding pots of gold at the base of rainbows, either...

Ask yourself, why that is the case.

There is no physical evidence that he was the Son of God, even though God himself said that he was, according to the Scriptures. There is no physical evidence that his death really paid any suitable sacrifice to God for sin, although the Scriptures tell us that he did. There is no physical evidence that he was raised from the dead three days after his death, although again, the Scriptures tell us that he did. There is no physical evidence that he ascended to heaven as his disciples looked on, although the Scriptures tell us that he did.

Humans said all that, claiming it to be god's words.
Just like humans wrote the quran, claiming it to be god's words.

So, hopefully you'll understand that the believer's faith never rests on the evidence of the natural properties of things.

We atheists understand that very well. It's, in fact, the reason why we are atheist. You see, we don't "just believe" things without proper justification.

For many of us, and I purposefully use the word 'many' rather than 'all' because you will find those among us who are not a part of us just as the first apostles describe in their day, our faith rests on the foundation that God's word is true.

Actually, your "faith" rests on the believe that the words of humans are true. These humans are claiming that they are god's words. You are relying on the words of humans.

Just like you, I would assume, believe that the quran is also the words of humans, not of god or archangels.

He said the whole earth was flooded and describes for us some of the evidences of that, such as all the mountains were covered and that all creatures that move about the earth died.

Those are claims, not evidence.
And these claims can be verified in reality, since they make physical predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in nature.

And when we investigate those claims, we find that the predictions don't check out. So we can safely discard those claims on the basis that the evidence of reality completely refutes those claims.

So, in essence, what you are doing is not only are you not relying on "physical evidence" for your faith... you are actively ignoring the physical evidence or, even worse, assuming the physical evidence is wrong, just so you can continue to believe that your story is true.

I shouldn't have to explain why that is an irrational position to take...

Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

And this part of the story makes another testable prediction...
If true, then all of life on land should exhibit the exact same very recent genetic bottleneck. Upon investigation, we see that this bottleneck does not exist.

That means that the populations of those species never were reduced to a mere handfull.
And FYI: bottlenecks are already apparant in DNA when a population drops to a few thousand individuals. Let alone 2 to 14........

Worse then that even... when populations drop under 200 individuals, biologically it is assumed that those species are doomed to extinction within a few generations.
All the inbreeding that inevitably follows, usually doesn't turn out well for the offspring.

In other words, from a biological, genetical as well as geological perspective... this flood story is about as refuted as it gets...

But, I do understand that there are a lot of people, even among those who call themselves believers, who don't actually believe all that the Scriptures describe.

Let's hope so.

 

[USincognito]

yep. you said that:

"But unless it was morphologically and genetically identical to the wing of a bat, it could not be said to be a "bat wing." And if it was, the theory of evolution would essentially be falsified"-

so lest assume that we have found a fossil of dig with a bat wings. why its impossible that a bat wings will evolve again? have you heared about the pterosaur?:

Pterosaur - Wikipedia

Pterosaur wings are not the same as bat wings. Learn some anatomy.

 

[USincognito]

Science just describes what is. Pseudo-science, like evolution, creates stories for what they think happened but cannot observe or test.

Rhetoric =/= evidence.

 

[The Stamp]

HI stamp,

The believer is not so concerned with physical evidence. You see, for us, if all we're going to entertain as truth is only what we can find physical evidence for, then we'd never make it to Jesus. There is no physical evidence that he was the Son of God, even though God himself said that he was, according to the Scriptures. There is no physical evidence that his death really paid any suitable sacrifice to God for sin, although the Scriptures tell us that he did. There is no physical evidence that he was raised from the dead three days after his death, although again, the Scriptures tell us that he did. There is no physical evidence that he ascended to heaven as his disciples looked on, although the Scriptures tell us that he did.

So, hopefully you'll understand that the believer's faith never rests on the evidence of the natural properties of things. For many of us, and I purposefully use the word 'many' rather than 'all' because you will find those among us who are not a part of us just as the first apostles describe in their day, our faith rests on the foundation that God's word is true. He said the whole earth was flooded and describes for us some of the evidences of that, such as all the mountains were covered and that all creatures that move about the earth died.

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

The waters covered the mountains more than fifteen cubits. 'Every' living thing that moved on land perished and it lists birds, livestock, wild animals. 'all' creatures that swarm over the earth and mankind. 'Everything' on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrilss died. 'Every' living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out. People and animals and creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. The Scriptures seem to take an inordinate amount of effort to impress upon the reader that everything on the whole earth died.

Then we are told that the water flooded the earth for 150 days. Now, we've had a lot of pretty awesome floods recorded on the earth, but there's honestly no way that a local flood will flood the earth for 150 days. The standing water is going to be absorbed by the earth and run out where there are valleys between the mountains. When we accept all the descriptions of the flood, it's really very hard to understand that it could be a local flood.

But, I do understand that there are a lot of people, even among those who call themselves believers, who don't actually believe all that the Scriptures describe.

You could not be more wrong if you had deliberately set out to be more wrong than you have ever been in your life.

I know you won't do this (for a lot of reasons) but if you looked into what you have been told to believe instead of just believing it you would be much better off, don't just believe it check to see if it's true, you will either end up a better Christian for knowing that what you believe is true or someone who actually knows the truth because they have looked into it, either way you will be better off as a person.

See what happened to this guy when he checked to see if his beliefs were true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and this claim base on what scientific source? evidence please.

It is based on how the evolutionary process works.

Each branch is on its own evolutionary path.
The process does not expect unique DNA sequences to evolve twice, due to the random nature of mutation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's based on the fact that it's never happened yet. Basically, the conditions for the evolution of the exact same species would have to be the exact same sexual and natural selection as the previous one. As you can understand, the selective variables are virtually endless, therefore extremely unlikely. Probably approaching the odds of a god/s existing.

And even if for some incredible reason both the sexual as well as the selective variables/pressures are the exact same, there still is the random nature of the mutations and the spread thereof throughout the genome in order to achieve fixation.

Taken all together, the odds of it are so ridiculously small that we might just as well call it impossible.

 

[miamited]

You could not be more wrong if you had deliberately set out to be more wrong than you have ever been in your life.

I know you won't do this (for a lot of reasons) but if you looked into what you have been told to believe instead of just believing it you would be much better off, don't just believe it check to see if it's true, you will either end up a better Christian for knowing that what you believe is true or someone who actually knows the truth because they have looked into it, either way you will be better off as a person.

See what happened to this guy when he checked to see if his beliefs were true.

Hi stamp,

Listen, I can't speak for anyone else or what the man in your video was going through or his thoughts, but...

What I know, yes I know, is that God has given me ample proof that He is. The heavens declare the glory God. The reality that I exist and draw breath declares the glory of God.

As for your speaker, there are lots of people who are just like him. People turn away from Islam and Buddhism, etc. People turn away from the truth also. Jesus spoke of such people when he explained the parable of the sower. Surprisingly, much of my early life was much like his. I was first baptized before I knew what I was doing. You know, your mother and father encourage you to get baptized and you see other people doing it and so you want to do it to. It really doesn't have a lot to do with really understanding or knowing who Jesus is and what you're really getting into. He speaks of being saved at five and that's pretty much impossible.

God is. He loves me and He has shown me the depth of that love for me through His Son. He also tested God by challenging Him to allow him to save his roommate. His faith was dependent on his being able to 'save' someone else. My faith is not based on my ability to 'save' someone else or what other people may or may not believe. My faith is based on the truth of the Scriptures. Others don't find that truth.

But, take heart, one day you and I and your speaker will know what the truth is.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[The Stamp]

Hi stamp,

Listen, I can't speak for anyone else or what the man in your video was going through or his thoughts, but...

What I know, yes I know, is that God has given me ample proof that He is. The heavens declare the glory God. The reality that I exist and draw breath declares the glory of God.

As for your speaker, there are lots of people who are just like him. People turn away from Islam and Buddhism, etc. People turn away from the truth also. Jesus spoke of such people when he explained the parable of the sower. Surprisingly, much of my early life was much like his. I was first baptized before I knew what I was doing. You know, your mother and father encourage you to get baptized and you see other people doing it and so you want to do it to. It really doesn't have a lot to do with really understanding or knowing who Jesus is and what you're really getting into. He speaks of being saved at five and that's pretty much impossible.

God is. He loves me and He has shown me the depth of that love for me through His Son. He also tested God by challenging Him to allow him to save his roommate. His faith was dependent on his being able to 'save' someone else. My faith is not based on my ability to 'save' someone else or what other people may or may not believe. My faith is based on the truth of the Scriptures. Others don't find that truth.

But, take heart, one day you and I and your speaker will know what the truth is.

You obviously did not watch the video otherwise you would have learnt that the man wanted to be the best Christian he could be by studying the Bible so he could tell others what he knew was true, that there was a God, he was convinced there was a God, it was the studying that made him realise that there was nothing there, everything he had been told was backed up by nothing, his parents still think he is working for the devil.
So I completely understand why you would shy away from something that might possibly cause you to have doubts, the very last thing you want is not to believe in God after all how would you manage your life if there was no God?

 

[miamited]

Hi TM,

You responded:

Yep. You can certainly repeat that a couple of times....
That is exactly why "the believer" is rarely, if ever, correct/justified in his beliefs.

However, at this point, you don't 'know' that your conclusion is right. If the Scriptures are true, and one day you do find yourself standing in judgment as the Scriptures say, then you'll have to revise your conclusion. It will actually be: "the believer" was more often correct/justified in his beliefs. But, that is something that we'll just have to wait and see.

For me, the Scriptures give ample evidence that they are the truth. Through the use of prophecies that could not possibly have been known by any man; that a man named Jesus, or Yeshua, walked upon the earth some 2,000 years ago and was charged to death. Then three days later, and throughout the next few weeks, over 500 people saw this dead man walking and talking and living again upon the earth.

But, the Scriptures are also perfectly clear that not only will not everyone believe, but that very few will believe. The reason that so few will believe is that it is all about faith. God's word tells us that His righteous ones shall live by faith. The assurance of things not seen. You live a life that is based on facts and evidence of the physical things that you can prove. That's fine. While living a life of faith in God does have its own rewards in this life, the real reward will come at a much later point in time.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Jimmy D]

How are we getting on with the question of Madagasgan and Australian animals? God works in mysterious ways? "Creation science" my backside.

 

[miamited]

You obviously did not watch the video otherwise you would have learnt that the man wanted to be the best Christian he could be by studying the Bible so he could tell others what he knew was true, that there was a God, he was convinced there was a God, it was the studying that made him realise that there was nothing there, everything he had been told was backed up by nothing, his parents still think he is working for the devil.
So I completely understand why you would shy away from something that might possibly cause you to have doubts, the very last thing you want is not to believe in God after all how would you manage your life if there was no God?

Hi stamp,

Yes, I'm listening to it as I type now. I was about 15 minutes into it when I sent the previous post. Yes, I know that he states that it was his desire to be the best christian that he can be. Unfortunately, the only way to be the best christian that anyone can be is to love God. That's law number one. He approached 'being a christian' as a matter of knowledge. He never once speaks of loving God (or at least not yet. I'm now at 38 minutes). His faith seems to have stumbled because, just like you and I are doing, he challenged God to 'save' his roommate. I'm not challenging God to 'save' you. God will do what God will do. Understanding as I do what the Scriptures teach about the many and few, I honestly expect to run across more people like you, than me. But, because I know to expect that, it is not disappointing to me that conversations such as this can be very fruitless. But, I am commanded to speak the truth in love.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Jimmy D]

Creation science tells us....

How Did Animals Spread All Over from Where the Ark Landed?

Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents.

also

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, at this point, you don't 'know' that your conclusion is right.

Wrong. My "conclusion" is that theistic claims fail to meet their burden of proof and as a result, aren't acceptable as being true.

Sounds exactly spot on, as you have demonstrated by literally admitting that faith is required and that you aren't concerned with actually supporting the claims with evidence...

If the Scriptures are true, and one day you do find yourself standing in judgment as the Scriptures say, then you'll have to revise your conclusion.

So will you, when you find yourself being judged by Allah, Odin or Zeus.

For me, the Scriptures give ample evidence that they are the truth

The scriptures are the claims. Claims aren't evidence of themselves.

Through the use of prophecies that could not possibly have been known by any man; that a man named Jesus, or Yeshua, walked upon the earth some 2,000 years ago and was charged to death. Then three days later, and throughout the next few weeks, over 500 people saw this dead man walking and talking and living again upon the earth.

All this is the words of men, written down in a book.
They are just claims that you just believe on faith.

But, the Scriptures are also perfectly clear that not only will not everyone believe, but that very few will believe

The Quran says that too.

The reason that so few will believe is that it is all about faith. God's word tells us that His righteous ones shall live by faith. The assurance of things not seen. You live a life that is based on facts and evidence of the physical things that you can prove. That's fine. While living a life of faith in God does have its own rewards in this life, the real reward will come at a much later point in time.

These are again just the claims of your religion.
ie, the words of men, that you just believe on faith.

 

[xianghua]

Pterosaur wings are not the same as bat wings. Learn some anatomy.

so what? they are still very similar.

 

[xianghua]

It is based on how the evolutionary process works.

Each branch is on its own evolutionary path.
The process does not expect unique DNA sequences to evolve twice, due to the random nature of mutation.

did you forgot natural selection? if one sequence can evolve once it can evolve twice.