Noahs Ark

[Autodidact]

Science is a god to many people, and a false god at that. Much of what passes as 'science' are unsubstantiated theories, such as comets hitting the earth, and evolution being responsible for all life. A relatively short while ago, it was scientific to bleed sick people... (false) Science is left speechless to explain the miraculous processes of life, processes the best minds cannot hope to emulate in well equipped labs. True science and true knowledge, including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate. Where falsely called knowledge is revised frequently, the Bible has stood the test of time for thousands of years. Jesus acknowledged in prayer to his Father, "Your word is truth". (John 17:17)
Having said this, I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices. So be it. The truth will out in due time.

Yes, I understand. You reject science as a way to learn about the natural world, while we accept it. You prefer the Bible.

This is consistent, and makes sense. I just wish all creationists were this honest. To practice your religion, you have to reject science. I prefer to accept science and reject your religion. You would have been comfortable in the 9th century. I think we're learned a lot since then, thanks to science. You think we learned everything we need to know about 2000 years ago.

Tell me, when you're sick, do you follow the Bible for a cure, or do you use science?

Here's another question, do you enjoy using a computer at all?

 

[Autodidact]

True science and true knowledge, including archeology, has many times shown the Bible to be accurate.

Could you tell us what you mean by "true science?" How is it different from science?

Having said this, I realize many people will believe what makes them feel more comfortable with their life and choices. So be it. The truth will out in due time.

I agree.

 

[Autodidact]

Many use the bullying tactics commonly used by many scientists and academics who seek to quell dissent from the 'scientific orthodoxy' and ban heretics to the realm of the ignorant and foolish.

You obviously know nothing about it. What you are talking about is how the church behaves. This is the opposite of how science works. There's nothing more successful than a new challenging theory--supported by the evidence.

There are many scientists who reject evolution as a theory because they believe the evidence doesn't support this theory.

Liar. Name ten biologists who reject the Theory of Evolution. Not chiropracters or engineers, Biologists. Not "encourage skepticism, but reject.

Often those scientists who have these honest beliefs are afraid to state them, fearing professional ostracism from their peers.

People who do bad science get fired. Good science means good methodology. If they use bad methodology, they get fired. If they use good methodology, they get awards.

This may be denied by the scientific establishment, but is the truth nevertheless.

No it's not. You're

a liar--like all YECs. People don't look at the evidence in most cases. They just blindly follow the propaganda drummed into them from an early age by teachers and the media whose constant refrain when discussing the natural world is 'evolved, evolution, evolved'. If you doubt this, just listen carefully to the next nature program you come across on TV.

You mean creationists. Creationists don't look at the evidence. Science = looking at the evidence and only the evidence.

Evolution cannot be reconciled to the Bible's account of creation.

That's right. And?

Those who believe in the theory often have already rejected the Bible as accurate history, and consider the creation account a myth.

Actually what happened was scientists learned that ToE is correct, which caused those of them who previously believed that Genesis was correct learned they were mistaken.

For example:
A 1938 New York Times headline announced: “Church of England Report Upholds Evolutionary Idea of the Creation.” The report, by a commission under the Archbishop of York, stated: “No objection to a theory of evolution can be drawn from the two creation narratives in Genesis I and II, since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin and that their value for us is symbolic rather than historical.” The archbishop’s commission concluded: “You can think what you like and still be Christian.”

Yes, that's their theology. What does this have to do with anything?

The Bible does not say you can think what you like and still be Christian. Millions of people are Christian in name only. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus taught the creation account as being historical fact, referring to Adam and Eve as real people.
Neither does the Bible say the Earth is any particular age. So the Bible is misquoted by those who claim God created the earth in 6 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible say the Earth is a flat circle with edges. So much nonsense is taught and claimed it is in the Bible. It is not. Many find it convenient to believe in something that allows them to make decisions about conduct that reflects selfish interests and lack of concern for others.
It takes courage to take the blinders off our eyes and see the truth and implications of what the Bible at Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Yes, I understand. Bible yes, science no. I get it.

