1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Noah's Ark Confusion

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Lori, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. danrusdad

    danrusdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your sidestepping of my point still does not help you. When evaluating the veracity of the text you MUST rely on the the definition that the Bible gives. You continue to ignore this simple fact. Show me the verse that says every species according to what a scientist defined as a species and I will agree with you.

    Anyone can classify animals according to whatever definition they want. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that God classifies tham according to 2 stipulations: 1) flesh (meaning no insects) and 2) breath in the nostrils (again no insects). Its easy to disprove the Bible when YOU decide what the Bible means instead of letting the Bible speak for itself.

    Again, you assume that the species we have now are exactly the same as they would have been ~4400 years ago. Lions didn't turn into tigers and tigers didn't turn into lions. They both came from the same cat kind though. The fact that they can interbreed (ligers and tigons) proves this.

    Obviously you have not studied the biblical text...

    I never stated that they did...

    Nor did I say this. Posting lies about my statements doesn't help your argument.

    Ah! The truth at last. We are depending on "scientific" dating methods to prove our point. All of which are based on unprovable, unbiblical, and uniformitarian assumptions.


    19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 19 Of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the teivah, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 19 and of all that liveth, of all flesh, two of every sort thou dost bring in unto the ark, to keep alive with thee; male and female are they. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.
    20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of the livestock after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive. 20 Of the fowl after its kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort they come in unto thee, to keep alive. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.

    Still no beetles. Interseting how hundreds of scholars have translated these verses into english dozens of times and not one mentions any beetles...I guess you're just smarter than the rest of us! Or is it a private interpretation? Of course, the Bible warns us against those.

    Just one question, if God lied about which animals were on the ark, why believe any of the rest of it? How do you know when its the truth and when its not? I suppose God must bow before the evolutionary scientists who say, "it had to happen this way".
     
  2. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    7,727
    Likes Received:
    873
    Faith:
    Baptist
    danrusdad sez:
    Smacks of satan's first conversation with Eve, & you know the results of THAT encounter!!!

    I find it impossible to understand why people won't just accept God's word as written!
     
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Craig, you've been reading too much Talk Origins!

    First of all, a little biology. "Species" is definitely a man-made classification -- as are kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and genus -- and all the ones that fall in between! They are supposedly based on genetics now, but that is not how they originated. They originated on looks, and were formed for the purpose of making sure that medicinal plants, in particular, were identified with the same names from country to country in Europe.

    For a long time species was equated with the biblical 'kind', but as time went on, and it became clear that species was quite vague, the two definitions diverged. Biblical 'kind' is probably somewhere around the family or sub-family category in many organisms, but by no means all. In general, though, you can consider 'canine' a kind, 'feline' a kind, equine a kind, bovine a kind, etc. This drastically reduces the number of animals Noah took on the Ark!

    Next, the biblical definition of 'living thing' is different from out definition today. And it is no good saying the biblical definition is'wrong'. It is different. Biblically, a living thing has nephesh, or the breath of life. This word 'nephesh' also translates into 'soul' and 'will'. Often 'breath of life' is thought to be breath through nostrils, into lungs. This may well be, but the Bible does not tell us that precisely. What we do see is that those animals with nephesh are those which can establish social bonds with other 'species,' can exhibit disobedience when being trained, and have distinct personalities.

    If we let Bible explain Bible, we can see, then, that in Genesis 6 and 7, ALL living things which crept on the earth or flew in the air had representatives on the Ark. The Bible is quite clear by what is meant by ALL there, and if you let Bible explain Bible instead of modern terminology thrusting different explanations, there is no problem with which animals were on the Ark.

    So how did beetles, mosquitoes, etc. make it?

    We can see a clue today from the results of both hurricanes in Florida and monsoons in the Far East. Both will result in vegetation masses floating in the sea. These masses harbor and support quite a bit of insect and beetle life. Even larger masses would be quite capable of preserving a number of amphibians, seeds, and all manner of things quite well.

    Next, about the mountains. The fact that we can see fossils of sea animals on the highest mountains tells us one of two things -- either these mountains existed prior to the Flood and the waters were covered over them, or the mountains were raised afterwards.

    The first option is entirely ruled out by several things. The mountains in our highest, and youngest ranges, such as the Andes, the Rockies, the Himalayas -- all are sharp and not water-molded. They were never under water. The fact that they have marine fossils on them does tell us that the rock masses themselves were once much lower. If we look at the Bible we will find that at the time of Peleg the land masses were divided -- and it was at this time that the sharp ranges were uplifted, as the continents started and continued catastrophic sliding across a hot and mostly liquid asthensophere. The mountains were not there before the Flood. Hills, yes. Mountains, no.

    Which brings us to the next point. The water mass of the earth never changed, and thus would not push the earth out of orbit! Water from the interior was exposively outgased (Gen. 7:11), and the force of this over land may well have contributed to an axis tilt (water outgasing under the seas would have its force dramatically modified, thus giving the explosions occuring on land the force to possibly push the earth over a bit...). These exploding scalding waters would have immediately cooled somewhat as they reached atmospheric heights (think Old Faithful exponentially increased), and precipitated immediately as torrential rains.

    Some other points: not all mules are infertile.

    Genesis 1:29-30 states all humans and nephesh animals were vegetarian before the Flood. Thus, none of the animals brought on by sevens (singles or pairs) needed to be used for food for the animals which would later be carniverous. And there was plenty of room for food, especially if compacted into feed pellets, which does not take enormous technology to do!

    The water added to the oceans due to the Flood would not have been fresh, but quite salty. This is because the bursting waters from the interior would have carried with them enormous amounts of pulverized crustal material, and thus various salts would have been added to the seas at that time. We can presume, given this, that the original sea was brackish, and that both fresh water and salt water fish have been speciated from the original kinds in that original water. We see evidence of this today with kinds such as salmon which migrate from fresh to salt and back again. Because ocean currents do not homogenize the waters at all rapidly, there would have been plenty of areas of original brackish waters to allow the breeding of the varieties, some of which would make it in salt water and some in fresh.

    Speciation has been shown to be extraordinarily rapid when there is isolation and empty ecological niches. Both of these conditions prevailed after the Flood and migration to various areas would have given a number of small populations plenty of time to speciate. Tigers did not turn into lions or vice versa, by the way, but both descended from an original feline pair.

    Lori, you are right about Pangea. If you look at the third day of Genesis 1, you will find that there was ONE land mass. An original supercontinent.

    Craig, you said the Bible gives no indication that the earth has changed. I beg to differ. Check Genesis 10:25, among others things...

    On the other hand, the Bible is not a science text. When it does give a scientific fact, that fact is FACT. But it does not give more than necessary to confirm itself and to explain what is going on in the relationship between man and God, which is what the Bible is about. But it does not use myth to explain anything. The Flood was a very real event, covering the entire earth. However the Flood boundary is far below what many think of it as being. Below the Cambrian strata we have an enormous 'cobbled' layer (which has led many evolutionist geologist to posit a 'snowball earth' scenario), and immediately above that is an extremely deep (a couple of miles, I think) layer of carbon-rich sediment. This is what the Flood left. This is what we would expect of that kind of massive catastrophe involving exploding scalding waters and tons of pulverized debris. The fossils came later. They could not have been the result of that kind of catastrophe.

    When you quoted Peter, by the way, please note that he considered the story of Noah true and verified history. He would not be referring to a myth, or people would take what he was saying as made-up, too. And that certainly was NOT the point of his letter!
     
  4. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great post Helen, i enjoyed reading that.
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Helen,

    What is “Talk Origins?”

    The information that I posted came from my graduate studies in evolutionary biology and geology in a world-class university and subsequent studies over a period of 35 years. Most obviously that was not the case of the information that you posted.

    I have read many authors who have attempted to refute the mountains of scientific data that proves, from the point of view of science, that a flood such as that depicted in the book of Genesis never occurred on earth, and in EVERY case it was manifestly obvious that NONE of these persons had enough education to understand the scientific data that they were vainly attempting to refute. And NONE of these persons held responsible positions in the academic world and NONE of them were recognized internationally for their academic achievements. The EXACT OPOSITE is true of the internationally recognized scholars I had the pleasure of learning from, both in the classroom and as personal friends.

    ALL, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, of the arguments that you presented in your post are based on woeful ignorance and misinformation. I know that because I have been there—thousands of hours in the classroom, laboratory, and in the field. I have spent more time looking through a microscope examining the evidence first hand than many people have spent watching television.

    The designation “species” as it is used by biologist TODAY is NOT a man-made classification. It is a word used to describe a discrete genetic a population of plants or animals whose genotype is such that within that population interbreeding does not result in the infertility of the offspring. The designations “kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, and genus” are mostly arbitrary and artificial, but the designation species is not. But this whole issue of “species” is a smokescreen used to detract one’s attention from the real picture.

    The facts are that on the earth today there are well over one million genetically discrete populations of animals, and that every year the numbers is DECREASING, NOT INCREASING. Between four and six thousand years ago, there were very many more genetically discrete populations of animals than there are today. The destruction of ecological niches and habits is causing these genetically discrete populations of animals to die off at an alarming rate!

    Therefore, If Noah was to build his ark today, he would be at a TREMENDOUS advantage because he would have far fewer animals to take aboard the ark. However, before he took aboard even a small fraction of the animals, he would find that the ark was too small. And that is not including the food for the animals, nor the cages for the lions, tigers, etc. Even the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan would immediately sink if such a huge mass were to be loaded upon her. None of this is theory—it is all fact—and anyone who has investigated the matter to the degree that I have (and there are tens of thousands of us) knows that.

    Helen, you have this backwards! Many years ago the word “species” was a vague term. Today it is a vague term only among the uneducated. And since we are dealing in this thread with people who are not educated as biologists, lets go back to the descriptive term “genetically discrete populations” since that is what Noah had to deal with. Lions and tigers did NOT have a common ancestor as recently as 100,000 years ago (we know this for a fact by the study of the genotypes of the cats), let alone 4,000-6,000 years ago. Taking aboard two lions would not have helped the tigers at all; and taking aboard two tigers would not have helped the lions at all. And this applies as a matter of fact to every single one of the genetically discrete populations of animals. The bottom line here is that the DECREASE IN THE genetically discrete populations of animals since the time of NOAH drastically INCREASES the number of animals that Noah would have had to taken aboard the ark. And by the way, that includes MANY very LARGE animals.

    In the Book of Genesis we find the word nephesh used to make a distinction between animals and plants and inanimate matter. God was not concerned about the inanimate matter because it can not be drowned, and He says virtually nothing about the plants (another insurmountable problem for those who attempt to defend the story of Noah’s Ark from the standpoint of science). He was concerned about the nephesh

    None of this is relevant, however, to the overall picture. Even if one excludes from consideration the fact that only a tiny fraction of the genetically discrete populations of insects could have survived the flood, the huge mass of the other animals would have been many times too great to be contained in the ark, and that does not include their food and necessary cages.
     
  6. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Argument by authority is not impressive. Facts are impressive.

    The reason we have more fewer and fewer species today is because of natural selection, which ends up eliminating so much genetic diversity potential from a population that we have an increasing number of endangered species which cannot live outside of very restricted ecological niches. If you take this trend backwards, you have many FEWER basic groupings with far greater diversity potential.

    Simple population genetics.

    I am not surprised, by the way, that what you learned in EVOLUTIONARY biology and such was evolution! Of course they are going to substantiate themselves! Or at least attempt to.

    TalkOrigins, by the way, is a website devoted to hating creation, presenting their 'evidences' in often highly deceptive ways.

    It is very true that the Flood of Noah did not produce the strata we see today from the Cambrian on up. The geologists of every stripe except those wedded to other ideas (come h or high water...) understand this.

    However, that is why I mentioned the preCambrian strata. The excuse given for these two major divisions below the Cambrian are often the 'snowball earth' theory. My husband worked as a professional geologist (which is also what he trained in in university), helping to map out sections of South Australia. He has kept up with the subject for many years. Here is his article refuting the Snowball Earth scenario:

    http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm

    I think you will find strong evidence for a worldwide flood presented in the precambrian strata.

    Next, ALL biological classifications are man-made. They may try to depend on genetic markers, but that is not often terribly helpful. Take, for example, ring (or graduated) species. There is no delineation there. Consider also that the entire idea of a breeding population being a marker is subject to mating cues and has little or nothing to do with genetic markers! For instance, since they depend almost entirely on smell, dogs and horses are quite willing to breed with any type of dog or horse respectively that smells right and is cooperative. Hummingbirds, however, depending on sight, are so specific about their mating that we have how many species of hummers? Dozens? Species is a designation that is constantly being challenged by the real world.

    Another evidence that it is man-made.

    Nor was I talking about 'species' as used today, which is where you diverted the argument. I was refering to its earlier identification with 'kind,' a merger which started splitting around 125-150 years ago.


    Now, when you say we 'know' something because, for instance, of the genotype of cats, you are making some presumptions which may not necessarily be true. For instance, the rate of initial speciation among animals with a much higher diveristy potential would have been much more rapid. The fact is that lions and tigers have been successfully interbred, proving that at some point in the past they may have easily had common ancestors. A hundred thousand years ago? Why? Because the rate of diversity is smaller now? Of course it would be -- so much has been deleted from the genome by good old natural selection! There is no logical reason we should expect to see today what happened yesterday when genetic diversity potential is consistently being lowered in every population group of nephesh animals.

    If you have been keeping up with genetics and microbiology, then you also know that the rates of mutation for mitochondria and nuclear material can differ widely, also yielding some basic confusion for dating species' histories.

    In fact, take man. This article that recently came out in Nature (Nature 431, 562 - 566 (30 September 2004), claims man had a common ancestor less than 2000 years before Christ! We KNOW this is false -- all of us on each side know this! -- but that is what the genetic mapping shows!

    Back to Noah, it was not lions or tigers he would have had aboard, but a precursor wild cat type or kind.

    The biomass would therefore been nowhere near what you are suggesting.

    And why do you figure MANY very LARGE animals? What, exactly, are you thinking of?

    I do want to apologize for a mistake I made. I had forgotten that the animals taken on the Ark were not those with nephesh, but those with 'ruah', or 'ruwach', meaning wind, or blow. From this it is very accurate to say that those taken on the ark were those things on earth and in the air which took in breaths of air, therefore having lungs. It is not the same as nephesh, and I apologize again for any misinformation I printed.

    Therefore again, however, there was no necessity for insects or beetles or spiders etc. to be on the Ark.

    ----I appreciate that you have had a great deal of education in evolution. But maybe that is the problem? In some areas of life we call that sort of thing propaganda and indoctrination. I used to be an evolutionist. I used to teach it. It was the data itself which, over about five years of reading, convinced me that not only was evolution biologically impossible, but that the simple fact of building genetic loads in all populations demanded that this be a young earth.

    So, with all due respect, no, my arguments are not based on ignorance. Nor are they any longer based (as they were when I believed evolution to be true) on 'authorities' or what I had to spit back on tests.

    Now it's data. And that is much more fascinating.
     
  7. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen, very well said and again thanks for your time i really enjoyed reading that even though it made me feel like i'm way out of my leauge by just being a bible believer.(not that thats bad)


    "Now it's data. And that is much more fascinating."

    It takes more blind faith to believe in evolution than the bible, by far.
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Helen, do you know what natural selection is? If you do, you KNOW that what you posted is false. If you don’t know what natural selection is, you should not post comments about it as though you know what you are talking about. There are people who read these threads for information so that they can evaluate the facts. When ridiculously false information is posted, it seriously hinders our readers from coming to the correct conclusion.

    Helen, have you spent even one hour in a university classroom where graduate level courses in evolution are being taught? Do you have even a clue as to the character of the professors who teach these classes? It very much sounds to me that you have been reading a whole lot of anti-evolution propaganda. Well, Helen, I have also read it, and for the most part it is nothing but nonsense. I know this because I have spent those years in the university classrooms and I know first hand what evolutionist believe and why they believe it and what kind of men they are. Personally, I do not believe that man evolved from an ape or an ape-like creature. But I did not come to these conclusions by reading ridiculously false and absurdly ignorant propaganda. I came to these conclusions based upon what I learned in the classrooms.

    [​IMG]

    Some years later, shortly after I had begun pastoring an inner-city church, I went to visit my favorite professor of evolutionary biology (who, by the way, was called upon by the FBI to help solve some especially difficult cases because of his exceptional knowledge of biology), and he asked me what I was doing with my time. I told him that I was pastoring a church, and he smiled and told me that he was glad to hear that, and that he himself was a Christian.

    Several decades ago, the large majority of evolutionary biologist were Christians. But one by one they got very discouraged by all the stupid propaganda against evolution, and the dirty looks that they got from their fellow church members, and they left the church.

    I have personally never met a young person who has hurt by learning about evolution, but I have personally met young people who have been deeply hurt by the anti-evolution propaganda. It especially hurts those who are called by God to teach in public schools, because the propaganda makes Christians look like fools and teachers don’t do too well in the classroom when the students think that they are fools.

    And as for myself, when I find that trash lying around somewhere, it reminds me how absolute ignorant and stupid many Christians are, and for a moment makes me feel stupid for being a Christian. I vehemently hate all literature that makes Christians look like fools, and I KNOW that Satan is having a field day watching the damage being done to Christ’s Church by the propaganda that he is using Christians to write and distribute.

    If you want to learn the truth about evolution, apply for admission in a university that is noted for its academic excellence in biology.
     
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    This is the first that I have heard of such a website. If your portrayal of it is accurate, it is an abysmal abomination and an embarrassment to scientists everywhere.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. PowerndBlood

    PowerndBlood New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, i believe Helen has got your number. ;)
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Helen,

    It just occurred to me that you are not aware that I am a creationist! I don't believe the trash that many creations litter the streets with, but I am definitely a creationist. I am a creationists that believes in teaching creation though true and valid science.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Helen,

    The article that you cited and provided a link to was written by Barry and Helen Setterfield, neither of whom have any degrees in geology, nor are they employed in the field of geology. As a matter of fact Barry Setterfield is best known for data that he published which he claims demonstrates a decay in the speed of light, claims for which he has been mocked by astronomers for making grossly unjustified extrapolations from a very small and insufficient amount of data. I am not an astronomer, however, so I am not going to get into that one.

    http://www.setterfield.org/snowballearth.htm

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Helen, this is simply false and you know that it is false! You also know that it is totally irrelevant! What is true, and what is relevant, are the more than one million genetically distinct populations of animal that Noah had to take samples of aboard the ark. Again, a simple undeniable fact—the ark was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being large enough to hold all the animals, and then there is the matter of the food and cages, which would also have taken an immense amount of space and would have weighed, even without one animal, many times the weight of the water that would have been displaced by the ark. The ark would have sunk! There is absolutely no question about it.

    Helen, these are simple, elementary facts that have been proven. To argue against them is blind foolishness. You are obviously getting this nonsense from some fools who have never been to school or learned how to think. This is exactly the same kind of nonsense that we have to put up with from the KJO sect. They know what they believe and they are out to prove to the world that they are right even though all the facts prove that they are not. Therefore they resort to carelessness, misrepresentation, and deliberate distortion of the facts. This is a most disgraceful abomination.

    More irrelevant nonsense! What is relevant are the more than one million genetically distinct populations of animal that Noah had to take samples of aboard the ark. Again, a simple undeniable fact—the ark was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being large enough to hold all the animals, and then there is the matter of the food and cages, which would also have taken an immense amount of space and would have weighed, even without one animal, many times the weight of the water that would have been displaced by the ark. The ark would have sunk! There is absolutely no question about it.
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    First of all, there is NO evidence that the genetic diversity in cats or any other animals was greater four to six thousand years ago than it is today. Secondly, greater genetic diversity in and of itself DOES NOT increase the rate of speciation. Thirdly, even if these claims of yours were true, a time span of four to six thousand years would not be one millionth the amount of time for the speciation of which you are writing to take place.

    Yes, there is some evidence that this may have been the case 20,000,000 years ago, but for 20,000,000 million years they have been genetically distinct populations, so at least seven of both populations would need to be aboard the ark.

    Where did you read this ridiculous nonsense? No, this is NOT a rhetorical question. Where did you read this ridiculous nonsense? Our readers have the right to know where this junk is coming from.

    More repetition of the same ridiculous nonsense. There is not one sane biologist on the face of the earth who would make such absurdly ridiculous arguments for a smaller number of genetically distinct populations four to six thousand years ago. Neither the biology nor the math allow for even the very slightest possibility of such a thing. What you are talking about, even if it has occurred, would require, even at the very fastest possible rate of speciation, hundreds of thousands of years.

    As I have explained over and over again, this is IMPOSSIBLE!!!

    I could post, if time and space were to permit, the names of thousands of professors of biology who agree with my statements, but you can not post the name of even one. And yet you argue. And are you yourself a professor of biology? Do you have so much as an A.A. degree in biology? Your posts make it expressly clear that you have NONE of these qualifications. You are arguing exclusively from ignorance and misinformation. Go to a university known for academic excellence in the field of biology, earn a Ph.D. in Biology, and we can continue our conversation. As for now, it is a waste of both your time and mine.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. blackbird

    blackbird Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    4
    Craig says, "Your posts make it expressly clear that you have NONE of these qualifications. You are arguing exclusively from ignorance and misinformation. Go to a university known for academic excellence in the field of biology, earn a Ph.D. in Biology, and we can continue our conversation. As for now, it is a waste of both your time and mine."

    Brother Craig! This is a debate forum---and it really doesn't matter if you are debating the Garbage truck driver----you will do it in a spirit of love as if you were speaking to the precious Lord Jesus Christ---you last paragraph reaks of selfishness and pride and arogance. Please see if you can clean up your responses so they appear as if you would be willing to die for those you debate with!! Clear??

    Brother David
    Moderator
     
  16. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Craig, I am Helen Setterfield. I am married to Barry Setterfield. Barry worked as a professional geologist for some time. I taught high school biology and had to use the texts which 'explained evolution', and if they cannot do something which is supposed to be that widely accepted (and they can't), then there is no reason to get involved in more indoctrination. I taught evolution at first. Then I started reading more material.

    I'm not going to try to answer all your accusations. I know what I am talking about. For instance, natural selection. Here is what happens

    A population, say of a hundred (for vast simplification) individuals, has a certain amount of genetic variability in those hundred individuals. Some may be a little larger, some may have a little more fat, some a little more aggression, etc. But not all of them have the genetic capability for all the variations -- these variations are expressed in different ways as a result of sexual reproduction.

    Suppose there is a very cold winter. Those with the most fat are most likely to fare well, or at least survive. A certain population, say ten percent, die from cold due to their lack of fat. WHATEVER variants these ten individuals had are in some form lost to the population as a whole. Fat prevailed, but perhaps at the expense of speed, or strength, or intelligence. Not much at first, but through the years, should the winters stay cold and the population not move, you could get some animals that have deleted just about all variations except those which can make it in that environment. As a result, change the environment a little and you have an endangered species. THAT is the result of natural selection. The population climbs a 'fitness peak' and there is no way back down.

    Suggest you take a standard course in population genetics....

    I referred you to a Nature article which shows rather clearly the problems associated with genetic dating. You take Nature? We do. A rather well-respected peer-reviewed journal. I took Cell for a number of years. I am reasonably conversant with biology and genetics.

    Dr. Sanford, the inventor of the gene gun, works with berries and the selection of variants. It is his experience, and those of his colleagues, which teaches us that it is impossible to select for more than three traits at a time -- you lose your population. Too much is eliminated in the selection for the strain to survive.

    And plants are extraordinarily more genetically malleable than animals....

    Yes, I know what I am talking about. I know speciation can be extraordinarily rapid.

    As far as Barry's work goes, he used all data available. I have recently finished typing up a chapter of a forthcoming book which has to do with the history of light speed research. EVERY measurement ever gotten from EVERY attempt to measure light speed is there -- even those rejected by the scientists themselves for very good reasons.

    And unless you actually look at the data, you are in no position to criticize his use of it. The material was aptly defended in Galilean Electrodynamics by Lambert Dolphin, one of the senior physicists at the Stanford Research Institute International and Alan Montgomery, a profession statistician for the Canadian government. A copy of their article is here:
    http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html

    Now, you assure me you are a creationist. That is a funny sort, pastor or not, who refuses to believe that God knows how to communicate to man exactly what He did in creation!

    And, by the way, if you are at all aware, if a biology student is a creationist, he cannot, CANNOT get a job teaching in a university. Therefore your plea to find a university professor who won't back you up becomes a self-serving argument. I can, however, give you lists of names of teachers who have challenged evolution on scientific grounds who get fired, or lose tenure...

    The one exception, and I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, is Loma Linda University -- a highly acclaimed university and research institute. Dr. Ariel Roth, one of the nicest men I have ever met, is nothing if not a qualified biology professor, although I believe he is retired now and into research only. He is a young earth creationist. Dr. Timothy Standish also is a professor there, and a highly qualified biologist. YEC. In fact, if you take the time to actually read some of the research material from real scientists who are not at the public universities, you might be surprised at what you find.

    Go for the truth, Craig. Don't care where you find it. It is the truth that counts. It requires a willingness to leave all preconceptions behind. It took me five years of reading on my own before I was willing to accept that evolution was a bunch of baloney. Five years of reading from science journals, creation material, evolution material -- everything I could get my hands on. I still read everything I can get my hands on.

    THAT is the reason I know evolution is false. And I have to say that to my shame, because I was not willing to believe God in the first place. In His love, He has been so extraordinarily gracious, though -- He presented me with the evidence I personally needed evidence from the various fields of science themselves and not from any theological material.

    I can guarantee to you, sir, from having been involved in professional education almost all of my adult life (I am 56 now), that what you learn from professors at public universities where origins is concerned is almost entirely indoctrination. The data is carefully selected and sometimes falsified. I know this for a fact.

    Please, read on your own. Don't depend on what others tell you. Get hold of the data yourself. It is in the peer-reviewed journals! Maybe you might be interested in reading Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution. He is certainly qualified to have written it!

    So no, I am not lying or speaking out of ignorance. I am very aware of what I am presenting. I do know that species, for example, is a man-made designation. All the taxonomic classifications are! Who else invented them, the animals? When I was in high school, in the sixties, there were two kingdoms: plants and animals. Now there are five!
    http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookDivers_class.html

    One last point -- evolution teaching has threatened the faith of more college students than I can count. After EVERY lecture series Barry and I have given, at ANY institution, there are young men and women who come up to us thanking us for helping them understand that their Christian faith is not misplaced. They can believe what God said and true science backs it up. The data back it up. Barry has been invited to visit and speak to physicists literally all over the world. He is taken VERY seriously by many. We have hosted in our home some very distinguished scientists who want to talk to him more. He is no fool and he is humble and careful with what he presents.

    Last year a physicist from Spain threw down a serious challenge, disagreeing with him quite strongly about some material. The two of them exchanged emails for about a month. The man finally said something to the effect of 'Well, you might be right, but you had better consider the recombination factor where Planck Particle Pairs are concerned.'

    Barry sat back, looked at that, and said, "He's right! I hadn't thought of that!"

    That is a humble attitude to take, and was the key to a very important paper which was published on the net by the Journal of Theoretics, here:

    http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

    The co-author, Daniel, is a double Ph.D., in mathematics and medicine. He's not too shabby, either...

    In other words, sir, I am willing to deal with data and ideas, but please quit your ranting about how ignorant and/or deceitful I am. Personal attacks are not only something Barry and I are used to, but something which demonstrates to us the lack of knowledge or argument on the part of the attacker.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This thread started as a simple observation of 2 of each v 7 of each animals in the Ark. It is NOT a debate on science/flood etc.

    And the attacks unwarranted.

    Craig, if you want to understand this, I'd suggest private communication with Helen.

    Helen, thanks for your understated response, trying to enlighten not attack.

    Topic closed.
     
Loading...