[Tj3]

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 ?

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.

[Credendovidis]

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:

·

[Credendovidis]

"Discovery Institute"

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

:rolleyes:

·

[Tj3]

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.

[Tj3]

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?

[Capuchin]

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? :)

[Credendovidis]

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:

·

[Tj3]

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.

[Tj3]

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)
------------------

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.

[lobrobster]

Ever heard of the Discovery Institute ?

Yes I have. Say no more.

[WVHiflyer]

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

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




-

[Tj3]

A more direct source f/ Gilgamesh:

Epic of 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.

[WVHiflyer]

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.



-

[WVHiflyer]

Another source for Gilgamesh, w/ a couple pargraphs f/ it
gilgamesh

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



-

[WVHiflyer]

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:



-

[Capuchin]

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!

[Credendovidis]

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...

[Tj3]

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.

[sassyT]

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.

[sassyT]

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: