Nighthawk

You don't understand what I said.

Reel it in, tough guy, you're now mocking some straw men. Everyone was not kept alive indefinitely. The nothing died part was in the era of Adam and Eve. Things died after that. The world before then is recorded as a decidedly different place.

That's fine. It wasn't important.

So anyway, the rate of decay in carbon is such that half of an amount will convert back to ordinary nitrogen after 5,730 years, give or take. That's called the half life. After two of those, it has a theoretical age of 11, 460 years, with only a quarter of carbon left to date. At this rate, after about 50,000 years, it should contain no carbon at all. So you must ask how they're using carbon dating to age geological strata containing anything from more than 50,000 years ago, a virtual blip on the evolutionary timescale. So, as useful as carbon dating may be (which is debatable), it becomes useless on anything more than 50,000 years old. It gets more complicated, but there's some basics.

No, because housecats and lions are both cats. If you assume humans and apes are the same species, yes, but Biblically they aren't. You're assuming cell replication at a constant rate.

Well, just because God tells you something doesn't mean you are incapable of finding out for yourself. Nothing requires more faith than evolution... let me try to get to that carbon dating discussion.

I don't know if he had a crew of thousands, it doesn't say. It doesn't say that he did it by himself either. Anyone who wanted to come on the ark could have been saved. They didn't believe the judgement was coming. It says that they mocked Noah. But, if he paid them, I'd imagine they'd build his ship. He also had children, by the way, the number of which is uncertain. Three of them ended up on the ark with him. Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, and if you're not will probably make it even more difficult for you, but people at the time lived 8 or 9 hundred years. It took 120 years to build the ark, which was not imposibly huge, by the way, the exact dimensions are given. You can do the math for yourself. This species question has to do with genetic information again. For example, a lion has the same genetic information as a housecat, except the cat has lost a lot of it. It has devolved, as I was discussing earlier. All you need to produce multiple breeds is one with the genetic code capable of rendering the rest. There's no reason to suppose breeds of dog today are the same as they were then. The earth was young, much diversification was yet to occur. This once again, is not a hill to die on. The flood is supposed to have been worldwide, which doesn't require (or exclude, for the sake of argument) Pangaea. Anyone will tell you the Native Americans walked there from Asia. Pangaea or no, we can't make any hard exclusions about the geographic makeup of Earth, in the time or the period. Noah didn't round up any animals, it says that God sent them. Yep, it's a miracle.

The larger point here, by the way, is that this is a rather important issue, because Jesus believed in the ark literally. He believed all of the old testament and mentioned Noah specifically. So to not believe it might be easy, but leaves you in a rather unpleasant situation theologically. I'll answer those questions shortly.

I knew it would come to this. It's one of the three that always gets them. Don't worry, I can answer this too. First of all, dinosaurs are animals. Now that that's out of the way... nowhere in the Bible does it say that the ark was built by one man. Noah could have had a crew of a thousand. All it says was that the ark was built. Second, people tend to overestimate how many animals are involved. For example, you don't need two rottweilers, two pit bulls, two poodles and so forth, just two dogs. Also, everything that was big, was once small. Take them when they're young.

Number one, the mention of dinosaurs in the Bible has no relevance to anything. Whether we come away saying "Yes, they are." or "No they aren't" affects nothing. The Bible doesn't mention lots of animals. That was more of a fun answer than anything. What did you expect, that they be called by a name that wasn't invented until the nineteenth century? The tail like a cedar trees is what distinguishes them as dinosaurs, by the way. Number two, carbon dating is essentially worthless. I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up, because I'm going to have to crack the books to back it up, but *sigh*... I'll get to it. Number three, I don't want to reiterate what I've said about universal acceptance again, but it applies here.

The big fuckoff dinosaurs are dead just a few chapters in, and they are mentioned twice, in Job. By the way, there's not a one mention of gorillas in the Bible. Goats and sheep are important anyway, because they were used as sacrifices. The dinosaurs were killed during the flood like everything else, and like everything else, must have went on the ark. The pairs that came off the ark must have died shortly thereafter, however, due to changes in climate and atmosphere. There's a couple of proposed answers to the question of water animals in the flood. But, supposing they did survive, it's the ocean. They'd have plenty of time to become extinct (or hell, even still be there) since then virtually undetected. How many times have we seen a giant squid, blue whale, or a coelacanth for that matter? Besides, look at this.

It can't be responsible for the universe itself, it's responsible for taking a clump of cells and making them the world as we know it. There are really only two explanations for the universe, God or chance. As to how it got started, evolution takes far more faith, because it requires the existance of a cosmic egg, primordial ooze, whatever, from a place which no one knows. Creationism requires God, however if you follow that route, God is supposed to still be there and readily determinable as God. Anyway, once it reaches this starting point, it has to end up with what we see today somehow. Creation is easy, God created it that way. Chance on the other hand, you have to say that it evolved, through neo-Darwinism, that is, mutation weeded out by natural selection. There's no evidence for this, it only exists as a theory because if you reject God, there's no other explanation. Bringing it from the scientific to the spiritual, it's easy to see how it could become so universally accepted when you see how much people want to reject God.

