Looks like he needs more time in his indoctrination classes.
Looks like he needs more time in his indoctrination classes.
How did you learn about Christianity? Did you read it in a book? Hear about it on television? Listened to someone talk about it? So you are using something you learned merely through your senses to justify the reliability of your senses? Circularity!
So you are admitting you were using circularity? I thought that was not allowed. Anyways, you’re not quite right though because you are treating the two worldviews as if they are symmetrical and they are not. God either exists or He doesn’t, you assume He does not exist beforehand and build your view of reality off of that. I assume He does exist and build my view of reality off of that fact. If God does not exist then your only justifications for believing your senses are reliable are completely circular because all you have to appeal to are your senses. While with my worldview, God’s existence gives me justification for believing my senses are reliable, I can then continue to use my senses to learn about Him through His revealed word. Your worldview is fatally circular because man has appointed himself as the ultimate authority; my worldview is far more linear because truth comes from God who is the ultimate authority.
Everything we learn about is through our senses. Don’t be absurd.
Actually that statement is absurd, a person can learn a whole myriad of things through deductive reasoning without using their senses at all. Not only this, but you didn’t learn that “everything is learned through your senses” by using your senses. That is a completely self-refuting position to hold.
Yea, I’m gonna contest that having proper depth perception is probably the way to go.
Why? I just demonstrated it doesn’t have to be, you sure are long on conjecture and assertions and short on actual demonstration.
Different doesn’t mean they’re not reliable.
It doesn’t mean they are reliable either, and the onus is on you to prove they are.
God has desires? How could an omnipotent being desire anything? You are projecting Human qualities onto your God; I think you’ve insulted him & should apologize.
Of course He has desires, He says He does. I think calling Him a liar would actually be insulting. Man is made in God’s image, so some of God’s qualities were actually projected onto man, so you had that completely backwards.
Again, this fails for the exact same two reasons, how do you know anything about God? Do you remember reading this in a book somewhere? Circularity again.
Again you are admitting you used circularity? My view of reality is not circular like yours is. I can trust my memory because God’s very existence is at the very top of my worldview. So even without having to use my memory at all I can formulate an idea of why it would be reliable, because I am the creation of a God who desires for me to learn about Him and His creation. The Christian worldview does not suffer from the same problems as the naturalist’s, as a naturalist you have no reason at all to trust your memory. As a Christian I have a very good reason to trust my memory.
Or you just cut yourself off from a potential food source. Again I’m gonna have to contest that having a reliable memory is an evolutionary advangtage over having one that isn’t reliable.
Exactly, you just proved my point, having an unreliable memory is just as likely to hurt you as it is to help you when it comes to survival, so therefore Natural Selection does nothing to guarantee our memories are anything close to reliable.
We aren’t alligators, or sharks. Prodigious memory is a quality that some animals have adopted as a survival strategy. Dolphins, Chimps, some species of Parrot, & Elephants all have an elevated capacity to remember things. Different strokes for different animals, Statty.
Wait, you just said that having a reliable memory is necessary for survival but then in the very next response you admit that many animals have hardly any memory at all? You just can’t get on the same sheet of music with yourself can you?
& You’ve done nothing to prove that it isn’t subjective. All you can point at is some writings in a couple thousand year old book. I like to think of them as guide-lines rather than laws.
Sure I have, if morality wasn’t objective then the majority of knowledge itself would be impossible. Since knowledge is possible we know that morality is also objective. Not only this, but you live your life as if morality is objective, so even your own behavior doesn’t match up with your assertions about how the world is. Naturalism is just a complete mess, as you have demonstrated it is not a philosophically defensible position.
I believe it’s wrong. They must not have.
So then we cannot actually charge them or convict them of anything since morality is subjective and they didn’t do anything truly wrong?
Riddle me this though, if those Priests confessed & asked forgiveness for their sins before they died are they moving on up to Heaven? If so, maybe that's why they felt it was okay to do those things.
Nope, they’d go to hell because their repentance was not genuine. I take comfort in knowing that even the molesters who never get caught will pay severely for their deeds, you can have no such comfort.
For someone who supposedly has a science degree, shouldn’t you know that birth-defects via incest are caused by receiving a double-dose of reccesive alleles from alike reccesive genes? Whether the genome was “new” has nothing to do with it.
Well you obviously do not have a degree in Science. The birth defects that are expressed due to incest are not “caused” by receiving two recessive alleles (there is nothing inherently wrong with have recessive alleles if no genetic problems exist on those alleles). They are “caused” by the mutations found on both sets of the recessive alleles. Since both parents are so genetically similar they are likely to have the same mutations on their recessive alleles and therefore the child is likely to have the genetic problem expressed. However, if you had actually paid attention to what I had written you would notice that I said the early human genome was almost completely void of any genetic problems or mistakes. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how many recessive alleles you receive, as long as they are void of mutations the child will not have any genetic problems. Once the human race had progressed for several hundred generations the number of genetic errors would have been significant enough to make marriages with relatives begin to result in birth defects, so the practice was then forbidden.
So you need a reason, but not a proven reason; gotcha. I guess rather than actually trying to figure out how things work, saying “God did it”, is certainly an easier route.
This coming from the guy who just hollers out “Evolution did it” whenever he doesn’t have an answer to something? Cute. The fact that I have a reason that can account for all of these things and you do not does prove my reason is correct. Why does that seem to be so hard to understand? If person A comes up with an explanation for something that works perfectly and nobody else can come up with one that works at all, person A’s explanation has been demonstrated to be correct.
You hit the nail on the head, God’s existence is only a necessary component of knowledge in the Christian worldview.
Reading comprehension matters, I clearly said that God’s existence is a necessary component of the Christian worldview. He is necessary for knowledge in ALL worldviews because no other worldview can account for knowledge without Him.
I’m not going to say “God is, or isn’t necesarry for knowledge”, because we don’t know that it is. You can say, “well there’s no reason to believe the universe is stable without God”, and I can just as easily claim there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t be stable without God. Both of these are unknowable, unprovable assertions.
No, I have a reason for believing there is uniformity in nature, you assume there is but have no reason for believing that. My worldview stands under its own weight, yours collapses because it has to borrow assumptions from mine that it cannot justify on its own.
When you stop appealing to mythology and fairy-tales & can provide me one verified case in which a human has lived, & will continue to live infintely, then I’d reconsider. Until then, everything we’ve observed that lives has died.
Now you have stepped out of the realm of deduction and into the realm of induction. If your premise had said “all observed cases of humans are mortal” I wouldn’t have argued with you, but you didn’t, you stated that “ALL humans are mortal.” You have yet to demonstrate this because you have not observed ALL humans have you? In fact you have only observed an infinitesimally small percentage of ALL humans haven’t you? So you don’t even follow your own rules, demonstrate your premise!
I hardly think having to verify a premise is a ridiculous standard,
Well it’s actually not a standard at all, there is no rule in deductive logic that premises have to be verified, that’s your own made up rule. However, if it was not a ridiculous standard, then why didn’t you follow it?
Now, you can’t be serious with this; being Greek is defined as being a human who was born in Greece, or gained citizenship in Greece. What OTHER than a human would you call a Greek?
So if we changed the definition in the dictionary then Greeks would no longer be human? Are you really taking the position that the dictionary actually determines if someone is human or not?
Do we call our animals Americans? No. So I don’t even know what you’re getting at here.
Wait, so if we did call our animals Americans it would prove the animals are human? Your demonstrations are pretty silly really.
I do find it hilarious though about how much of a selective skeptic you can be. All Greeks aren’t human, but God being necessary for knowledge is legit to you; fascinating.
I find it hilarious how you can’t follow your own standards, you asked for me to demonstrate my premises (something I am not actually logically obligated to do) and then you provided a bunch of syllogisms and didn’t demonstrate your premises. Special pleading!
Cold-blooded animals don’t have fur for several reasons, again, as a supposed scientist, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with that.
No, that just means that reptiles just don’t have fur to keep themselves warm, they could have fur for some other reason, so you’re begging the question, how do you know that NO reptiles have fur? You yourself stated we don’t know anything we haven’t learned through our senses, so have you directly observed ALL reptiles and verified none of them have fur? You’re just not a very consistent person are you? : - P
I’m glad you realized your syllogism isn’t sound though.
Nope it is sound because it is valid and still un-refuted, and I know enough to know that dictionaries don’t make syllogism sound or unsound.
We would consider them reptiles, yes, but “reptile” is a word. “Snake” is also a word. Words are devices used by humans to label things for the purpose of communicating. So if there were no humans to label anything, then they wouldn’t be known by that word because there’d be no words. People didn’t always call oursleves “people”, or “human”; they used other words to describe us, so before those terms were invented, would we not be people?
Oh so it’s just like how people used to call what we know today as dinosaurs the word “dragon”? That makes sense. So why can’t there be a snake that is not a reptile? I’ll admit, this is kind of fun making you demonstrate these things to be true.
So I really don’t know what you’re driving at here.
I am driving at the fact that you don’t know the difference between deduction and induction, you don’t have to empirically verify the premises of a deductive syllogism because it is impossible to do so. You can never empirically verify that ALL humans died, yet that is a completely legitimate premise to use in a deductive syllogism.
You want me to transcribe it for you? He lists several in the video.
I don’t see any actual holes brought up in the video, so if you want me to address something you’re going to have to be specific. Or have you not even watched your own video? : -P
Since your such a stickler for sources (& ironically don't provide any of your own for your YEC claims),
This coming from the youtube king? Cute.
here’s an extremely condensed explantion for Evolution-101 from Berkely. Again, as a supposed scientist I’m surprised you don’t understand more about this.
