Problems with the theory of evolution

[Loudmouth]

We don't need a higher education.

We've got 5-year-olds that can look an evolutionist right in the eyes and tell him evolution is wrong.

I will agree that your scientific knowledge is on par with a 5 year old, but I fail to understand why you are proud of this.

 

[Nostromo]

Here's something I found along that line:

That seems to imply that science is useless or scientists are liars.

 

[Skaloop]

You're lucky I can't find it, but [I think] Jazer asked that if science could corroborate the Bible, would I be for science, and I said NO.

Here's something I found along that line:

I don't agree.

If they found Noah's Ark, it would just make matters worse, as scientists would just get in there and either deny it was the Ark, or "discover" something that would contradict the Bible in some way (like it being made of maple wood, or some such nonsense).

And I have no doubt that they would date it to BC 50,000 or longer.

This is why I think God, in His wisdom, didn't leave evidence lying around all over the place.

Say that an ark was found, fitting the dimensions described in the Bible. It is dated to ca. 2000 BC. It shows signs of pine pitch. Upon studying it's construction, modern naval engineers deem it seaworthy and had a large carrying capacity. It has living quarters suitable for 8 people. They also find residue (waste, fur, molted skin, etc.) from a wide variety of species which currently occupy separate and distinct geographies. Would you accept the science then? Would you use those findings to support the flood narrative as historically accurate?

 

[Doveaman]

I don't get it.

The OP started a thread and you guys are only responding to AV.

Are you guys trying to derail the thread?

 

[Skaloop]

I don't get it.

The OP started a thread and you guys are only responding to AV.

Because this thread was started in 2003, AV has resurrected it, and the OP hasn't posted anything on CF since 2004. Responding to her would be pointless.

Of course, responding to AV can be pretty pointless, too, but at least he's still around.

 

[AV1611VET]

Say that an ark was found, fitting the dimensions described in the Bible. It is dated to ca. 2000 BC. It shows signs of pine pitch. Upon studying it's construction, modern naval engineers deem it seaworthy and had a large carrying capacity.

I do not believe the Ark was seaworthy on its own.

The turbulence of a flood as described in Genesis 7 would have turned it into toothpicks.

It has living quarters suitable for 8 people. They also find residue (waste, fur, molted skin, etc.) from a wide variety of species which currently occupy separate and distinct geographies. Would you accept the science then?

I guess I would have to, if scientists deemed it as such.

My boolean standards would certainly require I do so.

Would you use those findings to support the flood narrative as historically accurate?

Absolutely not.

I'm sure scientists would assume it was built (and used) for a local flood, or simply built as a "big barn" to wait out a torrential downpour that occurred in the Mesopotamian region.

 

[Jazer]

I will agree that your scientific knowledge is on par with a 5 year old, but I fail to understand why you are proud of this.

What level should we rate your Bible knowledge? This door swings both ways. Science expects the Bible people to know Science yet we see many people come here that have no knowledge of the Bible at all. Why do we not see you attacking them for their lack of Bible wisdom and understanding?

 

[Jazer]

I'm sure scientists would assume it was built (and used) for a local flood, or simply built as a "big barn" to wait out a torrential downpour that occurred in the Mesopotamian region.

So you do not prescribe to the theory that Noah sailed around the world to pick up all the animals and then sailed around the world a second time to drop them off in the exact location that he found them? I think the Bible says that God caused all the Animals to go to the Ark so that Noah did not have to round them all up.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm sure scientists would assume it was built (and used) for a local flood, or simply built as a "big barn" to wait out a torrential downpour that occurred in the Mesopotamian region.

But I'm not asking what scientists would assume, I am asking whether you would use their findings to support your position.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'm not asking what scientists would assume, I am asking whether you would use their findings to support your position.

You're not giving me enough to go on.

For the record, I believe that Noah dismantled the Ark to build his home; so I don't think the Ark exists in the first place.

If scientists found what you think they found, I'm changing my original answer to: No, I would not believe they found the actual ark used by Noah and his family.

 

[Skaloop]

You're not giving me enough to go on.

For the record, I believe that Noah dismantled the Ark to build his home; so I don't think the Ark exists in the first place.

If scientists found what you think they found, I'm changing my original answer to: No, I would not believe they found the actual ark used by Noah and his family.

Very well. Where in the Bible does it say that Noah used the remains of the Ark to build his home? As far as I am aware, it doesn't. So how does that fit with your Boolean Standards (specifically #3: If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it)?

 

[Loudmouth]

What level should we rate your Bible knowledge?

What does it have to do with the topic? The christian apologetics forum is down the hall. You will notice that I am not in that forum. I am in the science forum.

What level should we rate your Harry Potter knowledge? It has as much to do with science as the Bible does.

Science expects the Bible people to know Science yet we see many people come here that have no knowledge of the Bible at all.

We expect people to have knowledge of the science when talking about science. You will notice that I do not argue which biblical interpretation is correct. Just pick one and stick with it, that is all I ask.

Why do we not see you attacking them for their lack of Bible wisdom and understanding?

Because we are not judging the truth of claims by their adherence to christian theology. We are judging claims by their adherence to the scientific evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

I won't even dignify this with a response.

It might be best then to stop using the 5-year-old argument then.

 

[Split Rock]

What level should we rate your Bible knowledge?

This thread is about asserted problems with the theory of evolution.... not about bible knowledge.

This door swings both ways.

Yet it hits you guys on the rear each way it swings. (LOL)

Science expects the Bible people to know Science yet we see many people come here that have no knowledge of the Bible at all.

"Science" doesn't expect anything of anyone. Those of us who support evolution do expect a minimum amount of understanding of the scientific theories that you guys bring up to critisize, however.

Why do we not see you attacking them for their lack of Bible wisdom and understanding?

I attack you guys all the time for your lack of Bible wisdom and understanding.

 

[Split Rock]

For the record, I believe that Noah dismantled the Ark to build his home; so I don't think the Ark exists in the first place.

You know AVET, others may critisize you for this answer, but I think it is a sensible hypothesis. Noah would certainly not have a use for the ark after the flood was over with. One would also think there would be a serious lack of usable wood after the flood as well. It would be an obvious decision to break the ark up and make use of all that nice gopher wood. He would have quite a lot left over, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know AVET, others may critisize you for this answer, but I think it is a sensible hypothesis.

Thank you, sir!

Noah would certainly not have a use for the ark after the flood was over with.

I agree.

Unless God would have wanted it to stand as a monumental testimony of the Flood, but I doubt it.

One would also think there would be a serious lack of usable wood after the flood as well.

I'm not so sure about that. The dove brought back an olive leaf, so that shows flora in bloom.

I really think God had a direct hand in kick-starting the earth again and getting it back up to habitability.

It would be an obvious decision to break the ark up and make use of all that nice gopher wood.

Yes, sir!

He would have quite a lot left over, though.

I believe there was a super population boom after the Flood, so I'm sure it would have been in high demand until they got sufficient tools to cut down trees themselves.

 

[USincognito]

12th December 2003, 07:21 PM

 

[British Bulldog]

I always liked the example Moses set when he returned with the ten commandments including Thou Shalt Not Kill and immediately ordered the murder of 3000 people.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I always liked the example Moses set when he returned with the ten commandments including Thou Shalt Not Kill and immediately ordered the murder of 3000 people.

Not to mention that jerk Egyptian that was clowning him.

 

[Greg1234]

I always liked the example Moses set when he returned with the ten commandments including Thou Shalt Not Kill and immediately ordered the murder of 3000 people.

Did you hear the one about the policeman who killed a civilian?