Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 01:19:40 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 10:01:41 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1121706101.699996.80920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Ron O wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 11:38:10 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
[cut to the chase]
SNIP:
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
Don't take that bait. If you do anything in this forum stick to the
science. Trying to defend the Bible is a lost cause. You will just
end up admitting that you have to add quite a bit to it for it to make
sense. You can't defend all the additions. What is metaphor and what
should be taken literally? Better brains than anyone posting in this
group have struggled with that problem. In the end it is a matter of
faith and what you want to believe. If you think that you have the
answer you are only fooling yourself.
Ron Okimoto
I like a challenge. Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a
pool of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost
cause" than defending the Bible.
Where did you get that theory of the origin of life on earth?
I went to one of the biggest proponents of such on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
The Bible has already proven itself to be indefensible.
You'll understand if I disagree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 04:17:50 PM |
|
|
In message <1121883580.934914.13880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
I like a challenge. Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a
pool of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost
cause" than defending the Bible.
Where did you get that theory of the origin of life on earth?
I went to one of the biggest proponents of such on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
I don't know about your standards, but by my standards that is bearing
false witness.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.0/50 - Release Date: 16/07/2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Aug 2005 02:42:53 PM |
|
|
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1121883580.934914.13880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
I like a challenge. Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a
pool of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost
cause" than defending the Bible.
Where did you get that theory of the origin of life on earth?
I went to one of the biggest proponents of such on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
I don't know about your standards, but by my standards that is bearing
false witness.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.0/50 - Release Date: 16/07/2005
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Con
"So I've shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as
mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest.
Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of
enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form
of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that
the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of
them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.
However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of
220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences
are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to
be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024
litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then
there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair
number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a
year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA
polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA
polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl
transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal
nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].
Here is the key paragraph:
Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061
represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes
in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a
functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's
prebiotic soup.
So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures,
random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems
(whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world
systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25])
would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for
the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times."
Please don't call me a liar when the best non-religious guess, per
talkorigins.org, as how life got created is all about "enzymes" and
"prebiotic soup".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Aug 2005 03:12:49 PM |
|
|
In message <1123011773.207055.207120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1121883580.934914.13880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
I like a challenge. Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a
pool of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost
cause" than defending the Bible.
Where did you get that theory of the origin of life on earth?
I went to one of the biggest proponents of such on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
I don't know about your standards, but by my standards that is bearing
false witness.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.0/50 - Release Date: 16/07/2005
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Con
"So I've shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as
mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest.
Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of
enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form
of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that
the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of
them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.
However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of
220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences
are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to
be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024
litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then
there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair
number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a
year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA
polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA
polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl
transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal
nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].
Here is the key paragraph:
Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061
represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes
in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a
functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's
prebiotic soup.
So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures,
random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems
(whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world
systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25])
would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for
the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times."
Please don't call me a liar when the best non-religious guess, per
talkorigins.org, as how life got created is all about "enzymes" and
"prebiotic soup".
Your words were "Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a pool
of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost cause"
than defending the Bible." As a description as abiogenesis this is a bad
parody.
When someone asked where you got that "theory" from you claimed that you
took if from a talk.origins FAQ. As the talk.origins FAQ does not
contain that "theory" you thereby misrepresented the former. (Compare
your "key paragraph" with your original words.)
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
03 Aug 2005 04:55:33 PM |
|
|
In message <1123011773.207055.207120@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1121883580.934914.13880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
I like a challenge. Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a
pool of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost
cause" than defending the Bible.
Where did you get that theory of the origin of life on earth?
I went to one of the biggest proponents of such on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
I don't know about your standards, but by my standards that is bearing
false witness.
--
alias Ernest Major
<deletia>
Please don't call me a liar when the best non-religious guess, per
talkorigins.org, as how life got created is all about "enzymes" and
"prebiotic soup".
I'd like to point out that I didn't call you a liar - if you had leapt
to the assumption that the FAQ must be supporting your obnoxious
strawman and failed to verify your assumption, then you would have been
bearing false witness, but not lying. (I take the commandment against
bearing false witness are requiring that you take reasonable steps to
ensure that your witness is not false to fact, i.e. to include reckless
as well as malicious defamation.)
