Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs
ABC News ^ | May 25, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-359 next last
To: Coyoteman

Coyoteman,

As I read the many who are wrangling with you on this creation vs. evolution issue, I find most of them are saying what I would say anyway. I think we can largely say it all hinges on what “experts” and “scientists” we decide we want to believe.

For example, the radiometric and radiocarbon dating. There is a great debate as to its accuracy. You trust those who say it’s accurate. I trust those who say it’s not. I’ve certainly never done any experiments about it myself. I lack the ability and the equipment.

Of course I must be willing to look at your links, but I will willingly confess I lack the scientific knowledge to interpret all the data. That’s why I lean on the high school level knowledge I do have, along with better educated minds than mine who put forth their findings AND their interpretations of them.

It’s the interpretations of the data that we disagree on.

For example, you say, “It is interpreted differently by those who can’t accept what the data are saying for religious reasons.” I could say the same about those who hold on doggedly to evolutionary theory! See, the knife cuts both ways.

I see evolutionary theory as “trying to put a square peg in a round hole.” Desperate to deny that God is their Creator and Sustainer, and that we are wholly dependent on and subservient to Him, mankind invents fantastic theories which make us autonomous, self-reliant, the way we want to be. Certainly there is data that can fit into the theory of evolution, as long as you interpret it with an evolutionary presupposition.

Your statement about penguins and your aching back are prognostications, of course, and no one on this thread will live long enough to see if it’s true. My opinion is, the penguins will still be the same. I don’t believe our ancestors crawled on all fours, so we have backaches now, any more than I believe occasional headaches mean we used to have helmets grafted on which we’ve since shed.

So you and I can acknowledge backaches, and headaches, and differently shaped skulls, and dino fossils, and yet come to radically different conclusions.

As you say, “Better be careful, as the creationist sources have a nasty habit of misrepresenting science to make it come out the way they want. They will omit inconvenient facts, distort what they can omit, and overall do the type of science one would expect from comic books.” Well, I might say the evolutionist sources do the same thing. Remember Piltdown Man and Lucy, etc. etc. etc.? Quite disingenous. And I’ve had plenty of evolutionary theory in comic book/picture book format. One of my fave books as a child had tremendous dino drawings, no men around of course, telling me repeatedly “. . . many million years ago. . .”

You mention you are the field of archeology. Does the fact that all archeological discoveries so far have coincided with Biblical detail affect your opinion of the veracity of the Bible at all? I am an enthusiastic reader of Biblical Archeological Review.

Bottom line, when all charts are read and experiments concluded, I can not believe that the indescribable design elements I see displayed in everything from a simple cell to the human eye are all the products of millions of years of mutation and genetic selection. That notion is, to me, preposterous. I have read, for instance, in regard to the human eye, that there would need to be over ten million successful, positive mutations in order to get near it.

And that’s just an eyeball of one species.


151 posted on 05/29/2007 11:46:41 AM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Remember Piltdown Man

Piltdown man was a fraud committed by a religious person and widely doubted by the scientific community. When scientific methods improved, the 'Man' was pulled out of storage and determined by the scientific methods you disdain to be a fraud.

152 posted on 05/29/2007 11:54:54 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
For example, the radiometric and radiocarbon dating. There is a great debate as to its accuracy.

No dispute in the scientific community that it shows the earth much older than 6,000 years. Here you are fighting not only the evolutionists but the geologists and physicists. Are you willing to throw away all of science?

153 posted on 05/29/2007 11:57:58 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
Does the fact that all archeological discoveries so far have coincided with Biblical detail

NO archeological discovery has supported the biblical detail of the "great flood".

154 posted on 05/29/2007 12:02:53 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: saganite
...Science is still looking for the answer of creation....

Uh, how's that going?

155 posted on 05/29/2007 12:32:48 PM PDT by KMJames (Hyperbole is killing us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
You mention you are the field of archeology. Does the fact that all archeological discoveries so far have coincided with Biblical detail affect your opinion of the veracity of the Bible at all? I am an enthusiastic reader of Biblical Archeological Review.

I also read BAR on occasion, and have a large collection of back issues.

