Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,0001,001-1,048 next last
To: Thatcherite

Well, I have been a believer for over 50 years, so it is tough for me to know where to start.

But, I found Faith Founded on Fact, Essays in Evidential Apologetics to be quite interesting. It is by John Warwick Montgomery. Copyright is 1978. Published by Trinity Publishing.

I don't know how available it is anymore. Let me know if you want to read it and have trouble obtaining it.


951 posted on 12/23/2004 3:44:21 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Ok, I couldn't get that, but I've ordered a copy of "How do we know there is a God?" by the same author.

I have read a book that purported to offer similar evidence before (sorry, a while ago so I cannot cite references) and my recollection is that I found a lot of "conclusion presuming" going on, and that the arguments would reinforce pre-existing beliefs but were unconvincing to me as a non-believer. I am not assuming that Warwick will be more of the same however (witness I am shelling out hard-earned for it).

Locke's and Paley's arguments for "God as designer" were powerful ones before the 19th century of course.

952 posted on 12/23/2004 4:08:07 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I think that in arguing for God there are some things that you must accept for the sake of argument.

Any god whose existence does not rely on faith is not much of a god.

Remember, the title of the book I suggested was about faith not proving the existence of God, per se.

Try Alibris for a used copy of the Faith book. www.alibris.com


953 posted on 12/23/2004 4:18:16 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

"Locke's and Paley's arguments for "God as designer" were powerful ones before the 19th century of course."

To me, having God design everything one at a time, as the creationists insist He must have done, limits God to being somewhat of a retard.

If He created everything in one big bang and all the systems start working, I think that is pretty good. ;-)


954 posted on 12/23/2004 4:20:19 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 952 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Noah's Ark: I don't know enough details to consider myself any kind of expert but, looking at the whole story, it fits together. You're right, the rain was not the only source of water. Here are a few things to consider:

Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.

Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path. The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.

The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.

Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth. I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth. The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.

P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.

955 posted on 12/23/2004 7:03:03 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 943 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

There is no evidence at all for any of your claims as to where the water came from, in fact at a quick glance they all appear physically nonsensical (and your claim of a huge tidal wave appears to contradict the biblical account but no doubt you rationalise it somehow). But lets accept them for the sake of the good laugh you are giving everybody.... now, where did the billion cubic miles of water go afterwards?


956 posted on 12/23/2004 7:10:42 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Fine, I'll do some research and get back to you.


957 posted on 12/23/2004 7:20:10 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/601395/posts
has some interestin gstuff but, it's too general. I'll keep looking.
958 posted on 12/23/2004 7:30:01 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
OK, I've got a free moment now to go through your initial claims of the source of the flood water.

Noah's Ark: I don't know enough details to consider myself any kind of expert but, looking at the whole story, it fits together. You're right, the rain was not the only source of water.

Well you are part right, rain as we understand cannot be the source of any of the water. Rain is oceanic precipitation and cannot raise global water levels.

Here are a few things to consider: Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.

Traditional understanding has no scientific standing and fails on numerous levels. (a) It implies a catastrophic global *lowering* of the land by several miles which is in no way implied or mentioned in the flood story. (b) The energy release from such an event would not be survivable by the ark or by fish. Like Krakatoa occuring everywhere in the world at once. (c) Such an event would leave global evidence behind on a vast scale, we are talking a billion cubic miles of water being squeezed out of caverns by a collapse. There is no such evidence. (A few small caves in Florida does not count as evidence)

Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path. The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.

Your "huge masses" of ice won't even begin to do the job. I don't even need a citation of them from you to know that this is a relatively tiny completely irrelevant phenomenon. However, for the sake of amusement, lets imagine the earth slamming into a billion cubic miles of ice (slightly more, in fact because ice is higher-volume than water) at solar-orbital velocity over a period of 40 days. Lets just think about the kinetic energy-loss involved.... 1/2 * m * v * v Yep, I think you just vaporised the earth with that theory. (Jehu will be so glad that math is being brought to bear on the subject)

The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.

I missed the reference to rain being a new phenomenon invented for the flood, though it begs the question how did the water cycle work before that? Massive atmospheric changes? You bet, I would be prepared to bet that no-one can postulate a mechanism for the flood that doesn't destroy the earth's atmosphere completely, and much of the earth's crust into the bargain.

Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth. I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth.

You are the one who believes that the bible is an accurate literal account of real events (except perhaps when it doesn't suit you?). Genesis 7 16 to 7 20 quite clearly describes a gradual uplift of the flood waters till the mountains are covered, not a global "tidal wave" (though I did enjoy the mental picture of the aghast Noah who has just spent 100 years building a boat according to the Lord's instruction looking at the giant tidal wave that is about to utterly destroy it)

The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.

Well, would you believe it? People who live on islands by or in the ocean have myths and stories about being inundated by hurricanes/tsunamis/typhoons. Incredible, I would never have expected that, any more than I would expect river civilisations who haven't mastered flood engineering to have "rainy" flood stories

P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.

If he lived at all, he lived in the middle east, and once saved his family from a local flood (that seemed like global devastation to those involved) in a boat. Possibly he saved some livestock too.

959 posted on 12/23/2004 8:30:18 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 958 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
A collection of verses pertaining to subterranian waters:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/wute.html
960 posted on 12/23/2004 8:30:45 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I'm still researching but, just a note: If the oceans are lowered and the mountains raised during the flood, you don't need as much water as you indicated.


961 posted on 12/23/2004 8:50:25 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; All
This guy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658 says, "Plus, scientists believe our atmosphere holds well over 40 trillion gallons of water at any given time. Every single day of the year, approximately 4 trillion gallons fall to the Earth in the form of rain."

Can anyone verify?
962 posted on 12/23/2004 8:53:41 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
I'm still researching but, just a note: If the oceans are lowered and the mountains raised during the flood, you don't need as much water as you indicated.

No, that's true, you'll just destroy the surface of the earth instead with the energy requirement for moving it around so rapidly.

And you cannot escape the requirement for absolutely *vast* quantities of water if you accept that mountains existed prior to the flood (as Genesis says they did)

963 posted on 12/23/2004 8:57:08 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 961 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

We had a lot of snow last night.


964 posted on 12/23/2004 8:57:42 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
This guy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658 says, "Plus, scientists believe our atmosphere holds well over 40 trillion gallons of water at any given time. Every single day of the year, approximately 4 trillion gallons fall to the Earth in the form of rain." Can anyone verify?

Can't you get it round your head? Normal rain is no use to your theory in *any* quantity... it is oceanic precipitation.

965 posted on 12/23/2004 8:59:05 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

"I'm still researching but, just a note: If the oceans are lowered and the mountains raised during the flood, you don't need as much water as you indicated."

I am still researching, but didn't you get this backwards?


966 posted on 12/23/2004 8:59:12 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 961 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Good Morning!


967 posted on 12/23/2004 8:59:37 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 964 | View Replies]

To: shubi
We had a lot of snow last night.

LOL

968 posted on 12/23/2004 8:59:59 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 964 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Oops!


969 posted on 12/23/2004 9:00:54 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 966 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

I knew what you meant, slips of the keyboard don't matter.


970 posted on 12/23/2004 9:01:42 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 969 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

If there was no rain before the flood, the body of atmospheric water must be relocated in our equation, that's all.


971 posted on 12/23/2004 9:08:07 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 965 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Good morning and Merry Christmas to you!


972 posted on 12/23/2004 9:17:08 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 967 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Interesting summary of Mt. Ararat research, poorly referenced : http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658


973 posted on 12/23/2004 9:17:36 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 959 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

As a Christian you will be forgiven for your greivous error. ;-)


974 posted on 12/23/2004 9:18:31 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 969 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Noah's Ark: I don't know enough details to consider myself any kind of expert but, looking at the whole story, it fits together. You're right, the rain was not the only source of water. Here are a few things to consider:
Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.

B: The caverns in Florida are a result of groundwater effects on limestone. Neither the volume of caverns or groundwater in Florida amount to anything remotely needed for a Noachian deluge. It is a myth. Sorry.


Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path.

B:? Reference? The Earth peridoically is probably struck by comets. However, the amount of water need to produce the Noachian deluge would require many comets, which also contain copious amounts of poison gases. You don't know what you are talking about, or you didn't understand what you heard or read. "Big Ice crystals" in its path. Really.


The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.

B: You're babbling, sorry. There is no scientific justification for anything you've written.


The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.

B: And miraculously Noah and his family were supplied pressure suits.

Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth.

B: Sez who? It doesn't say that in the Bible. Again we have a literalist interpreting the Bible to suit his own needs. So much for "Biblical Literalism".



I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth. The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.

B: Beliefs don't constitue evidence or facts. And tsunamis don't leave deposits which resemble the totality of the geologic column. Your fantasies have nothing to do with modern science.


P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.

B: We don't know anything, as there was never a Noachian Deluge. Most likely there was a local catastrophic flood in Asia minor some thousands of years ago. THe story of Noah is simply the Epic of Gilgamesh turned into a morality play.


975 posted on 12/23/2004 10:14:16 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 955 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

A collection of verses pertaining to subterranian waters:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/wute.html

B: Which is bunch of nonsense, and Doug Cox was debunked on talk.origins years ago. If you like you can pick the tone or two arguments from thsi site and we can go through it again.


976 posted on 12/23/2004 10:17:28 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 960 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

This guy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658 says, "Plus, scientists believe our atmosphere holds well over 40 trillion gallons of water at any given time. Every single day of the year, approximately 4 trillion gallons fall to the Earth in the form of rain."

Can anyone verify?

B: Even if Correct, we don't have a Noachian flood everyday, so what is your point?


977 posted on 12/23/2004 10:18:50 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
"the floodgates of heaven."

If you wish to say Noah's flood was a miracle, just say so, and the argument is over. If you wish to argue that the evidence seen by scientists was planted by Satan, just say so and the argument is over. It is really futile to try to reconcile geology with miracles. People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.

978 posted on 12/23/2004 10:24:58 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 975 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
From 255: Here are a few things to consider:

I'm not claiming to "know" anything. 255 was meant as a framework for answering the question, not a final pronouncement. So, don't simply respond with "You don't know what you're talking about." Such a statement, no matter how truthful, is non-germaine. I would much rather read: "Here's how things really went," or, "Here's why that doesn't work."

You'll notice I try to leave this thread alone both when it becomes a flame war and when useful links are given, which I take time out to read.

979 posted on 12/23/2004 10:31:05 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 977 | View Replies]

To: js1138
People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.

Do you suggest any links to succinct summaries of said results? I'd like to read them. Google does not distinguish between legitimate research and tinfoil-hat ravings...

980 posted on 12/23/2004 10:36:28 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Google is our friend. This is not an essay, but it includes a good list of people who contributed to geology prior to Darwin. Googling these names should get you a lot of information.


981 posted on 12/23/2004 10:44:29 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 980 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Forgot the link:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=AbstractsAgeoftheEarth


982 posted on 12/23/2004 10:46:08 AM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 980 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

From 255: Here are a few things to consider:
I'm not claiming to "know" anything. 255 was meant as a framework for answering the question, not a final pronouncement. So, don't simply respond with "You don't know what you're talking about." Such a statement, no matter how truthful, is non-germaine. I would much rather read: "Here's how things really went," or, "Here's why that doesn't work."

B: Fair enough. All of the available geological evidence suggest that the volume of the world's oceans has not changed dramatically over the last 500 million years. From what we can glean, oceans, or at least bodies of water were present very early in earth's history.

B: I don't have any scientific objections to a "flood", just to a world wide flood. That is simply a physical impossibility.


983 posted on 12/23/2004 11:14:59 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 979 | View Replies]

To: js1138

"the floodgates of heaven."
If you wish to say Noah's flood was a miracle, just say so, and the argument is over. If you wish to argue that the evidence seen by scientists was planted by Satan, just say so and the argument is over. It is really futile to try to reconcile geology with miracles. People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.

B: I agree with you.


984 posted on 12/23/2004 11:18:13 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
First off: okay I'll agree with your analogy, but that still doesn't mean that believing in God or a god, would merit eternal damnation.

"I have not indicated that the hypothetical creator is necessarily omnipotent; omnipotence is merely one possibility."

Now, think about this. If the creator created the Universe, even if he weren't "omnipotent," he would appear to be so. As a matter of fact, within his own Creation he would have to be so close to omnipotence, for his not being omnipotent to matter.
985 posted on 12/23/2004 4:45:31 PM PST by conservative_crusader (The voice of truth, tells me a different story. The voice of truth says do not be afraid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 937 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

For possibly the first time, I have to agree with cc here.
Once you hypothecate a creator of the universe, he would be pretty close to omnipotent.


986 posted on 12/23/2004 7:10:28 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 985 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Of course, you'd have to go to an hypothecary.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.
987 posted on 12/23/2004 7:24:52 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 986 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

Of course, you'd have to go to an hypothecary.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

B: Now thats funny.


988 posted on 12/23/2004 8:29:50 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 987 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader
First off: okay I'll agree with your analogy...

You Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar, with a degree of open-mindedness that the rest of us can but gawk at in amazement. (For the avoidance of doubt I am not being patronising or sarcastic but admiring; because the acceptance of another's point of view in a forum like this is like a transit of Venus, such a rare event that it merits special attention)

... but that still doesn't mean that believing in God or a god, would merit eternal damnation.

I kind of agree, but partly because the word "Merit" is so loaded with connotations of "deserved". I'd prefer to replace the word "merit" in your sentence with "result in". I contend that if there is even the slightest chance that believing in the creator (worshipping It) could result in the PUNISHMENT then Pascal's wager is bust. It doesn't matter how small the chance is, once multiplied by -infinity it still comes to -infinity.

"I have not indicated that the hypothetical creator is necessarily omnipotent; omnipotence is merely one possibility."

Now, think about this. If the creator created the Universe, even if he weren't "omnipotent," he would appear to be so. As a matter of fact, within his own Creation he would have to be so close to omnipotence, for his not being omnipotent to matter.

I kind of buy what you are saying here too. But I'd say that there is a long distance between what we (poor feeble creatures that we are) would perceive as effective omnipotence in our universe and the perfect ideal of true omnipotence. For example does the "limited" omnipotence (haha, that'd have my old english teacher foaming at the mouth) required to be the Creator automatically imply the level of omniprescence and omniscience that would make Him detect and rebuke the Devil/Cleaner? I don't think so, you may believe otherwise.

989 posted on 12/24/2004 4:02:03 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 985 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
This guy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658 says, "Plus, scientists believe our atmosphere holds well over 40 trillion gallons of water at any given time. Every single day of the year, approximately 4 trillion gallons fall to the Earth in the form of rain." Can anyone verify?

The people at that site are trying to pull the wool over your eyes by suggesting that 40 trillion gallons of water is a lot (they significantly don't compare this number with the requirement or even make any attempt to assess the requirement themselves); it is tiny and completely irrelevant in the context of the volume of water needed for the Noachian deluge. A single cubic mile of water is approximately a trillion gallons, all the water in the earth's atmosphere would come to 40 cubic miles (compared with the requirement for 1 billion cubic miles, give or take something depending on how much you are relying on God shoving the landscape about (something which is not mentioned or implied in the biblical account)). And unless you'd want Noah and his family and the livestock to die of rather dry throats or walk around with breathing masks most of that water (such as it is) had better remain in the atmosphere in any model that you propose.

990 posted on 12/24/2004 4:42:41 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.

Do you suggest any links to succinct summaries of said results? I'd like to read them. Google does not distinguish between legitimate research and tinfoil-hat ravings...

Part of your problem is that from the scientific/engineering point of view all attempts to justify the Noachian deluge naturalistically are tinfoil hat ravings, because there is no mechanism that even gets close without a host of miracles, both large-scale, and small. Anyone purporting to have scientific or engineering training who tells you otherwise is simply lying to you. I'm sorry to have to say.

991 posted on 12/24/2004 4:48:56 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 980 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

It ought to be possible to first ask, "If the Flood occurred worldwide, what evidence ought we to find in nature?" and then go look for it. Even a miracle ought to leave a fingerprint. In the net, though, I am finding very few attempts to answer the question scientifically. I understand the biblical approach and agree with it but, that doesn't help convince a sceptic. If anyone is doing this research, they aren't publishing online and they don't have a lot of grant money. I run into the same problem when researching OT texts. Sometimes hardcopy is the only way. I'm off to the library.


992 posted on 12/24/2004 6:31:50 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 991 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

It ought to be possible to first ask, "If the Flood occurred worldwide, what evidence ought we to find in nature?" and then go look for it. Even a miracle ought to leave a fingerprint. In the net, though, I am finding very few attempts to answer the question scientifically.

Der, For starters, the earliest geologists like Steno set out to look for evidence for Noah's flood. They didn't find it. For the first 200 years of geological science, the primary concern was finding evidence for the wolrd wide deluge. They found all sorts of evidence for floods big and small, but not for a Noachian world wide deluge. Geologists gave up by the 1820's.

THere has been no research by geologists looking for evidence of a world wide deluge, because the idea was falsified almost 200 years ago. We tend not to beat dead horses to death.

I suggest you read the FAQs at talkorigins.org, particularly the flood fact.



I understand the biblical approach and agree with it but, that doesn't help convince a sceptic.

Sceptics require geological evidence. There isn't any. Sorry. 400 years of scrutinizing the geologic column doesn't yield any evidence of a Noachian deluge. If you want to believe the Flood was a miracle, be my guest. But there's a second miracle associated with it. That it failed to leave a trace in the geologic record.


If anyone is doing this research, they aren't publishing online and they don't have a lot of grant money. I run into the same problem when researching OT texts. Sometimes hardcopy is the only way. I'm off to the library.

Der, nobody gets grant money (no scientists that is) to look for evidence of a Noachain deluge, and they shouldn't, any more than scientists shouldn't get money to study "phlogiston". People should not be paid to research ideas already demonstrated to be false.


993 posted on 12/24/2004 6:44:14 AM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 992 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong. One theory depends on an emotional response, so people won't see they haven't done the research. The other depends on a common-sense fallacy (everybody knows... )combined with an expert-opinion fallacy (smart people say so). Most people doing creation research nowadays are doing so for un-scientific reasons - to convince religious groups to not listen to the non-religious research. As a Christian, I find this disturbing. It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not.


994 posted on 12/24/2004 7:13:50 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

"It leads to people parroting the preacher and convincing themselves they are saved (because they know the right words to say), when they are not."

AIG is looking for a director of sales for its museum. You must parrot creationist nonsense to apply. A notice for any of you that are willing to parrot for money.


995 posted on 12/24/2004 11:09:50 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 994 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill; All
Perceptive thoughts, Der.

It is worth bearing in mind that there are numerous organisations and individual scientists who would love to find geological evidence of the Noachian deluge. Assorted Christian organisations are not exactly strapped for cash and would have plenty of funds to help anyone with a credible story that stood up scientifically but needed further work. A Nobel Prize would beckon for the scientist in charge. No-one has come forward though. Does that tell us anything?

Merry Christmas Everyone!

996 posted on 12/24/2004 11:46:35 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 994 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Does it pay well, can I apply?


997 posted on 12/24/2004 11:48:54 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 995 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
"I kind of agree, but partly because the word "Merit" is so loaded with connotations of "deserved". I'd prefer to replace the word "merit" in your sentence with "result in"."

I'm sorry, that's my mistake, I wasn't going for the literal meaning of "merit." "result in" is definitely a better phrase.

"I contend that if there is even the slightest chance that believing in the creator (worshipping It) could result in the PUNISHMENT then Pascal's wager is bust. It doesn't matter how small the chance is, once multiplied by -infinity it still comes to -infinity."

So instead of there being 4 possibilities there are 6. Okay. thats fine. 2 go toward the no God argument. 3 are you go to Hell, and 1 is you go to Heaven. Is that what I'm seeing here? I don't mean to exclude any other possibilities thats just all I see.

"For example does the "limited" omnipotence (haha, that'd have my old english teacher foaming at the mouth) required to be the Creator automatically imply the level of omniprescence and omniscience that would make Him detect and rebuke the Devil/Cleaner?"

The point of omnipotence, is being able to exert power. If this god is so close to omnipotence in his own universe, that it doesn't matter, he could exert the power to make himself omniscient, omnipresent, and whatever else he needs to be within his own creation. So yes, if this Devil/Cleaner existed within the gods realm, he would be easily detectable and destroyable.
998 posted on 12/24/2004 12:23:59 PM PST by conservative_crusader (The voice of truth, tells me a different story. The voice of truth says do not be afraid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 989 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong.

Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.

At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.


999 posted on 12/24/2004 12:38:21 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 994 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

1000


1,000 posted on 12/24/2004 12:54:13 PM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 851-900901-950951-1,0001,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson