PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Did Charles Darwin Recant

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

     Actually your arguement that all the flood accounts would be the same would only be relevant if all of the decendants and the desendants decendants (etc.) continued to believe In God Allmighty, and considering Noah had already cursed one of them before he died that was not the case for very long at all. Obviously everyone wasn't going to have the same position, however they couldn't deny the events occurance. The flood accounts all record a drastic flood pointing towards a world wide flood...i will have 2 continue this later im out
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:17 PM on March 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

       Allright, I had to go handle some business, but here goes. Now in regards to my comment about a"vast flood of extreme measure" I was simply stating that while they all insist on a world wide catasrophy, a small percentage of them don't specifically state the completeness of the event. We have a record of the deluge in the earliest form of writing to our knowledge, cuniform. The locations of these records, cover the completness of the globe. We recovered a record from the Aztecs that records the flood, and how much time life existed before the flood, 1716 years. That number is so similar to the number you get when you look at the geneologies of the Bible it is uncanny, 1656, only a 60 year difference! It is very unlikely, if not completely impossible, for any outside influence on the matter. The "Hottentots" of South Africa beleive that they are the decendants of "Noh"; while the Hawaiians report a flood that only "Nu-u" and his family were saved. Unusual simularities between these accounts and the one I am convinced is inerrent (the Bible;evangelical).
The Chinese symbol for "ark" is the number 8 with a person sign. You say, what does that have to do with anything? Well consider the number of people on the ark 8; Noah, Shem, Ham, Japeth, and there wives. Considering how long the sons of Noah lived, the flood story was passed down first hand to many decendants. It seems that any logical person not bent agianst God, would see the propelling evidence of a global flood. The Bible is completely inspired by God Almighty and is inerrent beyond a shadow of a doubt. (if you disagree, please don't get to intense on this page; invite me to a room that is specified to the topic at hand. I would say we are quite off subject as it is.)
         -Benjamin
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:49 PM on March 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ridiculous.
The Egyptians LIVED THROUGHT this supposed flood.
We find NO geological evidence of a global flood and plenty which makes it impossible.  Sorry, but folk stories don't compare to evidence.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:01 PM on March 7, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I don't buy those supposed coincidences about NU-nu, Noh, ect.  As I said earlier, early peoples lived on fertile flood planes, an unexpectedly large flood would seem like the entire world flooded.  Many civilizations lived through the supposed times of the great flood, Egypt specifically existed before the alleged time of the great flood, during it and after it, that is a fact, Flood disproven.
And we haven't even touched on the physical impossiblities of Noah and the flood.  
It is simply impossible that he could have gathered, housed and cared for 2 of every animal.  Period!  There is no evidence of a world wide flood.  None. Nada. Nothing.  We see a geologic record that has been acurately dated by multiple means, radiometric dating, coral reef formation, lake varves, tree ring dating, all agree, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000.  The fossil record clearly debunks the Great Flood myth.  It is impossible that there ever was enough water on the planet to account for the Great Flood.  
Population statistics show that 8 people could not have repopulated the Earth as fundamentalist Christians claim, it is simply impossible!  Any way you break it down THERE WAS NO WORLD WIDE FLOOD!!!!  The Christian myth has been disproved, debunked, accept reality!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:35 PM on March 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  Nu-u, it is actually sir (as opposed to "Nu-nu"). Anyway, Egypt's early kingdom is only dated to approx. 3100 B.C. (World Book Ecyclopedia), and that certianly does not conflict with the flood date (I would approxamate 3250-4500). In fact, the lack of human history before that time is quite interesting....and insists a flood position. I would also note, that your civilization defense does not abuse the reality of the flood, but just raises issue's over datings there-of, at most. Actually, in regards to the animal senario, with the dimensions of the ark as stated in the Scripture's; 2 of all the 17,600 animals (approx.) would have only taken up 31% of the available space. Interesting, "tree ring dating" huh?! A predjeduce system of dating will absolutely lean agianst Allmighty God. Jesus Christ remains the only: Way, Truth, and Life, and no man shall come to the Father but through Him.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:14 AM on March 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11 note ‘waves’). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah’s day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography. New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were levelled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers). We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the earth’s surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:16 AM on March 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will elaborate on some tree ring statistics of my own soon, God willing.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:22 AM on March 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Modern science is cumulative, we build on past knowledge.  200 hundred years ago geologists rejected a world wide flood because the evidence was against it.  Since that time we have only reinforced the fact that there was no giant, world wide flood!  We have writings from ancient Egypt dating back to 4200 BC.  There are no world wide uniform characteristics that would suggest a world wide flood.  
We see tree ring dates going back far beyond 6000 years ago.  The fossil record clearly shows that there was no world wide flood wiping out all life on the planet except for the survivors from Noah's ark.  
You have to face the FACT that the Bible is not a book of science or even a book of accurate history.  
you claim that the mountains and land masses were formed only 6000 years ago at the most?!  Utterly ridiculous!  We know that many mountains are far older than this, as I said geologists 200 years ago rejected the legend  of Noah's ark and a 6000 year old Earth and our dating  techniques have improved greatly since then.  
You can believe the Earth is only 6000 years old if you want, you can beleive in a world wide flood if you choose, you are certainly entitled to those beliefs, but they are only myths and myths that were soundly disproven long ago.  Your desperate, pathetic  arguements out of ignorance don't change the facts.  If you had any integrity, you wouldn't use the same tired, old, debunked arguements that fundamentalist christians trot out every few years when they think the general public forgot about them.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:53 AM on March 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Unfortunatly, I would have to point out that your tree-ring data is false.The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. That is obviously far removed from your:

        "far beyond 6000 years ago".
       
....or ....

"...tree ring dating, all agree, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6000."

 It seems you make a lot of frantic claims, sir, but are by no means prepared to seek Truth. I can see where "perception is reality" is derived from, the very closed minded thinking that I am witnessing in your attacks agianst God. The Bible, sir, is in fact infallable. I would love for you to quote me on that, because my creator will substantiate my claims when He judges the world. Don't base your belief system on popular opinion, but seek out the facts. Of course the popular opinion is in opposition to Jesus Christ, they were back then too. They crucified Him, only so that He could rise agian on the third day and grant us the gift of the Holy Ghost. All eyes back to the Truth.

   
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:26 PM on March 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyway, Egypt's early kingdom is only dated to approx. 3100 B.C. (World Book Ecyclopedia), and that certianly does not conflict with the flood date (I would approxamate 3250-4500).

Biblical dating places the flood about 1300 years before Solomon makes the first temple, which is around 950 BC.   This puts the flood at ~2200, well after Egyptian dynasties were in place.

Actually, in regards to the animal senario, with the dimensions of the ark as stated in the Scripture's; 2 of all the 17,600 animals (approx.)

Where is this 17,600 figure from?
There are over 5,000,000 species on earth now.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:28 AM on March 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That, my friend, depends on one's understanding of the records of the geneologies in the Scripture's. The Scripture's never actually document the date of the flood. There is definate controversy over the dating of the Egyptian society in any circumstances.

Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. Whitcomb and Morris tell us that the number of different kinds of air -breathing land animals on earth are as follows:
    mammals: 3,500
    birds: 8,000
    reptiles & amphibians: 5,500
    total: 17,600


Perhaps I should have specified "genara", my apologies.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:01 PM on March 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Keep in mind the dimensions of the ark. The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep. We are not talking about some little row boat here.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:04 PM on March 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A new discovery I thought was interesting, and decided I would post before this world twisted reality to point the dirsction we wanted it to be. On a wild Tasmanian mountain there is a magnificent, recently discovered stand of Huon pine trees that has been called the world's 'oldest known living organism'. Newspaper reports have claimed that what looks like hundreds of trees densely covering one hectare (2.5 acres), is all part of the one tree, since all these 'trees' appear to have identical DNA. Over the years, it is believed, 'snow has forced its branches to the ground, where they have taken root'. (The Sydney Morning Herald, January 28, 1995, page 1.)
It is hard to see how a tree could be older than the time since the biblical Flood, so if its published age of ,more than 10,500 years old' were correct, then this would present a serious challenge to Old Testament chronology. In fact, some media reports claim the tree 'could be 30,000 or 40,000 years old'.

So have these dates been obtained from drill-core sampling of the growth rings in the main trunk? Not surprisingly, the answer is 'no'. The source of the reported 'age' may be a 'guesstimate' based on core sampling a lake below the mountain which contains Huon pine pollen. This is clearly based on far more assumptions and uncertainties than tree-ring dating. Even the apparent absence of DNA differences is not 100 per cent certain, it seems, though probable.

It appears that traditional tree-ring dating on any timber found growing at the site so far gives an age of no more than 4,000 years. This is well within the ages of the oldest living bristlecone pines, which have around 4,600 tree-rings and are still the world's oldest living organisms. (Bristlecone pines are native to the Rocky Mountains of the United States.)

One of the scientists working on the project has issued a statement on electronic mail saying that they had only said it was plausible that these trees might turn out to be part of a much older tree that was now underground, but that this was definitely not a foregone conclusion. He said the media 'decided to run with the story that scientists working in Tasmania have definitely found the oldest living organism in the world. We have made no such claim'.

If there was a global Flood around 5,000 years ago, no living thing should be older than that. There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year). Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the maximum tree ring ages for living trees fall just within this range. Apart from the biblical Flood, there seems no reason why, if certain trees are capable of living for well over 4,000 years, some should not have lasted much longer.
     
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:14 PM on March 10, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are still some uncertainties with tree-ring dating, which is by no means absolute (for example, trees can form more than one ring per year).

Trees sport less rings that their true age far more often than they sport more.  The phenomenon is rare.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:42 PM on March 10, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My family originated in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England as did Charles Darwin. His family, including his daughter were present when he died. His detractors quickly spread the LIE that he had recanted on his deathbed. That is a despicably unethical thing for a propagandist to do.

Darwin never changed his mind on the fact of Evolution. Late in life he also discontinued believing in God. He never recanted his scientific discoveries or his agnosticism.

Some confusion could come from Galileo, who stated that some planets had satellite bodies or moons and supported the Copernican discovery that the Earth rotates on an axis and revolves around the sun once each year. For this he was arrested by the Inquisition. Teaching that the Earth is not the center of the universe was heresy. Under fear of torture and harm to his daughter, he, Galileo recanted THE TRUTH, so that he didn't violate Bible Mythology.

Galileo recanted out of fear and imprisonment (house arrest).

Darwin, in more tolerant England, was never persecuted for discovering the truth. And he had no need to recant the TRUTH in favour of bible myths.

FreeAmerican


-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 8:31 PM on April 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

    Yea, and the inquisitions certianly seemed ruthless as well. That doesn't mean there is place for accusing God Almighty of some sort of error. The fact remains that the Bible is the inerrent Word of God, God is good and just, and man ,apart from God, is not. It is writtin,"Let God be true and every man be a lie".

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:12 AM on April 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact remains that the Bible is the inerrent Word of God, God is good and just, and man ,apart from God, is not.

3 strikes and YEERRROUTTATHERE
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:36 AM on April 19, 2003 | IP
Evolution

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from kc2gwx at 09:19 AM on November 22, 2002 :
"we even see evolution occuring today. "

We do? Give me an example of macroevolution. One.


the peppered moth has evolved to a darker color to live in the more poluted area of london. we also witnessed hiv evolve? where did that come from? evolution? or did god plant it in the 1970's. as well as other microginisms (sars anyone?)




(Edited by Evolution 6/28/2003 at 6:25 PM).


-------
Invest your love in each other not God. Uncertinity is the stuff of curiosity.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 4:33 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Evolution

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 01:14 AM on March 9, 2003 :
  Nu-u, it is actually sir (as opposed to "Nu-nu"). Anyway, Egypt's early kingdom is only dated to approx. 3100 B.C. (World Book Ecyclopedia), and that certianly does not conflict with the flood date (I would approxamate 3250-4500). In fact, the lack of human history before that time is quite interesting....and insists a flood position. I would also note, that your civilization defense does not abuse the reality of the flood, but just raises issue's over datings there-of, at most. Actually, in regards to the animal senario, with the dimensions of the ark as stated in the Scripture's; 2 of all the 17,600 animals (approx.) would have only taken up 31% of the available space. Interesting, "tree ring dating" huh?! A predjeduce system of dating will absolutely lean agianst Allmighty God. Jesus Christ remains the only: Way, Truth, and Life, and no man shall come to the Father but through Him.



if it did happen in 3250 - 4xxx how could the egyptians populate egypt from 2 noah-in outcase? (the flood killed everyone) to a population of inbreeds large enough to start there civlization/build the prymids. and invint writing by 3100 bc. btw it is largely accepted that the age of the egyptian civilaztion is much older http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/org/orion/eng/hst/egypt.html  
perhaps as old as 6,000 bc




-------
Invest your love in each other not God. Uncertinity is the stuff of curiosity.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 5:01 PM on June 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If we say God used evolution in His creation, we say that His Word is wrong (can't have Adam and Eve and evolution).  If you are a liberal Christian, this is likely OK.  But for a conservative Christian such as myself, it is heretical.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:40 AM on July 29, 2003 | IP
WarriorPoet

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution, you need to bone up on current events.  The peppered moth fiasco has since been written off as a mistake at best and a hoax at worst.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 06:52 AM on July 29, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Warrior Poet, the peppered moth is an elegant example of evolution in action.  A change in environment caused the darker colored moth to be selected over the lighter colored one.   Your source is in error if it claims this is not evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:40 PM on July 29, 2003 | IP
Meatros

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from WarriorPoet at 06:52 AM on July 29, 2003 :
Evolution, you need to bone up on current events.  The peppered moth fiasco has since been written off as a mistake at best and a hoax at worst.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp




You are using AiG as cite material?  Egads!  

Demon is correct.

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 2:00 PM on July 30, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.