In "other religion" there was a question on Noah's Ark.
In the end the topic changed into a debate on the size of the Ark versus the carrying capacity versus the number of all animals and plants that would have to be in the ark to survive the flood.

Tj3 (AKA Answerway's Toms 777) stated in response to Choux's post on the problems with the size of the ark : "Others used different assumptions and came up with a completely different answer".

How can anyone claim that the ark was big enough to contain all these animals in the required quantities and variations. Not even a ship double the size of the ark would be big enough!! Logical thinking and simple mathematics makes that clear beyond any doubt.

So where is the calculation that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time?
Or can we accept the Biblical Noah's Ark story as just a copycat repeat of the Gilgamesh story?

You are asking for human wisdom to explain the things of God.

Deuteronomy 29:4
But to this day the Lord has not given you minds that understand, nor eyes that see, nor ears that hear!

2 Corinthians 3:14
But the people's minds were hardened, and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read, the same veil covers their minds so they cannot understand the truth. And this veil can be removed only by believing in Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:4
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

You are asking for human wisdom to explain the things of God.
No I did not . More reading comprehension problems, I see !
All I asked was where the calculation is that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time.
Or if can we accept the Biblical Noah's Ark story as just a copycat repeat of the 2000+ years older Gilgamesh story? No, nothing about "human wisdom" or "things of god"...

:rolleyes:

·

So where is the calculation that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time?


Genesis 6
The Story of Noah
9 This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless person living on earth at the time, and he walked in close fellowship with God. 10 Noah was the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 Now God saw that the earth had become corrupt and was filled with violence. 12 God observed all this corruption in the world, for everyone on earth was corrupt. 13 So God said to Noah, “I have decided to destroy all living creatures, for they have filled the earth with violence. Yes, I will wipe them all out along with the earth!

14 “Build a large boat[c] from cypress wood[d] and waterproof it with tar, inside and out. Then construct decks and stalls throughout its interior. 15 Make the boat 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.[e] 16 Leave an 18-inch opening[f] below the roof all the way around the boat. Put the door on the side, and build three decks inside the boat—lower, middle, and upper.

17 “Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes. Everything on earth will die. 18 But I will confirm my covenant with you. So enter the boat—you and your wife and your sons and their wives. 19 Bring a pair of every kind of animal—a male and a female—into the boat with you to keep them alive during the flood. 20 Pairs of every kind of bird, and every kind of animal, and every kind of small animal that scurries along the ground, will come to you to be kept alive. 21 And be sure to take on board enough food for your family and for all the animals.”

22 So Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him.

savedsinner7 : and THAT is your calculation that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time.

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :D

·

No. It is not my calculation. It is God's.

savedsinner7 : Why should it be God's? That is what you BELIEVE!!
God's existence is not a fact. God's existence is based on belief !

:rolleyes:

·

Were there penguins on the Ark? Platypi? Polar bears? Kangaroos? Bison?

Were there penguins on the Ark? Platypi? Polar bears? Kangaroos? Bisons?
Why don't you tell me? And how many of them were there, and why? And if so : what did they eat?

:rolleyes:

·

I asked first.

savedsinner7 : Why should it be God's? That is what you BELIEVE !!!
God's existence is not a fact. God's existence is based on belief !

:rolleyes:

·
The fact that you do not believe does not negate God's existence.

Wondergirl : I have no idea, reason to ask you for your views.
The point with the ark is that even two arks would have been too small to allow for all animals pairs and other multiples to stand, eat, and sleep there.

Let's see : penguins and ice bear pairs could survive on ice/water. For the Platypus there was nothing to eat during the flood. Kangaroos and Bisons need soil underneath. And I do not take the bizon and cow argument as being one species as valid.

So now give me your arguments ! But I'll only will see that tomorrow ! Cred going horizontal!!

:rolleyes:

·

Huh? Why do you think I am against you, Cred? And I wasn't asking just you. I threw the questions out on the table. If it was a worldwide flood, how did the animals I named get to the Ark and how were they fed? Noah didn't even know they existed.

My point is, there are far too many questions than answers about the Flood. Saying "God took care of it" doesn't work if the Flood story is to be believable and true.

No. It is not my calculation. It is God's.

Yep, and God's word is sufficient.

Others have done the calculations to confirm this - here is but one example:

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs%20Ark%20Articles/NAS%20Size%20of%20the%20Ark-Handout.pdf

I note that those who oppose Christianity will typically make the claim that there is not enough room with no validation of that claim.

Yep, and God's word is sufficient.

Others have done the calculations to confirm this - here is but one example:

http://www.amendez.com/Noahs%20Ark%20Articles/NAS%20Size%20of%20the%20Ark-Handout.pdf

I note that those who oppose Christianity will typically make the claim that there is not enough room with no validation of that claim.
That link doesn't speak to my questions. What about my questions?

Hmm..

Excellent graphic, Capuchin ! Says it all ! But... uhmm... were the dino's not extinct by that time ?
And another reason why you never should provide a box of matches to dino's ! :D


If it was a worldwide flood, how did the animals I named get to the Ark and how were they fed? Noah didn't even know they existed.
A good point, Wondergirl. HOW did all the animals that needed ground under their feet get to the Ark ?
As to penguins on the Ark? They could swim and feed without land also, though 6 weeks+ is too long to continue. The same for polar bears. The same for the platypus. Kangaroos and bisons required solid soil. And I assume that same question applies to hundreds of thousands of other species also :

How did all these animals get to Noah from all over the world ? :confused:

:rolleyes: :p :D

·

Excellent graphic, Capuchin ! Says it all ! But ... uhmm ... were the dino's not extinct by that time ?

Of course not - the flood was only 1500 years after creation.

Of course not - the flood was only 1500 years after creation.
Whoops : I stand corrected. How could I forget that ?

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Of course not - the flood was only 1500 years after creation.
\\
Actually 1500 or so years after man was removed from Eden. In fact part of one issue, we do not know how many years or even 1000's of years Adam may have been in the Garden.

\\
Actually 1500 or so years after man was removed from Eden. In fact part of one issue, we do not know how many years or even 1000's of years Adam may have been in the Garden.
I stand corrected, but there was no death before then, right? So it's kind of a moot point when talking about the extinction of the dinos.

That link doesn't speak to my questions. What about my questions?

Scripture answers your questions.

Scripture answers your questions.
Please list the verses that specifically answer my questions.