Perhaps the largest archaeologically testable prediction made by the bible has not been supported by archaeology -- a global flood at about 4350 years ago.

From just my own work: there are a number of sites which I have tested which contain Native American cultures spanning this time period. My dating is based largely on radiocarbon, but that actually has been shown to be pretty accurate. You may choose not to accept the evidence, but both dating of historical materials (for example, materials of a known age from ancient Egypt) and of tree-rings (which can be counted individually) shows the method works.

Anyway, if you are arguing from faith and belief, rather than from scientific data, there is nothing that could convince you otherwise, so I will bid you good day.

156 posted on 05/29/2007 12:37:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What is interesting, however, is that the Bible often makes reference to scientific things. And when it does, it is always accurate.

I can't say the same thing for science textbooks...Difference is authorship.

Just for the fun of it, check out Job 33-41, or one of my favorites, Genesis 1:9-10 and then Google "isostasy"...you mind find it quite interesting.

157 posted on 05/29/2007 12:42:33 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
What is interesting, however, is that the Bible often makes reference to scientific things. And when it does, it is always accurate.

Really? Let's look at the story of Noah and his ark. Science teaches us about the water cycle. We don't manufacture water and we don't get it from outer spaces. What we have in the oceans and rivers and lakes and under the ground is pretty much what we've got. The water cycle is the process of evaporation and condensation and precipitation and depends on what we've got available. Now Genesis teaches us that it rained for over 40 days and night, raising the level of the oceans thousands of feet until the mountains were covered. Where did that water come from and where did it go? According to science it would be impossible.

Difference is authorship.

And purpose?

158 posted on 05/29/2007 2:24:40 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
raising the level of the oceans thousands of feet until the mountains were covered.

The mountains were very likely nowhere near as high as they are today. In fact, most of the mountains were most likely created after the Flood, as the water was receding. Dr John Baumgardner, Los Alamos Labs, New Mexico, created a program called TERRA with a grant from NASA. With his computer modeling, he demonstrates the plate tectonic processes involved in the formation of terrain as we see it today. It is considered one of the four top computer models in the world today, and demonstrates this entire process of mountain formation and the formation of the continents as we know them today.

Description of model

Rebuilding the World

Description of Revisions

CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

More references are available.

159 posted on 05/29/2007 2:50:52 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
The mountains were very likely nowhere near as high as they are today. In fact, most of the mountains were most likely created after the Flood, as the water was receding.

How could mountains be created by flood waters receding? Receding from what point? How does that push up land into mountains almost 30,000 feet high?

But regardless, there were mountains of some kind. Be they 5,000 feet high or 10,000 feet high that's still thousands of feet of water that had to come somewhere. Where did it come from and where did it go to?

And what about fresh water and salt water? The Earth's waters are 97% salt. Undrinkable. Catastrophic to farm land. If the flood covered the entire globe to a depth of hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of feet then that means the tiny proportion of fresh water was basically swallowed up in a sea of saltwater. So without any fresh water again what did Noah drink? Without any land uncontaminated by saline how did anything grow?

160 posted on 05/29/2007 3:13:23 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
The mountains were very likely nowhere near as high as they are today. In fact, most of the mountains were most likely created after the Flood, as the water was receding.

So the mountains just grew like mad right up until the time we could accurately measure them, then they slowed down to a normal rate?

Is this what happened to the continents too? Separated at a rapid rate after the flood (so the poor kangaroos wouldn't have to swim all the way home), but slowed down just as we started measuring the actual separation rates?

Do you really believe this stuff?

161 posted on 05/29/2007 3:15:35 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I am running off the Air Force Academy...but let me give you a couple of links. All of your questions have been dealt with.

What About All The Water

Drowned From Below

162 posted on 05/29/2007 3:17:45 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Yes...read the papers at the links. The authors are PhD scientists explaining it far better than I can.


163 posted on 05/29/2007 3:19:13 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
I am running off the Air Force Academy...but let me give you a couple of links. All of your questions have been dealt with.

Yes, in the same way a RoadRunner cartoon deals with physics.

164 posted on 05/29/2007 3:19:38 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

If you have read anything about plate tectonics, you would not be asking these questions. Obviously, either you haven’t, or you think you have a better explanations than scientists at Los Alamos Labs...not exactly a bastion of Creation Science!


