Kansas finds sanity again

You guys have got me going now. I just fished, out of my closet, my college level biology notes from last semester.

EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION (Aka an ape turning into a human)

1. Fossil Record- Arrange oldest to most recent and see a progressive change.
Radioactive dating- Makes fossil record more accurate. Calculate age of fossil by the amount of a radioactive istope decayed.

2. Molecular Record- Study DNA sequences or protetin structures. More similarity means more closely related. Common Ancestry. Ex: Cytochrome C. Found in most organisms.

3. Homology- Structures derived from a common ancestor. Ex: Vertebrate Forelimbs.

4. Development- Similaries in enbro development imply common ancestry.

5. Vestigial Structures- Structures with no appremt function that resemble structures of a presumed ancestor.

6. Parellel Adaptation- Plants and animals, though far apart, evolve similar characterisics if in similar environments. EX: marsupial mammals vs north american mammals.

7. Patterns of distrubution- animals on neighboring isalnds similar to another, but have slight differences. (Adaptations to their environment) Ex: darwin's Finches.

Ice,
None of this is evidence of MACROevolution.

1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here

2. and 3. These do not showevidence for macroevolution. They are most definitely up to interpretation because to the creationist, me, they show evidence of a common designer, mainly the God of the Bible.

4. Has been debunked for years. Yet it is still shown in textbooks as facts. See Here

5. Vestigal organs have uses. See here

6. and 7. Both are evidence of microevolution and as such are not evidence of macroevolution. Natural selection is observable and therefore no scientist would ever try to say that it doesn't happen. But even though this does happen it in no way proves 'goo to you' or 'fish to philosopher' or 'molecules to man' evolution.

These are the same old tired 'evidences' of evolution and don't prove macroevolution at all.

Why are you guys even talking about MACROevolution? Its like saying MACROgravity? You are already playing into the mindset of the obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Ice,

1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here

---

Evolution is not 'progressive' things can get bigger, smaller, faster, slower, smarter, dumber. Evolution is the change in the frequency of an organism, the vehicle for this change are genes.

So there is no reason that Neanderthals having a larger brain then humans disproves evolution anymore then men having a larger brain then women disproves that women can multitask better then men.

you have to admit, pape, macrogravity is pretty cool.

Are you calling me obtuse, Papewaio?

Now, I sure am sorry. I thought about coming on as obtuse, but then I decided against it and, wouldn't you know it, I ended up coming on obtuse anyways. I hate it when that happens.:embarassed:

Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.

It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Ice,
None of this is evidence of MACROevolution.

1. The fossil record is up to interpretation. For instance, it does not show definitely 'progressive' change, anyways the term itself is up to interpretation. For instance Neaderthals have a bigger brain cavity than modern humans. For the evolutionist brain size would have a lot to do with 'progressiveness'. See the section entitled, Were the Neaderthals, human or a missing link? here

2. and 3. These do not showevidence for macroevolution. They are most definitely up to interpretation because to the creationist, me, they show evidence of a common designer, mainly the God of the Bible.

4. Has been debunked for years. Yet it is still shown in textbooks as facts. See Here

5. Vestigal organs have uses. See here

6. and 7. Both are evidence of microevolution and as such are not evidence of macroevolution. Natural selection is observable and therefore no scientist would ever try to say that it doesn't happen. But even though this does happen it in no way proves 'goo to you' or 'fish to philosopher' or 'molecules to man' evolution.

These are the same old tired 'evidences' of evolution and don't prove macroevolution at all.

---

1. How do you dismiss the progressive change than? Please I would like to hear. What happened to all the animals you see fossilized? Isn't it odd they resemble current ancestors? How do you "intrpret this"? What about radioactive dating? Also, see Papewaio's explanation about the Neaderthal.

2 and 3. If, according to the bible, we are truly superior to animals and made in God's image, why would he make such a unique special, creature so similar to other animals? That doesn't make much sense. Why is the DNA so different in some animals and so similar in other animals? Did God roll the dice to decide who gets to be like a human and who doesnt? Look, it even say it in one of your fantastic, bible thumping articles!

Quote:

---

God created mankind in His image, not in the image of animals. Furthermore, man was to rule, have dominion, over the animals.

---

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...arguments7.asp

Your argument lacks logic.

4. All of this information points to a man called Ernst Haeckel. Yes, true it is widely accept that he was a fraud, but this does not mean that embroyonic evidence doesn't exist. Here you go

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory."

---

5. Here you go

6/7. It can be both macroevolution and microevolution. Two totally different mammals evolving into almost the same creature or evolving into two totally different species that cannot mate is macroevolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Only if the shoe fits. I was referring to a college biology course letting non-scientists define the nomenclature.