Perhaps I understand it too well; maybe that’s why I see its fundamental shortcomings? Perhaps this is why your source didn’t actually answer any of my questions, or is it that you do not know how to answer them? I will ask again, what gave birth to the first human? What did the first human mate with? Be specific!
Furthermore, I’m glad your brought up genomes earlier, because the genomes of Chimps & humans are 96% identical.
…and this means what? Chimps and Humans only are 45% similar at the protein level, and only share 29% of their protein-coding genes. Humans even have genes that are completely missing from Chimps. In fact, in order to make up that 4% difference, the human race would have to undergo 40 million different mutation events, given your timeline this would be impossible because you’d need 133 preserved mutations per generation which would cause error-catastrophe and cause the extinction of all humans. So you’d need the similarities between the two to be far closer to 100% than it actually is. Some more fun facts, humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas, horse DNA is more similar to bat DNA than it is Cow DNA, are horses more closely related to bats than they are cows? Homology doesn’t prove common ancestry, do you have anything else?
Video about Dark Matter
So you are still waiting for an experimentally verified explanation for invisible and undetectable Dark Matter? Nice, maybe you should actually watch your own videos; the guy even admits they really have no idea.
The radiometric data are consistent with other geological and astronomical data,
Except where it is not consistent with these methods right? Like lunar recession right? I already proved these sorts of assertions you keep making are completely bogus.
as well as luminescence dating, tree rings and ancient Egyptian sources.
You have tree rings that count back 4.5 billion years!? That’s a really old tree. You have written Egyptian history that dates back 4.5 billion years? I thought humans have only been around for less than 6 million years? You throw out so much pure fluff that it’s ridiculous.
The creationists examples of inconsistencies are scant, compared with the vast number of consistent, published data.
What published data? You have yet to give me any example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of known age, I gave you several examples of where it dated rocks of known age to be thousands of times older than they really were, so where is your evidence?
 Geologists no longer subscribe to the uniformitarism in the derogatory-creationist sense of the word.
Yet your dating methods still assume uniformitarianism? Why?
 Creationists use "naturalism" to imply that there is no supernatural being(s); the scientists do not presuppose to know whether one exists or not, but rather cannot produce an experiment to show that the presumed being exists.
This is also incorrect, naturalism is the philosophical position that the natural universe is ALL that exists and therefore only natural explanations are allowed for phenomena. So you actually rule out evidence for the supernatural a priori and then claim that the supernatural doesn’t exist because there is no evidence for it. Circularity.
You do realize that Phillip Johnson and Dembski both believe God exists and endorse intelligent design don’t you? Are you now allowing all of their material to be used to prove positions?
The idea that a “chunk” was broken from a lava and dated to be millions of years came straight from an actual scientific research, in which a chunk was broken from fresh lava, and was dated to be 22 million years old. However, the scientists who were involved in the research were not trying to date lava; they were instead dating olivine inclusions within the lava.
Olivine has high melting points therefore are not molten by the lava, hence the term “olivine inclusions” within the lava. This is the “chunk” which was taken from the Hualalai volcano to the lab. Potassium/ argon dating revealed that these chunks were indeed 22 million years old, which comes as no surprise, because these olivine inclusions are old.
How do you know the chunk was actually 22 million years old? Are you really going to try and use radiometric dating to justify radiometric dating Mr. Circularity? Why can’t they date the 200 year old lava flow to actually be 200 years old? That should have been the first thing they tried to do.
The scientists also reported that the lava was dated at approximately zero, but the creationists don’t seem to care. And, as consequence, many creationist writers have picked on this very case, claiming that it shows that radiometric dating is wrong. Here is the actual scientific report if you would like to check it out:
Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)
Approximately zero? No it wasn’t, it was dated to be 1,600,000 years old! That is not even close to zero (they round this down to zero because they assume the earth is billions of years old, which of course is circularity again.).
In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.
I provide a dating method that uses sedimentary accumulation in the oceans and you provide an article dealing with metallic accumulation in the oceans? Are you even paying attention? The amount of sedimentary accumulation is NOT at equilibrium, the oceans gain 24 million tons of sediment per year, at that current rate the Oceans cannot be older than around 12 million years. Address the actual dating method I am talking about.
1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.
I love how secularists always make up some undetectable and invisible explanation to try and force the data to fit their model (they do the same thing with the comet problem) and then pretend it is science. The only problem is that dynamos cannot exist; devising a manner in which an uniform spherical conductor like the Earth’s core can compel electric currents to travel the necessary paths seems to be impractical and unrealistic at best. Not to mention the fact that such a machine would need to completely defy the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to sustain the earth’s magnetic field for billions of years. The earth being young is a far simpler, practical, and physically possible explanation for observed magnetic decay rates.