 

[skydivephil]

Many use the bullying tactics commonly used by many scientists and academics who seek to quell dissent from the 'scientific orthodoxy' and ban heretics to the realm of the ignorant and foolish. There are many scientists who reject evolution as a theory because they believe the evidence doesn't support this theory. Often those scientists who have these honest beliefs are afraid to state them, fearing professional ostracism from their peers. This may be denied by the scientific establishment, but is the truth nevertheless. People don't look at the evidence in most cases. They just blindly follow the propaganda drummed into them from an early age by teachers and the media whose constant refrain when discussing the natural world is 'evolved, evolution, evolved'. If you doubt this, just listen carefully to the next nature program you come across on TV.

Evolution cannot be reconciled to the Bible's account of creation. Those who believe in the theory often have already rejected the Bible as accurate history, and consider the creation account a myth. For example:
A 1938 New York Times headline announced: “Church of England Report Upholds Evolutionary Idea of the Creation.” The report, by a commission under the Archbishop of York, stated: “No objection to a theory of evolution can be drawn from the two creation narratives in Genesis I and II, since it is generally agreed among educated Christians that these are mythological in origin and that their value for us is symbolic rather than historical.” The archbishop’s commission concluded: “You can think what you like and still be Christian.”
The Bible does not say you can think what you like and still be Christian. Millions of people are Christian in name only. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus taught the creation account as being historical fact, referring to Adam and Eve as real people.
Neither does the Bible say the Earth is any particular age. So the Bible is misquoted by those who claim God created the earth in 6 24-hour days. Neither does the Bible say the Earth is a flat circle with edges. So much nonsense is taught and claimed it is in the Bible. It is not. Many find it convenient to believe in something that allows them to make decisions about conduct that reflects selfish interests and lack of concern for others.
It takes courage to take the blinders off our eyes and see the truth and implications of what the Bible at Genesis 1:1 says: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

The only bullying tactics used by science is the demand for evidence. If you present ideas like ID without any evidence expect to get shot down. There is no evidence for creation and emormous amounts of evidence for evolution. Its that simple.

 

[rusra02]

The only bullying tactics used by science is the demand for evidence. If you present ideas like ID without any evidence expect to get shot down. There is no evidence for creation and emormous amounts of evidence for evolution. Its that simple.

These types of smug assertions have been made and made times without number.

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, said:
“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”​

An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: “Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”

September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”
“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”
The article didn't sit well with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent defender of evolution as a fact, not just a theory. His rebuttal of Kristol’s article was published in a science magazine, Discover, January 1987 issue. It revealed the very dogmatism Kristol exposed.
In his essay, Gould repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact. A few examples: Darwin established “the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun).” By the time Darwin died, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.”
Was it Hitler that spoke about the Big Lie? A lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
That well describes the "evidence" for evolution....​

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Do you even know how fossils are formed?

And there is no proof of god let alone intenediary proof yet you still believe in him.

-Q

 

[skydivephil]

These types of smug assertions have been made and made times without number.

Interviewed in a documentary film, Professor Maciej Giertych, a noted geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, said:
“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.” He added: “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”​

An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: “Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”

September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”
“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”
The article didn't sit well with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, a fervent defender of evolution as a fact, not just a theory. His rebuttal of Kristol’s article was published in a science magazine, Discover, January 1987 issue. It revealed the very dogmatism Kristol exposed.
In his essay, Gould repeated a dozen times his assertion that evolution is a fact. A few examples: Darwin established “the fact of evolution.” “The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun).” By the time Darwin died, “nearly all thinking people came to accept the fact of evolution.”
Was it Hitler that spoke about the Big Lie? A lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
That well describes the "evidence" for evolution....​

You are absoloutley wrong that information cant be generated spontanously.
Here's an example
PLoS ONE: Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space
here is another
https://www.llnl.gov/str/September02/Blank.html
and here is another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
You can dream all you like that complexity needs an intelligent agent but you do so in ignorance of the facts.