It would be like someone who hates automobilies defining the names of a car mechanics tools, and then the car mechnanic not wanting to upset the 'customer who will never be' renaming his tools to match the patrons desires.

---

Well, I thought when I put (An ape turning into a human) in () people would understand what macroevolution is. But for the record...

Macroevolution: A species evolving from another species. The new species cannot mate with the other species.

Microevolution: A species evolving favorable traits. The the favorable trait being can still mate with the other one.

Navaros, I respect your love for god and your devotion to him, but this is not a battle you can win. This is, in fact a battle you have lost. I'm sorry.

www.navaros.justgotowned.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Well, I thought when I put (An ape turning into a human) in () people would understand what macroevolution is. But for the record...

Macroevolution: A species evolving from another species. The new species cannot mate with the other species.

Microevolution: A species evolving favorable traits. The the favorable trait being can still mate with the other one.

---

Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by www.answers.com

evolution
3. Biology a)"Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."

---

Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.

In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.

In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.

What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

It's always heartwarming to see the natives of faraway exotic places like Kansas join the ranks of civilization nations. :2thumbsup:

---

I do rather like it when people from places such as France think of my home as exotic. ~:cheers:

To be sure, it does have beautiful sunsets, and some fantastic two-legged scenery (especially in Manhattan and Lawrence), but the overpowering pong of cows in the western part of the state, and the amazing idiocy of the people from the most populous region of the state (the far NE) keep it from truly being a paradise.

But thanks!
Azi

Ice,
Thank you for responding.

Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here

2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.

4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles

Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Evolution should not be defined as evolving favorable traits. That is putting the cart before the horse. Cause then effect not effect then cause.


Favorable traits is what is selected, not what causes the change nor what does the selection.

In Natural Selection it is the environment that does the selection which results in the species best suited for the current environment to propagate over the ones that are less suited for the current environment.

In Artificial Selection it is humans (a self aware sub-component of the environment) which selects which set of organisms will get to propagate the next generation.

What causes the change in the organisms is the combination of genes. Just combining genes in different combinations allows variation in organisms. Mutation of genes can then allow totally new organisms to come about.

---

I didn't mean favorable traits, but mutations. Sorry about the mix up.

Thats fine you probably understand more about biology then I do... like always scientists and fanboys of science in other fields make some nasty critics... but we do keep each other honest... when not purposely undermining each others interests for the limited funds.

I should do a paper titled.

"The selection pressures on research funds and the evolution of titles and abstracts."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Ice,
Thank you for responding.

Basically there is no 'progressive' change. All of the supposed 'apemen' are just humans or apes. Variations within a kind. That is all. Just as human as you or me or Adam. Or they like "Lucy" they are apes. Variation within a kind and evidence of a common Designer.
All of the animals that we see fossilized are animals, or very rarely humans, that died in the Flood. Don't get me wrong there are many extinct animals that are found in the fossil record that are not around any more, that is why they are called extinct. For radiometric dating see here

2. and 3. if we are so much like animals, then how come we have the ability to think like a human. Really, do you think that Human's ability to concieve of great inventions and read, write, and theorize, like what we are doing right now. Does that separate us from animals. Similar body structure is just evidence that we have a common Designer.

4. and 5. thanks for your evolutionist, secular humanistic-thumping articles

Sorry, I gotta go. I will write more later.

---

1. They are all humans or apes, eh? Nothing in between? One or the other? Why are all these "humans" and "apes" so different from the ones that exist today? Varation? Different species... not just varation. Could they have maybe... evolved?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth.




2/3. We have developed higher brain functions that allow us to do all these things. We are very similar to many of them.

4/5. Anytime. I'm happy to base my logic on reason, observation, and facts rather than a 2000 year old book.

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)? If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.

---

So if age of information is valuable then fossils, geology and stars trump any book written.

Fossils are far older then the written word, older then the oral tradition too.
Mountains are older then humanity.

The light from stars... well our galaxy is 100,000 light years across. So light from the other side of the galaxy is going to take about 80,000 years to reach us (we are about 2/3rds of the way out).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Well since I did Physics, Geophysics as majors, astrophysics as a minor and chemisty core units as an easy elective I might have a good answer which will lead to my ex-communication by my scientific bretheren.

Physics, Chemisty and Geology are referred to in different groups as the Physical Sciences, the Pure Sciences or the Hard Sciences. Biology is considered the impure, fluffy and girly one... mainly because physics courses are 90% male while biology are 90% female... is it a sexist statement?... well it would be until you hear the bitter jealously the undergrads make the statements with.

So in a fit of jealousy the physical scientists arranged a consipiracy where they divereted the fundies attention from themselves and sicced them onto the ones with all the girl germs ... well actually the ones with all the germs. :laugh4:

---

Don't worry - my father, who is a chemist, has long suffered the ignominy of having his eldest son become a 'softie' biologist.