2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).
That is correct, Barnes was unaware of magnetic field reversals, and that is why he put an upper limit on the Earth’s magnetic field of 8,000 years. Without an internal dynamo (which cannot exist due to the laws of physics) magnetic reversals only increase the rate of magnetic field decay thus lowering the upper limit of the Earth’s magnetic field from 8,000 years to just above 6,000 years; magnetic reversals only compound the problem for the old earth position.
3. Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
Postulating the existence of more invisible and undetectable rescue mechanisms I see, where’s the demonstration this invisible energy exists?
4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
This is an argument that was refuted over 20 years ago, I wish you’d do a little more research ahead of time and save us both the trouble. The argument falsely assumed that the non-dipole portion of the field’s increase in intensity was equivalent to its increase in energy (intensity and energy are not synonymous), thus counter-balancing the dipole portion of the field’s loss in energy. This was found not to be the case because the non-dipole portion of the field’s intensity dropped off far more quickly as you move away from the Earth’s core than the dipole portion’s intensity did. This means that the non-dipole portion of the field actually contributes nearly a negligible amount of energy to the field’s total energy level making the upper limits placed on the field still valid.
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:
"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )
Did you not read what I had written? I clearly stated that the dating method took into account all of the Helium that escapes the Earth’s atmosphere (including polar winds and solar winds) it still puts a maximum age on the earth’s atmosphere of 2 million years, rather than over 3.5 billion like you believe. I really wish you’d actually address my arguments and not some misrepresentation of them.
Credit to The Walrus for pointing out this quote, I think it's quite appropriate
You quoting and apparently idolizing someone whose ideology directly led to the deaths of over 100 million people is quite telling.
Not only do volcanoes produce lots of sulfuric acid, they produce more CO2. I found this:…………
Again, this argument was addressed years ago, are all of your arguments based on such dated science? The argument falsely assumes that all of the volcanic eruptions took place during the flood year because it erroneously assumes that we can tell where strata lay down by the flood and strata lay down after the flood meet. The current flood model actually ahs the volcanic activity continuing for a few centuries after the flood. This helped lead to the Ice Age. When volcanoes erupt they emit sulfates and silicate dusts (along with CO2), the sulfates and silicate dust have an immediate temperature reducing effect on the Earth’s atmosphere (Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991 reduced global temperatures by .5 degrees Celsius, while Krakatoa reduced global temperatures by an estimated 1.6 degrees Celsius). This cooling effect is far more dominant than the CO2’s greenhouse effect. The sulfates then are removed from the atmosphere rather quickly, so volcanic activity over a few centuries would not be enough to harm animal and plant life on Earth. The release of CO2 would not have been a problem because the Ocean’s would have had increased temperatures and levels of iron which would have led to enormous algae blooms and phytoplankton populations. Even today these are two of the largest removers of CO2 out of the Earth’s atmosphere.
As for your second article, I would have much rather preferred that you had tried to defend your own position rather than engaging in this sort of elephant hurdling garbage. I’ll still address the article, but I think it’s nothing short of intellectual laziness on your part to just copy and paste someone else’s work in an effort to bog me down with what is often irrelevant information.
but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.
…the fact that we have found no point on Earth that is void of evidence of being covered by water.
Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument.
Conceding that you cannot disprove the account of the flood at the very beginning of a paper that allegedly disproves the account of the flood is not a great strategy in my opinion.
However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened.
God is not responsible for your misinterpretation of the evidence, you are.
The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
…using mortice and tenon joints coupled with pitch absolutely. The Leontifera was built in 280 BC and was between 400 and 500 feet long and held 3000 grown men, ancient cultures were actually better at building ships than the Victorian culture because they took more time to employ better methods; Noah had 100 years to build the Ark.
2. Gathering the AnimalsBringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.
No it doesn’t, the account is quite clear that the animals came to Noah, he didn’t have to go and find them.
[QUOTEj •Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all. [/QUOTE]
A population of sloths can travel pretty far in 100 years.
•Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
Modern day Koalas require a special diet because of where they live, their common ancestor would have had a more diverse diet. Insects would not have been brought onto the Ark, so that point is moot.
•Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
Arthropods were not brought onto the Ark (Genesis 7), so just another irrelevant point.
•Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.
The common ancestor of such flightless birds would have been more adapted to living on the continents.
Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along. However, this proposal makes matters even worse. The last point above would have applied not only to island species, but to almost all species. Competition between species would have driven most of them to extinction.
Evidence to support this? If an ecosystem has enough resources there is no limit to the number of different animals that can live there, especially since we are only talking about a few thousand different kinds of animals. There are more kinds of animals than that that live in the rain forests today with no problem at all.
Not many species could have survived that.