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 02/08/2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 01:29:37 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2005 11:19:40 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1121883580.934914.13880@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 10:01:41 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1121706101.699996.80920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Ron O wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 11:38:10 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
[cut to the chase]
SNIP:
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
Don't take that bait. If you do anything in this forum stick to the
science. Trying to defend the Bible is a lost cause. You will just
end up admitting that you have to add quite a bit to it for it to make
sense. You can't defend all the additions. What is metaphor and what
should be taken literally? Better brains than anyone posting in this
group have struggled with that problem. In the end it is a matter of
faith and what you want to believe. If you think that you have the
answer you are only fooling yourself.
Ron Okimoto
I like a challenge. Actually, in my opinion, I find the attempts to
convince others that we evolved from two amino acids colliding in a
pool of premodial sludge 4.5 billion years ago to be more of a "lost
cause" than defending the Bible.
Where did you get that theory of the origin of life on earth?
I went to one of the biggest proponents of such on the Internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Nothing there that says that two amino acids collided in a pool of
primordial sludge 4.5 billion years ago.
The Bible has already proven itself to be indefensible.
You'll understand if I disagree.
But you have offered me no reason or evidence to support your
disagreement nor have you made any effort to persuade me using such.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shackleton" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jul 2005 03:30:02 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 11:38:10 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
[cut to the chase]
Well, some of the assertions made above would be incompatible with
sections of the Bible. And if those sections of the Bible are proven
false, then the entire Biblical account and its divine inspiration
aspect is then called into question.
Do you believe people ever get divine inspiration directly from God
(i.e., not via the Bible)? If so, do you believe those people are
completely accurate and truthful in every aspect of their lives? If
you answered no to the latter question, then you have said that a
source can be divinely inspired but still be wrong in part. Why
cannot the same be true of the Bible?
Inspiration directly from God? All I know is what the Bible says and
from personal experience.
From God actually speaking verbally to a human? Very, very rare.
From God using His Spirit to drive/inspire a person? Routine for
Christians who really try to do God's will and pray a lot. Very rarely
for everyone else, including Christians who just show up on Sunday and
sing a few songs.
From God through an angel to a human? Not a very common event, but
does happen.
There is no one alive today who is completely accurate and truthful in
every aspect of their lives...all of the time. People can work towards
being honest in everything that they say and do. It is possible.
Yet, humans are limited, fallible creatures who make honest mistakes.
The same COULD be theoretically true of the Bible. On the other hand,
if one supposes that a Supreme Being is guiding the authorship of such
a book, then human fraility is irrelevant and 100% accuracy can be
achieved. This is what I believe happened when the Bible was being
written.
I ask because it is absolutely certain that the Bible is false in
part. That is easily seen from the fact that some parts of the Bible
contradict other parts. (Try to arrange the four gospels into one
consistent narrative if you don't believe me.) If what you say is
true about the whole Bible being called into question if part of it is
false, then the whole Bible must be called into question. Is that
where you want to go?
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
There is no scientific evidence at all that supports the idea of
creation. All of the evidence uncovered to date supports the theory of
evolution. The only people that question evolution do so for religious
reasons, not scientific ones.
Check out the talkorigins website. It has a wealth of reliable
information.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jul 2005 04:02:05 PM |
|
|
Ken Shackleton wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 11:38:10 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
[cut to the chase]
Well, some of the assertions made above would be incompatible with
sections of the Bible. And if those sections of the Bible are proven
false, then the entire Biblical account and its divine inspiration
aspect is then called into question.
Do you believe people ever get divine inspiration directly from God
(i.e., not via the Bible)? If so, do you believe those people are
completely accurate and truthful in every aspect of their lives? If
you answered no to the latter question, then you have said that a
source can be divinely inspired but still be wrong in part. Why
cannot the same be true of the Bible?
Inspiration directly from God? All I know is what the Bible says and
from personal experience.
From God actually speaking verbally to a human? Very, very rare.
From God using His Spirit to drive/inspire a person? Routine for
Christians who really try to do God's will and pray a lot. Very rarely
for everyone else, including Christians who just show up on Sunday and
sing a few songs.
From God through an angel to a human? Not a very common event, but
does happen.
There is no one alive today who is completely accurate and truthful in
every aspect of their lives...all of the time. People can work towards
being honest in everything that they say and do. It is possible.
Yet, humans are limited, fallible creatures who make honest mistakes.
The same COULD be theoretically true of the Bible. On the other hand,
if one supposes that a Supreme Being is guiding the authorship of such
a book, then human fraility is irrelevant and 100% accuracy can be
achieved. This is what I believe happened when the Bible was being
written.
I ask because it is absolutely certain that the Bible is false in
part. That is easily seen from the fact that some parts of the Bible
contradict other parts. (Try to arrange the four gospels into one
consistent narrative if you don't believe me.) If what you say is
true about the whole Bible being called into question if part of it is
false, then the whole Bible must be called into question. Is that
where you want to go?
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
There is no scientific evidence at all that supports the idea of
creation. All of the evidence uncovered to date supports the theory of
evolution. The only people that question evolution do so for religious
reasons, not scientific ones.
Check out the talkorigins website. It has a wealth of reliable
information.
Matt S. has had me studying that site for weeks now. I look at it then
at trueorigin.org, which apparently was set up to reply to talkorigins,
for any counter-perspective just to make sure that I don't miss
anything.
I really like talkorigins. Sometimes, I feel that they make
assumptions about the meaning of various data; but, overall I use that
site as a steady resource of information.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Holland" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jul 2005 12:46:56 AM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
snip
Matt S. has had me studying that site for weeks now. I look at it then
at trueorigin.org, which apparently was set up to reply to talkorigins,
for any counter-perspective just to make sure that I don't miss
anything.
I really like talkorigins. Sometimes, I feel that they make
assumptions about the meaning of various data; but, overall I use that
site as a steady resource of information.
I hate to pile more reading on you but check out Glenn Morton's site:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 10:42:14 AM |
|
|
David Holland wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
snip
Matt S. has had me studying that site for weeks now. I look at it then
at trueorigin.org, which apparently was set up to reply to talkorigins,
for any counter-perspective just to make sure that I don't miss
anything.
I really like talkorigins. Sometimes, I feel that they make
assumptions about the meaning of various data; but, overall I use that
site as a steady resource of information.
I hate to pile more reading on you but check out Glenn Morton's site:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
I could easily spend a week on that site alone. Good,
thought-provoking information. At the very least, it makes a believer
like me rethink all of my positions and justify why I believe what I
do.
I'm not saying that everything on that site is accurate. For example,
the idea that a brick in a bathtub with dirt in the water can roughly
simulate the depositing of sediment on the continental floors per
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm borders on junk science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Holland" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 08:19:08 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Holland wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
snip
Matt S. has had me studying that site for weeks now. I look at it then
at trueorigin.org, which apparently was set up to reply to talkorigins,
for any counter-perspective just to make sure that I don't miss
anything.
I really like talkorigins. Sometimes, I feel that they make
assumptions about the meaning of various data; but, overall I use that
site as a steady resource of information.
I hate to pile more reading on you but check out Glenn Morton's site:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
I could easily spend a week on that site alone. Good,
thought-provoking information. At the very least, it makes a believer
like me rethink all of my positions and justify why I believe what I
do.
I'm not saying that everything on that site is accurate. For example,
the idea that a brick in a bathtub with dirt in the water can roughly
simulate the depositing of sediment on the continental floors per
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm borders on junk science.
I'm glad you like it. I don't think the brick in the bathtub was meant
to be a simulation of the flood. I read it as a demonstration of a
general principal of physics that someone could do at home. I don't know
much geology but I'm sure I've seen this someplace else, either on
Glen's site or in Time Life books. I'll try to find it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Jul 2005 09:32:06 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2005 08:42:14 -0700, Jim Spaza posted in article
<1121701334.909418.191010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ...
David Holland wrote:
I hate to pile more reading on you but check out Glenn Morton's site:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
I could easily spend a week on that site alone. Good,
thought-provoking information. At the very least, it makes a believer
like me rethink all of my positions and justify why I believe what I
do.
I'm not saying that everything on that site is accurate. For example,
the idea that a brick in a bathtub with dirt in the water can roughly
simulate the depositing of sediment on the continental floors per
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm borders on junk science.
I think what he's trying to show is that the relative thicknesses of
sediments on continents (the brick representing a pre-flood continent)
vs. the ocean basins (the rest of the tub) resulting from a global
flood are exactly opposite that which is actually present.
Flood apologists try to get around this problem by assigning sediments
on continents to 'Pre-Flood,' 'Flood,' and 'Post-Flood' categories.
That way, they're able to consider most fossiliferous sediments to be
pre- or syn-Flood, although their criteria are uncertain, and they're
inconsistent regarding which sediments belong to which category. Of
course, their stratigraphy requires that several global floods not
mentioned in the Bible preceded the Flood (practice sessions for the
big one?) to account for the great thickness of pre-Flood sediments;
and that several kilometers of syn- and post-Flood sediments be
deposited, lithified, deformed by folding and/or faulting, uplifted
and exposed at the surface (perhaps several times to account for
erosion surfaces between and within sedimentary units) within the last
4,000 years or so, depending on when they think the Flood occurred.
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Jul 2005 05:04:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:32:06 GMT, OvC <otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2005 08:42:14 -0700, Jim Spaza posted in article
<1121701334.909418.191010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ...
David Holland wrote:
I hate to pile more reading on you but check out Glenn Morton's site:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
I could easily spend a week on that site alone. Good,
thought-provoking information. At the very least, it makes a believer
like me rethink all of my positions and justify why I believe what I
do.
I'm not saying that everything on that site is accurate. For example,
the idea that a brick in a bathtub with dirt in the water can roughly
simulate the depositing of sediment on the continental floors per
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gflood.htm borders on junk science.
I think what he's trying to show is that the relative thicknesses of
sediments on continents (the brick representing a pre-flood continent)
vs. the ocean basins (the rest of the tub) resulting from a global
flood are exactly opposite that which is actually present.
Flood apologists try to get around this problem by assigning sediments
on continents to 'Pre-Flood,' 'Flood,' and 'Post-Flood' categories.
That way, they're able to consider most fossiliferous sediments to be
pre- or syn-Flood, although their criteria are uncertain, and they're
inconsistent regarding which sediments belong to which category. Of
course, their stratigraphy requires that several global floods not
mentioned in the Bible preceded the Flood (practice sessions for the
big one?) to account for the great thickness of pre-Flood sediments;
and that several kilometers of syn- and post-Flood sediments be
deposited, lithified, deformed by folding and/or faulting, uplifted
and exposed at the surface (perhaps several times to account for
erosion surfaces between and within sedimentary units) within the last
4,000 years or so, depending on when they think the Flood occurred.
When are Christians going to accept that the Bible is a book of fiction?
Now, who is up for reconciling Alice in Wonderland with reality?
--
OvC
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herb Huston" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
22 Jul 2005 07:24:47 AM |
|
|
In article <55uqd15o4v8japv25loj61gjik3h6l1h49@4ax.com>,
Barry OGrady <Atheist.xxx@gmail.com> wrote:
}When are Christians going to accept that the Bible is a book of fiction?
It's more of an historical novel, but _Anthony Adverse_ and _Captain from
Castile_ made better movies.
}Now, who is up for reconciling Alice in Wonderland with reality?
Well, Alice was a real person although she didn't have long blonde hair.
--
-- Herb Huston
--
-- http://www.radix.net/~huston
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OvC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
20 Jul 2005 11:10:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:04:56 +1000, Barry OGrady posted in article
<55uqd15o4v8japv25loj61gjik3h6l1h49@4ax.com> ...
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:32:06 GMT, OvC <otto.von.chriek@uberwald.gov> wrote:
[summary of flood apologist's contortions]
When are Christians going to accept that the Bible is a book of fiction?
Right, and have all those rabid followers go postal on the rest of us
when He Who Restrains Them is erased? I don't think so...
Now, who is up for reconciling Alice in Wonderland with reality?
1967, October, still have the bong and headache.
--
OvC
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
15 Jul 2005 03:55:42 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jul 2005 13:30:02 -0700, "Ken Shackleton"
<ken.shackleton@shaw.ca> wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 14 Jul 2005 11:38:10 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
[cut to the chase]
Well, some of the assertions made above would be incompatible with
sections of the Bible. And if those sections of the Bible are proven
false, then the entire Biblical account and its divine inspiration
aspect is then called into question.
Do you believe people ever get divine inspiration directly from God
(i.e., not via the Bible)? If so, do you believe those people are
completely accurate and truthful in every aspect of their lives? If
you answered no to the latter question, then you have said that a
source can be divinely inspired but still be wrong in part. Why
cannot the same be true of the Bible?
Inspiration directly from God? All I know is what the Bible says and
from personal experience.
From God actually speaking verbally to a human? Very, very rare.
From God using His Spirit to drive/inspire a person? Routine for
Christians who really try to do God's will and pray a lot. Very rarely
for everyone else, including Christians who just show up on Sunday and
sing a few songs.
From God through an angel to a human? Not a very common event, but
does happen.
There is no one alive today who is completely accurate and truthful in
every aspect of their lives...all of the time. People can work towards
being honest in everything that they say and do. It is possible.
Yet, humans are limited, fallible creatures who make honest mistakes.
The same COULD be theoretically true of the Bible. On the other hand,
if one supposes that a Supreme Being is guiding the authorship of such
a book, then human fraility is irrelevant and 100% accuracy can be
achieved. This is what I believe happened when the Bible was being
written.
I ask because it is absolutely certain that the Bible is false in
part. That is easily seen from the fact that some parts of the Bible
contradict other parts. (Try to arrange the four gospels into one
consistent narrative if you don't believe me.) If what you say is
true about the whole Bible being called into question if part of it is
false, then the whole Bible must be called into question. Is that
where you want to go?
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
I don't know why these threads appear on alt.atheism, because atheism
has nothing to do with evolution or vice versa.
Atheism simply means that one isn't theist. It's not even an -ism of
its own, just the demographic absense of a specific one, theism.
And evolution is simply an oserverved part of science. Neither
evolution nor science are part of some imaginary atheist catechism.
There is no scientific evidence at all that supports the idea of
creation. All of the evidence uncovered to date supports the theory of
evolution. The only people that question evolution do so for religious
reasons, not scientific ones.
The point is that "evolution" was the label originally given to a set
of observations a few hundred years ago. Which had their first
scientifically derived explanation published 149 years ago.
I don't think many people of today realise how the leisured spent
their time before the days of electric light, TV, etc.
One of the main ways was going out and studying nature. For the poor
it cost nothing - they would collect specimens, catalog and collate
then. For the rich their wealth enabled them to travel and collect
them. Insects, plants, wild animals, fossils, native artifacts etc.
They had broad interest and knowledge of what they had collected.
They observed the change and variation between fossils collected in
different layers, and their differences from modern specimens.
This was labeled "evolution".
Darwin's wasn't even the first explanation - it was the first
painstaking, scientifically derived one, and superceded Lamark's
earlier one of acquired characteristics. But Darwin (and even Lamark)
predicted a mechanism for heredity. Darwin also predicted a mutations.
His explanation was the spur for further investigation which led to
the mechanisms of heredity and mutation being found.
These subsequent discoveries were then investigated and are now well
understood. And then what is behind them.
The juggernaut that is science has long ago gone beyond "has evolution
happened?", and without it whole sciences and their associated
technologies simply wouldn't have happened: no genetics, no DNA, no
biotech and its application to modern medicine or agriculture.
There is simply nothing that can be observed that leads to
creationism. There is no way to prove it short of demonstrating a
"creator of everything".
Things like the argument from design fail because if everything was
created there is nothing natural at that level for comparison. The
only way to determine design-of-everything would be from knowledge of
a designer-of-everything - putting the cart before the horse, they
have to demonstrate this designer first, and then show that it
designed everything.
Check out the talkorigins website. It has a wealth of reliable
information.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
16 Jul 2005 01:02:56 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
*Anything* that is portrayed as 100% accurate is the last thing you
want to trust. With absolute certainty comes an absolute inability to
correct error. Without some doubt, errors never get admitted, much
less corrected. If the Bible is inerrant, reject it without delay,
for your own good!
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
I already suggested you try to reconcile the four gospels. Others
have tried and found it impossible.
For one of the dozens of other contradictions, how did Saul die? 1
Samuel 31:4-5 and 2 Samuel 1:5-10 have incompatible accounts.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Jul 2005 11:50:00 AM |
|
|
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005 13:01:43 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
If parts of the Bible are indeed shown to be conclusively and
hopelessly in error, then the Bible should not be relied upon as God's
Word to humankind.
Haven't you learned by now that the Bible should not be relied upon
anyway? People relied upon the Bible to prove geocentrism.
Actually, as my knowledge of the Bible, I find it to be more and more
reliable and accurate. Any attempts to take a few verses from the Old
Testament to prove geocentrism are foolhardy at best and outright
deceptive stretches of Biblical truth at worst.
*Anything* that is portrayed as 100% accurate is the last thing you
want to trust. With absolute certainty comes an absolute inability to
correct error. Without some doubt, errors never get admitted, much
less corrected. If the Bible is inerrant, reject it without delay,
for your own good!
Well, if there is a God, then He is certainly capable of overseeing the
creation of a book which is 100% accurate. And He is certainly capable
of giving knowledge of history, culture, and language to the readers of
it 2,000 years later who have problems with some of the translations of
the Bible.
I'll wait until a verse of the Bible has been proven false before
rejecting it.
Honestly, I came into this forum with the evolution/creation debate in
mind. However, if you would like to do so, we can debate each and
every asserted contradiction in the Bible.
I already suggested you try to reconcile the four gospels. Others
have tried and f | | |