The excuse of girls didn't impress him much either :bounce:

The thing is because biology has so many unanswered questions it is very much in vogue as the in thing of science.

The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented. To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.

None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented. To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.

None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.

---

Wow. I'm mean, really wow. :no:

I'm intrigued, Thomas. Do you have to observe something personally to believe it?

:inquisitive:

Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?

Why are the fossils in different layers? If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer. Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils? And why are the layers the same age around the world?

And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

So what if I get my logic and reasoning from this 2000 year old (or 3000+, if you are talking about the Torah), does that make it any less reliable than some 150 year old book (Origin of Species)?

---

My logic isn't just based on one book that is 150 years old. It is based on many, logical, and realible sources.

Quote:

---

If anything I would look at the 3000 year old book as the more reliable source, since we are arguing about things in the past and they were a lot closer to it than we are.

---

They also weren't as educated as we are today and didn't know what caused things to work. Thus, creationism was very popular.

Quote:

---

The fact remains that we really don't know when the written word was created or invented.

---

We have a good general idea though. Complex writing was found around 4000 BC.

Quote:

---

It's impossible to designate a clear winner in the race to invent writing, because writing wasn't invented in a day. Instead, it slowly developed from the earliest primitive hash marks to count. People were using such hash marks as early as 50,000 BC. Around 4000 BC, a number of civilizations were making more complex marks to record various interesting bits of information. The Indus River civilization made some interesting marks on its pottery, but they were not quite writing.

---

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Hi...n/Writing.html

Quote:

---

None of us were there and so none of this can be observed. Science cannot prove a negative, and by my observations, Young Earth Creationism is more evident by the facts (which are indisputable, we really only differ on interpretation) than evolution.

---

Much of these things are not disputable. You just refuse to awknowledge the logical way they exist or came about.

Quote:

---

To me, God created it or it was invented by Adam, since he, specifically was created in God's image and that would make him the most perfect human ever, which would put writing as - older than fossils (created by Flood) and a few days younger than the stars. Mountains are hard to say, but certainly writing is older than the mountains that we see today, since the Flood covered the top of every mountain.

---

Have any evidence for this flood? Oh wait, I'm guessing since it's in the bible it must be true. I'm so sick of people ignoring logical evidence in facts just because it says otherwise in some 2000 year old book.

Edit: 1000th post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?

---

god.

Quote:

---

Why are the fossils in different layers?

---

god.

Quote:

---

If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer.

---

god.

Quote:

---

Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils?

---

ooh.. hmm... not sure, let me think.. oh, it was god.

Quote:

---

And why are the layers the same age around the world?

---

god.

Quote:

---

And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?

---

god.

anymore questions?

Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?

---

god?

I think I'm getting the hang of this religion malarky. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I think I'm getting the hang of this religion malarky. :dizzy2:

---

it's deceptively simple. :toff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

it's deceptively simple. :toff:

---

Big_ John according to the :book:, you are going to....


~:pissed: ~:pissed: ~:pissed: HELL~:pissed: ~:pissed: ~:pissed:

:laugh4:

i'm going to hell even according to the origin of species.. i can't win. :undecided:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

god?

---

I'm afraid I'll have to correct you here

The answer is in fact "God and if you fundementlist evolutionists (ho-ho) disagree you're going to hell these facts are undesputed becouse I say so."


On a side note authority is now derived from age....which makes my grandad right about blacks since he's a 100



http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/creationism/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I know none of you listen to me because you all think I'm nuts, so may I present a real scientist who has dedicated his life to this. He shall debunk all your pro-evolutionist ideas far better and more cordially than I am capable of doing. I just noticed that he's allowed his book to be placed online for free reading.

Enjoy receiving your debunkings! ~:cheers:

http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...sMen/index.htm

---

Well starting with chapter 4 as I red some geology recently. Not much of large research for my points here though. I could probably do better otherwise.

First he works very hard to debunk Charles Lyell (who was a creationist BTW) and well forgets most of the time that geology has moved a bit since 1875, and that the age of the earth had been pushed back far in time long before Lyell.

Then he comments:

Quote:

---

The common textbook explanation for the mineralization process is that mineral-containing water has seeped into interstices in the fossil, dissolving the bone and at the same time depositing the silica-based minerals from the water -- a molecule-by-molecule replacement process (Schuchert and Dunbar 1950, 38). This may sound plausible, but a moment's consideration shows what any physical chemist knows: such a process is self-stifling; once even the thinnest silica film has been formed, this glass-like material prevents further diffusion of both the mineral-containing water inwards or the dissolved carbonaceous material outwards.

---

As almost every mineral is silica based and many of them is pourous and not glass-like, we can wonder what he really talks about. To make it better, he then talks about the agate, a mineral that only resmebles petrified trees.

