NationStates Jolt Archive

& evolutionists accuse creationists of making up facts. How about you research before you pull stuff out of your ass, buddy.technically there is no such thing as a transitional fossil. that's a fact. no individual is a transitional being, so there cannot be transitional fossils.

Yes, it has been disproven to all but the persistent and wishful thinkers.
I know that we didn't start out as proteins in an ancient swamp because first of all, there is no fossil evidence of this happening, and second of all, the chances of proteins forming simple lifeforms alone are something like 10 to the 32nd power.

I asked you to offer some of that proof. I haven't seen it anywhere.

Do you know what a fossil is? Chemicals don't leave fossil traces. It's rare enough to find a fossil of a jellyfish or something like that. Almost all fossils are shells and bones. Mostly just teeth. Frankly, fossilised protien stains are so unlikely that they would be evidence of a divine hand in creation.

The odds of it happening in todays climate are remote. In the conditions of the radiation bath that the Earth used to be, it's pretty likely.

Also, with all the planets in the universe, no matter the odds, it was likely to happen on one of them. To argue as you do would be like me saying "your father produced millions of sperm, any of which could have fertilized the egg that eventually became you. The odds that they would produce you are remote. Therefore, you don't exist."

You're very sly, buddy. You should be able to point me to a simple source online explaining how the Cambrian explosion does not disprove evolution

wait, so it is your contention that the existence of a proliferation of many different kinds of hard-bodied fossils not much at all like modern species over the course of tens of millions of years staring some 550 million years ago is an empirically expected consequence of creationism?

are you joking?

You're very sly, buddy. You should be able to point me to a simple source online explaining how the Cambrian explosion does not disprove evolution, not copy and paste a list of sources that you know no one is ever going to read, nor you've read yourself, dumbass.

So you need things explained to you in simple terms yet you call me a "dumbass".

I guess reading linked peer reviewed papers is too much for you then to try and provide evidence to support creationism.

I asked you to offer some of that proof. I haven't seen it anywhere.

Do you know what a fossil is? Chemicals don't leave fossil traces. It's rare enough to find a fossil of a jellyfish or something like that. Almost all fossils are shells and bones. Mostly just teeth. Frankly, fossilised protien stains are so unlikely that they would be evidence of a divine hand in creation.

The odds of it happening in todays climate are remote. In the conditions of the radiation bath that the Earth used to be, it's pretty likely.

Also, with all the planets in the universe, no matter the odds, it was likely to happen on one of them. To argue as you do would be like me saying "your father produced millions of sperm, any of which could have fertilized the egg that eventually became you. The odds that they would produce you are remote. Therefore, you don't exist."

No shit, I'm talking about the beings that these proteins supposedly morphed into. Of course, the Cambrian explosion illustrates that tons of species just randomly appeared out of nowhere, without evolution, but nevermind that.

Oh, I do. And it violates it, buddy.

Show your evidence.

If creationism were valid, then who is the creator?

Huh? Are you trying to outfox God Himself or something? Wow.
Although, you did just remind me that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics

I'd like to point you towards the following rap lyric.


Creationists always try to use the second law
To disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw
The second law is quite clear about where it applies
Only in closed systems does the entropy count rise
The Earth is not a closed system, it's powered by the sun
So fuck the damned creationists, Doomsday, get my gun.

So you need things explained to you in simple terms yet you call me a "dumbass".

I guess reading linked peer reviewed papers is too much for you then to try and provide evidence to support creationism.
I don't have to provide evidence to support creationism, because unless you have a viable alternative to evolution, which is provably wrong, then you are out of ideas. I guess not copying and pasting books from evolutionist sites with the page numbers to which they were referencing completely different topics is too much for you.

No shit, I'm talking about the beings that these proteins supposedly morphed into. Of course, the Cambrian explosion illustrates that tons of species just randomly appeared out of nowhere, without evolution, but nevermind that.

Prove it. The whole point of this thread is to provide empiracal evidence for creationism. Do you have any?

Prove it. The whole point of this thread is to provide empiracal evidence for creationism. Do you have any?
Yes.
1. Something does not come from nothing. Nothing+Nothing=nothing.
2. Our cells are the most complex systems in the world, yet we cannot even replicate a simple cell today. That's saying something about our extremely complex design.
3. God came down to earth and told us so(Unless, you know, you have a problem with the credibility of Jesus, which I'm sure you do.)

I don't have to provide evidence to support creationism, because unless you have a viable alternative to evolution, which is provably wrong, then you are out of ideas. I guess not copying and pasting books from evolutionist sites with the page numbers to which they were referencing completely different topics is too much for you.

"I'm right, and don't have to prove it. You're wrong, because I said so, and unless you come up with a completely new theory out of thin air, it proves I'm right" :rolleyes:


You said evolution is provably wrong. OK, prove it's wrong in some way other than "because I said so".

I don't have to provide evidence to support creationism, because unless you have a viable alternative to evolution, which is provably wrong, then you are out of ideas. I guess not copying and pasting books from evolutionist sites with the page numbers to which they were referencing completely different topics is too much for you.

Then prove it wrong. Show published, peer-reviewed sources that disprove every single element of Evolution.

And if you knew anything at all about science, even if you did that, that would still not provide a shred of evidence to support creationism.

1. No they didn't. Are you out of your mind? You know, you don't have to lie straight to my face...Biologists are unable to explain why all of the animal phyla suddenly just appeared--fully formed. The laughable response to that problem is their concept of "punctuated equillibrium."
2. Because God said so.

Where do scientists say that animal phyla appeared out of nowhere?

It's pretty much agreed among everyone who studies evolution that all animals have a precurser. Some of them develop in such a short chronological period, due to short generations (mosquitos and hamsters reproduce every few weeks) that there is great diversity over a short time, but that's not the same as phyla appearing out of nowhere.

But if you want us to disprove a thesis for you you're going to have to actually present one rather than claim that there's one out there by a certain name that we should go and research and then disprove when we don't even believe it exists.

When did phyla appear out of nowhere?

You're very sly, buddy. You should be able to point me to a simple source online explaining how the Cambrian explosion does not disprove evolution, not copy and paste a list of sources that you know no one is ever going to read, nor you've read yourself, dumbass.

if you wanted proof you could look for yourself, but you don't want anything to disprove what you believe and will deny anything anyone posts....you are deliberately making yourself ignorant so as not to challenge your cherished religious beliefs...

a quote from the following link

"The fossils reveal important clues to the nature of evolution - all of the major types of animals (phyla) known today are represented in the Burgess Shale, plus others that cannot be placed in our modern classification system."

http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/intro.htm

Yes.
1. Something does not come from nothing. Nothing+Nothing=nothing.
2. Our cells are the most complex systems in the world, yet we cannot even replicate a simple cell today. That's saying something about our extremely complex design.
3. God came down to earth and told us so(Unless, you know, you have a problem with the credibility of Jesus, which I'm sure you do.)

1. So where did god come from?
2. That's not evidence for creationism. Show evidence.
3. Prove it. Provide evidence.


That's the whole point. You need to provide evidence. Not just "goddidit". Otherwise you have nothing.

3. God came down to earth and told us so (Unless, you know, you have a problem with the credibility of Jesus, which I'm sure you do.)PROVE THAT. Also bring forward evidence for the alleged credibility of Jesus. The convenient thing for you of course is that he wrote no books, so that we don't really know what he said at all.

Then prove it wrong. Show published, peer-reviewed sources that disprove every single element of Evolution.

I'll give you one thing to take a look at, unlike whatever maniac sent me 5,000 copy-and-pasted sources from a website. Unlike him, I've actually read this book and I suggest you do the same. Don't comment until you have;)
http://www.amazon.com/Traipsing-into-Evolution-Intelligent-Kitzmiller/dp/customer-reviews/0963865498

I don't have to provide evidence to support creationism, because unless you have a viable alternative to evolution, which is provably wrong, then you are out of ideas. I guess not copying and pasting books from evolutionist sites with the page numbers to which they were referencing completely different topics is too much for you.

You know, you keep saying that it's provably wrong, but you have yet to offer so much as a hint, let alone proof, that it is wrong. Could you please show us some of this vaunted proof of yours?

As for not having to prove creationism, I'd say that you'd really should, since the point of the thread is to offer support for it, and you seem not only unable to show support, but an inability to cast the slightest shred of doubt on the validity of evolution.

Besides, since God outright admited that he didn't create the world as it is, you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

PROVE THAT. Also bring forward evidence for the alleged credibility of Jesus. The convenient thing for you of course is that he wrote no books, so that we don't really know what he said at all.
His apostles wrote it down and we have many many prophets predicting His birth centuries before He was born. Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing with cynical low-life losers that are hell-bent on discrediting Jesus Christ, who I revere, so take your trashy rhetoric about Him elsewhere.

Yes, it has been disproven to all but the persistent and wishful thinkers.

Whoa, evolution has been disproven! This is AMAZING news!

...

I also notice you basically ignore any post that you can't have some smirky comment (usually accompanied by a smiley face, or by calling someone a moron, asshat or dumbass) to.

You're a sad, sad troll.

I'll give you one thing to take a look at, unlike whatever maniac sent me 5,000 copy-and-pasted sources from a website. Unlike him, I've actually read this book and I suggest you do the same. Don't comment until you have;)
http://www.amazon.com/Traipsing-into-Evolution-Intelligent-Kitzmiller/dp/customer-reviews/0963865498

What does the Dover decision have to do w/ empiracle evidence for creationism? Unless you're claiming that ID really is creationism and therefore doesn't belong in the classroom so the judge was right.

