Archived - A thread about nothing....

[ajcuenca]

After reading so much on this topic I just had to put in my thoughts. It seems that the main idea you guys are talking about is that the process of creation if so complex that it must be:

a. the work of a supreme intelligence (i.e. GOD)

Everything is part of a great master plan.

b. chance or coincidence

Life is the result of a set of conditions which rarely happen at the same time.

[Xyress]

Okay, let's examine the flood for a second here. Indugle me with the data you've checked because it doesn't seem real possible to me.

Yes, there are many other religions that have flood stories. There are also many religions before Christianity that had a Messiah and a resurrection ... is it possible that they're just legends? Is it also possible that a giant flood appeared to cover the whole world, but in fact only covered what the people of that time knew of the world? They hadn't exactly discovered America yet ... but God surely knew of it.

If the Ark is "found" at some point, here's the problem - it would have to be big enough to hold every species on this planet ... well, 2 of each (including all fresh water fish). How big would it have to be?

There are so many things wrong with that story if it is to be believed literally that if I listed them all here, my post would be as long as yours (only joking!)

Here are a couple to start with (you can read more here: http://mindprod.com/noah.html - this site also includes all of the calculations to show how much water had to fall per minute):

1) What happened to everyone else that owned a ship?

2) How were all of the animals, insects, birds, fresh water fish gathered and then redistributed to their respective continents?

3) How did Noah withstand the torrential downpour required to cover Mt. Everest in 40 days?

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
Well, as I stated earlier I learned long ago to not argue with evolutionists on their own ground... because they never, ever accept the scientific evidence I present, no matter how valid. If people disagree with the basic concept that DNA and RNA scream intelligent design-- nothing else I present is going to be accepted either. So I no longer bother. I don't even argue the DNA/RNA thing anymore. They either accept what's right before their eyes, or they don't. It's their choice.

uh ok but you haven't presented anything at all? TO you it screams design. I'd like to hear what else supports that. Your observation that is "screams intelligent design" isn't a very good supporting statement.

Originally posted by Wayfinder
However, as a simple, easily recognized concept... the fossil record even among scientists is largely open to individual interpretation. Five scientists can study a fossil and come up with ten different explanations. People often disagree with one another as to what particular fossil data means.

I mean, realistically speaking, there is even heavy debate within the scientific community as to the accuracy of Carbon 14 dating.

But I think they all agree that they are in fact fossils. What the fossil is a different thing, that it is is another.

Originally posted by Wayfinder
So in the end, anything that is open to interpretation... is not hard science. And if it's open to interpretation even among scientists... then imagine what it is open to when we get into the concept of creation, a world once ravaged by a global flood, etc.

Add to this that Satan is just as real as molecules. He's just as wicked and evil as the Bible presents. He is intent on misleading people away from the truth of God. One of his greatest weapons is that scientists don't believe he exists. The worst enemy you can have is one that you don't realize is there. The Bible says that Satan is the great deceiver who "blinds the minds of the unbelievers". I have seen people completely ignore hard evidence right before their eyes... as I'm sure most everyone here has witnessed at one time or another.

I find the fossil record to be inconclusive. It's full of gaping data holes and contradictory findings, even among learned scholars. That's part of the reason the evolution theory is still a theory. And I don't discuss it because, if you've studied the fossil record and haven't reached the same conclusion... what will it matter what I say? I will not be able to present enough factual information to convince you, and to tell the truth, I have neither the time, nor the desire to do so.

My obligation is to help people understand what the Bible says. That's the extent of it. Whether they believe or not, again, is their choice.

cool. so I can't expect anything stronger than "Science is silly so it's wrong."? Great where do I sign up?

Add to this that Satan is just as real as molecules

Proof? Has he been seen? Is there anything outside the bible to support that statement? You haven't presented a single fact yet, unless I missed it.

[Howard2k]

Actually it's 2 of every species or 7. Depending on which part of the bible you read.

[Xyress]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
I've often told people, "If you believe you've never seen a miracle.. you're not watching." I've seen plenty. And no, I'm not going to detail them. It was a personal experience that I don't want to throw out and have disrespectfully stomped on a public forum.

However, as a note, the Bible itself foretold that a time would come when miracles would no longer be used by God. There would be a "time of the nations" when man would rule himself unhindered by God, without interference. God would give mankind that much time to prove his point... that he can correctly rule himself without God.

That time would culminate in one major miracle... God taking over again. So it was expected by Christians that miracles would cease. Otherwise, Satan might accuse God of constantly imposing his will on man and never giving us a chance to do things ourselves. So God sent his son who performed miracles bigtime, allowed the apostles to perform them, then shut off the juice. Man had the evidence-- let's see what he does with it.

I think the answer is clear. We can't rule squat.

I just wanted to comment on this post from a page or two ago ... in one sentence you say that you have witnessed plenty of miracles and in the next you say the Bible itself says that there will be no more miracles after Jesus. Which is it?

... or was that just your shotgun approach to debunking the "I have never seen a miracle" comment.

[Xyress]

Wayfinder, I just wanted to comment a bit on your article about evolution being false.

Agreed, we do not understand how God himself has always existed. But frankly, there are a lot of factual, real things that mankind, in our limited knowledge and wisdom, does not understand

The Bible (and all other religious texts) were written to explain things that were unknown at the time. We do not know the origin of the Universe or Earth or even life itself. We will probably never know for sure how the Universe started or how life started on Earth - but that's okay! We don't need to know the answer to everything. We do, however, know a lot about how our world works now - we know that the world is bigger than Europe and North Africa and that the Earth is in fact round and revolves around the sun.

But ironically, saying that there is an intelligent creator of the Universe only creates one more layer of abstraction - it doesn't explain anything. You make a huge point in the article about statistical improbabilities for the creation of enzymes and RNA/DNA ... but what would the odds of a supernatural being coming into existence be? An enzyme or a supernatural, all-powerful creator? Which is more complex?

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Xyress
Is it also possible that a giant flood appeared to cover the whole world, but in fact only covered what the people of that time knew of the world? They hadn't exactly discovered America yet ... but God surely knew of it.

It is interesting that the Chinese word for "ship" consists of the symbols "boat", "eight", "mouths". Sure, it's possible that a legend or two was the result of a massive local flood... but not to the degree that the story of a world-wide flood is found in cultures all over the earth.

If the Ark is "found" at some point, here's the problem - it would have to be big enough to hold every species on this planet ... well, 2 of each (including all fresh water fish). How big would it have to be?

The Bible does not state that fresh-water fish were taken aboard the ark. Fish and insects have a remarkable ability to survive even extremely adverse conditions.

As for the number of animals, it has been pointed out that while we have millions of species of birds and mammals and other critters today... the actual number of pairs that would have been required to exist in order to produce that multitude of varieties would have been comparatively very few. (They didn't need every type of dog... just one or two basic dog-pairs from which all other dogs came).

Consider too the size of the ark. Most people don't realize just how big that thing was. If you were to take the average bathroom bathtub and stack them end to end in the ark, you could fit about 38,000+ of the things in there.


There are so many things wrong with that story if it is to be believed literally that if I listed them all here, my post would be as long as yours (only joking!)

Cute. It's just that messages with the extreme quality which mine exhibit require excessive linquistic proliclivity.


1) What happened to everyone else that owned a ship?

It is unlikely that any such ships (if there was indeed, anything in those days beyond basic fishing boats) would have been designed to withstand such a massive torrent. (Even storms today can exhibit waves in excess of 100 ft. Imagine what the flood brought on).

2) How were all of the animals, insects, birds, fresh water fish gathered and then redistributed to their respective continents?

The Bible states that God himself gathered them and brought them to Noah. It stands to reason then, that He would also have a redistribution method.

3) How did Noah withstand the torrential downpour required to cover Mt. Everest in 40 days?

People take it for granted that the topography in Noah's day was exactly the same as it is today. A flood of that kind would have caused major changes in the earth's layout. It is quite possible that the earth was much "flatter" before the torrents of the flood caused the earth's crust to "crack"... producing major mountains and deep ocean rifts. We also have to take into consideration that God himself may have caused land upheavals in order to bring dry ground up out of all that water.

One of the mistakes people often make in examining the flood... is that they automatically discount the very direct hand of God in the matter.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
Actually it's 2 of every species or 7. Depending on which part of the bible you read.

Good point. I almost brought that up... but decided to focus on the flood itself instead. I'm impressed... not many people are aware of the fact that Noah took 7 of some species.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Xyress
I just wanted to comment on this post from a page or two ago ... in one sentence you say that you have witnessed plenty of miracles and in the next you say the Bible itself says that there will be no more miracles after Jesus. Which is it?

... or was that just your shotgun approach to debunking the "I have never seen a miracle" comment.

Sorry, I sometimes forget that some people are literally grounded rather than Bible based.

I was speaking of different kinds of miracles (massive toward populations vs individual toward believers). Once a person begins believing in God and has his "spiritual eyes" opened, he becomes aware of a lot of things that non-spiritual people just plain don't notice. I know that sounds condescending, but that's how it is.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Xyress
Wayfinder, I just wanted to comment a bit on your article about evolution being false.


The Bible (and all other religious texts) were written to explain things that were unknown at the time. We do not know the origin of the Universe or Earth or even life itself. We will probably never know for sure how the Universe started or how life started on Earth - but that's okay! We don't need to know the answer to everything. We do, however, know a lot about how our world works now - we know that the world is bigger than Europe and North Africa and that the Earth is in fact round and revolves around the sun.

But ironically, saying that there is an intelligent creator of the Universe only creates one more layer of abstraction - it doesn't explain anything. You make a huge point in the article about statistical improbabilities for the creation of enzymes and RNA/DNA ... but what would the odds of a supernatural being coming into existence be? An enzyme or a supernatural, all-powerful creator? Which is more complex?

That's a very valid question. My answer to that: I don't know.

The Bible does not try to explain how God always existed. It just says He did. "No beginning and no end." The only way I've ever been able to even come close to understanding this is that there is evidence that time itself is a physical property. If God therefore created time, then before time existed...

I know that's weird, but frankly, it's no more weird than some scientist trying to get me to believe that

1) Matter/energy in some for or another always existed or
2) Suddenly, matter/energy just appeared out of nothing.

You see, no matter what you believe, there always had to be SOMETHING. The Bible says that something was God.

Regarding the DNA/RNA thing, someone back there asked what scientific evidence I offer that they could not come about by accident. I discuss that thoroughly on my website, so if folks haven't bothered to read that yet, that's why you don't yet have an answer to that one.

In a nutshell: when something is so complex that it is a logical and statisical impossibility that it came into existence by random circumstance, then it follows that it must have had intelligent design. It's just that simple.

If you tell me that a complex computer program with millions of lines of code just came out of a computer one day, by the chance formation of random data, with no programmer, I'm gonna ask you what you've been drinking.

Beyond that... see the website. http://Truesite.org

[Wayfinder]

I have a question for folks here to consider. It's a rhetorical question, intended just to make each one of us think about our position in life:

In your debate in the creation vs evolution concept... have you even attempted to consider the information presented by the opposing side, or have you just automatically discounted whatever has been stated because it disagrees with your current opinions?

Any time we refuse to even consider the possibility that even our most deeply entrenched convictions just MIGHT have flaws, then we close ourselves off to the potential realities of the universe around us.


The concept of an Intelligent Designer creating man is not such a far-fetched idea as some would have us believe. So no matter how much you believe in evolution, to immediately and totally discount even the possibility of creation seems to me very, very limited in scope. Tunnel vision.

[Wayfinder]

I have four thoughts I'd like to present, if everyone isn't tired of all this yet:

1. Fossil record
2. Intelligent Design
3. Circular logic
4. The 4% deviation

1. Fossil record
Several times people have asked me what I find flawed in the fossil record. Setting aside the great big gaping data holes and the contradictory interpretations of scientists (which anyone can research if he honestly wants to)...

Consider: an evolutionist sees two fossils and finds similarities between the two. His conclusion: one evolved from the other. He fails to see any problem with this conclusion, because he already believes in evolution.

The Intelligent Design believer looks at the same fossils, notes the same similarities, and states, "The same designer made these. It stands to reason there will be similarities." He considers the possibility of evolution, but in the light of probability discards it because there ARE simple, alternate explanations. It is even logical to reason that God created one life form first, then liking the design, decided to incorporate that design in further creations.

So folks have asked me why I don't believe the fossil record supports evolution. And I answered... because there are other reasonable explanations that support the (to me) more logical Creation concept.

2) Intelligent design.
A quick one... given all examination of available data... even if one does not believe the Bible, there is sufficient reason to at least consider the possibility of an Intelligent Designer of life. To totally ignore that idea as even a possibility, is in my frank opinion, unscientific.

3) Circular logic
I speak a bit on my website about the "Infinite number of monkeys" concept. Simply put, it seems to be the thought upon which all of evolutionary teaching is based, namely: "Given infinite time and space, anything is possible."

By this reasoning, then, even God is possible.

Kind of interesting how such circular philosophy tends to come around and bite ya right in the butt, isn't it?

The problem with the "infinite time and space possibility" concept is that although it sounds really neato nifty, it is a man-made philosophy that is without proof and which is lacking in common sense, logical reason and a basis in reality. Some things ARE impossible, no matter how much time and space you have. My studies have indicated to me that the concept of evolution is one of them.

4) The 4% deviation
I've mentioned in the past "evolutionist propaganda". Now that may sound like a bigoted statement (and mind you, religious propaganda exists as well. No denial there), but here's an example:

I read in the newspaper a few months ago that "scientists have finally decoded the human dna code and have discovered that there is only a 4% difference between human and chimpanzee DNA". WOW! There it is right there... proof that man descended from apes. At least the article presented this as pretty much concrete data. But is it?

No, this is a bunch of propagandistic claptrap. If a person both believes in evolution and just swallows everything he reads, he might fall for it. But a thinking person might pause to reason on this statement. "Only" a 4% difference? In the field of psychology (as well as most other fields), even a 2% deviation from the norm is considered significant. As an illustration:

A man is instructed to build two buildings, one a work office, the other a warehouse. Interestingly, they'll have pretty much the same basic shape and structure. He's handed two blueprints, each containing 1,000 instructions for assembling these buildings. These blueprints are IDENTICAL... except for two little lines which read:

LINE 1: Square feet
Building one: 500 square feet
Building two: 50,000 square feet

LINE 2: Basic building materials
Building one: 8' timbers
Building two: 20' steel girders

Other than that, the building are very similar. Why, there's far less than a 1% deviation in the instructions, right?

Considering the vast complexity of the DNA code... a deviation of "only" four percent literally involves MILLIONS and MILLIONS of genetic instructions.

Do you see how propaganda works? That is why, no matter how much we believe in something (whether it be evolution or creation), we must not blindly accept the claims of men. Men have been known to make mistakes, misinterpret observations and even lie. We have to research things for ourselves-- on both sides of the issue-- and come to a logical, informed, individual decision. This is ESPECIALLY the case when we have pre-formed opinions that have been integrated into our person from childhood.