Creation vs Evolution

[doc_bean]

Oh dear, sorry about that. Forgot that I had copied something else, as the quick reply failed once again.

Anyway, why did the movie miss out the dolphins? Or did I fall asleep at the wrong moment?

It was the very first scene, even before the titles iirc. It also worked much better in the book, as did everything else that was in the movie. Read the books, seriously (just the first three, the rest is crap...)

[Quietus]

Well there are two possibilities - either the Pope did tell Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang itself, or he didn't. Evidence in favour of the Pope having done so is his SH's statement and the fact he has repeated it consistently i.e when he re-tells the story severall times he doesn't vary it signficantly. Evidence against the Pope saying this is:

no similar statements from other attendees
no evidence in the text of the address that such a statement was made
no evidence of the Pope making similar statements at other times
the fact that such a statement would be inconsistent with the Pope's approach to science
to say that the moment of creation was the work of God but the rest of nature is not is theologically flawed. I think the Pope would realise this, but Stephen Hawking might not.


Make up your own mind, based on the evidence. Ok Duke. Coincidentally I clicked upon this Hawking 'quotes' link and behold the answer. :)

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_SHawking.htm

and I quote:

At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference --
Note the line i've bolded was not in your first link's quote: (http://sycophants.info/hawking.html). Hence, what the pope said was not recorded since the event or encounter Hawking was referring to occurred after the conference. :)

[Duke of Gloucester]

Interesting, but it also says "participants" and "us". It would be interesting to see if any other delegates have the same recollection of the audience. If they do, then we can take Hawking's account as being reliable. Until there is corroborating testimony, other objections (especially the theological one) suggest to me that he has not remembered or did not understand what he was told.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Anyway, why did the movie miss out the dolphins? Or did I fall asleep at the wrong moment?

The movie was terrible. Any time you were asleep was the right moment.

[Tribesman]

http://www.jengajam.com/r/dolphins-so-long-thank
A message from the dolphins

[ICantSpellDawg]

do life, morality or purpose make any more sense either way?

[Papewaio]

do life, morality or purpose make any more sense either way?

From the point of view of your genes, yes they do. If any of the strategies you choose helps spread those genes (not necessairly from you, but from your group that shares said genes) then they all have a purpose. So a moral code may just be a vehicle for the genes to spread, it may be an independent meme or it could be an interaction between the two... the strongest possibly being a symbiotic relationship between meme and gene (though shalt procreate being an obvious one)

[AwesomeArcher]

I believe in Evolution, but i still think that there is something "else" out there that is helping everything along. So I voted combo.

[crossroad]

First let me say, what you read was part of the actual article. I put the link at the bottom but did not mean to plagiarize.


OK. Amphibians can't survive a year without any land. They require land as they are semi terrestrial. Insects can't survive either. Housefly: 2 weeks. mayfly: 1 day.
I'm sure most of the Amphibians did die, along with the dryland animals that did not make it on the ark. My theory is that there was some sort of moonpool in the middle of the ark. Whether it accomidated Amphibians or not, I don't know. I think most insects would have been wiped out as well, but the massive amount of debris that would have been floating, scattered around the world would have saved a small remnant. For all we know, half the worlds "kinds" of animals might have went extinct because of the flood. Remember, God can do what he wants to. But I think the data we have does a fair job showing how Noah's ark could have happened. Also, the bible does not say the earth was under water for a whole year. Parts of the earth would have been drying up much earlier, tops of mountains would have quickly been a refuge for some creatures that did not make it on the ark.


So, cyotes, foxes, wolves all came from the same animal. How?
If we go with the idea that Noah took only one kind, then the answer is yes. The bible did not list which animals he took.


The assumptions that you make in that all animals can be placed in boxes for a year is risable. Many species need domains which are miles in size. They'll go mad (literally) in a box.
I made no assumptions that they were placed in boxes (don't make me call you a hillbilly evolutionist):inquisitive: but God did tell Noah to build rooms in it. We don't know how big these room were. Noah did not have to go out and round any animals up. They filed in as if God himself had his hand on them leading them. We don't know if they were in their own little cages, or if they roamed free on the ark. Either way, God was in control of everything.


100 years to construct a boat. Of wood. The bottom wood not at all affected by the weight, nor rot. LOL
God told Noah to line it with pitch. It would not have rotted. As far as the weight is concerned, big boats often haul heavy loads. Noah would have had to use giant logs from trees making the ark extremely stout. And wood floats!!!:laugh4: Like you said, a 100 year construction.


And then: food. Herbivores eat can eat masses of food. Carnivores eat meat - and generally fresh meat as well. fresh meat that lasts for a year... :inquisitive:
Noah was instructed to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal. I think the extra animals were actually food for the meat eaters. Sounds harsh, but this was a devistating time in earths history. Plus animals would have been born - a small "circle of life" for any of you Elton John fans. I know this brings up questions about lions hunting on the ark, or rattle snakes striking those that came to close, but as I said before, there would not have been chaos, God was in control.



Where does micro-evolution end and macro evolution begin? Surely it is all a question of the length of time that it is measured over.
micro-evolution never ends.
macro-evolution never begins.
There can be changes within the species, but never changes to different species.

Great questions rory thanks! :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

Hmmmm...crossroad contradicts himself :dizzy2:

The bible did not list which animals he took.

Noah was instructed to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal.


My theory is that there was some sort of moonpool in the middle of the ark.
yep that would look nice , in conjunction with the greenhouse .

God told Noah to line it with pitch.
Ah , Pitch , now what pitch would this be ?

As far as the weight is concerned, big boats often haul heavy loads. Noah would have had to use giant logs from trees making the ark extremely stout. And wood floats!!!
So you not only do not understand scientific theories , you don't understand maritime engineering .
Remember, God can do what he wants to
They filed in as if God himself had his hand on them leading them.
God was in control of everything.
God was in control.
oh look , everytime it looks like you are talking bollox ....God did it:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Also, the bible does not say the earth was under water for a whole year.
doesn't it ?:inquisitive:

First let me say, what you read was part of the actual article. I put the link at the bottom but did not mean to plagiarize.

You don't mean to say that you are just repeating the rubbish from those sites you linked , what a surprise .:no:

Any thoughts on the rainbow yet:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

I'm in many ways a lot happier when theories rely on God doing everything, as logical argument gives up at that point. Why did God not just vanish the bad people unstead of flooding the world? Meh, he just did. Bad mood, change of scenery, wanted Noah to learn carpentry - who knows?

Again, there is the other thought that God appears to have been very active during those days with all the slaughter and havoc he was causing personally - and in many cases to show how butch he was. And then suddenly he stopped. Why? Again perhaps he just is having a break - logical argument is not applicable.

So. On the Ark all animals which require a habitat of many square miles (and hence my "box" analagy - ANY enclosure would be too small for some of the hunters) didn't for the time of the flood. Maybe the animals stopped eating / defacating. Maybe God made the trees float better and made them stronger.

But in such a context there is no need to try to lather pseudoscience round the place. Just say God did it all, and modern rules just don't apply.

I'm agnostic, so I'm happy with that. There's no evidence that reliably dates from the time, so who knows?

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

So if the whole world was flooded, all of it, to the top of Everest, how did they breathe in the oxygen deficient atmosphere. Or did God provide some spare spacesuits along with this (first time I've heard this one :laugh4: ) 'moonpool'.

Talk about make it up as you go along. :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

So if the whole world was flooded, all of it, to the top of Everest, how did they breathe in the oxygen deficient atmosphere. Or did God provide some spare spacesuits along with this (first time I've heard this one :laugh4: ) 'moonpool'.

Talk about make it up as you go along. :laugh4:

Algae are responsible for 30-50% of the oxygen production iirc, and you'd have a lot less users due to every animal not on the ark getting killed....

What am I doing here, defending the creationists ? I need to get out of here !!!

[InsaneApache]

Algae are responsible for 30-50% of the oxygen production iirc, and you'd have a lot less users due to every animal not on the ark getting killed....

What am I doing here, defending the creationists ? I need to get out of here !!!

hehe, and another thing is there enough water on the planet to cover the Earth to a depth of 29,035 ft. ?

:inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

God put the water there. Easy. Then he took it away again. He made the universe, what's a bit of water?

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

oopps...how silly of me.That must be the case, even though it's not mentioned in the Good Book.

I wonder where he put it?

[rory_20_uk]

oopps...how silly of me.That must be the case, even though it's not mentioned in the Good Book.

I wonder where he put it?

Obviously it is implied...

~:smoking:

[BDC]

I thought people grew out of world-flood stories with the birth of geology?

Most the early geologists were clergy also.

EDIT: Better question here. If the world floods (assuming it can), what happens to all the salt and fresh water aquatic creatures? The salt content of the water is going to be completely messed up for both, they're going to all swell/shrival up and die.

So Noah must have had a big aquarium onboard, and some sort of cunning way of deep-sea fishing fish straight into pressurised containers.

Cunning guy.

[crossroad]

Thanks rory, for the dialog. It seems like you are actually conversing instead of spouting like some.

I'm in many ways a lot happier when theories rely on God doing everything, as logical argument gives up at that point. Why did God not just vanish the bad people unstead of flooding the world? Meh, he just did. Bad mood, change of scenery, wanted Noah to learn carpentry - who knows?

Again, there is the other thought that God appears to have been very active during those days with all the slaughter and havoc he was causing personally - and in many cases to show how butch he was. And then suddenly he stopped. Why? Again perhaps he just is having a break - logical argument is not applicable.
Slaughter and havoc. That one has always bothered me, but let me take a stab at it (no pun intended). Modern preachers/teachers have painted God as an all loving God with outstretched arms waiting for his children to come running into his arms. Though this is true, it is not a complete description. God is also a just God. He can be disappointed and angry, which many criticize and question his "perfection". But having emotion does not disprove perfection. A father can not be the perfect if he does not become disappointed and punish his children from time to time. A husband can not be a perfect husband if he is not happy to see his wife. So, why did God wipe out entire groups of people? The biblical answers are often - they were immoral, they were heathens. Sometime it seemed like they were just in the way, hence the reason I said this one has always bothered me. But, I also believe in the sovereignty of God. He knows best. If he thought the world needed to be wiped out with a flood then it should have been wiped out. As to why He's not as active now, He is just as active now as He was then. The difference is that in those days He worked on a broad scale, now He works individually. With the coming of Jesus and "New Testament", God changed the way He deals with His people. Now it’s on a personal level, which I'm sure is way on the other end of the spectrum if you are an agnostic. But countless lives have been changed, miracles documented. Not that He does not work on a broad scale, ever, but the focus here is that through all the havoc in bringing the human race to this point, and the coming of Jesus, now we see a great movement of God in the lives of people.


So. On the Ark all animals which require a habitat of many square miles (and hence my "box" analagy - ANY enclosure would be too small for some of the hunters) didn't for the time of the flood. Maybe the animals stopped eating / defacating. Maybe God made the trees float better and made them stronger.

But in such a context there is no need to try to lather pseudoscience round the place. Just say God did it all, and modern rules just don't apply.

I'm agnostic, so I'm happy with that. There's no evidence that reliably dates from the time, so who knows?

~:smoking:
As far a habitat and space goes. Zoo's do it all the time. I realize zoo's give a little more space, but there are other places that stick animals like lions and tigers in cages for most of their lives (sad and cruel, but it happens). I think the majority of these animals would have been very young. Besides taking less space and needing less food, it would have given each kind of animal a greater opportunity to multiply when the reached dry land.

BTW, I'm an agnostic too (concerning space aliens) :2thumbsup:

[crossroad]

Algae are responsible for 30-50% of the oxygen production iirc, and you'd have a lot less users due to every animal not on the ark getting killed....

What am I doing here, defending the creationists ? I need to get out of here !!!
Thanks doc. All you're doing is pointing out the possibilities. I appreciate a thinker. :2thumbsup:

[crossroad]

God put the water there. Easy. Then he took it away again. He made the universe, what's a bit of water?

~:smoking:
Exactly. God said that He was going to flood the earth. Your point about modern rules just don't apply are somewhat correct. This could not have happened without His involvement.

[InsaneApache]

Thanks doc. All you're doing is pointing out the possibilities. I appreciate a thinker. :2thumbsup:

Oh the irony.

[rory_20_uk]

Phrases such as God making the Pharoh stubborn so he could visit plagues on him makes me think that he is far from perfect. Saying that "god knows best" is a complete whitewash, and is in the best traditions of the Inquisition, as one has then stopped thinking at all, even when faced with problems.

You say he is as active now as he was then, although all evidence clearly points to the opposite. The odd documented miracle hardly suffices.

As a doctor one thing that really annoys me is this:

Something goes well. People thank God for it all.
Something goes badly. People question / rant at the doctors.

We did all the work to make people better. If in spite of this they died clearly they should be asking God for answers, not man.

Zoos do lock up animals. They frequently go mad in under a year.
Young often have increased needs for food due to the speed they are growing at.

Worrying about algae supplying oxygen is pointless. If God can flood the planet then there is no need to try to use fragments of science to make this so. Just blanket the whole issue with "god worked it out, OK?"

The animals were placed in suspended animation for a year, after God teleported them to their cubicals.

See? Much simpler with trying to shoehorn science to fit the facts.

~:smoking:

[_Martyr_]

See? Much simpler with trying to shoehorn science to fit the facts.

Dont you mean the "facts"... ;)

[crossroad]

EDIT: Better question here. If the world floods (assuming it can), what happens to all the salt and fresh water aquatic creatures? The salt content of the water is going to be completely messed up for both, they're going to all swell/shrival up and die.
Many did die. I thought of copying this article and pasting into this post, but I won’t. If you are interested, this should help answer your question.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=351

How Could Fish Survive the Genesis Flood? (#222)
by Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D.
Abstract
Much attention has been given to how the animals would be brought to, fit in, and survive on Noah's Ark.[1] But little or no concern has been voiced as to how aquatic animals could have lived outside in the Flood. Obviously, terrestrial air-breathing animals could not live through the land-covering deluge, but one would think aquatic animals would be right at home in all that water. Not so!
Introduction

Much attention has been given to how the animals would be brought to, fit in, and survive on Noah's Ark.[1] But little or no concern has been voiced as to how aquatic animals could have lived outside in the Flood. Obviously, terrestrial air-breathing animals could not live through the land-covering deluge, but one would think aquatic animals would be right at home in all that water. Not so!

Water life has specific physiological and ecological requirements just like terrestrial life.[2] A catastrophe the size of the Flood would certainly bring with it gigantic problems affecting the very survival of many species. Indeed, the fossil record indicates that many taxonomic groups became extinct during the deposition of the geologic sedimentary layers.[3] Some organisms would have simply succumbed to the trauma of the turbulence. Others would have found suitable living space destroyed, and hence died for lack of appropriate habitat. For example, too much fresh water for obligate (bound to) marine species or vice versa would have led to death of those unable to adapt. Not only are there salt-concentration problems, but also temperature, light, oxygen, contaminants, and nutritional considerations. These must all be evaluated in discussing survival of water-dwelling creatures.

To simplify the exercise, five examples have been selected of fishes that are bound to fresh or salt water and those that can go between these major habitats. The chosen fishes (sunfish, catfish, trout, eel, and codfish) will be used to represent clear fresh water, muddy fresh water, anadromous (running up to fresh water from sea water to spawn), catadromous (the reverse) and obligate marine habitats or behavior, respectively. These categories will be discussed with reference to three main factors affecting their survival: salinity, temperature, and turbidity.

PHYSIOLOGICAL RANGES

Salinity
Fish have a problem in balancing the fluids outside their bodies with those inside. In general, freshwater fishes are constantly getting too much fresh water in their bodies from food, drinking water, and tissue transfer. On the opposite side, marine fishes get too little fresh water to maintain fluid balance due to the large input of salt in the drinking water and constant osmotic pressure to draw fresh water out of these tissues into the surrounding sea.[4]

The kidneys and gills are the two organs used to manage this balance. If a freshwater fish gets too much water, then the kidney is called upon to dump as much water as possible while retaining the circulating salts. Marine bony fish have to get rid of the excess salts largely through the gills and conserve the internal water through resorption.

Sea-run trout move from sea water to fresh water to spawn, while eels do just the opposite. Both have to be able to reverse their removal of water and salt according to the amount of salt in their environment. Sun fishes and cod remain in fresh water and sea water, respectively, for their whole life cycle. Salt content might range from nearly zero in freshwater to 35 parts per thousand (x103 ppm or 35,000 mg/l) in sea water. Obligate freshwater fish typically have an upper lethal level of seven parts per thousand (7,000 mg/l). Obligate marine species have a very narrow limit of salt tolerance.[5] Dromous (running/migrating) species are able to adapt to the new environments by osmotic regulation.

Temperature
The range of temperatures tolerated by fishes varies from species to species and the assorted habitats. Some fish have a very narrow range of tolerance at the cold, warm, or hot temperature parts of the heat scale. Others show a wide range of heat tolerance from freezing to hot waters (0-32° C). Developmental stages are frequently limited by narrow temperature requirements within the overall range of the adult.

Most species, including cold-water types, can tolerate at least brief exposures to 24°C and low temperatures approaching 2°C, as long as there are prolonged acclimation periods (several days to weeks). Preferred temperatures for the representative adult fish are as follows: Trout, 16-21°C; sunfish, 16-28°C; catfish, 21-29°C; eel, probably 16-28°C; codfish 12-16° C. [6,7]

Turbidity
Particulate matter that is in suspension in natural waters is measured photoelectrically as turbidity. It consists of erosional silt, organic particles, bacteria, and plankton. Such materials adversely affect fish by covering the substrate with a smothering layer that kills food organisms and spawning sites. In addition, the molar action of the silt damages gills and invertebrate respiratory structures. Fish combat such materials by secreting mucus that carries the particles away. Indirectly, turbidity screens out light and decreases the photic zone for photosynthesis. The range of turbidity might be described as: clear < 10 ppm (mg/l), turbid 10 to 250 ppm, and very turbid > 250 ppm. Wallen[8] found that many fish species survive turbidities of 100,000 ppm for one week or more.

SURVIVAL STRATEGY

Runoff to the Ocean
Heavy rainfall over the land would quickly fill the river basins with torrential flows. These in turn would empty out onto the encroaching coastline as a freshwater blanket. Odum[5] refers to situations similar to this as a "highly stratified or `salt-wedge' estuary." Such a massive freshwater outflow from the continents would join with the oceanic rainfall to form a halocline or strong density gradient, in which fish flushed out from the land aquatic systems could continue to survive in a freshwater environment. Stratification like this might even survive strong winds, if the freshwater depth was great enough to prevent internal current mixing. Thus, a situation might be envisioned where freshwater and marine fishes could survive the deluge in spite of being temporarily displaced.