In "other religion" there was a question on Noah's Ark.
In the end the topic changed into a debate on the size of the Ark versus the carrying capacity versus the number of all animals and plants that would have to be in the ark to survive the flood.

Tj3 (AKA Answerway's Toms 777) stated in response to Choux's post on the problems with the size of the ark : "Others used different assumptions and came up with a completely different answer".

How can anyone claim that the ark was big enough to contain all these animals in the required quantities and variations. Not even a ship double the size of the ark would be big enough !!! Logical thinking and simple mathematics makes that clear beyond any doubt.

So where is the calculation that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time?
Or can we accept the Biblical Noah's Ark story as just a copycat repeat of the Gilgamesh story?


Well, some will say it was only babies that were taken onto the Ark, to the point where Noah would have only had to carry a basket of eggs on board for some species. Also, the flood didn't have to include the entire Western hemisphere (that takes care of Australian marsupials, etc.). But that still leaves a few hundred million species to collect, food to take with, not to mention a whole lot of waste to clean up. But this isn't even the most problematic aspect to the story.

If the flood was indeed worldwide, then most plants and vegetation would have been destroyed. So not only is there the problem of what they ate on the Ark, but what did they eat AFTER they disembarked? Carnivores would need more animals. Herbivores, plants. Plants also tend to be kind of important to the delicate balance of the biosphere. So we might ask what they breathed as well as what they ate. And what about all that ocean salt that would now be mixed with fresh drinking water? All minor details that can easily be resolved I'm sure, by invoking the magical powers of God.

This of course, assumes that you're OK with every animal on the earth today, being directly descendant from those few on the Ark. This is perhaps, the most incredulous aspect to the story in its own right.

the entire Western hemisphere (that takes care of Australian marsupials, etc.).
Check your atlas. Australia is not in the Western Hemisphere.

Check your atlas. Australia is not in the Western Hemisphere.

My mistake. Was thinking Western hemisphere and 'other continents' at the same time, and Western Hemisphere is what got typed. Oops!

My mistake. Was thinking Western hemisphere and 'other continents' at the same time, and Western Hemisphere is what got typed. Oops!
Since this is in Religious Discussions, I'll forgive you (but DON'T let it happen again!! ).

This of course, assumes that you're ok with every animal on the earth today, being directly descendant from those few on the Ark.
First of all Noah's Great Flood is a direct copy of the thousands of years older Gilgamesh flood story. So where was God's guidance when that story was copy-catted into the Bible? Can the claimed to exist "God" now also be accused of plagiarism ? If not : how can it be that Noah's story is the twin story of the much older Gilgamesh epic?

The Bible speaks of a worldwide flood, so all animals on earth were involved.
How did marsupials travel to the Ark, and - even more interesting - how did they return to Australia? Quantas Airlines?

As to the numbers of animals on the Ark : as per the biblical story all living animals today should be descendants from animals on the Ark. Not even several arks would have been capable of housing all these different species, specially for such a long time.

As to humans : how can our genes clearly indicate that modern humans descend from humans from all over the globe, if we can only descend from Noah's family, as all other humans should have drowned?

All these aspects together provide enough data to declare the entire Noah myth null and void.
But as always I am open to any objective supporting evidence for Noah's story...

But why is that never coming forward?

:rolleyes:

·

First of all Noah's Great Flood is a direct copy of the thousands of years older Gilgamesh flood story.

Really? Please validate that claim that Gilgamesh is "thousands of years older".

Epic is from around 2700 BC, Flood 2345 BC--hundreds of years, not thousands.

As to humans : how can our genes clearly indicate that modern humans descend from humans from all over the globe, if we can only descend from Noah's family, as all other humans should have drowned?

I never understood this. Surely there were other boats around. Why didn't anyone grab some veggies and hop in a boat?

Serious question... Can anyone familiar with the bible explain that? Or does the bible explain why no other person on earth could have hopped into a boat?

Epic is from around 2700 BC, Flood 2345 BC--hundreds of years, not thousands.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholars surmise that a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the mythological hero-king Gilgamesh, who might have been a real ruler in the late Early Dynastic II period (ca. 27th century BC)[1], were gathered into a longer Akkadian poem long afterward, with the most complete version existing today preserved on twelve clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.
Source: Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing definite about whether it is only a story, or when it occurred, but the story was recorded much later than 2700 BC according to scholars. This places the Gilgamesh story after the historic flood recorded in Genesis.

the story was recorded much later than 2700 BC according to scholars.
From allaboutarchaeology.org -
"The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to about 2700 BC and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in the cuneiform script of ancient Sumeria."

From bookrags.com (The Epic of Gilgamesh) --
"the ancient oral tales about Gilgamesh probably were first written down, in cuneiform, about 2500 B.C. by Sumerian scribes"

From book-of-thoth.com --
"The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third dynasty of Ur (2100 BC-2000 BC), or to about 400 years after the supposed reign of Gilgamesh, who is now thought to have been historical, following the discovery of artifacts definitively associated with Agga and Enmebaragesi of Kish, two other kings named in the stories."

7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.
So? Why bold the date?

This has been, so far, an interesting topic.

With my personal beliefs aside, the answer has come down to...

It's God. We can't understand what God did.

Or...

It's just not possible?

from allaboutarchaeology.org -
"The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to about 2700 BC and was originally written on 12 clay tablets in the cuneiform script of ancient Sumeria."

from bookrags.com (The Epic of Gilgamesh) --
"the ancient oral tales about Gilgamesh probably were first written down, in cuneiform, about 2500 B.C. by Sumerian scribes"

from book-of-thoth.com --
"The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third dynasty of Ur (2100 BC-2000 BC), or to about 400 years after the supposed reign of Gilgamesh, who is now thought to have been historical, following the discovery of artifacts definitively associated with Agga and Enmebaragesi of Kish, two other kings named in the stories."

Note that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the dates, as indicated by the variance and the usage of words such as "probably". The earliest validated dates are later than the guesses, but even the guesses are after the date of the Biblical flood. The 26-27th century BC date refers to the timeframe in which the tale is set, not when it was written down. The point being is that the story was written down at best a few hundred years after the historic flood event record in scripture.

... Can anyone familiar with the bible explain that? Or does the bible explain why no other person on earth could have hopped into a boat?
I waited to see reactions. But as expected none seem to be forthcoming !
Now why would that be ?

:rolleyes:

·

I never understood this. Surely there were other boats around. Why didn't anyone grab some veggies and hop in a boat?

Serious question... Can anyone familiar with the bible explain that? Or does the bible explain why no other person on earth could have hopped into a boat?

Okay - I personally thought that the answer was obvious, but here goes:

Gen 7:24
24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
NKJV

How many people do you know who have a boat ready to go which has 6 months of supplies aboard? And 6 months would be bare minimum since time would be required after the flood for fresh water lakes and ponds to form again, and for vegetation for food to grow again.

Think about it.

Okay - I personally thought that the answer was obvious, but here goes:

Gen 7:24
24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
NKJV

How many people do you know who have a boat ready to go which has 6 months of supplies aboard? And 6 months would be bare minimum since time would be required after the flood for fresh water lakes and ponds to form again, and for vegetation for food to grow again.

Think about it.

People have survived longer than this stranded at sea. As to this:
And 6 months would be bare minimum since time would be required after the flood for fresh water lakes and ponds to form again, and for vegetation for food to grow again.

I've been asking this and no one has answered. How did Noah and the animals cope with this? Even they had enough room to store all this food on the boat, what they do when they got off the Ark until all the vegetation came back? And what did the carnivores eat, since the only animals saved were ones that were supposed to go on and reproduce again?

People have survived longer than this stranded at sea.

There is far more than just surviving at sea. Keep in mind that this was more than just a calm sea, or even a stormy sea. Water was coming up from underground, and from above, so much so that in days the whole earth was flooded. This was a catastrophic situation where most boats would be sunk in the first few hours, let alone 6 months.


I've been asking this and no one has answered. How did Noah and the animals cope with this? Even they had enough room to store all this food on the boat, what they do when they got off the Ark until all the vegetation came back? And what did the carnivores eat, since the only animals saved were ones that were supposed to go on and reproduce again?

Since we are not given a detailed list of what they stored for supplies, this will have to remain a matter of speculation. And to even attempt to answer the question, we would need to examine the dietary needs on a species by species basis. Some animals can eat a variety of items despite dietary preferences, perhaps others ate fish which could be caught in the open sea. Without a detailed study which could take years, the speculation on the answer will be as vague as the question.

In "other religion" there was a question on Noah's Ark.
In the end the topic changed into a debate on the size of the Ark versus the carrying capacity versus the number of all animals and plants that would have to be in the ark to survive the flood.

So where is the calculation that the Ark was big enough to provide sufficient space for all in it for such a long time?
Or can we accept the Biblical Noah's Ark story as just a copycat repeat of the Gilgamesh story?

The Noah's ark Biblical account is very feasible. You Just make claims based on your ignorance but if you do some research first you would find that many of today’s species of animals descended from about 8,000 genera "kinds" of animals. Thus, if the scientific genus is taken to be equal to the biblical "kind" then this would result in about 8,000 genera, and therefore, nearly 16,000 animals on the ark (this accounts for both live animals and extinct animals known from fossils)

Noah would not have needed to take sea creaatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably would have become extinct because of the Flood. Noah would not have needed to take plants either — many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertibrats were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The ark had to transport only land animals, so the mammals, birds, and reptiles were essentially all that would have needed accommodations.

There would have been ample space available on the ark to store these animals. According to the biblical record, the ark measured about 450x75x45 feet, so its volume was about 1.5 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of about 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold about 240 sheep. So the ark could have carried over 125,000 fully-grown sheep. The animals, however, did not have to be fully grown. The largest animals could have been represented by "teenage" or even younger animals. The average size of the animals on the ark could accually have been that of a small rat, while only about 11 percent may have been much larger than a sheep.

:)

You Just make claims based on your ignorance but if you do some research first you would find that many of today’s species of animals descended from about 8,000 genera "kinds" of animals. Which research shows that there only 8,000 species at that moment in time? And which research shows that they account for the millions of species today?

The Noah's ark Biblical account is very feasable.
No it is not. The numbers of animals are not properly explained. All water creatures living in potable water would have perished in days, once the waters of see and lakes would mix, inevitable when the earth would be covered by water all over. All non-sea birds would have perished except perhaps a very few exceptions. All insects would have perished. Almost all amphibians would have perished in sea water. Etc. etc. etc.
But even more interesting to explain : how did all animals got to and on the Ark, and back again afterwards?
How did Noah collect all animals from N and S America, Australia, and all islands worldwide (where new - specially adapted animals evolved). Collecting all these animal species would have taken several life times...

Where is your claim of only "8000 genera" coming from, and how does that explain all creatures living today, WITHOUT EVOLUTION ? Why not one step further, and accept evolution as "THE" cause in the first place ?

On what were all these animals living after the flood? Specially the hunter animals. If there were only 2 of each species, how many species died out in days after being released, either by hunter animals or by lack of (meat) food?

The Noah's ark Biblical account was NOT feasible at all !

Besides that : how can Noah's story be almost exact copy of the Gilgamesh Epic that is dated thousands of years earlier?

:rolleyes:

·

Which research shows that there only 8,000 species at that moment in time? And which research shows that they account for the millions of species today?

Don't forget that 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. Maybe the flood did it.. :rolleyes:

Besides that : how can Noah's story be almost exact copy of the Gilgamesh Epic that is dated thousands of years earlier?

This is why it is futile to try to answer all your questions. This claim already shown to be in error and yet you repeat it again. If you would acknowledge and perhaps interact on the answers given, it may be worthwhile spending more time on addressing the points that you raise, but if you choose to ignore what it said, then why do it? It appears tghat you will believe what you want to believe no matter what.

This is why it is futile to try to answer all your questions. This claim already shown to be in error and yet you repeat it again. If you would acknowledge and perhaps interact on the answers given, it may be worthwhile spending more time on addressing the points that you raise, but if you choose to ignore what it said, then why do it? It appears tghat you will believe what you want to believe no matter what.

Futile indeed. You are right Tj3, telling Credo anything is like talking to a plastic bowl. He is so set in his beliefs that he is unwilling to acknowledge anything that is contrary to his secular huministic faith. :rolleyes:

Where is your claim of only "8000 genera" coming from, and how does that explain all creatures living today, WITHOUT EVOLUTION ? Why not one step further, and accept evolution as "THE" cause in the first place ?

·

This just goes to show how you don't pay attention to anything and are just engrossed and blinded by your zealous beliefs.
If you were paying attention you would have known that I do not deny evolution, however I do not believe in MACRO evolution because there is no evidence for that.

According to the Genesis model of origins, God created not each individual species, but the wider genus (around 8000 genera) to which each species belongs.
Genesis thus indicates that God created each genus, not each individual species. Within each genus He provided a blueprint for diversity, enabling each genus to split, over time, into numerous species i.e MICRO evolution. So out of the 8000 or so genera, new species within each genus are being created by micro evolution. So a wolf, fox, dog, coyote share a common canine anscestor.. But Darwinists like yourself make the leap of faith that these animals also share a common ancestor with palm trees, gold fish, dolphins etc.

So again, Noah's Arch is very feasible

According to the Genesis model of origins, God created not each individual species, but the wider genus (around 8000 genera) to which each species belongs.
Genesis thus indicates that God created each genus, not each individual species. Within each genus He provided a blueprint for diversity, enabling each genus to split, over time, into numerous speciesWhere is this mentioned in the bible?

It appears tghat you will believe what you want to believe no matter what.
This could have been written to you. "Scholars say" just isn't good enough. Perhaps if you would admit that it is your literal interpretation of the Flood story that is behind your arguments..

If you were paying attention you would have known that i do not deny evolution, however i do not believe in MACRO evolution because there is no evidence for that.

So why don't you just come out and say it? You accept evolution up until the point that it interferes with your precious religious beliefs. Then you're willing to suspended logic as necessary.

Why would you accept micro and not macro evolution? What reason do you have to think that it stops at some point before becoming macro? So it's OK to accept 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, but we must not assume 4+1=5, because our religious book tells us differently?

WELL, logically there are many things about religion that do not add up. I personally do not share the same religious beliefs, but rather a spiritual awareness of a connection between everything that is alive and the energy within it. IT isn't something I can justify with numbers or an equation, but it is what makes sense to me.
I think the reason you strike such a chord is because many people feel safe with their religious upbringing, beliefs and rules that come from the bible and other tenants of each faith.
WHAT I am trying to say, is that it scares people to have them think differently than what they know and feel comfortable with. IT makes sense to them because that is what they have been raised to believe. IT is sort of the same mentality with believing in Santa. WE know logically he doesn't exist but yet we still adhere to the spirit of Christmas by adorning our houses and malls and neighborhoods with a tribute to SANTA CLAUS..
TO them, this is their truth and to see it differently would shake their very foundation of security and comfort, which is ultimately their faith.
Many people question their faith and religion when they grow up while others adhere to it even more stringently. The world is a scary place and leaning on faith and religion helps many people get by without fear of the unknown.
So, just because it isn't rational or logical to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make perfect sense to the one who believes.
This isn't really about Noah's Ark. This is about wanting to shake people to the core and have them question what they believe and really explore their faith and religious practices. By pointing out the ludicrous assumption that every animal could fit on Noah's Ark is really begging the question.
NOTHING about religion is based on fact. IT is based on biblical interpretation of those that understood what God intended for us. IT is based on stories that are meant to teach lessons, values and the way we are supposed to live in harmony. We can't prove that Jesus rose from the dead anymore than we can prove Moses wrote the ten commandments. These are stories that have been written, modified and changed over the years by thousands of writers, storytellers and witnesses to the miracles they profess.
WE know that, but LOGICALLY some people see it as absolute fact, rather than interpretation. JUST as you know 4+1=5, to be true from the math you have learned,They look to the books they have learned from to believe religion is the answer to their questions. Does that make sense?
Just being devil's advocate.. No sense in arguing here.

I have to credit Joss Whedon, (creator and writer of both the late, lamented "Firefly" TV series as well as the movie "Serenity", based upon the series), for the scene, below. I also have to credit Stuart Forsyth Newsvine - Greenpeace Building Replica of Noah's Ark (http://dungbeetlemania.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/17/723934-greenpeace-building-replica-of-noahs-ark)
For having the quote handy.

I have to quote one of my favourite scenes from Firefly:

Book: "What are we up to, sweetheart?"

River: "Fixing your Bible."

Book: "I, um...(alarmed)...what?"

River: "Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense." (she's marked up the bible, crossed out passages)

Book: "No, no. You - you can't...

River: "So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem."

Book: "Really?"

River: "We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat." (rips out page)

:)

[QUOTE=lobrobster]So why don't you just come out and say it? You accept evolution up until the point that it interferes with your precious religious beliefs. Then you're willing to suspended logic as necessary.

Correction i accept evolution up until the point where there is no longer any evidence.
Like i said before, my dismissal of the theory of evolution is independent of my religious beliefs, it is merely because after examining evidence i have come to the conclusion that evidence for Macro evolution is non existent and that the theory is based on "conjectures" aka guess work and "inferences" aka leaps of faith and nothing more concrete than that.
In years of biological studies i am yet to hear of a random mutation that adds new information to a species (outside its genus), the fact that there is none that have been observed makes macro evolution virtually impossible.


Why would you accept micro and not macro evolution? What reason do you have to think that it stops at some point before becoming macro? So it's OK to accept 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, but we must not assume 4+1=5, because our religious book tells us differently?

No, Because have not seen any evidence that can remotely lead me to believing i share a common ancestor with a palm tree.
Your logic is since a wolf and a dog share a common ancestor, you make the leap of faith that they must also share a common ancestor with sea horse. There is no evidence for this "inference". Like i said before random mutation have never shown to add "new" information.

I have to credit Joss Whedon,
Excellent post!!

:D :D :D :D :D

·

This could have been written to you. "Scholars say" just isn't good enough. Perhaps if you would admit that it is your literal interpretation of the Flood story that is behind your arguments...?

Actually, I have a scientific background and a university education, and as an engineer, I am required to work with science, and logic and critical investigation of issues. Further, I was once a believer that the Genesis account of creation was merely a symbolic story, and I was a believer in evolution. What convinced me otherwise was when I decided to do more research into both the scientific data and the scriptural account and found that the evolutionary theory was unsubstantiated and was incompatible with the facts. I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.

I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.
Well, Toms777, we know each other already many years. But over all that time you have never properly explained that "compatibility" between scientific evidence and scripture.

May be a good time to do that now??

:rolleyes:

·

Well, Toms777, we know each other already many years. But over all that time you have never properly explained that "compatibility" between scientific evidence and scripture.

May be a good time to do that now ???

:rolleyes:

·

Not true, John, I have explained many aspects of it to you in the past, but when I have put forward scientific evidence in the past, you have either ignored it or claimed that you did not see it, even after I posted it 20 times. Thus my comment about the futility of answering your "questions" when you ignored the facts about the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Actually, I have a scientific background and a university education, and as an engineer, I am required to work with science, and logic and critical investigation of issues. Further, i was once a believer that the Genesis account of creation was merely a symbolic story, and I was a believer in evolution. What convinced me otherwise was when I decided to do more research into both the scientific data and the scriptural account and found that the evolutionary theory was unsubstantiated and was incompatible with the facts. I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.

Please do give the details on the research that led you away from the scientific theory of evolution and into the belief of the creation story. Also, I'm curious... How many of your engineering colleagues believe in creationism? How many are even the slightest bit religious? I suspect you'd stick out like a sore thumb around the water cooler if the subject of religion ever came up.

Not true, John, I have explained many aspects of it to you in the past, but when I have put forward scientific evidence in the past, you have either ignored it or claimed that you did not see it, even after I posted it 20 times. Thus my comment about the futility of answering your "questions" when you ignored the facts about the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Tom : you show yourself with that "Gilgamesh" note that you NEVER provided scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for the "Gilgamesh Epic". That is a myth. Just as the Noah's Ark story is a myth - at least till anyone can provide objective supporting evidence that it is not a myth...

All your explanations in the past were based on claims based on religious belief, i.e. subjective evidence. Scientific evidence is however based on objective supported evidence.

All you posted 20+ times was subjective religious claims. Not one single iota of scientific evidence was ever included.

The futility is not in the answering of my questions, but in the total lack of scientific support for your own "arguments".

Of course you could try to prove me wrong. But you won't. Because you can't. And you know that...

:rolleyes:

·

Tom : you show yourself with that "Gilgamesh" note that you NEVER provided scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence for the "Gilgamesh Epic".

John, I never said that there was evidence for Gilgamesh. Maybe you should go back and read what I said.


That is a myth. Just as the Noah's Ark story is a myth - at least till anyone can provide objective supporting evidence that it is not a myth...

Some evidence has already been provided during this discussion, but no doubt you did not see it.


All your explanations in the past were based on claims based on religious belief, i.e. subjective evidence. Scientific evidence is however based on objective supported evidence.

And every time that I posted evidence from science and from scientific sites, you claimed not to see it, or would argue against it - no matter what it was. Remember when you argued that magnetic compass needles point East-West simply because I pointed out that they pointed North-South? (even after I provided sites ranging from military to scientific to the Boy Scouts)

A critical thinker examines the facts before coming to a conclusion. A critical thinker does not simply deny everything that he does not believe.

Please do give the details on the research that led you away from the scientific theory of evolution and into the belief of the creation story.

I do not plan to hijack this thread onto a different topic.


Also, I'm curious... How many of your engineering colleagues believe in creationism?

Ever heard of the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) ?


How many are even the slightest bit religious? I suspect you'd stick out like a sore thumb around the water cooler if the subject of religion ever came up.

Not true. Perhaps you should go to church sometime and find out how many engineers are there.

John, I never said that there was .....
Dear Toms777 : as expected I see you again starting to evade providing what I asked you for. We both know why : you can not supply that, because it does not exist. You have already tried that trick on three other boards over some 8 or 9 years.

This time I call your bluff :

Toms777 : please POST HERE the scientific evidence you claim to have. Almost no person here on this board has ever seen what you claim to have posted.
And I clearly tell you that your argumentation was not scientific, but based on subjective argumentation.

So why don't you prove me wrong?

:rolleyes:

·

"Discovery Institute"
Any organization that promotes "the Devil's Delusion" has little to offer on real scientific level...

:rolleyes:

·

Dear Toms777 : as expected I see you again starting to evade providing what I asked you for. We both know why : you can not supply that, because it does not exist. You have already tried that trick on three other boards over some 8 or 9 years.


John, Read the thread and the one that was on the Q&A portion of the board. No, I do not intend to repeat everything previously posted, especially not when you resfuse to acknowledge what has been posted (i.e. the claim about Gilgamesh being thousands of years older than the Biblical account of Noah).

Demonstrate that you are serious and I would be very happy to discuss, but if you are going to waste my time by asking me to repost things over and over(as you have in the past), and then deny that they were posted (as you are doing once again), then I do not have the time to play that game.

I will continue to respond to serious questions from those who have shown the intent to interact.

So, call my bluff by responding to what has been previously posted, acknowledge your error with respect to Gilgamesh, anything to show that you are serious and we will see where that goes.

Any organization that promotes "the Devil's Delusion" has little to offer on real scientific level ....

:rolleyes:

·

This is what I mean by refusal to consider anything which disagrees with what you want to believe. Do you even know what the Discovery Institute is? Did you take the time to check out their website?

How many of your engineering colleagues believe in creationism? How many are even the slightest bit religious? I suspect you'd stick out like a sore thumb around the water cooler if the subject of religion ever came up.

Actually - Engineers are the major component of scientists who believe in creation - If you find a scientist who believes in intelligent design, they're likely to be an engineer. Perhaps because they spend all day creating things? :)

This is what I mean by refusal to consider anything which disagrees with what you want to believe. Do you even know what the Discovery Institute is? Did you take the time to check out their website?
Yes. Of course. How otherwise could I state what they support ?

" ... The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason ... "

When will you AT LAST provide support for all your claims, as I asked you to do, Toms777?? Or do you AGAIN keep it to wild claims only ?

I called your bluff, remember ?

:rolleyes:

·

In "other religion" there was a question on Noah's Ark.
In the end the topic changed into a debate on the size of the Ark versus the carrying capacity versus the number of all animals and plants that would have to be in the ark to survive the flood.

Tj3 (AKA Answerway's Toms 777) stated in response to Choux's post on the problems with the size of the ark : "Others used different assumptions and came up with a completely different answer".


Actually, I posted a link to a document with a detailed analysis. Check it out.

Yes. Of course. How otherwise could I state what they support ?


Then you are aware that it is a scientific institute, which studies these issues from a scientific perspective.

------------------------
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:

* supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
* supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
* supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
* encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.

The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.
The Center's Associate Director is Dr. John G. West, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington.
(Source: CSC - About CSC (http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php))
------------------

Will you admit that?

