Pred's Fantasy Football Forums

Go Back  Pred's Fantasy Football Forums > General > Open Discussion
User Name
Password
Home Forums FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 7th, 2005, 12:38 PM   #1
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Ok, maybe this should be another thread, like a evo vs. creation debate, and I may have missed something in response to one of my earlier posts, but I will try to catch up when I can, it’s very overwhelming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
What I mean about a claim in the OT being proven false, is that a commonly accepted scientific theory flies in the face of an OT claim. The topics that fall into this realm are the normal ones, such as the OT young earth claim (sufficiently "proven false" by the theory of evolution),
The "old earth" claim is repeatedly met with opposition when scientific evidence is revealed.
  1. The amount of space dust on the moon- should be feet, it’s only inches.
  2. The distance of the moon from the earth- It is slowly moving away from the earth, something like 2 inches a year. To bring that back wards for any length of time would produce such conditions on earth, that the necessary conditions for life to have existed are impossible.
  3. The size of the sun- 20-40 million years ago the sun would have been touching the earth. Science currently explains the sun is actually much older than this.
  4. There are more than these as well, it’s rather overwhelming to put it all in to this space.
These are all opposed to the millions of years (at least) that are required for evolution to even have a chance.

I was always shown that picture of various animal fetuses lined up, and was then told you can see that a sheep, human, frog, and something else are all derived from the same thing by how they all look alike in gestation. The Human Genome project and all the other DNA research that has come out recently debunk that assertion. The complexity of life is so particular, you bear no resemblance to any other animal at any point of your progress or development. Also, just because things are alike does not mean they are all derivatives of the same thing. It’s more likely that that particular likeness is used in various functions because it works (pointing to a design to life), like having a combustion engine in a car, train, and boat since that is the type of mechanism that works.

I was always shown that picture of the black moth on the tree outside a factory in England during the Industrial Revolution that killed off all the white ones because of the soot. It later came out that they pinned the dark ones to the trees to make the point that did not exist.

Or the best is the ape-man assertions, the missing link, which is still missing. Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Java Man were all frauds. We have yet to find the link from human back to

The lack of fossil evidence screams volumes for the Creation side of the argument. There are no transitional fossils to speak of. National Geographic thought it had one a few years ago, and it even made the cover. Problem was it was two fossils compressed together.

I do not doubt Dawin’s sincerity in what he wrote years ago, but even he mentions the problem of not enough evidence. Over 100 years later, it is still missing. Also, I do not doubt the sincerity of the teaching we have received, but it has left much out to reach a pre-determined end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
the OT claim of creationism (debatably proven false by the big bang theory, though that is not an argument I will strongly make since the big bang theory is not generally accepted on the same terms as other scientific theories),
I find this one interesting too, but the Big Bang and Creation are not condratictory. It’s conceivable much of what is seen for the Big Bang could be pointing to a Creation, a specific time/date.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Noah's Ark (proven false by physics and archeological evidence).
Not sure about this one. The evidence can be had from a number of sites. I would call it controversial, but what is descibed in the Bible is not out of the quesiton. The size of the dimensins given would surely have made room for all the species on the earth to get into the boat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
When I'm talking about scientific evidence, I am generally speaking of the OT, and the stories that were told pre-Darwin to be historical truths, but have since been re-adopted to be only fables. These include creation (at least after the first moment in time, since science has not gotten to the first moment in time yet) and Noah's Ark that just cannot be possible given what we understand through science. There are also a number of other stories from the OT that would seem to be so large they would have some evidence in other sources. We have comprehensive Eqyptian history, but yet we can't find any references to a slave exodus such as what Moses did. Granted, the absense of proof does not prove the absense.
On the Exodus front, it is fairly common for such a demoralizing thing as all your slave labor up and leaving in a day to be deleted from historical records. You can contest the numbers (maybe), but it’s fact is not necessarily out of the question.

I’d also make the point that lack of evidence is different than conflicting evidence. Just because a certain city or character can not be found is no evidence that it does not exist. Until recently, King David was thought a myth, then in 1993 evidence was uncovered. Same for Pontus Pilate, Cesarea, etc. The fact is that much evidence that comes out confirms what was written back when.

Man, that was a mouthful (fingerful?). On to other topics to debate.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 01:18 PM   #2
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Wow, lots to respond to in this one. Let's get started.



Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
The "old earth" claim is repeatedly met with opposition when scientific evidence is revealed.
  1. The amount of space dust on the moon- should be feet, it’s only inches.
  2. The distance of the moon from the earth- It is slowly moving away from the earth, something like 2 inches a year. To bring that back wards for any length of time would produce such conditions on earth, that the necessary conditions for life to have existed are impossible.
  3. The size of the sun- 20-40 million years ago the sun would have been touching the earth. Science currently explains the sun is actually much older than this.
  4. There are more than these as well, it’s rather overwhelming to put it all in to this space.
Cites for any of these? I've heard mention of the space dust claim, but I'm not familiar with the arguement. The claim about the size of the sun I'm confident is false, I'd love to see where this is dicussed.

These are all opposed to the millions of years (at least) that are required for evolution to even have a chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I was always shown that picture of various animal fetuses lined up, and was then told you can see that a sheep, human, frog, and something else are all derived from the same thing by how they all look alike in gestation.
I'm not familiar with the picture you mention, but it sounds more like a stick man arguement from the creation side. I know of no reasonable evolutionist that has argued fetal similarities are proof of evolution. That just isn't a scientifically sound argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I was always shown that picture of the black moth on the tree outside a factory in England during the Industrial Revolution that killed off all the white ones because of the soot. It later came out that they pinned the dark ones to the trees to make the point that did not exist.
I'm not familiar with the exact picture you refer to, but I'm very familiar with the moth study. Again, I doubt the validity of whatever it was you saw, because the real moths at the time of the IR (at least the ones I know of, maybe there are multiple examples) were gray and green. The gray population rose at the time of the IR, while the green dwindled, and when they began to clean up the polution, the green population rebounded. I reproduced these results in a college genetics class. Again, a scientific hypothesis. reproduced by other scientists, the foundation of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Or the best is the ape-man assertions, the missing link, which is still missing. Peking Man, Piltdown Man, and Java Man were all frauds. We have yet to find the link from human back to

The lack of fossil evidence screams volumes for the Creation side of the argument. There are no transitional fossils to speak of. National Geographic thought it had one a few years ago, and it even made the cover. Problem was it was two fossils compressed together.
Well, as your whole argument rests on, I make the same statement, the absense of evidence is not proof of something being false. Let's keep in mind the missing link is only one of many in a chain of evolution that we've already discovered. The missing link, if it existed, lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. Finding bones from that long ago isn't like shopping for cereal in a supermarket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I do not doubt Dawin’s sincerity in what he wrote years ago, but even he mentions the problem of not enough evidence. Over 100 years later, it is still missing. Also, I do not doubt the sincerity of the teaching we have received, but it has left much out to reach a pre-determined end.
100 years should be sufficient to find a complete fossil record for the history of the earth? Assume for a minute evolutionary claims are correct. You really think we'd be able to find one example of every living creature ever to have existed in a mere 100 years? Surely you jest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I find this one interesting too, but the Big Bang and Creation are not condratictory. It’s conceivable much of what is seen for the Big Bang could be pointing to a Creation, a specific time/date.
I definitely conceed this one to you, and will conceed many scientists agree that a higher power could have played a role in what happened at the time of the Big Bang. This is not my area of expertise, and since science doesn't even have a real answer yet, it's not something I'm going to debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Not sure about this one. The evidence can be had from a number of sites. I would call it controversial, but what is descibed in the Bible is not out of the quesiton. The size of the dimensins given would surely have made room for all the species on the earth to get into the boat.
I'm not sure if you frequent FBGs, but this has been discussed several times. It is clear that the size of the boat as described was not big enough to fit every species on the earth in existence 2500, or however many years ago it was. Also, for that much rain to fall in the time described, the temperature of the earth would rise to a point where life would cease to exist. I can find cites for both of these claims if you want them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
On the Exodus front, it is fairly common for such a demoralizing thing as all your slave labor up and leaving in a day to be deleted from historical records. You can contest the numbers (maybe), but it’s fact is not necessarily out of the question.
Not necessarily out of the question, but boardering on the absurd. By that line of reasoning, I could claim anything happened at any time in recorded history and claim there was a reason for it not being recorded. The fact is we have a comprehensive historical record, with many details on minutae, but no mention of a mass exodus of slaves. There were even single pharohs that exists who's successor tried to wipe from the record books, but we still have evidence of their reign. I don't see something as crushing to the Eqyptian economy as a slave mass exodus escaping the writtenr record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I’d also make the point that lack of evidence is different than conflicting evidence. Just because a certain city or character can not be found is no evidence that it does not exist. Until recently, King David was thought a myth, then in 1993 evidence was uncovered. Same for Pontus Pilate, Cesarea, etc. The fact is that much evidence that comes out confirms what was written back when.
Agreed, but just remember, it goes both ways.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 01:18 PM   #3
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Sorry if I am breaking this thred up into too many, but we are all over around this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
Watch out Rami, you're simplifying.

What I am saying is that in a pre-literate society, such as ancient Palestine knowledge was passed down by an oral tradition, usually through a wise man or system of elders. Some of that was pretty simple stuff like, pork spoils in hot climate is dressed up as a religious pronouncement. Along with a creation myth and some fairly standard stuff about good and evil and you have your basic religion.
Ok, I dealt with the pre-literate thing before this. On the other stuff, Christianity stands apart. The Hebrews had the same thing, BTW, of nto suing oral tradition, but used scribes to produce teh info. Errors can be found, but again, much more reliable than, "So here's the latest we got from Hezekiah on what happened to our fathers..." type of transfer.

