ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[Darat]

Nick - Could you tell which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

[Dr Adequate]

Darat --- this has been done by theologians. You could look it up. We get to refer him to textbooks on geology. He, equally, can refer us to fundie books on creationism.

I just thought of an awful pun.

Source for the goose is source for the gander.
:dl:
Excuse me.

Ossai --- this is much too combative, and what is this? "So you do believe the earth is flat and that stars are nothing more than bright lights hung from the canopy over the earth." Round here, we call that a straw man. Does Nick think that? He doesn't. The same could be said of the stuff about pi. How many decimal places does it take to be inerrant? (Think about it.)

For one reason or another, Nick is willing to discuss YEC with us, which is more than millions of other people will do. By the way, Nick, do feel free to bring your friends.

[Ossai]

Dr Adequate
Ossai --- this is much too combative, and what is this? "So you do believe the earth is flat and that stars are nothing more than bright lights hung from the canopy over the earth." Round here, we call that a straw man. Let me explain my train of though.

Nick wrote Why do I believe this? #1 cuz the bible told me so as the song says. Well the bible, especially the OT supports a Babylonian cosmology. A flat earth covered by a dome which is surrounded by water. God hung the stars from the canopy and set the sun to orbiting the earth. So by Nick saying that he believes the flood story because it’s in the bible and that the bible also tells where the water came from what he is actually saying is that he believes the Babylonian cosmology.

Does Nick think that? He doesn't. The same could be said of the stuff about pi. How many decimal places does it take to be inerrant? The real question here is “Why doesn’t Nick think that?� He obviously trusts science on those things so why not the rest.

As for being combative, Friday wasn’t good, the place where I work had a small electric fire and they had to evacuate the building. No one was hurt but it pretty much screwed up the rest of the day. So I was probably taking it out a bit much on Nick. But he’s still spouting the same thing even after all the references given to him – think of the fossils example where he apparently read a bit but ‘doesn’t believe in it.’

Ossai

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
True --- but we would also find evidence for mudslides if there had been no global flood, but there had been mudslides. We know there have been mudslides. They don't point particularly to a global flood, any more than deposits of burnt material prove that the Earth was once consumed by fire. You'd need more evidence --- as set out further in your own post.

And, indeed, lots of other people's posts.

This is just to avoid any confusion from the part of an eventual newcomer to this thread.

My intent was just to point that sedimentary deposits created by mudflows and similar phenomena could be produced by a global flood. I was not stating they were.

Actually their distribution (in terms of area, vertical stacking, etc.) does not fit with such an origin by a global flood.

The bottomline is- there are no avaliable evidence for a global flood.

Another OT digress:
Actually the bottomline is- Fundies say the Bible is the truth, but actually they pick up the parts and i[i]nterpretations[i] they like and forget everything what does not fit. And they also happen to ignore that the Bible they hold as the word of god is actually a collage of texts selected a long time ago by priests among a variety of texts. And the selection proccess was heavilly influentiated by political, theological and ideological conflicts within the church - the Catholic one. How this fits with their religious ideologies?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You yourself agreed that this bit of the Bible should not be taken literally, on account of this line.

Not literally the way you implied it to be if that was you that asked the question. God literally laid the foundation of the earth. You imply the bible is conveying the message that the earth is standing still or not moving. The word used in the kjv is removed. This comes from the hebrew word mote meaning to waver, by implication to slip, shake, fall, to be off course. Per Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. So I have no problem with the bibles message here and no problem using it as support for the water being able to cover the mountains.

By the way, you never came back to us on this --- if this can be taken as a metaphor, why not the first few books of Genesis? What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
Nick - Could you tell which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

The genealogies. I know from scripture that God made them male and female at the beginning. You can graph out the years with these. Adam lived 130 and begat Seth. In the days after Seth were 800 years, and so on and so on.

[Mojo]

Hi Nick, perhaps you can find time to answer my question.

If, as you seem to have stated, one species cannot give rise to another, and as you have also stated, not every currently existing species was taken on the ark (you say that "kinds" were taken but dont explain what this term means), how did all the currently existing species arise?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.So you think God is saying, like Groucho Marx, "Who're you going to trust, me or the evidence of your own eyes."

[Darat]

Originally posted by Darat
Nick - Could you tell which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

The genealogies. I know from scripture that God made them male and female at the beginning. You can graph out the years with these. Adam lived 130 and begat Seth. In the days after Seth were 800 years, and so on and so on.

I am not asking for what fallible people may have calculated, I mean some people have calculated the earth to be billions of years old and you don’t accept those calculations!

So again, Nick, could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. [/B][/QUOTE]

Who are you to say what contradicts God? Do you speak for him? Are you a prophet? A messiah?

All this YEC that you spout is man's opinion and contradicts the bible in many places. If you trusted God, you wouldn't need scientific evidence to prove his existence. You trust in the eternal word of your pastor and the websites from which you grabbed this drivel.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.
So by this are you then saying that you agree that what the bible says disagrees with what scientific evidence shows?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

Yet when the problems with the Bible text are pointed out you seem quite happy to ignore the contradictions in "god's words" and even add details not in the Bible!

You claim your knowledge comes from the Bible, yet used a few posts ago you were quite happy to tell me that:

Originally posted by Nick Harman

He still took 2 of every kind

...snip..


I've shown (and you even posted the same verses) that the Bible either contradicts itself and we have to discard one figure (2 or the 7) or we can’t make any determination from the Bible how many kinds Noah commanded to enter the arc.

Your knowledge of the “2 of every kind� did not come from the Bible….

[Darat]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Darat --- this has been done by theologians. You could look it up. We get to refer him to textbooks on geology. He, equally, can refer us to fundie books on creationism.

...snip...

I disagree, since unlike the people here who have defended the "old earth" ;) theory Nick claims his knowledge comes from a source that is infallible i.e. the Bible. His view is that everything else is just as he says in his last but one post:

Originally posted by Nick Harman

Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

Although he claims the age of the Earth is somehow known he cannot actually use his only source of knowledge to support his claim.

His creation date has no more legitimacy then Bishop Ussher's silliness claiming to have calculated the date of the creation of the Earth as being October 23rd 4004 B.C.

[Nick Harman]

I've shown (and you even posted the same verses) that the Bible either contradicts itself and we have to discard one figure (2 or the 7) or we can’t make any determination from the Bible how many kinds Noah commanded to enter the arc.

Your knowledge of the “2 of every kind� did not come from the Bible…. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have never claimed or heard any creationist claim to know how many kinds there were. It says 2 of every kind, then says 7 of clean animals, as we have discussed, but no one knows how many kinds there were. We may not be on the same page here.

[Ashles]

Just for reference Nick, you put the text from the person you are quoting in the [quote] tags.

Anyway, to reiterate my quesion:

Do you agree with us (from what you posted above) that what the bible says disagrees with what scientific evidence shows?

[Phaycops]

Hi Nick. I hope you had a nice weekend and enjoyed the first blush of spring. I know I did. It was a joy to be able to go outside with no coat on :D

You wrote:

I have never claimed or heard any creationist claim to know how many kinds there were. It says 2 of every kind, then says 7 of clean animals, as we have discussed, but no one knows how many kinds there were. We may not be on the same page here.

I accept that creationists maybe don't know how many kinds there were. However, this is an important thing to know if we are going to discuss the scientific merits of your YEC story. If there were a limited number of kinds, then how did they give rise to the species we see today? If there were a large number of kinds -- say, for example, every species we see today -- that leads to questions regarding 1) the logistics behind getting that many animals on a boat without eating each other, becoming sick, or overflowing with excrement; and 2) the geographical distribution of those animals post-flood. I know that you folks say that Noah and his family dispersed the critters, but there weren't that many of them, and there are a LOT of species in a LOT of places. Beetles, for example. And lantern fishes. And yes, even wombats. Please let me know what you think about these problems.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I have never claimed or heard any creationist claim to know how many kinds there were. It says 2 of every kind, then says 7 of clean animals, as we have discussed, but no one knows how many kinds there were. We may not be on the same page here.

You have misunderstood my post and still have not realised the error in the Bible.

The Bible has God telling Noah to take 2 of every kind into the arc, then God tells him to take two of every kind of unclean and seven of every kind of clean and fowl, but then the Bible says God only commanded that 2 go into the arc.

Do you not see the problem 2 – 7 – 2.

(Plus I’ll ignore the awkward problem of how if God did only command 2 into the arc, Noah could then sacrifice some of the clean beasts after landfall….)

[Ashles]

Darat I think you have departed from the Answers in Genesis script so Nick won't have anywhere to get an answer from.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
[B]You have misunderstood my post and still have not realised the error in the Bible.[

QUOTE]I fully understand what you are saying, I disagree and I have already detailed the answer. Error by ommission is your argument which doesn't prove error. I would have a hard time continuing with my side of the argument if God then commanded 1 of each kind, but this is not the case. And that is my final answer (I think I already said that, but this time I mean it. Ha Ha.)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.
I'll have another go. Same question. Third time.

Nick, do you agree with us that what the bible says disagrees with what scientific evidence shows?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
Hi Nick, perhaps you can find time to answer my question.

If, as you seem to have stated, one species cannot give rise to another, and as you have also stated, not every currently existing species was taken on the ark (you say that "kinds" were taken but dont explain what this term means),
you said species, I said kind.
Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so.

You could name many different species of dogs and they are all the same biblical kind, because they are interfertile. So Noah would not have to take every species of dog, but 2 dogs. Species is a relatively new term, you would probably know when that came about, I am not sure.

how did all the currently existing species arise?


I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem. Changes can happen pretty rapidly as cases have been documented. Dogs can have a lot of variety and that doesn't take long. The two sides will probably always disagree on this one. You and I are thinking of different changes. The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this. Variation is not the issue, both sides believe and observe this, the question is whether there are limts or not. ,

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Ashles
Darat I think you have departed from the Answers in Genesis script so Nick won't have anywhere to get an answer from.

I do not need AiG for this one, all I needed to do was read the text.

[Phaycops]

I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem.

...

The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this.

I'm going to have to ask you for a citation here, Nick. Where did this information come from? I have to warn you, though, that I don't think many of us are going to be happy when you tell us that you got this from AiG, and not a website on paleontology.

Nick, do you understand that your position is NOT supported by ANY scientific evidence AT ALL? How does this make you feel?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Nick Harman

you said species, I said kind.
Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so.

You could name many different species of dogs and they are all the same biblical kind, because they are interfertile. So Noah would not have to take every species of dog, but 2 dogs. Species is a relatively new term, you would probably know when that came about, I am not sure.


There may be a confusion in terminology here, but the word "species" does not mean what you think it means. Mr. Harman. Specifically, all dogs are one species (Canis lupus familiaris), despite the wide variety between various "breeds," "races," "varieties," et cetera, of dogs. The very definition of a "species," when the word is used properly by biologists, is of a group of interfertile organisms.

So dogs are a single species because they can interbreed with each other. In fact, because dogs and wolves can interbreed, the dog and wolf are now considered to be the same species (Canis lupus) -- Canis familiaris used to be considered a separate species unto itself. Donkeys and horses are different species because they cannot interbreed (more formally, of course, because their joint offspring, mules, are themselves sterile).

In this light, the odds of any two members of different species but the same "kind" (for example, perhaps a horse and a zebra) being able to produce fertile offspring is miniscule. But similarly, the odds against a pair of horses being able to produce zebras is also miniscule, especially given, first, the fact that only one breeding pair of horses would have been on the Ark, and second, that there would have been fewer than ten thousand years elapsed since that time.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem.
It is a massive problem so I am asuming your reading has again come from AiG and not from any scientific source.

I take it you are actually not reading the information we are typing and the links we are providing then?

AiG is scientifically inaccurate. Whether deliberately or accidentally, the information they provide on scientific matters is not correct. So why do you keep quoting them and assuming they are correct? Where do you think they are getting their 'scientific' information from?
It is not from the bible, obviously, and it is not from scientific research, so I am curious to know where do you think it is coming from?

Animals cannot have very much variety quickly from just 2 ancestors, but aside from this the health problems would likely be chronic very rapidly (see previous posts).

To get all the animals we have now from one of each 'type' is not a big problem - it is flat out impossible. The variety, the spread, the food required, the numbers, the genetic inbreeding, the different environments required...
And that's just dealing with the situation after leaving the ark.
And all assuming somehow there is loads of vegetation (which there wouldn't be).

Anyway, I'm still curious as to where stone age man fits into all of this.

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I fully understand what you are saying, I disagree and I have already detailed the answer. Error by ommission is your argument which doesn't prove error. I would have a hard time continuing with my side of the argument if God then commanded 1 of each kind, but this is not the case. And that is my final answer (I think I already said that, but this time I mean it. Ha Ha.)

Ok thanks, I'll put that to one side for now.

Back to my other point about how you know the age of the Earth. I am not really interested in what fallible people may have calculated after all " Man's opinions and ideas are always changing.".

So Nick, could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I have not done the math on this oneNo, you haven't.

As I pointed out, the smallest estimate I can find of species living today is three million.

How many were on the Ark?but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem. This is because you have only read fundie tracts, and are entirely ignorant of biology.

This is why you see problems where there are no problems, and no problems when there are lots.

Ignorance.

Please try to learn something about anything.Changes can happen pretty rapidly as cases have been documented. Dogs can have a lot of variety and that doesn't take long. We are talking about species not varieties.The two sides will probably always disagree on this one. You and I are thinking of different changes.Yes. We keep talking about species. We say: "there are three milion species". And you keep explaining how to get lots of varieties. Nick, there are three million species. Did they all fit onto the Ark, or was there speciation?

But the fundie side keeps on talking about variation because it's the only way they can thing of to duck the question.

This does not make them look smart, but what else could they do --- tell the truth?

Once for all, Nick:

HOW MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES WERE ON THE ARK? The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion You mean, like the world being round rather than flat, eh? Man's opinion, tut, tut.

The problem is, as I have pointed out, that you look at fundie tracts and we look at the evidence.

Nick, here is some evidence.

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg

Is that "a lot of man's opinion" or a lot of fossilised bones?

Here is an abstract of the description of this fossil in the scientific literature. (http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0272-4634&volume=022&issue=02&page=0405)

Incidentally, I looked to see what AiG have to say about the information in the paper above, and they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!

You must decide for yourself whether this is due to ignorance, laziness, or a habit of telling lies.and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. Citation, please. No, from not AiG. From the scientists who found the fossil.So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this. Variation is not the issue, both sides believe and observe this, the question is whether there are limts or not. , Could we have that in English?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
...snip...Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second.

