Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[TLK Valentine]

Who decided on the 66 books to be included in the Bible and with what criteria?

If you're a Christian, the Holy Spirit.

if you're not, then there's no reason to accept any of the books of the Bible at face value as divinely inspired.

Sorry friend, you can't have it both ways.

 

[lasthero]

BUT I had to laugh at them because they are simply not correct. Have you actually checked any of them for yourself and seen the errors stated are wrong?

So you're not going to say WHY they're wrong?

but in religion you are your own church and must seek the truth.

Translation: You can make crap up.

, and not simply copying the work of others which has been proved wrong on several occasions.

Yeah, I use sources. Sue me. It's a much better tactic than simply making things up. You should try it.

When would these several occasions be?

By the way, are you going to actually show any support for your claim that the 'almost all Biblical scholars accept Enoch should have been included'?

 

[JWGU]

Quite a list of things you've copied and pasted from somewhere, BUT I had to laugh at them because they are simply not correct. Have you actually checked any of them for yourself and seen the errors stated are wrong?
I know that in science, copying and pasting and taking the word of others is so common, but in religion you are your own church and must seek the truth. If you want we can go through that list. If you put your references and what you believe the biblical passages in contradiction mean, then we can discuss them. This of course means you actually doing some work, and not simply copying the work of others which has been proved wrong on several occasions.

While I haven't independently verified any of that list, I imagine if it is indeed full of holes as you say you can appreciate how annoying it is to people who understand science when people who don't blindly copy and paste similar lists of quotes. I suspect the same issues arise: incorrect information, outdated information, correct but irrelevant information, and correct, relevant information, but which has subtleties that change the whole dynamic of the situation.

In all cases, the universal factor is that the person presenting the evidence doesn't really care about it at all--the evidence means nothing to that person so it doesn't bother him or her if it is full of holes, it is just an argument presented for somebody else's sake. In fact, now that I realize that (I literally just realized it now) I understand why most creationists (the ones who aren't also scientists, anyway) can brush off devastating scientific deconstructions of their arguments. The science simply doesn't mean anything to them in the first place, so they don't care. That's amazing.

(You really don't, do you nutty? Be honest. It's okay to admit you just don't care about science.)

 

[TLK Valentine]

lunar eclipses and using software are not difficult.

I do believe my entire point was that none of it is particularly difficult if you know your stuff -- or know someone who does.

So you believe that John, while exiled on Patmos, wrote the book of revelation using Stellarium and a laptop?

Nope, but that's the only alternative you can think of, so who am I to argue?

Hint: People were studying astronomy long before Stellarium and laptops.

John was not an expert of the Stars, and was a prisoner. I very much doubt that he knew Jupiter would have a retrograde appearance in Virgo three times in a row, in the year 2017. I very much doubt he knew certain planets would align with Leo to give a 12 star crown. I very much doubt he knew the Moon would be at Virgo's feet at that moment with the Sun on her shoulder.

I very much doubt that these events would be difficult to predict with a little mathematics.

On top of that we have the rest of the sign, after Jupiter is born out of Virgo.
Perhaps you have a reference I have missed which confirms John had great knowledge of astronomy/astrology?

I don't need John to know it -- I just need someone besides God to know it, and your entire "only God could've predicted this" claim is a bust.

And since the astronomy to figure it out is pretty simple to anyone who knew the craft, your claim is, indeed, a bust.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Quite a list of things you've copied and pasted from somewhere, BUT I had to laugh at them because they are simply not correct. Have you actually checked any of them for yourself and seen the errors stated are wrong?
I know that in science, copying and pasting and taking the word of others is so common, but in religion you are your own church and must seek the truth. If you want we can go through that list. If you put your references and what you believe the biblical passages in contradiction mean, then we can discuss them. This of course means you actually doing some work, and not simply copying the work of others which has been proved wrong on several occasions.

Well, given then that you are your own church, why should we follow you if our goal is to be our own church as well?

 

[OllieFranz]

If you're a Christian, the Holy Spirit.

if you're not, then there's no reason to accept any of the books of the Bible at face value as divinely inspired.

Sorry friend, you can't have it both ways.

There are no less than ten different lists of canon that are accepted in different Christian churches. Of the ten, only one includes the book of Enoch. That list belongs to two churches in Ethiopia which broke away from the Coptic church in 1959. When Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, one of the two churches ended up in the new country.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps it's the dating which is causing all the problems and making darwin evolution seem real. Let me give a hypothesis.
Thousands of years ago, not millions, there were no dinosaurs. Not one. There were no creatures eating meat at all. 200 Angels had been appointed by God to watch over the Earth and keep an eye on mankind. However, after many years of this they lusted after the daughters of men and decided to assume physical form and join them. This meant leaving their eternal realm forever, but they were driven by lust of the flesh. They taught men and women many new techniques, from advanced agriculture to art/music. Fine, until they started having children with Earth women. This was forbidden by God, and the results were evil beings called the Nephilim. They were taught many secrets by their Fathers including DNA engineering, they were there at the creation. They created lots of creatures, large ones, and meat eating. When humans could no longer feed them due to population growth of the Nephilim, they turned to men for food and ate them. The Nephilim also toyed with the dna of humans and had children of their own. Just one family was unblemished, and a handful of creatures. These were saved by God to continue after a flood. All the other mess was destroyed. The Nephilim spread out over the continents before the flood, making their own empires and demanding worship.
Perhaps this explains why we see ancient relics clearly showing dinosaurs on them. Perhaps this is why many ancient cultures speak of giant men. Perhaps this is why large human like skeletons are quickly hidden away by authoririties in evolution, to hide the evidence.

In response to being presented with the scientific evidence, we now have a creationist who invents a fairy tale from whole cloth as a reason to ignore the scientific evidence.

 

[Davian]

200 is the number quoted in the book of Enoch, they were the watchers.
For one, 60 skeletons of large humanoid creatures were removed from a cave, helped by locals, never to be seen again once the museums got their hands on them.

Pictures!

 

[lasthero]

Pictures!

I wonder if creationists who believe this stuff think there's some massive warehouse out there with a bunch of huge giant skulls and bones just laying around.

 

[frogman2x]

I love that quote, it sums it up creationism perfectly.

O look says nothing, I am going to become something.

That sums up evolution perfectly.

k

 

[lasthero]

O look says nothing, I am going to become something.

That sums up evolution perfectly.


k

Not only is that a strawman, it's not even a strawman for the right thing.

 

[JWGU]

O look says nothing, I am going to become something.

That sums up evolution perfectly.

k

What about you, frogman? Do you actually believe your own scientific arguments? Are you seriously concerned if one or all of your arguments are flat out wrong? Or do you see evolutionists as otherwise sane people who happen to believe in a crazy theory, whose game you have to play if you want to engage them?

 

[frogman2x]

Two things to note here--firstly, the question I was asking was personally directed at nutty.

I beleive this is an open forum. I do not have to be invited. If I jump in and you are not interested ub discussing it with me. You can just ignore me. I will understand.

Based on your pattern of argument I do not think there are any circumstances under which you would accept the theory of evolution--if there were, you would have done so long ago.

Not true. Present some biological facts that would make it possible and I will gladly jump on your bandwagon.

If there are, please let me know what they are, but I suspect the answer is something reductive along the lines of "evos would have to show me ACTUAL PROOF" or "I would need to witness kinds turning into kinds" neither of which are really saying anything,

Of course they will have to show me actual proof. How else can you say evolution is true. I don't have to witness it.

after which you will debate the second option by saying that it is evolutionists who can't agree on the definition of a species, even though the fact that we can't do something in general doesn't mean we can't do something in a specific case has been pointed out to you in the past.

Cases have been pointed out, The biology that makes the case true has not.

If you think I've mischaracterized your hypothetical response, tell me how; if not, perhaps the predictability of your response is because your answers are invariant regardless of evidence, which is what led me to the conclusion that you cannot be convinced in the first place.[/quote]

I certainly can't be convince by dogmatic statement with no evidence.

Let me make it easy for you. Explain how an offsdpring can get a trait from parents who do not have the gene for the trait.

The second is this strange notion that creationists seem to have that evolution "is just a religion" or can be reduced to religious terms or something, which is nonsense.

Your brush is way too wide. While some may say that, most do not.

Case in point, I had only the vaguest idea who either of those people are until I looked them up just now. I certainly don't uncritically accept everything a handful of people say.

It is hard to believe that an evolutionist has not heard of Gould. I can understand whey may not have heard of Mayr. When you looked them up what did you learn?

Finally, I think pretty much everyone agrees that the fossil record is inadequate, for a wide variety of reasons. But of course evolution does not solely rely on the fossil record--though it helps in specific cases like this. The big weaknesses with the fossil record are not that it doesn't yield good data, just that the data are incomplete--"there are discontinuities in the fossil record" doesn't mean we should reject all fossils outright.

Actually it does. In over 100 years no intermediate fossils have been found. If evolution ws true the great majority of fossils would be transitional.

Things that do not count as biological evidence of whale evolution:
* DNA evidence ("circumstantial", not evidence against a designer

There is no DNA evidence linking land animals to sea life.

Fossils of transitional species (it wasn't just Gingerich, but since fossils don't propose a mechanism they are obviously invalid, not evidence against a designer)

Are you saying the designer is God?

* Numerous shared traits with mammals but not fish or other marine life ("Only evols think that proves something." Not evidence against a designer

OK

* Clear inefficiencies in design were it natural marine life, such as lack of gills (...not sure what the "design" argument for this is, but I'm sure there is something. Not evidence against a designer, I suppose, though I might not call the design intelligent for designing ocean life that can't breathe underwater).

Are you smarter than God?

* Throwback phenotypes ("not a leg"--I have an interesting experiment I'll run at some point to see if we can abolish this argument, but it requires some preprocessing to eliminate loopholes, could have some other explanation, not evidence against a designer)

This is quite an insurmountable standard of evidence you have built up. It seems virtually impenetrable since you demand that we see direct evidence for the development of major newly expressed traits, but such changes usually only occur over "evolutionary time" (since you don't accept evolution, pretend I said "many generations")--and then, when we find organisms with rapid enough generation time that they do occur (as in the e coli experiment I mentioned earlier, which developed what certain creationists would probably call an "irreducibly complex" new trait under laboratory conditions), you simply ignore the results or claim that they cannot result in speciation, as though there is something magical about speciation that the forces of evolution "know" about.
Indeed.

Time is not the friend of evolution. It cannot change proven biological facts. I don't demand to see anything. I expect biological evidence for what is said. Is that unreasonable. Speciation is not a mechanism for an A to become a B. While some are unable to mate both remain the same species. The salamanders remain salamanders and if they can't find a mate, they become exinct salamanders.

 

[lasthero]

Frothy, what do you consider to be a transitional fossil?

 

[Loudmouth]

Not true. Present some biological facts that would make it possible and I will gladly jump on your bandwagon.

First, every human is born with mutations. Do you agree or disagree with this fact?

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

 

[OllieFranz]

I beleive this is an open forum. I do not have to be invited. If I jump in and you are not interested ub discussing it with me. You can just ignore me. I will understand.

It was quite clear that his remark was not intended as "How dare you interrupt myconversation with nuttypiglet." It was intended as "Nuttypiglet made a specific statement which you would never make. My question was not a general one, but was specifically aimed at trying to understand what his point was when he made that statement. However, I will discuss your points as well." He did respond to your reply in depth. He was not ignoring you.

 

[nuttypiglet]

While I haven't independently verified any of that list, I imagine if it is indeed full of holes as you say you can appreciate how annoying it is to people who understand science when people who don't blindly copy and paste similar lists of quotes. I suspect the same issues arise: incorrect information, outdated information, correct but irrelevant information, and correct, relevant information, but which has subtleties that change the whole dynamic of the situation.

In all cases, the universal factor is that the person presenting the evidence doesn't really care about it at all--the evidence means nothing to that person so it doesn't bother him or her if it is full of holes, it is just an argument presented for somebody else's sake. In fact, now that I realize that (I literally just realized it now) I understand why most creationists (the ones who aren't also scientists, anyway) can brush off devastating scientific deconstructions of their arguments. The science simply doesn't mean anything to them in the first place, so they don't care. That's amazing.

(You really don't, do you nutty? Be honest. It's okay to admit you just don't care about science.)

Science (real science) is great, I love it. If it wasn't for science I wouldn't have 10 stents and a triple bypass to my coronary arteries keeping me alive today. If it wasn't for science, I wouldn't have been brought back to life twice on the operating table. If it wasn't for science I wouldn't have this wonderful computer with which I can communicate to people all around the globe. If it wasn't for science we wouldn't appreciate the universe as much as we do today. But I must emphasise this is REAL science I'm speaking of. Quantum physics is just amazing too, it's opening doors to some astounding possibilities. So yes, I love science.

 

[mzungu]

Actually it does. In over 100 years no intermediate fossils have been found. If evolution ws true the great majority of fossils would be transitional.

This is absolutely not true. All species are subject to natural selection and are thus all transitional. This means that all fossils are transitional too. The very word "transitional" is a misconception. Have you ever read ToE?

There is no DNA evidence linking land animals to sea life.

This is a lie. Take the time to read the whole article: 'Living Fossil' Gets Its Genome Sequenced | Science/AAAS | News

Are you smarter than God?

You may as well ask "Are you smarter than Zeus". How can one be smarter than a non existent being

 

[nuttypiglet]

Which is another reason to disregard his entire fairy tale.

Well we all get to choose our own fairy tales dont we. If you choose the fairy tale which says "350 million years ago, fish climbed onto a river bank and in less than 200 million years, they filled the land with thousands of 4 legged creatures, many of which changed to bipedal. Oh and they grew in that time to become many dinosaurs that became extinct after a 150 million year reign. This gave mammals a real chance to finally get evolved and within 65 million years we had modern man who can look at the stars and say "Who am I, what is my purpose". Now THAT is a fairy tale hard to believe.

 

[JWGU]

Science (real science) is great, I love it. If it wasn't for science I wouldn't have 10 stents and a triple bypass to my coronary arteries keeping me alive today. If it wasn't for science, I wouldn't have been brought back to life twice on the operating table. If it wasn't for science I wouldn't have this wonderful computer with which I can communicate to people all around the globe. If it wasn't for science we wouldn't appreciate the universe as much as we do today. But I must emphasise this is REAL science I'm speaking of. Quantum physics is just amazing too, it's opening doors to some astounding possibilities. So yes, I love science.

Okay--great! That's really good for me to hear. So I guess my next question would be, do you have any questions about the various mechanisms for change in DNA over time? This is regardless of common descent, and stuff we can easily verify in a lab--chemistry, physics, and even information theory, all "real science" I think you'd agree (or math). I can't guarantee I can answer them, but there are lots of biologists on this subforum and they love to help spread knowledge, especially for people who are really enthusiastic about science.