Turbidity Flows
On the other hand, large turbid particles and enormous bedloads could move into the ocean as settleable particulate rain and ground-hugging slurries. Heavier particles would fall out in the slower-moving coastal waters, and the mudflows would sediment out over the ocean floor. Although there would be turbulence at the freshwater/saltwater interface, the particle insertion would probably occur without appreciable mixing. With the range of tolerance given above, many fishes might be able to survive extended exposure to high turbidity .

Serendipity at Mount St. Helens
The biotic recovery at Mount St. Helens after the May 18, 1980 eruption demonstrates rapid and widely ranging restoration. Obviously, the Flood would have been one or more orders of magnitude greater a catastrophe than that eruption. But such an event does help us to see ways of recovery.

SPIRIT LAKE

April 4, 1980 June 30, 1980
Alkalinity (mg/l) 0.01 150.5
Temperature (°C) 4.0 22.4
Turbidity (mg/l) 0.75 24.61
With regard to the three factors of interest (salinity—approximately alkalinity, in the sense of dissolved solutes—, temperature, and turbidity), significant changes were seen in the affected areas (data transformed to units used previously).[9,10]

Still, a little more than a month after the eruption, the lake most exposed to the catastrophic event, Spirit Lake, had tolerable alkalinity , ambient temperature, and low turbidity. This is not to deny that all the endemic fish were killed in the event and probably could not have survived if replanted in these waters on June 30, 1980 due to large organic oxygen demands from decaying tree debris and seeps of methane and sulfur dioxide. But within ten years, the lake appears to be able to support fish, as many other aquatic species are back and well established. If the lake were connected directly to the Toutle River, then salmonids probably would have made their reentry by this time.

Perhaps the most significant observation, though, in examining the post-eruption history, is that a variety of habitats within and adjacent to the blast zone survived the event with minimal impact on the continuity of the ecosystem. Meta Lake, within the blast zone for example, had an ice cover at the time of the searing blast, which protected the dormant ecosystem from experiencing much disruption from the heat, anoxia, and air-fall tephra. Fish and support systems picked up where they left off before the onset of the winter season.

Similar experiences were observed in Swift Reservoir, in spite of massive mud and debris flows into the lake by way of Muddy Creek (personal conversation with aquatic biologist on duty at that time). Fish were displaced into the adjacent unaffected watersheds or downstream into lower reservoirs. However, within two years, massive plankton blooms had occurred and ecosystem recovery was well underway with migrant recruits.

Such a confined catastrophe (500 square miles) enables one to project expectations from a major catastrophe, such as the Flood. First, in spite of the enormous magnitude of such events, there appear to be refuges for survival even in close proximity to the most damaging action. Second, recovery can be incredibly fast—from one month to ten years. Third, recruitment from minimally affected zones can occur with normal migratory behavior of organisms. Although some animal and plant populations or even species might be annihilated in such events, remnant individuals can reestablish new populations.

-- References --
John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,1961), pp. 63-79.
M. M. Ellis, "Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution" in Lowell E. Keup, William M. Ingram, and Kenneth M. Mackenthun, Biology of Water Pollution (U.S. Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967), pp. 129-185.
John C. Briggs, "A Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction?" BioScience 41 (1991), pp. 619-624.
Ernst Florey, An Introduction to General and Comparative Animal Physiology (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1966), pp. 97-110.
Eugene P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology (Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1971), pp. 328,354.
Alex Calhoun, Inland Fisheries Management (State of California , The Resource Agency, Department of Fish and Game, 1966), pp. 194, 375, 448.
William A. Anikouchine and R. W. Sternberg, The World Ocean: An Introduction to Oceanography (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973), pp. 215, 223.
I. E. Wallen, "The Direct Effect of Turbidity on Fishes," Oklahoma Agric. and Mech. College Bulletin 48 (1951), pp. 18-24.
Robert C. Wissmar, Allan H. Devol, Ahmad E. Nevissi, James R. Sedell, "Chemical Changes of Lakes Within the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone," Science 216 (1982), pp. 175-178.
Robert C. Wissmar, Allan H. Devol, James T. Staley, and James R. Sedell, "Biological Responses of Lakes in the Mount St. Helens Blast Zone," Science 216 (1981), pp. 178-181.
* Dr. Kenneth Cumming is Professor of Biology and Dean at the ICR Graduate School.

Here are a couple of quotes:
Indeed, the fossil record indicates that many taxonomic groups became extinct during the deposition of the geologic sedimentary layers.
Sea-run trout move from sea water to fresh water to spawn, while eels do just the opposite. Both have to be able to reverse their removal of water and salt according to the amount of salt in their environment.

[rory_20_uk]

No, the bible said God was going to flood the earth. Very different thing.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

As saline fish cannot (without one or two exceptions) survive in fresh water and fresh water fish are certainly doomed in a saline environment, can you answer this.

How exactly did these innocent creatures offend the Almighty? (Unless they had been inadvertently fed to the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah ).

[Tribesman]

Awww poor little boy doesn't want to play anymore , boohoo, whassup cross , are you stuck with the science of the rainbow ?
stuck with the insects , stuck with shipbuilding , stuck with the pitch , stuck with food , stuck with amphibians , stuck with excrement .
Tell you what , to make it easy , you are even stuck with simple arithmetic, you posted figures from a widely discredited source that don't add up .
But thats no surprise as you get all your information from widely discredited websites .

Oh and nice to see that yet again you have shown your ignorance of scripture .
Now that is strange from someone who is pushing a scriptural account of the earth .:laugh4: :laugh4:


Talk about make it up as you go along.
:2thumbsup:
Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .

[Zain]

Awww poor little boy doesn't want to play anymore , boohoo, whassup cross , are you stuck with the science of the rainbow ?
stuck with the insects , stuck with shipbuilding , stuck with the pitch , stuck with food , stuck with amphibians , stuck with excrement .
Tell you what , to make it easy , you are even stuck with simple arithmetic, you posted figures from a widely discredited source that don't add up .
But thats no surprise as you get all your information from widely discredited websites .

Oh and nice to see that yet again you have shown your ignorance of scripture .
Now that is strange from someone who is pushing a scriptural account of the earth .:laugh4: :laugh4:


Talk about make it up as you go along.
:2thumbsup:
Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .

Like I said, all you do is ridicule. And your worth here smaller then a mustard seed.

[doc_bean]

Thanks doc. All you're doing is pointing out the possibilities. I appreciate a thinker. :2thumbsup:

Well, I'm certainly not a flood supporter, people tend to forget he needed to take all the plants too, people always forget about the plants...

and a zoo has, like, 0.000001% of all wildlife to be found on earth in it.

