Re: Twenty questions for creationists

On Jun 1, 2:53 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*snip*
1) The process that began life is not defined or understood. Therefore any
processes that come after that will have an incomplete definition.

So now you're reduced to claiming that the entire science of biology
is in question. Just because we don't know exactly how life *started*
has absolutely nothing with understanding how it has evolved. This has
been explained to you before.

2) The nested hierarchy is a guess.It appears to be a rewrite of the
classification table from long ago. Which itself was a guess.

It's not even close to a guess. It's a well-evidenced segment of
evolutionary biology. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1..html#nested_hierarchy

3) Ancient historical data is not given consideration to the equation.

The Bible isn't historical data. It's largely not even historical. The
problem with history is its lack of reliability. As Churchill said:
"History shall be kind to me, for I shall write it."

What "data" do you suggest is in the Bible that is scientifically
evidenced?

4. When were Salmonella, Giardia, and ichneumonid wasps created, and
by whom or what?

Good question.
Imagine if you can that the bible and other texts are accurate with their
descriptions. Supposedly humans lived upward of a thousand years. Much
longer when the Sumarian kings list is factored in. The condition of the
earth was 100% tropical even in the polar regions. There was no rain, the
earth was watered by a mist and by streams so this made the entire planet a
lush greenhouse with a uniform mild climate. The sun was not strong as we
see today because a water vapor canopy encircled the earth much like we see
vapors covering other bodies in the solar system.

This straw man of yours must be big enough to beat up King Kong.

Now, Look at goggle earth
and imagine that water existed only in the areas that are the deepest of
blue. Imagine the water that is in the deepest of blue areas was fresh
water; not salt water. Land was everywhere else. The oxygen content of the
air was higher. Plants and animals grew larger. Nothing ate meat. All life
fed on plants and vegetation which are high in vitamins, minerals, enzymes
and antioxidants. The air had no pollutants. The described conditions are
quite conducive to life.

Now, imagine something that we do not understand upsetting the planet to the
point that the "fountains of the deep" broke open gushing water, the water
vapor canopy fell and the surface of the earth was completely destroyed.
During this process the water picked up elements that made the water salty.
It also picked up elements that would otherwise be safe until mixed with
water. Flood waters are quite unsanitary even today for the same reasons
they were back then. Nonparties became parasites during this destruction
period of the earth. Over time they adapted to acquired many other highly
advanced survival mechanisms.If you wish to call that evolution, fine. But
they are still after their own kind and are still parasites even if they
develop to the point that they can talk.

Then there is the supernatural element. God said he was going to curse the
earth. The flood is probably how he did it; with parasites being part of the
curse resulting after and because of the flood. People blame God for this
misery. But it was the watchers that had the entire world in a state of
chaos. Man chose to take of the fornidden knowledge. The apple was the
knowledge offered by the watchers.

Incidentally, since the flood it is recorded that man's life span steadily
decreased. And it has. Just as described in the bible. 120 years Max.

What a load of garbage. You imagine up this world that never existed
and then discuss it as if it was fact.

5. Could God create a world free of suffering in which people still
have free will?

He already did. But it was corrupted by Angelic Beings that God trusted to
guide and help mankind after he was created.God will make the earth new
again once every spirit has been born of woman and had a chance to choose
with their free will. Some will make a bad choices,others will not. The ones
that make bad choices will vanish never more to exist. It is called the
second death. The choices are called 'sin'.

But I thought God was supposed to be omniscient? If so, there's no
free will.

Then the meek, that made the right choice with their free will, shall
inherit the new earth. They will have demonstrated that they can use free
will properly.

So far your entire post is based on the Bible. No science, no
evidence, just fairy tales that are mostly proven false.

6. Do souls in heaven have free will?

Everything living that breathes is a soul. Hence phrases like "There were
2000 souls on board". If you mean "spirits",  yes they do. Spirtual beings
made the choice with their free will to leave their proper places and mate
with mortal women which ultimently resulted in God flooding the earth.

So if everything living has a soul, does this mean that good dogs and
cats are in heaven too?

7. Does the lunar crater Tycho look designed?  How do you know?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Tycho_crater_on_th...

Looks like an impact to me



8. Does the asteroid Itokawa look designed?  How do you know?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Itokawa4.jpg

Looks like a piece of a planet to me. Possibly a piece of the planet that
use to exist where the asteroid belt is today. Why is it losely packed? I
have no idea. God set the universe in motion. That does not necessarly mean
he created each and every asteroid. That just means he set the laws in place
for such things to happen.

Things like evolution, right Madman?

9. Did God create the Solar System, including Tycho crater and
asteroid Itokawa?

Indirectly yes.

Again, just because you believe it doesn't make it fact.

10. We know that new variation occurs in populations over time.  What,
other than lack of time, might prevent that variation from
accumulating, leading to arbitrarily large differences from the original
form?

Nothing. As long as you remember that this variation is limited to "each
after it's own kind" as described in the bible

And the Bible is wrong. Microevolution and macroevolution are both
evolution, and both happen. Deal with it.

11. Should geological evidence showing that there has *not* been a
global flood be disregarded, and if so, why?

Of course not. Evidence is evidence. However, one has to remember that
destuction of that magntude is going to complety skew the evidences. IOW the
evidences may not be reveling what you think they are.

If you actually knew anything about the actual evidence, you wouldn't
say that. Effectively, you're saying "Ok, there's lots of evidence
that contradicts the flood, but my money's on the vague notion that
mass destruction caused by God's anger done it."

12. Why are no mammals, birds, or flowering plants (among other
things) found in the Cambrian or earlier?

There are several earth ages or "eons".

How do you know this, Madman?

13. If creationism were to be taught in a science class, what
specifically would be taught *about creation*?  Do NOT include
anything about evolution in your answer.  (That belongs with questions
1-3.)

You said no trick questions.

How is it a trick question?

Answer: That things do evolve but within their own kind. Which is the only
evolution we have actually observed and can repeat BTW.

No it isn't. You've been shown to be horribly wrong on this multiple
times.

The entire point of teaching both evolution and creation side by side would
be to make comparisons. That would be impossible to do the way you worded
your question.

There isn't even a definted Theory of Intelligent Design. There's no
evidence for it, no science supporting it, no testing or research done
on it, and no reason to teach it, let alone in science class.
Evolution is science, ID isn't. Period.

14. If teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution is added
to the curriculum of public school science classes, should schools be
free to teach the weaknesses of creationism, too?

Of course. Truth is paramount. But that leads to the question: "Who gets to
decide what is and is not weak? From a scientific POV there is no scientific
proof of creation. That would be a weakness. But there are other evidences
just as valid as science. So from the other side of the coin that would not
be a weakness.

Then leave it in Sunday school.

15. Even those who insist on taking the Bible literally admit that
there are parts which are not literal.  How does one avoid error in
determining which parts those are, and how certain is it that that
method works?

Anyone that can read accurately read and understand Shakespeare should be
able to understand how.

In other words, you don't know. Mark's question points out something
rather silly about Creationists. You all claim to be right, but you
contradict each other often. The Bible is open to a very wide range of
interpretation. You have a history of assuming, as others like you do,
that your interpretation is the "right" one.

Shakespeare's works, by the way, are also open to interpretation, but
not even close to as much as the Bible.

16. Are there any valid religions which make no reference to the
Bible?

Yes.

17. Is it a vice, a virtue, or neither to believe that your religion
should apply not only to you, but to everyone -- even to the universe
as  a whole, and to act on that belief?

Another trick question. ehh... let's call it complicated instead.

While i have no religion, I will answer For the Christian since they are the
largest religion in my country and I have done a bit of reading on it.

Oh sure, and that's why you always foist the Bible on us. Why are you
so ashamed of your faith that you can't admit you're a Christian?

OK, a lot of reading on it. Well, they (the christians) are under instructions to
spread the good news known as "gospel". But some have taken instruction to
wrong extremes throughout history. Jesus gave a parable where he said if
they will not hear your message then politly and quitely leave. Shake the
dust off your feet as you go. But he never once said to enforce the good
news at the point of a sword. Quite the contrary. Jesus mentions that some
will have the ears to hear and the eyes to see and some won't. That was
Jesus' position. So to answer your question, a true christian that follows
the teachings of the original Christian, Jesus would want to share the good
news about God's kingdom and what has been revealed for the future. That is
it. They should not force their belief on anyone. Jesus said "My sheep know
my voice". So those that do not respond to the good news are aparantly not
part of Jesus' flock. But that still does not mean they cannot be saved from
destruction of the second death. Jesus addressed that in another of his
stories. Two parables actually.



18. Do you believe that it qualifies as "bearing false witness" to
speak with seeming confidence on a subject you have not studied?

I wish i could say i am startled at how many actually do not know what
"bearing false witness" means. But I am not. It does not have the convienent
meaning you assume it does.

More likely that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

19. What moral obligations do you have regarding the correction of
other creationists who say things about evolution that you know are wrong?

Judge not, and you will not be judged. Condem not and you will not be
condemed. Forgive and you will be forgiven. (J.Christ. Bible.)

If it weren't for the Bible, you'd have nothing to say about anything
would you?

You are someone who lies frequently here. You make things up, you
ignore legitimate disproofs of your claims, and you "bear false
witness" all the time. You're one of the worst "sinners" in here.

20. If Genesis 1-3 were somehow proved wrong to your satisfaction,
could you still believe in God?

No. I could  not. But this would be conditional.

The term "your satisfaction" is key here. Obviously since you're
impervious to reason, a state of enlightenment is at best like an
asymptote for you.

LT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time for your weekly dose of creationism lack of evidence strawpoll
    ... >> There is plenty of hard evidence that shows the earth is very old. ... This is the nature of science. ... > God. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: YEC
    ... God breathed while every expression that denies him is from the anti- ... attempting to prove that the Earth is old and have resorted to ... evidence indicating that the Bible "passed". ... cannot be refuted by science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Celebrate Evolution! today
    ... science, while it's NOT a science book, when it does touch on aspect ... he presented evidence that the earth ... Consider, too, the earth?s amazing water cycle. ... This remarkable process, which makes life on dry land possible, was ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: YEC
    ... attempting to prove that the Earth is old and have resorted to ... evidence indicating that the Bible "passed". ... earth and the universe. ... cannot be refuted by science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: BBC the creationist at the museum
    ... Or any other evidence you may care to bring ... if we use this record the earth is ... standards of, for example, the science of radio-dating of rocks. ... used by REAL scientists to get geological dates, ...
    (talk.origins)