Rabbits in the Precambrian

[AV1611VET]

The flood was local to Mesopotamia.

Then why was Noah aboard the Ark for over a year?

Good job responding.

I cited a scientific study, with hard evidence.

You cited your personal interpretation of Scripture, and didn't even try to refute my point

Let me let you in on a well-known fact about me here.

I can take a post with two pages of charts, graphs, photos, links, stats, anecdotes, and personal testimonies and brush them off with one Bible verse.

I'm fond of saying:

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

Many people have given up trying to 'talk sense into my head.

 

[laconicstudent]

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a pwns abiogenesis.

Many people have given up trying to 'talk sense into my head.

Yes, clearly. Well that only works if you hold Genesis to be literal... But your more rational then Dad, at least.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, clearly. Well that only works if you hold Genesis to be literal.

I studied under the likes of Peter S. Ruckman and Gail A. Riplinger ---

 

[Wedjat]

AV
You seem to think that thinking of some way that creationism could conceivably be falsified would somehow discredit it, let me explain this to you.
Without a way to be falsified, it becomes an absolute negative. If it is an absolute negative, it is a worthless hypothesis that is automatically discarded.
If you want to give any validity to creationism, there needs to be a way to falsify it. Trust me, you want to come up with something, otherwise creationism becomes no more valid than the statement "My left big toe can communicate with the dead when I dip it in applesauce"

 

[USincognito]

AV
You seem to think that thinking of some...

And you seem to be thinking that responding to his antics will somehow prove fruitful. It won't. The sooner you ignore him, the sooner the overall quality of discussion here will go up.

 

[Wedjat]

And you seem to be thinking that responding to his antics will somehow prove fruitful. It won't. The sooner you ignore him, the sooner the overall quality of discussion here will go up.

Probably.
I'll give him one more go at answering the question.
Catz gave an intellectually honest answer AV, why can't you?

 

[Alunyel]

Many people have given up trying to 'talk sense into my head.

That's because it's impossible. Rationality and you are like oil and water.

Still, we can continue to refute your smeg, to help prevent others, such as lurkers, from thinking that you've got a valid point.

 

[USincognito]

Still, we can continue to refute your smeg, to help prevent others, such as lurkers, from thinking that you've got a valid point.

TRUST ME, as someone who's been here a long time. The lurkers are smarter than that and replying to his antics just clogs up what would otherwise be informative threads.

 

[Wedjat]

In all fairness, without that many creationists on here to actually answer my question, I doubt this thread was really going to go anywhere informative anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV
You seem to think that thinking of some way that creationism could conceivably be falsified would somehow discredit it, let me explain this to you.

Wedjat, trust me when I say that I really cannot think of any way in which the Creation Week can be falsified.

Neither can you guys.

It was not done by science, it did not leave any evidence behind, and it was done by an act of omnipotence.

That's the nature of it.

If you think it even should have any kind of evidence whatsoever --- whatsoever --- please document it here: 1.

What kind of evidence would you expect to find when, just prior to the earth coming into existence, the amount of mass/energy in the universe is zero?

What kind of applied science would you expect to explain a universe that started out at zero mass/energy, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days?

 

[DrkSdBls]

What kind of applied science would you expect to explain a universe that started out at zero mass/energy, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days?

They'll answer that question as soon as you explain how the Universe started out as "Zero mass/energy."

Even if God existed before before the universe, It counts as Energy, even at the point of existance.

This is why I've Decided that this Universe "IS" God (or maybe god (little "g")) It's the only thing that makes any sense anymore. The was no beginning. there will be no End. It just changes again and again, Starting anew every 5,000,000 Trilion years (give or take an month or 2.)

 

[laconicstudent]

It was not done by science, it did not leave any evidence behind, and it was done by an act of omnipotence.

The "God of the Gaps" argument is a logical fallacy.

If you think it even should have any kind of evidence whatsoever --- whatsoever --- please document it here: 1.

How about all the radiometric dating, transition fossils, astrophysics evidence supporting the Big Bang theory such as universal expansion and residual background noise, mutations which lead to functional development which can be observed in scientific studies in bacteria, evidence of civilizations older then 6,000 years, genome studies showing that humans migrated from Africa about 60-70 thousand years ago.

What kind of evidence would you expect to find when, just prior to the earth coming into existence, the amount of mass/energy in the universe is zero?

That is a good question. I think you should answer it.

What kind of applied science would you expect to explain a universe that started out at zero mass/energy, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days?

We have no idea. That is why Creationism is a religious belief that has no basis in science. You are perfectly welcome to hold to creationism as a religious belief, but you should realize that every time you try and insist it is consistent with a scientific and logical reality, you are going to lose.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have no idea. That is why Creationism is a religious belief that has no basis in science. You are perfectly welcome to hold to creationism as a religious belief, but you should realize that every time you try and insist it is consistent with a scientific and logical reality, you are going to lose.

Normally I would invite you to plod through my almost 925,000 posts to see if I insist that Creationism is consistent with science, but I'll go ahead and do the work for you: 12.

In other words --- you're wrong about me.

 

[catzrfluffy]

First, Who is this Being to call himself God? (I've asked the question before and I've never been answered, "What is 'God'? Who can define "God" to me.)

God has many attributes, they are listed throughout the bible, sorry to just post a link but the list is long:
Names of God (God's names) (WebBible? Encyclopedia) - ChristianAnswers.Net
1way2God.net - The Character of God
Let Me See Thy Glory - A Study of the Attributes of God | Bible.org | Home of NET Bible on-line, Bible Study tools, Free Bible
God's name is "I am". In short he is eternal and immortal and invisible, almighty and righteous and holy and all these things beyond the ability of the mind to comprehend, and God is love, and made each one of us "and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ " (Acts 17:26-28)
If God stood before all of us in person as he really is, we would not argue over whether he was God or if what he said is true, it would be plainly undeniably obvious to all of us.

The flood was local to Mesopotamia.

There are unnervingly similar flood stories from all over the world:
Flood Stories from Around the World

If it wasn't, every male now living would have a Y-chromosomal haplogroup that originated from Mesopotamia...

That's modern Mesopotamia though. Who knows what genetics would be like before a worldwide flood?

Instead all Y chromosomal haplogroups are descended from Africa.

The flood was a local event, since the last male common ancestor lived 60,000 years ago in Africa.

The out-of-Africa theory is apparently disputed
BBC News | SCI/TECH | Fossil challenge to Africa theory
Human Fossil Found in China May Contradict ‘Out of Africa' Theory - April 4, 2007 - The New York Sun
Were our earliest hominid ancestors European? - life - 01 June 2009 - New Scientist#
Fossil in China Challenges `Out of Africa' Theory of Evolution - Bloomberg.com
Star: Researchers sow doubt over Mother Africa
http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/45685.htm
"Out of Africa" View of Early Human Origins Disputed

 

[AV1611VET]

There are unnervingly similar flood stories from all over the world:

They might be 'unnervingly similar', but unless they are exactly as the King James Bible describes it, I wouldn't put much stock in them.

But that's just me.

 

[sbvera13]

There are also rivers that flood seasonally around the world. The Yangtse, Nile, Amazon, Mississippi, Sacramento... what we now call the Sacramento Valley was once called the Inland Sea by the Maidu. It's not exactly hard to come by a large population living in a flood zone.

 

[DrkSdBls]

They might be 'unnervingly similar', but unless they are exactly as the King James Bible describes it, I wouldn't put much stock in them.

But that's just me.

Nai, nai!~ The sad fact is, there is more evidence towards them then the Noah version....... Cep' they're all local, and often many hundred years apart!

My Theory...... Tidal Waves. Makes sense...... It also must of been what sunk Atlantis too! There's evidence of an Island in the Mediterranian of an Island that Sunk (or rather Wash away.) I saw a Documentry many many many many (damn, I'm old) years ago about it..... Well, rather it was about the likely-hood of Atlantis being real but they talked about this island too and I thought it interesting to mention although it really doesn't have nothing to do with this topic so I really really don't even know why I brought it up but isn't it cool that a whole island could be dragged under the sea like that???

 

[Wedjat]

Normally I would invite you to plod through my almost 925,000 posts to see if I insist that Creationism is consistent with science, but I'll go ahead and do the work for you: 12.

In other words --- you're wrong about me.

AV, the majority of your posts are counting threads.

And you change the meaning of creation to mean what you want it to mean.

Without being able to falsify it, your hypothesis is worthless to us. Because evolution is science, the creation evolution debate is held on sciences turf. If you want to debate it on religions turf, you need to go to philosophy, but as long as science is involved, what you argue is not, in any way shape or form, consistent with science.

 

[Alunyel]

Nai, nai!~ The sad fact is, there is more evidence towards them then the Noah version....... Cep' they're all local, and often many hundred years apart!

My Theory...... Tidal Waves. Makes sense......

I've got it pinned down on the fossils of sea dwelling creatures being found inland. Coupled with ancient beliefs about some supernatural being, their god/s causing a flood that put those fossils there makes it easy to udnerstand why so many cultures have a flood myth.

Thousands of years later and we actually know how they got there, got nothin' to do with a global flood.

 

[laconicstudent]

Without being able to falsify it, your hypothesis is worthless to us. Because evolution is science, the creation evolution debate is held on sciences turf. If you want to debate it on religions turf, you need to go to philosophy, but as long as science is involved, what you argue is not, in any way shape or form, consistent with science.

^^This. Thank you, Wedjat.


/thread.