About the ice ages, he forgets to mention that valleys shaped by glaciers looks different from those shaped by water. Therefore it is needed to been ice on several places that is currently not ice-covered. An ice age so to say.

The mammoth survived the flood BTW according to him.

Now I'm not that sure if the been running all radiometric data from the fossile layers as mention there, but it's interesting that the layers are still consistant by thier radiometric data even if they're supposed to came from the same period.

Quote:

---

However, it is true that solid rock can be bent without cracking when under strong confining pressure; this is the principle of pre-stressed concrete construction. It is explained that this confining pressure was provided by the weight of thousands of feet of rock above the area where the folding initially took place. However, when folded and un-cracked rocks are found at the surface, it is argued that erosion has removed all those thousands of feet of rock. However, any engineer could tell the geologist that removing the confining pressure would release the tensile forces and shatter the rock from one end to the other. No, the more rational explanation for bent rocks, which Lyell rejected, should be considered.

---

He conviniently forgets to mention heat in here. And mentions it later on... Ever bent wood for example? And his counter theory that it happened rapidly while the strata was soft, makes the undisturbed stratas a quite impressive happening.

The Coelacanth have actually changed, espcially compared to thier older ancestors.

Those human footprints does have some oddities about them (thier toes for example).

The flood doesn't explain how the layers is discordant (it's when older layers is cut in an angle and newer layers in a different angle lays on top of it) on several places and having discordance in the newer layer too. It's only been one flood right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Where has all the water gone that covered the earth?

Why are the fossils in different layers? If they died at the same time they should be in the same layer. Why also do the different layers have different aged fossils? And why are the layers the same age around the world?

And why are you confusing Evolution with Geology?

---

I am confusing evolution with any idea that thinks that the Earth is Billions of years old. They are one and the same.

The water is in the oceans and the mountains weren't created until after the Flood. Plenty of water out there to cover the whole earth.

The different layers has to do with the increased volcanism during the Flood resulting in mega-tsunamis and and the like. We understand this through Gen 7:11 - "Now the springs of the deep burst forth"
For more info see here

By asking about dates you are really asking about how fossils can have different rates of radiometric decay. Since I do not believe in uniformitarianism, it is obvious that the rate of decay today is different from the past. See Here

Actually the layers are not the same all over the earth. The only place where the geologic time scale exists in the entire world is in your textbooks. Nowhere does it exist, not even in the Grand Canyon, nowhere.

Again, I see nothing new here and I wouldn't mind if some of you guys started looking in the links to find the answers to your questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Yes. Who did Cain marry and who was out to get him for killing his brother?

---

Apache, see here

And remember to take off your anti-God uniformitarian glasses.

Quote:

---

"We have a good general idea though. Complex writing was found around 4000 BC."

---

It is funny that you would say that, because that is about the exact time that I would, using the Bible and something similar to your 'logic', date the beginning of writing. Roughly the same time as the creation of the universe.

Quote:

---

i'm going to hell even according to the origin of species.. i can't win

---

Big John, I sure hope that you are not. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:16

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

The water is in the oceans and the mountains weren't created until after the Flood. Plenty of water out there to cover the whole earth.

---

OK, so there were at least two acts of creation right? The first when He did the 'let there be light' trick, and the second, after all those bad people got drowned? When He did mountains?

Just two creations, or were there any more? Enquiring minds want to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Again, I see nothing new here and I wouldn't mind if some of you guys started looking in the links to find the answers to your questions.

---

I would, and have done so, but there's only so much hilarity a man can take. :laugh4:

Banquo,
If we are going to argue about semantics, then yes, there were two 'creations'. But in reality nothing 'new' was created. Mountains, for example, the Himalayas, were created when India rammed into Asia. No doubt about that, the question is when and I would say near the end of the Flood. I hope that your 'enquiring' mind is satisfied.

Also, I am glad that I can reproduce the same humor for you guys that I get from your articles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Banquo,
If we are going to argue about semantics, then yes, there were two 'creations'. But in reality nothing 'new' was created. Mountains, for example, the Himalayas, were created when India rammed into Asia. No doubt about that, the question is when and I would say near the end of the Flood. I hope that your 'enquiring' mind is satisfied.

---

OK, thanks. Now, you maintain that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, and that complex writing had been created at the same time. I imagine that Noah must have lived, what about 1,000 years or so after the creation (to allow time for the bad people to grow a decent population, and then turn away from God).

When India rammed into Asia (I assume therefore it was created separately at first, so something - God? - decided to change the original plan and start ramming) did anyone notice? I mean, you'd have thought that India, or China, both reasonably advanced civilisations at the time, might have made a note or two about, you know, an enormous mountain range springing up one Sunday afternoon, about tea-time? Must have made a fair bang too. Maybe they have a creation myth about it that I haven't come across?

I'm keen to see the records of the event. Got one of those links handy? :inquisitive:

I would, and have done so, but there's only so much hilarity a man can take
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Why is it that everytime this ridiculous subject comes up you always find someone linking to the same rubbish site that is full of contradictions and saying "look read this" as if it is some big revelation .
Would it not be easier if the mods could make sticky for the topic of cretinism where all the refutations for answeringgenesis can be put in one handy place .

Well I read that article. Fascinating stuff. However it didn't say where Cain got his missus from. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did Cains missus come from? Also who were going to smite him for killing his brother? His mum and dad?

:inquisitive:

Oh course, I have a few links.

See Here Sorry but you will have to scroll down to "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?"

Also a simple Google search with "chinese flood noah" will yield some interesting results.

Banquo, you have to understand the the term "catastrophe" is a good one here. Everything changes after God unleashed the Flood. That is why looking for the Garden of Eden is such an absurd thing.

I am not saying the India smashing into Asia was ever observed. It happened when there were only 8 people in the entire world and they were on the ark.

Tribesman, I don't care what happens. I find these threads interesting and I somewhat enjoy them. To me, the creation-evolution debate allows me to throw in the occasional "good news" which is what the Bible is all about. The story is so important to good theology to be almost necessary. The creation and flood story shows that even though man had turned its back on God that the needed to be punished, he would give man an ark, which is a type. Only through the ark would people be saved. In the same way only through Jesus, will people be saved from the promised second global catastrophe, which will come, not by water, but from fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well I read that article. Fascinating stuff. However it didn't say where Cain got his missus from. If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, where did Cains missus come from? Also who were going to smite him for killing his brother? His mum and dad?

:inquisitive:

---

Bear with me, please. His wife was his sister. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had other sons and other daughters. When God created man he said that it was very good. All of the other creations were only good. Through that one can infer that Adam also had a perfect gene pool. Therefore, he would have no problem marrying his sister and having perfectly fine children. And it didn't break God's law because not until the time of Moses was incest made illegal.

His brothers, like Seth and his family would have ample reason to want to kill Cain.

Here is another Link

Oh course, I have a few links.

Here is another Linksame link
see heresame link
For more info see heresame link
Can't you give a bit of variety for extra comedy value , how about throwing in some Hovind instead of just Ham , perhaps a bit of Ross for a really good laugh ?:no:

They ask for information about Cain's wife and I give information about Cain's wife. Same with the geologic column, mountains, writing, etc. I must have missed something Tribesman. Did I?

Why would I source Ross? He is a compromiser. And you guys 'discredited' Hovind in the thread about him. So I thought I would see if you guys had any new info to 'discredit' AIG and surprise, surprise you don't.

Like I say, the facts are the facts. The only difference is how you interpret them and me and you interpret them differently through different glasses. Me with my biblical glasses and you with your anti-God uniformitarian glasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Oh course, I have a few links.

See Here Sorry but you will have to scroll down to "How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account?"

Also a simple Google search with "chinese flood noah" will yield some interesting results.

---

Hmm, interesting only in that the search brings up the same old creation sites you keep quoting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Banquo, you have to understand the the term "catastrophe" is a good one here. Everything changes after God unleashed the Flood. That is why looking for the Garden of Eden is such an absurd thing.

I am not saying the India smashing into Asia was ever observed. It happened when there were only 8 people in the entire world and they were on the ark.

---

But how do you know? Earlier, you claimed that evolution was nonsense because no-one had ever observed it. Now you claim that the 8 people left didn't see anything.

Catastrophe, well certainly. Have you ever heard of displacement of water?

Now, did the mountains rise during (or near the end of, as you stated in one post) the Flood (in which case, why did Noah come to rest on Ararat (a fairly small mountain which wouldn't have popped up first) as opposed to one of the Himalayas (really high) or, was it after the Flood as you stated in an earlier post (in which case someone may have noticed)? Why did God re-arrange the continents (I'm assuming here that other mountains like the Rockies were created in the same way and at the same time) - did He get creation wrong the first time?

I guess most religious folk are blissfully unaware of the facts...

Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .

Quote:

---

Now, did the mountains rise during (or near the end of, as you stated in one post) the Flood (in which case, why did Noah come to rest on Ararat (a fairly small mountain which wouldn't have popped up first) as opposed to one of the Himalayas (really high) or, was it after the Flood as you stated in an earlier post (in which case someone may have noticed)?

---

That is like asking me about why a flipped coin come out heads. That is all random. The chances of it landing in ararat are pretty descent considering that the lone peak in Turkey may not be the landing place, because the Bible says it landed in the Mountains of Ararat. If anything, it was God's will. There, are you happy I said it.

How could the eight people see everything? Your argument in meaningless.

You guys keep complaining about my sources and not my arguments, now here is another source for you. Genesis 1-11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .

---

Multiply mistranslated? Wikipedia

The Bible is remarkably good at staying true to itself. Don't ask me how, I chalk it up to Divine Providence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Like I say, the facts are the facts.
The fact is that your position is based on a varying interpretation of a heavily edited , multiply mistranslated collection of documents of questionable provenance , not a very good base to call "fact" .

---

Agreed. Maybe we can have a real debate when you actually start posting credible sources away from a single site. Everytime I actually read anthing that man wrote i feel dumber than before.

It also gets really old when I give a logical explanation and post links to hear you say "Well I just believe god did it". Did you ever think that quoting something that came up with the theory in the first place will give you favorable results?

Quote:

---

It also gets really old when I give a logical explanation and post links to hear you say "Well I just believe god did it". Did you ever think that quoting something that came up with the theory in the first place will give you favorable results?

---

Credible results, yes, when Jehovah God is involved.

If you want to talk about logic here you go, I will sumarize your point. Unkown Chemicals, in the primordial past, through unkown processes, that no longer exist, produced unknown life forms, that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown oceanic soup complex at an unknown time and place. Logically, that doesn't make sense. "God said, 'Come now, let us reason together.'"Isaiah 1:18

Quote:

---

Agreed. Maybe we can have a real debate when you actually start posting credible sources away from a single site. Everytime I actually read anthing that man wrote i feel dumber than before.

---

Are you talking to Tribesman and about Darwin and TalkOrigins? Or are you talking to me, because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys got?

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Bear with me, please. His wife was his sister. Genesis 5:4 says that Adam had other sons and other daughters. When God created man he said that it was very good. All of the other creations were only good. Through that one can infer that Adam also had a perfect gene pool. Therefore, he would have no problem marrying his sister and having perfectly fine children. And it didn't break God's law because not until the time of Moses was incest made illegal.

His brothers, like Seth and his family would have ample reason to want to kill Cain.

---

Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys got?

---

I also get that same feeling of dumbness every time I read a link from talk origins. ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Credible results, yes, when Jehovah God is involved.

If you want to talk about logic here you go, I will sumarize your point. Unkown Chemicals, in the primordial past, through unkown processes, that no longer exist, produced unknown life forms, that are not to be found but could, through unknown reproduction methods, spawn new life in an unknown oceanic soup complex at an unknown time and place. Logically, that doesn't make sense. "God said, 'Come now, let us reason together.'"Isaiah 1:18

---

My bad. I'm sorry I don't have the exact details as to what happened billions of years ago. I still think my definintion is better than "One day, god decided to snap his fingers and life came about!!! Then he proceeded to flood the Earth to which there is no real historical evidence that it ever happened." Oh yeah that's much better

Quote:

---

Are you talking to Tribesman and about Darwin and TalkOrigins? Or are you talking to me, because I get that feeling (dumbness) when I read your sources. I keep wondering about these ad hominem attacks. Is that all you guys

---

I was talking to you, wolf. How are my sources dumb? They dispprove the simple minded creationism garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is the it the correct war? Eh? Hominem attacks? Maybe because I'm of sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

My response: Facts, backed by solid articles.

Your Response: God did it with an article from a rather dubious religious site.

Ice, what are you talking about there is no evidence of the Flood. There is evidence-o'plenty of the Flood.

Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:

Ice your responses are not really facts but rather merely what you believe to be facts.

If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:

Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God. ~:pimp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Ice, what are you talking about there is no evidence of the Flood. There is evidence-o'plenty of the Flood.

Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:

Ice your responses are not really facts but rather merely what you believe to be facts.

If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:

Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God. ~:pimp:

---

try this

Quote:

---

If anything, the Creation vs. Evolution argument breaks down like this:

Creationist: God, who was invented by man, said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

---

Like I said, I consider most my evidence facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God.

---

That statement is the ultimate debate killer - if that is the reasoning I have to wonder on which basis this discussion is supposed to continue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

That statement is the ultimate debate killer - if that is the reasoning I have to wonder on which basis this discussion is supposed to continue...

---

You know, I was thinking the same thing exactly. Time to move on, for me, at least.

:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Didn't "scientists" even find Noah's Ark a few years back? :dizzy2:

---

No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark

Quote:

---

Creationist: God said it therefore it is true.

Evolutionist: A scientist or group of scientists (men) said it therefore it is true.

By the way, given the two choices, "the smart money" is on God.

---

That is so dumb my frontal lobe aches from reading it.

From a certain perspective it's actually the biblical creationists who are the blasphemers, since they take an ancient book full of disproven claims and of dubious authorship and attempt to ignore the priciples and the mechanics of the almightys creation. placing their faith in their own hubris. Rather than trying to uncover the pieces of the almighty's plan as the ancient Christian scholars did, they place their faith in willfull ignorance, ignoring what they don't like the look of, despite clearly being part of gods plan (if you believe in god).

Quote:

---

My bad. I'm sorry I don't have the exact details as to what happened billions of years ago. I still think my definintion is better than "One day, god decided to snap his fingers and life came about!!! Then he proceeded to flood the Earth to which there is no real historical evidence that it ever happened." Oh yeah that's much better

---

Is it really any better? Seems like the same amount of faith to me.
If the Flood had happened what would you expect to see as evidence. How about billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. And what do you find - billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. Plus all of the world wide Flood stories - I would say that evidence for the Flood is all around us.

Quote:

---

I was talking to you, wolf. How are my sources dumb? They dispprove the simple minded creationism garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is the it the correct war? Eh? Hominem attacks? Maybe because I'm of sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

My response: Facts, backed by solid articles.

---

Ice,
They are dumb because they try to prove the simple minded evolutionist garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is it the correct way?

I understand being sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

I repeat my question...

Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I repeat my question...

Where in Genesis does it state that Cain married his sister?

---

Oh, Sorry,

I started writing a reply, but then I had to go, so, I just deleted it.
Anyways, You got me. Apache, you are much smarter than me.
The Bible does not say, Cain married his sister. But it does say that he had a wife and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It also does not say that there were other humans around. Like I said incest was not illegal until the time of Moses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Oh, Sorry,

I started writing a reply, but then I had to go, so, I just deleted it.
Anyways, You got me. Apache, you are much smarter than me.
The Bible does not say, Cain married his sister. But it does say that he had a wife and that Adam had other sons and daughters. It also does not say that there were other humans around. Like I said incest was not illegal until the time of Moses.

---

So where did you get the idea that Cain married his sister. If it wasn't in the 'good book'? How was that revealed to you?

Multiply mistranslated? Wikipedia

Exactly Wolf , now follow the link you provide and look up the text that version was taken from , or even read the link you provide about the contentiousness and questionable provenance of your selected text , like for example .....Because of the lack of recent linguistic work, the KJV is regarded as a poor representation of the original Scripture

so it seemsas far as......The Bible is remarkably good at staying true to itself. Don't ask me how, I chalk it up to Divine Providence......the divine providence is lacking , but as you know your scripture you should know that . It has been evident throughout history , is a major subject for biblical scholars worldwide and has caused many problems within and between the church(s).

You do know scripture don't you or are you just basing your position on a dubious website by Ham , who does a great job at linking to other documents , that are of known doubtfull provenance , discredited pseudo scientific papers , and even acknowledged frauds .

So a simple question for you Wolf , one that always fascinates me when it comes to the cretinist movement .
Why is your faith so weak ?

Quote:

---

]Is it really any better? Seems like the same amount of faith to me.
If the Flood had happened what would you expect to see as evidence. How about billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth. And what do you find - billions of dead things, buried by rock laid down by water all over the earth.

---

You find billions of dead things buried at almost the same layer.

Quote:

---

Plus all of the world wide Flood stories - I would say that evidence for the Flood is all around us.

---

Actually quite the opposite. All that means is that civilazations, like the Hebrews, borrowed stories from other civilizations and changed them to meet their criteria.

Quote:

---

Ice,
They are dumb because they try to prove the simple minded evolutionist garbage that you keep spewing. I know it might make you afraid, but it doesn't hurt to open your mind. Btw, why do you believe what you do? I'm guessing you brought up this way. Why is it the correct way?

I understand being sick of explaining the same thing over and over and over and over again.

---

Good job repeating/rephrasing everything I just wrote. IF you must know, I was raised Roman Catholic. I use to be very religious until I actually started to think for myself. I did open my mind to new thing instead of keeping it shut like you currently do. It is the current way because history and evidence supports that conclusion. That's why. If you don't want to explain it again, don't. It was wrong the first time, it's going to be wrong every other time. This is my last post, I'm done fighting a battle that can't be won with people who refuse to think maybe a 3000 year old book could contain some myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

god.
god.
god.
ooh.. hmm... not sure, let me think.. oh, it was god.
god.
god.

anymore questions?

---

Was it good for you? ~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Was it good for you? ~:smoking:

---

i think i'm going to start asking, "anymore questions?" after my romantic interludes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

I find these threads interesting and I somewhat enjoy them. To me, the creation-evolution debate allows me to throw in the occasional "good news" which is what the Bible is all about. The story is so important to good theology to be almost necessary. The creation and flood story shows that even though man had turned its back on God that the needed to be punished, he would give man an ark, which is a type. Only through the ark would people be saved. In the same way only through Jesus, will people be saved from the promised second global catastrophe, which will come, not by water, but from fire.

---

See it is necessary that it is part of the Bible to show that God gets angry with evil, that He promised not to be so crushing in his response (showed remorse for His temper). It showed that while God is very much about Justice that he has learned to temper his temper with Mercy. Forgiveness is a theme that grows in the bible. God gets angry with His people, does something rash in response, shows Mercy to those under his care.

The creation and flood storys are separate. Gensis is about showing who is ultimately responsible in the order of things, while others in the ancient world worshipped nature, Judaism trumped them by having a God that created everything. The difference between admiring a painting and having admiration for the painter. While the flood story is about Gods Wrath (what we would call in others a really nasty temper) beign outweighed by his Love and Mercy.

While they are necessary to the Bible and our understanding of God I don't think they are any more literal then Mark 4:13-20.

Many parables exist in the Bible, people get knotted up when they start taking them literally. They miss the heart of the idea that is meant to bear fruit, and end up focusing on trying to prove a parable as a fact rather then understand it as an allegory.

I can't help that but think that an actual believer would look at the world God made, rather than a book He allowed men to write, for his answers. And for his questions as well for that matter.

Slyspy,
2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teahing, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Why would he lie to us.

Pape,
Actually, unlike English, the Hebrew language has a definitive word order that marks whether the writer is trying to state something in allegory or as narrative. SVO being allegory and VSO as narrative.
The opening sentence is Bereshit Bara Elohim... Which literally means "In the Beginning (prepositional phrase- doesn't count) created God..." This order stands throughout the verses of Genesis 1.
Any Hebrew expert will tell you that this is to be taken literally.

Quote:

---

Actually quite the opposite. All that means is that civilazations, like the Hebrews, borrowed stories from other civilizations and changed them to meet their criteria.

---

How does, it mean that? This is a good example of what I have been saying throughout. The facts are the same, but the interpretations are very different. That could also show that all civilization grew out of one region and when it spread it took the stories of its beginnings with it. Who's to say that one might be true and the others weren't changed to meet their criteria.

I am sorry to see you go, Ice, I really did enjoy this. I have a life to get going to myself. But, I have to ask you, how do you know that you are not the one with the closed mind? In an age of relativism, how can anything be for sure? The truth is that I also opened my mind. I can to college searching for the truth. We all at some point in our lives ask like Pontius Pilate "What is Truth". I know that I did, because all my life, I had been wondering how can anyone know truth, just like you, and most of us (I suspect). Well, I found that we were asking the wrong question. We should have been asking "Who is Truth?" The answers can only be found in John 14:6 were Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." That book also tells us in its opening verse, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." I realized that I cannot prove to you that Evolution is a problem and that moral relativism and secular humanism are disasterous offshoots of that problem, but what I can do is to provide an example and to stand on my convictions. The rest is in God's hands.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolftrapper78

Pape,
Actually, unlike English, the Hebrew language has a definitive word order that marks whether the writer is trying to state something in allegory or as narrative. SVO being allegory and VSO as narrative.
The opening sentence is Bereshit Bara Elohim... Which literally means "In the Beginning (prepositional phrase- doesn't count) created God..." This order stands throughout the verses of Genesis 1.
Any Hebrew expert will tell you that this is to be taken literally.

---

I would say confusing a literary device "All I say is true" which is used for impact with what is true would be silly. I would not ever take the versions of Genesis as literal when the two versions are in conflict, if they are both literal one is wrong, and if one is wrong why not both?

If they however are parables then they can co-exist as they are meant to help bring one to a point of understanding.

Sorry Pape,

I don't know what you are referring to. But if you are talking about supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, then please read this. I know that some of us are busy people and have more to do than to read another linked article. I myself am one of them and I will be out for the next three weeks or month. Maybe then we will be able to continue this. Until then,

Peace

So the explanation that this uses doesn't gel with the idea that the translations of the Bible are 'remarkably good in staying true to itself'. If it was the explanation for why the Genesis chapters are contradictory would not have to reference older texts, the newer translated version would in fact accurately dipict the situation.

So what are we left at:

A) That translations are accurate and inspired by the Holy Spirit. However since this is true the chapters in Genesis are contradictory, as such they should not be taken as literal vehicles otherwise they disprove each other as they are not in parity.

OR

B) If a translation was inspired by God then the translated Bible would be self sufficient and would not require external appendicies for explanations. Translations are therefore inaccurate and open to error, hence not inspired by the Holy Spirit and hence no longer the word of God but instead those of Man, probably chosen in fact purely for geopolitical stability reasons aka Constantine. As the Genesis chapters are contradictory if not read in their orginal format.

So from which side of the menu would you like to choose from?