Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3197 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why does mass create gravity? "
Because God said so.
See? You **do** believe in magic....

.. "god said so" is **exactly** the same thing as "magic"

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3198 Jul 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>You have had that answer for everything for 3,000 years, it hasn't turned out to be the real answer yet. But it is the answer when you have no idea what the answer is.
What?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3199 Jul 14, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>See? You **do** believe in magic....

.. "god said so" is **exactly** the same thing as "magic"
Nope.

The laws of the universe is not magic.
Gravity is not magic.
Sorry to see you so confused.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3200 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
The laws of the universe is not magic.
Gravity is not magic.
Sorry to see you so confused.
They aren't goal posts you can move around everywhere either, pretending the answer is the old tired excuse of "gawd done it".
In fact that the place you hide, like a child.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3201 Jul 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>They aren't goal posts you can move around everywhere either, pretending the answer is the old tired excuse of "gawd done it".
In fact that the place you hide, like a child.
Never moved them. God created the laws of the universe didn't you know that? He created everything about the universe. Science is just trying to figure out all God created. Nothing has changed from that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3202 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You can't figure that out?
Not to good with science are you?
Well, I know how to do it with real science. But that same science also says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I want to know how *your* system does it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3203 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Never moved them. God created the laws of the universe didn't you know that? He created everything about the universe. Science is just trying to figure out all God created. Nothing has changed from that.
Prove your hypothesis. What evidence do you have that the laws of the universe were created?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3204 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
The laws of the universe is not magic.
Gravity is not magic.
Sorry to see you so confused.
Right. And when we apply the laws of gravity to the universe, we obtain the Big bang theory.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3205 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
The laws of the universe is not magic.
Gravity is not magic.
Sorry to see you so confused.
"goddidit" is magic, you silly and ignorant person.

You believe in magic.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3206 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Never moved them. God created the laws of the universe didn't you know that? He created everything about the universe. Science is just trying to figure out all God created. Nothing has changed from that.
See? You do believe in magic: "goddidit" is magic, silly.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3207 Jul 14, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You cannot see time is a result of the expansion of the universe allowing the flow of energy. It's ok that you cannot understand. But you really should quit asking why , and be satisfied waiting for your rapture. After all THAT is what you seek, not answers or solutions or even knowledge.
Good grief I wish I could agree with this a thousand times over...that's all you ever hear is why why why why, and then....no your wrong. LOL. It's so ridiculous.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3208 Jul 14, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did time appear?
How then did time appear?
Where did time come from?(Nothingness?)
"Uncaused" is that the name of your deity?
You don't see the paradox that nothing can happen or exist with out time and then time appeared?
When did length appear?

How then did length appear?

Where did length come from?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#3209 Jul 15, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
When did length appear?
How then did length appear?
Where did length come from?
A better question might be: When did Tzar become so dense?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3210 Jul 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I know how to do it with real science. But that same science also says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I want to know how *your* system does it.
"

"Where are the "Biblical kinds" of animals defined?
One of the common creationist arguments, when confronted with evidence of what they call "micro-evolution", goes like this: "Sure, organisms can adapt to their environment -- like growing longer beaks or becoming resistant to poisons -- but they all stay part of the same 'kind'. I've never seen one animal give birth to another 'kind' of animal."

I've seen this argument on Askville, as well as other sites. But no one ever defines what the "kinds" of animals are, even when I've asked in discussions. Clearly, a "kind" is something different from a species, but what is it? Is there a list somewhere?

Is a liger a different "kind" from a lion and a tiger? How about mules, donkeys, and horses? Are all bacteria part of the same "kind"? How about different breeds of dog?(I've never seen two poodles beget a dachshund!)"

Biblical kinds are a broader category than species, yet that was not always the case ...
Genesis 1 gives us the general idea about Biblical kinds, defined or described according to reproduction. Adaptation and mutation allowed them to change and yet genetic information is not added. A bird does not turn into a elephant / dinosaurs do not evolve into birds. There are limits to adaptation which we observe in nature and in the fossil record."

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3211 Jul 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I know how to do it with real science. But that same science also says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I want to know how *your* system does it.
"Part 2

Jonathan Sarfati explains this quite well -

"Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’(Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
But creationists point out that the biblical ‘kind’ is larger than one of today’s ‘species.’ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.
The boundaries of the ‘kind’ do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species,’ genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the biblical term ‘kind’; it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different ‘species,’ and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e., between two different so-called genera.5 There are more examples in reference 3.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3212 Jul 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I know how to do it with real science. But that same science also says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I want to know how *your* system does it.
Part 3

Biologists have identified several ways that a loss of genetic information through mutations (copying mistakes) can lead to new species—e.g., the loss of a protein’s ability to recognize ‘imprinting’ marks,‘jumping genes,’ natural selection, and genetic drift. When these mutations take place in small populations, they can sometimes result in sterile or nonviable offspring. Or changes in song or color might result in birds that no longer recognize a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus, each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.
But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.
The biblical model predicts rapid speciation
The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.
Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).[SA 80]
And why should creationists deny such things? All of this so-called microevolution is part of a created and fallen world, but has never been observed to add new genetic information. In fact, the sorts of changes which are observed are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story.8 Scientific American is forced to make a pointless claim about evidence of ‘profound’ changes:
Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis, and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.[SA 80]"

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3213 Jul 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Well, I know how to do it with real science. But that same science also says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I want to know how *your* system does it.
Part 4

"Again, do these profound changes increase information? No—populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere."

For the entire article see -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2...

Sources: Genesis 1; Answers in Genesis website
Christian 72 months ago

Answer from AmPat 4 people found this helpful Defining a 'kind' is a bit more involved than defining a 'species'.
It is more difficult to define a ’kind’ than it is to define a ’species’ due to the simple fact that we are dealing with an historical event. There is no animal extant today which one can simply point to with confidence and state categorically ’this is a kind’, because evolution has modified, diversified, and changed them over the years. We can draw some general inferences, however.

For one thing, since a ’kind’ was to reproduce within itself, we can infer that one ’kind’ could not cross with another ’kind’. I believe it is evident that the older definition of ’species’ was closer to ’kind’ than the current definition, because the older definition included reproductive isolation, while the present one does not. "

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3214 Jul 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations).
OK, so if some ancestor of each was able to hybridize, then they are of the same 'kind'.

So, how can we determine whether a species we only know through fossil evidence is of the same kind as a modern species? For example, the miacids are, according to standard science, an ancestor of both dogs and cats. Does that mean that dogs and cats are of the same 'kind'?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#3215 Jul 15, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Never moved them. God created the laws of the universe didn't you know that? He created everything about the universe. Science is just trying to figure out all God created. Nothing has changed from that.
What god, do you mean Ra? Or did you Zeus?
Perhaps you meant Mythra, or are you projecting your particular flavor of invented insanity to being real?

God is the cold steel that ends your fantasy, come taste the rainbow.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3216 Jul 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so if some ancestor of each was able to hybridize, then they are of the same 'kind'.
So, how can we determine whether a species we only know through fossil evidence is of the same kind as a modern species? For example, the miacids are, according to standard science, an ancestor of both dogs and cats. Does that mean that dogs and cats are of the same 'kind'?
Oh that question is going to be way to hard for them to answer lol.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min Aura Mytha 27,311
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min one way or another 58,250
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 1 hr Pence of Tides 54
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 1,945
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 5 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 167
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) 6 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,947
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 10 hr IB DaMann 5,963
More from around the web