This Invisible Geologist (TM)(R)(C) is asking if you realize that the Bible was assembled by men. I will not enter on the issue reagrading if the texts were or not inspired by god. I am just asking if you acknoweledge it was several times assembled -and edited- by men that were subject to failures. Do you trust these men?

And again remembers you of another place with very specific fauna - Madagascar. Even the fossils are different there. And also remembers of fossil fauna in Antarctica, quite different from that of the rest of the world. How this fits with the deluge?

And the Invisible Geologist (TM)(R)(C) is still waiting for the counter arguments that defenders from YE "theory" were supposed to provide - other than quotes of the Bible- regarding the inexistence of a geological record of the universal flood.

[Nick Harman]

[
Nick, here is some evidence.

http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg

Is that "a lot of man's opinion" or a lot of fossilised bones?

Here is an abstract of the description of this fossil in the scientific literature. (http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0272-4634&volume=022&issue=02&page=0405)

Incidentally, I looked to see what AiG have to say about the information in the paper above, and they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!
You are not giving an accurate account of the AiG material. They mentioned that it passed a peer review to there surprise. They mentioned that Thewissen's site now says there are more bones than was in the original paper. AiG did not deny outright, but said to their knowledge no new paper had passed a peer review so they would not consider the additions as evidence until it passed the peer review. I was already in the process of looking @ Thewissen's material.

[Nick Harman]

Started a new reply to get away from the picture.

You say you look at evidence. The truth is you look at facts and interpret them. Fact is that you are looking at bones. Interpretation is that it is evolving into a whale. That is not even close to a proven fact. Would you say that these bones prove they are turning into a whale, or is it more appropriate to say that many scientists believe this?

Nick

[Nick Harman]

[

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this. I would bet that there are animals living today that we do not find with humans in the fossil record.

Nick

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs.

This is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this. I would bet that there are animals living today that we do not find with humans in the fossil record.

Nick Name one.

The fossil record is stratified. It all follows a pattern. All of the fossils of hominids found so far are a long way from all of the fossils of dinosaurs. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that they do not occur in the same strata. In fact, it would by highly unreasonable to assume that they do.

[Nick Harman]

I’ve already told you numerous times to work the math. If you’ve had basic algebra you should be able to work it. Even splitting the source to ½ from the earth and ½ from above (ie the water canopy) you still end up with an uninhabitable mess. “It’s not life as we know it.� – Bones Where did the water come from?

Ossai [/B][/QUOTE] If it is as I say, the mountains raised up after the flood, then you are wrong, there is enough water in the oceans.


The bible also says the world is flat and that Pi=3. Do you believe those as well?

[QUOTE]Does the bible teach a flat earth? Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)
It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The pi argument has been refuted as well.

Nick

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
Name one.

The fossil record is stratified. It all follows a pattern. All of the fossils of hominids found so far are a long way from all of the fossils of dinosaurs. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that they do not occur in the same strata. In fact, it would by highly unreasonable to assume that they do.

I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together.

Nick

[Nick Harman]

I am signing off for the evening, it has been a pleasure. You all be safe and have a nice evening.

Serving a risen Savior who loves each and every one of you,
Nick Harman

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Mojo
Hi Nick, perhaps you can find time to answer my question.

If, as you seem to have stated, one species cannot give rise to another, and as you have also stated, not every currently existing species was taken on the ark (you say that "kinds" were taken but don't explain what this term means),Originally posted by Nick Harman
you said species, I said kind.
Genesis 1:24 (KJV)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so.You have stated that "kind" is not the same thing as "species." You have stated that not every species was taken onto the ark:Originally posted by Nick Harman
You have a picture of taking every species, but this is not the case.So where did all the other currently existing species come from?
You could name many different species of dogs and they are all the same biblical kind, because they are interfertile. So Noah would not have to take every species of dog, but 2 dogs. Species is a relatively new term, you would probably know when that came about, I am not sure.Actually, one definition of a species is that, if two animals are able to produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Animals of different species can sometimes produce offspring, but the offspring are usually infertile. Do you know what a mule is?
I have not done the math on this one, but from what I have read or heard is that this is not a problem. Changes can happen pretty rapidly as cases have been documented. Dogs can have a lot of variety and that doesn't take long. The two sides will probably always disagree on this one. You and I are thinking of different changes. The interpretation of the fossils is where the differing opininion lies on how big the changes have been. Ambulocetus for example is an interpretation, it is assumed to be a whale. The finished skeleton is a lot of man's opinion and some of the actual bones that were found were found 5 meters above the rest. So this being as reported in here as a proof for macro-changes can not be proven to be a land animal changing into a whale, you believe this. Variation is not the issue, both sides believe and observe this, the question is whether there are limts or not. ,You seem to be waffling here.

Anyway, when you say that a "kind" can give rise to a variety of species, are you saying that one species can give rise to another, and that evolution is therefore possible?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify).Well, next time you make a totally unsupported assertion, please could you make it clear that you are talking rubbish.The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints togetherWhich are not genuine, of course. Look up the references...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Started a new reply to get away from the picture.

You say you look at evidence. The truth is you look at facts and interpret them. Fact is that you are looking at bones. Interpretation is that it is evolving into a whale. That is not even close to a proven fact. No. The "interpretation" is not that it is "turning into a whale". If you get your ideas from fundie tracts, then you will continue to talk ignorant gibberish like this. It is an intermediate form. That is a proven fact. If you have an alternative "interpretation" which says that it's the chorus line of the Moulin Rouge, then that's a disproven error.Would you say that these bones prove they are turning into a whale, or is it more appropriate to say that many scientists believe this? No. I would not say, and no-one believes, that those bones are turning into a whale. They aren't. They really aren't. Look at the photograph. Do you see any signs of them "turning into a whale"? They are, however, the fossil remains of an animal which is an intermediate form between land-dwelling animals and whales (has characteristics of both). Do you understand the difference?

* sighs, shakes head *

[Dr Adequate]

And why we don't find man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs.
Originally posted by Nick Harman
This is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this. This is a fact. Yes, we know it. No-one has ever found a man in the same fossil layers of dinosaurs. This is confirmed by all the paeleontological evidence ever published, or, as you would put it, it is "an assumption". You know, like "we don't find any pigs with wings" is an "assumption".

Again, could you try to learn something about even one of the topics you lecture us on? Even your Bible quotes seem to be mostly borrowed from other people on this thread who posted them first.

[H3LL]

Hello again Nick.

I'll try yet again.

I would like you to show us what makes the stuff you repeat on here science? (There is help in this thread if you want to read it).

Show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).

If you can't.

I T I S N O T S C I E N C E

Therefore it's just a story. Nothing more, nothing less. No more valid as science than a fairy tale.

So, in case you missed it:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).</center>

That's:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).</center>

or if you prefer:

<center>If what you say follows the scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html). Show us how.</center>

How about:

<center>Science follows a certain method. Show us how what you say follows the scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).</center>

Or:

<center>Science is called science because it follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html). In what way does what you say follow a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html)?</center>

I prefer the first. It was:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).</center>

That's:

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).</center>

You may have got the idea that I want you to

<center>Show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).</center>

So show us please.

When you have shown us we can start to take what you say seriously and not understand that it is a just a story and you think it's a nice story.

Thank you.


PS - Please show us how what you say follows a scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).

PPS - I hope I'm a bit more visible this time. We shall see.

PPPS - This link might help: scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html).

PPPPS - If anything in this post is unclear. Please let me know. I and others here are very happy to help.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together.

I am being ignored but I will go on.

I happen to know some paleontologists who work with ichnofossils (fossil tracks and footprints). Guess what: There are no human footprints associated with dinosaurs or trilobites.

YE "specialists" are wrong again.

You will not find hominid fossils older than 4 Ma. You will never find fossils of humans associated with dinosaurs, pterossaurs, mammalian reptiles, labyrinthodonds, giant fireflys, Burgess shale fauna, Ediacara fauna, etc.

BTW, Noah grabbed a pair of Australopithecus?Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)

"It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain...snip..."

Ahem... CIRCLE ? The Earth is a CIRCLE ? What happened to the geoid? Circle = 2d geometric figure. The Bible is teaching that the Earth is FLAT !!!! Another shot in the foot.

And once again,

Do you realize that the Bible was assembled by men? I will not enter on the issue reagrading if the texts were or not inspired by god. I am just asking if you acknoweledge it was several times assembled -and edited- by men that were subject to failures. Do you trust these men?

Remember Madagascar. It has a unique fauna (are there loris anywhere else?). Even the fossils are different there. And also remember the fossil fauna in Antarctica, again quite different from that of the rest of the world. How this fits with the deluge?

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, Nick, these footprints.

You don't give any references whatsoever

However, as with every other subject we've discussed so far, I know more about YEC nonsense than you do. Unlike you, you see, I've carefully studied the arguments of both sides with an open mind, and I remembered and understood what I read. It's just this little way I have.

So I should guess you're thinking of the "Paluxy Tracks". Am I right?

Now, if you take a look, you'll see that even your heroes on AiG list this under "Arguments We Think Creationists Shouldn't Use".

But you read it in a fundie tract, and even though you couldn't quite remember it, or remember where you read it, or cite one single fact to back it up, or say where these tracks were, you still passed this trash on as though it were gospel.

As I have said before, this is not honest behaviour.

[farmermike]

Has anyone else suffered slight bruising above the eyebrows from the gentle slamming of ones head against their desk?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
You are not giving an accurate account of the AiG material. Now you're making stuff up about me, like the good Christian you are. I have given a perfectly accurate account of the AiG material. I wrote: "they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!" This was what I had just read on their site, as I mentioned in my post.. Here is a citation and a quotation.

This page from AiG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp) : "It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence."

My account was perfectly accurate.

[Nex]

Originally posted by farmermike
Has anyone else suffered slight bruising above the eyebrows from the gentle slamming of ones head against their desk?
Quite so.


Pardon me, Mr. Nick Harman. Could you PLEASE address the questions Correa Neto (who is FAR from invisible) has asked, and the points he has brought to light? At least the ones within the last 2 or 3 pages.

Pretty please? :)

Thank you.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[...] My account was perfectly accurate.

And adequate. ;)

[H3LL]

Thanks Dr. A for the "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".

It would seem to show that Nick reads the AiG site as diligently as he reads this thread, our links and the bible.

That is:

Not very well, if at all.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the creation account as anything other than literal. God's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Jesus said, "heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away." Someone said earlier that if the bible is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God. I am not ashamed of this for one second. Now tell us how you know the Bible is the word of God. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?

Or alternatively... Originally posted by Nick-al-Din ibn-Harman
What in the text of the Qur'aan would make one not take it literally as a historical account? Man's opinion is the only reason anyone would ever decide to take the Qur'aan as anything other than literal. Allah's word is never changing. Man's opinions and ideas are always changing. Mohammed said, "this Qur'aan is from Allah." Someone said earlier that if the Qur'aan is true, it doesn't mean that it contains everything that is true in it. True that it does not cover everything, but if what you are telling me does not line up with what the Qur'aan is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts Allah. I am not ashamed of this for one second. Now tell us how you know the Qur'aan is the word of Allah. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am signing off for the evening, it has been a pleasure. You all be safe and have a nice evening.

Serving a risen Savior who loves each and every one of you,
Nick Harman

Hi Nick - How do you know the age of the Earth? I am not really interested in what fallible people may have calculated after all " Man's opinions and ideas are always changing.". Could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together.
Oh why didn't I get here in time to respond to that piece of nonsense.

Nick these are lies you are repeating. Are you happy with that?

The scientific evidence is very easy to get hold of, and the things you are claiming have no relationship to scientific knowledge. They are made up. Invented. Lies.

Does this not concern you?

They are not even claims from the bible (so you can't claim that God said them). They are fabrications by human beings who can't bear to face the fact that what the bible says is at odds with actual real observable facts, so they have to resort to lies. And you are happy to swallow those lies and regurgitate them, even though they just don't make sense.

Now you are claiming that the mountains just rose after the flood. That appears like you are completely out of logical reasonable arguments and are resorting (as was inevitable) to the simple "God just did it, okay?" response.

Also, it does not say anywhere in the Bible that the mountains rose after the flood. So how can you start assuming things you reckon were left out of the bible?

[QUOTE]Does the bible teach a flat earth? Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)
It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
Look up 'circle' and 'sphere' on the internet.
One of them is flat (2-dimensional), one isn't. See if you can find out which is which.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
[B]You have stated that "kind" is not the same thing as "species." You have stated that not every species was taken onto the ark:So where did all the other currently existing species come from?

[QUOTE]Example: 2 dogs on the ark. Every dog we have on this planet came from these 2 dogs. Not evolution, but variation or micro-evolution if you would like.

Actually, one definition of a species is that, if two animals are able to produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Animals of different species can sometimes produce offspring, but the offspring are usually infertile. Do you know what a mule is?

Yes, a male donkey and a female horse. Horse and donkey same kind of animal. That seems pretty obvious just by looking at them.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Now tell us how you know the Bible is the word of God. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?

Or alternatively... Now tell us how you know the Qur'aan is the word of Allah. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?

I am no expert on the qur'aan but for 1, it teaches that all non-believers should be killed. Christianity is exclusive also as the only way to heaven but we are not instructed to kill non believers.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Actually, one definition of a species is that, if two animals are able to produce fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Animals of different species can sometimes produce offspring, but the offspring are usually infertile. Do you know what a mule is?

Nick:
Yes, a male donkey and a female horse. Horse and donkey same kind of animal. That seems pretty obvious just by looking at them.
But a mule is infertile so a horse and donkey are actually different animals.

You see Nick, it turns out that classification of different animals is actually more difficult than just looking at them.

If Noah had taken a donkey and a horse on the ark then that would have been the end of both species.

Do you see how you have made a simple mistake in assumnig what animals are of the same 'kind'?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am no expert on the qur'aan but for 1, it teaches that all non-believers should be killed. Christianity is exclusive also as the only way to heaven but we are not instructed to kill non believers.
Ah you've obviously never heard of the Crusades.

Or buddhism.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B]Now tell us how you know the Bible is the word of God. Is that not just the opinion of fallible men?


[QUOTE]1) Wrote by many different authors inspired by God: I cannot believe that men could independently write a book many hundreds of years apart and have it mesh together so well. 2) Prophecy: i.e. things prophesied about Christ hundreds of years before he lived that came true. 3) Error free - I realize this is debated among believers and non-believers, but If it was solely of men there would be unanswerable errors in the text. There is not one supposed error or contradiction that has been brought up that has not been answered.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Ashles
But a mule is infertile so a horse and donkey are actually different animals.