As to your quotes, the first guy is not a geneticist , hes a dendrologist, this is not the study of genetics but the study of wooded plants. Hes makes other ludicrous claims such as these anti semitic ones here:
Polish EU legislator's anti-Semitic booklet sparks outrage - Haaretz - Israel News
note he didnt publish his views in any professional journal.

Philip johnson is a lawyer who argued evolution couldnt stand up to evidene presented in modern day court room. He advised school boards to teach ID hoping to get a case into court. Thats exactly what happened and he got a conservative judge appointed by creationsits Rick Santorum to rule on the case. And what happened? it turned out the evidene for evolution presented in the court room was overwhelming and the judge ruled against the creationsist. lol
Watch lecture on the trial by one of the key witnesses, cell biologist Ken Miller here:
ken miller - Google Videos

Your last guy Irving Kristol is not a profeesor at New York Univeristy mainly because hes dead. He did hold the Hnery Luce Professorship of Urban Values, how does this make him an authority on biology?

Even if all your guys were qualified to talk on this subject, which they arent , they still need to publsih evidence for their views , which they haven't. They also all happen to campaign for Conservative Christian views, not exaclty unbiased scientists. Thats coupled with the evdience posted above is why sceintists consider anti evolutionsist no different to flat earthers.

 

[MountainHumanist]

Has this topic wet itself? Does it need to be changed? The original discussion was "How did they fit a pair of Brontosaurus on the ark? Where do these lifeforms fit into the Bible? I've not seen a reference."

Either you accept evolution as a valid theory that has been verified many times over the centuries or you believe that ancient religious texts should be read literally, both as a spiritual guide to living and as a scientific treatise.

It seems both sides are pretty well entrenched and will continue to hurl Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe at each other ad nauseum.

Why are there no debates on the earth and the sun's relationship or the roundness of the earth — seems like we could add that into the mix?

Seems pretty darn clear that the Noahachian account of a worldwide flood cannot be taken literally and was likely adapted from earlier Sumerian and Babylonian myths with regards to the frequent flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

 

[Gunfingers]

Has this topic wet itself?

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

[MSizer]

...There are many scientists who reject evolution as a theory because they believe the evidence doesn't support this theory. Often those scientists who have these honest beliefs are afraid to state them, fearing professional ostracism from their peers.

That's how science works! It's like a free market. If your product is good (or your scientific proposition) then it will stand the test of criticism. If it is not good, then you go back to the drawing board (of if you're an IDer, you cry to the government instead and try to force daddy to allow your side to be appreciated rather than face reality).

If your peers don't accept your proposition, it's not because your peers are mean, it's because your proposition isn't a good one. If you want to sulk about it, do so in silence so the rest of us can move on with serious endeavours.

 

[rusra02]

That's how science works! It's like a free market. If your product is good (or your scientific proposition) then it will stand the test of criticism. If it is not good, then you go back to the drawing board (of if you're an IDer, you cry to the government instead and try to force daddy to allow your side to be appreciated rather than face reality).

If your peers don't accept your proposition, it's not because your peers are mean, it's because your proposition isn't a good one. If you want to sulk about it, do so in silence so the rest of us can move on with serious endeavours.

No, that's how an inquisition works. You toe the (evolution) doctrinal line or you're labeled a (scientific) heretic for believing the evidence and daring to say the emperor has no clothes... You stand to lose your job and career because you dare say what you know the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports.

 

[freethinker44]

No, that's how an inquisition works. You toe the (evolution) doctrinal line or you're labeled a (scientific) heretic for believing the evidence and daring to say the emperor has no clothes... You stand to lose your job and career because you dare say what you know the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports.

So that must be why Eisntein got fired from the patent office and then couldn't get work in any science lab or teaching facility. It also explains why he was laughed at and made to look like a complete idiot to the whole world and is credited with nothing at all in any scientific community.

Oh wait, actually none of that happened. In fact every major discovery that went against common thinking and every scientist who has made that discovery and proved his theory became revered legends in their fields.