Why don't you try actually reading the case instead of a book about it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Here, nice "simple" link.

Nice that you can't even be bothered to read peer-reviewed journal articles w/ links. You do understand how citations work, right?

I'm still waiting for the evidence for creationism as well as the evidence that the 2nd law is in violation of evolution.

Whoa, evolution has been disproven! This is AMAZING news!

...

I also notice you basically ignore any post that you can't have some smirky comment (usually accompanied by a smiley face, or by calling someone a moron, asshat or dumbass) to.

You're a sad, sad troll.
Yes, you try taking on 10 people at once all hurling the same non-sensical rhetoric at you. There is no way in hell that I'm going to reply to every damn post, and in fact, I'm done replying to any of them, because secularists demand proof, and when they get it, they ignore it and criticize it. Secularists aren't looking for proof or an intelligent debate, they just love to indulge in bashing people who they disagree with.

His apostles wrote it down and we have many many prophets predicting His birth centuries before He was born. Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing with cynical low-life losers that are hell-bent on discrediting Jesus Christ, who I revere, so take your trashy rhetoric about Him elsewhere.You're a rotten liar. Your god is a Jewish fabrication just like your ideas about how the world came to be are fabricated. It's all in your mind with no connexion to reality.
So now will you finally come up with something testable about creationism.

His apostles wrote it down and we have many many prophets predicting His birth centuries before He was born. Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing with cynical low-life losers that are hell-bent on discrediting Jesus Christ, who I revere, so take your trashy rhetoric about Him elsewhere.

This is a thread about providing empirical evidence in support of biblical creationism. Can you provide any or not?

Yes, you try taking on 10 people at once all hurling the same non-sensical rhetoric at you. There is no way in hell that I'm going to reply to every damn post, and in fact, I'm done replying to any of them, because secularists demand proof, and when they get it, they ignore it and criticize it. Secularists aren't looking for proof or an intelligent debate, they just love to indulge in bashing people who they disagree with.

My irony meter just exploded. You owe me a new one, troll.

Yes, you try taking on 10 people at once all hurling the same non-sensical rhetoric at you.

It's no doubt more frustrating than 10 people taking on one individual hurling the same nonsensical rhetoric at them.

So maybe instead of namecalling followed by whining, you could just STFU.

Unless of course this is just your convenient excuse for ignoring the arguments that annihilate your own. Applying the laws of thermodynamics to evolution? LOL.

It's like you read the "Fundamentalist's Guide to Bad Internet Arguments." What was Chapter One? "Repeat yourself. Remember to assert repeatedly that yes, you're right; this is especially convincing. Especially if you call other people stupid."

There is no way in hell that I'm going to reply to every damn post, and in fact, I'm done replying to any of them, because secularists demand proof, and when they get it, they ignore it and criticize it. Secularists aren't looking for proof or an intelligent debate, they just love to indulge in bashing people who they disagree with.

That's funny. How many times did you call others "asshat," "moron" etc in the gay marriage thread? Want me to go look up? You're a hypocrite. Hypocrites burn in hell.

Also:

"And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire" (Matthew 5)

So, God says you're gonna get toasted by hellfire. Rant about secularists all you like - you aren't even a true Christian.

Yes, you try taking on 10 people at once all hurling the same non-sensical rhetoric at you. There is no way in hell that I'm going to reply to every damn post, and in fact, I'm done replying to any of them, because secularists demand proof, and when they get it, they ignore it and criticize it. Secularists aren't looking for proof or an intelligent debate, they just love to indulge in bashing people who they disagree with.

So provide the proof. That's all it takes. So far you have only made a couple of incorrect statements about parts of the theory of evolution.

His apostles wrote it down and we have many many prophets predicting His birth centuries before He was born. Frankly, I'm not interested in arguing with cynical low-life losers that are hell-bent on discrediting Jesus Christ, who I revere, so take your trashy rhetoric about Him elsewhere.

that sums up debate....he/she had no evidence to support it's position and was not going to accept any evidence that would challenges it's beliefs, a Troll....theist don't look for honest debates, theists that are honestly look for answers do so on their own.....

that sums up debate....he/she had no evidence to support it's position and was not going to accept any evidence that would challenges it's beliefs, a Troll....theist don't look for honest debates, theists that are honestly look for answers do so on their own.....

We really, REALLY need a few fundamentalists of a non Abrahamic religion on this forum.

We really, REALLY need a few fundamentalists of a non Abrahamic religion on this forum.

Like what. Cthulhu worshippers?

IA! YOG SOTHOTH! *Lovecraftian tentacle rape*

We really, REALLY need a few fundamentalists of a non Abrahamic religion on this forum.

that would interesting, how do Hindu's see the evolutionary debate....

Like what. Cthulhu worshippers?

IA! YOG SOTHOTH! *Lovecraftian tentacle rape*

For instance. Or Hindus. Buddhists. Scientologists. Sikhs. Chinese traditional. Juche. Baha'i. Jainism. Shinto. Tenrikyo. Zoroastrianism. Rastafarianism. Hell, the list is long. We can even include some of the "dead" religions.

It would just be refreshing.

This isnt going anywhere and everyone knows it. The problem is that evolutionists wasnt proof and creationists have nothing solid. But many creationists know that it is not necessary to have solid proof, it in fact is a compliment to our creator that proof is not needed if you believe. Believing becomes the whole point. Sounds cheesy i know, but arent faith and proof opposites?

A scientist will try to ratoinalize something by proving it, yes? When it is proven then that is that. But what if there was something that, if proven, would destroy its nature and thus become immediatly impossible to prove, and impossible to pin down permantly? Im not saying thats accurate, but i do know there are things that can't be proven. You can trust that thay exist.

For instance. Or Hindus. Buddhists. Scientologists. Sikhs. Chinese traditional. Juche. Baha'i. Jainism. Shinto. Tenrikyo. Zoroastrianism. Rastafarianism. Hell, the list is long. We can even include some of the "dead" religions.

It would just be refreshing.

this is just a guess but I think many religions are more practical than Abrahamic religions......from people I've met that represent some of those other religions they don't seem to an issue accepting scientific proof of evolution, or at least don't seem to have a problem separating religious belief from science in education......

Then prove it wrong. Show published, peer-reviewed sources that disprove every single element of Evolution.

And if you knew anything at all about science, even if you did that, that would still not provide a shred of evidence to support creationism.

Indeed. I hear all these people that Evolution has been disproven... yet not one single experiment has been done that has disproven it(That follows the scientific method, anywho), nor has even ONE research paper regarding it has EVER been published that disproves evolution. There is no conspiracy to keep alternative theories down, because quite frankly there are no alternatives that have been presented as science. Only assumptions with no scientific evidence, and experimentation.

this is just a guess but I think many religions are more practical than Abrahamic religions......from people I've met that represent some of those other religions they don't seem to an issue accepting scientific proof of evolution, or at least don't seem to have a problem separating religious belief from science in education......

Hmm- I don't know. Many of those religions are dominant in countries where they are also the state religion. It could be that there is no debate at all and that the holy texts are just absolute truth.

Nevertheless, a debate between one of them and a Christian Creationist would be interesting. If only to get rid of the myth that creationism and evolution are the only two options.

Hmm- I don't know. Many of those religions are dominant in countries where they are also the state religion. It could be that there is no debate at all and that the holy texts are just absolute truth.

Nevertheless, a debate between one of them and a Christian Creationist would be interesting. If only to get rid of the myth that creationism and evolution are the only two options.

I'm no expert on any of those religions, but some of them are not really religions but philosophies, some of which combine minor ethnic gods.....Shinto religion doesn't have any official sacred scriptures but focuses on ritual purity and cleanliness in dealing with the kami(gods). so I doubt they have any problems with evolution......Buddhists are atheists it's a way of life not a religion, Confucianism the same.....I think that Christian Creationists have a problem with evolution because their written scriptures and beliefs are in direct conflict with science, which may not be in the case of other religions, Buddhist as atheists should not have any conflict with evolution....

snip
If only to get rid of the myth that creationism and evolution are the only two options.

Notice how this thread has gone... It really is a fundamentalist, bible-belt interpretation being promulgated as the ONLY truth. There are several other branches of Christian religion (and others?) that don't appear to have any problem with both a God and evolution. I may be wrong but I think that the Society of Friends probably is one of these and there are no doubt others.

I don't want to start a "my interpretation is correct and yours is wrong argument" but much of what now passes for main-stream Christianity are not much more that systems for subjugating others of one form, gender, or another.

Notice how this thread has gone... It really is a fundamentalist, bible-belt interpretation being promulgated as the ONLY truth. There are several other branches of Christian religion (and others?) that don't appear to have any problem with both a God and evolution. I may be wrong but I think that the Society of Friends probably is one of these and there are no doubt others.

I don't want to start a "my interpretation is correct and yours is wrong argument" but much of what now passes for main-stream Christianity are not much more that systems for subjugating others of one form, gender, or another.

As well as the Catholic Church, which neither supports nor denies evolution, leaving it up to individuals to decide their stance.

Notice how this thread has gone... It really is a fundamentalist, bible-belt interpretation being promulgated as the ONLY truth. There are several other branches of Christian religion (and others?) that don't appear to have any problem with both a God and evolution. I may be wrong but I think that the Society of Friends probably is one of these and there are no doubt others.

I don't want to start a "my interpretation is correct and yours is wrong argument" but much of what now passes for main-stream Christianity are not much more that systems for subjugating others of one form, gender, or another.

I agree, I have a Catholic friend who very devoted to his religion but yet accepts evolution as fact and much of the bibles version as wrong....he can't explain the contradiction but accepts that is there.....in his words "science doesn't support a God, my faith does"......

there wouldn't even be a debate if it weren't for Creationist Christians trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.....separation of church and state must be absolute.......

the Cambrian explosion illustrates that tons of species just randomly appeared out of nowhere, without evolution

no it doesn't. where would you get a fucking stupid idea like that?

btw, even assuming you were right about the cambrian (which you most emphatically are not), that doesn't save creationism. it's still more than half a billion years ago, and your 'magically appearing' ancestral member of phylum chordata looked like this:

http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/pikaia.gif

say hi to great-great-great...grandad.

Can evolution and a creative God co-exist?Not if the creative god is supposed to be the biblical one.

no biblical creation -> no adam, no eve -> no sin -> no need for a messiah -> no jesus -> christianity obsolete

updated list - i may have missed a few:

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

A world-wide flood would leave behind a layer of sediment covering the globe.
also, we should find fossils in that layer that are a total jumble of all forms of life, not sorted into any particular pattern.

We should not be able to find evidence of human societies that existed prior to 6000 odd years ago.

Not to mention a lot more water than exists on Earth today. Of course, given that their explanation is a liquid water canopy somehow suspended 900 miles above the Earth, it's not hard to see that there are no issues they can't argue around.
though that claim itself (which is only vaguely biblical, but i guess we can allow it) probably has one or two empirical consequences. like a significant greenhouse effect perhaps, which should be visible in various climate proxies at that time. of course, we shouldn't be able to have climate proxies for any times earlier than that 6000ish year mark...

we should find the ruins of many cities around the world all of which we destroyed at essentially the same time by a great flood.

we should be able to trace the spread of humanity from mt ararat outward to the rest of the world.

we should be unable to find any evidence of radioactive materials that have been decaying from more than that magic 6000 year line.

assuming the literal day interpretation:
there should be a general mix of all fossil forms within the same layers, segregated by ancient ecologies and other such things. except for the flood layer, which should just be a jumble. there shouldn't be any extinct forms at all, and certainly no ordered development of species over time.

going instead with the day-age type idea:
the earliest layers in which we find fossils should contain fossil plants, particularly seed and fruit bearing ones, and absolutely no other types of life. later layers should have the above as well as ocean life and birds, and nothing else. and the layers after that should have all land animals, especially cattle.

not that that explains things older than that yet. like the clovis points that are more than 11,000 year old human artifacts found in north america.
(there should not be any human artifacts older than 6000 years bp [ed.])

No stars, galaxies or nebulae should be more than 6000 light years away.

no, if evolution was true, new species would emerge, if there is no evolution, we are stuck with the existing ones and natural selection would decrease their number every day.
(there fossil record should record a decrease in diversity over time [ed.])

to put it in creationist hypothesis form, we should not be able to find anywhere on the planet with more than approx. 6000 annual ice layers.

if the speed of light has been decreasing then more distant objects would be observed effectively in slow motion - there were many 'frames' of light sent originally in a given time period, but now they are 'played' much slower. so we should expect that more distant pulsars and variable stars should do their thing dramatically slower than closer ones. so no variable stars whatsoever outside our own galaxy.

also, the speed of light should be noticeably decreasing while i type this.

Fossil evidence should demonstrate a complete destruction of all life on Earth at about 2000 BC (the approximate time of Noah and the ark). Life of all types should then appear to repopulate the Earth from a single point (the mountain on which the ark landed).and based on this idea, it should be very much later before life got back to the more distant parts of the globe - the tip of south america would be empty for thousands of years probably. and i'm thinking hawaii should be utterly lacking in most things pretty much up to the present day.

Day and night would have to come from a light source independent of the sun.

either there should be no genetic variation within species, or all individuals should have equal reproductive success.

We should not be able to see further then roughly 10,000 light-years into space, at which point god created light.

Don't forget the linguistic effects that would result from such a spread!Then we should theoretically be able to trace all present-day languages back to several distinct, unrelated ancestor languages dating back to a few thousand years ago, and before that point, all language should be identical.

humans should show a genetic bottleneck in the rather recent past - especially because the first couple hundred years are blown on really long generation times.

domesticated animals, particularly cattle, should appear in the fossil record either before or at functionally the same time as the first humans (depending on long or short 'days').

In addition to dinosaur bones, we should find the bones of 12' tall humans with wings and nearby graves of their 8' tall human/angel hybrid children.

there should not be any transitional fossils found anywhere, ever.

everything should show up in the fossil record all at once in fully modern form.

life should not rather neatly cluster into higher groupings except for those explicitly mentioned in the genesis. and they certainly should not be groupable on the basis of noncoding stretches of mitochondrial or chloroplast dna - especially not into the same groupings you might make based on morphology.

i'm thinking of breaking it up into a couple categories. maybe like genetics, linguistics, paleontology, geology, etc. or would some other way work better?

Yes, you try taking on 10 people at once all hurling the same non-sensical rhetoric at you. There is no way in hell that I'm going to reply to every damn post, and in fact, I'm done replying to any of them, because secularists demand proof, and when they get it, they ignore it and criticize it. Secularists aren't looking for proof or an intelligent debate, they just love to indulge in bashing people who they disagree with.

But you haven't offered any. None. Secularists don't ignore proof. It's how secularists live their lives. And if you're done replying to them, then what are you doing here? Please, just once, one lousy time present some of this proof you claim is so pervasive. Don't offer it to every single person asking for it, just post it once and let us all read it. Posts don't wear out from repeated readings. Until then it's really hard to take you seriously.

And virtually all of the bashing going on here has been from you. I believe the phrase "low life morons" was your post, not from one of the Secularists. BTW, you clearly haven't recieved Christ, or you wouldn't be talking with such arrogance. You'd also be able to drink poison without dying. I'd sort out those deficiencies in your faith before claiming that you are wroth with those who don't revere him as you claim to.

The other thing about the "day is an age" notion, aside from the fact that it doesn't make creationism all that much more plausible, is that it's very much un-Biblical.

God makes clear what his definition of "day" is:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

All quotes from Genesis 1. Didn't bother with the verse numbers; they're easy to find.

This isnt going anywhere and everyone knows it. The problem is that evolutionists wasnt proof and creationists have nothing solid. But many creationists know that it is not necessary to have solid proof, it in fact is a compliment to our creator that proof is not needed if you believe. Believing becomes the whole point. Sounds cheesy i know, but arent faith and proof opposites?

A scientist will try to ratoinalize something by proving it, yes? When it is proven then that is that. But what if there was something that, if proven, would destroy its nature and thus become immediatly impossible to prove, and impossible to pin down permantly? Im not saying thats accurate, but i do know there are things that can't be proven. You can trust that thay exist.

Then it would be mathematically expressable in terms of possibilities. Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

It's like saying that it's a complement to dragons to say that they only exist in the deepest darkest parts of the ocean that you haven't looked in yet. And when we check those out, well they only live underground. And when we've developed the technology to see through rocks, well they only live in the molten outer core, and then they only live in nearby alien dimensions. With God. :rolleyes:

The other thing about the "day is an age" notion, aside from the fact that it doesn't make creationism all that much more plausible, is that it's very much un-Biblical.

God makes clear what his definition of "day" is:

All quotes from Genesis 1. Didn't bother with the verse numbers; they're easy to find.

good point, there is no morning and evening of a billion years. only of a day.

I'll give you one thing to take a look at, unlike whatever maniac sent me 5,000 copy-and-pasted sources from a website. Unlike him, I've actually read this book and I suggest you do the same. Don't comment until you have;)
http://www.amazon.com/Traipsing-into-Evolution-Intelligent-Kitzmiller/dp/customer-reviews/0963865498

Obviously I haven't had time to read the book since you're post, but I've done some reading of exerpts and some opinions of the experts. On both sides I've seen useless reviews that attempt to characterize the book rather than explain it.

One important thing keeps leaping out at me however. This book doesn't even pretent to have disproven evolution. It's about the Pennsylvania court case regarding ID in schools. This book does nothing to support your contention that evolution has been disproven.

That aside, this review seems to explain fairly well what the problems with this book are, and I have yet to find a review that explains what's good about it except those that say "we like it because we agree with it." Though in truth there were many that said "we don't like it because we disagree with it," this review explains why it is simply not good enough.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol26/3984_itraipsing_into_evolution_i_12_30_1899.asp

Is that why Jews are not supposed to mingle with non-Jews?
Makes ya wonder, don't it?

Show me.

Awww. Now you're borrowing one of my lines... Genesis 7:11 states "...were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."


Funny, I posted a hint to that somewhere. And there are of course those Mesopotamian flood stories that have been used to fabricate the biblical story. etcsl (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)

I know. Someone else said about gee, now prove it was the same one... I think they think I think it's literal, I was just pointing out that Flood mythology is not limited to the Jews... I never said it was the same Flood.

The other thing about the "day is an age" notion, aside from the fact that it doesn't make creationism all that much more plausible, is that it's very much un-Biblical.

God makes clear what his definition of "day" is:













All quotes from Genesis 1. Didn't bother with the verse numbers; they're easy to find.

Thing is, in that time "morning" and "evening" were sometimes symbolic of "beginning" and "end".

And let's not get into the fact that the original text does not use the Hebrew term for "day"(I.E. 24 hour period) which is yom harison, but instead a term that, although literally translated to day, did not refer to the 24 hour period of time, which is yom ehad.

But let's not get into specifics.

good point, there is no morning and evening of a billion years. only of a day.

