Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16

Religions > Atheism > Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka666"
Date:	07 Jun 2007 10:24:59 PM
Object:	Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16

The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That was issued May 12th 2007. Almost a month later, we're still
waiting on Bob (or *any* creationist for that matter) presenting even
a single item of positive scientific evidence *for* creation.
As if that wasn;t bad enough, Bob had to out-and-out LIE about things
even to *pretend* he had a case - for example, the LIE he told about
human footprints being found mixed with dinosaurs tracks.
But we can count on PZ Myers at www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula to
provide us with more evidence of evolution - the very evidence that
Bob Crowley *LIED* doesn't exist.
http://tinyurl.com/2tnwcg
In fact, this is two lies, since Crowley also *LIED* that all modern
phyla appeared suddenly, with no ancestors, in the "Cambrian
explosion"! Check this out:
"What this is saying is that all of that complex functionality in a
structure we usually consider a key piece of something relatively
sophisticated, the physiology of signaling in our brain, evolved
before the Cambrian, and that much of it was already present in single-
celled organisms."
Can Bob find the honesty and decency to *withdraw* his lie about all
phyla appearing suddenly with no ancestors in the Cambrian, just as he
withdrew his lie about human footprints being found with dinosaur
prints at Paluxy?
Budikka
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16	08 Jun 2007 05:48:53 PM

On Jun 8, 1:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

The debate challenge was simple:http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."

That was issued May 12th 2007. Almost a month later, we're still
waiting on Bob (or *any* creationist for that matter) presenting even
a single item of positive scientific evidence *for* creation.

As if that wasn;t bad enough, Bob had to out-and-out LIE about things
even to *pretend* he had a case - for example, the LIE he told about
human footprints being found mixed with dinosaurs tracks.

But we can count on PZ Myers atwww.scienceblogs.com/pharyngulato
provide us with more evidence of evolution - the very evidence that
Bob Crowley *LIED* doesn't exist.http://tinyurl.com/2tnwcg

In fact, this is two lies, since Crowley also *LIED* that all modern
phyla appeared suddenly, with no ancestors, in the "Cambrian
explosion"! Check this out:
"What this is saying is that all of that complex functionality in a
structure we usually consider a key piece of something relatively
sophisticated, the physiology of signaling in our brain, evolved
before the Cambrian, and that much of it was already present in single-
celled organisms."

Can Bob find the honesty and decency to *withdraw* his lie about all
phyla appearing suddenly with no ancestors in the Cambrian, just as he
withdrew his lie about human footprints being found with dinosaur
prints at Paluxy?

Budikka

I had a look at the article. I'll make two comments - first the
system of the sponges, interesting though it is, is a very long way
removed from that of a nervous system. Show me the development from
this to the nervous system, and then I'll give it credit.
Secondly the system used by sponges is quite complex in itself. Show
me the development of that system, in detail from the point where some
unattached carbon, hydrogen, oxygen atoms, "decided" they'd like to
form life and then gradually got to the point of sponges.
In other words, what you have is a stand-alone system used by
sponges. It doesn't go anywhere, and doesn't show precursors.
So we're back to square one. I'll stick with design.
And if there was ever a classic example of "it's how you interpret the
evidence", I've added the article below, this time from a writer on
"Focus on the Family"
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
This page is sponsored by Google Ads. ARN does not necessarily select
or endorse the organizations or products advertised above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Access Research Network
Mark Hartwig Files
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Citizen Magazine, August , 2000
The End of Creationism?
The Human Genome Project poses a threat, all right, but not the way
Darwinists have it figured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
By Mark Hartwig
Imagine that you are a Nobel-winning scientist. The government and
Celera Genomics Corp. are about to announce that the human genome--the
sum total of our DNA--has been transcribed, and you're writing an
article for The New York Times on the significance of this
breakthrough.
What would you say?
When Nobel laureate David Baltimore was given that chance, one thing
he said was that the breakthrough "confirms something obvious and
expected, yet controversial: Our genes look much like those of fruit
flies, worms and even plants. Should there be any doubt . the genome
shows that we all descended from the same humble beginnings and that
the connections are written in our genes. That should be, but won't
be, the end of creationism."
Baltimore's remarks, echoed by other commentators and scientists, show
why evolution continues to be controversial: the rhetoric doesn't
square with reality. Far from refuting creationism, genome research
has raised vexing problems for contemporary evolutionary theory.
The key claim that's been repeated since the genome breakthrough is
that similarities between humans and other organisms confirm their
common ancestry. That claim, however, has problems before it even
enters the lab.
Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California,
Berkeley, and a noted critic of Darwinism, points out that the most
fundamental problem is a logical one.
"Darwinists consistently confuse the existence of a pattern with the
process that produced it--namely, common descent guided by natural
selection," said Johnson. "Whenever they see anything that seems to
confirm the existence of the pattern, they think that it confirms
their specific theory about how the pattern came about. Of course, it
doesn't."
The only way genetic similarities prove anything is if other options,
including an intelligent designer, have been ruled out--in which case
the decisive element is not similarity, but other evidence.
"Whether common physical descent is the explanation for the
similarities has to be decided by experimental evidence, and that's
always been a problem," Johnson said. "The fossil record isn't
consistent with Darwinism, and the claim that natural selection can
create all the kinds of things we see in biology is completely
unsupported."
Indeed, genetic research has added to this problem, since some of the
similarities it found were in the wrong places.
According to embryologist Jonathan Wells, author of the forthcoming
book Icons of Evolution, one such place is in the genes that control
embryonic development.
In Darwinian theory, Wells said, every organism is supposedly produced
by a genetic program in the embryo. As this program is passed from one
generation to the next, it changes due to genetic mutations and the
effects of natural selection--the faster gazelle outraces the cheetah,
for example, and lives to procreate, passing along its genes. These
changes in turn alter the descendant's physical features. The more the
genes change, the more the organism changes.
As a result, Wells said, "different kinds of organisms should have
different genetic programs--and for years, this is what neo-Darwinists
predicted."
But that's not what genetic researchers found. To the contrary, "the
genes that have major effects in early development turn out to be
strikingly similar across a wide range of phyla."
To appreciate what this means, a phylum (pl. phyla) is an extremely
broad biological category. The phylum that contains humans also
contains lizards, birds, fish and snakes. The differences between
phyla are even wilder. As much as humans and birds differ from each
other, they differ even more radically from slugs, crabs and sponges.
This is the range across which these genes work. Scientists have
found, for example, that the gene controlling the development of limbs
in fruit flies is very similar to the genes controlling the
development of limbs in mice, tube-feet in sea urchins and spines in
spiny worms.
In fact, the genes are so similar, Wells said, "that developmental
genes from mice--and even humans--can replace their counterparts in
flies."
What's more, such crossovers are legion. Indeed, many organisms seem
to share not just one gene, but an entire suite of genes. And
researchers say this seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
If you believe that living organisms were designed by a creative
intelligence, these findings make sense. Just as humans use
dipswitches in a variety of electronic devices, a designer could use
genetic switches in a variety of organisms.
For Darwinists, however, these findings spell trouble.
"According to Darwinism, the reason these genes are so widespread is
that they came from a common ancestor," Wells said. "But the evidence
indicates that the common ancestor lacked the features that these
genes now control. That's a serious problem."
In the Darwinist view, complex genes arise through the slow
accumulation of advantageous mutations. But what's the advantage of
evolving a gene if the feature it controls doesn't exist?
One could reply that the gene controlled some unknown feature in the
ancestral organism. But that's little more than wishful thinking--and
a tacit admission that these findings are not an asset to Darwinism,
but a problem to be explained away.
In the years ahead, such problems will only multiply. That should be,
but probably won't be, the end of Darwinism.
Mark Hartwig, Ph.D., is editor of Teachers in Focus magazine.
Copyright =A9 2000 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
International copyright secured.
File Date: 8.11.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
[ Previous Page ] [ Mark Hartwig Page ] [ ARN Home Page ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial
use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be
appreciated.
Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous
publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See
the body of the above document for specific copyright information.
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16	09 Jun 2007 02:47:43 PM

On Jun 8, 5:48 pm,

wrote:

On Jun 8, 1:24 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

The debate challenge was simple:http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."

That was issued May 12th 2007. Almost a month later, we're still
waiting on Bob (or *any* creationist for that matter) presenting even
a single item of positive scientific evidence *for* creation.

As if that wasn;t bad enough, Bob had to out-and-out LIE about things
even to *pretend* he had a case - for example, the LIE he told about
human footprints being found mixed with dinosaurs tracks.

But we can count on PZ Myers atwww.scienceblogs.com/pharyngulato
provide us with more evidence of evolution - the very evidence that
Bob Crowley *LIED* doesn't exist.http://tinyurl.com/2tnwcg

In fact, this is two lies, since Crowley also *LIED* that all modern
phyla appeared suddenly, with no ancestors, in the "Cambrian
explosion"! Check this out:
"What this is saying is that all of that complex functionality in a
structure we usually consider a key piece of something relatively
sophisticated, the physiology of signaling in our brain, evolved
before the Cambrian, and that much of it was already present in single-
celled organisms."

Can Bob find the honesty and decency to *withdraw* his lie about all
phyla appearing suddenly with no ancestors in the Cambrian, just as he
withdrew his lie about human footprints being found with dinosaur
prints at Paluxy?

Budikka

I already answered this question, Crowley. But let me ask you this:
Why? Would you even understand that information if it were given to
you? Your track record leads me to believe not.
And if I did, is that what it would take for you to find the honesty
to admit then that you have no positive science for a creation?
Because I've been asking you to produce positive science for a
creation since May and you still haven't offered even one shred of
it. Why do you think you have a right to ask for what you cannot
provide yourself? I asked you first, wa-ay back in May and I'm still
waiting.
Hey, how about this one, Crowley: Do you have steps for every single
divine creation act from the first atom to modern humans?
No? You don't? Wow. I guess this completely disproves your god!
LoL!
So do tell me: why do you think it's reasonable for you to demand
everything when you offer nothing? Why do you not think *that*
behavior is not only hypocritcal but thoroughly selfish? Why do you
not wonder what kind of Christian you are to make such demands?
I told you how it is, Bob Coward: First you answer some of the myriad
questions you've been fleeing from since May before you get to demand
any more answers from me, huh?
Just what is it going to take to get that lodged somewhere in what you
call your brain?
The first thing you have to do (in thread 16) is explain why your
creator put synaptic materials into an organism that has no synapses.
Then in thread 18, the sister thread to this, you have to address that
same issue regarding why a fish has the same sort of genetic pathway
to limb formation that humans do.
Those are the issues here, and you're doing your level best to avoid
addressing them by asking endless questions like a four-year-old would
without ever taking the adult responsibility of actually answering a
few yourself.
Or did you conveniently forget that this entire series came about
directly as a result of your cowardly avoidance of questions and
challenges in our "debate"? Huh? Did you?
Now I'm trying to get you, in this series, to answer the very
questions you avoided like a pathetic little coward in the "debate",
and here you are asking **MORE** questions without even pretending you
can answer *ANY* of the ones you're delinquent on?
What an easy life you creationist pond scum lead! You never have to
take responsibility for anything; never have to answer a single
question or explain a single thing or provide a shred of evidence!
And then you get to turn around and demand from scientists every
single little step, molecule by molecule and claim, without lifting a
finger or doing a lick of work, that you've proven evolution wrong
because the scientists can only provide 99% of what you asked but
can't yet provide that last percent? Or they can provide every other
step but not every step? Or that the flood of New steps they provided
so far this year doens;t meet your selfish personal unqualified
threshhold for success, when we all know you do not and never will
have such a thing?
What a pathetic little ignorant spoiled brat of a moron you truly are.
How pleasant it must be to sit there in your home-made throne of God
Almighty and demand everyone lay down in obedience to you, and not
even feel an iota of guilt or embarrassment about it.
Wow! No wonder religion is so appealing to those who cannot face
living in reality.
Now, after that brief jaunt into Bobworld, let's get back to reality:
Are you going to answer the questions?
Because I already answered yours - Yes! even this one. I specifically
told you that I will tell all of the steps to you as soon as
scientists have discovered them.
Or did you not read that, Crowley? Just like you either don't read or
cannot understand anything I write, which accounts for your
persistent, irrelevant, knee-jerk mass posting of the entire AiG
website in these threads which you then pretend is some sort of
response to what I actualyl presented and asked of you?
Just as science has reported all the steps they have found in the 150
years of solid science they've been doing so far, I'll report the next
steps as soon as they've discovered them, just as I reported these two
new steps about paddlefish and sponges - steps that you have yet to
address from your creationsit perpsective. And I mean address. If
you can overturn these and show how they're not science, that they're
not a requisite item in the evolution panoply of tools and rules, then
present the science which does it.
Hint: chanting "No it isn't" does not constitute a scientific
rebuttal, not even if you were a qualified scientist.
Failing that, perhaps you could do what you promised but failed to do
ever since our debate started in May: provide postive science
explaining creation - explaining why, for exmaple, a creator would put
synaptic materials into an organism which has no synapses (and never
will according to creationist philosophy) or put limb-growing
materials into an organism which never had limbs (and never will
according to creationist philosophy).
So what steps do you have to offer in return, Crowley, now I've given
you 150 years of steps?
We're waiting.
Budikka
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16	09 Jun 2007 08:13:59 PM

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:47:43 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1181418463.783639.119200@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
:

Failing that, perhaps you could do what you promised but failed to do
ever since our debate started in May: provide postive science
explaining creation - explaining why, for exmaple, a creator would put
synaptic materials into an organism which has no synapses (and never
will according to creationist philosophy) or put limb-growing
materials into an organism which never had limbs (and never will
according to creationist philosophy).

So what steps do you have to offer in return, Crowley, now I've given
you 150 years of steps?

We're waiting.

Budikka

Perhaps Bob the Liar with evolve some rudimentary integrity?
Not very promising starting material though.
One admission that he was wrong is a small start, I guess.
Now we need the big one:
"I, Bob Crowley do not have any positive scientific evidence
supporting or explaining special creation by a God or Gods"
....and we can all go home.
--
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16	09 Jun 2007 08:37:06 PM

On Jun 10, 11:13 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:47:43 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1181418463.783639.119...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>

:

So what steps do you have to offer in return, Crowley, now I've given
you 150 years of steps?

We're waiting.

Budikka

I'd have thought that immense numbers of species suddenly appear in
the fossil record, without precursors, and without differing
descendants, would have been sufficient evidence alone. In other
words, they don't exist at one time, and then, bingo, they suddenly
exist.
Whoops, another AIG extract, this time from a chemist. I've
concentrated on the carbon atom, which has the properties necessary
for the reactions involved in life, yet apparently only comprises
about .017% of the earth's composition.
I believe it was designed as part and parcel of the universal makeup,
with a view to being the central element in life, along with oxygen in
the main.
I have never been shown how atoms came into being from the primeval
fireball, nor has it ever been explained to me why we have such a
preponderance of useful elements in one planet in a universe that is
99.9% hydrogen.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Answers in Genesis: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very
First Verse
Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse
Edward A. Boudreaux, theoretical chemistry
First published in
In Six Days
Science and origins testimony #21
Edited by John F. Ashton
Professor Boudreaux is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the
University of New Orleans, Louisiana. He holds a B.S. in chemistry
from Loyola University, an M.S. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in chemistry
from Tulane University. Professor Boudreaux has spent 29 years in
graduate education and research in the area of theoretical and
inorganic chemistry and chemical physics, and is the author or
coauthor of four technical books in the area of inorganic chemistry,
as well as numerous scientific papers in NOTE (SINCE IT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO YOU) >>>>> peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly it must be agreed among rational individuals that for anyone
bold enough to admit it, the origins issue is strictly a matter of
history. Having been initiated and completed prior to the genesis of
man at some time in the past, the events of this origins process are
nonrepeatable. It matters not whether one believes the mechanism of
the process to be via de fiat actions of a supernatural intelligence,
some naturalistic evolutionary process, or a mixture of the two; the
fact remains that the material universe is in a stable state of static
equilibrium.
The initial processes responsible for this stasis are not amenable to
the methods of scientific testing, because they were unobservable
events. Yet, in spite of this, evolutionists claim that a trail of
evidences have been imprinted in the fossil record over long periods
of geologic time. Furthermore, it is suggested that biological
similarities among various levels of living organisms all imply a
common ancestral origin. Similarly, cosmologists maintain that some
sort of big-bang scenario, initiated from a unique physical
singularity undergoing a quantum fluctuation in some 1043 seconds, is
the process by which the origin of the entire universe was initiated.
Hence, the geological, biological and cosmological sciences have been
established as ivory towers, from which so-called proofs of evolution
emanate, while the scientist practitioners within these disciplines
are the gurus who promote, preach and publish what is regarded as
scientific data supporting evolution. But there is not one single
instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the
scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are
hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions and inferences, all of
which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-
serving collaborations of the evolutionist gurus. However, none of
this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution.
It was in the 1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and
disgust, I became enlightened to all of what has been stated above. Up
until that time I had not given the evolution matter very much
thought. On the contrary, I presumed that researchers committed to the
study of evolution possessed the same integrity as that expected of
any credible scientist. While it is true that I may not have been as
thoroughly schooled in those ivory tower disciplines of evolution as
are the so-called "experts," I was, nonetheless, more than adequately
informed as a scientist to be able to read and comprehend various
technical publications on evolution. Subsequently, the greatest
embarrassment of all was for me to find that there simply was no valid
science whatever, in any of these numerous publications touting
evolution.
A number of evolutionists openly admit that the coveted fossil record
is devastating to the entire scheme of organic evolution, be it neo-
Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium or whatever. It has also been
clearly demonstrated that observed similarities between organisms,
fossil or living, have absolutely nothing to do with proving evolution
per se. Similarly, there is neither a single model nor combination
thereof, regarding the evolution of the cosmos, that provides an
adequate explanation of all observed cosmological data. In fact, the
actual data is frequently in disagreement with the various proposed
models.
My own fields of specialization are in the areas of theoretical
inorganic chemistry and chemical physics. Both of these areas are
reasonably immune to the contaminations of evolution. But, once my
interest had been aroused sufficiently to study the evolution
literature, I also became aware of unique features among chemical
properties of specific elements. These characteristics are clearly a
reflection of created design.
Consider the element carbon (C). This is the most unique of all the
chemical elements in the periodic table. It is a nonmetal, having
unlimited capacity to participate in every known type of covalent
chemical bonding (i.e., pairs of electrons shared between atoms),
which unites atoms of the same kind to each other and to other kinds
of atoms as well. This feature, called catenation, is virtually
unlimited for the element carbon alone.
Other elements, such as silicon (Si), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S),
phosphorus (P), etc., display some very limited capacities for
catenation, which do not even come close to rivalling the catenation
ability of C. Without this unique feature, the formation of such
essential biomolecules as proteins, DNA, RNA, cellulose, etc., would
be impossible. Ironically, in spite of its crucial importance, carbon
comprises only 9 to 10 percent by weight of the composition of all
living things and only 0.017 percent of the earth's composition.
Nonetheless, there is no other element that can replace even one or
two C atoms in biomolecules, without destroying the biological
integrity of these systems.
Elements such as carbon (C), nitrogen (N), sulphur (S), phosphorus
(P), and other nonmetals are called representative or main group
elements. With the exception of oxygen, atoms of these elements are
stable only when even numbers of their electrons unite in pairs;
otherwise the presence of "unpaired" electrons imparts chemical
instability. On the other hand, metallic elements such as chromium
(Cr), Iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), etc., called transition metals, are
among the subgroup elements and do contain unpaired electrons, but
surprisingly are chemically very stable.
The element oxygen (O) exists freely in nature as the gaseous diatomic
molecule O2. There are other representative elements which also occur
as free diatomic molecules, e.g., hydrogen (H2), nitrogen (N2),
fluorine (F2), and chlorine (Cl2). However, O2 is the only molecule of
this type possessing two unpaired electrons; the others all have
paired electrons. In spite of this, O2 is still chemically stable.
This singular notable exception to the electron-pair rule of stability
for representative elements has no known explanation. The only other
molecule with an electron arrangement exactly that of O2 is S2.
However, S2 is a highly unstable molecule, which is the reason that
sulphur does not exist in this form. Furthermore, if it were not for
the two unpaired electrons in O2, it would not be capable of binding
to the iron (Fe) atoms in hemogloblin, with precisely the amount of
energy needed to carry the O2 into the bloodstream and then release
it. Some other molecules such as CO and NO can replace O2 in binding
to hemogloblin, but they completely destroy the hemoglobin function.
Similarly, there are several other transition metals comparable to
iron which can replace it in hemoglobin and also bind O2, but this
binding is either too strong or too weak. Thus, there are no noniron
analogues of hemoglobin having the required properties of normal
hemoglobin for transporting O2 in blood metabolism.
The structured portion of hemoglobin which binds iron is called a
porphrin ring. If this porphrin is translated into another
biomolecular environment and the iron atom replaced by magnesium (Mg),
chlorophyll, a key component essential to plant metabolism, is the
most efficient photoelectric cell known. It is some 80 percent more
efficient than any photocells fabricated by man. While calcium (Ca)
and some other metals can replace Mg in chlorophyll, the products do
not at all duplicate the photoelectric efficiency of true chlorophyll.
Proteins are composed of amino acid molecules chemically bound
together by what are called polypeptide bonds. The amino acids
themselves are carbon hydrogen compounds containing an amine group,
i.e, -NH2, -NHR or -NR2 (where R represents one or more carbon
hydrogen groups) bonded to a C atom, plus an acid group (-COOH) bonded
to the same C atom. Although there are thousands of varieties of amino
acids, only 20 are involved in all protein structures.
Furthermore, amino acids exist in two structural forms, D and L, which
are nonsuperimposable mirror images of each other. In the absence of
any imposed controls, both D and L forms will naturally occur in
essentially equal amounts; however, all proteins are made of only the
L form. By way of contrast, sugars (saccharides), which are carbon-
hydrogen-oxygen compounds, have closed ring structures and also exist
in both D and L isomeric forms. While there are numerous varieties of
sugars, it is only the simplest, 5-membered ring structure called
ribose, in only its D form, that is present as one of the three
fundamental molecular components in the structures of DNA and RNA.
Both DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) are in
some respects more complex than proteins, because they contain a
greater variety of molecular units forming nucleosides (nucleotide
bases, ribose, and phosphate). These nucleosides are all joined
together in very specific patterns so as to perform unique and crucial
functions. The ribose and phosphate (-PO4) units are bonded together
in a regularly alternating sequence, thus producing long chains coiled
in a right-handed helix. Each nucleotide is bound to one specific C
atom on each ribose unit. In the case of RNA, the structure is a
single-stranded right-handed helix containing four different
nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, uracil) arranged in very
specific repeating sequences throughout the length of the chain. Each
type of RNA has a different pattern in the sequencing of the four
nucleotides. The DNA structure consists of a right-handed double
helix, also containing four nucleotides. Three of these are the same
as in RNA, but one is different: thymine replaces uracil.
The nucleotides themselves belong to two classes of molecules called
purines and pyrimidines. Adenine and guanine are purines, while
cytosine, thymine and uracil are pyrimidines. There are many hundreds
of varieties of purines and pyrimidines, but only these select five
determine the structures and functions of DNA and RNA.
Similarly, ribose is only one of a large number of molecules called
saccharides. Why only ribose and its D isomer, but not one or more
other saccharides in DNA and RNA? Likewise, why only phosphate and not
sulfate or silicate, etc? Only phosphate works.
These few examples contain clear evidence of complex design imparting
tailor-made functions. Such characteristics defy the probability that
any random evolutionary process could account for such unique
specificity in design.
Admittedly, it may require some general comprehension of chemistry to
fully appreciate these chemical evidences of creative design which
have been presented. But it is this evidence provided not only from
chemistry, but from all other areas of science as well, that convinces
me to accept creation by God as the only viable and scientifically
reasonable explanation of origins. Of course, science cannot prove
either creation or evolution, but it certainly is in agreement with
the former and not the latter. Consequently, it should take
considerably more faith to believe in evolution rather than divine
creation.
Hence, having concluded that creation by the power of an omnipotent
God is the only acceptable explanation for the origin of life, I was
convinced that the only reliable source of this account must be from
the Creator alone. Now the Bible claims to be the written word of God
to man. While this documentation was by the hand of man, the
information is directly from God. If God actually is who He reveals
himself to be, He is perfectly capable of preserving the complete
accuracy and integrity of His own word.
God begins the Bible with the revelation of himself as the Creator.
The Book of Genesis relates specific details of God's own account of
His creation, details which are, for the most part, in complete
contradiction to the evolution scenarios. One major contradiction is
the length of time for the entire creation process to be completed.
All popular evolution models maintain billions of years from the
origin of the cosmos, to hundreds of millions of years involving
death, destruction and survival of the fittest for the total
completion of macroscopic biological evolution. But the Bible says
that all of creation was completed in just 6 days.
There has been much controversy regarding the interpretation of six
biblical days for creation. Many believe that these days could be
indefinite long periods of time, thus accommodating requirements for
the evolution process. However, the most complete and reliable
exegesis of the Hebrew word yom (day), as it is used in Genesis, is
that it can only mean a literal 24-hour period. In fact, the complete
context of the Genesis creation account does not even allow for yom to
be translated as an indefinite length of time.
Finally, I am forced to conclude, as reason dictates, that if the
Bible is truly the Word of God (as I am convinced that it is), then it
must be accurate in every detail, including the account of creation in
6 literal days. Science tells me that evolution is certainly not
scientific, while creation is not in disagreement with what is truly
scientific. Hence, creation is the more acceptable account of origins.
Since creation requires a supernatural, omnipotent Creator, and the
Bible is the only convincing source of who this creator God actually
is, then the biblical account of creation must be accurate in every
detail, including six 24-hour days for completion from beginning to
end.
Recommended resources
Darwin's Black Box
This easy-to-read book does a top notch job of explaining one of the
most vexing problems in biology: the origin of the complexity that
permeates all of life.
Dynamic Life: Changes in Living Things
We hear it all the time: "Evolution is happening all around us!" This
superb presentation clearly shows that the examples cited are actually
the opposite of supporting evolution.
Not By Chance!
Dr. Spetner's book aims a death-blow at the heart of the whole neo-
Darwinism story. This book is a must for everyone who desires to
defend the Bible in this increasingly "educated" society.
"Junk" DNA Is Not "Junk"
Dr. DeWitt shows how evolutionary assumptions have led to the mistaken
belief that DNA is filled with "junk" leftovers from millions of years
of evolution. On the contrary, this supposed junk has proven to play
many essential roles.
Exploring the World of Chemistry
This book presents an exciting and intriguing tour of chemistry as
each chapter unfolds with facts and stories about the discoveries and
discoverers.
Six Days & the Eisegesis Problem
Eisegesis? Ken Ham gets to the heart of the debate about the six days
of creation. If we read from what the biblical text says (exegesis),
it allows only one interpretation-six 24-hour days. Any other
interpretation is eisegesis.
In the Beginning Was Information
Shows that coded information can only come from an intelligent
source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This chapter from the book In Six Days, published and graciously
provided at no charge to Answers in Genesis by Master Books, a
division of New Leaf Press (Green Forest, Arkansas).
By downloading this material, you agree to the following terms with
respect to the use of the requested material: AiG grants you a
nonexclusive, nontransferable license to print or download one (1)
copy of the copyrighted work. The copyrighted work will be used for
noncommercial, personal purposes only. You may not prepare,
manufacture, copy, use, promote, distribute, or sell a derivative work
of the copyrighted work without the express approval of AiG. Approval
must be expressed and in writing, and failure to respond shall not be
deemed approval. All rights in the copyrighted work not specifically
granted to you are reserved by AiG. All such reserved rights may be
exercised by AiG. This Agreement, and all interpretations thereof,
shall be deemed to be in accordance with Kentucky law. Any dispute
arising out of this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with
Kentucky law in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Kentucky, which
court shall be deemed to be the court of proper jurisdiction and
venue.
Privacy policy Affiliates Press kit Jobs About us Contact us
Translations Mobile version Sitemap Link to us Make us your homepage
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Questions that Bob Crowley and Creationists Run From #1	10 Jun 2007 01:00:41 PM

On Jun 9, 8:37 pm,

wrote:

I'd have thought that immense numbers of species suddenly appear in
the fossil record, without precursors, and without differing
descendants, would have been sufficient evidence alone.

This is a LIE. Let's address this and only this before you find any
excuse to run from it again. This begins a new series of questions
and challenges I presented to you in our "debate" and in the series
highlighting the things you ran from.
I demonstrated that this is a LIE in our "debate". Remember that,
Crowley? The "debate" which you voluntarily entered and undertook to
provide positive scientific evidence *for* creation, and from which
you fled having provided none?
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
You posted your first "salvo" on May 14th at 1:57am Google time. You
said, "...we'll start with the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", when
all major phyla turned up in the fossil record, including the famous
trilobites"
Remember that? Your first lie was your implication that trilobites
are a phylum. You've insisted several times since that there were no
precursors to the organisms found in the Cambrian. This is another
lie, as I explained to you on May 14th at 8:08pm Google time. This is
what I said:
"The fact is that it isn't true. As Richard Dawkins explains here:
http://tinyurl.com/524c5
"As it happens, recent molecular clock evidence indicates that
the 'Cambrian Explosion' may never have happened. Far from the major
phyla diverging from a point at the beginning of the Cambrian, Wray,
Levinton and Shapiro (1996) present evidence that the common ancestors
of the major phyla are staggered through hundreds of millions of years
back in the Precambrian."
Remember that, Crowley? Remember how instead of addressing that, as
the debate format requires, you RAN AWAY?
I addressed it again here:
http://tinyurl.com/2cz855
in "Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #2" a thread
into which you found yourself unable to dredge up the guts to set
foot.
You persisted in your failure to take note of what I said, and not for
the first time made a complete fool of yourself by raising this exact
and now refuted issue again here:
http://tinyurl.com/ys5bar
"Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #12" - another
thread in this series in which you dared not set foot.
You told this same LIE yet again on June 9th here:
http://tinyurl.com/2g8y9e
Let's address this, right here, right now, shall we? Can you find the
guts and the science? Can you? For once in your lying, cowardly,
hypocritical, creationist life, can you stand there and deal with the
issue at hand instead of running away, tossing out desperate straw
men, hiding behind arm flapping, or posting gluts of irrelevant LIES
from AiG?
I'm waiting.
Budikka
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16	08 Jun 2007 12:57:16 AM

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:24:59 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1181273099.662799.298420@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>

The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."

That was issued May 12th 2007. Almost a month later, we're still
waiting on Bob (or *any* creationist for that matter) presenting even
a single item of positive scientific evidence *for* creation.

As if that wasn;t bad enough, Bob had to out-and-out LIE about things
even to *pretend* he had a case - for example, the LIE he told about
human footprints being found mixed with dinosaurs tracks.

But we can count on PZ Myers at www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula to
provide us with more evidence of evolution - the very evidence that
Bob Crowley *LIED* doesn't exist.
http://tinyurl.com/2tnwcg

In fact, this is two lies, since Crowley also *LIED* that all modern
phyla appeared suddenly, with no ancestors, in the "Cambrian
explosion"! Check this out:
"What this is saying is that all of that complex functionality in a
structure we usually consider a key piece of something relatively
sophisticated, the physiology of signaling in our brain, evolved
before the Cambrian, and that much of it was already present in single-
celled organisms."

Can Bob find the honesty and decency to *withdraw* his lie about all
phyla appearing suddenly with no ancestors in the Cambrian, just as he
withdrew his lie about human footprints being found with dinosaur
prints at Paluxy?

I doubt it.
But I await a pleasant surprise, nonetheless.
I think I have a far better chance of winning the state lottery.
And I have not bought a ticket.
Mr. Crowley is clearly addicted to deception, fraud and transparent
lies.
I think he actually gets his rocks off every time he posts a lie for
his imaginary genocidal baby-murdering super-hero, and willingly
provides cover for his (very real) boy-buggering bishops.
I mean, anyone who actually *approves* of the hideous capricious
random slaughter in the Old Testament, is not going to be at all
concerned about telling a few porkies to an infidel now, are they!
--
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #16	08 Jun 2007 05:33:27 PM

On Jun 8, 3:57 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:24:59 -0700, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1181273099.662799.298...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>

The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."

That was issued May 12th 2007. Almost a month later, we're still
waiting on Bob (or *any* creationist for that matter) presenting even
a single item of positive scientific evidence *for* creation.

As if that wasn;t bad enough, Bob had to out-and-out LIE about things
even to *pretend* he had a case - for example, the LIE he told about
human footprints being found mixed with dinosaurs tracks.

But we can count on PZ Myers atwww.scienceblogs.com/pharyngulato
provide us with more evidence of evolution - the very evidence that
Bob Crowley *LIED* doesn't exist.
http://tinyurl.com/2tnwcg

I doubt it.
But I await a pleasant surprise, nonetheless.
I think I have a far better chance of winning the state lottery.
And I have not bought a ticket.

Mr. Crowley is clearly addicted to deception, fraud and transparent
lies.
I think he actually gets his rocks off every time he posts a lie for
his imaginary genocidal baby-murdering super-hero, and willingly
provides cover for his (very real) boy-buggering bishops.

I mean, anyone who actually *approves* of the hideous capricious
random slaughter in the Old Testament, is not going to be at all
concerned about telling a few porkies to an infidel now, are they!

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't suppose too many Christians approved of the "hideous
capricious random slaughter" of World War II, the concentration camps,
the gulags, the Biafran war, and all the rest. But human nature being
what it is, there'll be wars as long as we've got two feet on the
ground.
The other cultures of the time, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Assyrians weren't exactly known for gentleness either, and they
WEREN'T acting on the orders of the OT God.
In fact, one of the biggest contrasts in religion is that of Christ
and the vengeful old OT God of the Jews. Sometimes a nation, assuming
it has God's imprimatur, will do things that go in direct opposition
to His revealed will.
I could think of a quite recent example if it comes to that, one which
is going to have an enormous cost over the next few years.
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	08 Jun 2007 06:09:33 PM

On Jun 8, 5:33 pm,

wrote:
Notice how Bob Crowley utterly fails to address the material presented
to him, and veers off at a wide tangent. Just as in the "debate", he
doesn't address the appalling brutality of his god at all. Instead,
he moves the goalposts completely:

This is why Bob Crowley is a phenomenal coward. With a gratuitously
brutal child-slaughtering god as their guide, did he *really* expect
primitive humans, forced to live in this brutal environment utterly
without a say int he matter, to turn out any different?
Whatever happens in this world, all of it is at the feet of this god -
if you believe that he exists and that he behaves as the Bible
claims. This is why Bob Crowley is a pathetic little hypocrite to
talk of a sacrificial god of love.

The other cultures of the time, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Assyrians weren't exactly known for gentleness either, and they
WEREN'T acting on the orders of the OT God.

Well this is starting to look like a complete LIE. I don't suppose
there's any point in asking you to provide valid and useful extra-
Biblical evidence in support of this claim is there?
You've never offered any such evidence before. Why would we imagine
you can come up with any now?
In fact, this definitely *is* a lie, because we "know" (if we pretend
for a minute that the Bible isn't little more than a collection of the
world's worst fiction) that the Bible says otherwise.
Your fingers are moving on the keyboard Bob Crowley. You *must* be
LYING again.
Budikka
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	08 Jun 2007 07:16:09 PM

On Jun 9, 9:09 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

On Jun 8, 5:33 pm,

This is why Bob Crowley is a phenomenal coward. With a gratuitously
brutal child-slaughtering god as their guide, did he *really* expect
primitive humans, forced to live in this brutal environment utterly
without a say int he matter, to turn out any different?

Whatever happens in this world, all of it is at the feet of this god -
if you believe that he exists and that he behaves as the Bible
claims. This is why Bob Crowley is a pathetic little hypocrite to
talk of a sacrificial god of love.

The other cultures of the time, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Assyrians weren't exactly known for gentleness either, and they
WEREN'T acting on the orders of the OT God.

Well this is starting to look like a complete LIE. I don't suppose
there's any point in asking you to provide valid and useful extra-
Biblical evidence in support of this claim is there?

You've never offered any such evidence before. Why would we imagine
you can come up with any now?

In fact, this definitely *is* a lie, because we "know" (if we pretend
for a minute that the Bible isn't little more than a collection of the
world's worst fiction) that the Bible says otherwise.

Your fingers are moving on the keyboard Bob Crowley. You *must* be
LYING again.

Budikka

A brief quote for you as to the gentle rural customs of the Assyrian
treatment of prisoners of war -
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Assyrian Cruelty
One of the ancient monuments discovered in the ruins of ancient
Assyria has this inscription by King Asshurizirpal (reign began in 883
BC.) of a conquered city:
"Their men, young and old, I took as prisoners. Of some I cut off the
feet and hands; of others I cut off the noses, ears, and lips; of the
young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I built a
minaret."
Hawlinson's "Five Great Monarchies" vol. 2, p85, note.
Return
&&&&&&&&&&&
.

User: "Kathy"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	08 Jun 2007 10:01:43 PM

<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1181348169.348886.193430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

"Their men, young and old, I took as prisoners. Of some I cut off the
feet and hands; of others I cut off the noses, ears, and lips; of the
young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I built a
minaret."

Is that any worse than your god drowning thousands of men, women and
children in the mythical flood?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 04:46:23 AM

On Jun 9, 1:01 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:

<bobcrow...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message

news:1181348169.348886.193430@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Is that any worse than your god drowning thousands of men, women and
children in the mythical flood?

Interesting - I was just sorting through a few books today (if I do
have an idol, it's wasting money on books), when I happened to come
across a bit in the first chapter of "The Outline of Literature" by
John Drinkwater. It's quite an old book, published in 1950. However
he made the comment that "The earliest writing was merely rude
scratchings on rocks, and it is supposed that these rock inscriptions
were traced by a scribe, and then actually cut by a stonecutter, who
probably had no idea of the meaning. Presently, man began to write
witha stylus on clay bricks. Specimens of these clay books were
discovered by Sir Henry Layard in Chaldea. One of them is now in the
British Museum, and is an account of the Flood. This is probably the
oldest existing example of writing. It was inscribed about the year
4000BC., and there is reason to believe that the Hebrews founded the
story of the Flood in the Book of Genesis on the Chaldean narrative
written thousands of years before the the Bible...."
I then decided to go and look for more "ancient flood myths" using
Google. I found this extract. Without getting into technicalities,
the "Flood Myth" seems to have a very widespread cultural base.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Quotes on Flood Legends
The Ancients Knew of the Global Flood
Noah's Ark Homepage
Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in
almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their
amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with
tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide
flood. H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether
there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide. Ancient civilizations such
as (China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii,
Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia) all have their own versions
of a giant flood.
These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that
parallel the Biblical account including the warning of the coming
flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals,
the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the
water level had subsided. The overwhelming consistency among flood
legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were
derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral
transcription has changed the details through time.
Perhaps the second most important historical account of a global flood
can be found in a Babylonian flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
When the Biblical and Babylonian accounts are compared, a number of
outstanding similarities are found that leave no doubt these stories
are rooted in the same event or oral tradition.
BABYLONIAN BIBLE
Take the seed of all creatures aboard the ship Gen. 6:19 And of every
living thing of all flesh you shall bring.
I boarded the ship and closed the door. Gen. 7:1 Come into the Ark
Gen. 7:16 The Lord shut him in.
I sent out a dove . . . The dove went, then came back, no resting-
place appeared for it, so it returned. Gen. 8:8 He sent out a
dove...But the dove found no resting-place . . . and she returned.
Then I sent out a raven . .it was the waters receding, it ate, it flew
about to and fro, it did not return. Gen. 8:7 He sent out a raven,
which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the
Earth.
I made a libation on the peak of the mountain. Gen. 8:20 Then Noah
built an altar to the Lord (on the mountain) and offered burnt
offerings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D = Destruction by Water
.. G = (God) Divine Cause
.. W = Warning Given
.. H = Humans Spared
.. A = Animals Spared
.. V = Preserved in a Vessel
D . . H A V 01 Australia- Kurnai
D . W H A V 02 Babylon- Berossus' account
D G W H A V 03 Babylon- Gilgamesh epic
D G W H . V 04 Bolivia- Chiriguano
D . . H A V 05 Borneo- Sea Dayak
D . . H A V 06 Burma- Singpho
D G . H A V 07 Canada- Cree
D G W H A V 08 Canada- Montagnais
D G . H A V 09 China- Lolo
D . W H A V 10 Cuba- original natives
D G W H A V 11 East Africa- Masai
D G W H . V 12 Egypt- Book of the Dead
D G . H . V 13 Fiji- Walavu-levu tradition
D G W H A . 14 French Polynesia- Raiatea
D . . H A V 15 Greece- Lucian's account
D G . H A V 16 Guyana- Macushi
D G . H . V 17 Iceland- Eddas
D G . H . V 18 India- Andaman Islands
D . W H A V 19 India- Bhil
D G W H . V 20 India-Kamar
D . W H A . 21 Iran- Zend-Avesta
D G . H . V 22 Italy- Ovid's poetry
D G . H . V 23 Malay Peninsula- Jekun
D . W H . V 24 Mexico- Codex Chimalpopoca
D . W H A V 25 Mexico- Huichol
D G . H . V 26 New Zealand- Maori
D . W H A . 27 Peru- Indians of Huarochiri
D . W H . V 28 X . Russia- Vogul
D . W H A V 29 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Kolusches
D G . H A V 30 U.S.A. (Alaska)- Tlingit
D . W H A V 31 U.S.A. (Arizona)- Papago
D G . H A V 32 U.S.A. (Hawaii)- legend of Nu-u
D . . H A V 33 Vanualu- Melanesians
D . . H A V 34 Vietnam- Bahnar
D . . H A V 35 Wales- Dwyfan/Dwyfan legend
35 18 17 35 24 32 Total Occurrences out of 35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa
Southwest Tanzania
Once upon a time the rivers began to flood. The god told two people to
get into a ship. He told them to take lots of seed and to take lots of
animals. The water of the flood eventually covered the mountains.
Finally the flood stopped. Then one of the men, wanting to know if the
water had dried up let a dove loose. The dove returned. Later he let
loose a hawk which did not return. Then the men left the boat and took
the animals and the seeds with them.
Asia
China
The Chinese classic called the Hihking tells about "the family of
Fuhi," that was saved from a great flood. This ancient story tells
that the entire land was flooded; the mountains and everything,
however one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider this man
the father of their civilization. This record indicates that Fuhi, his
wife, three sons, and three daughters were the only people that
escaped the great flood. It is claimed, that he and his family were
the only people alive on earth, and repopulated the world.
Babylon
Gilgamesh met an old man named Utnapishtim, who told him the following
story. The gods came to Utnapishtim to warn him about a terrible flood
that was coming. They instructed Utnapishtim to destroy his house and
build a large ship. The ship was to be 10 dozen cubits high, wide and
long. Utnapishtim was to cover the ship with pitch. He was supposed to
take male and female animals of all kinds, his wife and family,
provisions, etc. into the ship. Once ship was completed the rain began
falling intensely. The rain fell for six days and nights. Finally
things calmed and the ship settled on the top of Mount Nisir. After
the ship had rested for seven days Utnapishtim let loose a dove. Since
the land had not dried the dove returned. Next he sent a swallow which
also returned. Later he let loose a raven which never returned since
the ground had dried. Utnapishtim then left the ship.
Chaldean
There was a man by the name of Xisuthrus. The god Chronos warned
Xisuthrus of a coming flood and told him to build a boat. The boat was
to be 5 stadia by 2 stadia. In this boat Xisuthrus was to put his
family, friends and two of each animal (male and female). The flood
came. When the waters started to recede he let some birds loose. They
came back and he noticed they had mud on their feet. He tried again
with the same results. When he tried the third time the birds did not
return. Assuming the water had dried up the people got out of the boat
and offered sacrifices to the gods.
India
A long time ago lived a man named Manu. Manu, while washing himself,
saved a small fish from the jaws of a large fish. The fish told Manu,
"If you care for me until I am full grown I will save you from
terrible things to come". Manu asked what kind of terrible things. The
fish told Manu that a great flood would soon come and destroy
everything on the earth. The fish told Manu to put him in a clay jar
for protection. The fish grew and each time he outgrew the clay jar
Manu gave him a larger one. Finally the fish became a ghasha, one of
the largest fish in the world. The fish instructed Manu to build a
large ship since the flood was going to happen very soon. As the rains
started Manu tied a rope from the ship to the ghasha. The fish guided
the ship as the waters rose. The whole earth was covered by water.
When the waters began subsiding the ghasha led Manu's ship to a
mountaintop.
Australia
There is a legend of a flood called the Dreamtime flood. Riding on
this flood was the woramba, or the Ark Gumana. In this ark was Noah,
Aborigines, and various animals. This ark eventually came to rest in
the plain of Djilinbadu where it can still be found. They claim that
the white mans story about the ark landing in the middle east is a lie
that was started to keep the aborigines in subservience. This legend
is undoubtedly the product of aboriginal legends merging with those of
visiting missionaries, and there does not appear to be any native
flood stories from Australia.
Europe
Greece
A long time ago, perhaps before the golden age was over, humans became
proud. This bothered Zeus as they kept getting worse. Finally Zeus
decided that he would destroy all humans. Before he did this
Prometheus, the creator of humans, warned his human son Deucalion and
his wife Pyrrha. Prometheus then placed this couple in a large wooden
chest. The rains started and lasted nine days and nights until the
whole world was flooded. The only thing that was not flooded was the
peaks of Mount Parnassus and Mount Olympus. Mount Olympus is the home
of the gods. The wooden chest came to rest on Mount Parnassus.
Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha got out and saw that everything was
flooded. The lived on provisions from the chest until the waters
subsided. At Zeus' instruction they re-populated the earth.
North America
Mexico
The Toltec natives have a legend telling that the original creation
lasted for 1716 years, and was destroyed by a flood and only one
family survived.
Aztec- A man named Tapi lived a long time ago. Tapi was a very pious
man. The creator told Tapi to build a boat that he would live in. He
was told that he should take his wife, a pair of every animal that was
alive into this boat. Naturally everyone thought he was crazy. Then
the rain started and the flood came. The men and animals tried to
climb the mountains but the mountains became flooded as well. Finally
the rain ended. Tapi decided that the water had dried up when he let a
dove loose that did not return.
United States
The Ojibwe natives who have lived in Minnesota USA since approximately
1400AD also have a creation and flood story that closely paralleles
the Biblical account. "There came a time when the harmonious way of
life did not continue. Men and women disrespected each other, families
quarreled and soon villages began arguing back and forth. This
saddened Gitchie Manido [the Creator] greatly, but he waited. Finally,
when it seemed there was no hope left, Creator decided to purify
Mother Earth through the use of water. The water came, flooding the
Earth, catching all of creation off guard. All but a few of each
living thing survived." Then it tells how Waynaboozhoo survived by
floating on a log in the water with various animals.
Ojibwe - Ancient native American creation story tells of world wide
flood.
Delaware Indians - In the pristine age, the world lived at peace; but
an evil spirit came and caused a great flood. The earth was submerged.
A few persons had taken refuge on the back of a turtle, so old that
his shell had collected moss. A loon flew over their heads and was
entreated to dive beneath the water and bring up land. It found only a
bottomless sea. Then the bird flew far away, came back with a small
portion of earth in its bill, and guided the tortoise to a place where
there was a spot of dry land.
Delaware Indian Legends
South America
Inca
During the period of time called the Pachachama people became very
evil. They got so busy coming up with and performing evil deeds they
neglected the gods. Only those in the high Andes remained uncorrupted.
Two brothers who lived in the highlands noticed their llamas acting
strangely. They asked the llamas why and were told that the stars had
told the llamas that a great flood was coming. This flood would
destroy all the life on earth. The brothers took their families and
flocks into a cave on the high mountains. It started to rain and
continued for four months. As the water rose the mountain grew keeping
its top above the water. Eventually the rain stopped and the waters
receded. The mountain returned to its original height. The shepherds
repopulated the earth. The llamas remembered the flood and that is why
they prefer to live in the highland areas.
Quote and References on Flood Legends
a . "It has long been known that legends of a great flood, in which
almost all men perished, are widely diffused over the world ..." James
George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1, (London:
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1919), p. 105.
Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story in Stone (Minneapolis, Minnesota:
Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1968), pp. 169-190.
"... there are many descriptions of the remarkable event [the Genesis
Flood]. Some of these have come from Greek historians, some from the
Babylonian records; others from the cuneiform tablets, and still
others from the mythology and traditions of different nations, so that
we may say that no event has occurred either in ancient or modern
times about which there is better evidence or more numerous records,
than this very one which is so beautifully but briefly described in
the sacred Scriptures. It is one of the events which seems to be
familiar to the most distant nations-in Australia, in India, in China,
in Scandinavia, and in the various parts of America. It is true that
many look upon the story as it is repeated in these distant regions,
as either referring to local floods, or as the result of contact with
civilized people, who have brought it from historic countries, and yet
the similarity of the story is such as to make even this explanation
unsatisfactory." Stephen D. Peet, "The Story of the Deluge," American
Antiquarian, Vol. 27, No. 4, July-August 1905, p. 203.
C. H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, The Discovery of Genesis (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1979). [This excellent book shows that the
classical Chinese pictographs contain many stories and details found
in the early chapters of Genesis. The earliest people of China, 4,000-
5,000 years ago, brought with them stories of past events that became
imbedded in their language. (See Figure 37 on page 45.)]
Northwest Creation Network
23208 55th Ave W.
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
206-465-1635
contact@nwcreation.net
[Home] [Store] [Conference] [Encyclopedia] [NW Info] [Discusssion]
[Subjects] [Introduction] [Education] [Multimedia] [Literature]
[Favorites] [News] [Groups]
.

User: "The Apostate"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 09:36:14 AM

<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1181382383.355310.50660@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 9, 1:01 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:

<brevity snip>
Apparently you slept through school. There have been serious floods in many
places on the earth, probably since time began. Therefore every culture
would have it's flood story. What on earth would make anyone believe there
was a worldwide flood covering the highest mountains?
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 07:54:19 PM

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 09:36:14 -0500, "The Apostate"
<durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:
- Refer: <f4edsu$cch$1@registered.motzarella.org>

<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1181382383.355310.50660@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 9, 1:01 pm, "Kathy" <Kathy9...@gmail.com> wrote:

<brevity snip>

Apparently you slept through school. There have been serious floods in many
places on the earth, probably since time began. Therefore every culture
would have it's flood story. What on earth would make anyone believe there
was a worldwide flood covering the highest mountains?

Brain Damage.
--
.

User: "Gospel Bretts"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	08 Jun 2007 09:01:10 PM

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:16:09 -0700,

wrote:

On Jun 9, 9:09 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

On Jun 8, 5:33 pm,

This is why Bob Crowley is a phenomenal coward. With a gratuitously
brutal child-slaughtering god as their guide, did he *really* expect
primitive humans, forced to live in this brutal environment utterly
without a say int he matter, to turn out any different?

Whatever happens in this world, all of it is at the feet of this god -
if you believe that he exists and that he behaves as the Bible
claims. This is why Bob Crowley is a pathetic little hypocrite to
talk of a sacrificial god of love.

The other cultures of the time, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Assyrians weren't exactly known for gentleness either, and they
WEREN'T acting on the orders of the OT God.

Well this is starting to look like a complete LIE. I don't suppose
there's any point in asking you to provide valid and useful extra-
Biblical evidence in support of this claim is there?

You've never offered any such evidence before. Why would we imagine
you can come up with any now?

In fact, this definitely *is* a lie, because we "know" (if we pretend
for a minute that the Bible isn't little more than a collection of the
world's worst fiction) that the Bible says otherwise.

Your fingers are moving on the keyboard Bob Crowley. You *must* be
LYING again.

Budikka

A brief quote for you as to the gentle rural customs of the Assyrian
treatment of prisoners of war -

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Assyrian Cruelty

One of the ancient monuments discovered in the ruins of ancient
Assyria has this inscription by King Asshurizirpal (reign began in 883
BC.) of a conquered city:

"Their men, young and old, I took as prisoners. Of some I cut off the
feet and hands; of others I cut off the noses, ears, and lips; of the
young men's ears I made a heap; of the old men's heads I built a
minaret."

Hawlinson's "Five Great Monarchies" vol. 2, p85, note.

Return

&&&&&&&&&&&

Asshurizirpal was a ***** and a half, and I'd love to get my hands on
him now. But what's your point, Bob?
__________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. Atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
.

User: "The Apostate"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	08 Jun 2007 10:03:05 PM

"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d2k63t3ei4qdnfaflrlc0vvducb6gk98u@4ax.com...

Asshurizirpal was a ***** and a half, and I'd love to get my hands on
him now. But what's your point, Bob?

His point was that there are non Christians just as blood thirsty as his god
Jehovah.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 01:11:07 AM

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:03:05 -0500, "The Apostate"
<durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:
- Refer: <f4d59a$gej$1@registered.motzarella.org>

"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d2k63t3ei4qdnfaflrlc0vvducb6gk98u@4ax.com...

Asshurizirpal was a ***** and a half, and I'd love to get my hands on
him now. But what's your point, Bob?

His point was that there are non Christians just as blood thirsty as his god
Jehovah.

9-11 proves that.
--
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 04:48:43 AM

On Jun 9, 4:11 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:03:05 -0500, "The Apostate"<durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:

- Refer: <f4d59a$ge...@registered.motzarella.org>

"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d2k63t3ei4qdnfaflrlc0vvducb6gk98u@4ax.com...

Asshurizirpal was a ***** and a half, and I'd love to get my hands on
him now. But what's your point, Bob?

His point was that there are non Christians just as blood thirsty as his god
Jehovah.

9-11 proves that.

--

So does the Katyn Massacre, carried out by atheists. Extracted from
Wiki.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The Katyn massacre, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre (Polish:
zbrodnia katy ska, literally 'Katy crime'), was a mass execution
ofSo Polish citizens ordered by Soviet authorities in 1940.[1]
Estimates of the number of executed persons ranges from 1,803 (Russian
government[2]) to 21,768 (Polish government[3]). Polish POWs and
prisoners were murdered in Katyn forest, Kalinin (Tver) and Kharkiv
prisons and elsewhere.[4] About 8,000 of the victims were officers
taken prisoner during the 1939 invasion of Poland, the rest being
Polish citizens who had been arrested for allegedly being
"intelligence agents, gendarmes, spies, saboteurs, landowners, factory
owners and officials."[3] Since Poland's conscription system required
every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer,[5]
the Soviets were thus able to round up much of the Polish
intelligentsia, as well as the Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian[citation
needed] and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship.
The term "Katyn massacre" originally referred to the massacre, at
Katyn Forest near villages of Katyn and Gnezdovo (about 12 miles (19
km) west of Smolensk, Russia), of Polish military officers confined at
the Kozelsk prisoner-of-war camp. It is applied now also to the
execution of prisoners of war held at Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps,
[6] and political prisoners in West Belarus and West Ukraine,[7] shot
on Stalin's orders at Katyn Forest, at the NKVD (Narodny Komissariat
Vnutrennikh Del) Smolensk headquarters and at a slaughterhouse in the
same city,[1] as well as at prisons in Kalinin (Tver), Kharkiv,
Moscow, and other Soviet cities.[3]
The 1943 discovery of mass graves at Katyn Forest by Germany, after
its armed forces had occupied the site in 1941, precipitated a rupture
of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the Polish
government-in-exile in London. The Soviet Union continued to deny
responsibility for the massacres until 1990, when it acknowledged that
the NKVD secret police had in fact committed the massacres and the
subsequent cover-up.[3][8] The Russian government has admitted Soviet
responsibility for the massacres, although it does not classify them
as war crimes or as acts of genocide, as this would have necessitated
the prosecution of surviving perpetrators, which is what the Polish
government has requested.[3][9] It also does not classify the dead as
the victims of Stalinist repressions, in effect barring their formal
posthumous rehabilitation.
.

User: "Kathy"
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 09:27:40 AM

<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1181382523.310570.126880@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So does the Katyn Massacre, carried out by atheists. Extracted from
Wiki.

I didn't see where they were massacred by all atheists because they believed
in a different deity.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 05:38:33 AM

On Jun 9, 7:48 pm,

wrote:

On Jun 9, 4:11 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:03:05 -0500, "The Apostate"<durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:

- Refer: <f4d59a$ge...@registered.motzarella.org>

"Gospel Bretts" <bretts1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d2k63t3ei4qdnfaflrlc0vvducb6gk98u@4ax.com...

Asshurizirpal was a ***** and a half, and I'd love to get my hands on
him now. But what's your point, Bob?

His point was that there are non Christians just as blood thirsty as his god
Jehovah.

9-11 proves that.

So does the Katyn Massacre, carried out by atheists. Extracted from
Wiki.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The Katyn massacre, also known as the Katyn Forest massacre (Polish:
zbrodnia katy ska, literally 'Katy crime'), was a mass execution
ofSo Polish citizens ordered by Soviet authorities in 1940.[1]
Estimates of the number of executed persons ranges from 1,803 (Russian
government[2]) to 21,768 (Polish government[3]). Polish POWs and
prisoners were murdered in Katyn forest, Kalinin (Tver) and Kharkiv
prisons and elsewhere.[4] About 8,000 of the victims were officers
taken prisoner during the 1939 invasion of Poland, the rest being
Polish citizens who had been arrested for allegedly being
"intelligence agents, gendarmes, spies, saboteurs, landowners, factory
owners and officials."[3] Since Poland's conscription system required
every unexempted university graduate to become a reserve officer,[5]
the Soviets were thus able to round up much of the Polish
intelligentsia, as well as the Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian[citation
needed] and Belarusian intelligentsia of Polish citizenship.

The term "Katyn massacre" originally referred to the massacre, at
Katyn Forest near villages of Katyn and Gnezdovo (about 12 miles (19
km) west of Smolensk, Russia), of Polish military officers confined at
the Kozelsk prisoner-of-war camp. It is applied now also to the
execution of prisoners of war held at Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps,
[6] and political prisoners in West Belarus and West Ukraine,[7] shot
on Stalin's orders at Katyn Forest, at the NKVD (Narodny Komissariat
Vnutrennikh Del) Smolensk headquarters and at a slaughterhouse in the
same city,[1] as well as at prisons in Kalinin (Tver), Kharkiv,
Moscow, and other Soviet cities.[3]

The 1943 discovery of mass graves at Katyn Forest by Germany, after
its armed forces had occupied the site in 1941, precipitated a rupture
of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the Polish
government-in-exile in London. The Soviet Union continued to deny
responsibility for the massacres until 1990, when it acknowledged that
the NKVD secret police had in fact committed the massacres and the
subsequent cover-up.[3][8] The Russian government has admitted Soviet
responsibility for the massacres, although it does not classify them
as war crimes or as acts of genocide, as this would have necessitated
the prosecution of surviving perpetrators, which is what the Polish
government has requested.[3][9] It also does not classify the dead as
the victims of Stalinist repressions, in effect barring their formal
posthumous rehabilitation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And while we're at it, here's a bit on the Columbine school massacre,
with a different slant to other posts I've seen here blaming religion
for school massacres.
&&&&&&&&&
Christian Martyr In Atheist Massacre
During the recent massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton,
Colorado, one Christian gave herself to certain death rather than
deny
her faith in God.
This is the story, as reported by the Denver Rocky Mountain News.
--------------------------------------------------------
A Columbine killer pointed his gun at Cassie Bernall and
asked her the life-or-death question: "Do you believe in
God?"
She paused. The gun was still there. "Yes, I believe in
God," she said.
That was the last thing this 17-year-old Christian would
ever say.
--------------------------------------------------------
Both of the teen-aged gunmen were avowed atheists.
(A bit on morality extracted. Er, I don't want to offend the
sensibilities of atheists.)
Bill McGinnis <><

http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/ministries.html
"Teaching The Practical Christian Life"
To receive INTERNET DAILY CHAPEL each day by e-mail, please
send your request to

.
Internet Daily Chapel Bill McGinnis Ministries
Contact:

User: ""
Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #18	09 Jun 2007 04:18:31 AM

On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Gospel Bretts <bretts1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:16:09 -0700,

wrote:

On Jun 9, 9:09 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:

On Jun 8, 5:33 pm,

Whatever happens in this world, all of it is at the feet of this god -
if you believe that he exists and that he behaves as the Bible
claims. This is why Bob Crowley is a pathetic little hypocrite to
talk of a sacrificial god of love.

The other cultures of the time, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Assyrians weren't exactly known for gentleness either, and they
WEREN'T acting on the orders of the OT God.

Well this is starting to look like a complete LIE. I don't suppose
there's any point in asking you to provide valid and useful extra-
Biblical evidence in support of this claim is there?

You've never offered any such evidence before. Why would we imagine
you can come up with any now?

In fact, this definitely *is* a lie, because we "know" (if we pretend
for a minute that the Bible isn't little more than a collection of the
world's worst fiction) that the Bible says otherwise.

Your fingers are moving on the keyboard Bob Crowley. You *must* be
LYING again.

Budikka

A brief quote for you as to the gentle rural customs of the Assyrian
treatment of prisoners of war -

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Assyrian Cruelty

One of the ancient monuments discovered in the ruins of ancient
Assyria has this inscription by King Asshurizirpal (reign began in 883
BC.) of a conquered city:

Hawlinson's "Five Great Monarchies" vol. 2, p85, note.

Return

&&&&&&&&&&&

Asshurizirpal was a ***** and a half, and I'd love to get my hands on
him now. But what's your point, Bob?

My point was that Buddika seemed to think that when