Science is the opposite of the inquisition. If a scientist proves another scientist wrong he is made a hero, not a martyr.

 

[Autodidact]

No, that's how an inquisition works. You toe the (evolution) doctrinal line or you're labeled a (scientific) heretic for believing the evidence and daring to say the emperor has no clothes... You stand to lose your job and career because you dare say what you know the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports.

You should be sued for slander. This is an utter, total, absolute lie. I'm guessing someone is feeding you this trash; you should stop eating it.

Showing someone to be wrong is NOT the same as branding them a heretic. It's the opposite.

Tell you what, why don't you present the overwhelming evidence in favor of the theory that God magically poofed two of each species into existence 6000 years ago, so we can annihilate it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In Genesis there is nothing to say that God magically poofed two of each species into existence 6,000 years ago. 'Day' in Scripture is a relative term. For example: Genesis 2:4 shows all of the six creative days are summed up as one day.

No one know how long each creative day is. Genesis is dealing with getting the already existing earth ready for mankind to inhabit from two different viewpoints.

 

[freethinker44]

In Genesis there is nothing to say that God magically poofed two of each species into existence 6,000 years ago. 'Day' in Scripture is a relative term. For example: Genesis 2:4 shows all of the six creative days are summed up as one day.

No one know how long each creative day is. Genesis is dealing with getting the already existing earth ready for mankind to inhabit from two different viewpoints.

Makes perfect sense if you force it to.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Makes perfect sense if you force it to.

What is forced? Can you show where the length of time is listed for the 'creative days' ? Or even if they are of equal length.

 

[freethinker44]

What is forced? Can you show where the length of time is listed for the 'creative days' ? Or even if they are of equal length.

The bible isn't the source of the different measurements, it is men and women who make up different measurements to make impossible biblical events more plausible. The only way to rationally justify biblical creation against what is known for fact is to change the duration of a day. So that is what you do. The bible doesn't need to say how long a day is, and even if it did, what would stop people from "saying 24 "creation" hours is really millions of years"? The bible can say whatever it wants, the bible isn't the problem, people who "interpret" the bible or any religious book are the problem.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The bible isn't the source of the different measurements, it is men and women who make up different measurements to make impossible biblical events more plausible. The only way to rationally justify biblical creation against what is known for fact is to change the duration of a day. So that is what you do. The bible doesn't need to say how long a day is, and even if it did, what would stop people from "saying 24 "creation" hours is really millions of years"? The bible can say whatever it wants, the bible isn't the problem, people who "interpret" the bible or any religious book are the problem.

Agree, the Bible isn't the problem. Luke wrote (Acts 20:29,30) that wolf-like people in sheep's clothing, so to speak, would be the problem.

Often times people only know what they hear from the pulpit and not examine for themselves. Wouldn't you agree that according to Matthew chapter 23 that the oral teachings and customs of the religious leaders of his day were the source for the many 'Woes' pronounced against them ?
(Mark 7:7; Matt 15:9)

 

[freethinker44]

Agree, the Bible isn't the problem. Luke wrote (Acts 20:29,30) that wolf-like people in sheep's clothing, so to speak, would be the problem.

Right, and I believe it even gives out the death penalty for adding to or taking away from scriputes in revelations, but isn't changing the meaning of a word or phrase, even though no original words have actually been changed, isn't that still changing the text?

 

[Arlanbb]

In Genesis there is nothing to say that God magically poofed two of each species into existence 6,000 years ago. 'Day' in Scripture is a relative term. For example: Genesis 2:4 shows all of the six creative days are summed up as one day.

No one know how long each creative day is.
YES we do know UEAVIP2ME GOD said so in the bible in the fourth commandment, Ex 20:11. "..in six days the lord made heaven and the earth...and rested the seventh day. GOD uses the word "DAY" 5 times here and each time it is the same word in Hebrew and it is the same word that is used in Genesis. GOD means 24 hour days here and in Genesis.:yes::yes:
Genesis is dealing with getting the already existing earth ready for mankind to inhabit from two different viewpoints.

..................................................................................................