[Redleg]

Darwin refused to discuss his own beliefs about a supreme being in public, once writing to his friend Asa Gray, "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."

Maybe those individuals in this discussion should ponder on that for a while, versus resorting to ad hominem arguements.

[Tribesman]

Like I said, all you do is ridicule.
When the position being taken is ridiculous , when the poster continually contradicts himself , avoids questions and issues that completely undermine his point that he has carefully taken from crap websites , when he shown an ignorance of the very scriptures that he is claiming to be taking as a basis for his position then there is nothing to do other than ridicule .


And your worth here smaller then a mustard seed.
Silly little boy :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Personal attacks are going to summon the moderators... Let's play nice ~:grouphug:

~:smoking:

[doc_bean]

Many did die. I thought of copying this article and pasting into this post, but I won’t. If you are interested, this should help answer your question.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=351


I really have to agree with Rory here, you can't bring science into it to prove it could happen if you contradict every scientific prove against its possibility by saying "that doesn't apply to God". Either you believe God plays by the rules (the Rules of physics and nature in general, which He might have made, different issue) or you don't, if you believe the latter (an interventionist God) than pretty much all science is flawed and pointless, since God does whatever he wants anyway. You can't say the flood could have happened because God poured some extra water in, and then say that fish, plants, wildlife etc could survive based on scientific theory. The flood (as described by the Bible) couldn't have happened in the first place, so all conclusions based on the hypothesis that it happened are ridicoulous. You might as well say the gravity works in reverse and then say: "that's why Jesus ascended to heaven". It's pseudo science, an abomination to real science. As is creationism in general, really :wall:

Seriously, you said you like a thinker, then become one. Look at the evidence, and then make up your mind, either the laws of physics (whatever they may be) apply 100% of the time, or God just makes it up as He goes along. You seem to accept micro-evolution (whatever that is) but don't accept it on a macro-level ? Why, what's the difference ? One is simply an extension of another. You talk about species not turning into different species, and that is, for the most part, right, a canine doesn't evolve into a cat, and a plant isn't likely to sprout legs anytime soon. But their DNA, their code, adjusts, adapts. This you can accept, it seems. Now if the code changes enough, why won't you call it a different species ? What even, is your definition of a species ?

You link to all these sites (well two, it seems) but have you ever considered that that is less than 1% of what is written about evolution ? That there might be a reason why everyone seems to prefer evolution ? A few people don't, you're always going to have those, some people probably don't believe in atoms. But since 1 scientist out of thousands disagrees it doesn't make him right. And if you're thinking of bringing Einstein or Planck into this: they had their own different theories which could explain observed phenomena far better than the current reigning theories. Creationism doesn't explain squat. It doesn't answer the one true science question 'How ?'. Because God did it ? That's not an answer, if we accepted that, then we'd all still be bowing down every thunderstorm and dance to make it rain. If human understanding has shown as anything, it's that things tend to happen because they have been caused by something else, life, the universe and everything else is like a giant, complex domino. Sure, you could answer who/what or why it all started, and you might say god did it. But an all powerful being that occasionally knocks some blocks over just because ? Please. We have mastered electricity, we have mastered nuclear power, we can build machines with single atoms, we have mastered flight. Why ? Because someone, somewhere, didn't accept the answer 'God causes it'. And so far, we have always been proven right, we have always found a cause. There is no reason to believe we have reached our limit here. In fact, evolution explains the world pretty darn well even.

I probably won't post much in this thread anymore, I find it to tyring, like shouting at a brick wall. So I'll just, once again, summarize my point: THINK. Don't start with the Bible as the answer and work your way backwards. Start with the facts: diversity, DNA etc. and then THINK. Think about how that could have come to be, and if you happen to think God did it, remember Newton didn't accept that as answer as to why things fall down. THINK.

:wall:



Something goes well. People thank God for it all.
Something goes badly. People question / rant at the doctors.

Ah, the stories I could tell about incapable doctors....

[Ser Clegane]

Let's play nice ~:grouphug:

Indeed

:bow:

[_Martyr_]

doc_bean let me be the first to say, GREAT POST! Youve managed to articulate exactly what the rest of us were too frustrated to get out. :book:

[rory_20_uk]

Incapable doctors? Heh... The patient never gets told about things that go wrong when they should have gone right as we would not be Professional to do so... and we want to get another job. :embarassed:

I think that we've shown that on issues of Belief no one is going to give any ground... But we knew that already... :dizzy2: It's been a good :duel:, but for me it's :closed:

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

It's pseudo science, an abomination to real science. As is creationism in general, really
Yep , faith is faith , science is science , those that try to explain their faith through science(which they cannot since they keep getting stuck and having too say God did it) is a sign of lack of faith .

[doc_bean]

Incapable doctors? Heh... The patient never gets told about things that go wrong when they should have gone right as we would not be Professional to do so... and we want to get another job. :embarassed:


Being wrongly diagnosed can get noticed ~:pimp:

[rory_20_uk]

Being wrongly diagnosed can get noticed ~:pimp:

Really? How does the patient / family know? The doctors generally stick together, so will not say that they've mistreated you.

My "favourite" example is the lady who came in with a new onsent irregular heart and shortness of breath. The consultant on was the Infectious Disease consultant, who incidentally had helped choose the antibiotic she had been on during her last admission.

For 3 days was treated for pneumonia, before coming up to my ward. I remembered her, and so ordered a stool sample to be tested. C. Difficile! So we started treatment.
Next day she went to HDU
Next day she died.

~:smoking:

[Zain]

When the position being taken is ridiculous , when the poster continually contradicts himself , avoids questions and issues that completely undermine his point that he has carefully taken from crap websites , when he shown an ignorance of the very scriptures that he is claiming to be taking as a basis for his position then there is nothing to do other than ridicule .


And still your views aren't backed by anything you say. Still you only ridicule.

[Zain]

Silly little boy :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Still ridiculing, eh? You have no life, as everyone here can see from your 4,800 posts!

[rory_20_uk]

Personal attacks (contrary to evidence ~;)) are not allowed. Flame wars help no one and detract from the (generally) nice atmosphere.

Lead by example, turn the other cheek :thumbsup:

So more :flowers:, less :tomato2:

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

Please continue with the personal attacks. Throw in some obscenities as well. Anything, anything to get this thread locked. Ten pages of people banging their heads against walls -- it makes me hurt just to look at it.

[Ser Clegane]

Anything, anything to get this thread locked.
Some patrons are certainly close to pushing this thread over the edge

If you are running out of arguments and have to resort to personal attacks you better take a break and refrain from posting.

Play it nice and this thread will be kept open.

Play it foul and this thread will be locked and ... yadda yadda ... serious consequences (you know the game)

[Mithrandir]

`hehe
This thread has no real purpose, at least not when it comes to convincing people to believe something different, throw all the wonders at me you can find and I'll still believe in the power of science and be as athe&#239;stic as one can be...

throw all the hard facts at a christian/muslim/jew/buddhist and they'll still believe Jahwe made it happen...

[Avicenna]

Say that to diehard Creationists and spelling it wrong like that, you might as well start writing your will now.

:hanged:

[doc_bean]

Really? How does the patient / family know? The doctors generally stick together, so will not say that they've mistreated you.


Well, a first wrong diagnosis nearly made me blind, a second one nearly killed me. I'm glad they don't all stick together and cover eachothers mistakes at any cost...

Actually, in both cases the original diagnosis was 'don't worry, nothing's wrong, it will stop by itself'. And people wonder why I don't thrust doctors much anymore :help:

[rory_20_uk]

Doctors generally have legal insurance. And every few months (never bothered to work out how frequently) we get sent a magazine with some of the latest bloopers in it. People loose limbs, go blind, etc etc due to in some cases cringeworthy diagnosis. Although these are "learning points", I'm sure it's done to ensure we keep paying the fees.

~:smoking:

[doc_bean]

People here hardly sue doctors though. I think it might have something to do with the continental legal system. Too bad I wasn't old enough to sue in either case :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Here they do. They are suing doctors more and more. And it is having a bad effect on how doctors do things. More and more we do things "because otherwise you'll get sued". Not a good way to practice medicine.

And did you know: in the UK 85% of medical notes would not pass legal scrutiny. 95% of surgical notes wouldn't pass legal scrutiny.

So, if you sue a doctor / hospital there's a very good chance that they'll be hampered by the poor quality of their own notes. Also hospitals are so scared of getting labelled as a "bad" hospital they'll generally settle out of court.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

Its really not all that hard to fanthom a religious view on creation and evolution that exists in harmony with each other.

The problem exists when extremists on both sides attempt to force others into their belief system. :dizzy2:

[doc_bean]

Here they do. They are suing doctors more and more. And it is having a bad effect on how doctors do things. More and more we do things "because otherwise you'll get sued". Not a good way to practice medicine.

Yeah, that's what people fear would happen here too. Still, there should be some way of stopping incapable doctors though, the problem is, i guess, that there are too few doctors to begin with, so the standards for mediacal students aren't as high as they should be.




So, if you sue a doctor / hospital there's a very good chance that they'll be hampered by the poor quality of their own notes. Also hospitals are so scared of getting labelled as a "bad" hospital they'll generally settle out of court.


Pretty much any hospital here works at maximum capacity (shortage of rooms is not a rarity) so they don't really have much to fear. Probably why the 'hospital bacteria' is so common here these days.

[Tribesman]

And still your views aren't backed by anything you say. Still you only ridicule.
Its quite simple , can you explain the workings of a rainbow , you know the light reacting through the water , now corelate that information with scripture , find any problems do you ?????
Yep its ridiculous .
Now , do you want to deal with pitch , or if you want you could explore the problems with shipbuilding , launching and grounding which make the ark story impossible , but stick with pitch for now , what do the creationists claim about these deposits and when they were formed ?
once again ridiculous .
How about the insects then , it appears that crossroad does not know scripture does he , is he is making it up as he goes along ?
so starting a discussion on the basis of something you do not know very well , but with a strong yet unworkable viewpoint....ridiculous .
Talking of scripture , can you spot how many other serious errors he has made in his claims ? you do know scripture don't you ? especially those parts that deal with the story of creation and the flood ?
Perhaps not :no:
Trying to mix science and faith , yet disregarding the core of each , truly a task for those whose faith and knowledge is lacking .

You have no life, as everyone here can see from your 4,800 posts!
Hmmmm...now what did I write earlier ? I think you may have quoted it somewhere .....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Yeah, that's what people fear would happen here too. Still, there should be some way of stopping incapable doctors though, the problem is, i guess, that there are too few doctors to begin with, so the standards for mediacal students aren't as high as they should be.

Medical student grades in Britain are as tough as it gets. But grades are not the be all and end all of a good doctor. To decide who is a good doctor in 5 to 6 years time is impossible - even if the applicant is honest at interview. If they are trying to get to positions of responsibility to abuse them they'll be almost impossible to catch.

~:smoking:

[crossroad]

Phrases such as God making the Pharoh stubborn so he could visit plagues on him makes me think that he is far from perfect. Saying that "god knows best" is a complete whitewash, and is in the best traditions of the Inquisition, as one has then stopped thinking at all, even when faced with problems.
Hebrew active verbs can express permission and not direct action. This explanation unquestionably clarifies the question of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. When the text says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means that God would permit or allow Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.


You say he is as active now as he was then, although all evidence clearly points to the opposite. The odd documented miracle hardly suffices.
What odd documented miracle? Please explain.
John Cox, a friend of mine, became forever convinced when he accidentally stuck his hand in a blender. Needless to say, the blender mangled his fingers, blood began to pour. His father immediately wrapped his hand in a towel and prayed for him. In the process of going to the hospital, they discovered that John had no cuts on his hand whatsoever, no blood pouring, no mangled fingers. Miracle? Why not? There are plenty of examples out there.


As a doctor one thing that really annoys me is this:

Something goes well. People thank God for it all.
Something goes badly. People question / rant at the doctors.
Any time you deal with people, annoyances may happen.


We did all the work to make people better. If in spite of this they died clearly they should be asking God for answers, not man.
I thank God for doctors. But you've got to admit, loosing a loved one is devastating. I'm sure it is sometimes hard to be patient with them.


Zoos do lock up animals. They frequently go mad in under a year. Young often have increased needs for food due to the speed they are growing at.
Good point, but we still have sane animals in zoos. The young still eat less than the old.


Worrying about algae supplying oxygen is pointless. If God can flood the planet then there is no need to try to use fragments of science to make this so. Just blanket the whole issue with "god worked it out, OK?"
It's not pointless if it leads to further understanding.


The animals were placed in suspended animation for a year, after God teleported them to their cubicals.

See? Much simpler with trying to shoehorn science to fit the facts.
Actually, we're now using philosophy and logic along with science. Whether you want to admit or not, scientists use all three to come up with a theory.

[Zain]

Its quite simple , can you explain the workings of a rainbow , you know the light reacting through the water , now corelate that information with scripture , find any problems do you ?????
Yep its ridiculous .
Now , do you want to deal with pitch , or if you want you could explore the problems with shipbuilding , launching and grounding which make the ark story impossible , but stick with pitch for now , what do the creationists claim about these deposits and when they were formed ?
once again ridiculous .
How about the insects then , it appears that crossroad does not know scripture does he , is he is making it up as he goes along ?
so starting a discussion on the basis of something you do not know very well , but with a strong yet unworkable viewpoint....ridiculous .
Talking of scripture , can you spot how many other serious errors he has made in his claims ? you do know scripture don't you ? especially those parts that deal with the story of creation and the flood ?
Perhaps not :no:
Trying to mix science and faith , yet disregarding the core of each , truly a task for those whose faith and knowledge is lacking .

And yet, nothing about your own beliefs. Only ridiculing someone else.


Hmmmm...now what did I write earlier ? I think you may have quoted it somewhere .....:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

And now, you make no sense.

[crossroad]

...can you answer this.

How exactly did these innocent creatures offend the Almighty? (Unless they had been inadvertently fed to the denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah ).
God created them, He can certainly destroy them. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

[crossroad]

Awww poor little boy doesn't want to play anymore , boohoo, whassup cross , are you stuck with the science of the rainbow ?
stuck with the insects , stuck with shipbuilding , stuck with the pitch , stuck with food , stuck with amphibians , stuck with excrement .
Tell you what , to make it easy , you are even stuck with simple arithmetic, you posted figures from a widely discredited source that don't add up .
But thats no surprise as you get all your information from widely discredited websites .

Oh and nice to see that yet again you have shown your ignorance of scripture .
Now that is strange from someone who is pushing a scriptural account of the earth .:laugh4: :laugh4:


Talk about make it up as you go along.
:2thumbsup:
Creationism , the realm of the feeble minded of little faith .
Have you listened to yourself? What, are you twelve? Zain, you are right.

[Mithrandir]

Where is a dancing lock smiley when you need one...

[crossroad]

Well, I'm certainly not a flood supporter, people tend to forget he needed to take all the plants too, people always forget about the plants...

and a zoo has, like, 0.000001% of all wildlife to be found on earth in it.
The plants did not need to be taken care of.
Zoo's were just an example of man caging up animals.

[Tribesman]

And yet, nothing about your own beliefs.
So you wish to avoid the questions I have asked , no surprise there really , crossroad wishes to do the same .
Each question has been relevant to this discussion , yet because you do not like the possible answers you try to pass them as simple ridicule .
That is probably because attempting to take an ancient , yet heavily edited , mistranslated document and attempting to interpret it literally , or even worse , to attempt to fit scientific theories and findings to the document is a ridiculous premise .

[Zain]

Where is a dancing lock smiley when you need one...

And you would lock this why? Because we're trying to knock some sense into someone who doesn't do anything but ridicule, and who doesn't contribute to the conversation in anyway, but sits on the sidelines until he feels he can strike?

[rory_20_uk]

Personal attacks are not allowed.
A thread which is merely people accusing each other is again not allowed.
A thread that is failing to cover any new ground is also usually locked.
No one is knocking sense into anyone. After 10 pages that in itself would give a mod "due cause"

~:smoking:

[Zain]

And yet, nothing about your own beliefs.
So you wish to avoid the questions I have asked , no surprise there really , crossroad wishes to do the same .
Each question has been relevant to this discussion , yet because you do not like the possible answers you try to pass them as simple ridicule .
That is probably because attempting to take an ancient , yet heavily edited , mistranslated document and attempting to interpret it literally , or even worse , to attempt to fit scientific theories and findings to the document is a ridiculous premise .

There is a difference in asking questions honestly, and asking questions mockingly. Also, 100% of that post was knocking down the bible and the people defending it! There's also a difference between asking questions for the fun of it, and trying to gain some knowledge. And YOU are avoiding the fact that you don't say a darn thing about your own beliefs, and you constantly insist on bashing ours.

[doc_bean]

The plants did not need to be taken care of.
Zoo's were just an example of man caging up animals.

Err.. 99.99999% of land plants would die if they were put under water for a significant amount of time (even a few hours should mess up some of them).

If the glood happened, the animals would have had nothing to eat after the water drew back.

(Yes, yes, unless God magically protected the plants, or magically put them back or whatever.... fanwank )

EDIT: Zain, you know you can put people in an ignore list, don't you ?

[InsaneApache]

What odd documented miracle? Please explain.
John Cox, a friend of mine, became forever convinced when he accidentally stuck his hand in a blender. Needless to say, the blender mangled his fingers, blood began to pour. His father immediately wrapped his hand in a towel and prayed for him. In the process of going to the hospital, they discovered that John had no cuts on his hand whatsoever, no blood pouring, no mangled fingers. Miracle? Why not? There are plenty of examples out there.

prove it.

[Zain]

Personal attacks are not allowed.
A thread which is merely people accusing each other is again not allowed.
A thread that is failing to cover any new ground is also usually locked.
No one is knocking sense into anyone. After 10 pages that in itself would give a mod "due cause"

~:smoking:

So you like the fact that all he does is ridicule, and doesn't constructively add to the discussion? I say we kick him out!

[Mithrandir]

Some patrons are certainly close to pushing this thread over the edge

If you are running out of arguments and have to resort to personal attacks you better take a break and refrain from posting.

Play it nice and this thread will be kept open.

Play it foul and this thread will be locked and ... yadda yadda ... serious consequences (you know the game)

Ah found it..:dancinglock:

[Tribesman]

Because we're trying to knock some sense into someone who doesn't do anything but ridicule, and who doesn't contribute to the conversation in anyway, but sits on the sidelines until he feels he can strike?
Still no answers then .
Come on surely you can explain the rainbow .

[Zain]

Zain, you know you can put people in an ignore list, don't you ?

Yes, but the fact that he does it is bothering me.


prove it.

Is that simply a way of ignoring his words? I think so.

