My Omphalos Challenge

[Lakercom]

All the bears on the earth could have developed (not evolved) from a single pair of bears in 4,000+ years. A bear harvested recently in my country, Canada, was half Polar Bear and half Grizzly Bear.

Source please.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/10/pizzly-grolar-bear.html
This event was well publicized in the popular media in Canada. There are other sources I can provide.

 

[TheGnome]

The literal interpretation of Genesis 1 contradicts the facts.

 

[Lakercom]

The literal interpretation of Genesis 1 contradicts the facts.

evolution contradicts the facts

 

[RedAndy]

evolution contradicts the facts

Which ones, specifically?

 

[Baggins]

evolution contradicts the facts

The only thing that evolution contradicts is a literal reading of the bible.

If it contradicted the facts it would have been falsified, it hasn't been falsified, therefore it doesn't contradict any facts.

If you know of a fact that contradicts evolution post it here so we can make sure that you get your Nobel prize

 

[Lakercom]

I can give you loads of evidence that there were mountains at the time of Noah, I can take you to a mountain, we can measure its height from sea level, we can then take measurements about the amount of erosion that occurs over it and take gps measurements to see whether it is getting higher or lower. From this we should be able to make a reasonable estimate as to its height 4000 years ago.

Your method of dating is classic uniformitarianism. It is my contention that you cannot use this as an axiom. Sometimes historical science trumps "operational" science and in fact your gps method cannot even be called operational science because it assumes uniformitarianism. Should I grow a mountain in the lab to counter your "evidence”? It is not unreasonable to make a hypothesis based on history to INTERPRET historical science.

The bible doesn't say there were no mountains at the time of Noah, it doesn't explain where all the water for the flood came from and went to, it does make any mention of runaway plate tectonics and continents moving around like balls on a pinball machine.

In fact, Genesis (ch 7, v 19) does say there were "mountains" (NIV) although the KJV calls them high hills. Lets go with the mountains translation for the purpose of this discussion. How do you define a mountain? When I lived in Barbados, a small island country, mountains were identified when they were less than 1,000 feet above sea level. Mountains today in Israel are often "small": The mountains of Jerusalem; Mt. Moriah, Mt. Zion, and the Mount of Olives are puny (<200 ft.) relative to the surrounding landscape compared to the much larger mountains of the Galilee. The mountains of the Himalayas are another level above them.

All it does is reduce your religion to a laughing stock, which is why most Christians don't do it and are embarrassed by those that do. Most recently you could read the stinging rebuke to Creationism that Dr Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735404,00.html


I believe the Pope isn't too happy either.

Since when should I take my theology from mere men? I “ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). I will continue to use the literal translation of the Bible, thank you very much.

To be honest I am not trying to convince you, I am just pointing out to the lurkers that are here to be convinced one way or the other how laughable your beliefs are in this case.

Having come up against Biblical "literalists" in the past I realise that they think their whole world rests on their belief that their personal interpretation of the bible is correct and that therefore they are unlikely to be swayed by cogent argument and facts.

Baggins, you might want to stick to your "expertise" in the earth sciences. It is interesting how many of your fellow evolutionists have taken a reality pill and are abandoning your "rock solid" interpretation of evolutionary theory.

After I attended Larry Vardimar's lecture at our local university in November, I bought about 10 copies of a "Bible" tract and handed them out to my friends, bosses, relatives, co-workers and customers. This may sound confusing but I have several jobs including my own business. Anyway, this "Bible" tract did not have a single scripture verse from the Bible in it. The several quotes were all from evolutionary scientists explaining the problems with the theory of evolution. Perhaps one of the “lurkers” can refer us to a link to study this online. You see, I gave out all the "tracts" so quickly I cannot find one now. Creation evangelism is very well received and appreciated by the folks I gave it to, most of who were not saved and adhered to an old earth worldview of origins. Maybe one of them is saved by now =) and has a better understanding of the history of the earth.

Some Christians seem overawed by the power of science and wish desperately that it could be harnessed to bolster their claims.

There are fewer (true) Christians all the time who are overawed by your “science” (and your intellectual prowess). Dr. David Suzuki is a world renowned Geneticist. He lives in Vancouver, BC and you might call him my province’s “claim to fame” (shame). A die-hard evolutionist, he is now invoking “god” as a first cause for evolution. I cannot give you a source on this right now. I have tried to locate it online. I heard it on TV, probably CBC’s, Nature of Things” a few months ago. He is the narrator of this program. Perhaps another one of the "lurkers" can provide this.

Baggins, do you teach in a public educational institution? If so, are you feeling a little threatened by the “Biblical ‘literalists’”? It is interesting (not laughable, but rather sad) that public institutions (governments) must invoke censorship to confine all discussion and teaching of origins in “science” to evolution.

 

[Psudopod]

Your method of dating is classic uniformitarianism. It is my contention that you cannot use this as an axiom. Sometimes historical science trumps "operational" science and in fact your gps method cannot even be called operational science because it assumes uniformitarianism. Should I grow a mountain in the lab to counter your "evidence&#8221;? It is not unreasonable to make a hypothesis based on history to INTERPRET historical science.

It's not uniformatism because we can't be bothered to work out other rates, we want to ignore them. People like Baggins understand how mountains grow. Do you? Do you understand what would be involved to make mountains grow at a much faster rate? Scientists don't ignore catastrophes, they just happen to understand the processes behind events which allows them to say whether someything is viable or not.

 

[FishFace]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/10/pizzly-grolar-bear.html
This event was well publicized in the popular media in Canada. There are other sources I can provide.

Interesting. But it doesn't demonstrate that all bears could have "developed" whatever that means, in 4,000 years, nor the same for other "kinds."

I assume you will be getting to the rest of the stuff shortly.

 

[FishFace]

Your method of dating is classic uniformitarianism. It is my contention that you cannot use this as an axiom.

So what axiom are you going to replace it with? Certainly you have to have some way of telling just what the laws of physics were doing, otherwise you can't know anything about the past. It takes the uniformitarian assumption just to be able to say that footprints left in the sand are from human beings (as opposed to some quirk of physics) or that forensic evidence for a crime wasn't just an artifact of some "different process" as dad would put it.

In fact, Genesis (ch 7, v 19) does say there were "mountains" (NIV) although the KJV calls them high hills. Lets go with the mountains translation for the purpose of this discussion. How do you define a mountain?

Doesn't matter. You've not got a reason to believe there were no mountains as we see today.

Baggins, you might want to stick to your "expertise" in the earth sciences. It is interesting how many of your fellow evolutionists have taken a reality pill and are abandoning your "rock solid" interpretation of evolutionary theory.

Can we see some numbers on that there? Of those abandoning evolution, has any single one done it due to evidence, rather than religious reasons? No.

The several quotes were all from evolutionary scientists explaining the problems with the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a theory, therefore it is not complete. Quote mining will get you nowhere.

There are fewer (true) Christians all the time who are overawed by your “science” (and your intellectual prowess). Dr. David Suzuki is a world renowned Geneticist. He lives in Vancouver, BC and you might call him my province’s “claim to fame” (shame). A die-hard evolutionist, he is now invoking “god” as a first cause for evolution. I cannot give you a source on this right now. I have tried to locate it online. I heard it on TV, probably CBC’s, Nature of Things” a few months ago. He is the narrator of this program. Perhaps another one of the "lurkers" can provide this.

No true scotsman fallacy. You might want to check out the Christian scientist Kenneth Miller, who testified as expert witness against ID in Dover.

Baggins, do you teach in a public educational institution? If so, are you feeling a little threatened by the “Biblical ‘literalists’”? It is interesting (not laughable, but rather sad) that public institutions (governments) must invoke censorship to confine all discussion and teaching of origins in “science” to evolution.

You can get in the science class as soon as you have some science. That is, you have a theory which is explanatory, predictive, falsifiable and parsimonious. Get some research published. Survive peer review.

Creationists want a "free pass" into the classroom. It doesn't work like that - this isn't censorship - this is separation of religion and the state. You're welcome to start up your private school and teach whatever crazy nonsense you like, or, you can do it properly, get some actual evidence, and go public. Somehow I doubt that will ever happen though!

 

[Lakercom]

(I would like to know how Noah's Ark stayed afloat when a boat that large built entirely out of wood flexes so much that it would need constant pumping)

Noah was not a knuckle dragger, unlike the early man that evolutionists need to create to support their theory of evolution.

I ask you this: Given such a painfully slow process of evolution that you adhere to for man (i.e. one million years), why did it take so long for him to develop a written language? Why aren't there earlier manuscripts and why didn't technology develop sooner? I expect the earliest “evidence” of written language is 10,000 BC (CE), using secular (non-biblical) dating. In other wards, why was early man such a dummy? During the times of Adam there were craftsmen in the bible who did metallurgy and developed musical instruments. God created Adam with a full knowledge of agriculture. What would be so hard for Noah to make a pump to remove the water from the ark? There would be animals to power a pump. Have you considered an irrigation pump powered by oxen? Why, with such a superior knowledge of science, could you not figure this one out without my help? It is because you have an anti-biblical worldview and you are set on opposing God and his Word.

The ark was designed by God to have specific dimensions to endure the pounding that it took during the flood. One of the posts to this thread says that the ark had dimensions that would not withstand the “voyage”, but I differ. The ark had a:
width of 1/6th of its length
depth was 1/10th its length
i.e. "450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high" Genesis 6:15b
I refer to a diagram giving mathematical analysis of these dimension ratios:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/ark_tilt_high_res.gif

This diagram is from the link shown below. I tried to cut and paste this simple diagram (single page) but Forums will not let me post images because I do not have enough posts.

The "post-or" (Baggins?, sorry if I am wrong, I cannot find it right now) who claimed the ark’s dimensions were not tenable was probably confusing the dimensions in the Gilgamesh Epic, a Babylonian flood myth. This source had the ark of equal length, width, and depth and in this case, I agree, it could not be seaworthy.

If someone does not recognize the Biblical Flood (of Noah) and prefers to get their “stats” from the Gilgamensh Epic (of Utnapishtim), they are misinformed. There is research that shows how the Gilgamesh account was derived from the biblical account.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

One example, of course, is the dimensions. A flood myth that depends on verbal transmission over generations before a written account is vulnerable to errors, thus the mix-up with the size. Instead of all the accurate dimensions, only one was “remembered” and applied to all three; height, width and depth were the same so it was a cube. It is interesting that many archeologists take an “anything but the Bible” attitude to their research. Much of the secular archeology community did not recognize King David of Israel. Recently a seal of one of King David’s officials, named in the Bible was found in Jerusalem, with the officials name (sorry, don’t have it handy) on it.

Or do you want to get to the root of it and tell us why we should believe the Bible is historical in the first place?

The Bible has proven itself to be a reliable historical document. There have been recording errors but very few. There have also been reporting discrepancies. An example of a reporting discrepancy is the size of the crowds during the feedings of the multitudes in the New Testament gospels. This cannot be used to discredit the Bible. Today, if the New York Times and CNN do not agree on the SIZE of a crowd in their news reports, it does not mean there was no crowd. The role of a scribe in Jewish history was a profession. If a mistake was made the whole section of the document was thrown out and started over again.

Moses was the author of Genesis in approximately 1500 BC (BCE). I realize this is about 800-1,000 years after the flood. He may have used some previously existing manuscripts to record early history in Genesis, which consists of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

I am suggesting there could have been written history back to the days of Adam. If not, God revealed all the early history by divine measures. Considering all the other miracles God did during the time of Moses, divinely revealing the Holy Scriptures is not out of the ordinary for the ministry of Moses. Moses also wrote the four books following Genesis. These five books, the Torah (“the law”), were entrusted by Moses to the Levites, Israel’s priestly tribe and carried in the Ark of the Covenant, a holy chest kept in the tabernacle (holy tent) and later in the Temple of Solomon.

The death of Moses and the handover of leadership to Joshua can be studied in the last chapters of the Torah, Deuteronomy 31 – 34.

To better explain how I arrive at the Bible being historical, I quote the last three verses of the Torah,

Deuteronomy 34: 10-12
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt – to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

Please note that even though Moses wrote this book, it is written in the third person, so obviously a High Priest or someone of high authority would have written the postscript to the book.

Before you dismiss Moses as some kind of quack consider how the Torah has maintained its legitimacy and following by the Jews. The Torah maintained its relevancy and authority to the Jews because all the Jews experienced a national revelation. It has never been repeated in all of human history. God revealed himself to the whole country, approximately 3,000,000 - 5,000,000 people daily (i.e. feeding of manna)! Even Jesus was only seen alive after his death by a maximum of 500 souls at one time. The Torah would never have stood the test of time if it were a fairy tale. A rabbi explained this to me once. For a world religion to “evolve” requires many generations to develop its folklore. If you, FishFace, were going to start your own religion, with you as god, it would take TIME.

The Jews and their Torah appeared overnight, relatively speaking in terms of history and it has been adhered to consistently since then. The Jews are called the "people of the Book" for a reason.

 

[Nitron]

Noah was not a knuckle dragger, unlike the early man that evolutionists need to create to support their theory of evolution.

Ooh strawman.

No-one thinks knuckle draggers existed anymore.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Noah was not a knuckle dragger, unlike the early man that evolutionists need to create to support their theory of evolution.

Who's creating?

Homo neanderthalensis is on the left, and Homo sapiens sapiens is on the right. Our model of human ancestry is supported by evidence and *gasp* fossils. What's yours supported by?

 

[FishFace]

I ask you this: Given such a painfully slow process of evolution that you adhere to for man (i.e. one million years), why did it take so long for him to develop a written language? Why aren't there earlier manuscripts and why didn't technology develop sooner? I expect the earliest “evidence” of written language is 10,000 BC (CE), using secular (non-biblical) dating. In other wards, why was early man such a dummy? During the times of Adam there were craftsmen in the bible who did metallurgy and developed musical instruments. God created Adam with a full knowledge of agriculture. What would be so hard for Noah to make a pump to remove the water from the ark? There would be animals to power a pump. Have you considered an irrigation pump powered by oxen? Why, with such a superior knowledge of science, could you not figure this one out without my help? It is because you have an anti-biblical worldview and you are set on opposing God and his Word.

Tell me - what do you suppose Noah used to build the pump(s - you'd probably need more than one)? How did he make them watertight, able to withstand constant pressure, yet nonetheless able to move? The best pump in ancient times was the Greek water screw - supposedly that came after Noah's pump.
Once again you are just making stuff up - we've got no good reason to suppose that Noah could make any kind of pump, and several good reasons not to - lack of precursors, lack of postcursors, lack of materials.

The ark was designed by God to have specific dimensions to endure the pounding that it took during the flood. One of the posts to this thread says that the ark had dimensions that would not withstand the “voyage”, but I differ. The ark had a:
width of 1/6th of its length
depth was 1/10th its length
i.e. "450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high" Genesis 6:15b
I refer to a diagram giving mathematical analysis of these dimension ratios:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/ark_tilt_high_res.gif

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/ark_tilt_high_res.gif

They give no analysis whatsoever - they give some diagrams, no mathematics whatsoever, and then conclude that the ark could tip up to 60 degrees and right itself. The real measure of how far it could tip is how its centre of gravity is compared to the axis of rotation, and this isn't even knowable from the simple dimensions.
But that is beside the point - we don't want to know how stable it was, we want to know whether it was seaworthy on the presumably rough seas of the flood.
This list gives a number of large wooden ships and how seaworthy they were (with sources - check for yourself if you don't trust wikipedia.) Interesting, you will notice, that as you get over about 300 foot, the vessels need to be "iron and steel-reinforced [to be] viable" for example. They all seem to need reinforcing with metal - not an option for Noah - and had to be constantly pumped (which would take space, materials the likes of which Noah would not have possessed, and designs he must have taken to his grave)

Now, compare those 330 foot wimps to the 450 foot monster of Noah's ark which had to be built with no reinforcement, no pumps (OK, if you can build me a pump out of wood and pitch, and power the thing and keep it running constantly for a year, I'll concede that one) and to withstand heavy seas without sinking for an entire year!

The "post-or" (Baggins?, sorry if I am wrong, I cannot find it right now) who claimed the ark’s dimensions were not tenable was probably confusing the dimensions in the Gilgamesh Epic, a Babylonian flood myth. This source had the ark of equal length, width, and depth and in this case, I agree, it could not be seaworthy.

It is not the ratio of dimensions that is the problem.

If someone does not recognize the Biblical Flood (of Noah) and prefers to get their “stats” from the Gilgamensh Epic (of Utnapishtim), they are misinformed. There is research that shows how the Gilgamesh account was derived from the biblical account.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

Getting my info from actual historians, I find that Gilgamesh is thought to have been kicking about a thousand years or so before the flood.

It is interesting that many archeologists take an “anything but the Bible” attitude to their research.

Really? I'm sure there's plenty of history in the Bible that is more or less accurate - it would be odd if this were not the case. But a 450 foot long wooden boat, when the best possible is 350 or so with steel reinforcement?

Pull the other one.

The Bible has proven itself to be a reliable historical document.

That's bound to be the case if, for every single thing documented in the Bible, you ignore all evidence against it, if there is any.

Today, if the New York Times and CNN do not agree on the SIZE of a crowd in their news reports, it does not mean there was no crowd.

Today we don't rely on word of mouth by superstitious and needy farmers. I find it quite plausible that the feeding of the multitudes/5,000 has its basis in reality - probably, some religious figure was preaching and said, "right folks, time for lunch" then everyone sat down and ate, and some people hadn't brought any so someone handed out some bread and fish. Then it all got blown out of proportion.

Why should I believe the account in the Bible, which requires me to believe in the unverifiable, over this account?

The death of Moses and the handover of leadership to Joshua can be studied in the last chapters of the Torah, Deuteronomy 31 – 34.

Funny you mention Moses. You know how he had to lead a load of folks through the desert for a few years, right? Didn't they leave any litter behind, or light any fires, or make camp, or eat, or... trample?
Because there's no evidence for the Exodus whatsoever.

The Torah would never have stood the test of time if it were a fairy tale. A rabbi explained this to me once. For a world religion to “evolve” requires many generations to develop its folklore. If you, FishFace, were going to start your own religion, with you as god, it would take TIME.

Religions have been evolving for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Loudmouth]

Noah was not a knuckle dragger, unlike the early man that evolutionists need to create to support their theory of evolution.

I ask you this: Given such a painfully slow process of evolution that you adhere to for man (i.e. one million years), why did it take so long for him to develop a written language?

For the same reason it took so long to develop spaceflight.

In other wards, why was early man such a dummy?

They weren't. Are we smarter than people in the 1700's just because we landed on the moon and they didn't?

During the times of Adam there were craftsmen in the bible who did metallurgy and developed musical instruments.

Did they employ elves at a workshop at the North Pole?

What would be so hard for Noah to make a pump to remove the water from the ark?

The same exact thing that prevented Noah from going to the Moon.

The ark was designed by God to have specific dimensions to endure the pounding that it took during the flood.

Then God is a poor designer who didn't know anything about building boats.

 

[Split Rock]

Did they employ elves at a workshop at the North Pole?

LOL!!