No. of Recommendations: 3
Ever see a building with no foundation, just floating on air? Of course not! Yet you do see something just as inconceivable; a widely accepted theory without a proper foundation; the evolutionary theory. Allow me to explain.

To form life (on earth) you need protein. In connection with that, there's a stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. There are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life's proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life's proteins, all are left-handed! What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 to the 113th Power. That is 1 followed by 113 zeros. But any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 to the 40,000th power! "An outrageously small probability," Hoyle asserts, "that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." He adds: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this "outrageously small" figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialized channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life." And you said evolutionists don't have faith? No, they do! They have a tremendous amount of faith. Mathematician J.W.N. Sullivan could not have said it better: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.” Moreover, Biologist Edwin Conklin said that “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” See! Evolutionists do believe in miracles.

In conclusion, it's only proper to ask where is creator's foundation? Who designed the Designer? You need not fret. I will answer at a future time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Flash, sometimes I wonder if you're just copying and pasting generic material that you read in your creation science pamphlets. Anyway, if you're not going to put any actual effort into writing your posts, then I'm not going to either.

"Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is the creator's foundation? A book full of stories? I am supposed to believe that? A pure work of fiction meant to scare people into following. Don't worry I will not fret.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Let's continue the discussion than, shall we?

Unfortunately, the link you provided did not deal with the calculations mentioned in my previous post. So I must continue with my own line of reasoning and simply disregard your link.

We know that there are right-handed and left-handed gloves right? This is also true of amino acid molecules, there are right-handed and left-handed ones. Of some 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all are left-handed ones. When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. "This kind of 50-50 distribution," reports The New York Times, is "not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone." Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is "a great mystery." Even amino acids found in meteorites "showed excesses of left-handed forms." Dr. Jeffrey L. Bada, who studies problems involving the origin of life, said that "some influence outside the earth might have played some role in determining the handedness of biological amino acids."

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all. Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

I didn't get the opportunity to look at your link intently enough yet. However, from what I got from it thus far. . .The evolutionary process, comparatively speaking, isn't like winning the million dollar lottery 3,000 times in a row, it's more like winning the million dollar lottery only 50 times in a row. I don't even know anyone who has won the million dollar lottery just three times in a row, do you?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Kazim,

I am sure you are correct,but mstak and yourself have
given the rest of us a very good lesson in analytical
thinking.

I have printed the bantor and will deliever it to the
local newspaper's editor.I am associated with them and
know most on a personal level.I intend to suggest that
such thinking be incurraged amoung the staff (if possible).It's the personal response that brings the point home,rather than a link.....I also e-mailed the
bantor to everyone on my mailing list.I am sure they in
turn mailed to others.

As an aside; If you e-mail a post to yourself you can
skip a lot of work :).

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Flash,

I apologise for thinking you were pasting.(but were
you?)

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What is the creator's foundation? A book full of stories? I am supposed to believe that? A pure work of fiction meant to scare people into following. ....

Written by some very wise men, who, because they were wise enough to ask themselves, "Where did we come from?" and because they had no clue about biology, geology, astronomy, genetics, or anything else related to how the world was put together, surmised that they must have been created by a power higher than themselves. They did very well with what they had to work with, but that doesn't mean that their story was fact.

According to this link The Flood was local, too, as described in the original Hebrew version of the Bible.. not global, as is in the English translation:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

There are many errors in translation in the English version that cannot be confirmed by those who are experts in Hebrew.

There is recently discovered geologic evidence, too, that there was a major flood, a big-time flood, about 7500 years ago when a ridge that backed up one sea broke, spilling the sea into, I think, the black sea, raising its level by several hundred feet and flooding everything near it. I've read about it the last few weeks, but can't find a reference to it. Maybe others can.

Of course that flood was local, though, in terms of the world. But to the people of that region, that was their world...their entire world. I think the stories of that local flood was carried down through the generations until the time that the men wrote the Old Testament.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Charlie,

If it was a local flood why take birds (I remembered
this time).Why waste 50 years building an ark when you
can just move?

<their entire world.>

They must have traded with others outside the local
flood area.

The flood is a big one for me.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The one that I described was a big one. The ark is a myth, and just part of the story that they had to conjure up to explain things.
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<A pure work of fiction meant to scare people into following>

"The Bible is just as acurate as any history textbook you read in school."-Me

NOTE: for empirical evidence of this, please check the following sources:
1. The egyption enbalming records
2. The roman archives
3. Isralie texts of non-religious origions from the tomes of solomon.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html

ouch! This hurts!
I am still trying to translate this into a simple explanation that all of us can understand.

Note, the above versionstill does not explaine left and right handedness or preference. To explain this, one must dump the old primordial soup hypotheseis and take up the newer hypothesis of solid phase chemistry producing the aminoacids.

That is, "like a rock!" No I do not drive a jeep.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"The Bible is just as acurate as any history textbook you read in school."-Me

NOTE: for empirical evidence of this, please check the following sources:
1. The egyption enbalming records


Yes, and we all know how much importance historians give to the literal truth of those documents. That's why even to this day, we believe that after a pharaoh was embalmed, he descended to the netherworld to reunite his ba and ka while Osiris weighed his heart on a scale.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

<That's why even to this day, we believe that after a pharaoh was embalmed, he descended to the
netherworld to reunite his ba and ka while Osiris weighed his heart on a scale.>

I smell smoke.

<NOTE: for empirical evidence of this, please check the following sources:
1. The egyption enbalming records>

They did live and embalmd and kept records.What is in
despute here?....It's too bad that library burned when
j.cezar set fire to cleopatras boats.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A pure work of fiction meant to scare people into following

"The Bible is just as acurate as any history textbook you read in school."-Me

NOTE: for empirical evidence of this, please check the following sources:
1. The egyption enbalming records
2. The roman archives
3. Isralie texts of non-religious origions from the tomes of solomon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, I didn't finish.

A pure work of fiction meant to scare people into following

"The Bible is just as acurate as any history textbook you read in school."-Me

NOTE: for empirical evidence of this, please check the following sources:
1. The egyption enbalming records
2. The roman archives
3. Isralie texts of non-religious origions from the tomes of solomon.

Archeology is hardly empirical, but that aside, there is no question that Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks, and others existed at that time and left copious records, but none of that has anything to do with creation.
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"but none of that has anything to do with creation."

No, but it does illistrate that historical renditions of the bible are not complete faulsehoods trying to scare morals into people like the brother grimm stories, If you read back some, there has been controversy over wheather or not anthing inthe bible is admisable as evidence in a discussion. Some say maintain that it is a book of myth while others maintain it is a book of truth. My statement meant to point out that I support using the bible as a source of historical documentry rather than merly a book of ethic teaching fables.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
but none of that has anything to do with creation.

No, but it does illistrate that historical renditions of the bible are not complete faulsehoods trying to scare morals into people like the brother grimm stories, If you read back some, there has been controversy over wheather or not anthing inthe bible is admisable as evidence in a discussion. Some say maintain that it is a book of myth while others maintain it is a book of truth. My statement meant to point out that I support using the bible as a source of historical documentry rather than merly a book of ethic teaching fables.


I have read back some, and then some. There is no question in my mind that many of the stories in the Bible did, in fact, happen, but that does not mean that all of them happened. Just as the truthfulness of modern accounts of history depends very much on who wrote it, and the author's interpretation of what he or she saw.

And what about all those other writings that were considered for the Bible and discarded? Were they discarded because they weren't politically correct for the times? Or didn't fit the compilers' vision of the message to be delivered?

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Charlie,

My but you are a prolific poster.

<And what about all those other writings that were considered for the Bible and discarded? Were
they discarded because they weren't politically correct for the times? Or didn't fit the compilers'
vision of the message to be delivered?

Charlie >

You are free to read them at any time in which you chouse.They in most peoples mindes were not good copy.
The K.J.(got it right this time kazem) was an exaustive
study that is why it stands as accepted today.Older is
not always better.But countless books have been written
on the subject and what we accept as the bible today is
the end result.

The n.a.s and n.i.v and others all run along the same
lines.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
....
The K.J.(got it right this time kazem) was an exaustive study that is why it stands as accepted today.Older is not always better.But countless books have been written on the subject and what we accept as the bible today is the end result.