[rory_20_uk]

So you like the fact that all he does is ridicule, and doesn't constructively add to the discussion? I say we kick him out!

I did not say that. For the record: I dislike those that mindelessly ridicule. Hence why i like it here so much.

People should not be kicked out without a very good reason.

When a discussion gets to that point I feel it needs to be placed in the "agree to disagree" catergory in case it spills elsewhere to the detriment of all.

~:smoking:

[Zain]

Because we're trying to knock some sense into someone who doesn't do anything but ridicule, and who doesn't contribute to the conversation in anyway, but sits on the sidelines until he feels he can strike?
Still no answers then .
Come on surely you can explain the rainbow .

This is becoming tiring. Why don't you get over the fact that you aren't contributing to the problems at hand? Here's you the rainbow!!!

A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a nearly continuous spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outside and violet on the inside.

The rainbow's appearance is caused by dispersion of sunlight as it is refracted by (approximately spherical) raindrops. The light is first refracted as it enters the surface of the raindrop, reflected off the back of the drop, and again refracted as it leaves the drop. The overall effect is that the incoming light is reflected back over a wide range of angles.

[Mithrandir]

:dancinglock:, wow just at him go! Dancing day and night...

[Zain]

I did not say that. For the record: I dislike those that mindelessly ridicule. Hence why i like it here so much.

People should not be kicked out without a very good reason.

When a discussion gets to that point I feel it needs to be placed in the "agree to disagree" catergory in case it spills elsewhere to the detriment of all.

~:smoking:

Are we agreeing or disagreeing the fact that he's a menace that mindlessly ridicules?

[Soulforged]

And you would lock this why? Because we're trying to knock some sense into someone who doesn't do anything but ridicule, and who doesn't contribute to the conversation in anyway, but sits on the sidelines until he feels he can strike?Everything is right except for the part of "sense" and "rediculing". You're not trying to "knock" some sense, but the opposite, Tribesman is for one a more informed person and older than you, perhaps when you and crossroad read a little more will realize that the debate in itself if for weak minded people or with a weak faith. You need to get some sense of reality and logics, some sense of religion and science, and then perhaps you'll not even have the necessity to fall in the redicule or in pointless discussions as this one. On the other hand what is ridicule here is not you, but creationism in itself, and so everyone who adopts that "theory" and defends it could be treated as an ignorant by its very definition.

[Mithrandir]

Are we agreeing or disagreeing the fact that he's a menace that mindlessly ridicules?

Take a chillpill.

Ignore things you find insulting, it will make life so much easier...

and this forum a bit more relaxed. Let the Backroom staff handle possible breaching of the forum rules.

This is meant for all participating patrons.

-Mithrandir.

[Zain]

Everything is right except for the part of "sense" and "rediculing". You're not trying to "knock" some sense, but the opposite, Tribesman is for one a more informed person and older than you, perhaps when you and crossroad read a little more will realize that the debate in itself if for weak minded people or with a weak faith. You need to get some sense of reality and logics, some sense of religion and science, and then perhaps you'll not even have the necessity to fall in the redicule or in pointless discussions as this one. On the other hand what is ridicule here is not you, perhaps you're want to fall there for some reason (?), what is ridicule is creationism in itself, and so everyone who adopts that "theory" and defends it could be treated as an ignorant by its very definition.

He certainly hasn't shown his "more informed" side. I'm only hacking on him because he has been mindlessly ridiculing, and in a discussion of mature induviduals, that is looked down upon.

[crossroad]

Err.. 99.99999% of land plants would die if they were put under water for a significant amount of time (even a few hours should mess up some of them).

If the glood happened, the animals would have had nothing to eat after the water drew back.

(Yes, yes, unless God magically protected the plants, or magically put them back or whatever.... fanwank )

EDIT: Zain, you know you can put people in an ignore list, don't you ?
Seeds, doc, seeds! Read the flood account and you will see that the tops of mountains could have been exposed for months before the ark came to rest on mount Ararat. Plants would have had time to regrow.

[Tribesman]

Ah an answer , thankyou .
Now could you explain how light didn't react in that way before the flood ?

[crossroad]

prove it.
Do you want his email address or phone number?

[Zain]

Ah an answer , thankyou .
Now could you explain how light didn't react in that way before the flood ?

Because it didn't rain, it always was mist.

[Tribesman]

Oh it didn't rain , I see , are you making it up as you go along ?
You must try harder , ever stood by a small cascade , funny little coloured thing appears there in the mist , I think it is called a rainbow:juggle2:
Wrong answer Zain , the only answer for a creationist is that God altered the properties of light .
See its easy .

[Soulforged]

He certainly hasn't shown his "more informed" side. I'm only hacking on him because he has been mindlessly ridiculing, and in a discussion of mature induviduals, that is looked down upon.
Again there's no mature discussion here, you're in a debate that little children in kindergarden could have. A debate in wich two basic foundamental concepts are misunderstood by one of the parties all along the four pages. I'll not enter the background debate however because that was many times discussed here and it becomes a tireless bunch of nothingness.
Anyhow, I think that the debate going on in the other Banquo's thread might be interesting... Notice that if you didn't read the entire Bible you might be missing parts just about everything necessary to defend creationism, and even if you read it completely five times and you defend creationism then you (refering to anyone) might want to go back to high school and restart it. And I'm not just talking about believing that God is an actual thing formed of matter that happens to be everywhere, I refer you to the parts when the writers of the Bible show the typical moral values of their time and that applied now could carry another epoch of facism or plain savagery and fanatic slaughtering.

[Zain]

Oh it didn't rain , I see , are you making it up as you go along ?
You must try harder , ever stood by a small cascade , funny little coloured thing appears there in the mist , I think it is called a rainbow:juggle2:
Wrong answer Zain , the only answer for a creationist is that God altered the properties of light .
See its easy .

Saying that God doesn't anything does nothing but rattle you Evolutionists up. I said it without mentioning God, the way I'm sure would be more believable to the unbeliever. I have heard that it only misted before the flood, but by reading something on the net, it says that it did in-fact, rain before the flood, and God simply changed the process of light.

[solypsist]

if by "staff action" you mean handing out some "oh noes!!!1!", then i'm okay with that.

[Ser Clegane]

Just FYI - for all involved in this debate - this thread will remain closed as I do not see that this has developed positively after my last post (just the opposite it seems).

Thanks to those who have tried to keep this debate civil for quite a long time

:bow: