Do you believe their was a worldwide flood?

It didn't stop there either. Many thought 1975 was the year for Armageddon. But the Bible's message did not change. Only people's thinking did.

Good use of the Emphatic Diaglott shows us the translation we use (not a Bible we wrote ourselves...LOL...who thinks of these crazy ideas) makes things very clear what is written and what God's purposes are.

Only HE knows when Armageddon will take place. But when it does, boy oh boy there is gonna be some shocks.

Col

 

http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm

When pressed for comment, God simply stated "When it's done."

You would be. Elitists tend to be surprised by mundane things that everyone else wouldn't even bother to waste their time thinking about.

Try reading up on Creationism on Creationist web-sites. I wouldn't expect Talk Origins to honestly consider and represent Creationists.

As we found out, Talk Origins is confused by the lack of footprints. That's why I don't even bother reading the rest of their garbage. If you can't understand that footprints are easily destroyed by daily weather then that's just sad.

We also found out that they can't keep their paradigms straight. "So okay, the earth flooded, how did they keep all the animals happy." So they'll accept (for argument sake) that God exists and created the flood, brought the animals to the ark, gave Noah over 100 year notice BUT when they get into the ark, God suddenly disappears and managing the animals is impossible.

It's very difficult I've found, for people to consistantly abide by the rules of a paradigm when considering whether it holds up to scrutiny or not.

 

I think I watched another monkey do it and thought "ahhhhh...so that's how"

Col

 

God I love how the bible can be made to mathematically fit anything!

And how many of the predictions have been wrong (and subsequently ignored, or recalculated?)

http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/...oders_as_i_predicted_keep_making_predictions/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl1.htm

 

What is sad is that Talk Origins actualy references the creationist websites directly. The creationist websites never dare do such a thing in reply. IN fact I have seem many instances of misrepresentation, strawman and outright lies about what science says on creationist websites.

Just because you have trouble understanding how the world works isn't the fault of the people who do the science.

 

My cat tought me how to unlock the door to get outside. She couldn't physically do it herself but it was obvious by what she did with her paws that she knew what to do.

Now both me and her can go outside.

It's so amazing to experience the outdoors for the first time.

For example...

Probably because they're scared of the terrible truth. Or maybe because they're more interested in just telling people what is rather than trying to debunk every lie out there.

Evolutionists on the other hand are too insecure so they have to try to ignorantly bash other ideas as you demonstrated with your list of "arguments" against the Flood.

Who is this "God" you speak of? So can Moby Dick as has been demonstrated.

So?

 

Don't know why you keep posting links to this stuff. As if I am going to read them....LOL I have books and plenty of them. Also, there's a HUGE library down the road as well. I would rather trust info from them rather from content on a web site. Who knows where the info comes from on those web sites??

Umm...the Bible is not "made to mathematically fit anything" at all. It's just times and events that a lot of them are backed up from books. You know, the books that scholars wrote about history? Oh! You might not know about them. That must be our problem. We monkeys are busy reading books instead of reading content on web sites.

Col

 

Forget it. You're a waste of time.

 

I might be a waste of time to you. However, you would be surprised how many people read my comments in these threads.

So, are you telling me you only get your information from web sites and not books? Honestly, I would really like to know.

Col

 

That comment wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the serial pest.

I read books and websites. But that wasn't the point of the links. The point of the links was to show you that there are numerous end of the world predictions. MANY of them.

The fact that the JW's got one of their end of the year predictions on the year of the beginning of a world war (which still didn't end the world) means nothing in light of all of the other predictions. It is a worthless 'victory'.

 

It's the end of the world as we know it. I don't know about you but I feel fine.

Was anyone not aware of the numerous end of the world predictions? There were many false Christs before Jesus finally showed up, too. That doesn't negate who he was.

Awww. You still havn't told us how old the great lakes are according to "scientific" ice dating techniques.

 

Isn't that an old REM song??

Col

 

I just asked my Chinese friend about the symbol for boat, and he quite conclusively agreed that the top right xymbol has nothing to do with people or eight, and that the bottom right symbol in fact means "Mouth". The left symbol alone actually means 'boat' anyway, so I have no idea what the two right hand symbols are there for, but apparently all chinese write it that way. I guess it is because the left hand symbol is the most general sense of the word 'Boat' (ie; Vessel) and then the two right symbols specify the type of boat. Maybe the 'mouth' refers to "open boats" or something, like a canoe.

 

It presents little problem to someone who believes in the flood - after the flood you only have a small number of animals - they spread out and not all went into every continent - where certain animals went they grew to dominate. It would be more of a worry if animals were uniformly spread throughout the world. The only animals that fit into this category are some species of bird and insects like ants - both obvious why - mobility.

Also we don't know the effects of human interference - where ever man goes he tends to wipe out a number of species.

I just want to make it clear here - I believe in what I would call micro-evolution - evolution within the species - or genome - i.e. the huge diversity of finches on the Galapagos Islands - Darwins famous example - however these are still birds - they didn't evolve into cats - what we do see is the already huge inbuilt variety within the species genome. Likewise with humans there is a huge variety but we are all humans.

There is the ability to play with the genome - etc, large number of dog breeds but you can't make a dog a cat. Even if you breed a rabbit and cat - in which you get offspring - a cabbat (they look really funny) you don't get a viable offspring - why not? wouldn't evolution work better with crossed genomes? No I a huge variety within a genome but don't see genome evolution beyond the original genetic information. Mutations are seldom beneficial.

 

P.S. JW thanks for stealing my thread?!!!

And don't get me started on J.W.'s anyone who takes a verse in the Bible about not eating an animals blood and decided that means God said we shouldn't have blood transfusions - IS A MURDERER plain and simple - how you can let someone died when a blood transfusion would save their life is downright disgrace and evil.

And don't get me started on your other doctrines or you will be sorry.

Leave now before I bust forth in righteous anger!

 

I am well familiar with this concept, ironically, it does not work well at all with the views expressed by Kalvin. I mean, I have raised the concern that the number of KINDS available on earth, as would be defined by this method of 'Micro-evolution' would be so numerous as to make the possibility of them fitting on the ark outright impossible. This is demonstrated in the talk origins page I linked to. It is virtually impossible to actually get all of the animals onto the ark in the time alloted (logistically), and then it is impossible to fit them all in, and then with that number of various species there are numerous other concerns: Survival in cramped conditions for a year. Many species lifespans are only a few days as it is. What about the diseases? Something would have to carry them (unless you believe they evolved fresh since the flood). What about the kinds which exist in very specific conditions? Frogs for instance. What about the kinds of animals which exist purely as parasites. Were they transported within the animal they parasitise? (they would have to be..) So what happens to the hosts afterward when the parasite kills them, or forces them to suicide?

When you actually see the biological world, as Zoologists and Botonists have, then you can see quite clearly, that the Ark is impossibe, and only a story of mythology and nothing else.

I would agree with everything here. That is of course, not how evolution works. Evolution works by simply allowing variations to arise, and then selecting them. It never works by mishmashing vastly different genomes. It is always minimalist movements, undetectable from generation to generation.

if you believe no new species (of multicellular organism) has been created in the last 6,000 year, then I would tend to agree. Partly because species is a gradual concept, and partly because I think it takes at least 10,000 years of mutations and selection and the right types of selections for that big a step to make itself noticable. However, when it comes to bacteria etc, their generational life is only 30 minutes or so, so new varieties of them are being created all of the time, and thus new species could be created every couple of thousand years or even more often. (and never by mixing with a different species, always by simple replication and slight change x several thousand or million generations)

 

And yet they try to squeeze human evolution into a couple hundred thousand years? You've got to see a problem there. In fact human evolution is the worse of evolutionary proposals.

 

also there are few beneficial mutations.

Take for example the fact that I have no wisdom teeth. Some suggest the move towards a smaller jaw is another example of human evolution. Whats the advantage in me having less teeth.

Should I consider myself more superior to my peers because I am evolved?

I think not. What we are seeing is the huge variety already available in the genetic material. I don't think we are seeing new genetic material.

The other difficult question for evolution is why some species have stopped completely in any evolutionary change - e.g. NZ tuatara (supposedly as old as the dinosaurs, the ceolocinth (sorry about the spelling - a fish that's 400 million years old) - niche specialization doesn't cut it - surely there is also another step in evolution to take - things shouldn't just stop evolving if you say there are going be beneficial mutations happening every so many generations. - Surely Croc.s and other reptiles that are very old should have evolved - but they haven't - about the only thing we see is they have got smaller - signs that they have been corrupted in a sin sick world - as we know reptiles keep growing throughout their lives - therefore these do these monster crocodile fossils show creatures that lived long lives - like the Bible says humans used to pre-flood, pre losing our protective water canopy that has allowed a greater quantity of harmful radiation into the world - I don't have to explain skin cancer to you, etc. - the point is such an outcome is far more likely in a creationist philosophy than an evolutionary one -
if evolution created mega creatures before it should happen again - but its not. Despite crocodile farms and special breeding we don't have mega-creatures any more.

As for the ark not being able to hold all the creatures - I believe it didn't need to hold any sea creatures (or though a lot of sea creatures died), you didn't necessary have to have adult creatures,
you could have nearly all the dinosaurs in your living room if you had them as eggs - I presume they would have had a long incubation. also a reduction to kinds - rather than species would reduce the total number. Even today there is argument over what actually defines an individual species. Genus is probably a better reflection of 'kind'

 

Why? I said ten thousand years (as a very rough estimate for something which is incredibly variable), and several hundred thousand years an a LOT of tens of thousands of years. Why should human evolution not fit into that time frame?

Afterall, we aren't that different anyway. I think you are assuming that our species is drastically different to everything else, yet the fact is that we really are just monkeys without fur and with larger brains. Two reasonably simple genetic differences. I think a few hundred thousands years is ample time for human evolution from our ape common ancestor.

 

Excuse me!! I was asked a direct question in this thread. Don't worry. I'll never be sorry for anything you say about us. It's what I expect anyway. Burst forth all you like. If someone asks me a question I will answer it as I see fit. You might be the thread starter but you certainly do not own it. I think every thread in this entire site belongs to Shawn (if you are going to get technical on me).

It's very easy to take direction out of context (for which you just did about blood transfusions). I have (I should say our organization has) reams of information about blood and the proper use of it. You should do some wide reading and wide research about it to get a better understanding of it.

Did you know there is now a wave of hospitals declaring themselves as "bloodless surgery" hospitals? More and more are coming on board. Why? Because they have recognized the dangers of blood transfusions. Do some research on this and you will find some startling facts about why they are changing their methods.

These hospitals are "public" hospitals and "private" hospitals as well making the changes. Go and ask the now thousands of the best surgeons around the world who opt for bloodless surgery why they have changed their thinking.

Are you going to call them disgraceful and evil as well? You would be wise to go collect some data about these things before making some unwise and offensive statements.

By the way. Hope you enjoy your next cup of tea.

Col