165 posted on 05/29/2007 3:22:05 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
When push comes to shove, both those links admit that they have no real explanation for how the flood occurred, where the water came from, or where it went. Just that the flood occurred. And the reason why they know it did was that the Bible said so. That is hardly science.
166 posted on 05/29/2007 3:22:35 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
If you have read anything about plate tectonics, you would not be asking these questions. Obviously, either you haven’t, or you think you have a better explanations than scientists at Los Alamos Labs...not exactly a bastion of Creation Science!

I assume you are referring to Dr. John Baumgardner?

So, is creation "science" an official position of Los Alamos National Laboratories, or is this fellow doing this "science" on his own?

And what do his colleagues at the Labs think of all of this?

It is interesting to note that when otherwise sensible scientists adopt young earth creationism as a belief they turn their back on science and the scientific method in order to make everything come out the way they need it to for their new belief -- no matter what.

That is not science; it is apologetics.

167 posted on 05/29/2007 3:38:19 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You apparently have not read the information at the links below. His work is done under the auspices of LALabs, and his fellow scientists are supportive.

Please read the articles before taking any more swipes at hard working scientist who happen to also believe God was a part of the process.

168 posted on 05/29/2007 3:43:53 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

you need to reread the articles. That is not at all what they say.


169 posted on 05/29/2007 3:44:34 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
You apparently have not read the information at the links below. His work is done under the auspices of LALabs, and his fellow scientists are supportive.

Here are a few more links:

http://www.nmsr.org/baumgard.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/rate_abandon_fantasies_henke.htm

This last link also deals with radiometric dating and the RATE project for anyone following that discussion.

170 posted on 05/29/2007 3:59:24 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Geez man can you stay on point? Now you are bringing Neanderthals into it. My point is that HUMAN mtDNA has a KNOW decay rate through generations. When zeroed it DOES NOT support 6,000 or even 5,000 years of HUMAN generations. I didn't say I don't believe the Genesis. ONLY that mtDNA does not support the RELIGOUS version of the story.

As far as you making statements about how God will judge me you can go screw yourself. Threating people with God is foolish and childish - if you want to worship a god because you are scared $hitless of him/her that is your business. Don't threaten me unless of course you are God, then let's talk.

Funny you picked my post to challenge - is it to accurate for you? Or you just don't want to discuss the fossil record because you cannot argue it?

171 posted on 05/29/2007 4:18:17 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
you need to reread the articles.

I did. From the first site:

"Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm."

There was a flood because the Bible said so. In the end they rely on Genesis.

172 posted on 05/29/2007 4:54:29 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Geez man can you stay on point? Now you are bringing Neanderthals into it. My point is that HUMAN mtDNA has a KNOW decay rate through generations. When zeroed it DOES NOT support 6,000 or even 5,000 years of HUMAN generations. I didn't say I don't believe the Genesis. ONLY that mtDNA does not support the RELIGOUS version of the story.

First, you weren't exactly clear in what you were referring to.

But this is par for course for the Evolutionists who love to be coy.

Second,as for defending the Biblical account, ofcourse it does, it refer to one common female ancestor, which was Eve.

What you want to believe is that it can be shown to go back further than 6,000 years, which it doesn't.

Mutation rates can now be determined directly by comparing the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs. Using the new, more accurate rate mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,000 years ago (In the Beginning, compelling evidence for Creation and the Flood, Walt Brown, Ph.D. 7th edit.2001, pg.229)

As far as you making statements about how God will judge me you can go screw yourself. Threating people with God is foolish and childish - if you want to worship a god because you are scared $hitless of him/her that is your business. Don't threaten me unless of course you are God, then let's talk.

I am not threatening you with anything.

I told you what the Scriptures say on the subject.

So when you are standing at the Judgement, your blood will not be on my hands.

Funny you picked my post to challenge - is it to accurate for you? Or you just don't want to discuss the fossil record because you cannot argue it?

What fossil record?

There is no fossil record for evolution.

You have not come up with any transitional forms (a species moving from one species to another higher species) in those fossils.

A fish is a fish.

173 posted on 05/30/2007 12:14:31 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
“A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.” Your link gives nothing to refute radioactive dating.

All dating done by Evolutionists is based on pre-assumptions and a flawed paradigm.

The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution was always the same-about one in a trillion. Actually, the ratio may have been quite different....Therefore the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight Recent measurements show this. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown, p.244)

174 posted on 05/30/2007 1:19:37 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Est autem fides sperandorum substantia rerum argumentum non parentum

Quaerit derisor sapentiam et non invenient. (Pr.14:6)

175 posted on 05/30/2007 1:27:29 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Isn’t it lovely when John Woodmorappe quotes Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis?

Isn't it lovely when a high school teacher knows more then a Ph.D. evolutionist?

176 posted on 05/30/2007 1:29:38 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You keep posting basic low-level facts on the radiocarbon method, such as that it only extends some 50,000 years into the past, as if that should be hot news! Archaeologists are way ahead of you. We know those types of limitations and more, and we don't need cut-and-paste creationists to try to teach us how to do our jobs. You also cite the reservoir effect as if that's something that is a serious problem for archaeologists. The reservoir effect is old news, I deal with that all the time. I have even done numerous comparisons of charcoal vs. shell to see what the extent of the reservoir effect is in the areas in which I work. Your cut-and-paste also cites the problem of the reservoir effect when dealing with human bone, as fish in the diet can throw the age off. Actually sea mammals can be worse than fish. That's why when I radiocarbon date human bone I obtain the 13C and 15N stable isotope readings so that the percent of marine organisms in the diet can be ascertained and accounted for. You are way out of your depth here. You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong (for religious reasons I presume) and you are surfing the net for anything that might help your position -- without understanding much about the subject at all. Not very impressive. If you wish to convince anyone that the radiocarbon method is inaccurate, you have to really study and understand it first.

Stop blowing hot air!

The dating is based on a flawed assumption, that the environment has not undergone any dramatic change that would affect the ratio between the C-14 and C-12.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available for decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere woulld increase. If the atmospheres ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled organic remains would appear 11, 460 (2x5,730) years older etc. Consequently a 'radiocarbon year' would not correspond to an actual year....Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. Recent measurements show this....Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years which are typical of coal, probably have a much younger true date near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000years ago. (In The Beginning, Walt Brown, p.245-246)

Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

Anything past that is conjecture.

All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.

Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.

177 posted on 05/30/2007 2:10:13 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You keep evading the question.

I am not evading anything.

God was not created, He existed before time and created it.

So, now, how did the universe come into being, from nothing

178 posted on 05/30/2007 2:12:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood." Of course it doesn't. AIG is VERY misleading (lying?)

Well, they weren't lying about those dinosaur bones, now where they?

The Radiocarbon method is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

After that, the dating is based on a evolutionary presupposition-which is wrong.

So the only one lying are the evolutionists who try to palm off what they are pushing as science.

179 posted on 05/30/2007 2:14:34 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
The big dinosaur in the sky that gave birth to the god of humans also gave birth to the original creation, of course.

My, that was clever!

And something just somehow happened to come out of nothing!

And from rocks came life!

And from single cell life came Man!

You talk about fairy tales!

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

180 posted on 05/30/2007 2:18:30 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong

And you seem to be setting up strawman.

I never said that radiocarbon dating is wrong, but that it is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

If you are getting any higher numbers, it is because your evolutionary assumptions are wrong.

181 posted on 05/30/2007 2:22:35 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

I explained how something came from nothing. The all powerful Big Dino in the Sky created everything, first the dinosaurs after his own image, and then later man and the sky-god for man. There’s no other possible explanation. I’m sure you agree.


182 posted on 05/30/2007 5:32:21 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins. "

This is your source? Please.

183 posted on 05/30/2007 5:33:01 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You talk about fairy tales!

That's some tasty irony! Yummo!

184 posted on 05/30/2007 5:33:04 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Ok so you didn't threaten me (not my opinion, but for the sake of the discussion I will concede the point)- don't preach to me.

Ok so if you are so good with the Bible answer this for me. do you believe EVERY word of the Bible to be true and exactly what your God wanted to relay to you? If so please state the version you believe in so I can be sure we are discussing the same thing.

185 posted on 05/30/2007 5:36:55 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Never insult small minded men in positions of power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$; fortheDeclaration; GraniteStateConservative; Coyoteman; ColdWater

I think a lot of the discusion misses the vital point.
Was there original sin?
Does man need a saviour?
The whole Bible hinges on this.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if
through the offence of one
many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by
one that sinned,
so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by
one man’s offence death reigned by one;
much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life
by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous.

The basic theme of redemtion relies on the first man.
If there was no literal “first” man then there is no original sin ... no need for a saviour ... the whole thing is bunk.

So ... is Christianity a “moral” guide?
Or is it the way to eternal life .. the door?


186 posted on 05/30/2007 6:14:34 AM PDT by THEUPMAN (####### comment deleted by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Perhaps you didn’t realize that John and Jan are the one and the same. Very dishonest.


187 posted on 05/30/2007 6:29:04 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

You have already admitted that you were ignorant on the technicalities of radiocarbon dating so you should not make such sweeping, false statements.

188 posted on 05/30/2007 6:30:43 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I am not evading anything. God was not created, He existed before time and created it.

Why did God wait an eternity before creating the universe and man?

189 posted on 05/30/2007 6:32:20 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Our understanding of how the Flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the Flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm."

There was a flood because the Bible said so. In the end they rely on Genesis.

Geological and archeological evidence does NOT support the flood.

190 posted on 05/30/2007 6:36:15 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Marie2

Ask him if he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.


191 posted on 05/30/2007 7:06:32 AM PDT by GunRunner (Rudy 2008, because conservatives can't win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
My son’s about the graduate UCLA with a Physics Degree. Four more kids in the pipeline. Watch out!

LapTag Study findings:

3. State of Physics Graduate Students

Walter expressed disappointment with the quality of current physics graduate students. He feels that there are two possible causes for the decline in quality of the students. First, is the poor preparation that students receive in science at the elementary and secondary levels. This is a problem that LAPTAG is trying to address. The second factor is the dwindling numbers of jobs available for physics researchers as a result of the downsizing of industrial and government efforts in basic research. The brightest students are going into professions where they can make the most money such as Law and Business.Walter would like high school college counselors to encourage students to take physics in high school. He also suggested that UCLA Physics create and distribute a brochure describing the opportunities to work as teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school level with a degree in physics or other sciences. He will visit several of the high schools this year and sit in back of the science classrooms as an observer.

192 posted on 05/30/2007 7:09:53 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Marie2
My son’s about the graduate UCLA with a Physics Degree. Four more kids in the pipeline. Watch out!

UCLA: Home of the late Willard Libby, founder of radiocarbon dating!

193 posted on 05/30/2007 7:22:09 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Thus, radiocarbon dating is only accurate up to 3,500 years.

The argument you are repeating is that radiocarbon dating only is accurate up to 3,500 years because the global flood throws things off earlier than that date.

That might be accurate if there was any scientific evidence of a global flood. There is not.

For the lurkers

We have overlapping tree-ring sequences going back some 12,600 years now. These are used to calibrate the radiocarbon dates. For most of that sequence the tree-rings have been dated every ten years. That is how the fluctuations of 14C in the atmosphere are accounted for. The trees used are standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. They live in an environment which produces only one ring per year. These rings can be cross-checked against historic volcanos, which produced worldwide climatic changes. This allows the rings to be matched with historic volcanic events for over 3,500 years (see the link below).

Unfortunately folks who just have to have a young earth and a global flood will not believe any scientific evidence to the contrary, and make up the most ridiculous "what ifs" to try to argue away those inconvenient facts. Some of the posts on this thread are prime examples of this.