Also, note that the creation story of Genesis is different than others. Almost all creation stories do not have the something from nothing noted by the Hebrew scripture. Most have a god coming out of a river that makes this thing and that thing, or someone falling out of a sky. But thereby dictate that something was always before it. The Biblical account stands in contrast by having the creation be separate from the creator, and having a point where all things started.

Also, I would not count good and evil as typical, they are a crux of the religion and philosophy of Judism and Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
Today we don't have to rely on anyone else for access to information, knowledge and experience. Today we have books, libraries, the internet. We don't need people to interpret the world around us, we can gather information and process it ourselves. We don't need anyone to say, I am the way and the light, I am you only hope of salvation.Today we can find hope and meaning by ourselves.
I'd like to see a path of meaning that I can find by myself.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 01:25 PM   #4
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

This topic deserves it's own thread... carry on, I can't wait to see both sides.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 01:27 PM   #5
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
This topic deserves it's own thread... carry on, I can't wait to see both sides.
Can you move my response over as well?
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 01:35 PM   #6
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Can you move my response over as well?
Just did it, you responded as I was splitting the thread.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 02:04 PM   #7
Ypsilanti Undead
Feeding Frenzy
 
Ypsilanti Undead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
Posts: 840
Ypsilanti Undead is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
It’s more likely that that particular likeness is used in various functions because it works (pointing to a design to life), like having a combustion engine in a car, train, and boat since that is the type of mechanism that works.

Except for your parenthetical comment, you're not disagreeing with Darwin's theory: because those biological systems work, they were perpetuated through successful reproduction. Subsequent random mutation accounts for the diversity.

Quote:
I find this one interesting too, but the Big Bang and Creation are not condratictory. It’s conceivable much of what is seen for the Big Bang could be pointing to a Creation, a specific time/date.

If God can use the Big Bang to create the universe, then why can't He use evolution to create humans?
Ypsilanti Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 02:09 PM   #8
Ypsilanti Undead
Feeding Frenzy
 
Ypsilanti Undead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
Posts: 840
Ypsilanti Undead is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Also, for that much rain to fall in the time described, the temperature of the earth would rise to a point where life would cease to exist.
This argument seems ill-formed. You're saying, IF God had caused the rains to fall by a miracle, THEN the temperature of the earth would necessarily rise. The very premise of the argument negates the conclusion.


I'd like to hear more about your heredity experiments in college. Do you use moths or some other species? How many generations did it take to achieve observable results?
Ypsilanti Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 03:13 PM   #9
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead
This argument seems ill-formed. You're saying, IF God had caused the rains to fall by a miracle, THEN the temperature of the earth would necessarily rise. The very premise of the argument negates the conclusion.
Well, I never made the claim that God started the rain to fall by a miracle. The Bible claims enough rain fell over a certain period to cover the surface of the earth (correct me if that's wrong). The laws of physics tell us that if that much rain falls in the specified period of time (40 days?), then the temperature of the earth would rise dramatically. Assuming God created the earth, I would think that the laws of physics exist because God made them so. So God creates laws of physics only to break them when it's convenient? Oh, I know, we aren't meant to understand his will, but it is a paradox that logically can't be dismissed out of hand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead
I'd like to hear more about your heredity experiments in college. Do you use moths or some other species? How many generations did it take to achieve observable results?
Unfortunately I have to go off of memory here, so the details aren't going to be great. It was a primitive computer program that used a series of variables to determine likelyhood of moth reproduction rates. Based on the level of pollution, the moth's natural camoflauge value was determined, which affected the chances of that moth being eaten by a predator before being able to reproduce. I don't remember how that value was determined, or if that was one of the variables we were calculating for. What I do remember is only a small change affected reproduction rates to an observable degree. I didn't save anything on this from college, but I'll see if I can find something similar on the internet.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 03:38 PM   #10
Ypsilanti Undead
Feeding Frenzy
 
Ypsilanti Undead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
Posts: 840
Ypsilanti Undead is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Well, I never made the claim that God started the rain to fall by a miracle.
Yet it's the premise of your line of reasoning. Surely, your argument quoted below doesn't suggest the rains fell of their own accord.