We are not talking about species; we are talking about different “kinds” of animals, the two are not synonymous.
How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
The number of animals taken onto the Ark is actually between 2 and 5 thousand, so there would be plenty of time to load the Ark in a week.
3. Fitting the Animals Aboard….
•For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
Most of the species we see today didn’t exist then, so that point is irrelevant. People would have named animals closer to the family level because that was all that existed then.
The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
That’s actually only one competing definition of species, but oh well. Like I said above, only families existed at that time period so the above point is again irrelevant.
•The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.
That’s simply untrue, speciation can happen very quickly, and 4,500 years is more than enough time to get the species we have today. You are simply assuming phyletic gradualism is the correct evolutionary model which is not the majority opinion among evolutionists today. Cladogenesis can produce different species in as little as one or two generations.
However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:
Genesis 7 is quite clear that the only animals brought onto the Ark were those that breathed through nostrils, is he really taking the position that arthropods breathe through nostrils rather than circulating oxygen through their tracheal system?
•They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.
Wrong again, Genesis 7 clearly says that the land animals it is talking about breathed through nostrils, arthropods do not fall into their category, neither do annelids. These animals could and did survive the flood rather easily.
Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.
Yes many animals that went extinct in the last few thousand years were on the Ark.
It is also worth pointing out that the number of extinct species is undoubtedly greater than the number of known extinct species.
Argument from ignorance coupled with a misreading of the text, different kinds of animals were brought onto the Ark; we are not necessarily talking about species.
New genera of dinosaurs have been discovered at a nearly constant rate for more than a century, and there's no indication that the rate of discovery will fall off in the near future.
Since the biblical kind is closer to the family classification level you can find all the new genre of animals you like and it won’t increase the number of animals brought onto the Ark by even two.
Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:
•The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.
•Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.
The average adult size of the animals brought onto the Ark was the size of a sheep, there would have been more than enough room on the Ark for a few thousand of such sized animals.
How many clean animals were on the ark? The Bible says either seven or fourteen (it's ambiguous) of each kind of clean animal was aboard. It defines clean animals essentially as ruminants, a suborder which includes about 69 recent genera, 192 recent species [Wilson & Reeder, 1993], and probably a comparable number of extinct genera and species. That is a small percentage of the total number of species, but ruminants are among the largest mammals, so their bulk is significant.
…still making irrelevant points about species and genera I see.
•Collecting each species instead of each genus would increase the number of individuals three- to fourfold. The most speciose groups tend to be the smaller animals, though, so the total mass would be approximately doubled or tripled.
Points about species are still irrelevant.
In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard.
When you completely ignore what the text clearly says and ignore the fact that families of animals were taken onto the Ark rather than species and genera you would come to such an invalid conclusion.
Other animals are strict carnivores, and some of those specialize on certain kinds of foods, such as small mammals, insects, fish, or aquatic invertebrates. How did Noah determine and provide for all those special diets?
You’d be hard pressed to find one single animal that cannot survive on a vegetarian diet; even snakes can survive on such diets.
Fresh foods. Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. [Foelix, 1996] Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?
The point about snakes is just factually wrong; my snake has no problem eating dead food at room temperature. All the points about insects are irrelevant still since they were not on the Ark.
How did such a small crew dispose of so much waste?
Many animals can go a full year without their absorbent bedding being changed, and the rest of the waste was most likely just removed using composting and a slanted floor like many ships do. All of these questions about ventilation, waste, pests, and the like really do nothing to disprove the Ark story, they more just highlight the fact that we do not have all of the details on how things were done on the Ark. I don’t know all the details about how the San Diego Zoo keeps all of their animals but that doesn’t prove they don’t in fact get the job done. Noah had a century to build the vessel, which leads me to believe it was quite well designed and constructed.
Exercise/Animal handling. The animals aboard the ark would have been in very poor shape unless they got regular exercise. (Imagine if you had to stay in an area the size of a closet for a year.) How were several thousand diverse kinds of animals exercised regularly?
Again, this is just factually incorrect, humans and animals alike can get more than enough exercise by regularly laying down and standing back up again. People have survived just fine for over ten years being confined to a very small cell in maximum security prisons in the Soviet Union. In fact they often just exercise in order to pass the time, many animals will pace which accomplishes the same goal.
Manpower for feeding, watering, etc. How did a crew of eight manage a menagerie larger and more diverse than that found in zoos requiring many times that many employees? Woodmorappe claims that eight people could care for 16000 animals, but he makes many unrealistic and invalid assumptions. Here are a few things he didn't take into account:
Eight people don’t have to care for 16,000 animals; they only have to care for between 2 and 5 thousand animals, which is far more realistic.
5. The Flood Itself
Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
Creationists do not accept the total Canopy Theory today so arguing against it is a complete waste of time.
Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.
This theory is not accepted by creationists today either, so arguing against it is again just a waste of everyone’s time.
Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a;Austin et al., 1994]
This is not an accurate representation of the model, so therefore it cannot be used to refute the model.
•The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a,1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
Again, a complete misrepresentation of the model, the model was tested using only natural physical laws in computer simulations and worked perfectly. In fact, it has been published as a possible model in even secular peer-reviewed journals.
•Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
He has got to be joking; there are thousands of canyons carved out by quick Oceanic recession all over the world.
•How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
He knows this how?
6. Implications of a Flood
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Mountains appeared at different time periods and are composed of different minerals so I would expect to see different levels of erosion.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers.
…because the “annual layers” he is counting are not truly annual layers, there are no visible annual layers in ice cores that pre-date the flood.
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up.
The majority of the polar ice formed post-flood as a result of the major Ice Age and the Mini-Ice Age.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
This assumes the sea floors were formed by uniform gradualism, this is a purely anti-biblical assumption; a person can’t use an argument that assumes the flood never took place to argue against the flood ever taking place, circularity.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.
There is not a single tree that only adds one ring per year that dates to before the flood, all of the trees that supposedly pre-date the flood come from genre that can add several rings per year. The fact that we cannot find any trees that pre-date the flood from the other genres anywhere in the world IS evidence that supports the global flood.
Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation,
This is again factually untrue; such ideas were first formulated by Lyell, who was not a biblical literalist at all.
Why are geological eras consistent worldwide?
They’re not, the full geologic column can only be found in a couple areas and even those areas are rather sketchy as to whether or not is it the full column or not.
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?
It’s not, genetically speaking the fossil record is not sorted from simple to complex at all. Mobile to un-mobile, and un-intelligent to intelligent is a far better explanation for the supposed “fossil record”.
•the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
Many would have, they just were not fossilized and neither were the elephants, fossilization is a very rare process.
•the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
Again, this is simply untrue; we find numerous modern day plants in the fossil record.
•why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
Wait, so he was just saying the record was too well sorted but now he is saying it is not sorted well enough? He seems to be having some difficulties getting on the same page with himself.
•why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
They’re not. Brachiopods can be found in every “era” of strata and even today, the ones found today are nearly indistinguishable from the ones even found in the earliest layers of strata.
How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
The areas where a person can find supposed “angular unconformities” are actually areas where some of the greatest flood evidence can be found. The lower layers of sedimentary rock contain absolutely no sorting by particle size and also contain very jagged particles towards the bottom of the rock layer. This indicates these layers of rock were laid down very quickly by one catastrophic event. In between the top and bottom rock layers there is no evidence of a soil layer which indicates the lower rock layer was not exposed for a long period of time before the top layer was deposited. These layers often also include unbroken bending of strata, which indicates huge layers of strata were still soft when they were warped and bent, again not what we would expect to find if the layers were laid down over millions of years. Furthermore, large un-eroded pieces of rock located in the breccia of the upper rock layers indicate that the upper rock layers were also deposited very quickly by catastrophe.
How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.
Most of the mountain ranges we have today were formed by a quick upheaval due to catastrophic plate tectonics towards the end of the flood year. This upheaval caused the Ocean valleys to form as well, causing a quick recession of the flood waters back into the Oceans. This quick recession carved out many of the huge valley and canyons we see today. Glacial evidence is actually lacking from the vast majority of canyons we see today.
When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]
This is a very dated question, the notion that granitoid magmas ascend through the continental crust as diapirs is very heavily questioned today due to the emergence of a wealth of contrary evidence. The more modern view of granite formation through the process of dyke injection propagating along fractures is estimated to form granite in as little as 350 years. Granite is quickly becoming a very powerful friend of the creationists.
How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]
The sorting of sedimentary particles is a very natural and empirically verified process, we see this in oceanic beaches and river beds that are not very old at all. We know the layers were deposited very rapidly due to bent but unbroken layers of strata and polystratic fossils and objects.
How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
Yes another very dated argument, the “varve” argument fails for two reasons. Firstly, the varves are believed to represent seasonal changes (summer and winter), thus every two layers should represent a year. Yet, the entire Green River basin is littered with thousands of fish and bird fossils that span “thousands of years” worth of varves. Empirical testing by the Chicago Museum of Natural History indicates that fish carcasses degenerate and fall apart even in low oxygen environments in less than 6.5 days. So how could these extremely well preserved fish fossils have remained exposed to the air while thousands of years went by so the varves could catch up and bury them? The answer is that they could not have. The bird fossils propose an even greater problem because their hollow bones degenerate even faster, so a better explanation is that these organisms were rapidly buried in sediment by a single catastrophic event. The second problem for the varve interpretation is that two event horizon layers have been found within the varves, and yet the number of “annual” layers of varves differs by as much as 35 percent between these two single events. This right there proves that the varves do not represent seasons or years since we know the two events would have to be separated by the same amount of layers all around the basin if they in fact did represent years.
How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil--appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires. [Ferguson, 1988. For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990; Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.
This is just a complete misrepresentation of the facts. We actually do not find much evidence of roots in these supposed fossilized forests at all, in fact several forests have been discovered where the trees are completely upside down (one example can be found in Yellowstone National Park). Fossilized forests are better explained by catastrophic upheaval and re-deposition such as that which was directly observed in Spirit Lake, Washington.
•Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
You see, this is how “old earthers” manipulate the data to fit their model, the reason it is believed that such impact craters were “erased” is because we cannot find any of them where we ‘should’ if the Earth was actually old. We should find thousands of impact craters and pieces of meteorites all throughout the fossil record since those layers are believed to have been exposed for long periods of time, and yet we find none. Rather than taking the more scientific position that maybe this is evidence those layers were never exposed for a long period of time, the old earth community invokes a magic process that somehow erases the evidence of meteorites, even though any such process has never been observed to actually happen.
All of the other issues about heat were resolved quite a while ago by Humphrey’s “volume cooling” mechanism which banks off of the theory of general relativity.
How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.
Modern limestone layers that have been observed to form by the above process are not structurally similar to supposed “ancient” layers of limestone; apparently the older limestone layers were formed very quickly and transported by large volumes of moving water which would easily explain the structural differences.
How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.
The flood didn’t deposit all of the chalk we found today, it was deposited over a period of 1-2 thousand years after the flood.
How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.
Under the right conditions fossilization can occur rather quickly, we have even found fossilized teddy bears. A catastrophic flood event actually explains fossilization far better than the long age gradualism theories due since soft tissue decays in a matter of days.
•Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
Moses lived after the flood, so I would expect very little mineralization since the mineralizing event (the flood) was not the fossilizing agent at that time period.
•Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
Yet they contain soft tissue, something that would be impossible if they were truly millions of years old.
•Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.
I’d expect that since those sites most likely contained different minerals.
8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology
How did all the modern plant species survive?
Genesis 7 goes on to say that by “every living thing” it is speaking of those land animals that breathed through nostrils. Surely this guy saw that, I refuse to believe he tried to refute the flood story without actually reading the flood story….well given second thought…
•Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.
…like this guy has any idea where most of the seeds would end up, has he ever observed a global flood before?
•Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood.
Post flood soils would have actually been rather conducive for plant life to grow.
•Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.
This is actually a bigger problem for evolutionists since they postulate many of these plants pre-date the emergence of animals by millions of years.
•Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990; Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
Where in Genesis does it say Noah gathered the seeds for all plants living at that time?
How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.
Where in Genesis does it say that ALL of the fish survived the flood? The fossil record indicates that many in fact did not survive the flood and I would not have expected them to.
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.
This of course falsely assumes that these diseases all existed prior to the flood, new diseases and viruses actually appear rather quickly and most of them would post-date the flood.
How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.
Arthropods were not aboard the Ark, for the millionth time. You’d think that if the Ark story were really that easy to refute a person would be able to do it without resorting to attacking a factual misrepresentation of the Ark story, I guess maybe the story really is not easy at all to refute.
How did predators survive? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?
Nearly all animals can survive on a completely vegetarian diet.
How could more than a handful of species survive random influences that affect populations? Isolated populations with fewer than 20 members are usually doomed even when extraordinary measures are taken to protect them. [Simberloff, 1988]
…and yet this guy believes all life is the direct descendent of ONE common ancestor? Nice, his own theory doesn’t even pass his own critical analysis.
9. Species Distribution and Diversity
How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?
Such species would have appeared after the flood as a result of the selective pressures found in these diverse climates.
Why are so many animals found only in limited ranges? Why are so many marsupials limited to Australia; why are there no wallabies in western Indonesia? Why are lemurs limited to Madagascar? The same argument applies to any number of groups of plants and animals.
Some of these questions are so bone-headed, I am sorry. Their commons ancestors migrated to those regions and then were isolated after the first ice-age.
Why is inbreeding depression not a problem in most species? Harmful recessive alleles occur in significantnumbers in most species.
Inbreeding is only a problem if the recessive alleles contain genetic problems, the animals brought onto the Ark would have been nearly void of all genetic mutations and errors, so inbreeding would not have been an issue at all. In fact inbreeding poses a much greater difficulty for the Darwinian view of life’s history because such a great number of mutations would have resulted in error catastrophe millions of years ago. If Darwinism were accurate we’d expect to find no life on earth today.
10. Historical Aspects
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?
Most ancient civilizations do have a legend about a giant flood very similar to the biblical account (even the Chinese character for flood literally means “eight people in a boat”, this is tough to explain if you don’t believe the global flood occurred.)
How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?
So first it was that there are not enough flood stories in other cultures and now it is that there are too many different ones? This guy is just not a very consistent person. The Israelites had the best oral tradition in the world, not only this but their account of the story is far more realistic and plausible than any other culture’s story. The other stories are most likely just distortions of the true biblical account.
11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points
Are flood models consistent with the Bible?
The ones that actually work are yes.
Genesis 6-8 speaks only of rain, fountains, and a flood; it makes no mention of other catastrophies which many Creationists associate with the Flood. Their proposed Flood models not only contradict geology, they have no Biblical support, either.
Genesis is not the only account of the flood in the Bible, the Gospel of Peter also speaks of the flood and of the mountains rising and pushing back the waters; this is where we get biblical support for catastrophic plate tectonics.
How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory?
The text is not self-contradictory.
Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.
Genesis 6 speaks of the animals that will be taken for their own survival; Genesis 7 speaks of bringing 7 pairs of clean animals in order to sacrifice them. This is not a logical contradiction because a person can do both.
How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?
Still talking about animals that were never taken onto the Ark I see.
Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...]
The Bible doesn’t teach that the Earth is flat or stationary (in fact the gospel of Luke make is quite clear the Earth is a sphere), Genesis is written as historical narrative, those other verses are written in a poetic or metaphoric style, that’s what biblical literalism means, you interpret the verse according to its literary style.
Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible?
Nope, it actually has the opposite effect, without the flood we’d have no explanation for the fossil record or anything we observe today.
Another Christian scientist said, "Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief." [quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p. 891]
Ah, the old anonymous Christian bashing on Christianity trick, cute but irrelevant.
•If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?
The flood as great symbolic meaning that is later explained in the New Testament, God often works in this manner.
Finally, even if the flood model weren't riddled by all these problems,
What it does attempt to explain is already explained far more accurately, consistently, and thoroughly by conventional geology and biology,
How is flood geology useful?
It gives us a true account and understanding of the Earth’s history, that’s plenty useful in my opinion.
The one useful Item about this thread Is when i read some redneck on this forum talking about crazy Muslim fanatics etc. One glance of your your posts in this thread should be enough to silence them.
I was hoping you’d use this experience to learn a thing or two about proper logic and how to resolve the embarrassing inconsistencies in your own view of reality…I guess you are just full of disappointments aren’t you?
I don't even have enough thumbs up to credit your posts.
Please tell me you are not actually impressed by “elephant hurling”, please tell me you’re joking….please.
Now watch Statler come back with a line-by-line quotation response
I have to do it that way, his attempt at hurling elephants had close to 100 different questions or points.
As infuriating at times as our discourse has been, I actually have on some level enjoyed it. I’ve been forced to learn far more about Christian Mythology, Geology, Astronomy, etc etc, than I knew before,
I already knew quite a bit about Evolutionary and Old Earth Mythology so I can’t really say the same, but I guess if anything you have re-affirmed the notion that secular beliefs are rooted solely in blind faith commitments and not truly the evidence or empirical verification.
You do appear to have some level of intelligence, & therefore I'm disappointed you've chose to use it defending such ludicrous claims.
Ah, so you follow up your question begging epithets with the old damnation with faint praise ploy…well if it makes you feel any better the feelings are completely mutual.
I'm not calling on you, or anyone else to give up your faith,
Well I am calling on you to give up your pre-commitments to Darwinian and Deep Time faith positions because they are simply false and downright ridiculous.
Looks like he needs more time in his indoctrination classes.
Nope, I have been out of Evolutionary Biology for several years now, I did get an “A” in it though :- )
Last edited by Statler Waldorf; 10-02-2012 at 08:09 PM.
Perseverance of the Saints
It always astounds me the lengths people will go with logic to justify their faith...
You know there are some serious flaws with your belief system when there is even a need for "Apologetics" in the first place!
Joe Philbin, PowerPoint Guru (Not Head Coach Material)
Philbin ... put it all together in a PowerPoint presentation. Everything about that presentation had to be perfect.
“If any PowerPoint slide had a spelling or grammar mistake, any typo, any scheme error, that was my responsibility, just like a teacher,” Philbin said.
It always astounds me the lengths people will go with logic to justify their faith...
Yeah, how dare people try to use logic to defend their position!! :-P
You know there are some serious flaws with your belief system when there is even a need for "Apologetics" in the first place!
Huh? That’s like saying Evolution is false simply because it has people like Dawkins running around defending it. Apologetics is just the practice of defending the Christian position.
Fallacy of appeal to ridicule; why do you always resort to irrationality when your position is questioned? That certainly indicates to me that your position is rather weak.
Come out, come out wherever you are. What happened to your boy in the election? What happened to this Obama is screwed? I still see your peddling your dinosaur nonsense and just like your election prediction is full of ****.