Here are some good links on radiocarbon dating:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


194 posted on 05/30/2007 8:48:25 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

God created Heaven and the angels first. Then the angels got tired of putting up with him and rebelled. Then God chose to not destroy those angels and their leader, but instead gave them not only their own place to run, but also gave them enormous control over the new place God was about to create, Earth and its inhabitants. Then man (and woman) rebelled against God (it’s hard to see how he didn’t see that coming) by falling for a trap that God himself put in their home (Thanks for the trap, God! And why did you let Satan in here, anyway?). Then God got annoyed and kicked them out of their home. Then later God saw that man really, really had gotten tired of him, so he said, “Well, let’s see how good you can swim!” and he flooded the whole earth, every man, woman (even the pregnant ones with that special pregnancy glow with their cute fetuses inside) and child (even the ones with physical and mental deformities), except for one family that still was pretty dysfunctional (Noah the alcoholic who gets angry when his son Ham tells his brothers that Dad’s drunk and naked again and so Noah puts a curse— just like Henbane put on Sleeping Beauty, but this is all totally real and not made up like Sleeping Beauty— on his own grandson and his grandson’s lineage). Then God’s new creation rebelled against him (again!) and so he had to send a new savior (even though the savior never made a big deal about writing things down regarding what we should or should not do, and he recycled previous material, and called people he disagreed with names and had bouts of rage— like Daddy, and wasn’t inclined to use reason to convince people he was right— only coercion of riches and threats of eternal pain in the afterlife). Then God shut up for 2000 years, after being quite active for 4000 years prior. It all makes sense to me.


195 posted on 05/30/2007 9:17:47 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

I got it now. Thanks!


196 posted on 05/30/2007 9:26:09 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"Anything past that is conjecture.

You mean like your unfounded, unevidenced and unbelievable conjecture that the 'Flood' makes carbon dating meaningless?

I don't think so. You see, carbon dating is verified and calibrated by dendrochronology, varves and ice cores, all of which I might add are independent but correlate to a high degree.

You make an obviously biased claim that carbon dating is in error because it is conjecture, yet your basis for doing so is an even bigger conjecture.

Sorry, but scientifically examined physical evidence trumps your wishful thinking.

"All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.

Unfortunately for your group of anti-evolutionists, the fields related to Cosmology, Astrophysics, Physics, Geology, Geophysics and a number of others I have probably missed, have determined the age of the Earth and the Universe independently from the needs and desires of Evolutionary scientists. The age of the Earth was known to be much older than 6,000-10,000 years, decades before Darwin, through a lot of intensive and dedicated hard scientific work, discovered one of the most important mechanisms of Evolution.

"Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.

The scientists follow the well established and tested procedures and processes of science. If you care to dispute that, show us you understand the difference between science and myth.

I see you have quoted Walt Brown. Did Brown include any data, analysis numbers and backing cites for his rambling or are you just working from his rhetoric?

If I remember correctly, Walt Brown also claims the the asteroids are a result of the Flood. If my memory is correct and his math is so poor he doesn't understand the impossibility of this then it would be prudent to question all of his work based on math.

If Brown has no math worth considering then he has nothing but polemic rhetoric which in the world of science is worse than useless.

197 posted on 05/30/2007 9:44:34 AM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

Dino's not real???

198 posted on 05/30/2007 9:55:57 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted an accurate, Biblical view of science.

If they were doing science at the museum, they would also try to explain why dinosaurs don't exist now and why the only evidence for their existence is found in rocks more than 65 million years old.

199 posted on 05/30/2007 9:58:55 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"God was not created, He existed before time and created it."

And your evidence of this is?

If everything needs to have a creator, whether intelligent or not, then God also needs a creator. If God is outside time and outside the current requirement for a cause then what general laws above and beyond those of the universe limits the existence of an uncaused cause to just one being or thing?

You are simply making the conjecture that since everything in the universe must have a creator, and in fact that single thought gives you comfort in proving to yourself that a God exists, then the origin of the universe must have an uncreated creator, otherwise known as the one and only 'Uncaused Cause'.

However, for some reason, you ignore the physics which lead scientists to believe that the universe may not have needed a cause itself, because the current laws of cause and effect, as well as time, were not in effect until after that origin. The start of the universe is outside of time and space and does not need to be caused any more than, as you conjecture, your God does. The need for cause and effect is a result of the universe, not the other way around. The universe can be said to be our uncaused cause.

What criteria should we be using to decide between two (or more) potential uncaused causes? Is there some reason we should believe that God is the uncaused cause over any other?

200 posted on 05/30/2007 10:07:56 AM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351-359 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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