You see Nick, it turns out that classification of different animals is actually more difficult than just looking at them.

If Noah had taken a donkey and a horse on the ark then that would have been the end of both species.

Do you see how you have made a simple mistake in assumnig what animals are of the same 'kind'?


I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
1) Wrote by many different authors inspired by God: I cannot believe that men could independently write a book many hundreds of years apart and have it mesh together so well.
Well firstly it doesn't mesh together all that well. There are many inconsistencies and contradictions in it (see below).
Also it was being pulled together from many legends, myths and stories that had existed for a long time before.
And look at how well greek and Roman Mythology meshes together - that was the product of many different minds and stories.

2) Prophecy: i.e. things prophesied about Christ hundreds of years before he lived that came true.
According to who or what? The bible?
So the bible is a historical document that makes predictions about other things, of which our only record is what is written in... the same book?
Do you not see the problm there? I mean really? You can't see it?

3) Error free - I realize this is debated among believers and non-believers, but If it was solely of men there would be unanswerable errors in the text. There is not one supposed error or contradiction that has been brought up that has not been answered.
Well here is a list of 337 contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html).

And here are 927 absurdities (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm).

As you might expect to find in a work of man.

But we don't really want to get drawn into a generic debate about the bible. Let's stick to the scientific evidence for and against the flood.
You haven't adequately answered a single query yet.

Do you want to try answering where stone age man fits into the bible story?

[LW]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I am no expert on the qur'aan but for 1, it teaches that all non-believers should be killed.

Could you please point out exactly were in Koran does it teach so?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others?
What, have I heard of other different species that are unable to breed? Er yes, there are millions of them.

You see creationists often ask for example of evolution in observable action. You have provided such an example - animals of the same species (rabbits) have over time become so genetically different that they cannot breed with each other. Just as we would expect from evolution.
They have become, or are becoming different species. This is speciation.

But then creationists add the absurd argument that this can only happen to a certain extent. So we can have genetically different sdpecies of rabbits, clearly evolving, but they claim there is some form of 'limit' on how different their descendents might become.
This 'limit' is entirely imaginary and invented by creationists.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Now you're making stuff up about me, like the good Christian you are. I have given a perfectly accurate account of the AiG material. I wrote: "they deny that it's been published in a peer-reviewed paper!" This was what I had just read on their site, as I mentioned in my post.. Here is a citation and a quotation.

This page from AiG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp) : "It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence."

My account was perfectly accurate. Your statement implies they deny the whole paper has not been subject to peer review. Did not say you are a liar as I have been called I was only clarifying.

The paper was received by Science journal on 28 October, 1993 and accepted on 3 December, 1993, indicating that the paper passed the refereeing process with no, or only minor, changes being required before publication, and yet the paper is full of highly conjectural material. (here they are acknowledging it's acceptance in a scientific journal). It is the "extra material" they say they are unaware of any publication in a scientific journal.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Mojo
Well, next time you make a totally unsupported assertion, please could you make it clear that you are talking rubbish.Which are not genuine, of course. Look up the references...

Do you have the references, I would like to see.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Do you have the references, I would like to see. Try here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html), for a start.

[Ashles]

Another short article (http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/out_of_place_artefacts_10.html) with pictures.

[apoger]

Please note how Nick continues to use the quote function, even though he is clearly using it improperly. This is indicative of his methodology in other areas.

[Ossai]

Nick Harman
It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Ahem, a circle is flat. Go to http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm) and scroll down about half way for a picture of the flat circle of the earth. Then go here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part6.html) for your next argument.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.�
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...�
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...�
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.�
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...�

The pi argument has been refuted as well. Where and when? Certainly not by you in this thread.

If it is as I say, the mountains raised up after the flood, then you are wrong, there is enough water in the oceans. It’s not. You apparently don’t read your bible. Mountains were mentioned BEFORE the flood as well as being used as a measuring device of the flood.

Gen: 7:19-20
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Where did the water come from?

Where did the water go?

I was making a statement that I was making an assumption (to clarify). The only thing I am aware of are fossil foot prints together. For a full rebuttal read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html]On ( [url) the Heels of Dinosaurs[/url].

I am no expert on the qur'aan but for 1, it teaches that all non-believers should be killed. Christianity is exclusive also as the only way to heaven but we are not instructed to kill non believers. Apparently you haven’t read the bible.
Dt.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

2 Chr.15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

1) Wrote by many different authors inspired by God: I cannot believe that men could independently write a book many hundreds of years apart and have it mesh together so well. Oh, that would explain the hundreds of internal contradictions.

2) Prophecy: i.e. things prophesied about Christ hundreds of years before he lived that came true. Well considering that Jesus didn’t fulfill a single messianic prophecy, and that the prophecies supposedly fulfilled really are not prophecies if you bother to read them in context I’d say you’ve lost out on this one as well.

3) Error free - I realize this is debated among believers and non-believers, but If it was solely of men there would be unanswerable errors in the text. There is not one supposed error or contradiction that has been brought up that has not been answered. Bats aren’t birds.
The moon doesn’t give light, it reflects light from the sun.
Mustard seeds are not the smallest seeds and mustard plants are not trees.
How many more do you want?

Ossai

[Ashles]

Ossai's link about dinosaur tracks doesn't work - here is the link to On the heels of dinosaurs (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html)

[H3LL]

Nick, you have shown that:

You don't seem to read and understand this thread.

You don't seem to read and understand the posts.

You don't seem to read and understand links you are given.

You don't seem to read and understand links you give us.

You don't seem to read and understand web sites with your world view.

You don't seem to read and understand web sites with the observed world view.

You don't seem to read and understand science.

You don't seem to read and understand evolution.

You don't seem to read and understand any religion that isn't yours.

You don't seem to read and understand your own religion.

and the clincher.....

You don't seem to read and understand the bible.



How about you start over and try and get one of the above right.

We can move on from there.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
1) Wrote by many different authors inspired by God: I cannot believe that men could independently write a book many hundreds of years apart and have it mesh together so well. 2) Prophecy: i.e. things prophesied about Christ hundreds of years before he lived that came true. 3) Error free - I realize this is debated among believers and non-believers, but If it was solely of men there would be unanswerable errors in the text. There is not one supposed error or contradiction that has been brought up that has not been answered.

Hi Nick, with your knowledge of the Bible could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Nick, with your knowledge of the Bible could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?
Is that the third or the fourth time you've asked Nick that question? :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ashles
Is that the third or the fourth time you've asked Nick that question? :)

She/he is being asked a lot of questions and it could just be she/he keeps missing mine. I can be patient so I'm happy to keep asking the same very important question.

In fact I notice there are a couple of other posters who are also patiently repeating their questions to Nick. Hopefully he will find the time to address theirs as well as mine.

[LW]

Originally posted by Ossai
Where and when? Certainly not by you in this thread.

He is right in this case. The pi argument is a non-issue and should not be used as a Bible error in a debate.

It boild down to precision. The expression "diameter of 10 cubits" can reasonably express any diameter from 9.50 cubits to 10.49 if you round it to full cubits. Similarily, 30 cubits covers the range of 29.50 to 30.49. Take diameter of 9.50 cubits and multiply it by pi you get 29.53 cubits, which is within the range for diameter that rounds to 30.

Even more drastic roundings that that are acceptable in common speech.

[Phaycops]

Hi, Nick,

I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others?

Once again, animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are different species, regardless of what "kind" of animal they appear to be (I'm sure the biologists here are cringing at this gross oversimplification, but I feel it is warranted to keep the debate on-track). The two rabbits that cannot produce viable offspring are different species. Get it? Regardless of the fact that they all look and act like rabbits. Lions and tigers cannot produce fertile offspring; norway rats and roof rats cannot produce fertile offspring; horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring; eastern and western meadowlarks and skunks cannot produce fertile offspring.....

Nick, please try to read and understand what we are posting. Even if you don't have time to respond to everyone, show at least a reasonable attempt to understand something that we're saying. I feel this is about to degenerate if you do not make an attempt to have an honest debate with us.

Correa, btw, you are not invisible. Well, not exactly. Actually, the fact is you're only visible to other geologists :D

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Darat
She/he is being asked a lot of questions and it could just be she/he keeps missing mine. I can be patient so I'm happy to keep asking the same very important question.

I wonder why he doesn't simply give you one of the many recipes that you can find on the web. There are several ways of calculating the age of the Universe and everything according to the bible. Maybe Nick also finds them ridiculous, which is why he does not quote them?

[LW]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Nick, with your knowledge of the Bible could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

I have vague recollections of answering this same question to you before on a different thread. Use the seach function to find the exact passages if you are really interested. What follows is a short recap:

Roughly: start from creation of Adam, add together all names and ages of the begat lists until you get to Noah's 600th year that marks the beginning of the flood.

Then, after doing that continue adding up the begat lists until you hit the 120th year of Jacob when he and his sons moved to Egypt.

Then you note the passage that tells that the Israelites were 400 years in Egypt.

After that you note that Salomon started temple-building 420 years after Exodus.

Following that, you count up the reign lenghts of kings until you hit Nebuchadressar.

Unless you are willing to claim that the King Nebuchadressar of Babylonia ruled around 3,000 BC, you have to admit that Bible does,. indeed, claim that the first human was created less than 10,000 years ago.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others? What you are talking about here is what is known as a ring species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species). Because they can interbreed, all parts of the ring must have arisen from the same species. At the ends of the ring, where the greatest degree of genetic differentiation is visible, the populations from opposite ends of the ring can't interbreed, so appear to be of different species.

Now imagine if the habitats available for the species at other parts of the ring change so that the species dies out in those areas. What we are left with is two different (although closely related) species, that are unable to interbreed. This is how new species arise.

Ring species are, in effect, observed examples of new species arising, and "macroevolution" occuring.

Thank you for drawing our attention to them.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Phaycops

Once again, animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are different species, regardless of what "kind" of animal they appear to be (I'm sure the biologists here are cringing at this gross oversimplification, but I feel it is warranted to keep the debate on-track).

Consider me cringing.


The two rabbits that cannot produce viable offspring are different species. Get it? Regardless of the fact that they all look and act like rabbits. Lions and tigers cannot produce fertile offspring; norway rats and roof rats cannot produce fertile offspring; horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring; eastern and western meadowlarks and skunks cannot produce fertile offspring.....



This is important, so I'm stressing and repeating it.

Norway rats and roof rats appear to be of the same "kind," in layman's terms (they're both rats), but they cannot successfully interbreed. That's what being a species means. If the Flood story were factual, Noah would have had to bring two Norway rats (a male and a female) as well as two roof rats (again, a male and a female), or else both species would have died out almost immediately. Noah would also have had to bring aboard two kangaroo rats (actually more than twenty different species of "kangaroo rat", so he would need forty kangaroo rats), two cotton rats, two black rats, two greater stick-necked rats, two lesser stick-necked rats, and so forth. Just at a quick guess (there are 51 species within genus Rattus alone), Noah would have probably needed to bring over five hundred "rats" of various types.

Similarly, he would have needed to bring two African elephants and two Indian elephants. He would have needed to bring nearly 80 cats, ranging from the lion through the domestic cat. He would "only" have needed to bring sixteen bears, and he could have managed with just 34 penguins. But any less, and there would be animals that we wouldn't see today because they would have died out almost immediately in the post-Flood period.

The truly scary "kind" is the beetle. There are at least 350,000 beetle species in the world, meaning Noah needed to gather at least 700,000 beetles on his Ark.

Where would Noah have put all these animals? The Ark was only 150m long, 25m wide, and 15m tall. The London Zoo doesn't even pretend to completeness, and nevertheless extends over acres and acres.

[LW]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Norway rats and roof rats appear to be of the same "kind," in layman's terms (they're both rats), but they cannot successfully interbreed. That's what being a species means. If the Flood story were factual, Noah would have had to bring two Norway rats (a male and a female) as well as two roof rats (again, a male and a female), or else both species would have died out almost immediately.

There's you trying to bring that devil inspired genetics into the equation.

Since Nick probably doesn't answer this, let me quote the answer that I've heard several dozens of times from creationists.

The animals that Noah took into an ark were genetically perfect and contained all the genetical information of their kinds. The modern species have lost some of this information and so they can't mate with other member species of their kinds anymore.

Of course, this answer further raises questions on some other devil-inspired ideas such as "alleles" and "chromosomes" but that stuff should be left purely to devil worshippers and other evilutionists.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by LW

The animals that Noah took into an ark were genetically perfect and contained all the genetical information of their kinds. The modern species have lost some of this information and so they can't mate with other member species of their kinds anymore.

Of course, this answer further raises questions on some other devil-inspired ideas such as "alleles" and "chromosomes" but that stuff should be left purely to devil worshippers and other evilutionists.
That is a truly interesting argument you have quoted here! Do they have any explanation how Noah collected all these genetically perfect animals, or how they all survived the ordeal of being penned up for so long? Do the creationists have any suggestions how the animals were fed and how they spread out again over the earth? Or how the plants survived? And how the plant-eaters survived until the plants had grown out again, and how the predators survived until the prey had multiplied?

It is a pity Nick does not answer these questions because it is more fun to grill him than having a skeptic present the arguments for him!

[Correa Neto]

Ok, let's try non-geological questions.

And the question is regarding *drums* KINDS.

Q: All ants belong to the same kind? If the answer is yes, then please provide an explanation on why different ant species don't breed.

Q: Zebras, horses, donkeys, are or were they animals of the same kind?

Q: Where exactly in the Bible one can find a definition for KINDS of animals?

Q: Where exactly in the Bible it is explained that "The animals that Noah took into an ark were genetically perfect and contained all the genetical information of their kinds. The modern species have lost some of this information and so they can't mate with other member species of their kinds anymore."?

Q: You are referring to genetics. Are you aware that genetics is one of many areas that provide a lot of information confirming evolution? Are you aware that it has provided a lot of evidences against the global flood and YE?

Q: Look to aSmilodon and to a Thylascolmilus. They look pretty much similar, eh? Therefore they must be of the same type. A quick googling will tell you what they looked like. Explain how this is possible, since the first was a placentary, while the second a marsupial. You might also want to use the opportunity to explain, in the light of YEC "theory", their spatial distribution, why they were extinct, why there are no human bones in the same layers where Thylascolmilus bones are found.

Oh, just as a reminder,
Remember Madagascar. It has a unique fauna (are there loris anywhere else?). Even the fossils are different there. And also remember the fossil fauna in Antarctica, again quite different from that of the rest of the world. How this fits with the deluge?

Why there are not evidences for a global flood?

Yes, I've added a couple of geological questions. So what? You are not going answer them, anyway.

[Darat]

Originally posted by LW
I have vague recollections of answering this same question to you before on a different thread. Use the seach function to find the exact passages if you are really interested. What follows is a short recap:

…snip…



Thanks for that however that does not answer the question that I have asked Nick.

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Nick, with your knowledge of the Bible could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

Haven't forgot about your question, I was just trying to find a chart that graphs this out. be back w/you on this one.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Haven't forgot about your question, I was just trying to find a chart that graphs this out. be back w/you on this one.

Thanks Nick, and don’t forget I'm not expecting a calculation made by fallible people (because as you say they are just opinions that can change) what I was hoping is for the actual Biblical passage(s) that when creation happened and when the flood happened. - Thanks.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Haven't forgot about your question, I was just trying to find a chart that graphs this out. be back w/you on this one.
Again I don't think that is Darat's question.

All you have to do is quote Bible pasages.
I could create a chart/timeline that shows anything I want. That's not what Darat is asking for.

Darat has asked a specific question about bible passages. Can you provide the relevant ones?

ETA: I see Darat has already responded.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
The paper was received by Science journal on 28 October, 1993 and accepted on 3 December, 1993, indicating that the paper passed the refereeing process with no, or only minor, changes being required before publication...You don't seem to have looked at the sites I linked you to.

The paper which I linked you to was published in 2002, not 1993. It gives details of the second dig on the site, in which more bone fragments were recovered, including: "a majority of the axial skeleton of the holotype of this early Eocene cetacean, including both innominates, the sacrum, and most of the thoracic cage and thoracolumbar vertebral column. Additional appendicular, caudal, and cranial materials were also recovered, resulting in a specimen that is now approximately 80 percent complete".

It is of these additional finds that AiG (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp) write : "It is now claimed, on Thewissen’s web site, that more material has been found. As far as I am aware, none of this extra material has been subjected to peer review. That is, it has not been published in a refereed scientific journal. As such, it is not admissible as scientific evidence."

My link was to an abstract of research published in a refereed scientific journal (http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0272-4634&volume=022&issue=02&page=0405).

Whether out of laziness, ignorance, or deliberate mendacity, AiG have been perpetuating a falsehood for the last three years. Do you really have to defend every stupid bit of gibble every YEC comes out with as though it were Holy Writ?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
If what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.Here's a quotation that might interest you, Nick. A bit of history, you might say.

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis.

You do know who Murtin Luther was, don't you?

Well, now you know, from the father of Protestantism, how "we Christians" must think. You must think that the sky is a solid object with celestial bodies fixed to it. To do otherwise is "wicked". To interpret Scripture in the light of what you actually know about science is "presumptuous". So, Nick, how "likely" do you think it is that "the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire"? Are you one of those whom Luther would condemn as "wicked", or would he have considered you a good Christian?

I wonder what these people would think of you?

http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/vdkbook.pdf : We maintain that the Bible teaches us an Earth that cannot be moved, at rest with respect to the Throne of Him Who called it into existence, and hence absolutely at rest in the centre of the universe.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm : So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three days? ... Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and the universe rotated around it...

http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/achilles.pdf : I mantain that the strict creationists' defense of the Bible's inspired account of the creation of Heaven and Earth is half-hearted and logically crippled. Rejecting godless Darwinian evolution for the Earth's biosphere they accept the equally unproven and unprovable Copernican astronomy as "proven"...

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/ts_history/history3.html : To promote the truth of our Earth being at rest in the centre of the observable Universe as a first step in Christian apologetics is in fact the only reason why I defend the Tychonian theory.

http://www.20six.co.uk/cliffnotes1/archive/2004/04 : The primordial enemy, however, who entered Eden so soon after God opened up scientific inquiry by bringing Adam the animals to see what he would call them (Gen. 2:19), was fully aware of heliocentricity's potential for destroying the Faith by attacking the inerrancy of Scripture.

http://www.fixedearth.com : This "comprehensive materialist cosmology" is what Creationists today are up against and, excepting a handful, they do not know it! Evolutionism does NOT stand alone as a Bible-wrecking, contra- scientific deception about origins, Satanically conceived. Oh no! Evolutionism is historically, philosophically, scientifically, and spiritually WEDDED TO a previously conceived Bible-wrecking, contra-scientific deception about origins called Copernicanism!

---

Well, apparently they find your creationism "half-hearted and logically crippled" because "the Bible teaches us an Earth that cannot be moved".

Of course, you may say that these guys are just ignorant of science. To which they might reply:Originally posted by Nick Harman
If what you are telling me does not line up with what the bible is teaching, then I know that what I am being told is false. You think that is ignorant but I trust the eternal word of the only eternal God, I do not trust man's opinion if it contradicts God.

[Phaycops]

Dr. A, you make me swoon :clap:

Nick, have you found time to actually read any of the articles or posts where others have attemtpted to show you evidence that your claims are false?

[Martin1960]

Originally posted by Darat
Hi Nick - How do you know the age of the Earth? I am not really interested in what fallible people may have calculated after all " Man's opinions and ideas are always changing.". Could you tell me which Biblical passages tell you that the Earth is less then 10,000 years old and which Biblical passages tell you (within that time span) when the flood actually happened?

There's a nice table on this page (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/age.html). If the page is currently unavailable you can use www.geocities.com/paulntobin/age.html++site:www.geocities.com&hl=en]Google (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2G8kt3CDt40J:[url) cache[/URL] instead.

[Ossai]

LW
Even more drastic roundings that that are acceptable in common speech. I agree with you on your point and even though of pointing it out, but Nick is claiming an inerrant literal bible. Surely god wouldn’t ‘estimate’ an answer that will be held up to scrutiny. :)

Dr Adequate :clap:

Ossai

[LW]

Originally posted by Ossai
LW
I agree with you on your point and even though of pointing it out, but Nick is claiming an inerrant literal bible. Surely god wouldn’t ‘estimate’ an answer that will be held up to scrutiny.

I hope that you are aware that every measurement in every text ever written is only an estimate of the true measure. Including every single scientific article on physics.

That part of Bible is not a mathematics textbook. It is a description of Salomon's Temple. Scribes didn't read that part during mathematics classes to find an algorithm to compute either circumference of a circle or the value of pi.

In fact, there is no computation even mentioned in that verse. It explicitly says that the diameter and the circumference were measured with a line.

What precision of measurement would you accept as being acccurate enough for inerrant literal bible?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by Martin1960
There's a nice table on this page (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/age.html). If the page is currently unavailable you can use www.geocities.com/paulntobin/age.html++site:www.geocities.com&hl=en]Google (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:2G8kt3CDt40J:[url) cache[/URL] instead.

That is what I was looking for so I did not have to do it, thank you. Darat, will you accept that as not being man's oppinion and being from the bible (assuming for your sake it is from God). There is no interpretation here.

[Ossai]

LW
What precision of measurement would you accept as being acccurate enough for inerrant literal bible? Personally the description is fine as is. It’s only when people start claiming an inerrant bible that I even bring it up. They can come up with some of the most awful apologetics ever imagined, and then they have to admit that the value of Pi in the bible is an approximation yet they continue to believe the bible is the primary source of truth. It’s like Nick wiggling around the flat earth presented in the bible, but claiming a young earth based on some of the same text.

Ossai

[Ossai]

Just saw that Nick Harman posted.
stepping into prophet mode here. I predict that Darat’s answer will be…NO!

Especially since it doesn’t answer the question he has repeatedly ask.

Can I get a million now? :D

Ossai

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
That is what I was looking for so I did not have to do it, thank you. Darat, will you accept that as not being man's oppinion and being from the bible (assuming for your sake it is from God). There is no interpretation here.

I take it Nick that you haven’t been able to find any passages in the Bible that state when creation happened and when the flood happened?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
That is what I was looking for so I did not have to do it, thank you. Darat, will you accept that as not being man's oppinion and being from the bible (assuming for your sake it is from God). There is no interpretation here.
Uh, Nick, did you read the rest of that page?

It shows that just by counting tree rings you can show the earth is older than that.

The whole page is anti-creationist, but you are using that one single table as evidence for your argument?

When you look at that page do you squint, or cover half the screen with your hands?

It may sound like I'm joking, but metaphorically that is exactly what you are doing with your entire argument.

There are so many good questions on this thread that you have just ignored, presumably as you have no response.

[LW]

Originally posted by Ossai
LW
Personally the description is fine as is. It’s only when people start claiming an inerrant bible that I even bring it up. They can come up with some of the most awful apologetics ever imagined, and then they have to admit that the value of Pi in the bible is an approximation yet they continue to believe the bible is the primary source of truth.

Well, if that is your way, may I suggest a couple of more Bible passages where you can make the same argument:

1 Samuel 17:4
And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span

It is obvious that Goliath was not exactly six cubits and a span so there you have another error.

1 Samuel 17:7
And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.

There you have again some measurement presented as exact, add it to your error list. (Though, to tell the truth, I find the idea that someone would use a spear with that heavy head quite ridiculous, but that is a different matter).

Gen 6:15
And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

It is impossible for any human to measure exact lenghts so obviously here we have yet another error.

Claiming that the passage implies that pi=3 is as ridiculous as claiming that all measurements in the text are in error. I don't think that it is a good idea to use ridiculous arguments when debating fundamentalists because then they have the opportunity of being the reasonable one in the debate.

[Edited to add: sure, most fundamentalists don't take the chance but it is counter productive to even offer it.]

[H3LL]

Who's the person Nick keeps quoting?

[Darat]

Originally posted by H3LL
Who's the person Nick keeps quoting?

I think he might have been using some material from the "Answers in Genesis" site, http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Ashles]

I think H3LL was wondering why all of Nick's replies are written as quotes.

It is a bit strange - I tried to explain it to him a while back but, surprise surprise, it seems to have ignored what I wrote.

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Ashles
I think H3LL was wondering why all of Nick's replies are written as quotes.

It is a bit strange - I tried to explain it to him a while back but, surprise surprise, it seems to have ignored what I wrote.

I tried, too, but he seems to ignore me even more than he ignores everyone else! He even gave someone else (Ashles?) credit for my idea! But intellectual dishonesty is a hallmark of creationism, so I'm not that suprised.

Maybe all geologists are invisible, I dunno.

[Garrette]

Just to throw my two cents behind what LW has been saying about the pi thing.

I am in a (very surprisingly amicable and ongoing) debate with the chaplain in my Reserve unit. He claims biblical perfection.

I have consciously refrained from bringing up the pi thing for exactly the reasons LW has mentioned.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Darat, will you accept that as not being man's oppinion and being from the bible (assuming for your sake it is from God). There is no interpretation here. There is, in fact a little. Who are you relying on to give you the date of the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians?

However, I should say this interpretation is warranted --- at least, it can't be too far out.

So the Bible would allow us to deduce the age of the Earth if we made the entirely unwarranted assumption, contrary to the observed facts, that it is correct when interpreted in the way that you interpret it.

Unfortunately, as I've hinted, you are wrong in making that assumption. You're only human, after all.

[Ashles]

I'm beginning to suspect we are all just talking to ourselves now (well even more so).

Nick's last 2 posts have solely been about this one chart that describes how adding ages in the Bible we reach an age for the earth.

It is a bit like quoting a description of Hogwart's from Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone in order to demonstrate that magic is real.

I remember long ago when we were actually discussing the scientific evidence...

Of all the questions Nick could have answered he chose to answer the only one that has nothing to do with scientific information.

Interesting.

[Ossai]

LW and Garrette
Ok, I’ll drop the Pi argument.

That still leaves him with plenty of other inaccuracies in the bible.

Ossai

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'm beginning to suspect we are all just talking to ourselves now (well even more so).

Nick's last 2 posts have solely been about this one chart that describes how adding ages in the Bible we reach an age for the earth.

It is a bit like quoting a description of Hogwart's from Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone in order to demonstrate that magic is real.

I remember long ago when we were actually discussing the scientific evidence...

Of all the questions Nick could have answered he chose to answer the only one that has nothing to do with scientific information.

Interesting.

And I now officially predict that Nick will come back with the same dodging and weaving to the effect that he's just too busy to actually read or understand a d*&#ed thing in this thread. Maybe he'll even insinuate that we're a load of losers who do nothing but attack creationists online every day.

*Goes to sit with Ossai to await their millions* :D

[Garrette]

Originally psoted by Ossai:

That still leaves him with plenty of other inaccuracies in the bible.


Oh, yes.

[Dr Adequate]

I've had a look, and here are some unanswered questions. If I could have Nick answer any one of these, it would be D4. F6 as my second pick. Does anyone else have any preferences?


A : THEOLOGY

(1) Can you point out where in the Qur'aan "it teaches that all non-believers should be killed"?

(2) "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters." (Martin Luther). Do you agree?

(3) Do you acknowledge that the Bible was several times assembled --- and edited --- by fallible men?

(4) Why do you think that the people with knowledge of science and nature, of whatever religious faith, so overwhelmingly endorse evolution, and why are the YECs so pitifully ignorant of science and nature --- and so unconcerned with accuracy --- that their tracts are riddled with ridiculous falsehoods?


B : SCIENCE VERSUS PSEUDOSCIENCE

(1) Would you be so kind as to inform us of any practical use or any predictions that your so-called "science" can make?

(2) Can you point out any flaws in real science?


C : BETWEEN THE FALL AND THE FLOOD

(1) How did parasites, many of which cause life-threatening diseases exist while only Adam and Eve were on Earth [after the Fall]? Did they have all those parasites?

(2) Can you explain where Stone Age man fits into the Bible story? (NB: you may want to look at Genesis and see how many generations the Bible gives before the invention of bronze and ironworking.) Or is the Stone Age post-flood? Did descendants of Noah chose to turn their back on his knowledge and start from scratch? They discarded the tools and knowledge used to build the largest floating vssel in history and voluntarily went back to hunting with jaw bones and rocks?

(3) Do you know of any mechanism that would allow such a canopy [as described in Genesis] to exist? Do you have an idea of what records such a canopy would have left? Do you know if "life as we know, it Jim" would be possible under the conditions implied by such canopy? Do you know of any planetary model with such a feature? Do you know the qualifications of those who created such a model?


D : LIFE ON THE ARK AND THE SPECIES QUESTION

(1) Many fish species are quite delicate when it comes to water Ph, salinity, temperature and oxygen levels. How they survived the deluge? Did Noah have tanks in the Ark? (He would need tanks for fresh water and saltwater fish, since the deluge waters must have completely messed up the subaquatic environment.)