Taken literally, not interpratively. As I stated, "morning" and "evening" can mean "beginning" and "end".

Indeed. I hear all these people that Evolution has been disproven... yet not one single experiment has been done that has disproven it(That follows the scientific method, anywho), nor has even ONE research paper regarding it has EVER been published that disproves evolution. There is no conspiracy to keep alternative theories down, because quite frankly there are no alternatives that have been presented as science. Only assumptions with no scientific evidence, and experimentation.

Ok, I still say we don't have a firm handle on evolution. Sorry. I give you that we have microevolution (adaptation within species) but I have to ask you to show me proof of macroevolution (species shift from one to another)

I go back to my fruit flies (those things drove me nuts in college... ) and again ask the simple question... if it were going to happen, don't you think that 50,000 generations (which is more than homo sapiens sapiens has been here) would have shown enough mutation to break out at least one species that is genetically enough different to not be able to call it a fruit fly any more????

The reason for the hard to find papers on disproving is that (imho) evolution IS the religion of science. Anyone who tries to publish something like that would never get it past peer review, no matter how air tight their case. Why? Because it would force too many in the scientific community to eat crow on stuff they've said for too many years... and like it or not, scientists have egos, too.

Again, I posit back to you, one simple part of the evolution argument... where are they?

Also, one more time, I have had a scientific/engineering training for education, and also have studied religion (which is more a philosophy, not facts) and now hold my pastoral papers... so I can argue both sides of the aisle here... I don't think that the hebrew creation tale is specifically correct point by point (btw several people have it all screwed up on here... Adam didn't come about until Day 6, fyi... ) I think it was alegory (which the Hebrews LOVED) so it's a story... too many of my fellow Christians confuse facts with truth too often...

the Bible is true, but not necessarily factual...

think i'll sit back and let THAT nugget sink in...

Ok, I still say we don't have a firm handle on evolution. Sorry. I give you that we have microevolution (adaptation within species) but I have to ask you to show me proof of macroevolution (species shift from one to another)

Please explain why macroevolution is not simply microevolution repeated over and over again over a prolonged period of time.
Or do you believe that cat B, which is the result of 1000 microevolutions of cat A, could still be considered the same species ? Even if the animals would no longer be able to breed ?

The reason for the hard to find papers on disproving is that (imho) evolution IS the religion of science. Anyone who tries to publish something like that would never get it past peer review, no matter how air tight their case. Why? Because it would force too many in the scientific community to eat crow on stuff they've said for too many years... and like it or not, scientists have egos, too.

Yes. That is why a disproval of evolution would be published. It would be instant immortaility.

Again, I posit back to you, one simple part of the evolution argument... where are they?

*cuddles the bacteria that can only eat plastic*

But you are attacking evolution. Not making a case for creationism. Again I must point out that creationism and evolution are not the only two options, so attempting to disprove evolution does not prove creationism. Please make some testable statements in favour of creationism, so we can judge it on its own merit

Because I agree that evolution lacks some evidence. But creationism has none.

Ok, I still say we don't have a firm handle on evolution. Sorry. I give you that we have microevolution (adaptation within species) but I have to ask you to show me proof of macroevolution (species shift from one to another)

I go back to my fruit flies (those things drove me nuts in college... ) and again ask the simple question... if it were going to happen, don't you think that 50,000 generations (which is more than homo sapiens sapiens has been here) would have shown enough mutation to break out at least one species that is genetically enough different to not be able to call it a fruit fly any more????

The reason for the hard to find papers on disproving is that (imho) evolution IS the religion of science. Anyone who tries to publish something like that would never get it past peer review, no matter how air tight their case. Why? Because it would force too many in the scientific community to eat crow on stuff they've said for too many years... and like it or not, scientists have egos, too.

Again, I posit back to you, one simple part of the evolution argument... where are they?

Also, one more time, I have had a scientific/engineering training for education, and also have studied religion (which is more a philosophy, not facts) and now hold my pastoral papers... so I can argue both sides of the aisle here... I don't think that the hebrew creation tale is specifically correct point by point (btw several people have it all screwed up on here... Adam didn't come about until Day 6, fyi... ) I think it was alegory (which the Hebrews LOVED) so it's a story... too many of my fellow Christians confuse facts with truth too often...

the Bible is true, but not necessarily factual...

think i'll sit back and let THAT nugget sink in...

The simplest example of macro evolution I can think of. (apart from fruit flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation) which have actually been observed to form separate species in lab conditions despite your weird assertion that they haven't) would be ring species
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) If you have a series of populations that can interbreed with their neighbours but not with either end of the string you can see that there is no real species separation just population separations which can be 100% identified by an inability to breed.

Ok, I still say we don't have a firm handle on evolution. Sorry. I give you that we have microevolution (adaptation within species) but I have to ask you to show me proof of macroevolution (species shift from one to another)
Alright, I'll try to be as simple as possible.

[quote]
I go back to my fruit flies (those things drove me nuts in college... ) and again ask the simple question... if it were going to happen, don't you think that 50,000 generations (which is more than homo sapiens sapiens has been here) would have shown enough mutation to break out at least one species that is genetically enough different to not be able to call it a fruit fly any more????


Well, we note that speciation occurs. We have observed entirely new species arise, most notably in fruit flies, but it has also been observed in various species of Mosquitos, plants, and insects. "Fruit fly" is not a species, it is merely a grouping of all flies. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different fruit fly species out there. "Fruit Fly" is no more a species than the term Ape is, for example.


The reason for the hard to find papers on disproving is that (imho) evolution IS the religion of science. Anyone who tries to publish something like that would never get it past peer review, no matter how air tight their case. Why? Because it would force too many in the scientific community to eat crow on stuff they've said for too many years... and like it or not, scientists have egos, too.


If they were seriously committed to science, they would publish their papers for peer review. You must remember that at one time evolution was not commonly accepted by the scientific community, for various scientific and other reasons. However, as new technologies and new discoveries were made, and as the theory became more sound, it became accepted. One would expect that a single paper to be published if evolution is truly disproven-so far that has not been the case. One cannot skirt around saying that something is being kept down by the scientific community when infact nothing has been presented thus far to the scientific community to be reviewed.

I will be the first to admit that the scientific community can be some hard-nosed people, but the simple fact is that nothing to date has been presented, and if someone has indeed "disproven" evolution through experimentation, one would assume they would publish their work.


Again, I posit back to you, one simple part of the evolution argument... where are they?

Where are what? I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

fruit flies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation) which have actually been observed to form separate species in lab conditions despite your weird assertion that they haven't

since it's fairly clear that this person doesn't actually have the grounding in science that they claim, i bet that i can guess what they mean by there being no speciation in fruit flies. they mean that we've never seen a fruit fly change into a pony. of course, that might count for evidence of some form of creationism if we ever did see such a thing, and not evolution...

Ok, I still say we don't have a firm handle on evolution. Sorry. I give you that we have microevolution (adaptation within species) but I have to ask you to show me proof of macroevolution (species shift from one to another)

I go back to my fruit flies (those things drove me nuts in college... ) and again ask the simple question... if it were going to happen, don't you think that 50,000 generations (which is more than homo sapiens sapiens has been here) would have shown enough mutation to break out at least one species that is genetically enough different to not be able to call it a fruit fly any more????

The reason for the hard to find papers on disproving is that (imho) evolution IS the religion of science. Anyone who tries to publish something like that would never get it past peer review, no matter how air tight their case. Why? Because it would force too many in the scientific community to eat crow on stuff they've said for too many years... and like it or not, scientists have egos, too.

Again, I posit back to you, one simple part of the evolution argument... where are they?

Also, one more time, I have had a scientific/engineering training for education, and also have studied religion (which is more a philosophy, not facts) and now hold my pastoral papers... so I can argue both sides of the aisle here... I don't think that the hebrew creation tale is specifically correct point by point (btw several people have it all screwed up on here... Adam didn't come about until Day 6, fyi... ) I think it was alegory (which the Hebrews LOVED) so it's a story... too many of my fellow Christians confuse facts with truth too often...

the Bible is true, but not necessarily factual...

think i'll sit back and let THAT nugget sink in...

This gives more evidence to support "macro-evolution" than you've given to refute it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now the whole point of this thread is for biblical creationists to present empirical evidence to justify them calling it a theory.

There have been papers that show problems w/ areas of evolution. They have been published in peer-reviewed journals. If they hadn't, it wouldn't change or improve at all. That's how science works. The problem is that evolution isn't based on one single peice of evidence that a single paper could disprove. It's based on over 100 years of research spanning multiple fields.

Thing is, in that time "morning" and "evening" were sometimes symbolic of "beginning" and "end".

Yeah... and that's why God DEFINES "day" as "light" and "night" as "darkness" at the beginning of the whole episode?

If creation represented ages, there would be millions of periods of light and dark... not six.

And let's not get into the fact that the original text does not use the Hebrew term for "day"(I.E. 24 hour period) which is yom harison, but instead a term that, although literally translated to day, did not refer to the 24 hour period of time, which is yom ehad.

Yom rishon - first day ("yom harishon" - shin, not samech - just means "the first day"). Yom echad - one day. Ordinal versus cardinal numbers. I don't see any other difference.

Both phrases, in fact, use the SAME HEBREW TERM for day - yom. The same term that is used earlier to describe the period of light - "vayikra elohim la'or yom" (Genesis 1:5 - "and God called the light 'day'").

...

uh oh, somebody busted out ye olde hebrew texts

Taken literally, not interpretively. As I stated, "morning" and "evening" can mean "beginning" and "end".But does it? And would such a meaning be meaningful in Bereshit/Genesis? Well, not at all.

uh oh, somebody busted out ye olde hebrew textsIf you don't trust him, read it yourself.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/gen001.htm

i tried this a few years back and want to give it another go. it's a sort of collective project for nsg. creationists are always going on about how they deserve an equal hearing as science. well if they want biblical science, then we should treat their claims like any other scientific hypotheses. a lot of the stuff they claim happened would leave all sorts of evidence that it did ('cause the bible does not say "and then god covered it all up and framed the dinosaurs" anywhere as far as i know). so let's come up with some empirical consequences for them.

i'll start:

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

We should not respect the religous minority on this site, and continue too opress them. Stupid christians, with thier faith based on virtue and morals...

We should not respect the religous minority on this site, and continue too opress them. Stupid christians, with thier faith based on virtue and morals...
Christian faith is not based on virtue and morals. It is based on obedience.

Christian faith is not based on virtue and morals. It is based on obedience.

Exactly. Go feed the poor! Love your neighbor! Forgiveness is never far from you! Act not in anger!!! OBEY ME!


-Uhm, matthew something or other

Christian faith is not based on virtue and morals. It is based on obedience.
The christian faith is the sequal to Judism. The God in the new testment is much nicer and this time there is a messiah which was made up. I don't doubt Jesus existed but bible nativity story is not possible. I will go into detail if needed.

The christian faith is the sequal to Judism. The God in the new testment is much nicer and this time there is a messiah which was made up. I don't doubt Jesus existed but bible nativity story is not possible. I will go into detail if needed.

Im not debating this, seen it before....I think it was about 4 minutes ago...heh a new record.

Trust me, I know the details, Grandparents are Jehovhas witnesses. (Jesus wasnt born in december, etc)

Im not debating this, seen it before....I think it was about 4 minutes ago...heh a new record.

Trust me, I know the details, Grandparents are Jehovhas witnesses. (Jesus wasnt born in december, etc)

Well Duh! He wasn't born in december. But for those that don't.

First the obvious is VIRGIN birth...thats all that needs to be said.

Secoundly Micah 5:2 said a prophet would be born in Bethlehem but yet in John it says they were surprised Jesus was not.

Thirdly there if Joseph was of the hose of david since david was probaly a thousand years before Joseph why would they call Joesph home for taxation which was stated by Luke and Joseph really couldn't of get called to Bethelem for a census either because Herod was dead before the census was called which was stated by Matthew.

The Christian faith is the sequel to Judaism. The God in the New Testament is much nicer and this time there is a messiah which was made up. I don't doubt Jesus existed but bible nativity story is not possible. I will go into detail if needed.The nicety of the NT god is only superficial. The expected obedience has not at all changed.

Well Duh! He wasn't born in december. But for those that don't.

First the obvious is VIRGIN birth...thats all that needs to be said.

Secoundly Micah 5:2 said a prophet would be born in Bethlehem but yet in John it says they were surprised Jesus was not.

Thirdly there if Joseph was of the hose of david since david was probaly a thousand years before Joseph why would they call Joesph home for taxation which was stated by Luke and Joseph really couldn't of get called to Bethelem for a census either because Herod was dead before the census was called which was stated by Matthew.
wtf?

What do you mean wtf?

What do you mean wtf?It would be helpful if you re-wrote that in a more understandable manner, especially the last sentence. And are you natively speaking/writing English?

I've always found it hilarious whenever somebody starts trying to argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Trying to take a book that was an oral tradition for generations before finally being written down by Moses (Genesis) and then translated from an ancient language into english, (which has absolutely no commonality with Hebrew) literally for what it says is ridiculous. The translation alone makes it impossible to take it literally.

Then there is the words of Jesus in the NT referring to the relativity of time to God (a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day) that also throws the whole taking the creation of the earth in 6 24hr days out the window. Who are we to think that any statement about God's creation has to be limited by our perceptions of what a day is?

So, perhaps we should stop worrying about whether evolution and creation are mutually exclusive... after all, what argument is there that would prove God didn't use the process of evolution while creating the earth? Kinda makes those who try to argue about it look kinda silly.

As for those who are trying to get the teaching of evolution banned from school-Grow up!! You have no right to make any claims about how God did or didn't do things. Are you on his advisory committee or something? If you are worried about your children being indoctrinated, teach them how to hold to their own beliefs without judging others for having different opinions. Then they will actually be able to interface with modern society without isolating themselves by being closed-minded and judgemental. You don't have to agree with somebody else's beliefs to treat them with the respect due another fellow human being.

I've always found it hilarious whenever somebody starts trying to argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Trying to take a book that was an oral tradition for generations before finally being written down by Moses (Genesis) and then translated from an ancient language into english, (which has absolutely no commonality with Hebrew) literally for what it says is ridiculous. The translation alone makes it impossible to take it literally.The books of Moses, including Genesis, were not really written by Moses (who had no direct access to Mesopotamian creation stories, which Genesis is a distortion of). Further, the first written Bible (the Septuagint) was set down in Greek, not Hebrew, and the Masoretic text was assembled and fine-tuned only after the Christians had already canonized their Bible.

The books of Moses, including Genesis, were not really written by Moses (who had no direct access to Mesopotamian creation stories, which Genesis is a distortion of). Further, the first written Bible (the Septuagint) was set down in Greek, not Hebrew, and the Masoretic text was assembled and fine-tuned only after the Christians had already canonized their Bible.

Good to know, if it's true. I'm not a biblical or historical scholar, and therefore cannot argue the finer points to who did what and when. What I am is a person who believes the bible to be the word of God. You can do everything in your power to coerce me to believe otherwise, if you'd like, but...

My philosophy comes down to this... If you are going to call yourself a Christian, you must believe the bible to be the word of God, protected by God, and exactly as God wants it to be. If you don't believe God has the power to protect his word... how can you believe in him at all? So, therefore, there is no point it arguing about whether it is true or how true it is. (or who wrote it, or who changed it, or who corrupted it, etc., etc.) Either you believe, or you don't.

If you don't, that is fine by me. I'll respect your belief, but for that respect I expect you to respect my belief.

Good to know, if it's true. I'm not a biblical or historical scholar, and therefore cannot argue the finer points to who did what and when. What I am is a person who believes the bible to be the word of God. You can do everything in your power to coerce me to believe otherwise, if you'd like, but...

My philosophy comes down to this... If you are going to call yourself a Christian, you must believe the bible to be the word of God, protected by God, and exactly as God wants it to be. If you don't believe God has the power to protect his word... how can you believe in him at all? So, therefore, there is no point it arguing about whether it is true or how true it is. (or who wrote it, or who changed it, or who corrupted it, etc., etc.) Either you believe, or you don't.

If you don't, that is fine by me. I'll respect your belief, but for that respect I expect you to respect my belief.1. I won't. That would be like asking me to respect somebody who claims the moon to be a tetrahedron.
2. it seems you believe in the Bible but not the God. Original Christianity does in fact not dwell on the Bible as divine revelation at all. Original Christianity is the community that was (supposedly) founded by Yeshua before there was a Bible available to commoners. The catholic/orthodox church is the continuation of this original community, that's why in these churches "passing the blessing" from person to person and from generation to generation is far more important than study of scripture. The Bible is only a nice addition, but not essentially necessary. This is, however, different in the Protestant churches, which stepped out of this community since the 16th century and made the Bible the prime source for the "connexion with god". Anyways, the bible (NT and OT) has always been fundamentally flawed and there really is no point in believing anything it propagates. And tell me: if the Bible doesn't get history right, why should I assume it gets god right?

1. I won't. That would be like asking me to respect somebody who claims the moon to be a tetrahedron.


If you refuse to respect the beliefs of another as being their personal beliefs whether or not you agree with them, then your arguments deserve no respect from anyone.

Besides, if I believed the moon to be a tetrahedron, just laugh at me and go along your way. Why care whether my belief agrees with yours? I never accused anyone of being wrong, I merely stated my personally held belief.

2. it seems you believe in the Bible but not the God. And how do you get that from what I said?Original Christianity does in fact not dwell on the Bible as divine revelation at all. Original Christianity is the community that was (supposedly) founded by Yeshua before there was a Bible available to commoners. The catholic/orthodox church is the continuation of this original community, that's why in these churches "passing the blessing" from person to person and from generation to generation is far more important than study of scripture. The Bible is only a nice addition, but not essentially necessary. This is, however, different in the Protestant churches, which stepped out of this community since the 16th century and made the Bible the prime source for the "connexion with god". Anyways, the bible (NT and OT) has always been fundamentally flawed and there really is no point in believing anything it propagates. And tell me: if the Bible doesn't get history right, why should I assume it gets god right? Did I ever ask you to?

Again-State your belief. I'll state mine. Leave it at that. I'm not asking you to believe what I do.

i tried this a few years back and want to give it another go. it's a sort of collective project for nsg. creationists are always going on about how they deserve an equal hearing as science. well if they want biblical science, then we should treat their claims like any other scientific hypotheses. a lot of the stuff they claim happened would leave all sorts of evidence that it did ('cause the bible does not say "and then god covered it all up and framed the dinosaurs" anywhere as far as i know). so let's come up with some empirical consequences for them.

i'll start:

we should not be able to find sequences of tree rings stretching back beyond 6000 years or so

This is not Creationism. This is one form of Creationism. I genuinely thought you might have come up with something a little more interesting.

Anyhow, lets look at those tree rings. What do they tell us? That the world is older than 6000 years, since there are more than 6000 rings? Not quite. The trees themselves are mineralised or fossilized, so we need to make sure we have the right date for their last year of growth. And then we have to assume that one ring represents one year. And then we need to take into account that if there was a great flood, that the conditions on earth may not have been as they are now before that flood (e.g. the seasons may have not been so pronounced, trees may have grown faster due to warmer climates and higher moisture or any number of imaginable variables).

So, after we have made all our assumptions and assessments, can we conclude that the tree rings tell us with 100% certainty that the world is older than 6000 years? Obviously not. It remains more or less uncertain, depending on the person making the judgement. It may be the world is older than 6000 years, in my view, but I certainly wouldn't take the number of tree rings as proof of that. Nor should you.

If you refuse to respect the beliefs of another as being their personal beliefs whether or not you agree with them, then your arguments deserve no respect from anyone.

Besides, if I believed the moon to be a tetrahedron, just laugh at me and go along your way. Why care whether my belief agrees with yours? I never accused anyone of being wrong, I merely stated my personally held belief.If you state baseless beliefs you harm the education of others. If you should have personal beliefs, keep them personal.

What I am is a person who believes the bible to be the word of God.That's why I will never take you as serious.

If you state baseless beliefs you harm the education of others.

Only the education of those who are not bright enough to recognise a belief as not having any base.

And if you are tending to assume Christian beliefs as baseless, then you are rather dangerously prejudice. Just because you may not consider the bases for a Christian belief to be to your tastes, that doesn't make those beliefs baseless--except in the mind of a hopeless bigot.


If you should have personal beliefs, keep them personal.


On the contrary, a discussion forum is where you get to discuss your beliefs, to find out if they are exclusively personal, or if they are shared by others.

Only the education of those who are not bright enough to recognise a belief as not having any base.

And if you are tending to assume Christian beliefs as baseless, then you are rather dangerously prejudice. Just because you may not consider the bases for a Christian belief to be to your tastes, that doesn't make those beliefs baseless--except in the mind of a hopeless bigot.This has nothing to do with my tastes. There is just no point in believing in a god that is only an ideologically and politically motivated arbitrary redesign of much older gods. Once you have learned how the Bible, the description of "god", was assembled, you will never again give a shit for its theological contents.

On the contrary, a discussion forum is where you get to discuss your beliefs, to find out if they are exclusively personal, or if they are shared by others.But we are not discussing beliefs here, let alone personal beliefs. We are discussing what is supposed to be an accurate description of reality, which in any case must be independent of personal views.

If you refuse to respect the beliefs of another as being their personal beliefs whether or not you agree with them, then your arguments deserve no respect from anyone.

There is a difference between respecting another person's right to have their own personal beliefs and respecting those beliefs.

I do not respect the belief that black people are inherently inferior, for instance. However, I respect other individuals' right to believe what they want about black people and white people, even if I don't respect the beliefs themselves.


Besides, if I believed the moon to be a tetrahedron, just laugh at me and go along your way. Why care whether my belief agrees with yours? I never accused anyone of being wrong, I merely stated my personally held belief.
If you want to state your personally-held beliefs in a public forum, you need to be prepared for other people to respond to you. If you don't want to deal with other people responding to your personally-held beliefs, then I'd suggest you not choose to share them in a public forum.

But we are not discussing beliefs here, let alone personal beliefs. We are discussing what is supposed to be an accurate description of reality, which in any case must be independent of personal views.


Hahah well good luck with that then.

Not if the creative god is supposed to be the biblical one.

no biblical creation -> no adam, no eve -> no sin -> no need for a messiah -> no jesus -> christianity obsolete

What a silly statement. Adam and Eve need not represent literal people for sin to exist on the planet. They are simply an allegory - a representation of how humankind became and stayed sinful. One cannot commit a sin if one is not aware of one's actions. As human beings became self-aware - began to understand right and wrong - we also became capable of sin. And since we are fallible and it is in our nature to make mistakes, we will all sin.

Christian faith is not based on virtue and morals. It is based on obedience.

Depends on which Christians you talk to. The Abelardian view of atonement is based in love, and wanting to do the right thing - to be virtuous - out of love, rather than rote obedience or fear.

What a silly statement. Adam and Eve need not represent literal people for sin to exist on the planet. They are simply an allegory - a representation of how humankind became and stayed sinful. One cannot commit a sin if one is not aware of one's actions. As human beings became self-aware - began to understand right and wrong - we also became capable of sin. And since we are fallible and it is in our nature to make mistakes, we will all sin.
According to the Bible, Eve sinned first. If this story is an allegory, does it then mean that female human beings became self-aware before male human beings?

According to the Bible, female human beings bear the brunt of the punishment for the self-awareness (and sin-capability) of our species, and this is why human females must endure the pain of childbirth. Does this mean that female human beings also carry most of the responsibility for our human self-awareness? Would humanity be better off if we were not self-aware? If not, why is obtaining self-awareness something that warrants punishment from God?

My philosophy comes down to this... If you are going to call yourself a Christian, you must believe the bible to be the word of God, protected by God, and exactly as God wants it to be. If you don't believe God has the power to protect his word... how can you believe in him at all? So, therefore, there is no point it arguing about whether it is true or how true it is. (or who wrote it, or who changed it, or who corrupted it, etc., etc.) Either you believe, or you don't.

If you don't, that is fine by me. I'll respect your belief, but for that respect I expect you to respect my belief.

I'll respect your belief. However, unless you are Jesus Christ himself, you have absolutely no business trying to say who can and cannot or should and should not call himself a Christian. Your beliefs are your own, and other Christians see things differently.

Anyhow, lets look at those tree rings. What do they tell us? That the world is older than 6000 years, since there are more than 6000 rings? Not quite. The trees themselves are mineralised or fossilized, so we need to make sure we have the right date for their last year of growth. And then we have to assume that one ring represents one year. And then we need to take into account that if there was a great flood, that the conditions on earth may not have been as they are now before that flood (e.g. the seasons may have not been so pronounced, trees may have grown faster due to warmer climates and higher moisture or any number of imaginable variables).

So, for your version, we have to assume that trees do things that we've never seen them do before? How interesting.

Will your next theory be based on pigs flying?

So, after we have made all our assumptions and assessments, can we conclude that the tree rings tell us with 100% certainty that the world is older than 6000 years? Obviously not. It remains more or less uncertain, depending on the person making the judgement. It may be the world is older than 6000 years, in my view, but I certainly wouldn't take the number of tree rings as proof of that. Nor should you.

(a) We aren't looking for 100% certainty. Science cannot give us that and we don't expect it to. But when your uncertainty depends on some pretty wild jumps, we can be fairly certain.

(b) Free Soviets was not claiming that tree rings are the only empirical evidence suggesting an older Earth, and you shouldn't have taken it as such. We are presenting specific empirical consequences that we would expect if young-Earth Creationists were correct. That is one.


This has nothing to do with my tastes. There is just no point in believing in a god that is only an ideologically and politically motivated arbitrary redesign of much older gods. Once you have learned how the Bible, the description of "god", was assembled, you will never again give a shit for its theological contents.

I actually know quite a bit about how the Bible was assembled - more than most people, most likely. That doesn't mean that I discount its contents out-of-hand.

According to the Bible, Eve sinned first. If this story is an allegory, does it then mean that female human beings became self-aware before male human beings?

According to the Bible, female human beings bear the brunt of the punishment for the self-awareness (and sin-capability) of our species, and this is why human females must endure the pain of childbirth. Does this mean that female human beings also carry most of the responsibility for our human self-awareness? Would humanity be better off if we were not self-aware? If not, why is obtaining self-awareness something that warrants punishment from God?

You are still looking for the story to be literal instead of allegory - and for it to express only one point. I think the story is told from much the same point-of-view as adults looking at the innocence of children as something they wish to go back to. The ancient Hebrew people recognized their self-awareness as a burden - as a responsibility that most of Creation did not share, and some of them apparently thought this must be a punishment of some sort. They must have lost that responsibility-free life as a result of human actions. (Personally, I see it as an advancement and a gift, although it certainly is a responsibility).

The fact that women have to endure menstruation and childbirth, while men do not, would have implicated them as somehow more deserving of suffering in a culture which saw life itself and the way it turned out as either reward or punishment. Thus, they would have sought to explain such occurrences.

Just as Aesop's fables are used to teach lessons about the world, much of the OT was used to teach lessons. They were the way in which an ancient people tried to explain their world and what they saw in it.

You are still looking for the story to be literal instead of allegory - and for it to express only one point.

? No, I'm looking at it as an allegory. A very large part of the story revolves around the assigning of "blame" for Original Sin. You are saying (I think) that the ability to sin is tied to self-awareness, and that individuals must be self-aware to be capable of sinning. I'm trying to figure out the allegorical significance of the portions of the Bible story which assign blame for this.


I think the story is told from much the same point-of-view as adults looking at the innocence of children as something they wish to go back to. The ancient Hebrew people recognized their self-awareness as a burden - as a responsibility that most of Creation did not share, and some of them apparently thought this must be a punishment of some sort. They must have lost that responsibility-free life as a result of human actions. (Personally, I see it as an advancement and a gift, although it certainly is a responsibility).

Yeah, I'm with you on this so far.


The fact that women have to endure menstruation and childbirth, while men do not, would have implicated them as somehow more deserving of suffering in a culture which saw life itself and the way it turned out as either reward or punishment. Thus, they would have sought to explain such occurrences.

Okay. So, according to the Biblical allegory, self-awareness is something for which an individual receives punishment, and women receive a greater amount of punishment than men. Does this mean that women have more self-awareness than men, according to the allegory? Does it mean that women receive greater punishment for having self-awareness, even if they have the same amount of self-awareness as men?

Also, is the punishment received for having self-awareness in accordance with the will of God? That is to say, does God wish this punishment to exist? If so, why? If not, why does God permit it to exist?


Just as Aesop's fables are used to teach lessons about the world, much of the OT was used to teach lessons. They were the way in which an ancient people tried to explain their world and what they saw in it.
Yes, I know. I am trying to discuss the message that is being communicated by the Bible stories. I'm not debating the fact that these stories were penned by human beings who existed within a particular historical context.

? No, I'm looking at it as an allegory. A very large part of the story revolves around the assigning of "blame" for Original Sin. I'm trying to figure out the allegorical significance of this.

Original Sin is more of a Catholic concept than one accepted by Judaism or by the ancient Hebrews. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden - out of "paradise" - out of "blissful ignorance", as it were. The concept of Original Sin as something that is actually passed down was a concept pretty much originated by the Catholic Church. It was a new interpretation on the story of Adam and Eve.

Yeah, I'm with you on this so far.

Okay. So, according to the Biblical allegory, self-awareness is something for which an individual receives punishment,

Not exactly. Self-awareness places a responsibility upon humanity. Because we understand right and wrong, we have a responsibility to do the right thing. When we do not (as we all make mistakes), we are deserving of punishment.

If you see "blissful ignorance" as paradise (as some do), then self-awareness itself is a punishment.

and women receive a greater amount of punishment than men. Does this mean that women have more self-awareness than men, according to the allegory? Does it mean that women receive greater punishment for having self-awareness, even if they have the same amount of self-awareness as men?

No, like I said, we're addressing two different points. The ancient Hebrews felt that women had to endure more suffering than men through menstruation and childbirth. As such, in their view, women must do more wrong than men. The fact that this is placed in the Adam and Eve story does not mean that women are more self-aware than men (in fact, the culture probably believed the opposite), but reminds us of the viewpoint that women must be receiving more punishment than men. They must be more sinful in some way.

Also, is the punishment received for having self-awareness in accordance with the will of God? That is to say, does God wish this punishment to exist? If so, why? If not, why does God permit it to exist?

From the self-awareness = responsibility point of view, you need not see it as a punishment. Those who wrote the story apparently did see it as such - self-awareness as something humankind gained by disobedience, as it were. Personally, I don't see it that way. I think that the self-awareness, and the responsibility that comes with it, is a gift. It does, however, make us capable of sin.

Yes, I know. I am trying to discuss the message that is being communicated by the Bible stories. I'm not debating the fact that these stories were penned by human beings who existed within a particular historical context.

But to see the stories as useful in any way, or even to try and determine what they were supposed to represent, we have to look at them within that particular historical context - to see them from the point of view of those who penned them. Looking at them from our societal viewpoint - from the viewpoint of a society in which women are considered equals (or getting there, anyways) to men, punishment and rewards from God for our own actions are believed to either come in the afterlife or not at all, and the pursuit of knowledge is sen as being open to all as a good thing, the story isn't going to mean the same thing.

This is not Creationism. This is one form of Creationism.

hey, i've got an idea. why don't you tell us what empirical consequences you expect to see in the world based on your idea of creationism?

Anyhow, lets look at those tree rings. What do they tell us? That the world is older than 6000 years, since there are more than 6000 rings? Not quite. The trees themselves are mineralised or fossilized, so we need to make sure we have the right date for their last year of growth. And then we have to assume that one ring represents one year. And then we need to take into account that if there was a great flood, that the conditions on earth may not have been as they are now before that flood (e.g. the seasons may have not been so pronounced, trees may have grown faster due to warmer climates and higher moisture or any number of imaginable variables).

so approximately how many extra tree rings would you expect to see? it clearly cannot be infinite, but you expect it to be more than 6000. at what point would it be too many?

(ignoring that your information above is just factually wrong and not to mention silly when we look at the various different tree-ring chronologies from around the world that get us back more than 6000 years)

What a silly statement. Adam and Eve need not represent literal people for sin to exist on the planet. They are simply an allegory - a representation of how humankind became and stayed sinful. One cannot commit a sin if one is not aware of one's actions. As human beings became self-aware - began to understand right and wrong - we also became capable of sin. And since we are fallible and it is in our nature to make mistakes, we will all sin.The Bible does not at all describe Adam or Eve as allegories, but as "real" individuals. And without their original sin (disobedience) there would be no need for a savior. That's what Christianity is about.

Original Sin is more of a Catholic concept than one accepted by Judaism or by the ancient Hebrews. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden - out of "paradise" - out of "blissful ignorance", as it were. The concept of Original Sin as something that is actually passed down was a concept pretty much originated by the Catholic Church. It was a new interpretation on the story of Adam and Eve.

Ok. But still, in the story it is "paradise" to live in "blissful ignorance," so the idea seems to be that self-awareness isn't as much fun as ignorance, right?


Not exactly. Self-awareness places a responsibility upon humanity. Because we understand right and wrong, we have a responsibility to do the right thing. When we do not (as we all make mistakes), we are deserving of punishment.

If you see "blissful ignorance" as paradise (as some do), then self-awareness itself is a punishment.

So the "punishment" is that human beings have an additional responsibility as the result of our self-awareness?


No, like I said, we're addressing two different points. The ancient Hebrews felt that women had to endure more suffering than men through menstruation and childbirth. As such, in their view, women must do more wrong than men. The fact that this is placed in the Adam and Eve story does not mean that women are more self-aware than men (in fact, the culture probably believed the opposite), but reminds us of the viewpoint that women must be receiving more punishment than men. They must be more sinful in some way.

You said earlier that Adam and Eve are "a representation of how humankind became and stayed sinful." You also said that, "As human beings became self-aware - began to understand right and wrong - we also became capable of sin." According to the story, Eve sinned first, so that would mean that the allegory expresses the idea that female human beings became self-aware before male human beings.

I know that the writers of the story probably didn't think that female human beings became self-aware first. What I'm getting at is that your interpretation of the allegory doesn't seem to fit with what the writers probably believed.


From the self-awareness = responsibility point of view, you need not see it as a punishment. Those who wrote the story apparently did see it as such - self-awareness as something humankind gained by disobedience, as it were. Personally, I don't see it that way. I think that the self-awareness, and the responsibility that comes with it, is a gift. It does, however, make us capable of sin.

No argument here. However, if you personally believe that self-awareness is a good thing, then why was a Savior needed to redeem humanity from our attainment of self-awareness as the Bible describes?


But to see the stories as useful in any way, or even to try and determine what they were supposed to represent, we have to look at them within that particular historical context - to see them from the point of view of those who penned them. Looking at them from our societal viewpoint - from the viewpoint of a society in which women are considered equals (or getting there, anyways) to men, punishment and rewards from God for our own actions are believed to either come in the afterlife or not at all, and the pursuit of knowledge is sen as being open to all as a good thing, the story isn't going to mean the same thing.
If we want to look at a particular allegory, and if we want to understand the meaning that said allegory was intended to communicate, then I think we probably ought to look at the whole thing. If one is going to say that the Biblical allegory of Adam and Eve is important and carries a valuable message, it seems odd to ignore a large portion of that message simply because it conflicts with our current cultural values.

Just as Aesop's fables are used to teach lessons about the world, much of the OT was used to teach lessons.No. The OT has always been supposed to be a factual record of the beginning of the world and the subsequent events that led to the formation of the Israelite "nation" and a justification why Yehuda was to become the rightful heir to replace Israel after the Babylonian Captivity and ultimately a justification for Hasmonean rule (under Ptolemaic hegemony).

No. The OT has always been supposed to be a factual record of the beginning of the world

But unless you assume God to be a sneaky deceiver that plants lots of fake evidence everywhere that position seems untenable.

The Bible does not at all describe Adam or Eve as allegories, but as "real" individuals.

The fox in Aesop's fables is also described as a real individual, but it isn't meant to suggest that foxes like grapes or that they talk.

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan is described as an actual lion in another world called Narnia, but is still meant to represent Jesus Christ.

And without their original sin (disobedience) there would be no need for a savior. That's what Christianity is about.

No, it isn't. It is a version of Christianity. In truth, we don't need a "passed down" sin to need salvation. Our own sins - our own mistakes - are plenty enough sin.


Ok. But still, in the story it is "paradise" to live in "blissful ignorance," so the idea seems to be that self-awareness isn't as much fun as ignorance, right?

Seems to be, yes.

So the "punishment" is that human beings have an additional responsibility as the result of our self-awareness?

Essentially, yes. I don't think that the originators of the story would have put it in those terms, if they even truly understood the same concepts, but I think that is essentially what they were describing.

You said earlier that Adam and Eve are "a representation of how humankind became and stayed sinful." You also said that, "As human beings became self-aware - began to understand right and wrong - we also became capable of sin." According to the story, Eve sinned first, so that would mean that the allegory expresses the idea that female human beings became self-aware before male human beings.

Or, it is added as part of a larger idea - that women are more sinful than men. Thus, in describing the onset of sin, it would make sense in such a culture to list a woman as the first to sin - as the instigator of sin. Were the same story to be written in our culture (with the idea of ignorance being bliss, of course), man and woman would most likely eat at the same time, both having been convinced by the Serpent. But because the society in question saw women as more sinful, she had to be seen as more sinful. The result was to see her as the cause of the ejection from paradise.

I know that the writers of the story probably didn't think that female human beings became self-aware first. What I'm getting at is that your interpretation of the allegory doesn't seem to fit with what the writers probably believed.

It does if you don't nitpick and you realize that the story doesn't have to be one cohesive whole. I don't think it was ever meant to be a literal truth. It, like many of the OT stories, was passed down over generations with successive generations adding their own spin. One teller might have focused on the "women are sinful" part while another might simply have focused on the barring of human beings from paradise.

I think trying to place the writer's (or teller's) beliefs as a cohesive whole makes equal sense with trying to characterize the beliefs of any group of people. You won't find two people, even of the same religion, that hold the exact same beliefs. You would be unlikely to find two tellers of this story that told it the same way, or that had the exact same beliefs about it. And those that wrote it down were compiling such stories, pulling different viewpoints over generations together into one text. Much like trying to characterize a given religion, you have to look for much more general statements. The minute you get into specifics, you're excluding someone.

No argument here. However, if you personally believe that self-awareness is a good thing, then why was a Savior needed to redeem humanity from our attainment of self-awareness as the Bible describes?

The Bible is interpreted as meaning that. There are other interpretations. The Savior was not needed to redeem humanity from self-awareness, but from sin. While I see self-awareness as a good thing, I also recognize that it makes sin possible. Because we understand right and wrong (for the most part, anyways), we can actively do wrong. In so doing, we sin. And any of us who live long enough to reach that level of awareness will do so.

If we want to look at a particular allegory, and if we want to understand the meaning that said allegory was intended to communicate, then I think we probably ought to look at the whole thing. If one is going to say that the Biblical allegory of Adam and Eve is important and carries a valuable message, it seems odd to ignore a large portion of that message simply because it conflicts with our current cultural values.

It isn't a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of looking at it in context. If the message was a culture-specific message that we do not agree with - that many of us believe that God does not agree with - why would we consider it a valuable message? Instead, we must look for the value that is not tainted by a culture that thought they were in the right, but really weren't. The same goes for much of the OT. I don't believe that God ordered the Israelites to commit genocide or to take slaves. I do believe they thought God wanted this, and even believed that they were later being punished for not doing so. I don't believe that God makes bets with evil and allows human beings to be tortured on those bets, but it was one culture's way of trying to explain why bad things happen to good people. And so on....

I'm not one who sees the Bible as absolute, literal truth. I think there is a great deal of truth to be found in it, but those who wrote it were still human beings, with all of our fallibility.


No. The OT has always been supposed to be a factual record of the beginning of the world and the subsequent events that led to the formation of the Israelite "nation" and a justification why Yehuda was to become the rightful heir to replace Israel after the Babylonian Captivity and ultimately a justification for Hasmonean rule (under Ptolemaic hegemony).

Highly unlikely. And from what I have seen and read, most Biblical scholars would patently disagree.

This is especially true when you consider that there are no less than two separate Creation stories in Genesis, and they contradict one another on several points. Given that, it would seem fairly obvious that they weren't meant to be literal, or they wouldn't have been combined without streamlining them and making them compatible. We were meant to derive something from the way the story is told, but we were not meant to take it literally.

The first Creation story, often termed by Biblical Scholars as the "Priestly" story, seems to have been written to portray the majesty of the Creator. God, from afar, says, "Let there be light," and it simply occurs. This deity creates the heavens, the Earth, and all of life out of sheer force of will. Everything made by said deity is seen as good. Humankind is the pinnacle of creation, and is tasked to tend to the Earth - to rule over it.

The second Creation story, by the author often called the "Yahwist", is quite different, and seems to be meant to portray quite a different message. The deity in this story is much more anthropomorphized, creating man from clay, animals from the dust, etc. This God makes mistakes and walks with human beings. And the focus of the story is not on the majesty of God, but instead on the primacy of mankind (gender specific on purpose). In this story, Creation is accomplished for man, rather than man being the pinnacle of it.

Why would two such very stories be brought together in the same text if either of them was meant to be absolute and literal?

No. The OT has always been supposed to be a factual record of the beginning of the world
Nope. Not even remotely. The words "In the beginning" should tip you off that it's meant to be a just-so story.

arise, my thread!

arise, my thread!Are you still collecting arguments then?

Nope. Not even remotely. The words "In the beginning" should tip you off that it's meant to be a just-so story.

Not to mention Jewish exegesis is thousands of years old; metaphorical interpretation has been a staple of their theology for a very long time.

In Christianity, metaphorical/spiritual interpretations of Genesis date specifically back to Augustine (who specifically advocated interpreting the text rather than taking it literally) and even earlier in many Christian writings. The early Christians were not dumb; many of them were well educated in logic and philosophy, especially in Greece where there was a long history of metaphorical interpretation in regard to religious myths.

Are you still collecting arguments then?

yes. i would particularly like to see some actual creationists go out on a limb and suggest something, but they don't seem very interested.

they don't seem very interested.

Yes, the creationists are oddly quiet.

yes. i would particularly like to see some actual creationist go out on a limb and suggest something, but they don't seem very interested.Has anyone mentioned "We shouldn't have a geological or fossil record that could only have occured if certain parts of the world were connected in ages past" yet?

yes. i would particularly like to see some actual creationist go out on a limb and suggest something, but they don't seem very interested.

Maybe it's because they are thoroughly pwned from both a scientific and theological perspective? I'm pretty sure God is not too keen about a small group of people screwing with one of its religious revelations.

Has anyone mentioned "We shouldn't have a geological or fossil record that could only have occured if certain parts of the world were connected in ages past" yet?

don't think so

Yes, the creationists are oddly quiet.

well its weird - 'cause a couple actually did show up, but they didn't seem to understand the topic

Not to mention Jewish exegesis is thousands of years old; metaphorical interpretation has been a staple of their theology for a very long time.

There are two elements here that you are missing.

First, much of the "metaphorical interpretation" comes not from the text itself, but from people trying to reconcile the text with their reason. Such a perspective can be used to find truth in anything at all; it says nothing whatsoever about the meaning of the Creation story.

Second, just because something is interpreted metaphorically doesn't mean that it isn't ALSO taken for literal truth.

(Perhaps it was meant to be "just a story"... but then it isn't true in any sense, not even a metaphorical one.)

This is an interesting little collection of arguments. I didn't know a few of those. Thanks!

well its weird - 'cause a couple actually did show up, but they didn't seem to understand the topic
Give it some time, we're due a January instalment of n00bs aren't we?

Give it some time, we're due a January instalment of n00bs aren't we?Wait until classes start in earnest and we'll have them flocking to the screens, begging for distraction from their dreary routines, licking their fingers as they prepare to type, washing said fingers as they realize how disgusting they're being, and... er... I think I got carried away...

well it is supposedly the word of some god - it'd be weird if people who believed that didn't put quite a bit of stock in the thing.

Supposedly is right. When you think about it most of the corruption is with the church officials. I just don't understand why you'd go to a building where you listen to someone else tell you what your god said when you sould just read it for yourself. What if a priest is lying?

And if it's for a community then you can all have Bible discussion groups. I don't see why not thinking for yourself is ok in situations like those.

I just don't understand why you'd go to a building where you listen to someone else tell you what your god said when you sould just read it for yourself.

two possible reasons:

1) the same reason why people ever go to hear from those that have been particularly educated in a subject speak about it

2) 'cause religions are like that

1) the same reason why people ever go to hear from those that have been particularly educated in a subject speak about it

Though that shouldn't stop them from also reading the book(s) themselves.

two possible reasons:

1) the same reason why people ever go to hear from those that have been particularly educated in a subject speak about it

2) 'cause religions are like that1) however, there is a difference between educated and indoctrinated. Educated folks always consider the alternative options, indoctrinated folks don't.

2) not in general.

The whole Half-Life measuring thing was invented by God

No way, it was the FSM.

1) however, there is a difference between educated and indoctrinated. Educated folks always consider the alternative options, indoctrinated folks don't.

In theory, yes. In practice, "educated" folks are so embedded in their own preconceptions that they are just as single-minded as the "indoctrinated" folks.

Edit: Many do consider both sides. However, it is a fallacious generalisation to assume that educated folks "always" do and indoctrinated folks don't.

Educated folks always consider the alternative options, indoctrinated folks don't.

educated in the sense relevant here is more along the lines of 'knowing a lot about the subject' than 'a systematic critical thinker'. the impossibly single-minded can be extremely well educated in the particulars of their chosen topic, perhaps in a way that the rest of us couldn't hope to match.

a question - do old earthers or young earthers have more difference between what we would expect to find in the biological realm and what we actually do? i know that the young earthers are pretty much hopelessly screwed on a whole host of issues just because of their silly 6,000 year cutoff. but it seems to me that with it given that there were just 6,000 years to play around with, they might not fare quite so poorly when it comes to biology. i'm not sure though - what do you think?

a question - do old earthers or young earthers have more difference between what we would expect to find in the biological realm and what we actually do? i know that the young earthers are pretty much hopelessly screwed on a whole host of issues just because of their silly 6,000 year cutoff. but it seems to me that with it given that there were just 6,000 years to play around with, they might not fare quite so poorly when it comes to biology. i'm not sure though - what do you think?
Based on a comlpete disregard for any speciation processes at all, the old earthers would have more of a problem explaining the current number of species present with the genetic diversity within each species. On the other hand, the lack of major systemic bottleneck effects bugger both arguments if you believe the story of the Ark.

Old testament rules on sacrifice.

We can't do sacrifices anymore since the Temple was destroyed and G-d gave specific rules for where you could do them.