Quote:
The Bible claims enough rain fell over a certain period to cover the surface of the earth (correct me if that's wrong). The laws of physics tell us that if that much rain falls in the specified period of time (40 days?), then the temperature of the earth would rise dramatically. Assuming God created the earth, I would think that the laws of physics exist because God made them so. So God creates laws of physics only to break them when it's convenient? Oh, I know, we aren't meant to understand his will, but it is a paradox that logically can't be dismissed out of hand.
You're a reasonable a person. A reasonable person would not refute that a miracle, by definition, includes God's suspending the laws of physics at will. Yet it sounds like that's what you're trying to argue. Now we're each caught in a logical quagmire!
Ypsilanti Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 04:06 PM   #11
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

OK, I wasn't get what you are saying, now I understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead
You're a reasonable a person. A reasonable person would not refute that a miracle, by definition, includes God's suspending the laws of physics at will. Yet it sounds like that's what you're trying to argue. Now we're each caught in a logical quagmire!
By why would a mircale nececcesitate the suspension of laws of physics? Of course various miralces nececcesiate some laws of nature to be violated, such are created bread from nothing, but even assuming those were done, the violation of that law was in and of itself the miracle. Here, we have God deciding to wipe out the population of the planet, where he can do it by any means necessary. He could actually wipe everyone out, and then re-create two of every animal. But instead of that, he makes Noah go out and collect two of every animal, place them on a boat, and then create this complex miracle that produces a storm not even possible in the laws of physics he created? I know, I know, we are not meant to understand his will.

However, it seems much more plausible to me that at some point during pre-written history, the fertile valley between the Cypres and Euphrates (known as the cradle of civilization) was flooded, and the flood wiped out a large portion of the population. Legend of the flood spread and was shared throughout humanity. By the time things started getting written down, this old story was accepted as history, and was put in the good book, as well as being engrained in every other culture, since flood stories are evident in just about every culture/religion in the world, but of course they each vary in details. Or, is there a more plausible explanation for why each religion has a flood story that differs in details, yet the Christian one is the only story to have remained 100% accurate?
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 04:46 PM   #12
Burt the Butcher
Supreme FF Dominator
 
Burt the Butcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Falcon, Colorado
Posts: 17,945
Burt the Butcher is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
, is there a more plausible explanation for why each religion has a flood story that differs in details, yet the Christian one is the only story to have remained 100% accurate?
Why is that so hard to believe? If the others just retold the original story, it would indeed be modified to fit the tellers view of it, but that doesn't in and of itself make the original invalid.
Burt the Butcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 04:51 PM   #13
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher
Why is that so hard to believe? If the others just retold the original story, it would indeed be modified to fit the tellers view of it, but that doesn't in and of itself make the original invalid.
Exactly, but why would every other story except for the Christian version have been imbellished? It seems to me more plausible that all of the versions were imbellished.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 04:57 PM   #14
Ypsilanti Undead
Feeding Frenzy
 
Ypsilanti Undead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
Posts: 840
Ypsilanti Undead is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
However, it seems much more plausible to me that at some point during pre-written history, the fertile valley between the Cypres and Euphrates (known as the cradle of civilization) was flooded, and the flood wiped out a large portion of the population. Legend of the flood spread and was shared throughout humanity. By the time things started getting written down, this old story was accepted as history, and was put in the good book, as well as being engrained in every other culture, since flood stories are evident in just about every culture/religion in the world, but of course they each vary in details.
I completely agree with everything you just said. I just think the "temperature rising" argument is a flawed one, though I agree with what you were ultimately trying to say by it. However, I don't discount the possibility that a flood such as you describe could have been God's work.
Ypsilanti Undead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 05:01 PM   #15
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead
I completely agree with everything you just said. I just think the "temperature rising" argument is a flawed one, though I agree with what you were ultimately trying to say by it. However, I don't discount the possibility that a flood such as you describe could have been God's work.
I've got to agree with you as well. I certainly don't argue a flood could have existed. We can debate wether or not it was devine, and have a reasonable debate, but I just don't see evidence for the Noah version, nor do I think and argument supporting the Noah version is valid, nor is there sufficient evidence enough of the Noah version to make it a valid claim that God exists (if that rambling sentence made any sense).
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2005, 11:57 PM   #16
Burt the Butcher
Supreme FF Dominator
 
Burt the Butcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Falcon, Colorado
Posts: 17,945
Burt the Butcher is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Exactly, but why would every other story except for the Christian version have been imbellished? It seems to me more plausible that all of the versions were imbellished.
Is is so far fetched in your mind that other cultures would embellish a good story when retelling it? Come on...my grandpa did it everytime he retold his own life stories...
Burt the Butcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2005, 03:54 AM   #17
smsmith40
Ghost in the Machine
 
smsmith40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
smsmith40 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

OK I think that the Noah's ar k thing has been done perfectly thoroughly already so I want to get back to some of Randilovers other points

Quote:
I was always shown that picture of various animal fetuses lined up, and was then told you can see that a sheep, human, frog, and something else are all derived from the same thing by how they all look alike in gestation. The Human Genome project and all the other DNA research that has come out recently debunk that assertion. The complexity of life is so particular, you bear no resemblance to any other animal at any point of your progress or development.
Actually it is my understanding that in terms of the coding of the genome our similarity to wildly differing mammal species is in the high 90s precentage points. I'll try and find a source.

