Godzillla vs the creator ( The evolution thread)

[Dinsdale]

C: Feed the carnivores and still have two of everything 6 months later.

Dude, you take that back right now, or some Christians and their head full of common sesnse might explode.

It OBVIOUSLY can't be scientifically proven that carnivores eat other animals...common sense, dude.

[Gunslinger]

For example, a dog can 'micro-evolve' by growing thicker fur, because it is ALREADY genetically 'programmed' to grow hair. If the dog were to sprout a beak on its face that would be macro-evolution, because a dog is not genetically designed to have a beak on it's face.

Macro-evolution takes FAITH to believe because it has NEVER been observed.
NO evidence.
Again, it requires living coming from non-living.

I'll save you the disgust, but a random human never sprouts a tail anymore?

{Save the shit jokes}

[Gunslinger]

What I wanna know is, if noah collected two of everything, how did he:

A: sail across the world for the komodo dragons

B: get them back to indonesia from mt ararat in Turkey when the waters receded.

C: Feed the carnivores and still have two of everything 6 months later.

If the world flooded, wouldn't all the fresh water animals die?

If not, wouldn't all the salt water living animals have to go through a macro evolution to produce a biological system of surviving fresh water, which poptart states doesn't exist?

[poptart]

The Ark was HUGE.
About the size of 520 standard railroad cars.

Dinosaurs almost certainly lived along with man.
Perhaps a 'handful' still do today.

Dinosaurs also almost certainly were on the Ark.
Not every kind of dinosaur, but, dinosaurs of some kinds.


Time is my enemy, so I am not going to elaborate on every point you would like to hear from me on.


Noah didn't have to set out to 'find' two of every 'kind' (not as narrow as looking for every 'species' of animal, btw) of animal.

Genesis 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive

God 'sent' them to Noah.

'Distribution' of animals after the flood is speculation.
I don't know the answers for sure, and the Bible does not speak to it.
Animals had many may years to migrate 'back', over many generations.
Also, we don't know how animals were distributed over the earth before the flood.
Possible land bridges to get to more 'remote' areas after the flood.
When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island was lifeless for many years, but eventually it was inhabited by a variety of animals, many of whom seemingly had to swim the ocean to get there. But they did get there. That is just one example I toss out.

The animals on the Ark likely went into hibernation. Animals have migration and hibernation instincts, and it is quite common in modern days for animals to go into a state of 'hibernation' when faced with unfavorable conditions, which one might say that living on the Ark would have been. Feeding them or cleaning up after them was not the chore that one might imagine.

We don't know how salty the sea was before the flood.
Some fish of today (freshwater & saltwater) are able to adapt to both conditions.

[Mikey]

The animals on the Ark likely went into hibernation. Animals have migration and hibernation instincts, and it is quite common in modern days for animals to go into a state of 'hibernation' when faced with unfavorable conditions, which one might say that living on the Ark would have been. Feeding them or cleaning up after them was not the chore that one might imagine.

I think he may actually have something here.
I'm almost sure I saw the SC defense go into hibernation last night.

[Mikey]

What I wanna know is, if noah collected two of everything, how did he:

A: sail across the world for the komodo dragons

B: get them back to indonesia from mt ararat in Turkey when the waters receded.

C: Feed the carnivores and still have two of everything 6 months later.

Noah had a big freezer.

[poptart]

hibernation

[Gunslinger]

We don't know how salty the sea was before the flood.
Some fish of today (freshwater & saltwater) are able to adapt to both conditions.

Yeh, we do. Glaciers.

You state "some". So, you admit there are those that don't. Living in salt water, compared to fresh water, for animals is a big biological deal for animals. It's something that evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.

If macro doesn't exist (based on your statement), then those animals couldn't have evolved. You don't just one day have lungs and gills that filter water and salt content. That isn't something that occurs under a micro system. You don't want to believe it, but living in salt water compared to fresh water is almost a big of difference of living on land compared to water.

A fish isn't going to devolop a leg under your theory. So, it will never start walking on land. Well a salt water fish, isn't going to suddenly produce a complete bio system (skin, lungs, eyes, thin membranes, etc.) to allow it to live in fresh water. Nor vice versa.

I've got another point about Noah, but I'll let you catch up.

If you want to state that when the water receded the Great Lakes had salt, but lost it over time. Well you can't state that. The Dead Sea is in gods back yard.

[poptart]

We don't know what the salt level of ocean water was pre-flood.

[Mister Bushice]

The Ark was HUGE.
About the size of 520 standard railroad cars.

Dinosaurs almost certainly lived along with man.
Perhaps a 'handful' still do today.

Dinosaurs also almost certainly were on the Ark.
Not every kind of dinosaur, but, dinosaurs of some kinds.


Time is my enemy, so I am not going to elaborate on every point you would like to hear from me on.


Noah didn't have to set out to 'find' two of every 'kind' (not as narrow as looking for every 'species' of animal, btw) of animal.

Genesis 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive

God 'sent' them to Noah.

'Distribution' of animals after the flood is speculation.
I don't know the answers for sure, and the Bible does not speak to it.
Animals had many may years to migrate 'back', over many generations.
Also, we don't know how animals were distributed over the earth before the flood.
Possible land bridges to get to more 'remote' areas after the flood.
When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island was lifeless for many years, but eventually it was inhabited by a variety of animals, many of whom seemingly had to swim the ocean to get there. But they did get there. That is just one example I toss out.

The animals on the Ark likely went into hibernation. Animals have migration and hibernation instincts, and it is quite common in modern days for animals to go into a state of 'hibernation' when faced with unfavorable conditions, which one might say that living on the Ark would have been. Feeding them or cleaning up after them was not the chore that one might imagine.

We don't know how salty the sea was before the flood.
Some fish of today (freshwater & saltwater) are able to adapt to both conditions.

But there is absolutely no geological record of a worldwide flood. No evidence that it rained for 40 days until every land mass was swallowed up.

And we haven't even touched on the global temperature changes that would be the result of such a catastrophe.

Komodo dragons cannot swim, neither can most dinosaurs.

To have tectonic movement of such a massive scale to allow for land bridges would have resulted in us being able to read about it for form past cultures, since 6 thousand years is such a short time and there woudl have been massive earthquakes, and in the last 2,000 years, there have been no appreciable changes in the position of land masses. If it had been a mini ice age, that would have shown up in the geological record. There is no evidence of that anywhere.

If fossilization took place during/after the flood, then the fossil record should be packed with animals. It's not. A massive die off like that should show up with a huge spike in fossil amounts. If all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates should be close to 2100 creatures per acre, uniformly spread over the earth. That is not the case by a long shot.

And here's some more food for thought.

You claim carbon dating is inaccurate (you'd have to, to believe the 6,000 year earth theory.) Can science be this inaccurate?

Since you claim that the accuracy of the Bible cannot be questioned, Carbon 14 dating must contain errors by as much as a factor of five, even though it has been repeatedly tested under a wide variety of circumstances and has consistently performed with accuracy far less than the error margin your dates indicate. Also, other radiometric measurements that don't use carbon have dated rocks in northern Quebec, Canada, at almost four billion years old. That produces an error margin of a factor of at least 400,000 times.

The difference between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years results in a ratio of 755,500 to 1.

Can you honestly look at all of this information and still attempt to stretch out the biblical version with all of those "probablys" "could haves" and "mights" to account for the unheard of statistics the bible claims, statistics that have no basis of proof in any geological, paleontological, or archeological record?

[Mister Bushice]

hibernation

Not all animals hibernate, and not all animals hibernate for 6 months.

[poptart]

There IS geological record of a world flood.

Radiocarbon dating is based on unprovable assumptions.

Global temp changes, plate movement, fossilization, why Wal-Mart sucks shit.......it's futile to get into it all, Bushy.

Look, believe what you will.

I have an answer, or a theory, or a belief for whatever question you put up here, and I trust you would have the same if I were to press your view and question it.

You better believe there is a lot more that both of us DON'T know than there is what we DO know.

That goes for both of us.

[Mister Bushice]

There IS geological record of a world flood.

Show me.

[Gunslinger]

We don't know what the salt level of ocean water was pre-flood.

Yes we do. And it doesn't even matter. 100% salt, 0% salt. Species form robust biological attributes to withstand those changes.

Salt in water is less in the Great Lakes due to the fact, under current conditions on our earth, cold extremes cause less salt water. So, it could be assumed that the Ice Age had a little to do with the reason our Great Lakes don't have salt water. But, you don't believe in an Ice Age.

You never adressed the fact that random humans grow tails

With my salt water debate comes my argument for caves containing fish, the Great Lakes, The Dead Sea, The Red Sea, The Arctic Ocean.

Noah's tale included land animals. It inferred that land animals would have to be saved based on the dramatic change that water brings to the life of land roaming animals. The tale (based on the intelligence of humans), never took into consideration salt water vs. fresh water.

You state that humans are doers and we weren't sitting around for 200,000 years sniffing our own shit. Well, please explain the story of Noah and how humans were unable to see any difference in the diversity of ecosystems contained in the oceans. It is as diverse as land. You are explaining to Bushcise the whole dino and kamodo thing, but why do humans fail to percieve that flooding the world would severly fuck up water content.

Trees don't develop lungs to breath oxygen and I don't expect a goldfish to develop a complete biology to become the tuna of the sea.

[Gunslinger]

There IS geological record of a world flood.

Radiocarbon dating is based on unprovable assumptions.

Global temp changes, plate movement, fossilization, why Wal-Mart sucks shit.......it's futile to get into it all, Bushy.

Look, believe what you will.

I have an answer, or a theory, or a belief for whatever question you put up here, and I trust you would have the same if I were to press your view and question it.

You better believe there is a lot more that both of us DON'T know than there is what we DO know.

That goes for both of us.

Poptart, this can be respected.

You started the topic. If you are going to argue science to science believers, your theories won't work. They will not make an impact on those that believe in science.

In order for you to debate with us, you will have to post scripture. I'm not clowning on you, but you can't put scripture into science terms and you never will.

This is what frustrates me about religion. If it wants to ensure its longevity, it needs to claim itself as a philosophy and build a foundation in our society that sticks for all time. It has done well with democracy, but it needs better methods to ensure corruption stays the fuck out. Religion is a philosophy until we know more. But it is a philosophy I agree with and would kill over.

Being something as truth leads to fucking crazy shit like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robert ... index.html

I mean fuck! Whether you hate the man or not, he wanted to get along with others and allow peace and understanding. Israel is going to kill Palestinians later, that is understood. But the attempt has to be made and that is what God would have preached.

You don't steal, you don't cheat, you don't kill, etc etc.

Evolve.

[poptart]

You started the topic.

I didn't start this topic.
Bushice split the 'Dover' topic and began it with one of my posts.

You keep bringing up 'religion' and even bring Pat freaking Robertson into it.
Hey, I'm not a religious person.

I believe that Jesus is the Christ.
I believe the Bible.
I am NOT 'religious.'

Some families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species.
At any rate, Slinger, you do not KNOW what the salt level of ocean water was pre-flood.
You make assumptions based on what someone is telling you.
Why is that rock 9 million years old?
Well, because the the fossil next to it is 9 million years old.
Oh, how do you know how old the fossil is?
Oh, because that rock is 9 million years old.

Bushice, I am not going to 'show' you a geological record of the flood because I already told you I will not get into link v. link debate.
It won't accomplish anything.
I don't have the time or inclination to get into all of that.

[Dinsdale]

Let's add to the list of science that doesn't exist in the literal-interpereters' world --

So, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, enough to cover all of the land on Earth(And if it covered all 29,000 feet of Mt Everest, that was one hell of a rainy spell)...where, exactly, did all of this water come from?

That's right -- the LAW of Conservation Of Matter is JUNK SCIENCE in the Thumper's world -- even though junior high school kids can replicate the experiment, and see it with their own eyes 100 times out of 100.

Then again, we're talking about people who think that dinosaurs inhabited the planet in the last 6000 years, and believe that the calderas of Yellowstone and Indonesia were active in the last 6000 years(nevermind that the junk-scientists estimates for the timeline of catastrophic caldera eruptions...are you sitting down, thumpers?...those events coincide EXACTLY with the mass extinctions that the antthropoligists came up with...shocker).

Man, I'm glad my parents didn't fuck me over like this. It must suck to find out everything you were taught as a child is not true.

[poptart]

So, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, enough to cover all of the land on Earth(And if it covered all 29,000 feet of Mt Everest, that was one hell of a rainy spell)...where, exactly, did all of this water come from?

Genesis 11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


The waters came from both above, and below.

Interesting to note that in Scripture, the 'below' part is mentioned first.

[Dinsdale]

OK, so it's confirmed then -- Poptart doesn't believe in Conservation Of Matter, radioactive decay (nuclear fuel rods last forever in Pop's world), and a whole host of other proven science.

This is getting hilarious.

I've said it before -- any time you can get me and mvscal on the same page, you've REALLY said something stupid.

[Mikey]

So, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, enough to cover all of the land on Earth(And if it covered all 29,000 feet of Mt Everest, that was one hell of a rainy spell)...where, exactly, did all of this water come from?

Genesis 11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


The waters came from both above, and below.

Interesting to note that in Scripture, the 'below' part is mentioned first.

Not only is there Biblical and scientific proof, there's a photographic record.

[poptart]

There IS geological record of a world flood.

Link?

Radiocarbon dating is based on unprovable assumptions.

Ignorant twaddle. The rate of radioactive decay for various elements is measurable.

I've said 3 or 4 times that I'm not getting into the link game, mvscal.

Yeah, and my dick is 14 inches.

I measured it.

Believe me...?

[Dinsdale]

Of course -- geiger counters are based on junk science, and have NOTHING to do with how many atomic particles hit them.


Tears, Jerry. Tears.

[RadioFan]

Of course -- geiger counters are based on junk science, and have NOTHING to do with how many atomic particles hit them.

Easily explained. The scary clicking noises they make are Satan's claw-tapping resonating through the ether.

[Gunslinger]

So, if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, enough to cover all of the land on Earth(And if it covered all 29,000 feet of Mt Everest, that was one hell of a rainy spell)...where, exactly, did all of this water come from?

Genesis 11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


The waters came from both above, and below.

Interesting to note that in Scripture, the 'below' part is mentioned first.

When you stated it rained, you mean big black men? Hallelujah!

Sin,
mvscal

[Gunslinger]

poptart:

You aren't going to be changed in your beliefs. It is based on a tale. It's wrong, but you can believe it.

And it is the reason it will NEVER be taught in schools. They don't teach Santa as fact, they won't teach Noah.

[Dinsdale]

And it is the reason it will NEVER be taught in schools.

Actually, the reason it will never be taught (despite the treasonous acts of the right) would be the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And how funny is it that the thumpers believe that man walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs, but don't believe in the Constitution, the very document that gives them the right to spew their stupidity?

Crazy times, these.

[Dinsdale]

Wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about teaching wacky pseudo-science in public schools.

Wow...you're a dumbfuck. The 8 million interpertations of the 1st up to this point have banned it, but apparently you've found new information.

If they taught about Noah in schools, that would be establishing it as a religion in a public place, unless every other religion was taught as well. The 1st Amendment also implies a freedom FROM religion, so you lose.

Sorry.

[Dinsdale]

Hmmm....another "who to believe" scenario...

Wrong. There is nothing unconstitutional about teaching wacky pseudo-science in public schools.

mv, take a trip with me now in the wayback machine, as we dig deep, deep, deep into Ancient American History...last month --

HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

...since you're so big into precedents and all.

I'll hold my breath awaiting your Supreme Court nomination, Clarence Darrowscal.

[Mister Bushice]

Komodo dragons cannot swim,

Actually they swim quite well, as do many lizards.

Not from indonesia to Turkey they don't

[Diogenes]

Believe what you want to believe.

But for any who are openmind and sincerly interested...

Geological evidence supporting a world-wide flood.

The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts.

All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.

Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.

The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view.

Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."

It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.

The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.

The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm

.


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=842

For those convinced by carbon dating, Barry Setterfield theorizes based on historical measurements of the speed of light that the Atomic constants have actually been slowing down over tome...

http://www.setterfield.org/timeline.htm

At least as reasonable as undirected biogenesis and descent with modification.

And it was two of every kind of unclean animal, seven of those fit for vittles.

The flood would have catastrophic worldwide effects, one side effect of which was the reduction orf lifespans from the antediluvian norms.

Which verse in Matthew talked about pearls before swine again, poptart?

[poptart]

About the world-wide flood, that is great stuff, Dio, and I especially love this......


All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.


Fellas, how the hell did that happen....?

Using common sense first is a great policy.

[Diogenes]

Actully my interests never really included geology, I just googled that (no suprise I ended up at ICR) but as far as the physics goes...

Even if you dismiss out of hand Setterfields theories out of hand, there is still no real problem reconciling six days of creation and an 15 billion year old universe (unless you want to jettison Einstien also).

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

It's all relative.

[Gunslinger]

About the world-wide flood, that is great stuff, Dio, and I especially love this......


All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.


Fellas, how the hell did that happen....?

Using common sense first is a great policy.

I don't know ask Hawaii.

Seriously poptart. You state you won't discuss salt levels of the ocean and you agree with this shit?

This discussion ended page 1.

[Gunslinger]

poptart your quote:

You make assumptions based on what someone is telling you.

Your quote to me. PERIOD! End of discussion. That shoots your whole argument down in fire and brimstone.

You tell me that I believe shit that I've been told, yet any basic 8th grade science class gives you the tools to go out and make your own decisions.

You base your beliefs purely on a fucking book. THAT SOMEONE WROTE!

You, wonder why I don't take mvscal and Dio seriously? It's based on their beliefs. Their damning belief is that Saddam bombed Oklahoma.

Stop. You believe in scripture. What someone told you. I stated you can only quote scripture and you should do that. Because any attempt to attack science with pseudoscience religion is a fucking joke. I don't tell you that god doesn't exist with the Koran. So, don't attack science with fucking retarded shit.

Those that have argued with you about science have used science. I would kill myself before I did it, but if I wanted to argue the bible, I'd use other bibles or Fun With Purpose books. But, I'm not.

[RadioFan]

Sorry Dio, but any organization with an oxymoron for a name (Institute for Creation Reseach) holds little credibility. I believe it's one of the organizations that sponsors the "museum" for which I posted a link, earlier in this thread.

And there's this, under the FAQs part of their site ...

Because the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others) are evident all around us even infiltrating our churches and seminaries.
Because this rebellion against God and His laws stems from unbelieving scientists and educators undermining the foundational truth of creation.

Sorry, Dio. Aside from the ideological, judgemental horseshit (and lies, as MTLR pointed out in the other thread), not even close to what logic is about, nevermind the big, bad, mean topic of science.

And before you go on quoting my statement above, about "ideological, judgemental horseshit" and applying it to actual science, I still can't figure out how you can't seem to comprehend that a circle-group meeting of pseudo-political snake-oil selling conjurers having some sort of mentally defective roundtable prayerfest to come up with that "explanation" equates to anything even approaching science. Science doesn't work that way, dude. Never has and never will.

What is really disgraceful is to have a set of beliefs that you think is absolute and has been so from the start and can't change, where you simply won't listen to evidence. You say, "If the evidence agrees with me, it's not necessary, and if it doesn't agree with me, it's false." This is the legendary remark of Omar when they captured Alexandria and asked him what to do with the library. He said, "If the books agree with the Koran, they are not necessary and may be burned. If they disagree with the Koran, they are pernicious and must be burned." Well, there are still Omar-like thinkers who think all of knowledge will fit into one book called the Bible, and who refuse to allow it is possible to ever conceive of an error there. To my way of thinking, that is much more dangerous than a system of knowledge that is tentative and uncertain.

As opposed to this:

Because the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others) are evident all around us even infiltrating our churches and seminaries.

Translation: We have a set of rules, based on our particular interpretation of the Bible, that everyone must abide by, including science. And since science won't recognize this, we'll try to discredit science -- and all scientists who don't believe as we do -- as God-hating heathens, who need to be saved. We'll help out, because obviously we're going to equate the theory of evolution with "abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others."

Aside from the fact that the Bible can be interpreted (as evidenced by hundreds of Christian denominations) Can't you see how absolutely ludicrous the argument becomes?

What are the "harmful" consequences of evolution?

According to the "researchers" who run the Institute for Creation Research, it obviously just happens to be "abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others."

Hell, why stop there? Why not go ahead and get specific (according to which "researcher" from whom you need to find your way toward "salvation" and away from "abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality, and many others") and include drinking a fucking beer, or dancing -- or listening to Black Sabbath on headphones, past level 4, on a Sunday -- or logging on to the Internet, for fuck's sake.

It seems to me there's a similar group out there that is in total agreement with everything propagated by the young-Earth "researchers," such as the folks who powwow on behalf of the Institute for Creation Research or the Museum of Earth History to come up with such extraordinarly idiotic "explanations" -- the Taliban.

Hope that helps.

[Mister Bushice]

I believe that there have been floods around the world at some point in time or another. A worldwide flood all at once that would kill all life? The atmosphere would boil, the water would freeze is my guess. given the length of time it takes for trees to grow, we'd be significantly lacking a balanced atmosphere for too long.

No one has yet answered the total lack of any record of a flood in Egyptian heiroglyphs, which overlap the time of noahs supposed flood.

That being said this has turned into a fascinating argument.

[RadioFan]

I believe that there have been floods around the world at some point in time or another.

That might imply some sort of crazy plate techtonic theory. The Bible doesn't mention anything like that, so there's no way it can be true.

Btw,

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. (I Kings 7, 23)

Obviously, the Bible says that Pi = 3. So, math as we know it, is obviously the work of Satan as well.

[Gunslinger]

I believe that there have been floods around the world at some point in time or another.

That might imply some sort of crazy plate techtonic theory. The Bible doesn't mention anything like that, so there's no way it can be true.

Btw,

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. (I Kings 7, 23)

Obviously, the Bible says that Pi = 3. So, math as we know it, is obviously the work of Satan as well.

There were a bunch of thirsty fucks sitting around. Jesus created wine. They wanted to quench their thirst, but damn if Jesus didn't get them properly fucked up. What a fucking stoner.

Then, remember when he told that guy to kill his child. As he was thrusting the blade into his son's heart, god said "Smile, Your on candid camera"!

That god. He's a fucking riot!

This is the type of shit, written by dumbfucking man, that will keep religion equivalent to sewage disposal on a government level.

[Ang]

Radio.

How dare you act like the Bible actually speaks in ways that make sense! Like the Genesis account where it starts with water, invertebrates, fish, birds, then mammals, then humans. How in the hell did they get that progression right without consulting our modern science texts?

as for the Egyptian myths on flooding, I couldn't find any except for the one that explains the beginning of life. A minor thing, ya know...that whole beginning of life thing. :)

Some Egyptian Study Page

[RadioFan]

How dare you act like the Bible actually speaks in ways that make sense! Like the Genesis account where it starts with water, invertebrates, fish, birds, then mammals, then humans. How in the hell did they get that progression right without consulting our modern science texts?

Did I forget the sarcasm tags when it comes to taking the Bible literally, particularly as a science text? My bad.

There's more than plenty of room for the co-existance of science and religion. Science doesn't try to explain the soul, nor the afterlife, nor the intrinsic, personal nature of the Trinity.

Likewise ...

Praise the lordy, and do whatever it is that you people do. Just keep your bullshit out of biology class. Is that asking too much?

Btw, Ang, in some other thread, I may make a post about the similarities between sculpted images of the Madona and baby Jesus in Middle Age churches, and Isis and Osiris sculptures/drawings in ancient Egypt. :wink: