ARK eologists

by refiners fire 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon wrote:

  "Is there some magic search engine used by Fundamental Creationists and Flood Apologists, that directs them to any conversation about creation, evolution or the flood?

  It's amasing how they pop up, almost never having been seen before, and disappear, normally to never be seen much again."

  I'm not aware of any magic search engine. Although It could come in handy. Most of my replies to posts on this site have had to do with JW issues. You mentioned the talk origin website. Many of the issues presented there are replied to at http://www.trueorigin.org
• 

  hooberus

  refiners fire wrote:

  "Another interesting thing is that the Christians always say "well
  Noah didnt take 600 differnt breed of cat onto the ark, he only took
  1 pair and all the domestic cat breeds have diversified from this pair.
  This of course would require INCREDIBLY rapid evolution, far more rapid than anything considered plausible by evolutionists. Dont forget, it WAS only 4000 years ago!
  Interesting, isnt it,that the Bible thumpers resort to using evolutionary theory when it suits their convenience, and condemn evolution when it suits them.The old "doublespeak"."

  The type of evolution that creationists use to explain the rapid diversification of species following the flood has to do with the loss of genetic information. This loss is accomplished through proven loss methods such as mutation and natural selection. This is the opposite of the unproven "information gaining" type of evolution.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hooberus

  There's a book called "What Evolution Is",you need to read it.I forget the author.One I have recomended before is "Climbing Mt Improbable"by Richard Dawkins.I thought I knew what evolution was too.The misrepresentation of the claims of evolution is a familiar tactic used by creationists.The old Did Man get here by Creation or Evolution book by the JWs grossly misquotes scientists or oversimplifies the issues to make them appear ridiculous.In reality to those who are informed of the real biology involved the authors of the book appear ridiculous.
• 

  Abaddon

  Hey hooberus... the comment about the magic search engine was a joke, but I guess you know that!

  Have you actually read anything on the TalkOrigins site? I say this, as my experience has shown that people have a tendancy to say "Oh, that's all dealt with on x site", when in fact, they haven't read the site they say is being refuted.

  As an example of what I mean, feel free to post any refutation of evolutionary theory from any website in the world. I am pretty sure that I will be able to show it's NOT a real refutation, just creationist window-dressing, either from what I know (it's a pet subject of mine), or from material on the web.

  I don't believe in evolution becasue I want to, I believe in it as it's the best set of theories.

  If you do post something (please avoid Young Earth Creationist stuff; I want something a little harder than that, unless you really believe the Earth is a few thousand years old, in which case I'll be happy to address that), bear in mind I'm away from a PC until Tuesday.

  Regards

  Gyles
• 

  Farkel

  Good observations, all.

  Hooberus:

  Isn't your name spelled "hubris?"

  The Bible says that the rain covered the highest mountain in the world. Then less than a year later, it had "receded" enough for man to disbark the Ark. Where did the water go? Water always seeks the low ground, but if the water was high enough to cover the highest mountains, there was NO low ground. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

  Put a small rock in a fish bowl and fill the bowl with water and tell me how the water in that bowl could "recede" enough for the rock to rise above it.

  The only other explanation would be evaporation, but if that were the case and all or most of the water evaporated then we'd still have the pesky old "Water Canopy(tm)" over us just like before the flood!

  It's all bullshit.

  Farkel
• 

  hooberus

  Farkel your argument would be an excellent argument, if flood geologists actually believed that the mountains were at their current height during the flood. However, creationists and flood geologists do not believe that! Instead they believe that during the later stages of the flood, the mountains rose and the ocean valleys were depressed.
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon, I'll try to come up with something either from a web-site or, from an at least semi-technical encyclopedia relatively shortly. Thanks
• 

  rem

  hooberus,

  Perhaps these "flood geologists" could explain how the Bristlecone Pine tree could have survived the catastrophe involved not only in the supposed flood, but also in the raising of the very mountains that they live on. Do some research on the Bristlecone Pine trees in California. There are living specimens that predate the supposed flood. They are the oldest trees known, and there are even older plants/shrubs around the world as well. It would be interesting to hear how these plants survived such catastrophic events.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  AlanF

  Hooberus, the argument that "the mountains rose and the ocean valleys were depressed" sometime within the past few thousand years would be great if it were true, but the facts of geology prove that no such thing has happened. You cannot present a lick of evidence that it has. In contrast, I can present tons of evidence proving that the "flood geology" scenario is impossible within the framework presented by "flood geologists". Please note that the ravings of young-earth creationists and (LOL!) "flood geologists" are NOT evidence.

  AlanF
• 

  refiners fire

  The ARKeologists and fundamentalist creationists are incredibly brilliant men.
  They have even discovered that the speed of light is decreasing to such a degree that galaxies that are calculated at millions of light years away are actually only 6ooo light years away. Of course creationist and cult doctrine/ belief is always modified in the face of physical reality and scientific advance.
  No difference between the speed of light decrease "theory" and the "invisible" return of Christ in 1914. Harsh reality compels doctrine modification.
  http://www.setterfield.org/scipubl.html
  A link to the speed of light decrease hypothesis, for anyone interested.