In a nutshell, it says that man they were created within a day of each other and there was no death before the sin of man, however I know you won't like that answer, so Job chapter 40 discusses two creatures which can only reasonably be described as dinosaurs. Some will tell you they're elephants and crocodiles or some such, but a simple reading of the chapter will show you that's not the case. As for your second question, as I said, geological levels are dated by what's in them. If someone finds two levels right next to each other, one with dinosaurs, and one with man, he'll say "This layer is such and such billion years old, and this one here is only a couple million." Don't infer that I know of an instance of this happening, I'm not up on the geological findings of the world, just that this is in general what happens. Another example of interpreting the evidence to fit the theory, which is to them really not a theory at all.

If the point of the four Gospels is the life of Christ, you can find different and relevant information in each one. If Mark did have to tread lightly regarding the Romans, we have the other three accounts to more fully understand the situation. The point is that obviously each Gospel emphasizes different things, based on who wrote them, why, and to who (which I think is just as capable of explaining the presentation of Pilate as what you said). Taking them all together gives you the most accurate picture. I see no fault in this. This is in response to your assertation that the perspective of Mark is an example of the factual errancy of the Bible.

(at croweater) You've just used genetic engineering as an argument for evolution. I hope the irony is not lost on you. You're on the right track not considering viruses life at all, because in order to consider a viral mutation good you have to hold all life in equal regard, which is an evolutionary concept. Biblically man is superior to all other forms of life. I can hear your counterpoint now. I don't think it matters either way. I said you can't show me a genetic mutation for the better, which you haven't really, but that wasn't the issue. Of course evolution exists, the issue is whether you can demonstrate that it was responsible for the existance of the universe. A viral mutation doesn't even approach the subject.

That's why we have four gospels. The same story can be told four different ways and they all remain true. I think I can get away without using an example here. The life and death of Christ being the focal point of the Bible, it's only natural that we would have four perspectives to glean our information from.

You were right, but feel foolish anyway.

Nah, not really. I suppose being rational and educated and still finding it possible to believe in a literal Genesis interpretation is rather rare, as these things go. Ah yes, now we come to the third of the skeptic's favorite Genesis accounts, the flood. The Bible says that prehistoric life coexisted with man. They did not become extinct during the flood, but sometime afterwards, not unexpected given the change in climatary conditions which would result from such a catastrophic event. Fossils are almost all attributed to the flood as well, which does end up making more sense than the evolutionary alternative when you take into account how fossils are formed versus the number of fossils we have. You either need a catastrophic event or a lot of time. Putting aside general age of the Earth discussion for the moment, let's look at the geologic column. This is what I mean. On the surface, you might say that's supports the time theory, as that is the way you would expect to find fossilised reamains if they were deposited over vast ammounts of time. However, nowhere in nature does the column exist in that form. Layers are often dated by the age of the fossils in them, which as you can see is circular reasoning. In reality, you find layers of fossils and rock in what would appear to be random order, much more supportive of the flood theory.

The Japs had the Nazi's back in WWII. Conspiracy.

Not true. Look at mutation. Especially over a long period of time, those "changes within kind" become so distant..that they're not really kind anymore. We can note vast genetic similarities between chimpanzees and man, yet the two are different species. Yes, I did hesitate to use the 'kind' distinction, because it's a buzzword of the intelligent design set, many (but not all) of whom are fools. Intelligent design, by the way, has been accused of trying to hide the religion in creationism to make it more acceptable, which is true to a degree, but with a purpose. As I've said, evolution has placed a stranglehold on the scientific community, similar to what the feminist movement did in the 70s, where any challenge is scoffed at. You can have the finest argument in the world, but as soon as you mention God you'll be laughed out of the building. This becomes obviously essential if you see how weak the theory is. Intelligent design, therefore, is just trying to get a foot in the door, to get people to look at evolution critically instead of as a presupposition, because that's all you need. Just a little examination and the structure will collapse of it's own weight. Anyway... we see the loss of genetic information all the time. According to the Bible, but the idea is not exclusive to the Bible, we are in a state of devolution, which can be practically supported rather easily. You can't show me a mutation which resulted in the mutant being better. Also keep in mind that I wouldn't say evolution doesn't exist, only that's it's not a valid argument for the origin of the universe. This of course brings up the age of the Earth discussion, which I guess I might have to talk about too. But not now.

See, this is why creationism is important. Because you choose not to interpret Genesis literally, you have undermined the nature of God. If Adam and Eve were real, there was no Grok. There's no problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis unless you feel you just have to concede to the theory of evolution, which many people do. A big part of evolution is calling everyone who doesn't believe it stupid. I suppose I'll have to discuss that more in due time. But scientifically it's absolutely not necesary. God obviously cannot get tired of doing miracles, he's God. Also, miracles did not bring about mass conversions. Look especially at the life of Christ. If you study Old Testament Messianic prophecy, the layers and nuances of it are beyond measure, yet Jesus fulfilled it all perfectly, making him somewhat of a living miracle, on top of the more practical ones he performed regularly. Yet the Pharisees, who knew the Old Testament to a staggering degree, so well in fact, that by the letter of the law, they were without sin, attributed his power to the Devil. This is just one example.

Man, I can't respond to all that shit at once. Anyway, I guess I'll say some stuff about Catholics first... Jesus was probably born in the spring, and probably around 6 BC, for the record. Catholic paganisms: the transubstantiation was pagan. This is not to be confused with the last supper, or communion, which was symbolic and not an uncommon practice at the time. Physically becoming the body and blood was something practiced by several pagan contempraries, it was probably first used by the Egyptians. The confessional was taken from the Babylonians, who used it as a political tool. The entire concept of the Virgin Mary as anything other than Jesus' mother is all tied up in pagan religions. All kinds of gods throughout the world have some sort of holy mother counterpart acting a mediator or some such. I don't have any examples in front of me, but I could track them down if I must. Go to a Catholic church sometime and see them bring flowers and kiss the feet of a statue of Mary. This is idol worship. Not only because Mary is unworthy of praise, but any reverence to a, to use Biblical terms, graven image, is idolatry, regardless of the symbolism. For example you might remember the Israelites worshipping the golden calf in the book of Exodus. That, to them, represented the true God, but of course, God was displeased. To use a broad standard, all of the ritual and ceremony is just unbiblical foolishness. Christ himself only imposed two rites upon his followers, the communion, which Catholics have perverted, and by the way turned into another idol, by claiming that the Eucharist is to be worshipped as Christ himself, and baptism, which the Catholic chruch has also perverted by performing it on infants, a practice you won't find in the Bible, or in fact anywhere until approximately 300 AD. Also, sure I'd say some Catholics are true Christians, because the basic tenets of Christianity are very simple. Not only Catholics, but many, I might even say most, Protestant denominations heap layer upon layer of added elements to the doctrine of salvation. Catholics just make some of the most grievous changes, which is why I singled them out.

I didn't get into it because it can be a lengthy discussion which has been done before, and I have to go to work. One before I go is that Darwin had no concept of DNA, the discovery of which has the capability of disproving it on it's own. The initial amoeba would have had to contain the genetic code for every form of life that would ever exist, yet you can find no example of new genetic information being created anywhere, only change within kind. Also, regarding your other statement, if you accept that there is a God, the question of what God is can be answered by divine revelation. We have several things which claim to be just that. The issue is to look at them critically and determine if any of them indeed qualify as such. I propse that only one does, the Bible. Therefore, by carefully establishing the Bible as divinely inspired, we can determine from it the nature of God.

Yes. And the other side doesn't believe in God or the word of the Bible. Actually, yeah. At least the non religious try to educate themselves, the religious often don't. I'm trying to be the exception by approaching it from a rationalistic view, where I've found it holds up as well as from an emotional view.

Supposing there is a God, he would, of course, posses the answers to all unanswerable questions. The question of is there a god or isn't there does seem to come down to creation. A creator God was the only reasoning behind the existance of the universe for many years, until the theory of evolution was proposed. The genesis of my Biblical study was evolutionary study. Evolution is unbelievably flawed. It's not even something you have to scratch very deep under the surface to discover, the most superficial examination will reveal what is confirmed by ardent study; that it's just blatantly false. And yet many educated and respectable people unabashedly and dogmatically accept this flimsy theory. Wondering why, I came to see that evolution is not so much a scientific premise as a presuposition. It is the only alternative to God (unless you go the believe in nothing route), so they say "Well, of course it's true, because if it wasn't, there'd be a God, and only idiots believe that." All evolution is built on is universal acceptance, which as has been pointed out, means nothing. Seeing objectively that evolution was foolishness, I decided to see if it's Biblical alternative would fall under the same close scrutiny. To my surprise, it did not. After this, the question is whether the Bible is the inspired revelation of God, which it demonstratably is. Stephen Joseph's post-modernistic view is flatly wrong, by the way. Truth is beyond what works for you, as obviously the truth hurts sometimes as well. Sure, the English Bible isn't perfect, but there's no translational errors that obscure the message. Many facets of doctrine can be better understood by going to the original language, but everything still comes across. It was also written in Greek, by the way.