On some of the other points on the old earth theory, I love the way creationists sit and poke holes in the theory without coming up with credible evidence of a young earth theory. I'm going to research the various points individually later.
smsmith40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2005, 08:34 AM   #18
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher
Is is so far fetched in your mind that other cultures would embellish a good story when retelling it? Come on...my grandpa did it everytime he retold his own life stories...
I don't think you're understanding what I am saying. Of course it is completely plausible that every single culture in the world embellished the story. It is not completely plausible that every singe culture in the world EXCEPT ONE embellished the story.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2005, 10:03 AM   #19
Burt the Butcher
Supreme FF Dominator
 
Burt the Butcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Falcon, Colorado
Posts: 17,945
Burt the Butcher is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I don't think you're understanding what I am saying. Of course it is completely plausible that every single culture in the world embellished the story. It is not completely plausible that every singe culture in the world EXCEPT ONE embellished the story.
No I understood you. My point is, that why is it so unbelivable that a story starts as fact, and then becomes embellished in the retelling? Are you saying they all made it up, and none of them are correct? That seems as far-fetched in my mind as you feel it far-fetched that one of them got it right, and the others retold it, adding to it.
Burt the Butcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2005, 10:31 AM   #20
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher
No I understood you. My point is, that why is it so unbelivable that a story starts as fact, and then becomes embellished in the retelling? Are you saying they all made it up, and none of them are correct? That seems as far-fetched in my mind as you feel it far-fetched that one of them got it right, and the others retold it, adding to it.
No, I readily conceed there is probably a flood story all of these different stories come from, but it has nothing to do with a guy named Noah and a really big boat.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 09:53 AM   #21
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ypsilanti Undead
[/size]
Except for your parenthetical comment, you're not disagreeing with Darwin's theory: because those biological systems work, they were perpetuated through successful reproduction. Subsequent random mutation accounts for the diversity.


If God can use the Big Bang to create the universe, then why can't He use evolution to create humans?
I think I successfully detailed the difference between micro and macro above (maybe it was back on the Theology thread). There is a difference between all life originating from the "primordial soup" required for macro evolution and variations between species deriving from one type of ancestor. MY point of the moth theory was not to prove evolution incorrect as a whole, just that an end was achieved by rigging the information.

Also, I do not think Darwin looked to a creator the way the ID movement is doing nowadays. Darwin was flawed (or at least his succesors who took hold of his idea) because he accounted for ALL life arising for a single source. Due to the empirical necessities required for this to happen, I would say it takes more faith for that to be believed than for a creator to be behind the origin of life.

EDIT: For the evolution of humans, I would call it an in-house Christian debate as to whether God "used" evolution, but at whatever point God stepped in, it would cease to be evolution in the macro sense and therefore be design. Either way, it does not really help one way or the other to prove or disprove it.

Humbly, I would state that when the Bible says 1 day, it means just that. And when it tells the creation of man story, I think it means what it says. I have a hard time with the metaphorical interpretation of the Bible as at some point you'd have dictate to the text when you want it to stop being metaphorical and then become literal/historical. I think that is dangerous ground as a Christian. But, again, this is in-house.

Last edited by randilover; July 11th, 2005 at 10:51 AM.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 10:39 AM   #22
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Cites for any of these? I've heard mention of the space dust claim, but I'm not familiar with the arguement. The claim about the size of the sun I'm confident is false, I'd love to see where this is dicussed.
I will have to find it out, I pulled the info from a creation vs. evo site, but I am sure that would not count as a neutral source for you fellas. I will research further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I'm not familiar with the picture you mention, but it sounds more like a stick man arguement from the creation side. I know of no reasonable evolutionist that has argued fetal similarities are proof of evolution. That just isn't a scientifically sound argument.
Might be a timing issue. When were you in high school? It was in every biology text book I had growing up. I graduated in 1994, so going backwards, these were probably dated around '85-'90. But I can ssure you it is what was asserted as one proof of a common ancestor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I'm not familiar with the exact picture you refer to, but I'm very familiar with the moth study. Again, I doubt the validity of whatever it was you saw, because the real moths at the time of the IR (at least the ones I know of, maybe there are multiple examples) were gray and green. The gray population rose at the time of the IR, while the green dwindled, and when they began to clean up the polution, the green population rebounded. I reproduced these results in a college genetics class. Again, a scientific hypothesis. reproduced by other scientists, the foundation of science.
See my above response to Y. Undead about why I brought the moths up. I do not doubt the possibility of micro evolution, but to take this in a different direction, you may have started with green and wound up with gray, then back to green. But in the end, you still had moths. A stretch is often made along these lines with the fruit fly being zapped with radiation and have 3 wings instead of two, etc., but you are always left with the same thing that you started with, just a mutated version, not something new.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Well, as your whole argument rests on, I make the same statement, the absense of evidence is not proof of something being false. Let's keep in mind the missing link is only one of many in a chain of evolution that we've already discovered. The missing link, if it existed, lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. Finding bones from that long ago isn't like shopping for cereal in a supermarket.

100 years should be sufficient to find a complete fossil record for the history of the earth? Assume for a minute evolutionary claims are correct. You really think we'd be able to find one example of every living creature ever to have existed in a mere 100 years? Surely you jest.
True, but to go ahead and assert something as proof and then go looking for it's backup is very very bad science, and in fact is not science at all. Evolution is based on something that is assumed and then the facts are looked for to support that assumption. I'd assert this is what science hates about religion, but does itself (another one of those firmly in mid air contradictions?). Could we actually call evolution a religion for that reason?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I'm not sure if you frequent FBGs, but this has been discussed several times. It is clear that the size of the boat as described was not big enough to fit every species on the earth in existence 2500, or however many years ago it was. Also, for that much rain to fall in the time described, the temperature of the earth would rise to a point where life would cease to exist. I can find cites for both of these claims if you want them.
1) I did not know FBG's had such content on the message boards, but I'll check it out. Maybe I'll ressurrect (pun intended) the arguement.
2) Actually, there is a missing piece to the puzzle about the flood:
" 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. "
It was not just rain that caused the flood. It appears, according to the Bible, that the another source was from beneath the earth. Not sure if this plays into the whole arguement about "that much rain" as it, quite possibly, could have been considerably less rain than is assumed.
3) I will post a quote from a site that is pro-Ark, but does not seem to assert anything controversial:
How in the world could all the animals fit into the Ark?
First, Noah could have taken youthful or smaller animals. Second, Noah did not need to take fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark. As you can see, objectively rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. The dimensions of the ark would comfortably allow support of all animals. The Volume of Noah's Ark would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The Gross Tonnage of Noah's Ark would have been 13,960 tons. The Capacity of Noah's Ark would have been 522 railroad stock cars which could hold 125,280 sheep-sized animals. Because of speciation (ex. two dogs created all the different dogs today), only about 16,000 individual animals would be necessary on Noah's Ark. An excellent resource written by John Woodmorappe is Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Agreed, but just remember, it goes both ways.
Exactly.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 11:11 AM   #23
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I will have to find it out, I pulled the info from a creation vs. evo site, but I am sure that would not count as a neutral source for you fellas. I will research further.
Doesn't matter if it is neutral or not, I'd still like to read both arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Might be a timing issue. When were you in high school? It was in every biology text book I had growing up. I graduated in 1994, so going backwards, these were probably dated around '85-'90. But I can ssure you it is what was asserted as one proof of a common ancestor.
I graduated in '91. I took every science class my high school offered, except physics II, including 2 biology classes and a genetics class. I took genetics in college. I never once heard the argument that fetal similarities was proof of evolution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
See my above response to Y. Undead about why I brought the moths up. I do not doubt the possibility of micro evolution, but to take this in a different direction, you may have started with green and wound up with gray, then back to green. But in the end, you still had moths. A stretch is often made along these lines with the fruit fly being zapped with radiation and have 3 wings instead of two, etc., but you are always left with the same thing that you started with, just a mutated version, not something new.
The moth issue is an example of changing allele populations, which is key to micro evolution, but you are correct, it does nothing along the arguement of macro evolution. I know nothing of fruit flies being zapped with radiation to have 3 wings instead of two, but gene mutations are key to macro evolution. I'm not going to go into detail about the science of macro evolution (I've already posted a good starting point on that), but it seems you are denying a key element.


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
True, but to go ahead and assert something as proof and then go looking for it's backup is very very bad science, and in fact is not science at all. Evolution is based on something that is assumed and then the facts are looked for to support that assumption. I'd assert this is what science hates about religion, but does itself (another one of those firmly in mid air contradictions?). Could we actually call evolution a religion for that reason?
With all due respect, this is just rediculous. You are badly mischaracterizing what Darwin did. Darwin did make many observations. He did find many examples that backed up what his eventual theory was. He didn't sit at home, come up with his idea, and then go on a boat ride to find proof. Evolution is not based on "something that is assumed." It is based on observed micro evolution, as well as fossil records. Thus, your implication that science is no different than religion is totally false, and rediculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
2) Actually, there is a missing piece to the puzzle about the flood:
" 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. "
It was not just rain that caused the flood. It appears, according to the Bible, that the another source was from beneath the earth. Not sure if this plays into the whole arguement about "that much rain" as it, quite possibly, could have been considerably less rain than is assumed.
Maybe, but it still doesn't matter. All you have to do is say a miracle was involved, and no matter what the science says you can escape it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
3) I will post a quote from a site that is pro-Ark, but does not seem to assert anything controversial:
How in the world could all the animals fit into the Ark?
First, Noah could have taken youthful or smaller animals. Second, Noah did not need to take fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark. As you can see, objectively rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. The dimensions of the ark would comfortably allow support of all animals. The Volume of Noah's Ark would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The Gross Tonnage of Noah's Ark would have been 13,960 tons. The Capacity of Noah's Ark would have been 522 railroad stock cars which could hold 125,280 sheep-sized animals. Because of speciation (ex. two dogs created all the different dogs today), only about 16,000 individual animals would be necessary on Noah's Ark. An excellent resource written by John Woodmorappe is Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study .
Unless you conceed that macro evolution happens, you need way more than 16,000 individual animals. Of course all domesticated dogs are the same species, but dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc are all discinct species. Same with bears. Polar bears, grizzy bears, brown bears, etc are all distict species. Without macro evolution happening, you cannot get the current range of speciation from 16,000 animals.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 11:18 AM   #24
smsmith40
Ghost in the Machine
 
smsmith40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: United Kingdom*
Posts: 620
smsmith40 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

Oh dear!

Old Earth v Young Earth, Evolution v Intelligent Design, Bible Literalists v Metaphoricalists (is that even a word?).Is the world ever a complicated place?

I enjoy a creation v evolution discussion but they are ultimately pointless, you might as well call it a apples v oranges thread.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creation is a religious belief.

Evolution is a theory developed to fit observed facts, creationism is an attempt to find facts that fit a set of beliefs.

Scientific thearies make predictions about future behaviour that can be measured. Creationism does not.

Randilover - I don't want to criticise your sources but I had to laugh at the title you quoted. Noah's Ark - A Feasability Study. My feeling is that I don't even have to read it to know that in the end the author decided that it was perfectly feasible.
smsmith40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 11:33 AM   #25
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
By why would a mircale nececcesitate the suspension of laws of physics? Of course various miralces nececcesiate some laws of nature to be violated, such are created bread from nothing, but even assuming those were done, the violation of that law was in and of itself the miracle. Here, we have God deciding to wipe out the population of the planet, where he can do it by any means necessary. He could actually wipe everyone out, and then re-create two of every animal. But instead of that, he makes Noah go out and collect two of every animal, place them on a boat, and then create this complex miracle that produces a storm not even possible in the laws of physics he created? I know, I know, we are not meant to understand his will.
I think there is something to say about revelation fo God's will in how he does it. He quite often makes his will quite known. In the New Testament, Peter asserts that Noah's story is a type/symbol of baptism and how through water Noah and his family were saved from judgement, and thereby (through Christ's redemption, symbolized in baptism) the Christian is saved from the coming judgement. This is most likely not the whole of the reason for this method being used, but there is a hint to at least some purpose.

There is a beauty to how the whole story plays out, reflecting the beauty in the mind of the story teller. But I'm getting into ascethics, which is rather divergent from this subject. But beauty and pleasure would be a good topic for the skeptics to discuss, as it is comparable to the problem of pain for the believer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
However, it seems much more plausible to me that at some point during pre-written history, the fertile valley between the Cypres and Euphrates (known as the cradle of civilization) was flooded, and the flood wiped out a large portion of the population. Legend of the flood spread and was shared throughout humanity. By the time things started getting written down, this old story was accepted as history, and was put in the good book, as well as being engrained in every other culture, since flood stories are evident in just about every culture/religion in the world, but of course they each vary in details. Or, is there a more plausible explanation for why each religion has a flood story that differs in details, yet the Christian one is the only story to have remained 100% accurate?
I'm not sure I get this. If it was a global flood, like the Bible definitively asserts, then the sole survivor would be the tellers of the story and also the ancestors or all who are living. Therefore it is not out of the question that all the stories would resemble each other, nor that they would descibe something global, not local.

Last edited by randilover; July 11th, 2005 at 11:40 AM.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 11:40 AM   #26
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I'm not sure I get this. If it was a global flood, like the Bible definitively asserts, then the sole survivor would be the tellers of the story and also the ancestors or all who are living. Therefore it is not out of the question that all the stories would resemble each other, nor that they would descibe something global, not local.
That's fine, but you're left defending an implausible story, and left trying to explain why only one culture in the history of the world is capable of getting the story straight. Neither of which have been done.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 12:15 PM   #27
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I've got to agree with you as well. I certainly don't argue a flood could have existed. We can debate wether or not it was devine, and have a reasonable debate, but I just don't see evidence for the Noah version, nor do I think and argument supporting the Noah version is valid, nor is there sufficient evidence enough of the Noah version to make it a valid claim that God exists (if that rambling sentence made any sense).
To refute this, the reason I think we are discussing Noah is because skeptics feel it points to the fact that it could not be true, thereby the Bible is untrue in it's claims. By validating it, or at least giving it some credibility we take away this arguement. We are putting that arguement to rest to prove it can very well be true.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 12:24 PM   #28
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
Actually it is my understanding that in terms of the coding of the genome our similarity to wildly differing mammal species is in the high 90s precentage points. I'll try and find a source.
It may well be, but it's complexity it asounding and offers proof in an of itself of it's empirical improbability via chance.

I've also read that in reference to similarities, that humans have more in common with non-mammels than we do with primates, which would be the opposite of the evolutionary stand point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
On some of the other points on the old earth theory, I love the way creationists sit and poke holes in the theory without coming up with credible evidence of a young earth theory. I'm going to research the various points individually later.
I think the holes I listed were evidence in and of themselves. I'm looking forward to the refutations. There are some others you could add to the search:
1) Comets disintegrate too quickly
2) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
3) Not enough mud on the sea floor
4) Not enough sodium in the sea
5) The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
6) Many strata are too tightly bent
7) Helium in the wrong places
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 01:06 PM   #29
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Theology Discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Doesn't matter if it is neutral or not, I'd still like to read both arguments.
Ok, here's one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I graduated in '91. I took every science class my high school offered, except physics II, including 2 biology classes and a genetics class. I took genetics in college. I never once heard the argument that fetal similarities was proof of evolution.
Here's something I picked up when I googled "similarity of fetuses, evolution": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/evidence_mn.html. #3 on the right hand side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
The moth issue is an example of changing allele populations, which is key to micro evolution, but you are correct, it does nothing along the arguement of macro evolution. I know nothing of fruit flies being zapped with radiation to have 3 wings instead of two, but gene mutations are key to macro evolution. I'm not going to go into detail about the science of macro evolution (I've already posted a good starting point on that), but it seems you are denying a key element.
Here's a good site on the moths:
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter4.php

Also, I am not being rude in any way, but what was your starting point? I believe I missed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
With all due respect, this is just rediculous. You are badly mischaracterizing what Darwin did. Darwin did make many observations. He did find many examples that backed up what his eventual theory was. He didn't sit at home, come up with his idea, and then go on a boat ride to find proof. Evolution is not based on "something that is assumed." It is based on observed micro evolution, as well as fossil records. Thus, your implication that science is no different than religion is totally false, and rediculous.
No it's not. What you just descibed above is not what is asserted by evolutionsist today. I may be mischaracterizing Darwin, and if so, I apologize as his name is often throw into this arguement as the catch all for evolution. But again, I am not arguing micro evo. It's the macro that gets people into trouble and is also why a lot of people state that a creator is not a necessity, evoltuion is the first cause, that's where we come from. Our kids our taught, as well as us, that evolution is where life originated. I am telling you that can not and is not the case. This is essential, as if we get rid of this line of reasoning, it's back to the drawing board of the atheist/agnostic, or at least some kind of acknowledgement that, yes, there is more than what is at hand than the physical universe.

You see, you state that religion comes to the table with a presupposed idea that what is said is true, therefore we rewrite the evidence to conform to my idea. However, I am stating the evolutionist does this (and anyone for that matter, no one is devoid of bias to there point of view) as there is little to no supporting evidence to back his idea. To state that an evolution does not come to the table with a preconceived idea and does not rewrite the evidence is what is ridiculous. Part of the reason Darwin's idea took off was that science since the Enlightenment had been looking for a reason to burry the idea of a Creator, when Darwin put it down on paper, they ran with it.

My assertion is that evolution claims that life started when a conglomeration of gases and other elements exploded, formed the universe, and set into motion our solar system. On one of the planets, which just happened to be the right distance from it's heat source, a mix of proteins and other chemicals underwent a cataclysmic event that united them into a singled or multicelled organism that mutated and mutated over eons of time (and against current laws of science which dictate the universe decomposes, not composes) to become a water animal which then moved onto land after more mutation and then started walking upright, evolving into what is the currently all modern species requires more faith than the fact of what I am doing at looking at the evidence that points to a Creator. If I have misrepresented something, let me know what. I may be simplifying, but I do not believe it has been misrepresented.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2005, 01:22 PM   #30
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Creationism vs Evolution Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
Oh dear!

Old Earth v Young Earth, Evolution v Intelligent Design, Bible Literalists v Metaphoricalists (is that even a word?).Is the world ever a complicated place?

I enjoy a creation v evolution discussion but they are ultimately pointless, you might as well call it a apples v oranges thread.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creation is a religious belief.

Evolution is a theory developed to fit observed facts, creationism is an attempt to find facts that fit a set of beliefs.

Scientific thearies make predictions about future behaviour that can be measured. Creationism does not.
No, I disagree. Evolution in the macro sence fits no credable evidence. It, like a religion, is not free from bias simply because it falls under the heading of science. See above what I posted to Dodgers comments about Creationism and it being presupposed. Note that the number of ID scientists is growing in the scientific community. (ID and Creationism are different, but I am at this point arguing against evoltuion.) Are they coming to the table with preconceived ideas, or, through rational though and in view of the evidence, are they reaching the conclusion by logic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smsmith40
Randilover - I don't want to criticise your sources but I had to laugh at the title you quoted. Noah's Ark - A Feasability Study. My feeling is that I don't even have to read it to know that in the end the author decided that it was perfectly feasible.
Actually, it is not one of my sources. That was a study noted by the website I pasted into the thread, not by me. I was using the reference to note the scientific possibility of the animals making it onto the ark. But I hear you on that point.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums