Archived - A thread about nothing....

[Howard2k]

I was involved with it a little on page 24 and actually went back & reviewed it.

So when you say it is settled what you really mean is that you presented your opinion ;)

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
I was involved with it a little on page 24 and actually went back & reviewed it.

So when you say it is settled what you really mean is that you presented your opinion ;)

God said it. I agree with it. It's settled.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
I was involved with it a little on page 24 and actually went back & reviewed it.

So when you say it is settled what you really mean is that you presented your opinion ;)

Actually, to be serious, the information I presented on ??? page is scientifically valid. I would think it can be checked pretty easily (at least, it wasn't hard for me to find).

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp that all cats could come from one or two cat pairs, any more than it is difficult to grasp that all humans came from an initial genetic pair. I mean, even DNA research has proven that point.

So how is it this is just "my opinion"? I think it's pretty well scientifically documented.

Or did you mean, it disagrees with your opinion? ;)

getcher facts straight. :p

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
It's good to hear a new voice on the thread.

considering the vast number of people who believe in an intelligent creator in one form or another, it is not wise to disregard the possibility; it warrants thorough and objective examination.

Because there is a fact that holds true: the large majority of humans on the earth today believe in an intelligent creator. The disbelief in a God of some sort forms a relatively tiny minority. So to ignore this belief, is to ignore something held as true by the majority of mankind.

When one views every culture on earth and discovers that there is an element of God in every culture, then it is wise to assume there just might be an element of truth there. Because it has been debated that the concept of evolution provides no logical reason for the existance of spirituality, art, music or abstract reasoning. Such are quite explainable under the concept of an intelligent creator.

At one point the "World as a whole" agreed that the earth was flat. At another point I think the majority believed that the world was the center of the solar system. I'm not saying god doesn't exist but I am certainly not going to believe simply because the majority does. The majority has been wrong before.

Groupthink is a concept that was identified by Irving Janis9 that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. Learn more about groupthink and then complete the interactive exercise at the end of the discussion.

Small Group Communication

[Howard2k]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
Actually, to be serious, the information I presented on ??? page is scientifically valid. I would think it can be checked pretty easily (at least, it wasn't hard for me to find).

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp that all cats could come from one or two cat pairs, any more than it is difficult to grasp that all humans came from an initial genetic pair. I mean, even DNA research has proven that point.

So how is it this is just "my opinion"? I think it's pretty well scientifically documented.

Or did you mean, it disagrees with your opinion? ;)

getcher facts straight. :p

I guess my point is that evolution is ok for cats but not humans?


Here's another option. Which you may not know the answer to :). Since God is all powerful, couldn't he just have clicked his fingers and fixed it? Why go through the flood, gathering and distribution of animals?

And aren't we also now reliant on Noah's documented bible? ie, if Noah had changed the Old Testament we'd be none the wiser right?

[Howard2k]

btw, I think I can pre-empt your answer. Evolution within species is ok, but inter species is not. So thought I'd save you a little typing :)

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker
At one point the "World as a whole" agreed that the earth was flat. At another point I think the majority believed that the world was the center of the solar system. I'm not saying god doesn't exist but I am certainly not going to believe simply because the majority does. The majority has been wrong before.

I fully agree (in truth, I considered mentioning this in the original post, but thought I'd leave it until you replied. :p).

I agree with a statement on one of the Truesite.org boards: "The majority is seldom right."

At one time, the majority of mankind did believe the world flat. That encouraged some men to go and check it out. They didn't just take people's word for it, one way or another.

The majority of the world right now is wrong about God himself. They believe they can do whatever they want to do and God will adapt to their opinions. Obviously, that is not what the Bible teaches.

So yes, you and I are in full agreement in this. However, what I'm presenting isn't that the majority believes in the God of the Bible... but that every culture on earth has a concept of some kind of God. Most of those cultures are obviously wrong in the details, but the prevalence of this belief-- even in technologically advanced nations-- should at least prompt a person to thoroughly check into the matter to see if there might be a solid foundation for this world-wide belief.

If someone had never bothered to sail the globe... we'd STILL think the world was flat.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
Here's another option. Which you may not know the answer to :). Since God is all powerful, couldn't he just have clicked his fingers and fixed it? Why go through the flood, gathering and distribution of animals?

One of the age-old questions is, "Why didn't God do it THIS way..."

The answer: "Because He did it THAT way."


The answer is about as good as the question. Both presuppose.

God had good reason for choosing the method he chose. Do you provide everything for the future of your children, so they never have to lift a finger in providing for themselves? You buy all their food, pay their mortgage, buy their cars, etc etc?

We don't know the specific answer to your question; the Bible doesn't explain why God chose to use a global flood to destroy wicked mankind, or why he chose to have Noah build an ark to live through it. We can surmise some possiblities:

1) During the 50+ years Noah spent building the ark, it was a witness to wicked mankind, offering them a chance to turn around and repent and join Noah.

2) It impressed upon Noah and all families for millenia thereafter that you don't mess with God. Not that they learned, any more than people learn today. The Bible foretells that in our day, "Just as in the days of Noah it will be... for they took no notice until the flood came and swept them all away."

We don't know whatever other reasons might have been involved. We could ponder on it until doomsday and miss the main point: God is fully capable of enforcing punishment on a global scale upon those who do what is wrong.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Howard2k
btw, I think I can pre-empt your answer. Evolution within species is ok, but inter species is not. So thought I'd save you a little typing :)

I've seen this point here on the board before... and already answered it.

We're not discussing evolution. We're discussing normal variety within species.

A man and woman having blonde and brunette children has nothing to do with evolution.

To be honest, I'm kind of surprised this statement has been made even once on this board, let alone twice, as it is totally without scientific basis.

[Wayfinder]

From the book, "Insight to the Scriptures":

In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.

...some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 "kinds" of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird "kinds" were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind-short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin-all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873) However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69)

--o--

How large was the ark? I did some personal research on it once, trying to figure out a common unit of comparison. If you were to take the standard household bathtub and stack them end to end, side by side and on top of one another (ie, fill the ark with them) you could fit approximately 82,800 bathtubs in the ark!

It was not small.

For those who may doubt the above information, I would encourage you to consider this fact: current methods of DNA examination have scientifically proven that all races of mankind came from one original genetic pair, whom even scientists have chosen to label as "Adam and Eve" for purpose of identification. So whether you believe in the Bible account or not... scientific genetic evidence fully supports the account of the flood. There is no reason to disbelieve the account of the flood on supposed lack of room in the ark. The ark was huge, and DNA research supports the account.


As I've pointed out in the past... every time science challenges the Bible... the Bible always wins.

[ikehiker]

Will this thread never die??? I planned to stay out of it but I happened across some info that I thought might sway some people that believes Wayfinder’s arguments have any credibility and since I’m stuck at home today waiting on Isabel, I have time to write. I know this isn’t going to change his mind. Sir Fred Hoyle (the scientist he references in his debunking evolution website) is a pioneer in the modern version of panspermia – that life on earth has an extraterrestrial origin. This means he believes small microbes arrived on earth about 3.5 billion and then evolved into all the diverse species that currently exist. In other words, Wayfinder is using the opinion of someone to support his ‘fairy tale’ opinion of evolution that actually believes the exact opposite (except for the formation of the very first life form). In spite of all Wayfinder’s contention that many scientists (he mentioned 40% - I think that’s low) believe in a supreme being, the vast majority (I’m talking 99.9%) believes that evolution is the manner by which their god created all the creatures on earth. It’s essentially a few fanatics that still hold onto a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I haven’t kept reading the thread but in searching for a specific reference, I came across hnelson59’s question of why evolution only focuses on the ‘apes to man’ stage. It’s actually a sad commentary on the quality of education if that’s true because it’s a minor part of evolutionary studies. We have direct evidence (in terms of DNA sequences, intermediary species, and fossils) for many thousands of other species ranging from bacterial to flowering plants to mammals and everything in between. For example, do you know we can trace the small bones in the inner ears of mammals to jaw bones in reptiles or that the bones in bat and bird wings are directly comparable to those in the human hand and wrist? Why would a creator need to reuse all these parts?

originally posted by Wayfinder
If someone had never bothered to sail the globe... we'd STILL think the world was flat.

and if Darwin had never traveled to the Galapagos, we might all STILL think all the species on the earth rode with Noah on the Ark.

originally posted by Wayfinder
…current methods of DNA examination have scientifically proven that all races of mankind came from one original genetic pair, whom even scientists have chosen to label as "Adam and Eve" for purpose of identification. So whether you believe in the Bible account or not... scientific genetic evidence fully supports the account of the flood.

Boy, what a bunch of BS. The DNA you speak of proves humans evolved from a ‘single pair’ about 1,000,000 years ago and has no support whatsoever for a flood 4000+ years ago. The same DNA evidence shows man and chimps share 95% of their genetic material. You really like to throw out bits and pieces of scientific evidence as long as it supports your ‘theory’ but you conveniently leave out the actual conclusions of the studies.

[Wayfinder]

In regard to the post regarding the cheetahs, I went to the board sited and found this interesting comment:

"Before conducting genetic studies for Craig Packer's Lion project, I examined the genetic history of the Cheetah, whose range once spanned the globe. I was amazed to find that every one of today's 20,000 Cheetahs is genetically almost identical. They descend from survivors of a near-extinction catastrophe that resulted in generations of close inbreeding 10,000 years ago."

I wonder... could that "near-extinction catastrophe" have been a global flood? How about that.

Now myself, being a logical, scientifically-minded sort of person, I had to wonder where he came up with his data. It sounds like a lot of supposition at first glance. For one thing, he states that "every one of today's 20,000 Cheetahs"... Are we to believe he's taken a DNA sample on every one of those 20,000 Cheetahs? A little doubtful.

Secondly, he seems to suppose that the Cheetah has existed in its current form for 10,000 years... something I believe would lack actual proof in data. Then he supposes that what has caused the cheetah problem was that catastrophe rather than another situation.

Are there other viable possibilities? Yes. His entire article dealt with the fact that certain animal species are being threatened with extinction due to inbreeding. The cause? Being pushed into genetic "islands" by the encroachment of mankind.

So rather than accepting his claim that the Cheetah hit a problem 10,000 years ago... it is just as sensible to accept that the Cheetah is a type of cat that has reached its genetic boundary (such as the mule) and that mankind, through misuse of his environment, prevented the cheetah from maintaining species diversity, bringing it to its current point.

It could very well be considered that a few thousand years ago there were several varieties of "cheetah"... but that mankind hunted / dominated / drove most of the varieties to extinction, as we have done with so many other species. Therefore, those left today have been forcibly inbred, resulting in their current dire status.

This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with environment and encroachment of territory.

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
I fully agree (in truth, I considered mentioning this in the original post, but thought I'd leave it until you replied. :p).

I agree with a statement on one of the Truesite.org boards: "The majority is seldom right."

At one time, the majority of mankind did believe the world flat. That encouraged some men to go and check it out. They didn't just take people's word for it, one way or another.

The majority of the world right now is wrong about God himself. They believe they can do whatever they want to do and God will adapt to their opinions. Obviously, that is not what the Bible teaches.

So yes, you and I are in full agreement in this. However, what I'm presenting isn't that the majority believes in the God of the Bible... but that every culture on earth has a concept of some kind of God. Most of those cultures are obviously wrong in the details, but the prevalence of this belief-- even in technologically advanced nations-- should at least prompt a person to thoroughly check into the matter to see if there might be a solid foundation for this world-wide belief.

If someone had never bothered to sail the globe... we'd STILL think the world was flat.

I saw that quote on the site too. Almost quoted it :) I don't want to touch the "The majority of the world right now is wrong about God himself" statement since I'm sure they would argue how wrong you are, and back and forth. To judge their interpretations seems a bit harsh.

I'm not saying the majority believes in your god, I'm saying the god concept as a whole. It seems perfectly logical to me that while the majority believes in a god now, that doesn't make them right. Where you feel everyone else is wrong and your god is the true god, I feel the entire majority is wrong which includes you ;)

[Jwilker]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
As I've pointed out in the past... every time science challenges the Bible... the Bible always wins.

When interpreted your way....

WHile I don't hold science to the esteem of a religion I will point out that you interpret the bible and your "research" to support your claims, while I (and all other science minded folks) have science to support our position.

So every time you say, "every time science challenges the Bible... the Bible always wins." It's fine and dandy for you butthen I just come back with the exact opposite. Since the statements negate one another maybe we can just stop using them? ;)

Oh and Ike, well said.

[Howard2k]

I still don't understand. If we have one male cat and one female cat today. And tomorrow we have 5 species of cat. How is that not evolution? Or are you saying that it is??