The n.a.s and n.i.v and others all run along the same
lines.

Chris


I don't think the King James Version is an exhaustive study; I think it was a translation of a Hebrew compilation of chapters that was considered to be the Word of God.

About 25 years ago I read a book, called, as I remember, Where the Bible Came From. It discussed many writings that were once considered for the Bible but were discarded. It also discussed writings that were added, and now are part of the Bible, that were not part of an earlier version of the Bible, and long, long before King James was born.

As far as older being better or not, I suggest that if you get 20 people who can read the ancient Hebrew to translate the original writings, you will probably get 20 different versions. Of course, much of the text would be very similar, but I think many of the details would differ significantly.

For example, last year I heard an interview of a scholar of Ancient Hebrew, whose name I do not recall. He was asked about the death penalty and the Commendment: "Thou Shall Not Kill." He said that in the original Hebrew version, it did not say that at all, that it said that "Thou Shall Not Kill the Innocent." That's only an example of what I'm talking about.

To bed.....
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<for example, last year I heard an interview of a scholar of Ancient Hebrew, whose name I do not
recall. He was asked about the death penalty and the Commendment: "Thou Shall Not Kill." He
said that in the original Hebrew version, it did not say that at all, that it said that "Thou Shall Not
Kill the Innocent.>

On this note we agree.

Forgive me everybody I have been trying to post less.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
They did live and embalmd and kept records.What is in despute here?

What is in dispute is the claim that we take all historical documents literally except the Bible. We accept that embalming was almost certainly a common practice, but we don't accept EVERYTHING the Egyptians wrote. A lot of their beliefs, which they considered to be literal truth, are today regarded as interesting but silly.

The point being, the Bible is not a special case. Historians pretty much regard all historical documents as suspect, and open to questions about how accurate they are and how much they are tinted by the limitations and superstitions of the day.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
for example, last year I heard an interview of a scholar of Ancient Hebrew, whose name I do not recall. He was asked about the death penalty and the Commendment: "Thou Shall Not Kill." He said that in the original Hebrew version, it did not say that at all, that it said that "Thou Shall Not Kill the Innocent.

On this note we agree.
.....

Chris



Chris,
Let me see if I understand this correctly.

When you say that "On this note we agree," do you mean that you agree with the principle that "thou shall not kill the innocent?" Or, are you agreeing that the original Hebrew version of the Bible said in the Ten Commandments that "Thou shall not kill the innocent?"

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Unfortunately, the link you provided did not deal with the calculations mentioned in my previous post. So I must continue with my own line of reasoning and simply disregard your link.
...
I didn't get the opportunity to look at your link intently enough yet.


Hmmm, why am I not surprised that you didn't read it before deciding that it was irrelevant to you?

It precisely dealt with your argument. It was referring to the exact same Fred Hoyle quote, which in itself is faulty.

evolutionary process, comparatively speaking, isn't like winning the million dollar lottery 3,000 times in a row, it's more like winning the million dollar lottery only 50 times in a row. I don't even know anyone who has won the million dollar lottery just three times in a row, do you?

What the article points out, if you'd bother to read it, is that those calculations are meaningless because they're based on bad assumptions. Yes, if you throw amino acids together at random, it's highly unlikely that they'll land in a configuration of useable DNA. That's why we study laws that explain chemical and biological behavior that describes the gradual building up of cells. You're calculating the probability of something that didn't happen, and nobody claims it does.

Suppose I show you a poker hand and it's a straight flush, and I say "I drew this from a shuffled deck." Now you can look at it and say "The odds against that straight flush occurring are huge. It's impossible for you to have drawn that hand randomly." Then I say "I did draw the hand from a shuffled deck, but I didn't just keep the original hand. I kept the cards that I liked, discarded the ones I didn't like, reshuffled, and kept drawing more cards until I had a straight flush. I was drawing from a random deck, but I was operating under rules that allowed me to get a great hand."

But here you go sticking your fingers in your ears, saying "You didn't draw that hand randomly! It's mathematically impossible! Liar! Liar!"

That's when I walk away and make you play 52 pickup.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
draco,
God has people and His word to speak of Him. Unfortunately, people misrepresent Him everyday. And I for one go out of my way to make that known to those who use Old Testament 'scare tactics' on people. You are an example of how well that works.
God has justice but He is Love. But if you just listen to others and don't read it yourself---You'll
never know! Did you know for instance that overeating is in the same list as drunkards and homosexuals?
Just a little ammo for you!
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>Yes, if you throw amino acids together at random

For those of you who are interested in biological evolution, its relationship to science and how to think about science, and patterns in nature in general, a great book is "Mind and Nature" by Gregory Bateson (E.P. Dutton, 1979). But of relevance to this thread on how order comes from randomness, remember (as Kazim is taking heroic measures to illustrate--thanks!) that we don't just have randomness at work but randomness coupled with a stochastic process. Definition from Bateson: "If a sequence of events combines a random component with a selective process so that only certain outcomes of the random are allowed to endure, that sequence is said to be stochastic."

The selective process can be purely physical (as in laws of chemistry and physics), or can be at a higher level of abstraction such as survivable traits passed on ala Darwinism.

Here's how one guy answered the left hand/right hand amino acid question:

-----
"Once the preference for one enantiomer over another gets started in nature, it is relatively easy to see how this preference is perpetuated. Biological reactions work much like machines having templates, stamping out the preferred, and ONLY the preferred configuration generation after generation after generation. As to how one became initially started, there are many possibilities:

1. Luck. The first one to form just happened to be L, and then the rest followed.

2. There may be some effect during formation due to coriolis force or the (hemisphere dependent) magnetic field (as lightening went DOWN, the effect may be polarized).

3. Quantitative calculations indicate that the fundamentally left-handed neutral-weak force with the electromagnetic force could introduce an energy preference (very slight).

4. Aside from any steric preferences, one form could be energetically more stable than the other.

[William C. McHarris Professor of Chemistry and of Physics and of Astronomy at Michigan State University "Handedness in Nature" January 1986 Analog]
-----

Here's another puzzle similar to the left/right amino acid one--where's all the anti-matter gone to? The lack of an abundance of anti-matter around these parts of the universe (as far as we've been able to tell anyway) can also be the result of stochastic processes. This one can work without God's help too.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Another explanation I heard for handedness and preference is that there was a dry phse chemical reaction before the enterence into chemical organic soup. "nf neems to have had something about life from a rock" My chemistry proffesor sayed that a new and emerging theory in the abiogenises fieldis one in which back at the simple chemical stage befor making aminos and geometric shpes, there would have been some dry phase inorganic chemistry producing the organic molecules into the soup.

Just something to think about.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Charlie

<Chris,
Let me see if I understand this correctly.

When you say that "On this note we agree," do you mean that you agree with the principle that
"thou shall not kill the innocent?" Or, are you agreeing that the original Hebrew version of the Bible
said in the Ten Commandments that "Thou shall not kill the innocent?">

Both.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Kazim,
I've never read the Egyptian Embalming whatever but
can't you separate their religious beliefs from the history contained in these documents?
I bought this book once called 'Q'. Supposedly a new document found that proves the Bible is false.
I started reading and reading, anxious to get to this document and after getting half way thru the book, I started flipping through to find it. Took a while cause it was only one sentence!(maybe two). And what it had to do with the truth of the bible, I'll never know. I guess you needed a whole book of how to think properly before they hit you with it. I felt it was a form of brain washing.
We are taught to believe what we read, especially textbooks When the truth is, we are being programmed for whatever. I'm sorry, but after I found out Custer was a raving lunatic, not a great American hero, I lost my faith in books. If I read something that doesn't sound right, I call Libraries, Universities, the gov't(don't do that anymore) to find out the truth, if it can be found. I know there are multitudes of websites and videos and books I can read 'proving' the Bible is wrong or science is an enemy of Christ but I know people too well. It is the way people interpret them that's wrong. Those who have an axe to grind with religion or science just get on a soapbox and convince all they can to Follow Me!
I'll read this stuff, all af it with a grain of salt, but I believe eternity is something we all have to face someday, and I want to be on the right side, and all of you to be there,too. Silly. But it's who I am
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
OFH,
I agree with you on the Bible as history. I've heard more times than I can count that this city or King in the Bible never existed. Then, oops, there it is! Ebla was a biggie. It's been decades since they found it and they still haven't gotten it all translated. It existed before writing existed but had this huge library---Hmmm. Why am I sceptical?
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
The books of the Bible that weren't included are all out there to read. If you read them you'll see why they were left out. Some of them are just plain nuts!
Also, if you read early church history, you'll see how many people went out in the desert to get away from the 'church' and wrote some very strange stuff, also some beautiful stuff but it wasn't scripture. More like a book written by a Missionary about his/her experiences.
Becky, the reading 'FOOL'
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Chris,
Let me see if I understand this correctly.

When you say that "On this note we agree," do you mean that you agree with the principle that "thou shall not kill the innocent?" Or, are you agreeing that the original Hebrew version of the Bible said in the Ten Commandments that "Thou shall not kill the innocent?"


Both.

Chris


Your agreement to the latter point tells me two things:

1. That you are an expert in the original Hebrew.

2. That you recognize that the K. J. and probably all other English translations of the original Hebrew are incorrect translations on that point.

It makes me wonder how many other points of the K. J. that you agree were not translated correctly.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Charlie

I expected this from you and may not respond to
future set-ups.

<Your agreement to the latter point tells me two things:

1. That you are an expert in the original Hebrew.

2. That you recognize that the K. J. and probably all other English translations of the original
Hebrew are incorrect translations on that point.>

I attend a bible study every week.The instructor is
fluent in the languages of the day in which the bible era ocured.He is christian and has jewish family members.A rabbi is a member by extension.I will ask and
get back to you.

Becky can help here but a lot of words cannot be translated exactly.English is a complex language.Many words in old days had multiple meanings.

Some texts may be on the equivalent of the national
enquirer....I understand the n.e. has cleaned up somewhat.

Nobody likes trap doors charlie.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
....
Nobody likes trap doors charlie.

Chris


There are never any embarrassing questions, Chris; just embarrassing answers.
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
....
Many words in old days had multiple meanings.
.....


Yes, like day, year, generations, era, ages, etc.

And father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc.

And son, grandson, great grandson, etc.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
The books of the Bible that weren't included are all out there to read. If you read them you'll see why they were left out. Some of them are just plain nuts!
Also, if you read early church history, you'll see how many people went out in the desert to get away from the 'church' and wrote some very strange stuff, also some beautiful stuff but it wasn't scripture. More like a book written by a Missionary about his/her experiences.
Becky, the reading 'FOOL'


Thanks, Becky, for your response.
I've often wondered why those writings were not included in the Bible, and why some that were not part of it originally were added later. What makes me wonder about that is this:

If the Bible is the Word of God, then why wasn't it obvious then what was and was not the Word of God? It just seems that men were determining what to put in the Bible and what to reject, not God.

Charlie
Reading both sides of each issue, not just one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Charlie

<Nobody likes trap doors charlie.

Chris

There are never any embarrassing questions, Chris; just embarrassing answers.
Charlie >

Lets not forget to stay in context,I said I expected
this from you.And may not indulge in this near meaningless activity in the future.I will take it up with people who are much more informed than myself.Until then you have my opinion.

I would appricate your being more direct with your
inquiry rather than playing games ment to entrap and
infuriate someone whom is genuinly trying to be helpful....Possibably by changing your premise to a more honest one.

Sincerly,

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
....
Lets not forget to stay in context,I said I expected
this from you.And may not indulge in this near meaningless activity in the future.I will take it up with people who are much more informed than myself.Until then you have my opinion.

I would appricate your being more direct with your
inquiry rather than playing games ment to entrap and
infuriate someone whom is genuinly trying to be helpful....Possibably by changing your premise to a more honest one.

Sincerly,

Chris


Chris,
I don't see how I could have been more direct. I honestly wasn't sure what you were agreeing to, and the two questions are different, after all. I wasn't trying to trap you, and even if I had been trying to trap you, if you had thought about your answers, you wouldn't have been trapped. If wasn't until AFTER you answered, that I realized what you were saying. You see, you trapped yourself.
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I read a book(that I've looked for twice this week) that tells about the 'history' of the Bible. I also had a video on how the Bible was saved and hidden by a group in England. I will find the name of the book and the video, Chris can tell us about since he won't send it back to me! He could send you a copy, it's amazing! But when Chris was going through his questioning phase I was studying constantly the 'details' you mentioned between the translations and read the 'Preface' of my 'Spirit-Filled Life Bible',
by Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1991 'New King James Version'.
It's a Study Bible and has all sorts of notations that I slid over because I didn't know what they meant. Then I found the 'Preface' and read it several times before I figured it out. This, too, is a good source of how details are dealt with and both thoughts are mentioned(one in a footnote). In the last 25 years many, many new transcripts have been dug up that help clarify words of the day--Like I used to say everything was 'cool'---I rarely meant the temperature. That kind of thing. Also, many older texts have been found such as the whole book of 'John' that was identical to what we had!
I just feel if you read a book against the Bible, you should at least read one of the other side, knowing both will be slanted by the beliefs of the authors.
Also, the Bible has to be looked at in it's entirety. Christion faith is not meant to be 'blind', truth must be established through study. There is only one truth,
and those who say different have a very strange way of thinking. It's up to us to find that truth.
Becky, the long-winded
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I forgot about the 'Thou shalt not kill'(the innocent)!
Sorry. If you have studied the Bible, you would know that in the rest of the Law(most of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) there is a law that establishes 'Cities of Refuge' that you could got to if you killed someone by accident.(Numbers 35:6-34). Also, if someone committed perjury and accused you of murder and was found out, he (the liar) was to get the punishment you would have received(death). With that information I'm sure you would know that 'the innocent' was implied.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hi, Becky,
I appreciate your discourse. As I said in my last post to you, I read both sides of any issue. I read the Bible completely -- cover to cover -- many, many years ago. I've read just about everything on the ICR website, except for the last year or so, because I haven't had time. I just completed a book written by J. O. Kinnaman entitled Diggers for Facts: The Bible in the Light of Archaeology. It was a very interesting book, but since it was published in 1940!!! it, of course, couldn't include any of the artifacts that have been discovered since then.

I'll try to address each of your points as follows:

I read a book(that I've looked for twice this week) that tells about the 'history' of the Bible. I also had a video on how the Bible was saved and hidden by a group in England.

I think the group in England was the Druids, whose religion predated but was very similar to Christianity. You probably consider that statement to be blasphamy. Do you?

I will find the name of the book and the video, Chris can tell us about since he won't send it back to me! He could send you a copy, it's amazing! But when Chris was going through his questioning phase I was studying constantly the 'details' you mentioned between the translations and read the 'Preface' of my 'Spirit-Filled Life Bible', by Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1991 'New King James Version'. It's a Study Bible and has all sorts of notations that I slid over because I didn't know what they meant. Then I found he 'Preface' and read it several times before I figured it out. This, too, is a good source of how details are dealt with and both thoughts are mentioned(one in a footnote).

I'm sorry, but I can't accept a book that purports to be the New King James Version of the Bible. Since King James commissioned the tranlation in 1611, and King James died in 1625, any and all other translations, while they might make extensiive use of the King James Version, are not New King James Versions; they are just new translations -- new versions. Any modification of the translations that King James' translators produced are not King James translators' translations; that's fraud, and is done, in my opinion, only to take advantage of the World-wide acceptance of the King James Version, by using its name.

In the last 25 years many, many new transcripts have been dug up that help clarify words of the day--Like I used to say everything was 'cool'---I rarely meant the temperature. That kind of thing. Also, many older texts have been found such as the whole book of 'John' that was identical to what we had!

I just feel if you read a book against the Bible, you should at least read one of the other side, knowing both will be slanted by the beliefs of the authors.


Of course, Becky, that's why I read both sides of issues.

Also, the Bible has to be looked at in it's entirety.

I don't think so. The Bible is made up of many, many accounts that, for the most part, are unrelated, and, therefore, should stand alone. It's certainly true that many accounts have some connection, so history can be followed, and that's good.

The book that I cited above was very interesting. Unfortunately, the first half of the book was much more interesting in that respect, because it gave the archaeological findings that very clearly support the historical aspects of the Bible. But the second half seemed to be just the author's narration of some historical parts of the Bible, without reference to any archaeological findings that support his narration or the Bible.

Christion faith is not meant to be 'blind', truth must be established through study. There is only one truth, and those who say different have a very strange way of thinking. It's up to us to find that truth.
Becky, the long-winded


Oh, I whole-heartedly agree with you on this. I just think that our perception of the truth can, does, and should change as we learn more -- as we all search for it.

I consider the Bible to be a very good account of the early history of the part of the world in which the authors lived, and a very good, living and permanent guide to how to live among fellow citizens, but it is not a science book.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whew!! I finally finished that other one. LOL

Charlie,
I forgot about the 'Thou shalt not kill'(the innocent)!
Sorry. If you have studied the Bible, you would know that in the rest of the Law(most of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) there is a law that establishes 'Cities of Refuge' that you could got to if you killed someone by accident.(Numbers 35:6-34). Also, if someone committed perjury and accused you of murder and was found out, he (the liar) was to get the punishment you would have received(death). With that information I'm sure you would know that 'the innocent' was implied.
Becky


I agree with all of this, but the interview that I referred to originally had to do with the death penalty, and those who are opposed to the death penalty use the Thou Shall Not Kill Commandment to justify their position on the death penalty. They, like most other people, use only those tidbits to support their position and ignore all others.
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Becky,

A quick follow-up on the issue of "Thou shall not kill."

If you have studied the Bible, you would know that in the rest of the Law(most of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) there is a law that establishes 'Cities of Refuge' that you could (not would?) got to if you killed someone by accident.(Numbers 35:6-34). Also, if someone committed perjury and accused you of murder and was found out, he (the liar) was to get the punishment you would have received(death). With that information I'm sure you would know that 'the innocent' was implied.
Becky


My question to Chris, which he thought was a trap, was to point out that translations of any languange, especially languages as ancient as the Hebrew of the Bible, are very much dependent on the translator's background, history, and biases. Not to mention the fact, as Chris pointed out, that the Hebrew Language, as written at that time, had many different meanings for a given word. And of course, any Commandment, as in any of our modern laws, cannot depend on implied meanings. Not including the modifier "the innocent" from that Commandment is a major ommission on the part of King James' translators, unless they got it right, but others since then dropped it.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<And of course, any Commandment, as in any of our modern laws, cannot depend on implied meanings. Not including the modifier "the innocent">>

And, I heard recently from a jewish scholar on the radio that the "original" is suppose to be "Thou Shalt Not Murder."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<There is only one truth,and those who say different have a very strange way of thinking. It's up to us to find that truth.>>

But this is the crux of religious issues. Analytically, I would like to agree that there SHOULD be one, objective "truth." But religion is very subjective too; and, like beauty, truth can be in the eye of the beholder. Even if there is one "truth," different religions have different descriptions of that "truth." Example: Jews--Jesus was not the Messiah. Christians--Jesus was the Messiah (and still is). Reminds me of a class I signed up for at U.C. Santa Barbara called "The Psychology of Religion." To me, this sounded like a fascinating class, inasmuch as there is a large religious component to behavior and thinking amongst the earth's many people. I dropped it after the first day--most of the hour was spent in people arguing why their religion (truth) was better or more true than someone else's religion (truth).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Imagine that you are a jurist in a criminal trial. The defendant avows his innocence, and witnesses come forward to testify in his behalf. While listening to their testimony, however, you note that each witness contradicts the others. Then, when the defense witnesses are called back to the stand, their stories change. As a jurist, would you give weight to their testimony? Would you be inclined to acquit the accused? Likely not, for any inconsistencies in the defense erode the credibility of the defendant.

As you've noted, I quote one of Kazim's own, a scientist, Kazim disputes it. Kazim than provides a link to a scientist who disagrees with well-known scientist Fred Hoyle. I provide more quotes, Kazim says that things have changed since the quotes. Inconsistencies maybe? I'm not surprised, I expected it all along.

A host of witnesses have come forth to tell a variety of stories about the origin of life, defending the theory of evolution. But would their testimony hold up in court?

How did life begin? Perhaps no other question has stirred more speculation and ignited more debate. Yet, the controversy is not simply over evolution versus creation; much of the conflict takes place among the evolutionists themselves. Virtually every detail of evolution-how it happened, where it started, who or what started it, and how long the process took-is hotly disputed.

For years evolutionists claimed that life began in a warm pool of organic "soup." Some now believe that foam in the ocean could have bred life. Undersea geysers are another proposed site of life's origin. Some postulate that living organisms arrived on earthbound meteors. Or perhaps, say others, asteroids smashed into earth and changed the atmosphere, stirring up life in the process. "Plow a big iron asteroid into earth," says one researcher, "and you will certainly get interesting things happening."

The nature of life's beginning is also being reconsidered. "Life did not arise under calm, benign conditions, as once assumed," suggests Time magazine, "but under the hellish skies of a planet racked by volcanic eruptions and menaced by comets and asteroids." For life to evolve amid such chaos, some scientists now say, the whole process must have occurred within a narrower time frame than previously thought.

Scientists also have differing views about where God-"if he exists"-fits into the picture. Some say that life evolved without the intervention of a Creator, while others suggest that God started the process and let evolution take over.

After life began, how did evolution occur? Even here, stories conflict. In 1958, a century after The Origin of Species was published, evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley stated: "Darwin's great discovery, the universal principle of natural selection, is firmly and finally established as the sole agency of major evolutionary change." Twenty-four years later, though, evolutionist Michael Ruse wrote: "A growing number of biologists . . . argues that any evolutionary theory based on Darwinian principles-particularly any theory that sees natural selection as the key to evolutionary change-is misleadingly incomplete."

Time magazine, while saying that there are "many solid facts" backing the evolution theory, nonetheless concedes that evolution is a complex tale with "many holes and no shortage of competing theories on how to fill in the missing pieces."

Thus, the case for evolution-particularly for the beginning of life according to evolution-is not based upon consistent testimony. Scientist T. H. Janabi observes that those who advocate evolution "have developed and abandoned many erroneous theories over the years and scientists have so far been unable to agree on any one theory."

Interestingly, Charles Darwin anticipated such conflict. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he wrote: "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived."

Such conflicting testimony raises questions as to the credibility of the evolution theory.

From its beginning, notes the book Milestones of History, the evolution theory "appealed to many people because it seemed more truly scientific than the theory of special creations."

Moreover, the dogmatic statements of some evolutionists can be intimidating. For example, scientist H. S. Shelton asserts that the concept of special creation is "too foolish for serious consideration." Biologist Richard Dawkins bluntly states: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane." Similarly, Professor René Dubos says: "Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."

From these statements it would seem that anyone with a measure of intelligence would readily accept evolution. Yet, there are highly educated men and women who do not advocate the theory of evolution. "I found many scientists with private doubts," writes Francis Hitching in his book The Neck of the Giraffe, "and a handful who went so far as to say that Darwinian evolutionary theory had turned out not to be a scientific theory at all."

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, takes a similar position. "There's no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution," he says. "It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since."

T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. "I found that the situation is quite different from that which we are led to believe," he says. "The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support such a complex theory as that of the origin of life."

Thus, those who object to the evolution theory should not simply be brushed aside as "ignorant, stupid or insane." Regarding opinions that challenge evolution, even the staunch evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson had to admit: "It would certainly be a mistake merely to dismiss these views with a smile or to ridicule them. Their proponents were (and are) profound and able students."

Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. It is true that no man has seen God. (John 1:18; compare 2 Corinthians 5:7.) Yet, the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicated.

For example, scientists have never observed mutations-even beneficial ones-that produce new life-forms; yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.

Such lack of evidence causes T. H. Janabi to call the evolution theory "a mere 'faith.'" Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it "the Gospel according to Darwin." Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. "I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist," he says.

Other experts agree. "When I contemplate the nature of man," admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, "the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin."

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mstack,
May you live forever-------but that post on a 'stochastic process' does not compute!!!!! I told my husband it's like I know what all the words mean, but when they are put together, it's just words. Not sentences I can understand. I'm sorry. I'll keep trying. Oh, and 'enantiomer' isn't in any of my dictionaries, though I'm not suprised.
Can you break it down a bit?
Also, the list of possibilities in part two--however the first one to form just happened to be L(left-handed?), and then the rest followed.
What 'rest'? are they all in one place? or do they have some kind of 'communal' way of communicating?
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I didn't expect that from you-----pretty harsh.
I would have said the same thing but the post I wrote should be coming up.
Becky(Chris' BIG sister!)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
You must have been humiliated alot in your life.
I'm sorry.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
Yes, few words, multiple meanings----
with a few exceptions which have caused all kind of trouble, like the word for 'son' is the same word as for grandson, great-grandson, and keep on going. That's why the geneologies don't match, yet another reason 'the Bible is full of contradictions'. The problem?
Lazy Christians who don't take their faith as seriously as you all do your Science. I know the Bible better than anyone I know, and that is pitiful.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Charlie,
I DO read both sides---that is why I knew that. I read a book just recently 'The Dark Side of Christian History', by Helen Ellerbe. You'd like it, full of greed, sex, murder, and worse. The reason I always put the words 'church' and 'religion' in quotes is because I separate them from true Christianity. The 'church' has an ugly past. I know the only reason we have the Bible at all is the grace of God. Even the 'church' burned it when printing presses began and people learned to read! God forbid they read it and find out all the lies they'd been told to fill the 'churches' coffer's! And it goes on yet today, with TV evangelists promising all your problems will go away if you have the 'FAITH' to send me every cent you have. If I was ever close enough to touch one of those guys he'd know the wrath of God! But God doesn't want me strangling people, they will get theirs and I send letters all the time trying to get them off the air. Hopeless.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I didn't expect that from you-----pretty harsh.
I would have said the same thing but the post I wrote should be coming up.
Becky(Chris' BIG sister!)


Becky, I'm sorry but I can't tell what you're referring to. Please copy the statement that I made that was "pretty harsh" and I'll try to make amends.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
You must have been humiliated alot in your life.
I'm sorry.
Becky


Well, no, Becky, not at all. But, again, I can't tell what you're referring to. Please tell me.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Charlie,
Yes, few words, multiple meanings----
with a few exceptions which have caused all kind of trouble, like the word for 'son' is the same word as for grandson, great-grandson, and keep on going. That's why the geneologies don't match, yet another reason 'the Bible is full of contradictions'. The problem?
Lazy Christians who don't take their faith as seriously as you all do your Science. I know the Bible better than anyone I know, and that is pitiful.
Becky


But, Becky, if anyone is to translate the original Hebrew and comes across the word that can mean son, grandson, great-grandson, or great-great-grandson, ad infinitum, which does he or she choose as the translation?

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
OK. So many clarifications! I love this stuff!
Druids sort of Christians. Blasphamy? I don't know.
I read about them a long time ago and really have more of an impression from spooky movies. But they aren't the group in England I was talking about. Chris?
You have a common misconception of Bible translations. Except for 'The Living Bible' types that specify they are paraphrased, new translations use the same original documents and perhaps some newly found ones. There were a few mistakes in the 'old' KJ, but nothing to change doctrine. Just newer info on word use at the time of the writing (cool,remember?). Also, each translation has a different style, so to speak, the KJ and NKJ are more literal whereas the NIV is not. I wish I could remember the example, read a Preface, please? Say there is a phrase used like, 'red sky in morning, sailor take warning' that translated exactly sounds wierd to us. They use the familiar phrase. KJ enthusiasts call that blasphamy! If you don't believe the Bible is God's book for us--His revelation of Himself, I don't know why you bother to read it. The other 'Holy Books' have lots of great wisdom in them. The Bible claims to be God speaking thru men. If that is a lie why read on?
One more thing. Bible not a science book. One example, Deuteronomy 23:12 thru 14. Even if you be lieve the hooey that Moses didn't write this book, the time period men have given to it is way before any one knew about bacteria, etc. Why did God tell them to go outside the camp with a shovel(scoop, whatever) and dig a hole to 'relieve' themselves and bury it when they were done? NOONE else did that! In Europe, during the 'Great Plagues' the Jews lived! Because they wouldn't touch that stuff and people just went all over the side walks in those days. Jews stayed away because God told them it was 'unclean' they didn't know that's what saved them. And what did they get? Thrown out of town for 'witchcraft', or whatever because they lived.
Amen and goodnite!
God is so amazing!
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
You are going to have to write to the publishing company of all the translations for this one. And DO it I'd like to know. If it's not in any of the translations there has to be a reason. Find out.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I DO read both sides---that is why I knew that.


Becky, that is why you knew what? Please show the statements to which you are referring. There is no way for anyone to tell which post you are referring to. Please. Most people, except Chris, post quotes in italics.

I read a book just recently 'The Dark Side of Christian History', by Helen Ellerbe. You'd like it, full of greed, sex, murder, and worse.

Sadly, many of the most brutal wars are fought in the name of God, and it isn't just Christians against Christians, either; look at the Balkans, Indonesia, Israel/Palestine, to name only a few. And then there is Northern Ireland....

And with all due respect, Becky, you don't know me at all, and you are saying that I would like that book because it is full of greed, sex, murder, and worse? Shame on you. I don't read books like that, but unfortunately, history if full of just that.

The reason I always put the words 'church' and 'religion' in quotes is because I separate them from true Christianity. The 'church' has an ugly past. I know the only reason we have the Bible at all is the grace of God. Even the 'church' burned it when printing presses began and people learned to read! God forbid they read it and find out all the lies they'd been told to fill the 'churches' coffer's!

Of course, you are referring to the Catholic Church, which forbad ordinary people from having the Bible after Guttenberg invented the removable-type printing press, which greatly increased the rate at which books could be printed.

And it goes on yet today, with TV evangelists promising all your problems will go away if you have the 'FAITH' to send me every cent you have. If I was ever close enough to touch one of those guys he'd know the wrath of God! But God doesn't want me strangling people, they will get theirs and I send letters all the time trying to get them off the air. Hopeless.
Becky


You've touch a real nerve with me on that one. I couldn't agree with you more. And to think, as I understand it, that Jimmy Swaggart is still on the air. Yikes!!

It's getting to be tax time, and my time is becoming committed. And how do spend so much time online with your children needing you?

Take care,

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
You are going to have to write to the publishing company of all the translations for this one. And DO it I'd like to know. If it's not in any of the translations there has to be a reason. Find out.
Becky


For WHAT one? Please give me a clue.
Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mstack,
You suprise me! I knew that and forgot. It's so perfect! Thanks.
In this world and time, I'm against the death penalty.
In Bible days, if there was a crime that was hard to solve you could take it to Moses who took it to God.
Now, the justice system is so screwed up, the best liar wins. Also, when I see some rich guys on death row, maybe I'll feel differently.(and they would have to be white rich guys)
What a guy!
Goodnite again,
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Becky, I will try to make it clearer. To review,

"If a sequence of events combines a random component with a selective process so that only certain outcomes of the random are allowed to endure, that sequence is said to be stochastic." -- Gregory Bateson

Let's say you have a machine that randomly punches out two-dimensional shapes of circles, stars, diamonds, triangles, and squares. These fall onto a surface below that is vibrating. On this surface is a cut-out of a triangle (that is slsightly larger than the triangles made by teh machine). The proportion of geometric shapes is random, but statistically over time, the assumption is that there will be more or less equal numbers of the shapes. Their distribution on the surface below will also be random. However, only the triangle-shaped pieces will be able to fit through the triangle-shaped cut-out. From these randomly distributed pieces, we have only one kind of piece that can "endure" and make it through--the triangle, since it alone matches the hole. The selection of the triangle is stochastic.

Or, an even simpler example: Take a deck of cards and shuffle (the order is now random). Pick out four aces.

The relationship to abiogenesis is that even if the distribution of prebiotic stuff is plentiful and random, they will react with each other in non-random, or stochasic ways (based upon chemistry and physics).

---------

With a lot of help from my organic chemistry text, here goes:

Enantiomers--Two molecular structures that are non-superimposable mirror images are enantiomers (enantiomer pairs)--e.g., take two otherwise "identical" bolts, one which threads to the right, and the other, to the left. Call one bolt a left-handed bolt, and the other a right-handed bolt. Now, it can't be determined which "handedness" the bolts are by observing their interaction with a symetrical object like a washer--both will fit (the washer would be called an achiral [symmetric] object). But with an asymetrical (a.k.a., chiral) object, like a nut that is threaded to the right, the bolts do behave differently even though they are mirror images--the nut will thread on only one of the bolts.

With mirror image chiral molecules (our bolts), they will react identically with achiral molecules (the washers) and will have similar achiral properties like melting/boiling points, spectra, etc. But, they will behave differently with respect to chiral molecules (the nut that fits only one of the bolts) and will have different resulting physical properties, one of which is the interaction with polarized light.

It could be that left-handed amino acids ended up in life (versus left-handed ones) due to some quirk or advantage and so in a stochastic process, you end up with all left-handed ones.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
OK. So many clarifications! I love this stuff!
Druids sort of Christians. Blasphamy? I don't know.
I read about them a long time ago and really have more of an impression from spooky movies. But they aren't the group in England I was talking about. Chris?

You have a common misconception of Bible translations.


And what is my misconception? I can't tell what you're referring to.

Except for 'The Living Bible' types that specify they are paraphrased, new translations use the same original documents and perhaps some newly found ones.

But the new translations have different people to translate them. And as I stated in Post 368:

"But, Becky, if anyone is to translate the original Hebrew and comes across the word that can mean son, grandson, great-grandson, or great-great-grandson, ad infinitum, which does he or she choose as the translation?"

So my point is that different translators produce different translations... in the details. But putting in "son" when the original author meant "great-great-grandson" or maybe 10 generations down the line is not just a minor change. And how would any of the translators know what was the original intent, anyway?

There were a few mistakes in the 'old' KJ, but nothing to change doctrine. Just newer info on word use at the time of the writing (cool,remember?). Also, each translation has a different style, so to speak, the KJ and NKJ are more literal whereas the NIV is not.

Do you mean that the NIV is more conversational?

.....

One more thing. Bible not a science book. One example, Deuteronomy 23:12 thru 14. Even if you be lieve the hooey that Moses didn't write this book, the time period men have given to it is way before any one knew about bacteria, etc. Why did God tell them to go outside the camp with a shovel(scoop, whatever) and dig a hole to 'relieve' themselves and bury it when they were done? NOONE else did that! In Europe, during the 'Great Plagues' the Jews lived! Because they wouldn't touch that stuff and people just went all over the side walks in those days. Jews stayed away because God told them it was 'unclean' they didn't know that's what saved them. And what did they get? Thrown out of town for 'witchcraft', or whatever because they lived.


It didn't take knowledge of bacteria or of God telling them to stay away from "it," Becky, even a young dog does that. That's the way you train a puppy to do it outside; you keep it in a small cage or tied up close so it can't "do it" right where it has to sleep, and occassionally you let it outside. Then, after it has relieved itself, you let it in, play with it and let it get food and water, then back into the cage. Ask any dog trainer.

The problem of contamination didn't arise until the population got dense enough for clans to contaminate nearby clans. The Native Americans in this country, before the Europeans came, didn't have plagues and didn't have a problem with feces contamination, and they certainly didn't need the Bible to tell them how to do that.

Amen and goodnite!
God is so amazing!
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mstack,
I hear you. But the class, had a lousy teacher. You can't teach anything with constant interruption. If a student is there to proselytize during class--they should be asked to leave.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
FLF
How did life begin? Perhaps no other question has stirred more speculation and ignited
more debate. Yet, the controversy is not simply over evolution versus creation;


How life began is not what evolution covers, so I don't see how you can say that there is any controversy there. Evolution covers the origin of species, as derived from the earliest of life forms. The branch of science covering the beginnings of life is called abiogenesis.

Such conflicting testimony raises questions as to the credibility of the evolution theory.

Perhaps you don't understand much about scientific thinking. A scientist is trained to doubt; if everything were just accepted as fact, the there would be no need for further research. No proper scientist claims to have the ultimate undeniable truth about any subject; what they claim may be that their theory seems to fit the observed data better than other theories.
Scientific theory is not a static subject. Every day, more knowledge is added, which adds to the understanding of what is observed. Sometimes this results in a theory being discredited; happens all the time. Other times, it results in a theory being revised, or bits and pieces being found invalid. That does not invalidate the overall theory; in fact many times it reinforces it.

As for different witnesses having conflicting reports being a reason for discounting a subject - this argument can be used to discount most of Christian belief. After all, the four gospels don't agree totally. Even where they do, there are different interpretations. If agreement is needed for something to be valid, why are there so many denominations and sects within the Christian church? Why are there so many translations of the Bible?
Please note that I am not arguing that this evidence invalidates the Bible; instead I am arguing that conflicting evidence is not reason to discard an idea.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In a court case, opinion in the defense or offense does not mean much, but rather fact does. My whole argument was that evolution is not a fact as some seem to suggest. In court, it wouldn't have much of a case. It bothers me to see the dogmatism some evolutionist's possess, along with the dogmatism many "Christians" possess. I was not trying to disprove evolution in that post but merely provide details as to why evolution is not a fact and how there's so much missing in the theory along with much controversy.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<A host of witnesses have come forth to tell a variety of stories about the origin of life, defending the theory of evolution. But would their testimony hold up in court?>>

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton, Judgment Dated this January 5, 1982.

"Creation science as defined in Section 4(a), not only fails to follow the canons of dealing with scientific theory, it also fails to fit the more general descriptions of 'what scientists think' and 'what scientists do.' The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought."

<<Yet, the controversy is not simply over evolution versus creation; much of the conflict takes place among the evolutionists themselves. Virtually every detail of evolution-how it happened, where it started, who or what started it, and how long the process took-is hotly disputed.>>

From talk.origins archive, "What is Creationism?"
Copyright © 2000 by Mark Isaak
[Last Update: May 30, 2000]

"The differences between types of creationism are not minor. Most of the creationist beliefs described below are mutually exclusive, and often their differences are as great as their differences with evolution. Many creationists disagree as much with other creationists as they do with evolutionists. Morris, for example, devotes the last 20% of his book Scientific Creationism to attacks on other forms of creationism (Morris 1985)."

[Here is a list of various creationist flavors which Isaak discusses.]

Flat Earthers
Geocentrists
Young Earth Creationists
(Omphalos)
Old Earth Creationists
(Gap Creationism)
(Day-Age Creationism)
(Progressive Creationism)
(Intelligent Design Creationism)
Evolutionary Creationists
Theistic Evolutionists
Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, and I never said it was.

Unfortunately for the creationist's in the court trial in Little Rock, Arkansas, their efforts to expose the weak points of evolution were frustrated. The creationist's taught that the earth and even the universe are less than 10,000 years old which contradicts all the findings of modern science and even the Bible. For more information, click here:http://aolboards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=14412560

How can creationists reconcile such evidence with their dogma that everything started just a few thousand years ago? When God created the rocks with uranium in them, did he also put in the right amount of the special isotopes of lead that would make them look a billion years old? LOL. Would a God of truth purposely insert such illusions in his creation just to deceive us? That's just too funny.

Such reasoning reminds me of the story told of the little old Fundamentalist lady who was being shown through the dinosaur National Monument in Utah. She did not believe the park ranger's speech about the huge reptiles that had once lived there and whose fossilized bones she was seeing. She offered another explanation for them: "The Lord put them there to fool you." LOLOLOLOL

Anyway, back to the trial. Trying to defend their arbitrary structure of "creation science" with such weak, strained hypotheses, they were soundly rebutted by the scientists' testimony at Little Rock. Based on the tesimony given, the judge could hardly do otherwise than find that creationism is not scientific.

Then does the failure of cretionism mean that creation is only a fiction? Does is it mean that the Bible is wrong? No, for Creationist doctrines are not Biblical. For more information, click on the link above.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
FLF,

Good post.

How can creationists reconcile such evidence with their dogma that everything started just a few thousand years ago? When God created the rocks with uranium in them, did he also put in the right amount of the special isotopes of lead that would make them look a billion years old? LOL. Would a God of truth purposely insert such illusions in his creation just to deceive us? That's just too funny.

Like I said before, only a mean, deceitful God would do that.

From your link:

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

There are more than the two choices for having the list in a reasonable order. For example, no rational man, even in Biblical times, would propose that "man" would have been the first to be created. The same can be said for most of the other items. So it's simply not true that the alternative to the list coming from a source with knowledge of the events is the random selection resulting in a probability of 3,628,800:1 against it.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
As you've noted, I quote one of Kazim's own, a scientist, Kazim disputes it. Kazim than provides a link to a scientist who disagrees with well-known scientist Fred Hoyle. I provide more quotes, Kazim says that things have changed since the quotes. Inconsistencies maybe? I'm not surprised, I expected it all along.

I don't follow what your problem is. I really don't. Perhaps it is because you are used to quoting people in authority and having their opinions accepted, just because they have some initials after their names. Perhaps the argument from authority works among the people you talk to, but it doesn't work on me and it doesn't work on most scientists.

In scientific circles, someone isn't regarded as automatically right in their opinions just because they are famous. In fact, well-known scientists are even more open to scrutiny than many others; and it frequently happens that more well-established scientists propose a lot of controversial theories.

Fred Hoyle isn't "one of my own". In the first place, I'm not a scientist, but a software developer, though I hang out with and am related to a lot of science types. In the second place, Fred Hoyle is a mathematician, as is his associate Chandra Wickramasinghe, which means that their opinions are mostly irrelevant to the field of biology. Which brings up another good point: only in very rare cases do scientific creation proponents have degrees from accredited universities that actually qualify them to talk about evolution, abiogenesis, the age of the earth, or whatever it is they are commenting about. You can make rationalizations about why, for example, a lawyer is extremely qualified to criticize science. But when you come right down to it, hardly anyone who agrees with you has a degree in biology, physics, paleontology, etc. There are occasional exceptions, but they're notable mostly because they are stark exceptions in their fields.

In recent memory, when you've quoted somebody it has tended to be a quote of somebody's opinion. "The field is in an uproar." "The theory is full of holes." "Such-and-such is a great mystery." When I quote from scientists, I usually try to have an actual point in mind. I usually link to entire articles, so that you can get the full context surrounding the quotes. They usually cite particular studies or experiments that you can look up or verify. (Exercise for the reader: Can you find me any actual experiments that creationists have performed to advance the state of science?)

So when I accept the opinion of one scientist and not another, that is not called inconsistency; it's called going with the one who has the most evidence backing him up.

For the most part, though, it seems that you don't pay attention to what I write. I get the distinct impression that you have a long list of articles that you intend to post eventually, and anyone who responds to you receives a single paragraph brushing them off, before you then plod along posting the rest of your canned material.

Perhaps this is why Richard Dawkins sounds so impatient in your quote (which, as usual, is simply Dawkins' opinion). It's not that being a creationist means you are "stupid", but because so many of the creationists that he personally deals with like to continuously drone on, oblivious to the evidence and the opposition and demonstrations that their research was invalidated years ago.

Finally, regarding that one particular quote that you mentioned, you didn't even address most of the issues I brought up. First of all, that quote is of dubious context because the man has been a practicing evolutionary biologist in the last 18 years since he wrote the article, which implies that he was trying to make a point that you didn't intend. I asked what the entire text of the article might be, and you glossed over that.

But more importantly, the fact that the evidence changes doesn't imply that science is inconsistent -- it implies that science is progressive. 200 years ago, there wasn't even enough evidence for evolution to fill a breadbox. Know why? Because there wasn't any concept of evolution. The year Darwin published his theory, the only supportive evidence was what he found on his trip. After that, evidence started accumulating and confirming the theory. Ten years ago, there wasn't much genetic evidence for evolution, because we didn't know enough about genetics. Thanks largely to advances made THIS YEAR, evolution continues to be confirmed in yet more ways. But I'll bet that in 2010, creationists will be quoting scientists from 1990 who said "Our information about the human genome is not very good evidence for evolution."

Science isn't a trial based on eye-witness testimony, and it never was. It's all based on circumstantial evidence, across all fields. If you found Bob's gun at the crime scene where Joe was killed, then you'd be likely to convict Bob. But your crime lab comes back with evidence that Tom's fingerprints are fresh on the gun, and one of your witnesses found a tape recording where Tom's voice is heard over gunshots and Joe screaming, you'd probably update your theory. And if Tom's defense attorney ignores the recent evidence and chooses to use old information to "prove" that Bob did it, then you'd have to conclude the obvious: that he's "ignorant, stupid or insane."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I can't find the post. It was the 'trick' question you asked Chris, he told you what he thought and I should have stayed out of it. I just felt things were getting so tense and overreacted. Please, it was a ways back, I'm having trouble keeping up---and I'll have to remember this in the future. When you get behind, your/MY posts seem inappropriate because they go so far ahead.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But, Becky, if anyone is to translate the original Hebrew and comes across the word that can mean son, grandson,
great-grandson, or great-great-grandson, ad infinitum, which does he or she choose as the translation?

Charlie (post #368)


I read that just resently, Charlie. Give me a bit to find it. I'm pretty sure, it's always 'son'. But some times the persons are written about earlier so you can figure it out.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I can't find the post. It was the 'trick' question you asked Chris, he told you what he thought and I should have stayed out of it. I just felt things were getting so tense and overreacted. Please, it was a ways back, I'm having trouble keeping up---and I'll have to remember this in the future. When you get behind, your/MY posts seem inappropriate because they go so far ahead.
Becky


Forget it.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's getting to be tax time, and my time is becoming committed. And how do spend so much time online with your children needing you? (#371)


Charlie,
You mean MY children? That's funny, but I see how you figured that. Some children grow up and leave home with a sigh of relief----I did. My mom and I did not get along. But my kids and I, though far apart now, communicate more now than when they were home and in school. I was talking about the old days. I loved raising those kids! Since we moved to Greenville (6 years ago) I've been home bound pretty much. Had to quit working, and don't know a soul. So I chatter on the e-mail and research politics and religion, write tons of letters to gov't people doing bad things, or good things and sleep alot during the day with my big, fat, cuddly dog,
Hanna.
Becky
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
Sorry. The one about the Rabbi who said 'Thou shalt not kill included 'the innocent'.
I figured out the cut and paste and tried italics on the last one, so soon the posts will be normal(I hope).
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's getting to be tax time, and my time is becoming committed. And how do spend so much time online with your children needing you? (#371)


Charlie,
You mean MY children? That's funny, but I see how you figured that. Some children grow up and leave home with a sigh of relief----I did. My mom and I did not get along. But my kids and I, though far apart now, communicate more now than when they were home and in school. I was talking about the old days. I loved raising those kids! Since we moved to Greenville (6 years ago) I've been home bound pretty much. Had to quit working, and don't know a soul. So I chatter on the e-mail and research politics and religion, write tons of letters to gov't people doing bad things, or good things and sleep alot during the day with my big, fat, cuddly dog,
Hanna.
Becky


I can understand that, but I really do have to get to my taxes. See ... no, read you occasionally.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
Sorry. The one about the Rabbi who said 'Thou shalt not kill included 'the innocent'.

I figured out the cut and paste and tried italics on the last one, so soon the posts will be normal(I hope).
Becky


Congratulation!! Now teach Chris how to do it. LOL

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I'm beginning to think you just like to argue.

And what is my misconception? I can't tell what you're referring to.

Except for 'The Living Bible' types that specify they are paraphrased, new translations use the same original
documents and perhaps some newly found ones.


You put my answer right under your question. Then, added that different people do the translations. Yes they do. The guys who wrote the original KJ are dead. Look, they don't pick these translators off the street.
And many translators work on the translation. They do their part then get together and discuss what each has done. They have to defend their decisions.
Then it goes to a higher group for study, etc. They even have people like you and I who read the finished product. And finally, if this is bothering you so much, you can learn Hebrew! I know several people who have. Do you mean that the NIV is more conversational?

Sort of.


The problem of contamination didn't arise until the population got dense enough for clans to contaminate nearby clans. The
Native Americans in this country, before the Europeans came, didn't have plagues and didn't have a problem with feces contamination, and they certainly didn't need the Bible to tell them how to do that.


I wasn't talking about Native American's, though I guess I should have clarified. I answered this, too.

'NOONE else did that!'

Check it out. Europe was filthy in those days. Especially in the cities. That's why so many died. You weren't there to train them. Even after bacteria were suspected, it took years and years to get the medical community to wash their hands and let in fresh air, change bedding, etc. You are wrong about this or thinking of a later time period.

And your question on #368 about the word for son, grandson, etc. being the same word. They don't know unless that person was talked about elswhere. It's not the translator's fault there is only one word. And when was the last time you read one of those geneologies? Meaning, it's not doctrine. You won't be 'saved ' or 'lost' by that word or those lists of begats.
Becky

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie,
I'm beginning to think you just like to argue.


Isn't that the purpose of board? If you and Chris want to chat with only those people who agree with you, he shouldn't have created this board. Just stay in Bible class.

And what is my misconception? I can't tell what you're referring to.

Except for 'The Living Bible' types that specify they are paraphrased, new translations use the same original documents and perhaps some newly found ones.


Duuhhhh.... Did you think I was saying that the new translators used new original (sic) manuscripts?
....

The problem of contamination didn't arise until the population got dense enough for clans to contaminate nearby clans. The Native Americans in this country, before the Europeans came, didn't have plagues and didn't have a problem with feces contamination, and they certainly didn't need the Bible to tell them how to do that.

I wasn't talking about Native American's, though I guess I should have clarified. I answered this, too.

'NOONE else did that!'


The plague didn't reach Europe until the 14th Century as a direct result of the increase in population and the concomitant forced closeness of the settlements.

Native Americans did, and without being told by the Bible, and avoided cross-contamination because their population was low compared to that of Europe.

But the Bible is God's Word to the entire World, isn't it? Don't Creationists believe that God created the Earth and the Universe about 6,000 years ago, and that the Flood wiped out every one of the sinners about 4,000 years ago. So all of the 13 non-sinners on the Ark would have had the word. So why didn't they spread the word about contamination?

Check it out. Europe was filthy in those days. Especially in the cities. That's why so many died.

Yes, starting in the 14th Century, and for just the reason that I said: As the population grew, the people were too close together and contaminated each other's camps, but not their own. Read the link about the plague that I included in my original post. I couldn't even find it in the posts, so here is another one.

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/osheim/plaguein.html

You weren't there to train them. Even after bacteria were suspected, it took years and years to get the medical community to wash their hands and let in fresh air, change bedding, etc. You are wrong about this or thinking of a later time period.

No, I'm not. The whole concept of bacteria wasn't perceived until about 1860, in the medical profession. Some doctors, surgeons, thought that something that couldn't be seen was speading infections, and they even had problems with some other doctors in operating rooms who didn't believe it and wouldn't wash their hands.

And your question on #368 about the word for son, grandson, etc. being the same word. They don't know unless that person was talked about elswhere. It's not the translator's fault there is only one word.

Who said anything about it being the fault of the translators? Certainly not I. It's a shortcoming in the language. So translations of ancient languages are subjective.

And when was the last time you read one of those geneologies? Meaning, it's not doctrine. You won't be 'saved ' or 'lost' by that word or those lists of begats.

In about 1953. And we're not talking about doctrine, or dogma, we're talking about history.

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
mstack,
Gosh, I get angry with myself when Christian sceptics know more than I do about 'Christian' groups! You got me! Now, please tell me where I can find this 'Isaak's' info on all these groups. I mean, without having to look for days. (I'm so far behind)
I'm not really surprised though, 'churches' break up over what song should be sung first! If you are in one of those churches, my suggestion is to leave them all and find a 'friendlier' church.
God told the Jew's during new testament times that 'the
heathen(?) don't believe because of YOU!' And the same is true today, and I'm no angel. We are human with all the problems of genes and lousey nurturing to deal with as others. But, we also have the devil on our butts encouraging us to act like jerks.
Becky
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duuhhhh.... Did you think I was saying that the new translators used new original (sic) manuscripts?

Not exactly, I thought you were among the many who think new translations are made from the KJ, not from the transcripts that were used by those who wrote the
original KJ. Sorry, I misunderstood.

The plague didn't reach Europe until the 14th Century The whole concept of bacteria wasn't perceived until about 1860

And God wrote the law on sanitary waste disposal when? In Deuteronomy approx. 1400 BC or 1406 BC depending on which Bible you read. Or, way before the plague or the knowledge of bacteria.(by your own post) And we're not talking about doctrine, or dogma, we're talking about history.


I thought we were talking about new Bible translations and Science in the Bible.
Becky

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ummm,

Weren't the Druids the priestly order of the Celtic religion in which there are more than one G'd and a nature base rather than an etherial base.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wow!

Alright, I'll agree with everything stated except for the following two points:

1. Changing its renditions through time is what good science is supposed to do. Science is not about comming up with an answer, it is about trying to eliminate all the possable answers. The ones that we can not eliminate are the ones which are probably the correct or true or factual answers. However, as technology, and mathmatics and understanding of physics and technology improves and upgrades through time, it becomes possable for many of the origional surviving theories to finally be disproven. That is, we can now overturn ideas which we could not previously have done because of new methods of finding evidence and so new evidence i.e. molecular biology. This all means that the several disputes among evolutionary science is a good thing because it keeps us from settling for a convienient answer and keeps the research going. Eventually all of the possabilities will be diproven except for the only one we can not disprove. The correct one. Again this is because science exists to disprove its own hypothesis not to prove them.


2. We don't say that a mutation causes new species to exist. We say a mutation causes new traits within a species to exist. These new traits if benificial result in a more reproductivly succesful individual. These mutant organisms will outcompete there bretheren and so replace them. The" species evolves via natural selection". However another possability is that the mutant individuals can now occupy a nich (part of an ecosystem) that the species was previosly unable to occupy. i.e. bony fins allow lungfish to walk out onto the land. This allows for reproductive isolation to form. The two populations (origonal breed and mutant breed will now evolve (adapt) according to two fifferent life pstyles and paths. They will each accumulate different mutations and different traits will be selected for ove others depending on where they live. This is speciation. more than one species arising from a common ancestral species.
For a more detailed and explanation and an example of all this, please read back to my thread involving the iguanas. I think it was called "A simple explanation of evolution" or something like that.

Guiding with the light,
The shepherd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Duuhhhh.... Did you think I was saying that the new translators used new original (sic) manuscripts?

Not exactly, I thought you were among the many who think new translations are made from the KJ, not from the transcripts that were used by those who wrote the original KJ.


And you think that they think that the KJ was being translated into what?

Sorry, I misunderstood.

You don't know the half of it.

The plague didn't reach Europe until the 14th Century The whole concept of bacteria wasn't perceived until about 1860

And God wrote the law on sanitary waste disposal when? In Deuteronomy approx. 1400 BC or 1406 BC depending on which Bible you read. Or, way before the plague or the knowledge of bacteria.(by your own post) And we're not talking about doctrine, or dogma, we're talking about history.

I thought we were talking about new Bible translations and Science in the Bible.
Becky


Becky,

You really do have a hard time following a line of reasoning. Your English teacher was right

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Charlie wrote "There is recently discovered geologic evidence, too, that there was a major flood, a big-time flood, about 7500 years ago when a ridge that backed up one sea broke, spilling the sea into, I think, the black sea, raising its level by several hundred feet and flooding everything near it. I've read about it the last few weeks, but can't find a reference to it. Maybe others can."


Hi Charlie

Here's a link to the National Geographic Black Sea research, which is on-going.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

The Geographic's theory is that the Mediterranean Sea, swolen by melting ice caps, raised the level of the Black Sea and flooded the surrounding area.

I have not seen how they account for the melting that would also (and simultaneously) be filling the Black Sea via the many rivers that flow into it from the north and east.

Another theory is that prior to the flooding, the normal Black Sea's level was well below "Sea Level", and the flood occurred when the swolen Mediterranean breached the land link at the Bosporus, causing a sudden and catastrophic flood of the Black Sea basin.

Flooding of the Black Sea does not, of course, explain another part of the Biblical account (of the ark coming to rest on Mt Ararat). See http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ for a placement of this in Turkey.

best wishes

allen


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Hello allen,I don't remember your name so;Welcome to
the board.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top