BTW, "to call my bluff" as you say, I need you to prove that you are actually reading something and willing to acknowledge it. So far I have seen no evidence of that. (i.e. your refusal to acknowledge your error regarding Gilgamesh, your refusal to acknowledge the evidence posted on the thread regarding the feasibility of the account of Noah's ark, etc.). Until you do so, then I am wasting my time posting the same things again, as I have in the past.

Ever heard of the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/) ?

Yes I have. Say no more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholars surmise that a series of Sumerian legends and poems about the mythological hero-king Gilgamesh, who might have been a real ruler in the late Early Dynastic II period (ca. 27th century BC)[1], were gathered into a longer Akkadian poem long afterward, with the most complete version existing today preserved on twelve clay tablets in the library collection of the 7th century BC Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.
Source: Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing definite about whether it is only a story, or when it occurred, but the story was recorded much later than 2700 BC according to scholars. This places the Gilgamesh story after the historic flood recorded in Genesis.

A more direct source f/ Gilgamesh:

Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/)




-

A more direct source f/ Gilgamesh:

Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/)


Yep, and it agrees with what I said. The setting of the tale is in the 26-27th century, while the earliest Akkadian text are estimated by experts to be in the 20th century, a few hundred years after the flood recorded in the Bible.

Tj3> I decided to do more research into both the scientific data and the scriptural account and found that the evolutionary theory was unsubstantiated and was incompatible with the facts. I further found that the scientific evidence was compatible with scripture.
...
Ever heard of the Discovery Institute?. Then you are aware that it is a scientific institute, which studies these issues from a scientific perspective.


With which facts are evolution incompatible? And which sci evid compatible with scripture?
Of course your source of ICR explains. Yet no matter how scientific you try to make their supposed studies, at least on evolution, their POV is religious, their 'science' can only be fairly called 'creation science' and it's been proven in court that it is solely based on religion.



-

Another source for Gilgamesh, w/ a couple pargraphs f/ it
gilgamesh (http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/eng251/gilgameshstudy.htm)

GILGAMESH IS FROM ANCIENT SUMER

Gilgamesh is one of the oldest recorded stories in the world. It tells the story of an ancient King of Uruk, Gilgamesh, who may have actually existed, and whose name is on the Sumerian King List. The story of Gilgamesh, in various Sumerian versions, was originally widely known in the third millennium B.C. After a long history of retellings, this story was recorded, in a standardized Akkadian version, in the seventh century B.C. and stored in the famous library of King Assurbanipal.

Later, the story of Gilgamesh was lost to human memory, except for occasional fragments. The story was rediscovered in the mid-nineteenth century A.D. and made available in translation to German by the beginning of the twentieth century. People were especially amazed when they read this most ancient of stories, and realized that the flood story in Gilgamesh was a close analogue of the flood story in the Hebrew Bible.

ORAL AND WRITTEN TRANSMISSION OF GILGAMESH

Without a fixed written text, stories can be told for thousands of years, varying from teller to teller, adapted to this folk and that folk, with the names of kings, places, people added and subtracted to meet the needs and interests of a current audience. The story of Gilgamesh was originally part of such an oral tradition. "It is virtually impossible to determine when the material was first written down, let alone when it originated orally or how long it existed in an oral tradition. Rather it can be assumed, from the materials handed down from succeeding ancient peoples and languages, that it was not composed all of a piece and at one time but was added to gradually and varied by many tellers." (Mason 98)


-------------

While the story can't be proven, there is sci evidence to support one theory. It involves the Bosphorus and a collapsed dam that occurred about the time the story was supposed to have occurred. A quick search found the following (there was also a TV show on HST or DSC but I couldn't find it):

Overview
Two senior scientists from Columbia University have proposed a theory that a massive transfer of water occurred about 5600 BCE - over seven and a half millennia ago. They wrote: "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls." "The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." 60,000 square miles of land were inundated. 1 The Black Sea shoreline significantly expanded to the north and east. The lake's its water level was raised many hundreds of feet. It changed from a fresh-water landlocked lake into a salt water lake connected to the world's oceans.

They have drawn on the findings of experts in agriculture, archaeology, genetics, geology, language, development of textiles and pottery, etc. They postulate that this deluge had catastrophic effects on the people living on the shore of the Black Sea. It triggered mass migrations across Europe and into the Near East, Middle East and Egypt. It may have been the source of many flood stories in the area. Some researchers believe that the story of Noah's flood in the Biblical book of Genesis is a myth that had its origin in this cataclysmic event.

A book by William Ryan and Walter Pitman describes one of the most fascinating scientific puzzles of recent years. We found it far more riveting than any detective novel. 1

A possible source of the Noah's Flood story (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm)



-

capuchin > Actually - Engineers are the major component of scientists who believe in creation - If you find a scientist who believes in intelligent design, they're likely to be an engineer. Perhaps because they spend all day creating things?

Good one... and I loved the pic! (post #16) :D

I haven't read here yet that this is 2nd time humankind numbers grew due to incest (3rd if you count Job and his daughters). Guess that's why we all share so much DNA... :eek:



-

Good one...and I loved the pic! (post #16) :D

I haven't read here yet that this is 2nd time humankind numbers grew due to incest (3rd if you count Job and his daughters). Guess that's why we all share so much DNA.... :eek:


Don't forget how much DNA we share with monkeys! Yikes!

Don't forget how much DNA we share with monkeys! Yikes!
And than to know that we humans share up to 60% of our DNA with bananas, and still manage to walk up right...

Which brings me to the question : how could plants survive during the "Great Flood" , while the entire world would have been covered by sea water for weeks on end ? And what did animals eat after the "flood" to survive - besides each other - after all plants life would have been near permanently destroyed by being covered in sea water for so long?

(some) Plants may over time have recovered, but what did animals eat to survive till that moment?
And what did all animals drink after the flood? There was only sea water all over the globe...

Toms777 : I asked you for reposting that list of scientific evidence you claim to have posted over 20 times before on other boards.


John, why should I need to repost everything over and over and over again? This is the same approach that you have used elsewhere, and no matter how many times I post it, you deny that it has been posted, or claim that you cannot see it.

Why don't you defend your position by presenting the evidence that you believes supports your position, or provide evidence that you believe refutes what others post on here. That would be a more effective approach than simply denying everything.


I will keep doing that from now on till you either admit that your list was not based on scientific evidence, or till you repost that list actually. So expect this message many times from now , at least every time you post your empty claims!

I don't think that spamming and harassing is any more acceptable on here than the last board you were on.

It is just a matter of interpretation. Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer".
If a creator is going to create living organisms that inhabbit the same environment (earth) isn't it only logical that he would use a similar blueprints to obtain a master design.
So the DNA argument is yet another invalid "inference" made by Darwinists.

With which facts are evolution incompatable?


-

Fact # 1 There is no Fossil evidence for the claims made by the theory
Fact # 2 There is zero evidence that a little mythical warm soup/pond (where all living things came from) ever existed
Fact # 3 There is no evidence that a little one cell creature crawled out of this soup and morphed into every living thing we see today.
Fact # 4 There is no evidence that a wolf like creature evolved into the whales we see today.
Fact # 5 There is no evidence that a random mutation can add "new" information to a species (outside its genus)
Fact #6 There is no evidence than humans share a common ancestor with palms trees and carrots.

I could just go on.. but I won't. I think we have enough here to show macro evolution is a myth and a hoax. :rolleyes:

John, why should I need to repost everything over and over and over again? This is the same approach that you have used elsewhere, and no matter how many times I post it, you deny that it has been posted, or claim that you cannot see it.

Why don't you defend your position by presenting the evidence that you believes supports your position, or provide evidence that you believe refutes what others post on here. That would be a more effective approach than simply denying everything.



I don't think that spamming and harassing is any more acceptable on here than the last board you were on.

Lol.. I thought I was the only one who observed this. Having an intelligent debate with someone like John is virtually impossible. He is so zealous about his beliefs that it completely blinds him to reality. He refuses to acknoledge any evidence that is contrary to his beliefs and fails to either give evidence for his beliefs or refute yours with facts. :rolleyes:

Fact # 1 There is no Fossil evidence for the claims made by the theory

This statement is just wrong. And it remains wrong no matter how many times you decree it to be true. There exists tons of fossil evidence to support evolutionary theory.


Fact # 2 There is zero evidence that a little mythical warm soup/pond (where all living things came from) ever existed

No evidence for water, huh? Again, we don't know exactly how life got started, but we know very well what happened after it did.


Fact # 3 There is no evidence that a little one cell creature crawled out of this soup and morphed into every living thing we see today.

And no one has ever made such a claim! I honestly can't tell if this statement stems from ignorance, or if you're purposely misrepresenting the facts out of desperation.


Fact # 4 There is no evidence that a wolf like creature evolved into the whales we see today.

There IS evidence that whales were once land mammals. And the fact that they are now mammals living in the sea is indisputable.


Fact # 5 There is no evidence that a random mutation can add "new" information to a species (outside its genus)

I'm not even sure what false information you're trying to inject here. It takes a lot more than a mutation to genetic code for a new species to arise.


Fact #6 There is no evidence than humans share a common ancestor with palms trees and carrots.

Yes... There is... It's called DNA. Look it up if you haven't heard of it.


I could just go on.. but I won't.

Thank you. It's really frustrating to read so much misinformation in just one post.

[QUOTE=lobrobster]This statement is just wrong. And it remains wrong no matter how many times you decree it to be true. There exists tons of fossil evidence to support evolutionary theory.

There are fossils yes but do they prove evolution? No, because Darwinists have not been able to make the distinction between "transitional" creatures and extinct lineages. So for example the famous Tiktaalik which Darwinists claim to be a transitional fossil, however they are unable to tell us how this animals is differenct from lob fin fish seen today. Thus Tiktaalik could very well be an extinct species of the lob fin fish genus because there is nothing that distinguishes it as a "ransitional" fossil.




No evidence for water, huh? Again, we don't know exactly how life got started, but we know very well what happened after it did

c'mon lobro.. of course there is evidence for water.. but what evidence is there that water was once a promordial vegie soup?




And no one has ever made such a claim! I honestly can't tell if you are really this ignorant of how The Theory of Evolution works, or are purposely misrepresenting the facts out of desperation. Your desperation shows.


I think you are the one who needs to do a little more research on your beliefs because the darwinists do claim this ameoba is mother of all living things.



There IS evidence that whales were once land mammals. And the fact that they are now mammals living in the sea is indisputable.

What evidence? Dawinists found a fossil head of a wolf like creature and claimed it is the ancestor of a whale. They have even found one fossil tooth and made up a whole story of evoltionaray ancestry based on this one tooth. I can also find a fossilised tooth in my back yard and claim it is the link between pigs and man. :rolleyes:




I'm not even sure what false information you're trying to inject here. It takes more than a mutation to genetic code for a new species to arise.

We have already established that new species do arise, no refuting that, but what does it take for a new genus to arise? What hard evidence of this can you give? Or is you evidence just a "inference"?




Yes... There is... It's called DNA. Look it up if you haven't heard of it.

Again Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer". SO DNA is not a valid argument for evolution because it also explains a common creator.

Again Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer". SO DNA is not a valid arguement for evolution because it also explains a common creator.

Yep. When you look at BMW cars, and they are have a similar look to them, would we assume a common designer or that the cars evolved? I would assume a common designer.

There is an excellent book which examines this question and the evidence (or lack thereof) for evolution by a leading biochemist, Michael Behe called "The Edge of Evolution". It is an excellent book for those interested in looking at the scientific evidence surrounding evolution, and where the line is drawn between micr-evolution and macro-evolution.

Michael Behe called "The Edge of Evolution". It is an excellent book for those interested in looking at the scientific evidence surrounding evolution, and where the line is drawn between micr-evolution and macro-evolution.Not really: Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)


Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of key cellular structures are strongly contested by the scientific community. The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University has published an official position statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." [1] Behe's ideas about intelligent design have been rejected by the scientific community and characterized as pseudoscience.[2][3][4]

Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is extensively cited by the judge[5][6][7][8] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[9]

There are fossils yes but do they prove evolution? no, because Darwinists have not been able to make the distinction between "transitional" creatures and extinct lineages.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record was the most serious problem for his theory.

Not really: Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe)

Not really what? Not really is not providing response with any substance.

Have you read his book? I have.

[QUOTE] There are fossils yes but do they prove evolution?


Sassy... You have already shown to know much more than some of your comments suggest, so I'm not going to stoop to baby talk like you *really* don't know some of these things you're asking.

Science never PROVES anything! You should already know this. However, we can make very strong inferences. A scientific theory is simply the best possible explanation we have to date. ToE is exactly that. Fossils infer, lead us to, point us in the direction of, what we already know about evolution. It fits together like a glove. The fossil(s) you are looking for will NEVER be found. There will always be an intermediate fossil you will claim doesn't PROVE antecedence for some prior species. As it is, we are very lucky to have any fossils, since it is very rare indeed for anything to die and go on to become fossilized. So I guess you just win.


c'mon lobro.. of course there is evidence for water.. but what evidence is there that water was once a promordial vegie soup?

Re-read what you wrote: That "there is zero evidence that a little mythical warm soup/pond (where all living things came from) ever existed".

Of course it existed! And surely you don't dispute the existence of carbon, zinc, hydrogen, and many other elements that existed in the atmosphere that eventually found their way into earth's water.


I think you are the one who needs to do a little more research on your beliefs because the darwinists do claim this ameoba is mother of all living things.

But this isn't what you said. You tried to twist it into something completely different. Namely, that a one celled organism CRAWLED onto land and morphed into a fully fledged animal! That's absurd and no accredited scientist has ever claimed this! This twisting of words is probably sufficient to fool a lot of people on here who don't know anything about evolution. My goal is to make sure you don't get away with it.


what evidence? Dawinists found a fossil head of a wolf like creature and claimed it is the ancestor of a whale. They have even found one fossil tooth and made up a whole story of evoltionaray ancestry based on this one tooth. I can also find a fossilised tooth in my back yard and claim it is the link between pigs and man. :rolleyes:

Hmm. I thought I read that whales are thought to be descendant from bears, or even hippos. I'm not familiar enough with whale evolution to say much one way or the other. What I CAN say with absolute certainty, is that no one is making up stories! There is hard evidence for why they suggested such links. Certainly it was a better explanation than, 'God did it'.


We have already established that new species do arise, no refuting that,.

What?! You admit that new species do arise? Then what do you suppose they arise from, if not other species?


Again Because you believe in Macro evolution therefore you interpret common DNA as "common ancestory", while on the other hand, people who believe in intelligent design interpret the common DNA as "common Designer". SO DNA is not a valid argument for evolution because it also explains a common creator.

I don't interpret anything Sassy. I am not a scientist in this field. I do not claim to have a full understanding of these things. But I do bother to read a lot about it. As a layman I want to understand what I can. And I know enough to know that you get your info not from reading what real scientists have to say, but from Creationist propaganda. You simply twist words around and ask unanswerable questions to suit a preconceived agenda. As smart as you are, the only reason you don't accept evolution is because either you have been blindsided yourself by this propaganda, or you know full well what you're talking about and are deliberately trying to twist things to suit a fallacious argument. The more I become convinced that you're smarter than what you write, the more I think it's the latter.

Darwin himself said that the fossil record was the most serious problem for his theory.

Sure. 150 years ago.

Not really what? Not really is not providing response with any substance.

Have you read his book? I have.

Sadly, this book is handwaving creationist arguments dressed up as science. Scientists have suggested that he released this as a popular book because if he had submitted it as a paper to a journal, it wouldn't pass peer review. i.e. there's no science here, just moaning.

Sure. 150 years ago.

150 years later his concern still hold true. ;)

[QUOTE=lobrobster]




Science never PROVES anything! You should already know this. However, we can make very strong inferences. A scientific theory is simply the best possible explanation we have to date.

However the theory of evolution is NOT science it is a theory on origins. But if you say science never proves anything then why do you claim it is a fact. A fact is something that can be proven or demonstrated to be true and you have failed dismally to demonstrate that Macro evolution does occur.


ToE is exactly that. Fossils infer, lead us to, point us in the direction of, what we already know about evolution. It fits together like a glove. The fossil(s) you are looking for will NEVER be found. There will always be an intermediate fossil you will claim doesn't PROVE antecedence for some prior species. As it is, we are very lucky to have any fossils, since it is very rare indeed for anything to die and go on to become fossilized. So I guess you just win.

You see a fossil and because you believe it in evolution you "infere" it is a transitional fossil. So you interpretation of the fossil is biased by your belief Macro evolution is fact. This is just useless circular reasoning...







But this isn't what you said. You tried to twist it into something completely different. Namely, that a one celled organism CRAWLED onto land and morphed into a fully fledged animal! That's absurd and no accredited scientist has ever claimed this! This twisting of words is probably sufficient to fool a lot of people on here who don't know anything about evolution. My goal is to make sure you don't get away with it.

I am just going by what my Physical science prophessor told me. He said the amoeba crawled out of the promordial soup.




Hmm. I thought I read that whales are thought to be descendant from bears, or even hippos. I'm not familiar enough with whale evolution to say much one way or the other. What I CAN say with absolute certainty, is that no one is making up stories! There is hard evidence for why they suggested such links. Certainly it was a better explanation than, 'God did it'.


If you keep up with evolution propaganda, it get more and more absurd. They are now claiming a wolf is a whale's ancestor. National Geographic did a wonderful spread on the fossil "transitions" from a wolf-like creature to a whale. It doesn't take a 5 year old to know that his is absurd.



What?! You admit that new species do arise? Then what do you suppose they arise from, if not other species?

New species do arise within a given genus. But there is no evidence of the claims made by darwinism that new genera arise.




I don't interpret anything Sassy. I am not a scientist in this field. I do not claim to have a full understanding of these things. But I do bother to read a lot about it. As a layman I want to understand what I can. And I know enough to know that you get your info not from reading what real scientists have to say, but from Creationist propaganda. You simply twist words around and ask unanswerable questions to suit a preconceived agenda.

The fact that there are some "unanswerable questions" should tell you that it it impossible for the theory to be a fact.
You say i am into Creationists propaganda but i can also say you are into Darwinist Propaganda. Niether Creation nor Macro evolution have been proven factual. It is just a matter of subjective opinion as to what one finds more logical.
You subscribe to the Evolution theory, i don't because i have not encountered a single piece of evidence for it.
I believe in Creation because logic tells me the complex structures (that contain complex information and design) do not just appear from no where by random chance. For example this computer i am using.. logic tells me that an intelligent person engineered this computer. Logic tells me that even given billion of years, the computer can not just appear out of thin air by random chance. So why would i think that a human brain (which is able to do in split seconds what would take a computer years to do) would have appeared by random chance? Impossible.
LIke i said before it is just common sense.

Nice...

Post closed