(2) How did Noah manage to maintain the environment on the arc for those creatures that live in low-pressure sub-zero environments and those that live in high-pressure high-temperature environments?

(3) Every modern disease of animals must have come on the Ark, including of course diseases that affect humans. The Ark must therefore have been loaded with bubonic plague, cholera, polio, typhus, typhoid, sleeping sickness, leprosy, syphillis, smallpox, measles, malaria... How did Noah and his family survive?

(4) How many different SPECIES did Noah take onto the Ark?

(5) You make a distinction between species and kind. Do you regard all ants as being of the same "kind"?

(6) Speciation has been observed in birds within a human generation, and ... mammals, insects, plants, and of course, bacteria. If you accept these facts, do you then also embrace the concept that all species were not created at once?


E : GEOLOGY AND THE FLOOD

(1) We have not recognized a worldwide flood deposit (in contrast to the recognized Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary). Where in the geologic column should we expect to find it (i.e., how old would it be)? If it would be 6,000 to 10,000 years old, there certainly should be evidence; heck, we have evidence of all sorts of regional depositional events that occurred during this time frame.

(2) How do YECs explain that layers supposedly deposited during the deluge can be tilted, faulted, folded, buried underneath kilometres of rock (including massive volcanics) or uplifited miles high?

(3) Since YECs claim that sedimentary rocks were formed by sediments deposited during the deluge, diagenesis and lithification must be quite fast, after a couple of thousand tears. Why don´t we see sediments say, deposited by the time of the pharaos, that became rock? Why does loose mud deposited at the bottom of a water body not become rock almost instantly?

(4) Are we to believe that there were igneous intrusions during the Deluge, forming nice tablular dikes in the sediment that was being swirled around, or that stratal deformations characteristic of consolidated rocks formed while the sediments were still being deposited?

(5) How do YECs explain metasedimentary rocks?

(6) Where are the all the tuff, ignimbrite, lava and lahar layers associated with the eruptions that caused or helped to cause the deluge [according to the hypothetical "steam from eruptions" mechanism for the Flood]? (Note that all of them must have the same age!)

(7) Why should "billions of dead things buried" be evidence of a global flood? Is this normally what we see after a flood? Why do you find it "unlikely" that we would have as many fossils as we do "if it wasn't for a ww flood"? Do you know how many fossils there are? If not, why do you find this number unlikely?

(8) (With regard to polystrate fossils) : Why should we take fossil evidence that there have been mudslides in the past for evidence that there has been a global flood?

(9) If fossilised creatures were all killed in a global flood, why are 90% of all fossils marine life? Wouldn't land animals be worse affected?

(10) Why are human remains never found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils?

(11) Can you explain the unique fossils of Antarctica in terms of YEC geology?

(12) Given that your claim that "the mountains raised up after the flood" is invalidated by Genesis 7, would you like another go at explaining where all the water went to?


F : AFTER THE FLOOD --- DISPERSION AND BIOGEOGRAPHY

(1) How did the plants survive the Flood / their seeds survive to germinate?

(2) After disembarking from the Ark how did the plant-eaters survive until the plants had grown out again, and how did the predators survive until the prey had multiplied?

(3) "Conservation biologists now calculate as a rough rule of thumb that unless a wild population contains around five hundred individuals, it is liable to go extinct, sooner or later. Yet even five hundred is only enough to allow the population to tick over... five hundred, then, is a very conservative figure." How does this square with the story of the Ark?

(4) If only two of each unclean land mammal was taken into the Ark, but there were eight humans, of which at least six formed breeding pairs, then we ought to find higher genetic diversity in humans than in unclean beasts, and we should also expect the most genetically diverse mammals to be whales, which would not have undergone the same (impossible) population bottleneck. But this is not what we find when we study genetics. Why do you think this is?

(5) The Great Pyramid shows no evidence at all of ever having been submerged. Therefore, it must be of post-Flood construction. But it is so old that it must have been constructed within a few hundred years, at most, of the Flood. How was that pyramid built by so few people?

(6) You explain the distribution of the world's fauna, and that of Australia in particular, by ascribing them to human pastoralists. Australia is home to dozens of unique species of venomous snake. Can you explain how and why anyone would herd these creatures to Australia from Turkey (without, you notice, losing any on the way --- Australian snakes are unique to Australia) and why they didn't, instead, take any domesticated meat animals such as sheep, goats, or cattle? Which humans would be dumb enough to carry polar bears to the Arctic? Tigers to Sumatra? Komodo dragons to Komodo? Crocodiles to Florida? Army ants to Brazil?

[Nick Harman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Uh, Nick, did you read the rest of that page?

Yes, I know the rest of the page was anti-creationist, I was referring to the table only.

[Nick Harman]

Ring species are, in effect, observed examples of new species arising, and "macroevolution" occuring.


Obviously macro-evolution. Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a rabbit. The proof I have been looking for.

Nick

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Ring species are, in effect, observed examples of new species arising, and "macroevolution" occuring.


Obviously macro-evolution. Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a rabbit. The proof I have been looking for.

Nick What you described here:Originally posted by Nick Harman
I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. is a number of groups of rabbits, all interrelated and able to interbreed (therefore all descended from the same species) but containing groups at extreme ends of their range that are unable to interbreed, and are therefore demonstrably of different species.

i.e. one species of rabbit giving rise to more than one species of rabbit.

The fact that you think they're of the same "kind" doesn't alter the fact that they have become different species.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Uh, Nick, did you read the rest of that page?

Yes, I know the rest of the page was anti-creationist, I was referring to the table only.

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Ring species are, in effect, observed examples of new species arising, and "macroevolution" occuring.


Obviously macro-evolution. Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a rabbit. The proof I have been looking for.

Nick

All those posts and all the links and information, questions and responses from everyone........

And this is the best you can come up with?

Well I'm convinced. Sign me up for YEC.


If it's all too much for you, just concentrate on Dr. A's last post.

He's taken the time to put most of the thread in one place for you. We know you are busy.

Go on...Have a go.

There's even numbers for you so we know which comment you are dealing with.

At the very least, it's common courtesy. Or is that not a christian "virtue"?

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
...snip...Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a rabbit. The proof I have been looking for.

Nick

Sure, you've just found evidence for something called EVOLUTION .

[Phaycops]

Nick,
Is it really too much to ask that you make some kind of good-faith effort to understand just a little bit of what we're saying?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Yes, I know the rest of the page was anti-creationist, I was referring to the table only.

Once again you lie. Once again you tell us what we believe. Once again you speak but refuse to listen. Stop telling us about the ultimate authority of the Bible when you've so obviously missed the point, hypocrite.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and selfcontrol.

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says."

[Dr Adequate]

Nick --- I'm just longing to know how indisputable evidence of intermediate forms (those things you said didn't exist, remember? 'cos you read it in a fundie tract?) as predicted in Darwin's Origin Of Species are "the proof you've been looking for". Do have the goodness to let me know.

[Phaycops]

Nick, what part of "animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are of different species" do you not understand? I don't give a bunny's hinie if they are both rabbits, the are different species! Get it?

[Correa Neto]

If all rabbits are of the same kind, than horses and zebras are also...
All ants are of the same kind?
All flys are of the same kind?
All crocodiles are of the same kind?
All frogs are of the same kind?
All lizzards are of the same kind?
All monkeys are of the same kind?

Do you acknoweledge that humans are failible, and since you are human, your interpretations may be flawed?

Thus you might be wrong regarding rabbits, kinds, canopy, fountains of the deep, where the global flood water went to, mountains generated by the receeding global flood waters, the Qu'ran, creationism, fauna and flora distribution, age of the Earth, etc.?

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, looking back, I think delphi_ote called it right --- Nick was trying to be sarcastic, and failing.

Nick, you haven't asked us for the proof of the theory of evolution. The proof would lie mainly in the following subjects, all of which confirm the predictions made by the theory of evolution:

(i) genetics
(ii) paeleontology and geology
(iii) zoology and comparative morphology
(iv) embryology
(vi) microbiology and epidemiology
(vii) biogeography
(viii) mathematics, engineering, and computer science

Does anyone have anything I should add to that little list?

[Aussie Thinker]

DR A,

I would definitely include Biology !

If we are talking about flood and YE Creationism though you can virtually add in EVERY other science..

Astronomy
Cosmology
Seismology
Archaeology
Chemistry
Climatology
Ecology
Entomology
Hydrodynamics
Lithology
Meteorology
Microbiology
Oceanography
Physics
Thermodynamics
Vulcanology
Scientology

Just to name a few more !

[Darat]

Evolutionary developmental biology

[Dr Adequate]

Darat --- cheers.

Let's make that

(iv) Embryology and developmental biology

It's the same sort of evidence isn't it?

AT --- Well, good gracious, what a lot of sciences contradict YEC. I wonder why that is. I think Nick's got enough on his plate right now. Er --- "Scientology"? You thought you could slip that in without anyone noticing?

[delphi_ote]

I'd add molecular biology. Genetics provides a theoretical framework to explain our observations about mutation and inheritance, but molecular biology gives us the precise chemical mechanics that give rise to these phenomina.

Thermodynamics was a good choice, Aussie. In the same theme, I'd add information/coding theory (true that they're covered under math/communication system engineering... but mentioning some specifics can't hurt.) All the misconceptions about the Second Law of thermodynamics and information loss/transmission are so blatantly contradicted in the first chapters of elementary texts on these subjects.

[H3LL]

28 sciences (quick count)...Wow!

Instead of all that study, hard work and evidence collecting all I really need are the first few chapters of a 2000 year old, badly translated story that says they are all wrong.



I suppose that if I couldn't read, and will never have the opportunity to learn to read and my whole (short) life is to be the servant of my masters and for me and my family to stay in our alloted place in society, the old book read to me each Sunday is enough to explain everything and it certainly suits my masters.

That was good enough for hundreds of years. Why not now?

[H3LL]

I'd like to add anthropology to the list, as it's a big one that gets under YEC's skin for some reason.


If anyone wants to extend the list with specific sciences by a few score there is a nice list here:

Phrontistery (http://phrontistery.info/sciences.html)

Some are a bit wacky and not all strictly sciences and it includes the woo-woo. As they say:

This list defines over 600 sciences, arts and studies of various degrees of respectability and rarity, ranging from the common and esteemed (chemistry) to the obscure and quirky (peristerophily).

I saw over a dozen proper sciences wiped out by YEC before I got to 'B'.

Personally I think I have found my calling and will consider a Phd. in arctophily.

Nick will tell us what it means when he reads the list and he doesn't even have to read further than the 'A's.

A less diverse list and more science specific is here:

laborlawtalk.com (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Science)

It contains some good definitions about science too.

[Jocce]

Originally posted by Phaycops
Once again, animals that cannot produce fertile offspring are different species, regardless of what "kind" of animal they appear to be (I'm sure the biologists here are cringing at this gross oversimplification, but I feel it is warranted to keep the debate on-track). The two rabbits that cannot produce viable offspring are different species. Get it? Regardless of the fact that they all look and act like rabbits. Lions and tigers cannot produce fertile offspring; norway rats and roof rats cannot produce fertile offspring; horses and donkeys cannot produce fertile offspring; eastern and western meadowlarks and skunks cannot produce fertile offspring.....


And, being a bird watcher, I have to add the roughly 8-9000 different bird SPECIES on the earth.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Jocce
And, being a bird watcher, I have to add the roughly 8-9000 different bird SPECIES on the earth.

It's a good job Noah and co. dropped off the Secretary Bird in Africa before carrying all those snakes to Australia.

http://www.maicsa.org.my/secretary_bird/images/secretary_bird_016.jpg
Actual picture drawn by Noah.
Note: Snake pictured extinct from being eaten.





I'll stop trying not to be invisible for now. Sorry for all the posts.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Uh, Nick, did you read the rest of that page?

Yes, I know the rest of the page was anti-creationist, I was referring to the table only.
So is this basically an admission that you only pay attention to pro-YE text, and just ignore anything that contradicts it?

Then what's the point of asking us questions, or trying to answer our questions?

Do you listen to scientific sites or books for information on other matters? Or do you not trust them to teach you anything?
How would you learn what a diode is for, or how a stalactite forms, or how fast light travels, or how a television works, or anything else?
Do you trust scientific sources for some things, but not anything which contradicts your personal beliefs?

Or are you just not interested in learning anything at all to do with the world around you?
You're happy to sit in your home, warmed by gas or electricity, fed by scientific farming methods, communicating electronically with people around the world, with a lifespan extended by scientific medical knowledge... but you still won't believe anything science tells you?

How do you decide which bits to believe and which to ignore? I'm genuinely curious?

With regard to the YE and flood theories, As I said earlier, if you are going to constantly end up saying "God did it" as an answer to all these questions, then what is the point of discussing it?
And believe us, any debate about these issues will ultimately have to end up as either you saying that "God just did it", or agreeing that the earth cannot possibly by 6.000 yeears old.

All scientific evidence is completely at odds with the YE theories. All information otherwise provided by sites like AiG are either mistaken, quoting facts taken out of context or using actual deliberate misinformation.

Here's my final question for you Nick (as you appear to be ignoring most of my previous ones).

Pretend (just pretend for a second) that the Earth really is as old as we claim.
Pretend that evolution acts exactly as we claim, and that macro-evolution is real.
What would you expect to find? What things about the earth would you expect to see? What properties of geology would you expect to find?
What things would you not expect to see?

What have you ever observed in real life or learned about (from any source other than an actively pro-creationist one) that is at odds with any of this?

[Jocce]

Originally posted by H3LL
It's a good job Noah and co. dropped off the Secretary Bird in Africa before carrying all those snakes to Australia.


Well, it's a little known fact that had he dropped the snakes off first there would have been 14000 bird species. Now, 6000 of the original birdspecies dissapeared as snacks for the 6000 snake species on that journey.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by H3LL
http://www.maicsa.org.my/secretary_bird/images/secretary_bird_016.jpg


Oh no! Noah's picture portrays this bird's partner flying off in another direction. How will they mate?

Are you sure the bird AND snake aren't extinct?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by H3LL
I'd like to add anthropology to the list, as it's a big one that gets under YEC's skin for some reason.

I've got a couple more fields that aren't "science," perse:

History: other primary sources from the time contradict claims the bible makes to establish the history it lays out.

Comparative religion/mythology: Hundreds of similiar stories exist in other cultures. Why should we decide THIS is the correct version of history? Especially when we can trace some of the stories back to other sources which were clearly intentionally just fables and philosophical discussion. (Job is known to be a Zorastrian myth the Pharisees plopped into the Bible because it's a good lesson.)

Linguistics/Cultural Studies: The layout and evolution of languages/cultures in the Bible is just dead wrong. The Babel myth is brazenly contradicted by studies of the evolution/travel of langauges, and denies the existence of whole peoples and cultures!

In fact, if you sit down and think critically within the context of almost any field, you're eventually going to butt up against evidence that YEC is immature hogwash.

Side note: my mom believes this crap and gave me a YEC book with all kinds of BS science hurting my brain. I decided to look up the author, who had a "PhD" but was hiding - I mean - never bothered to mention his field. Lo and behold he was a hydraulics engineer... writing a "text book" about biology/astrophysics/quantum mechanics!

[Dr Adequate]

There are three ways in which the sciences bear on the dispute.

First, there are sciences such as geology and genetics which prove evolution. Naturally all these sciences, by virtue of this fact , prove YEC to be wrong as well.

Second, there are sciences such as archaeology and linguistics which prove YEC wrong but don't particularly prove the theory of evolution.

Third, there are sciences such as thermodynamics which prove YEC anti-scientific propaganda wrong, but which can have no bearing on either evolution or YEC.

Now as we skeptics have to point out from time to time, evolution/YEC is a false dichotomy. So the second and third classes don't tend to prove the theory of evolution. The second disproves YEC and the third just shows what a bunch of jokers YECs are.

I understood Nick to be asking for proof of the theory of evolution. We don't get to win by default, so I thought I'd list some sciences that fall into the first category.

Mind you, Nick's gone awfully quiet lately.

Nick...?

[Nick Harman]

Originally posted by H3LL
All those posts and all the links and information, questions and responses from everyone........

And this is the best you can come up with?

Well I'm convinced. Sign me up for YEC.


If it's all too much for you, just concentrate on Dr. A's last post.

He's taken the time to put most of the thread in one place for you. We know you are busy.

Go on...Have a go.

There's even numbers for you so we know which comment you are dealing with.

At the very least, it's common courtesy. Or is that not a christian "virtue"?

Nick: I will be until next week sometime, I will look at that list of questions and answer as much as I can. After that I would like for you all to answer some of my questions. Talk to you all next week. Have a wonderful weekend.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

[Phaycops]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick: I will be until next week sometime, I will look at that list of questions and answer as much as I can. After that I would like for you all to answer some of my questions. Talk to you all next week. Have a wonderful weekend.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

Hm, yes, but will you actually try to read and understand our answers?

Ah, well, no skin off my back -- I'm out of the loop till next Wednesday. Have a great weekend, unless you live in my neck of the woods, where it is supposed to SNOW :(

[Dr Adequate]

I like Nick.

There are millions of people who think much the same things as he does, but how many of them are debating it on a barely-moderated forum where they're heavily outnumbered?

Also Nick, unlike various ghost-hunters, "healers" and the like, doesn't waste his time telling us that because we disagree with him, we must all be insincere. This is a rare virtue in a YEC. He may have read, in his fundie tracts, how Evil-ution is a Conspiracy to Get Rid Of God, but obviously he doesn't believe it, or at least not of us.

In fact, he's spent only a zillionth of the time explaining "You only think that because...." that people do on the Politics forum.

He's been both politer to us, collectively, than we have to him, and perhaps less touchy.

This is meant to be an educational forum. Here we are lucidly debating an issue which has millions of people on each side. That's got to be better, from the educational point of view, than talking about miraculous pretzels.

He hasn't mentioned the second law of thermodynamics. Yet.

Or bleedin' Piltdown Man.

He's not, that I recall, raised the same straw man twice.

In spite of what one poster predicted, he hasn't turned into 1inChrist. Indeed, it might be a good idea if he had a word with 1inChrist.

He is, in short, the nicest YEC you could possibly wish for.

I'd like to repeat my invitation to Nick --- he should bring his friends from RL or other forums. As it is, you can understand he's a bit swamped with all those unanswered questions.

I'm just pleased that we can have a dialogue.

Also, Nick, you're over fifty posts and can have an avatar. I'm afraid being the letter A is taken, but I'm sure you'll find something else.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I like Nick. [...]
He is, in short, the nicest YEC you could possibly wish for.
I'll say. I agree -- he's done really well considering the onslaught here. I mean, he could do better, but not a shabby start all in all. He's trying, in his own way.

Practicing a little empathy here, if I were in his shoes I think I may have lost my temper already. How many YECs just lose their cool and flee screaming, anyway? Just about every one, as far as I can gather.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
... I'm afraid being the letter A is taken, but I'm sure you'll find something else.
Turnips are taken. Get yer own root veggie!! :p

And Nick, I look forward to your upcoming posts. I've been following this very closely even though I've posted little. This thread is very, very interesting.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Nick Harman
Nick: I will be until next week sometime, I will look at that list of questions and answer as much as I can. After that I would like for you all to answer some of my questions. Talk to you all next week......*snip*


To assist Nick, as he is so short of time, I have collected his questions that we apparently (Edit: This may be unfair. See Dr. A's post after this one) have not answered.

I will admit it was difficult as Nick took some time to get to grips with the forum's formatting (quite understandable) and I may have missed one, but I don't believe I have.

Many of Nicks post consist of statements, such as "This is so, because the bible/god says so". These are not questions, but members have also taken the time to refute the statements or asked for/shown evidence.

I have added my own comments in parenthesis but the skeptical can check and correct any errors I may have made.

Please Note: I'm GMT +8, so my times may not be the same as yours.

Here are Nick's Questions:

<hr>
04-05-2005 08:43 PM
The bible records the historical event of a world wide flood God used to judge the wicked people on the earth. If this is true, what would you expect to find?
(Loaded question)
<hr>
04-08-2005 02:32 AM
are you implying that all layers are angular unconformities?
(Answered with references)
<hr>
04-08-2005 02:29 AM
fishbob, is all your material original?
(Rhetorical question)
<hr>
04-08-2005 02:26 AM
Do we not have tribes of people today that would fit this prehistoric mold you are referring to?
(Rhetorical?)
<hr>
04-10-2005 04:03 AM
Do any of you believe in God?
(Answered)
<hr>
04-10-2005 03:59 AM
Evolution scoffs at the flood, but is all about life evolving from non-living material. Where is your science to even come close to supporting that idea.
(Answered in detail)
<hr>
04-10-2005 03:29 AM
Now, can I ask a question about YEC?
(This was followed by a statement. There was no question.)
<hr>
04-10-2005 (My Error: Time Missed)
What change would you be referring to?
(Question refered to: "And why the time of the flood changes in the story?" )
<hr>
04-10-2005 01:18 AM
Did I miss a link you had put up? Did you have an article you wanted me to read?
(Directions given to pertinent information)
<hr>
04-11-2005 08:38 PM
[Life had to start somewhere].......What is the best evidence to support a naturalistic evolution of life?
(Answered in detail and also informed that the origin of life is not evolution.)
<hr>
04-10-2005 10:28 AM
I asked you where was the conflicting account to save me time searching it out, or do you know?
(Answered before and after this question by Darat, among others)
<hr>
04-19-2005 07:49 AM
Would you say that these bones prove they are turning into a whale, or is it more appropriate to say that many scientists believe this?
(Answered in detail with links and AiG evidence shown to be out-of-date and cherry-picked)
<hr>
04-18-2005 08:46 PM
What in the text of Genesis would make one not take it literally as a historical account?
(Answered in detail and biblical text quoted that are contradictory)
<hr>
04-19-2005 07:53 AM
This [man in the same fossil layers as dinosaurs] is an assumption and I am asking you if you know this.
(Answered in detail. Nick gave fossil footprints to support his statement and even AiG says don't use that argument.))
<hr>
04-19-2005 09:04 PM
Do you have the references, I would like to see.
(several references given)
<hr>
04-19-2005 08:42 PM
I think another similar "exception" is in rabbits. I have read that rabbits from different regions have become unable to breed. Take a 3rd region of rabbits and the other 2 can mate with them but the 1st 2 can not mate with each other. They are all still the same kind of animal. This case and the mule are the only 2 that I have read about like this. Are you aware of others?
(Answered in great detail)
<hr>


Edited to add Nick's quote about not answering his questions. Corrected format error

[H3LL]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
The Babel myth is brazenly contradicted by studies of the evolution/travel of langauges, and denies the existence of whole peoples and cultures!

The Babel myth is also contradicted in the bible.

It states clearly that there were three languages, then changes its mind to one (Cue: Tower building), then there were lots (a big number so not mentioned).

It seems god has as much trouble counting animals as he does with languages.

No wonder he has so much difficulty with measurement and shapes.

Biblical counting must be fun:

One (or three or two), two (or seven or one), three (or one),(nothing between 3 and 4), four (or the population of Nod), five, six, seven (or two), eight, nine, ten (or eleven, twelve or thirteen), eleven (see ten), twelve (see ten), thirteen (see ten).
That is:

1, 2, 3, 2, 7, 1, 3, 1, 4, 153652, 5, 6, 7, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 11, 10, 12, 13, 12, 10, 11, 13, 13, 10, 11, 12.....

I made a guess at the population of Nod, but with these numbers it hardly seems to matter.

It seems to get easier after 13.

Unless you know different.....

[Dr Adequate]

H3LL ---

I think you may have over-reacted.

When he said : "I will look at that list of questions and answer as much as I can. After that I would like for you all to answer some of my questions", Nick didn't mean, I think, by "some of my questions" to imply "some questions which I've asked you time after time and which you've not answered" --- which would be wrong. I think he meant "some questions which I'm going to ask you when I've answered some of yours".

I don't think that Nick has ever been deliberately unfair in this thread --- he's been accidentally insulting, but that's a different thing altogether.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
H3LL ---

I think you may have over-reacted.

When he said : "I will look at that list of questions and answer as much as I can. After that I would like for you all to answer some of my questions", Nick didn't mean, I think, by "some of my questions" to imply "some questions which I've asked you time after time and which you've not answered" --- which would be wrong. I think he meant "some questions which I'm going to ask you when I've answered some of yours".

I don't think that Nick has ever been deliberately unfair in this thread --- he's been accidentally insulting, but that's a different thing altogether. He's OK. No offense Dr. A. but I disagree.

I think Nick has had plenty of time to answer questions. He seems to have a good grip on his own beliefs, so why is it so difficult for him to defend those beliefs?

No, I think it's the usual. He can't answer, so he dissembles and says he "will answer questions of your questions of my questions blahblahbbhablah".

I'm tired of it, personally. I'd love for a fundamentalist/creationist to just stick around and really give us the reasons why, what, when. But much as I predict (sorry KRAMER) It will never happen. Ever.

edited.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
...I think you may have over-reacted.....

You are possibly right, but it is unclear. I think it was the shock of becoming visible all of a sudden. :D

Either way, both angles are covered.

The post was intended to assist both sides. This is a long thread. With your summary post and mine I hope it helps.

Nick is trying, just not very hard.

He is, however, one of our more interesting YEC/ID posters.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
.....I think you may have over-reacted.....

I managed to get an edit into the offending post pointing to yours.

[Dr Adequate]

Well, Ceinwyn, this was your first and only previous post on this thread.Originally posted by Ceinwyn
You're a loony. A bona fide loony.

Why anyone even gives you the time of day, I don't know. I think you're wrong, and I think you're wrong in your latest post, and if I was feeling more energetic right now I'd rip it to shreds, but luckily we don't need to argue about it --- Nick will be back on Monday or thereabouts.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, Ceinwyn, this was your first and only previous post on this thread. I think you're wrong, and I think you're wrong in your latest post, and if I was feeling more energetic right now I'd rip it to shreds, but luckily we don't need to argue about it --- Nick will be back on Monday or thereabouts. Ok. See you on Monday.

[Dr Adequate]

Bump.

Meanwhile, Christian has started another thread on the Flood (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56097). That list of Frequently Unanswered Questions came in handy --- many thanks to all the people whose questions I cut and pasted.

[songstress]

Ossai,

'I can't remember the process by which minerals replace bone.'

It's called 'permineralisation.' When a body dies in water and silt/sand forms in layers, most of the soft tissue decays (not always - some soft tissue can survive, depending on conditions - some rocks contain imprints of dinosaur skin.) The bones are eventually replaced with minerals carried in the mineral-bearing water. The process is ongoing over millions of years, and eventually the dead animal ends up as a fossil. Fossilisation works better when the animal dies in water rather than land because burial usually occurs more rapidly.

Nick Harman,

Evolution - all modern species began life with a common ancestor. This is true of humans. The human 'root' was an eel-like creature with a bony skull and had very good eyesight. It lived in marine conditions at a time when the ancestors of modern insects were huge and very scary-looking creatures. However, our ancestor was very wily and managed to dodge most predators (otherwise we wouldn't be here.) When conditions changed and the land dried up, our ancestor was better adapted to land conditions whereas many marine species died out. We have retained the bony skull and the good eyesight. Evidence for this ancestor can be found in the Burgess Shales, a layer of which composes the Appalachian Mountains (amongst other mountain ranges.)

An aside - man didn't 'come from monkeys.' Monkeys have their own diverse branch. They have the common ancestor that man has, (the bony eel with good eyesight) but as time passed, monkeys, apes and other primates developed their own evolutionary route. Human embryos resemble rabbit and fish embryos, evidence that man's nearest cousins all have the same ancestor. If you need evidence for insects' ancestry, look at a common woodlouse or horseshoe crab and then look at a picture of a trilobite. Notice the similarities.

Evolution is an ongoing process. It is a proven science. I am a trained geologist, and I still wonder at the world around me.

Love,
Patsy.

[Ossai]

songstress
'I can't remember the process by which minerals replace bone.'

It's called 'permineralisation.'
Thanks – it’s been a while since college geology.

Ossai

[songstress]

Hi Ossai,

Not at all. You are welcome.

I re-read my post. During the Ordovician Period (approximately 400 ma ago) most of the life on Earth lived in marine environments. Ancestors of insects were so huge that only a water-bourne existence could support them. I wanted to make this clear because my post doesn't do that.

I think it was Hans (correct me if I'm wrong) who said that ancient whales had legs. That is absolutely correct. They were originally land-dwellers but became so huge that water was the only medium that could support their great weight. Modern whales' flippers are vestigial 'legs.' This is a reverse example of huge sea creatures having to adapt to land (i.e. insects.) Insects had to become less bulky and heavy and over time became smaller.

Nature is far more interesting than any religious text could ever offer. It proves what a wonderful world we live in.

Love,
Patsy.

[Ashles]

Interesting posts. Thanks songstress.

[songstress]

Ashles,

Ta for that. Glad you like the posts.

Speaking off topic for a moment....I have seen a huge example of a mosquito in coal, which was found in Derbyshire in 1961. It's Carboniferous, but shows the size of these creatures even after millions of years of evolution. It measures about 1' - 1.5' long. It's kept in the drawer of my university where I studied earth sciences. (Kingston University, Surrey.)

Imagine that thing biting you? (Mind boggles.)

Coal is an excellent medium for finding fossils, but one has to wear gloves 'cos it gives people black hands!

Patsy.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Ashles
Interesting posts. Thanks songstress.
I strongly second that!!But how can I have confidence in what songstress states in her posts?Her mentioning that she is a trained geologist plus the fact that her posts would be accepted by other trained geologists is enough for me.This brings me back around to Nick(who may or may not show up again).I can see where you're coming from Dr.A with "I like Nick""he's been polite" and such.He was sincere and I can' recall him damning anyone to hell.But there was a hint of a swagger when he rode into Dodge City with refut'n on his mind.That AiG and other YEC's can enable your average Joe in thinking that he has one up on those smarty pants scientists.The world changes and gets more complex by the day so it's like being able to take refuge in an unchanging god and be empowered with this divine form of science.Is it hate the lie, love the liar or is it take a deep breath and be galled to the max

[Ossai]

About Nick being gone, he did post
Nick: I will be until next week sometime, I will look at that list of questions and answer as much as I can. After that I would like for you all to answer some of my questions. Talk to you all next week. Have a wonderful weekend.
I was expecting him back Monday but we should probably give him to at least the end of the week.

Ossai

[Aussie Thinker]

DR A,

I don't think that Nick has ever been deliberately unfair in this thread --- he's been accidentally insulting, but that's a different thing altogether. He's OK.

I know where you are coming from here (I went through it myself at Theologyonline for a year).

Guys like Nick seem genuine “good guys� and I am sure outside of their YEC/anti evolution myopia they are. But…

Nick obviously is not stupid. He clearly is able to think somewhat critically. Therefore his refusal to understand the impossibility of something like the flood and the obviousness of an Old earth and Evolution MUST border on (if not outright be) a LIE !

If he is lying or at best prevaricating he is NOT “OK�.

I can understand “belief� and how you can hang on to it regardless of logic and proof (or even likeliness) but I cannot sanction adherence to something so ridiculous as YEC beliefs. YEC beliefs are completely debunked with the briefest exercise in research (10 minutes at talkorigins would do the trick).

Therefore anyone but a complete moron who still believes in YEC MUST be either lying to us or themselves.

This may sound harsh but ask yourself how much leeway you allow for people to have ridiculous beliefs.. if they go beyond this limit (and YEC certainly does that for me) my tolerance for them declines rapidly !

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
This may sound harsh but ask yourself how much leeway you allow for people to have ridiculous beliefs.. if they go beyond this limit (and YEC certainly does that for me) my tolerance for them declines rapidly !
Ahh you have reminded me of the Help me... I am intolerant (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44878) thread from a while back.

That was a fun one. :)

Remember Ian's great quote about psychics solving crime:
And I would like to see your evidence that they have never solved a crime.
Happy days.
We laughed more. People sang in the street.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ashles,

You nailed me.. here I was trying to be consoling.. in truth I am an intolerant bastard.

Hehe..

Not really .. the simple fact is I have argued with some theologians who DO make sense.. but in every case they have abandoned the ridiculous mainstream religions versions of God for something that does fit with what we KNOW rather than what we WISH.

I YEARN for just one WOO or YEC that is worth the effort of arguing with.. but.. without fail they never cease to disappoint !

Although she eventually fell into the same general pattern they usually do I found someone like “Turtle� a good example of a worthy arguer.. she actually gave personal testimony, supported it in her own way and even showed signs of testing it. Even the arguments she rejected she at least understood !

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Nick obviously is not stupid. He clearly is able to think somewhat critically. Therefore his refusal to understand the impossibility of something like the flood and the obviousness of an Old earth and Evolution MUST border on (if not outright be) a LIE !

If he is lying or at best prevaricating he is NOT “OK�. But the same reasoning could be applied more generally, in which case YEC is just a Great Big Conspiracy Of Lies. You can pick the flaws out of that yourself, you're a skeptic.

But in fact I think that people like Nick have followed your reasoning very closely. Probably he has thought: "Here is a YEC pamphlet; it is written by someone obviously intelligent: therefore he is either telling the truth or deliberately lying". Nick can then cross off the Conspiracy Theory just as well as I can: if he then follows your reasoning, he can conclude that the pamphlet is telling the truth. And then he himself, in good faith, can pass on what's in the pamphlet...

The false dichotomy that you put forward --- that intelligent people (as judged by their prose) must be telling the truth or deliberately lying --- is a supporting argument for almost every sincerely held false belief. Now put it down.

[Aussie Thinker]

Dr A,

But in fact I think that people like Nick have followed your reasoning very closely. Probably he has thought: "Here is a YEC pamphlet; it is written by someone obviously intelligent: therefore he is either telling the truth or deliberately lying". Nick can then cross off the Conspiracy Theory just as well as I can: if he then follows your reasoning, he can conclude that the pamphlet is telling the truth. And then he himself, in good faith, can pass on what's in the pamphlet...

I see your reasoning but it misses a critical point.

Corroboration.

Any one who accepts anything without corroboration is asking for trouble. Any one who accepts “fantastic� stories without corroboration is either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves.

You CANNOT corroborate anything in YEC literature outside of other YEC literature. You are lying to at least yourself if you don’t attempt to find expert scientific corroboration of your story.

Without fail there is NO substantive corroboration of any YEC claims. You would have to be a simpleton or a liar to fail to see the scientific impossibility of YEC claims.

When you corroborate by saying the old (and I paraphrase a bit here).. “The Bible is the word of God.. I know because the Bible says so�.. you are not worthy of debating the issue.

The false dichotomy that you put forward --- that intelligent people (as judged by their prose) must be telling the truth or deliberately lying --- is a supporting argument for almost every sincerely held false belief. Now put it down.

I would be astounded if these “intelligent� people who hold YEC beliefs have not had huge doubts which they constantly mentally fight against. Fighting against a doubt is just as dishonest as outright lying.

[Nex]

Mind if I interject, gentlemen?

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Any one who accepts anything without corroboration is asking for trouble. Any one who accepts “fantastic� stories without corroboration is either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves.
Or gullible. Or too trusting. Or naive. Or following the pseudo-logic provided by their current belief system.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
You CANNOT corroborate anything in YEC literature outside of other YEC literature. You are lying to at least yourself if you don’t attempt to find expert scientific corroboration of your story.
But YEC scientists ARE scientists!

Well, you and I know they're most certainly not, but there are those that do think so. They don't know to look beyond the creation "science" because to them it's the same as real science.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Without fail there is NO substantive corroboration of any YEC claims. You would have to be a simpleton or a liar to fail to see the scientific impossibility of YEC claims.
Not necessarily true, especially if one already believes in invisible ghosties or an omnimax daddy in the sky. If there's a great invisible man in the clouds who gave us all life and breath, of what else might he be capable? Why, YEC would be nothing to such a being!

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
When you corroborate by saying the old (and I paraphrase a bit here).. “The Bible is the word of God.. I know because the Bible says so�.. you are not worthy of debating the issue.
Well... anyone's worthy, in my opinion, of debating the issue. Just because they use circular reasoning doesn't mean they themselves are stupid or crazy or anything like that. I actually debated this (YEC) with a classmate who used this line of circular thought to defend his belief, and when I pointed out that it was circular, he dropped it. He may still believe in the Bible, but he saw why circular logic isn't a reason to believe something.
It's all one baby step at a time, don'cha know. ;)

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
I would be astounded if these “intelligent� people who hold YEC beliefs have not had huge doubts which they constantly mentally fight against. Fighting against a doubt is just as dishonest as outright lying.
Here, I agree 100%. Ignoring your own doubts is kind of like ignoring your own hunger -- after a while, it'll really catch up to you.



You know, understanding the other side of the debate isn't knowing what they might say, it's knowing why they say it. Just a not-so-random thought...

[songstress]

I used to have a nuisance Jehovah's Witness come a-knocking at my door. When I challenged him to scientific proof, he claimed that he was a fully-trained chemist.

I never did resolve it.


Patsy.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Nex
you know, understanding the other side of the debate isn't knowing what they might say, it's knowing why they say it. Just a not-so-random thought...
I've sometimes seen preachers hold the bible over their head and say "we are under the bible not the bible is under us.Given that ultimate authority,evidence of man as a random product of nature and not created in god's image has to be discounted.

[Dr Adequate]

Farmermike --- that would be a great time to point out to the preacher that as he does not have magic powers, calling something "the ultimate authority" and holding it over his head will not magically make it true.

---

AT --- the fact is that we don't check everything we read, and usually we don't need to. The YECs who write the propaganda are undoubtedly culpable, but how far should we blame the people who swallow it?

Unfortuanately, the people who swallow it then go on to write the tracts.

---

We must not suppose that creationists are factually inaccurate because they are creationists --- rather, they are creationists because they lack accurate facts, and lack the skills, the motivation, the intelligence, the degree of conscienciousness, or the time, to attain that accuracy.

When a creationist swallows creationism, it is because he has been perfectly satisfied with tales of imaginary "laws of nature", and imaginary "facts", and because he can see for himself the flaws in the imaginary "theory of evolution" that he's read about in religious tracts. It does not occur to him that if the theory of evolution is as creationists claim, this could and should be shown by reference to the writings of biologists; nor does he feel the need of a reference to a physics textbook to back up made-up laws of thermodynamics, a made-up law of cause and effect, and so forth.

If and when such a man comes to write his own book, he will perpetuate these standards in his own writing. Lacking still those qualities of mind necessary either to do, or to wish to do, research, he will not bother to check the truth or falsehood of what he's repeating any more than he did when he first accepted it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Any one who accepts anything without corroboration is asking for trouble. Any one who accepts “fantastic� stories without corroboration is either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves.Well, here's a fantastic story for you: the Earth is whizzing through space revolving on its axis as it goes. I take it you believe that? How much time have you spent looking for corroboration?

I think most people wouldn't be able to give you any clear arguments for a Copernican or against a Ptolamaic solar system: are they "either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves"?I would be astounded if these “intelligent� people who hold YEC beliefs have not had huge doubts which they constantly mentally fight against. Fighting against a doubt is just as dishonest as outright lying. They don't come across as being wracked by self-doubt. And if they've never seen any evidence which conflicts with their beliefs, and if they see lots of made-up stuff which affirms their beliefs, why should they be?

This is the role of YEC pamphlets --- they act as a sort of packing material to protect fragile illusions.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
This is the role of YEC pamphlets --- they act as a sort of packing material to protect fragile illusions.
Dr A, in case I haven't mentioned it before, you really do have a lovely turn of phrase in some of your posts.


Now a short lesson in YEC education, and why YEC believers behave like they do.
It even has pictures.

It features the ever fascinating and semi-legendary Jack Chick who, for those who don't know, is an aging cartoonist who tries to express fundemantalist Christian values through the medium of cartoons.
Extremely offensive, racist, homophobic, ignorant cartoons.
But cartoons that are (and this is important to remember) astonishingly popular.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of information presented to people who want to believe in Christian fundamentalism and it demonstrates wonderfully how seductive and sort of true sounding their 'facts' appear to be, if you don't have a scientific education, or can't be bothered to actually check facts.

(I apologise in advance to all the many posters who already know all about this awful man and his offensive cartoons).

This cartoon (or 'tract') (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp) is what some fundamentalists would believe is how evolution works (or rather doesn't work).

It demonstrates how little research they are prepared to do, how easy it is to provide misinformation and facts taken out of context, but, most importantly, how easy it is to mislead people with a confident sounding tone.

Here are some of the actual scientific facts (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html). All I ask is that people compare the two.

If anyone after reading both comes away still believing the fundamentalist point of view... well do you think they could ever possibly be persuaded otherwise?

The linked parody of 'Big Daddy' is superb, but the link rarely seems to work.

[songstress]

This also purports the view that we (i.e. 'man') is descended from monkeys when we clearly are not.

I was interested by the cartoon 'Big Daddy', in which the student informs the science master that 'since whales lost their legs, and this loss formed into muscles, it can't be as a result of evolution.' Oh yes it can! Evolution not only adds things, it takes them away according to environment and adaptation e.g. we 'lost' our tails when we began to walk upright. Even today, babies born with tails is not an unknown phenomena.

Moreover, in some cases, there is not a transgressional link between the divergence of one species to another, or within the same species. Sometimes there is a huge leap.

The other fact that was pointed out in the cartoons was the 'embyonic gills.' Gills are a vestige of our 'fishy' pasts yet grow into ear bones and form parts of the upper respiritory tract. It is how our species evolved and what it retains from our early ancestors. The student was right, but Mr Chick resolved this by linking it to religion when it should clearly have been scientific.

I cannot think of any argument that Mr Chick put forward in his arguments that cannot be explained by the science of evolution.

Patsy.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by songstress
This also purports the view that we (i.e. 'man') is descended from monkeys when we clearly are not.



Let's be fair, here. Suppose that I were to travel in time umpteen million years and find an example of a most recent common ancestor between humans and old world monkeys.

What do you think such a creature would look like? Would it have binocular vision? Would be be arboreal? Would it have scales? Would it have "hands" or paws?

If I were to donate my specimen to the London Zoo, where would the curators house it? Would it be with the pachyderms? With the giant cats? With the small invertebrates?

On the basis that anything that a zoo curator puts in the monkey house is a monkey, I'd be very inclined to call the most recent common ancestor of humans and old world monkeys a monkey.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by new drkitten
On the basis that anything that a zoo curator puts in the monkey house is a monkey, I'd be very inclined to call the most recent common ancestor of humans and old world monkeys a monkey.
You are right, but the point is that this monkey would look differently from other monkeys. When people protest against the idea of man evolving from "monkeys", part of the image is existing monkeys developing into humans. When it is clear that we are talking monkey-like creatures that have some things in common with both monkeys and humans, a little bit of the protest will disappear.

[Soapy Sam]

I don't know that so many people protest this nowadays.

I would, however expect any self-respecting monkey to protest most indignantly.

[songstress]

Steenkh,

You are right. The link between humans and apes (indeed, we are a member of the primates) is a thin one, but a divergence is nevertheless there. Monkeys and man are not the same. In earlier times, there were creatures that resembled apes but were in fact hominids e.g. homo erectus, Australopithecus, etc. It was several million years before homo sapiens evolved. The apes branch of the primates evolved in their own ways. Homo erectus didn't live in trees but was a peripatetic 'traveller.'

Patsy.

[songstress]

For Nick Harman -

Yes, I do believe in God, but as something akin to nature, not as a 'creator.'

No, I'm not going to elaborate, so don't ask.

Patsy.

[Phaycops]

Aw, darn it. Nick appears to have run away. Drat.

Sorry, I couldn't let this thread die without at least trying to resurrect it!

Any other creationists out there with questions? We're ready and willing!

[Dr Adequate]

I've got to admit I'm really disappointed.

[songstress]

I will say this - that Judeo-Christian and Islamic culture has arguably given us a wealth of great art and music. Who can fail to be roused by the chords of Handel's 'Messiah' and 'Solomon and Sheba', or the strains of Haydn's 'The Creation' or Stainer's 'Crucifixion'?

Patsy.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by songstress
I will say this - that Judeo-Christian and Islamic culture has arguably given us a wealth of great art and music. Who can fail to be roused by the chords of Handel's 'Messiah' and 'Solomon and Sheba', or the strains of Haydn's 'The Creation' or Stainer's 'Crucifixion'?
That is true, but is this a result of the religion? I have often noted how lame the current batch of religious music sounds compared to the religious music of a few centuries ago. It seems to me that many talented composers were working in the religious field just a few centuries ago, but such people are exploring other kinds of music today (sorry, I do not know Stainer).

[H3LL]

Originally posted by songstress
I will say this - that Judeo-Christian and Islamic culture has arguably given us a wealth of great art and music. Who can fail to be roused by the chords of Handel's 'Messiah' and 'Solomon and Sheba', or the strains of Haydn's 'The Creation' or Stainer's 'Crucifixion'?

Patsy.

Not exclusively Abrahamic religions, but many eastern religions and Greek and Roman mythology have inspired as well as inspiring works in their own regions.

More to the point concerning these old composers and artists:

Who were their frequent sponsors? The Cistine Chapel springs to mind, among others.

Where did the money come from?

Exchange for goods? No.

Exchange for service? Possibly a feel-good placebo, or fear. Little else.

With regrettably few exceptions the money was gleaned from the poor (most people are poorer than churches) with little in return other than fear, threats and fairy tales.

Who benefits from the thousands of pieces of art and manuscripts locked away gathering dust in the vaults of the Vatican?

The old joke about sharing the congregation money between church and god springs to mind:

"We throw it in the air. What He catches He keeps."

It would seem, if steenkh's thoughts are so, that even the small scraps that used to fall from the table to the arts has all but disappeared with money better spent on their own power and political campaigns to under-mine science.

As with a god that loves his fruit more than his children, the churches love their dogma and cash more than their <strike>cash-cows</strike> congregation.

[songstress]

Steenkh and H3LL,

I would agree with you both.

H3LL - Most of the payment for music and art came from either the Church or the Monarchy via taxes and generous benefactors. In the days before the Welfare State, the poor were 'provided for' by the 'good' grace of the Church. I can remember my mum telling me that even as late as 1936, people could still ask for 'alms' at the church and be given a bag of coal and blankets.

However, like all these man-made adminsitrations, people were means-tested and those thought too weathly were denied aid and often ended up in the poor house, or died on the streets.

Patsy.

[Ossai]

steenkh
It seems to me that many talented composers were working in the religious field just a few centuries ago, I’ve heard it a few places but not checked, but didn’t the church have power over some composers? I.E. compose for us or not at all –due to pressure the church could apply or starvation.

Ossai

[songstress]

Absolutely true, Ossai. This was another example of slavery.

Handel also wrote some beautiful secular music, but he is more famous for his religious muses.


Patsy.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Ossai
steenkh
I’ve heard it a few places but not checked, but didn’t the church have power over some composers? I.E. compose for us or not at all –due to pressure the church could apply or starvation.
I do not think so. The church was just a sponsor like any other, but the western church actually invented the musical notation so that for a long time the only written music was church music.

In the middle ages the church repeatedly issued prohibitions against using polyphony or fast notes, but that only shows what little influence conservatively minded clerics had on the music: The prohibitions had to be repeated, and eventually polyphony and fast notes also made their entry into church music.

With Palestrina we see an attempt to fix the style once and for all, not in form of prohibitions but in the form of beautiful pieces of music that other composers tried to emulate or surpass.

The branch of music that we call classical music split off from folk music already in the middle ages, but all the time lots of music was written that we could call folk music, and this kind of music was only rarely written down and we do not think of it when we think of old music. The lyrics for this music was often spiteful of the powerful church and the church cannot have been able to block it, or it would have tried to.

Secular music (of the classical kind) was very similar to religious music in the middle ages, but from the Renaissance the two kinds split, and only meet again in the 18th century.

Over time, the growing wealth and sophistication among the nobility (and in the 19th century the bourgeoisie) attracted a lot of composers, but I do not see any evidence that the church dictated or tried to dictate how this music should sound.

Edited to add: Händel is a good example of a composer who simply worked for those who could pay, and of course his clerical masters had their own ideas of how the music they commisioned should sound, but the same was true for his secular masters. Händel was a commercial succes because he could satisfy those wishes.

[Garrette]

I've sung in many choirs performing classical, religious music and agree that much of it is stunningly beautiful.

I also agree with the others that the beauty is only incidental to its religiosity.

About 25 years ago I bought a cassette which I have since lost called "The Blessing Way."

It was spiritual Navajo music, some of it traditional and some newly composed.

It remains among the most beautiful music I have ever heard and I regret losing it.

[Soapy Sam]

You migh enjoy the novel of the same name by Tony Hillerman.
He has written several about the Navajo Tribal Police. Excellent yarns with some fascinating cultural insights.

Ossai- You might equate the situation in European music till about 1800 with today. To be successful, you must be in the industry. Back then the people with cash to support professional musicians (and artists generally) were landowners and the church.

Doubtless many traditionalists lived, died and were forgotten because the music they made failed to attract patrons or a mass audience. Same applies now.

It would seem reasonable that the person paying the piper calls the tune- hence most music was religious because that's where the money came from. I'd call it capitalism rather than slavery.

By the way, I just came in at the end- what has this to do with extinctions?

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
By the way, I just came in at the end- what has this to do with extinctions?
We are just idling time until it is definite that Nick has gone and the thread is dead.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by steenkh
We are just idling time until it is definite that Nick has gone and the thread is dead.
Thread's dead baby. Thread's dead.

[Garrette]

Soapy Sam,

I've read several Hillerman novels and always enjoyed them.

I lived in Arizona a while and find the desert surprisingly beautiful and comforting. Did some visiting with Navajo while there, though not as extensive as I'd have liked.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Ashles
Thread's dead baby. Thread's dead.
Really too bad!It was a great thread .I just wonder what Nick's opinion of the whole thing would be.Did his house of cards remain intact with not a single card being disturbed?Was he frustrated at not being able to talk sense to all those deluded evolutionists and walked away in disgust?Or could there be the faint glimmer of a critical thought process starting in regards to some of the absurdities in which he claims to believe,and he's spending a week in deep thought.I guess only Nick knows the answer to that.

[Soapy Sam]

Garrette- I lived in Arizona a while and find the desert surprisingly beautiful and comforting.

Yes. I know exactly what you mean. It had a similar effect on me, in summer and even more in winter.

I can understand how people could become a part of that country, in body and mind. I imagine Hillerman is affected in the same way. I suspect it either has that effect on one very strongly, or not. Leaphorn could leave if he had too, but never Chee.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by farmermike
Really too bad!It was a great thread .I just wonder what Nick's opinion of the whole thing would be.Did his house of cards remain intact with not a single card being disturbed?Was he frustrated at not being able to talk sense to all those deluded evolutionists and walked away in disgust?Or could there be the faint glimmer of a critical thought process starting in regards to some of the absurdities in which he claims to believe,and he's spending a week in deep thought.I guess only Nick knows the answer to that.
Debating scientifically with a creationist can only ever lead to the creationist either admitting that his information (gleaned from sites like AiG) is incorrect, or flatly stating that "God just did it", or by them disappearing.

Obviously their 'evidence' and 'information' will never stand up to analysis by paople who actually know what they are talking about, or a sem-educated amateur.

Still Nick hung around for longer than usual.

Will it help him to think a little more critically about the lies he has been told? Who knows. I just hope he realises that you are actually allowed to believe in God without having to accept literally every single word the Bible says.
Because as we have seen, with the level of inconsistency and frankly bizarre messages contained within, that would be pretty much impossible.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam:
Yes. I know exactly what you mean. It had a similar effect on me, in summer and even more in winter.


You're telling me we allow Scots in the American West?

Whatever are we coming to?

[H3LL]

As this thread walks quietly into the sunset, a quick Q on something steenkh said:

Originally posted by steenkh
....I do not see any evidence that the church dictated or tried to dictate how this music should sound.

I only know this as rumour or possible hype, but I was told that the notes used by Black Sabbath in their little ditty "Black Sabbath" were expressly forbidden in that order by the church as being satanic. Sometimes this was embelished with the church threatening punishment for writing/playing them.

I have no idea if this is true, but you seem to know your subject and wondered if you could shed some light on its veracity?

The tabs:


bb 44

tr~~~~~~
-----||--------|--------|
-T---||--------|--------|
-A---||--------|--------|
-B---||-----5--|--------|
-----||--5-----|--4(5)--|
-----||--3-----|--------|

[BPScooter]

OK, the deal is that most of what we all humans hear as 'nice' in music is a consonant interval, a 2:1 or 3:2 or 4:5 kind of harmonious dealing between two frequencies.

One of the most "not nice" things is a tritone, or the interval between, say, C natural and F sharp. Six semitones equal tempered, I think. Augmented fourth or diminished fifth. Do-re-mi ***fa**** or Do-ti-la ***sol***

One of the characteristics of "jazzy" or "bluesy" playing is to intentionally go high on the fourth or low on the fifth as you sing or play. Piano players can't do it, so they fake it by playing two notes at once or sliding quickly off one or the other. Singers, string players, have an easier time. Trombones can do it. The other instruments, trumpets, clarinets, etc. have to learn to bend their notes with embouchure (mouth position) and that takes some skill and time to learn. Guitar players can slide their fingers, jazzy-like, but most learn to bend the string pretty fast.

In the old days of music, the tritone was hard to hear in your head and hard to sing and hold. The old time church singers called it the 'devil in music.'

Black Sabbath, in particular Tony and Geezer, probably didn't know much of that when they played it. I think they had some fine big amplifiers and some time on their hands, and they discovered for the umpteenth time how wicked weird it sounds if you play E and B flat at the same moment.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by BPScooter
Black Sabbath, in particular Tony and Geezer, probably didn't know much of that when they played it. I think they had some fine big amplifiers and some time on their hands, and they discovered for the umpteenth time how wicked weird it sounds if you play E and B flat at the same moment.

:g1: :D

Interesting. Thanks.

I have always thought it record company hype/rumour. My opinion still the same but your info adds a little more weight.

Still not certain though.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by BPScooter
... they discovered for the umpteenth time how wicked weird it sounds if you play E and B flat at the same moment.

tr~~~~~~
-----||--------|--------|
-T---||--------|--------|
-A---||--------|--------|
-B---||-----5--|--------|
-----||--5-----|--4(5)--|
-----||--3-----|--------|

But that's a G and a Db! :D

In the equal tempered scale, the interval between a E and a Bb is TOTALLY different than a G and Db! They would beat against each other at a totally different rate! My two "cents." (pun intended!)

Don't forget that tremlo, either! Hehe...

Nice post, Scooter! Sorry I couldn't resist being goofy.

[BPScooter]

Heya- thanks for the smiles, good to know that all my music degrees paid off at last!

Actually equal-temperament is defined by a 100-cent semitone, 12 per octave, so on that level it doesn't matter whether it's E to Bb, or F# to C, etc. That's the compromise, other tuning systems are more centered on a particular tone/frequency as "do" and then define other pitches from that, leading to different sized intervals depending. So if you're in some kind of mean-tone or Pythagorean tuning system, it sounds great if you play in the key you started in, but modulations get ever more bizarre sounding. This has been the challenge for keyboards, lutes, etc. in trying to do what singers, violinists, etc. do naturally-- temper the intervals depending on their melodic direction, harmonic function, etc.

That being said, some people do believe that the absolute pitch level, where "do" is, is really meaningful (Scriabin, I think, was one). Somehow F major is pastoral, but whether that's just because of Beethoven's 6th symphony or something inherent in "do is F, major tonality" I can't say. Lyndon Larouche seems to think that the A=440 Hz pitch standard is the root of lots of problems, social and psychological. I say no more.

Way esoteric, but just about anyone with regular "conversational" acquaintance with western music has no problem telling "in tune" from "out of tune" but when you try to pull that apart a bit, it gets really complicated. Kind of like trying to figure out how a natural language works, utterly complex but somehow we are able to do it.

So back to Tony and Geezer--I'll pull out my old vinyl and do some research. I'm pretty sure that when Randy Rhodes quoted the "Black Sabbath" motive in his guitar solo on "Flying High Again" it was in E. But Randy tuned down to Eb, I think, ... hmm... now I have a weekend project.

Medieval and Renaissance music theory had a lot of rules and ways of handling what they considered dissonant intervals. "Musica ficta" or "false music" was something that a player or singer would do that wasn't notated to avoid or soften the arrival and departure from dissonances, a sort of ornament I suppose. We really don't know because there are no CDs of how they sang it, but there are treatises. That's probably the source of the "diabolus in musica" label for the tritone. As far as I know nobody was excommunicated or possessed by Auld Nick for dabbling with the interval.

Long live the tritone!

[BPScooter]

I realize my last post is almost an utter and total derail of the thread. To atone for that, there is one thing I remember that is pertinent to the church dictating what music should sound like.

In the 15th century it became common for composers of sacred music to use a secular tune as a "cantus firmus" or fixed tune, usually in an inner voice where you couldn't even tell what it was. So you'd have a tune like L'homme arme in the tenor, with a nice Kyrie all around it. This became incredibly ingenious, almost like a little cipher or crossword puzzle only intelligible to the other composers or the choristers.

After the Council of Trent, this was highly frowned upon and so Palestrina, for example, was a bit of a throwback to a simpler sort of church music without so much artifice, or reference to secular tunes.

Early Reformation-era church music in England was also inspired by a desire to remove the "tennis plaie" from the worship service, so austerity was back in style and this came across to the Puritan colonies in North America. But the high Baroque Lutheran music in Germany, like Bach, seemed OK with just about anything.

There. Back on the rails. I'm not an expert, so I apologize for any over-simplifications or factual errors here.