Re: Time for your weekly dose of creationism lack of evidence strawpoll


andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > What part of the physical evidence of the age of the earth do you dispute?
> > There is plenty of hard evidence that shows the earth is very old.
> Don't just talk about it. Show me the 'plenty of evidence' you have to
> prove the age of the earth.

Bearing in mind that you will dismiss any reports of such evidence
published in scientific journals or geology text-books, how do you
suggest that such evidence is presented?

The technology to post the whole stratigraphic series of sediments
along the south coast of England has not yet been developed, and I
doubt that the room you work in is big enough to accomodate it.

>
> >This was recognized over 200 years ago by early observers who were building canals through the rocks.
> How was this 'recognized'? Supply proof that they 'locked-down' the age
> of the earth.

>>From estimates of the time taken to produce sedimentary structures of
the depth of those observed in the geological record based on
observations of how long it takes similar sedimentary structures to
form in the natural world.

Science does not offer 'proof', by the way: it offers the best
explanation for the evidence, and any such explanation is provisional.
This is the nature of science.

>
> >
> > The fact that we can see stars more than 6,000 light years away shows (along
> > with many other facts) the claim to be empirically false.
> This is incorrect. What solid proof do you have, as to what is going on
> with gravity, light and time in the depths of the universe?
>

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, why should we assume
anything else? Bear in mind that the nature of matter and energy at a
very fundamental level, and the nature of the universe itself is
consequent on the invariabilty of a few fundamental constants.

> > One should take the word of God literally, but not expect the Bible to be a
> > science text. The Bible was never intended to be treated as a historical
> > or scientific text in the modern sense.
> Who said anything about the Bible being a science text?

Pastor Walter Lang
http://www.creationmoments.com/resources/article.asp?art_id=101

John C. Whitcomb, Jr
Henry M. Morris
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p43.htm

Jack Kinsella
http://www.his-forever.com/universe_as_god.htm

whoever wrote this:
http://www.matriots.com/bh/theseries/fourteen.html

the poster on this forum calling themselves 'Jesuslord'
http://www.4forums.com/political/showpost.php?p=27797&postcount=32

> The Bible is
> not a science book, it's a record of events.

And your evidence for the historical accuracy is....?

>
> However, there is a bit of science in the Bible. In the book of Job,
> Job himself received some divine 'science lesson' from the Almighty
> God.
> Job says that God "hangs the earth on nothing". Thousands of years ago
> this guy knew that the earth was suspended in space.

So the earth is 'suspended' in space?
Funny, that's not how the astronomers describe it.

> Job also says that God sits "above the circle of the earth". The more
> accurate translation of the Hebrew word for 'circle' is sphere. Way
> back then, he knew the earth was a globe. Some science way before
> 'intelligent man's' time. Think about it for a moment.

I have. Job evidently thought that the earth was a flat disc.
By the way, what is the Hebrew word for 'circle'?
This extract is so ambiguous that it could be used to support either
interpretation. This is not exactly hard science!

>
> >
> > > The literal Bible interpretation does not contradict physical 'fact'.
> >
> > It does contradict many physical facts, if you are foolish enough to treat
> > it as a science text.
> Give me evidence that it contradicts physical facts, and no, I'm not
> 'foolish enough' to treat it as ONLY a science text.

So you are now saying that it *is* a science text as well as a
historical document? You just said that it is "not a science book".

Self-contradictory statements rather undermine the thrust of your
argument.

> >
> > > I have read the entire Bible and have not come across what you claim.
> > Are you well enough aquainted with science to be able to see the
> > contradictions?
> Why don't you enlighten me as to the contradictions.
>

Here are a few:
Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals,
creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun
was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a
plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the
Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step
that "it was good".

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)


What about the pieces of silver and Judas death?
Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out."
Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the
temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief
priests...bought with them the potter's field."


And this:
Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud
voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
"Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he
gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It
is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


And: God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex.
33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his
friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen.
32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me
and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed,
and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his
bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)


What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?
Before the *** crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the *** crow twice - Mark 14:30

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the
day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah,
whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of
Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of
Barzillai the Meholathite:


this from
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#order

There are many other such sites.
Deal with it.

Of course, you won't. You'll either reject them out of hand, or ignore
them.


> > >
> > > The Biblical account could just as easily fit the available data we
> > > have at our disposal.
> >
> > As long as you ignore vast amounts of evidence.
> Please tell me what exactly the 'vast amounts' of evidence are.
> Show me the evidence.

The entire geological column for starters.
I suggest that you investigate it: arguments based on your personal
ignorance of a subject are never compelling.

>
> > > My point exactly. "Why bother having God at all then?", some secular
> > > scientists may conclude and I think are suggesting in a subtle way.
> > > Down the slippery slope we go.
> >
> > Only if you are so foolish as to insist that the Bible reflects modern
> > scientific knowlege.
> The Bible is mainly a record of past events, in a way, a history book.

How do you know that it presents an historically accurate account? As
pointed out above, it contains contradictions on historical events.

Are there any idependent sources which verify the crucifixion, for
example?
How about the flight from Egypt?
The parting of the Red Sea?
The garden of Eden?
Talking serpents?

No historian will take on face value the accuracy of any historical
text without some form of independent verification. Why should the
bible be treated any differently?

RF

.