Thursday, June 07, 2007

Noah'm Not Afraid Of A Tyrannosaurus

If I manage to flog my book to an American Publisher then you can rest assured that I shall make a beeline for the $25 000 000 Kentucky Museum of Creation. (I shall of course leave my firearms outside as per the conditions of entry)

I had never realised that 6000 years ago there were vegetarian dinosaurs all over the place who played happily with little cave children. (Or 'Children of Non Artificial Dwelling Homes' as we must now call them.)

If I've got time, I might also try to see the Grand Canyon which apparently was carved out in a couple of days by Noah's flood. He made a wise move only taking baby dinosaurs on his ark as a fully grown Brontosaurus might be a bit heavy.

I didn't know that all the fossils came from this flood as well, along with plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and all other geological phenomena. It's been a real eye-opener for me. And to think I was teaching it completely wrong for all those years.

159 comments:

dexter said...

He got your ancestors on board Mr Chalk, or were they but small dinosaurs and you have since developed into a large one?

alanorei said...

This country has its own similar exhibition.

http://www.csm.org.uk/expo.php

The Creation Science Movement produces a lot of helpful material that unequivocally provides evidence of special creation and exposes evolution as fraudulent, i.e. "a fairy tale for grown-ups."

Bible-believing, American Independent Baptist and creationist researcher, Pastor Brian Dunlop has also said, rightly, "Evolution is a device used by men who do not want to give account to a holy God. And it is from the pit of Hell."

Amen to that. Preach it, Bro. Brian.

The Genesis account of special creation has never been scientifically disproved - and never will be. All available evidence, including radiometric dating, indicates an age of the earth as we know it, as less than 10,000 years.

If I was to recommend one book, besides the 1611 Authorised Holy Bible, to bring all this together, I'd suggest Science vs Evolution by Malcolm Bowden of the CSM. He also has his own web site.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/
malcolmbowden/

Mr Bowden is not a true bible-believer like Pastor Dunlop but he's OK on creation science vs evolution issues.

If I was to recommend another book, I'd suggest The Evolution Handbook. It may be obtained here.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/
books/1254.asp

To see 'evolution' in action, once again, compare St John's and St Jude's in Mr C.'s book.

In one case, parents have clearly invested time and effort into bringing their offspring up as decent, responsible individuals.

In the other case, they have simply let them 'evolve.'

I believe that effectively says it all but a further example would be the effort and energy that must be expended to produce a display worthy of the Chelsea Flower Show.

No such contribution ever came from a garden that was allowed to go to seed, i.e. to 'evolve.'

The same principle applies to everything else; your house, your car, your pets, your family, your health etc., etc.

Darwin was a wilful ignoramus. Anyone can see that, apart from a significant proportion of journalists, university academics and mainstream politicians.

P.S. The physics thread has somewhat been overtaken now but on the subject of EEuropean cheap imported labour, they are not coming in as scientists and engineers, or even plant operators but mainly as unskilled and semi-skilled job occupiers with unscrupulous employers forcing the native Brits out to cut wage costs.

The decline of job opportunities in science/engineering graduate fields is largely down to managerial refusal to encourage on-going innovation. The collapse of MG-Rover is an example. That said, the first destination returns of our Chem. Eng. graduates were always healthy during my time in HE, 1980-2006. It is one profession that will always provide steady employment - and I don't mean to imply under-employment.

athemax said...

OK alanorei some questions for you, let us assume that Genesis is literally true.
What colour were Adam and Eve? Were they white? , If so where have all the non-whites come from?
2 white parents have a white child, 2 black ones have a black child and 1 of each have a child somewhere in between. So if one was black and one was white, one colour would have bred out by now, and what about all the other ethnic groups? You are aware that European whites are by far
and away a minority of mankind aren't you?
Where did Adam and Eve's children get their significant others from? they marry their brothers and sisters? so why does God forbid incest?
If God made us in his image? why did he give us fingernails? or incisors? or cocyx bones?, the last time I looked I don't have a tail.

Vasey said...

Claiming that radiometric dating shows the Earth to be 10,000 or less years old shows either a distinct lack of honesty or of even the most cursory knowledge of what actual results have been.

Just read this. Even your fellow Christians think that you're talking cobblers. Or perhaps you'd prefer a US Geological Survey source? Look here.

Honestly, it's just nonsense. But then you can't expect much better from someone who references Jack Chick's website as source for anything other than something to point and laugh at.

AMIGAUSER said...

Poles are coming in here as scientists, lab technicians, chemists, electricians, plumbers etc
Since 1992, all qualifications are now recoqnised all over Europe, that now includes Poland etc.
Employers are seeking these people out, and they are coming here, doing technical jobs for near minimum wage.
How are English technical students meant to compete against Poles when they are 10s of thousands of pounds in debt?

A science degree does not give good value for money when compared to return from a LAW degree or business studies.

If you disagree please make a monetary argumant why someone would study a technical degree instead of LAW, ACCOUNTANCY OR BUSINESS STUDIES.

Are the chem eng students paid high enough to enable them to buy a house in a safe area of the country?
I bet they can't

alanorei said...

athemax said...

What colour were Adam and Eve? Were they white?


No. Red-brown. "Adam" means "of the ground." The word is similar to "Edom," which is "red."

Note that God formed Adam "of the dust of the ground" Genesis 2:7, which explains the colour.

Jacob's son Esau was the father of the Edomites and he is said to be "red" Genesis 25:25.

We might say of a ruddy complexion, as David was, 1 Samuel 16:12.

This is why Blacks in the southern USA are sometimes observed spooning and eating red clay out of river banks. They are trying to get back to the original colour.

Eve's name wasn't Eve, btw. It was "Adam" until Adam gave her the name "Eve." Compare Genesis 3:20 and 5:2. The principle of a wife taking her husband's name continues to this day.

Where have all the non-whites come from?

Both whites and non-whites come from the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Shem is the progenitor of the Oriental race. His name means "renown" because of the statement "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem" Genesis 9:26. Shem is spiritual. All major world religions originate in the Orient, including Christianity.

Ham is the progenitor of the Black or Negroid race. His name means "burnt one." He excels as "a servant of servants" Genesi 9:25, like the loyal African Christians who carried David Livingstone's coffin all the way back to Westminster Abbey.

When Ham tries to run things at anything above the most primitive hunter-gatherer level, the result is chaos and blooshed, like the history of southern Africa ever since the end of the colonial era. Present-day Zimbabwe is a good example.

Japheth is the progenitor of the white or Caucasian race. His name means "extender" and "fair" i.e. light-complexioned. "God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan (Ham) shall be his servant" Genesis 9:27.

The history of the world for the past 4,300 years is essentially that, white colonists extending themselves world-wide and essentially prevailing over the other two races. This is also the history of the British Empire (warts and all).

The partitioning of the original red-brown race into the broadly distinctive hues of today comes partly from the mark God put on Cain, Genesis 4:15, which has to be visible from a distance, e.g. a bow shot and is associated with a particular colour. You tend not to hear of 'white' marks, 'red' marks or 'yellow' marks.

The change in the atmosphere after the flood of Genesis 8 also appears to have had an effect on skin pigmentation. It also had a major effect on decreased lifespan. Compre Genesis 5, 11.

A most helpful book on the above is After the Flood by Bill Cooper, obtainable from CSM.

It addresses in detail what is called the Table of Nations as set out in Genesis 10 and shows how the early Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norwegian and Irish Celtic kings were all descended from Japheth.

2 white parents have a white child, 2 black ones have a black child and 1 of each have a child somewhere in between. So if one was black and one was white, one colour would have bred out by now,

Mixed race offspring do, I believe, effectively become sterile after several generations, or the females are unable to go full-term. However, I am still following this matter up. (Watch this space.)

and what about all the other ethnic groups? You are aware that European whites are by far
and away a minority of mankind aren't you?


Yes, about 12% of the world's population, I believe. None of that changes the facts of history and fulfillment of bible prophecy and admonition as set out above, though. British whites were always in the minority throughout the years of Empire but they still maintained the Empire.

Where did Adam and Eve's children get their significant others from?

As one commentator said, "Where you got your's. Courtin'!"

they marry their brothers and sisters?

Yes. There were plenty to go around. See Gensis 5:4.

so why does God forbid incest?

Essentially, because we live in a post-flood environment.

If God made us in his image? why did he give us fingernails? or incisors? or cocyx bones?, the last time I looked I don't have a tail.

The cocyx supports muscles which control the functions of the body during elimination. It is not superfluous.

Incisors, as the name implies, will cut open any kind of food, be it fruit, Genesis 2:16, or flesh or grain or 'veg', Genesis 9:3, 4.

As for fingernails, well, try to imagine how your hands would look without them.

Females also paint them a particular colour when they are out after prey - and traditionally, the shade isn't white or black.

The strategy seems to work.

This also suggests that God has something of sense of humour, which is also part of the residual* "image."

*Strictly speaking, we are now in Adam's image, although, as indicated, something of the original image survives. Compare Genesis 5:3 and 1 Corinthians 11:7.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

And that folks is why i am an avowed atheist :-)

alanorei said...

Vasey said...

Claiming that radiometric dating shows the Earth to be 10,000 or less years old shows either a distinct lack of honesty or of even the most cursory knowledge of what actual results have been.

Just read this. Even your fellow Christians think that you're talking cobblers. Or perhaps you'd prefer a US Geological Survey source? Look here.


Both sites dismiss CDK peremptorily. This is not reasonable, regardless of any Christian profession.

Bowden discusses the effect of CDK and concludes that when taken into account, estimates of the age of the earth, including those "based on radioactivity" reduce to approximately 10,000 years.

Ian Taylor, research metallurgist, addresses the same issue in his extensive book In the Minds of Men, describing in detail all the underlying assumptions of radiometric dating but reaching the same conclusion, based on CDK, of an age of the earth of approximately 10,000 years.

Taylor points out that other methods, e.g. missing radiogenic helium, also point to an age of 10,000 years.

Honestly, it's just nonsense. But then you can't expect much better from someone who references Jack Chick's website as source for anything other than something to point and laugh at.

Sheer bigotry. A bit like evolution in a way.

The fact that you resort to this kind of response clearly shows that you haven't got a scientific leg to stand on.

I hope you're not a teacher.

Anonymous said...

Alanorei is definitely taking the piss. At least I hope he is, otherwise I'm very afraid...

alanorei said...

AMIGAUSER said...
Poles are coming in here as scientists, lab technicians, chemists, electricians, plumbers etc
Since 1992, all qualifications are now recoqnised all over Europe, that now includes Poland etc.
Employers are seeking these people out, and they are coming here, doing technical jobs for near minimum wage.


Which is effectively what I said, i.e. employers cutting wage costs. But it would be interesting to see the breakdown.

A vast proportion of EEuropeans, including Poles, fetch up here with no English. It is difficult to see how they could be employed in a professional capacity.

Re: Post 1992 qualifications. Not necessarily. We lost a very capable French student who decided to return to France to complete her final year in Chem. Eng. because our degree wasn't recognised there. This was in about 1999-2000.


How are English technical students meant to compete against Poles when they are 10s of thousands of pounds in debt?

To the extent that the competition is like-with-like, they can't, given the employer greed for increased profits.

But if Britain withdrew from the EU - her membership of which is constitutionally illegal anyway, not only would this enable the current foreign influx to be terminated, it would also save the country £200,000,000,000 a year.

See http://eutruth.org.uk/
eu200bn.htm

Considerable additional savings would accrue from the offloading of our public services, including the NHS and education, which in various parts of the country, are being swamped by multitudes of non-tax paying foreign incomers.

A responsible government (we haven't had one for decades) could use this saving to boost HE and make it debt-free.

A science degree does not give good value for money when compared to return from a LAW degree or business studies.

These are other forms of professional degrees. They are not 'Mickey Mouse' degrees, which is what prompted the Save Physics project in the first place.

If you disagree please make a monetary argumant why someone would study a technical degree instead of LAW, ACCOUNTANCY OR BUSINESS STUDIES.

I don't disagree. In my earlier post I pointed out the lamentable decline in British industry, which has seriously weakened the incentive for enrolling on a science/engineering course.

But the present situation is deplorable and should be rectified.

Are the chem eng students paid high enough to enable them to buy a house in a safe area of the country? I bet they can't

You're wrong. I've known several who have, though I acknowledge it isn't easy.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Alanorei is definitely taking the piss. At least I hope he is, otherwise I'm very afraid...


You should be more afraid of your children or prospective children being taught they came from animals.

There is a serious risk they will therefore be tempted to behave that way.

You should also be afraid of your country being betrayed by its traitorous elected leaders to a hostile foreign power.

Check out the EU Truth site.

athemax said...

alanorei
So according to your explanation I'm superior to all the poor darkies cos I'm descended from Japteth who was God's favourite.
They'd best stop moaning and do as they're told then hadn't they?
They should accept the fact that God made them to be servants.

Anonymous said...

My children are in fact animals. (As are all living things that are not plants)

Hill said...

I love that bit about black paople covering themselves with red mud in order to get back to their original colour!

You're right 'anonymous' he's got to be having a laugh. Come on Alan admit it. Seriously though, I reckon you've got enough material for a tv comedy.

Vasey said...

Both sites dismiss CDK peremptorily. This is not reasonable, regardless of any Christian profession.

Dismissing Christian myths when dealing with science is perfectly reasonable, my slightly insane friend. Why should scientists value your myths above those of Hindus or Muslims or, hell, the Vikings? They're all of the same value in the end.

And I see little value in debunking your nonsense given that you dismissed my sources without a single valid reason.

Sheer bigotry. A bit like evolution in a way.

You might want to deal with the beam in your eye before complaining about the mote in mine there. I'm not the one saying that those uppity black folk are good for nothing but serving their rightful masters, Mr. Nineteenth Century Imperialist.

And seriously am I supposed to take Jack Chick seriously? This is someone who seems to genuinely believe that D&D players have access to real magical powers. It's beyond laughable.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
alanorei
So according to your explanation I'm superior to all the poor darkies cos I'm descended from Japteth who was God's favourite.


You have certain superior abilities but also heavier responsibilities.

If God had a 'favourite' amongst Noah's sons, it was Shem, not Japheth. Every biblical author was a Shemite, Israel, God's chosen people, were descended from Shem and Jesus Christ, God's Son, was humanly descended from Shem.

They'd best stop moaning and do as they're told then hadn't they?

A universal responsibility, actually. It is a question of who does the telling and by what authority.

They should accept the fact that God made them to be servants.

Yes. But a servant has certain rights, just as the master has responsibilities. These are also specified in scripture.

If present-day southern Africa, or not-so-long-ago Rwanda or Uganda, is to be avoided, that is what has to happen.

Getting back to the original topic, Mr C. was right about fossils being the result of the Flood. They can only form via rapid deposition of debris etc., not by slow deposition lasting aeons.

alanorei said...

Hill said...
I love that bit about black paople covering themselves with red mud in order to get back to their original colour!


They don't anoint themselves with red mud. They eat it. This is clear in the photo I have of the activity. It is a known phenomenon in parts of the southern USA.

However, that was not central to the particular answer I gave, simply an illustration.

Whether you believe it or not doesn't affect the original colour of the human species, which, as indicated, was reddish, or 'ruddy.'

alanorei said...

Vasey said:

And I see little value in debunking your nonsense given that you dismissed my sources without a single valid reason.


I gave you a valid reason, researched by two creation scientists recognised in their field. And I gave you the sources. One of them actually provides the CDK data, measured over a time span of 2 centuries. That isn't 'nonsense.'

You are merely evading the issue.

You might want to deal with the beam in your eye before complaining about the mote in mine there. I'm not the one saying that those uppity black folk are good for nothing but serving their rightful masters

Your problem is with the Author of the scriptures. I simply gave you the material in the Book of Genesis.

And seriously am I supposed to take Jack Chick seriously? This is someone who seems to genuinely believe that D&D players have access to real magical powers. It's beyond laughable.

This is a separate issue and somewhat OT but you've obviously very little knowledge of the spiritual realm.

You should read Doreen Irvine's testimony From Witchcraft to Christ. She's real and so is her testimony. I did meet her on one occasion.

Or ask any level-headed Christian pastor what he thinks about Ouija boards. D & D is simply more of the same.

You'd also do well to read some of JTC's material in some depth before dismissing it out of hand.

That too is a somewhat evolutionary trait.

Ken P said...

Fossils formed by 'rapid deposition of debris'?

The Earth only 6000 years old?

Well there's the last hundred years of Geology rewritten in a flash then.

Oh and the numerous methods of dating using radioactive decay don't work either. Well there's our Modern Physics gone as well. Glad I don't live near a nuclear power station.

Witchcraft and ouje boards? I thought we were in the 21st century.


'Black people eating red mud to try and change colour'

That's got to be the best one.

Surely you can't really believe any of this stuff, but keep it coming, as Hill said; it would be good for a tv comedy.

Chalk, what have you started here!!???

Anonymous said...

Has nobody pointed out that the Bible is just a story like Robin Hood, Santa Claus etc. All religions have an account of the creation of the World, how you should behave etc.

I don't think anyone nowadays believes it literally, do they?

Jean Genie said...

I'm afraid that if you want the Earth to be only 6000 years old you've got to throw out a lot more Physics, Ken P. The last 80 years of Astronomy for a start.

We understand the fusion process going on in stars and can date them to several billion years. We can also measure their red shift and show that distat galaxies are billions of light years away (ie their light takes billions of years to reach us)

The only way round this would be to say that the speed of light was different in the past but this was disproved after the 1987 supernova.

Anonymous said...

Chuck out modern Biology (Genetics and evolution) Archaeology (fossils, ice core dating) Geology (plate tectonics)Chemistry (amospheric composition)Astronomy (nuclear fusion in stars, red shifts)and Physics (speed of light, expansion of the Universe, radioactive decay dating)

I hope Alan never taught science!

Anonymous said...

Alan, tell us your views on Homosexuality. Go on, please.

Anonymous said...

I see that alanorei has ducked the question as to who Adam and Eve's children mated with. There is also a problem with the flood, if the only people left were Noah's offspring how does alanorei explain how the various races that we see today came about?
Jobrag

Dean said...

Our Head of Geography is black and I spotted her eating a piece of red clay at lunchtime yesterday.

I asked her whether it was having much effect but unfortunately it turned out to be an apple and I am due to appear in front of the Staff Disciplinary Body on Monday.

Should I take some mud along as a peace offering?

Anonymous said...

One of our Maths Teachers is from Mumbai and I have noticed that he frequently puts Ketchup on his chips in the canteen.

At least he claims that it is Ketchup...

I shall confront him today.

athemax said...

Has anyone told Michael Jackson about this magic red mud then?
it could save him a fortune in cosmetic surgery

Mike Davies said...

I like creationists.

They irritate all the right people and are harmless enough.

alanorei said...

Re: Young Earth.

(For anyone interested in actual science)

From Pamphlet 279, by Dr A J Monty White, CSM, How Old Is The Earth?

Scientific evidence for a young Earth:

Lifetime of Short-period comets, <10,000 years,

Micrometeoric dust, <10,000 years,

Uranium-Lead Method of Dating, 11,000 years approximately,

Imbalance of Radio Carbon for the atmosphere, 10,000-11,000 years,

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field, <20,000 years.

(Note that this phenomenon is independent of magnetic field reversal observed in iron-bearing rocks. See Taylor, In The Minds of Men, p 334.)

(It is also the case that the Matterhorn is composed of rocks older than those it rests on, according to dating methods. Topsy-turvy world we live in... See Bone of Contention, by Sylvia Baker, MSc, University of Sussex - another work I would highly recommend. It is more concise and more easily readable than Malcolm Bowden's books, excellent though they are.)

Dr Roger Wiens's date of 4.5-4.6 billion years,
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/
resources/Wiens.html, is therefore highly questionable for at least two cogent reasons:

1. It is totally at variance with the results from other estimation methods. To be a realistic result, it cannot be.

2. It 'just happens' to match the timescale required by evolutionists.

As has been said, "First you draw the graph, then you plot the points."

Re: The Bible just a story. Please give me evidence of one error in a 1611 Authorised Holy Bible, of any nature; scientific, historical, geographical, political, philosophical, sociological, textual, anthropological, archeological, prophetical etc.

One will do, not two. Don't feel you have to tax yourself.

That said, also please explain why genuine scientists; e.g. Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage (without whose work you wouldn't have a pc), James Clerk Maxwell and William Thompson, better known as Lord Kelvin, whose work on the Thermodynamic Temperature Scale is used every day by scientists and engineers, did believe the AV1611 literally.

Re: CDK disproved in 1987. It was not. See http://www.setterfield.org/
ageimplications.htm

"4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now."

and http://answersingenesis.org/

under Answers, Speed of Light Slowing Down After All?.

Re: Chucking out various sciences.

No, only modifying those aspects of science affected by CDK. Setterfield addresses this subject on his site.

The real foundations of science, e.g. the Laws of Thermodynamics, are unaffected by CDK.

Re: Sodomy.

1. "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" Genesis 13:13, AV1611. This is why God 'nuked' them, effectively. See Genesis 19:24-29.

The biblical destruction of Sodom has been confirmed by archeology. See Halley's Bible Handbook p 98-100, 853.

2. The 1611 Authorised Holy Bible establishes the link between sodomy and paedophilia, which is one reason why sodomy should be outlawed. Compare Genesis 18:20, 19:4, 5. All the modern translations, NIV, NKJV, NRSV etc. cover up for the child molesters. Check them out.

3. The AV1611 also makes clear which race was involved in the original Sodom but perhaps that is getting a little heavy for now.

Re: Adam and Eve's children, I did not duck the question. Check Genesis 5:4 in my earlier post, where I also summarised the biblical account of the origin of races and gave what is probably the definitive extra-biblical reference, After the Flood by Bill Cooper.

Intermarriage between close blood relatives amongst Noah's offspring would be feasible inasmuch as Noah's sons and their wives were all pre-flood individuals.

Clearly their bodies were different from contemporary ones, as their longevity shows, though the decay process was in operation.

However, genetic defects were minimal immediately after the Flood and considerable time elapsed before they became significant enough for God to forbid intermarriage between close blood relatives, in Leviticus 18:6.

Malcolm Bowden discusses this in his longer work, True Science Agrees with the Bible, p 72.

Re: The red clay. It is a side issue but some sites indicate eating it does happen, " According to the few doctors who have studied the subject, the craving for laundry starch is an offshoot of the clay-eating habit still prevalent among some Southern Negroes."

See http://www.time.com/time/
magazine/article/
0,9171,837103,00.html

Re: What has Mr Chalk started?

Maybe some enlightenment for the blighted pupils of St Jude's.

That is the most important thing, to my mind.

The 1611 Authorised Holy Bible always builds up, Acts 20:32, whereas evolution always tears down; e.g. Nazism, Marxism, eugenics, as some of its more notorious offspring. See The Collapse of Evolution
by Scott M. Huse.

Auschwitz, Treblinka, Buchenwald etc. were all 'evolution factories,' thanks to Adolph the Evolutionist who, being Germanic, carried Darwin's theory through to its logical conclusion.

Darwin, being more of a laid-back Englishman, did not, fortunately.

Mike Davies said...
I like creationists.

They irritate all the right people and are harmless enough.


Amen to that, Mike. It's always refreshing to find an ally.

alanorei said...

Re: Ouija Boards

I forgot to mention. They are still around, 21st century notwithstanding.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ouija.

They are also diabolical. The Devil's first word in the Bible was "Yea" Genesis 3:1.

He is the original 'positive thinker.'

(Most of the 10 Commandemnts are negative.)

Pedant said...

Before anyone feels they ought to step in to stop this, please don't. It's utterly fascinating - in an open-mouthed kind of way. Get the guy on Big Brother.

Rob G said...

So to sum up. We've got Black People eating mud, the Earth only 6000 years old (ignore physics), no such thing as Evolution (ignore Biology), folk living to the age of 900, homosexuals being more likely to be paedophiles, humans all descended from one bloke and his partner who happens to be made out of his rib(let's ignore genetics here) and to cap it all, the entire Universe built from scratch in 6 days in a different order from all available evidence.(Just about all of science thrown out of the window)

And this nutter is asking for a single error in the Bible?

Anonymous said...

You can demonstrate evolution with nothing more than a petri dish,some bacteria, glucose solution and some sulphuric acid. This was known 50 years ago.

At first the sulphuric acid kills off 99% of the bacteria but those that survive reproduce and ten dosings later you get half of the population surviving.

Or you can just look back in history and see how the white moth turned black during the Industrial revolution and then white again later. There are hundreds of other examples. Evolution may be just a theory but then so is Gravity.

Pre said...

Alanorei 'The Genesis account of special creation has never been scientifically disproved - and never will be.'

Well apart from radioactive dating, plate tectonics, fossils, atmospheric chemistry, luminescence dating, geology snd modern astronomy anyway.

What do you reckon to the theory that the Earth is carried on the backs of four elephants?

monky said...

http://www.blogger.com/profile/12013953165470026155

alanorei said...

Ok folks, I admit it, I'm a mentalist. Must sneak back into the hospital now before they realise I'm missing.
Frank, I have some fascinating ideas about Scientology i'd like to share with you.... cuckoo!

jerym said...

Thank you alanorei,that was brilliant.------ You shit house

lilyofthefield said...

"This is why Blacks in the southern USA are sometimes observed spooning and eating red clay out of river banks. They are trying to get back to the original colour." (i.a.)

Before I read this thread I was contemptuous of ID and God-bothering faux-"Science".

Now I'm actually worried.

lilyofthefield said...

"The AV1611 also makes clear which race was involved in the original Sodom but perhaps that is getting a little heavy for now."

From wiki:

"Genetic research using Y-chromosome haploid analysis has identified a Phoenician genetic marker (a so-to-speak "Canaanite gene") among modern Lebanese populations, including among Maronite Christians and Shiite Muslims, especially near the coast.[15] Initial findings show that the modern Lebanese gene pools comprise indigenous Canaanites, followed by immigration waves from Arabs, Crusader Europeans, and Seljuk Turks. The American University of Beirut launched the Phoenician genographic project to precisely map the genetic makeup of the Lebanese population and even the Mediterranean populations where ancient Canaanites colonized. A high-frequency of the Canaanite gene has even been detected in the Iberian Peninsula as well as in Malta, an island that Phoenicians colonized."

I'm no wiser.

Anonymous said...

Alanorei:
"Mixed race offspring do, I believe, effectively become sterile after several generations, or the females are unable to go full-term. However, I am still following this matter up. (Watch this space.)"

Why on earth should we watch this space? There has been inter-racial breeding for centuries without any evidence that suggests that you are anything other than a racist bigot talking utter crap.

alanorei said...

"alanorei said...
Ok folks, I admit it, I'm a mentalist. Must sneak back into the hospital now before they realise I'm missing.
Frank, I have some fascinating ideas about Scientology i'd like to share with you.... cuckoo!

23:50


First off, this is an imposter - and a coward - and one whom Mr Chalk will no doubt be able to identify.

alanorei said...

Rob G said

And this nutter is asking for a single error in the Bible?


And the error is...?

All you have come up with so far is denial and disbelief.

That does not constitute proof of error.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
You can demonstrate evolution with nothing more than a petri dish,some bacteria, glucose solution and some sulphuric acid. This was known 50 years ago.

At first the sulphuric acid kills off 99% of the bacteria but those that survive reproduce and ten dosings later you get half of the population surviving.


That is adaptation, not evolution. The bacteria remain as bacteria.

This is no different from insects becoming immune to DDT, but the respective species do not change.

Or you can just look back in history and see how the white moth turned black during the Industrial revolution and then white again later. There are hundreds of other examples.

The peppered moth fallacy was exposed years ago. See Bowden, Science vs Evolution p 57ff. Kettlewell faked his results.

It also appears to have escaped your notice that the peppered moths remained as moths and still do. They did not 'evolve' into another species.

Evolution may be just a theory but then so is Gravity.

Gravity is demonstrable. Evolution is not.

alanorei said...

Pre said...
Alanorei 'The Genesis account of special creation has never been scientifically disproved - and never will be.'

Well apart from radioactive dating, plate tectonics, fossils, atmospheric chemistry, luminescence dating, geology snd modern astronomy anyway.


Not by any actual data that you can supply. Special creation is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that no transitional fossils exist.

alanorei said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
alanorei said...

Lily said:

...I'm no wiser.


Sorry, Lily, neither am I but your courtesy is appreciated, as always.

alanorei said...

Anon said:

Why on earth should we watch this space?


Obviously the choice is yours.

There has been inter-racial breeding for centuries without any evidence that suggests that you are anything other than a racist bigot talking utter crap.

If you'd read my post carefully, you would have seen that I was not referring to interracial breeding as such but the effects of successive generations of race-mixing. The effect has been observed between blacks and whites but I am still following up the details.

alanorei said...

jerym said...
Thank you alanorei,that was brilliant.------ You shit house


Another splendid dis-proof of evolution.

The writer is forced to resort to insult and ridicule, having no rational contribution to make.

Berlzebub said...

Alanorei:

Okay, considering I apparently know more about science, and the Fairy Tale Museum itself, than you do, I feel the need to point out something. Hmmm... How do I put this delicately. Okay, in typical American parlance, you're so full of it, your eyes are probably brown!

The only science that the Fairy Tale Museum can use is the science that doesn't contradict the Bible. If science "proves" creation, why can't all of it be used?

Actually, the reason is real simple. All scientists signing on to work for the *ahem* museum have to sign a Statement of Faith.

Notice section (D) 6.
"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

That would be the equivalent of me going through the Bible, and cherry-picking widely varying verses, and declaring that it's a "kind and loving" God. Oh, wait...

-Berlzebub

PS. Like your blog, Mr. Chalk.

Starman said...

Alanorei, oh wise one, please enlighten me, a meagre Professor of Astronomy.
From what I've read you believe the Earth is 6000 years old approximately. Is this the age of the Universe too?
If so, how come I can look into my telescope and see light from the Andromeda galaxy, which has taken 2.5 million years to get here, and ( hold on, I'm using my calculator now) is therefore 2.5 million years old.
This is the nearest galaxy to us by the way.Light from other galaxies can be vastly older.
Please, please don't tell me the speed of light is wrong or that it has increased in speed or some similar guff.
My astronomy class await your reply with glee, erm.. I mean fascination.

alanorei said...

Dear berizebub

I understand that the museum is for public display rather than trained scientists.

This probably explains its approach.

However, nothing I posted depended on any of the displays in the museum.

I suggest check out the sources listed.

Dear Starman

Check out Pamphlett 265 from CSM, Our Young Universe.

Re: your calculations. Barry Setterfield addresses this matter on his site, which see.

Starman said...

Is that the best you can do? That fool was proved wrong a long time ago. Here's an explanation of how flawed his argument was... though I doubt you will understand it,
as it was written by a real scientist, rather than a University drop out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

jerym said...

I admit to having been taken in by the bogus alanorei and when young the reaction to this would have been to grin,congratulate the perpetrator and call them something derogatory but the longer this goes on the less funny it becomes when you remember that there are many very influential people in this world with similar beliefs.

Berlzebub said...

Dear alanorei:
I understand that the museum is for public display rather than trained scientists.

This probably explains its approach.


You understand wrong. You apparently didn't bother looking at any of my links. They are trying to hire a geologist.

However, nothing I posted depended on any of the displays in the museum.

I suggest check out the sources listed.


You didn't check my links, why should I check yours? Besides, all the claptrap you're saying has been refuted a hundred times over, on more blogs than I can count. Give me a peer-reviewed paper by someone following the scientific method. In case you didn't know, science involves getting real answers. Not trying to find the answer you want.

And by the way, I find your biggoted view of other races appalling. I know many black people, and I've never known one who ate red clay to get to his original color. I thought some of the older folks I grew up with were stupid for thinking that tails were cut off of black children when they were born, but I would expect more from someone who knows how to turn on a computer.

Oh, and my wife is half-hispanic. What preposterous ideas do you have about them?

alanorei said...

Starman said...
Is that the best you can do? That fool was proved wrong a long time ago. Here's an explanation of how flawed his argument was... though I doubt you will understand it,
as it was written by a real scientist, rather than a University drop out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html


The above paper is mainly a discussion of curve fitting. It bypasses the implications of the data, collected over centuries, that does support CDK.

I suggest that you will find a more comprehensive discussion in Appendix 1 of Malcolm Bowden's True Science Agrees With The Bible.

You will see there that Setterfield's work has been vindicated independently by Russian scientist V. Troitskii.

Moreover, even Lambert Dolphin eventually formed the conclusion that Setterfield's work was "well founded."

Day's work was based on Aardsma's and Aardsma's work is in error.

See http://www.ldolphin.org/
bowden.html

Note that Bowden's article is from the year 2002.

Moreover, Setterfield noted Aardsma's error in his response to Day, linked to the site you gave.

I note that you have also bypassed the reference I drew to your attention summarising the evidence for a young universe.

You appear to be anxious to avoid information that you don't like.

Not a good habit to get into, I suggest.

alanorei said...

Berlzebub said...
Dear alanorei:

Alno: I understand that the museum is for public display rather than trained scientists.

This probably explains its approach.

Berl: You understand wrong. You apparently didn't bother looking at any of my links. They are trying to hire a geologist.


We appear to be at crossed purposes. My original link was to the CSM exhibition in this country, which I only referred to in passing.

http://www.csm.org.uk/expo.php

Your blog comments appear to reflect mainly your scepticism w.r.t. the exhibition near you.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion.

Alno: However, nothing I posted depended on any of the displays in the museum.

I suggest check out the sources listed.

Berl: You didn't check my links, why should I check yours? Besides, all the claptrap you're saying has been refuted a hundred times over, on more blogs than I can count.


Refuted or denied? There is a difference.

Berl: Give me a peer-reviewed paper by someone following the scientific method. In case you didn't know, science involves getting real answers. Not trying to find the answer you want.

Your objections appear to be aimed at ridiculing sources giving the answers that you don't want.

Which is no doubt why neither you nor any of the other CDK critics on this blog have tried to address any of the earth-age estimation methods apart from radiometric dating, uncorrected for CDK, which is the only method giving the results that evolutionists want.

However, for a detailed source about radiometric dating etc., see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
PublicStore/product/Radioisotopes-and-the-Age-of-the-Earth-Vol-1,4616,226.aspx

As for "peer reviewing", it really depends on who does the reviewing. Anything that contradicts "established" views risks being reviewed unfavourably.

However, the above work is very detailed and put together by geologists, geochemists and physicists. It is aimed at a wide audience but should provide a lot of data to reflect on.

Berl: And by the way, I find your biggoted view of other races appalling.

In the main, your argument is with the scriptures, especially the Book of Genesis, and its Author.

Berl:I know many black people, and I've never known one who ate red clay to get to his original color. I thought some of the older folks I grew up with were stupid for thinking that tails were cut off of black children when they were born, but I would expect more from someone who knows how to turn on a computer.

Anecdotal evidence only. I gave a reference that indicates it does happen, or did. But it is subsidiary to the main issues, which you seem to be trying to sidestep by majoring on minors.

Berl: Oh, and my wife is half-hispanic. What preposterous ideas do you have about them?

The comment is irrelevant.

If you check my earlier post, you will see that the context dealt with blacks and whites.

Ironically, if you check out the AiG site mentioned above, you will see that they actually agree with you with respect to mixed-race liaisons.

Might be something worth mentioning on your blog.

Berlzebub said...

All right alanorei. Please go back to high school, because you were awarded a faulty education. I can prove it, right here.

As for "peer reviewing", it really depends on who does the reviewing. Anything that contradicts "established" views risks being reviewed unfavourably.

One word, two syllables. BULLSHIT!

You have no clue how the scientific method works, or even the scientific community. If someone were to come up with a falsifiable, repeatable, and predicatable theory that went against evolutionary theory, they would be the next recipient of a Nobel Prize, not vilified.

That's the problem with any sort of "science" that creationism comes up with. Theories cannot have "and here a miracle happened" at any point in the theory. Why? The supernatural cannot be measured, because it doesn't exist!

Berl: And by the way, I find your biggoted view of other races appalling.

In the main, your argument is with the scriptures, especially the Book of Genesis, and its Author.


No, my argument is actually with people today who believe something written long before science had advanced to the knowledge it contains now.

Anecdotal evidence only. I gave a reference that indicates it does happen, or did. But it is subsidiary to the main issues, which you seem to be trying to sidestep by majoring on minors.

Actually, all you've given us is anectdotal evidence of your own. Oh, and a reference to some photo that may be taken completely out of context. In case you've forgotten, here's what you said:
They don't anoint themselves with red mud. They eat it. This is clear in the photo I have of the activity. It is a known phenomenon in parts of the southern USA.
and
This is why Blacks in the southern USA are sometimes observed spooning and eating red clay out of river banks. They are trying to get back to the original colour.

Sorry, alanorei, but that doesn't wash. I'm not only from the U.S., but I'm fromt he southern U.S. Also, if such a finding had been found, whether true or not, it would have made the headlines of every paper in the nation. You seem to not only misunderstand science, but also the U.S. media.

Berl: Oh, and my wife is half-hispanic. What preposterous ideas do you have about them?

The comment is irrelevant.

If you check my earlier post, you will see that the context dealt with blacks and whites.


Yes, but it also implies a superiority of the white race. According to the "science" you follow, are hispanic equal or superior to whites?

I can see that we're not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change ours, alan. You view science as an evil, that is trying to contradict the Bible. I view the Bible as a work of fiction that people take too literally. As long as you reference Jack Chick, pastors, and those who believe that miracles and the Bible have to be included in the science, I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

lilyofthefield said...

Call me thick (it's OK I can't hear you) but has this thread gone into some sort of looking-glass psychedelic world? I thought alanorei ironically presented the case for the creationists/IDers and then outed himself as the normal intelligent poster I have always regarded him as.

So why are posters still attacking him? I should add that I am not very well so possibly the high temperature is clouding my reason.

Anonymous said...

Wisdom teeth, the cocyx and the appendix are three examples of things we no longer use but which were used by the animals we are descended from.

Some cave dwelling creatures once had eyes, but have lost the use of them and have developed folds of skin which have grown over the eye socket as it is no longer needed in pitch blackness.

There are plenty of other examples of evolution (the changing colour of the pepper moth, our finger and toenails which were are simply shortened claws, the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria) which is why it is so widely accepted.

jamie said...

Alanorei asks for a single mistake in the Bible. Well you don't have to look very far. On Page one the Earth is created before the stars!

Anonymous said...

That's Alan's best one yet.

"Mixed race offspring do, I believe, effectively become sterile after several generations, or the females are unable to go full-term"

This is just utter nonsense. Mind you, what do you expect from a BNP member.

Helen said...

The bacteria in a petri dish experiment certainly does show evolution in action. Use e coli and an antibiotic for good results.

Because the bacteria reproduce every 20 minutes it doesn't take very long to see the antibiotic resistance appear.

Basically what is happening is that the tiny percentage of e coli that have a mutation which gives them some reistance enjoy a competative advantage and so can out- reproduce their non resistant peers.

If the bacteria were simply 'adapting' to cope as Alanorei says, then this wouldn't be passed on to the next generation, in the same way that if you develop large muscles by lifting weights, your offspring will not be any more muscular than the norm.

athemax said...

If you're looking for inconsistencies in the Bible allow me to recommend this link.
www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf
I love the fifth one down personally.
The King James Bible was translated into English from Latin in 1611 and the Bible was first written down in about 100AD I believe? So for 100 years it was passed down word to mouth without any variation creeping in?
On top of which the Church has had about 1500 years to edit it as it feels like especially during the dark ages when the monks made up most of the folks who could read.

Anonymous said...

Bible eroors in the first few pages:

Noah's flood covered everything on Earth.
Sorry but there simply isn't enough water to cover the earth to a depth of 8 miles (height of Everest. Even if that were possible, The Geological footprint of such an event a few thousand years ago would be very obvious today.

cantdothat said...

This Young Earth idea has been around for a couple of decades but has a fatal flaw. It assumes that the speed of light (c) was greater in the past.

However, the speed of light is a very basic constant, which is linked with just about everything else in Physics.

jerym said...

Tom Paine has been through all this and managed a compromise very many years ago.

alanorei said...

Berl: You have no clue how the scientific method works, or even the scientific community. If someone were to come up with a falsifiable, repeatable, and predicatable theory that went against evolutionary theory, they would be the next recipient of a Nobel Prize, not vilified.

Then why hasn't it happened? A lot of the CSM material presents experimental measurements that defy evolution. But the scientific community - so-called - doesn't want to know.

Also, no evlutionist has answered the most crucial question, i.e. Why have no transitional fossils been found?

The so-called scientific community won't answer. Again, it doesn't want to know. But that is but one of many serious questions evolutionists fail to address, e.g. that of polystrata fossils is another.

You can also check out the following. It is Volume 2, published in 2005.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
PublicStore/product/
Radioisotopes-and-the-Age-of-the-Earth-Vol-2,4630,226.aspx

Berl: That's the problem with any sort of "science" that creationism comes up with. Theories cannot have "and here a miracle happened" at any point in the theory.!

The measurements in support of a young Earth, e.g. micrmeteoric dust, do not depend on miracles.

Berl: Why? The supernatural cannot be measured, because it doesn't exist

Sheer dogma, not very scientific.

Berl: No, my argument is actually with people today who believe something written long before science had advanced to the knowledge it contains now.

Genuine science has never disproved anything in scripture. Creationist Henry M. Morris offered $1,000 many years ago for anyone who prove a scientific error in the scriptures. The amount was never collected - and if the scriptures are as errant as you appear to believe they are, that is strange, to say the least.


The Bible actually contains comprehensive statements of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which form the foundation of true science. See Nehemiah 9:6 (1st) and Isaiah 51:6 (2nd).

Sorry, alanorei, but that doesn't wash. I'm not only from the U.S., but I'm fromt he southern U.S. Also, if such a finding had been found, whether true or not, it would have made the headlines of every paper in the nation. You seem to not only misunderstand science, but also the U.S. media.

You are naive if you trust the US media. Waco and 9/11 are good examples.

I have two more references if you are interested. They are independent of each other. You appear to have missed the one I posted earlier.

It is here. It is not my anecdote.

http://www.time.com/time/
magazine/article/
0,9171,837103,00.html

You seem to think that I am being disparaging towards Blacks on this point. I am not.

They are to be commended for believing the Genesis account, as their actions demonstrate, even if they won't achieve the desired result.

Yes, but it also implies a superiority of the white race. According to the "science" you follow, are hispanic equal or superior to whites?

Whites and Hispanics are superior to Blacks in some respects. And vice versa. Orientals are superior to all three in some respects and vice versa.

To take up your earlier point on Nobel Prizes, a distinguished US researcher named Dr Arthur Jensen produced a rigorous scientific paper in 1969 showing that education could not make up for genetic differences in intelligance between Whites and Blacks. He was not awarded a Nobel Prize. In the most advanced country in the world, supposedly, he was subjected to what amounted to a Medieval witch hunt by that country's academics. No-one ever refuted his work, however.

The same thing happens to creationists.

You view science as an evil, that is trying to contradict the Bible.

Wrong. See references above.

I view the Bible as a work of fiction that people take too literally.

Princeton scholar Dr R.D. Wilson spent 45 years studying and writing up the historicity of the scriptues, including checking the monuments of ancient emperors, e.g. the Assyrians. He came to the conclusion that the scriptures are historically accurate. See also Halley's Bible Handbook for further substantiation of scriptural events from archeology.


As long as you reference Jack Chick, pastors,

The ad hominem argument is not very scientific.

and those who believe that miracles and the Bible have to be included in the science, I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

I have not based the bulk of the material I've posted on miracles, though I have no problem with a higher law temporarily superseding a lower one.

I have also listed many prominent scientists who were bible-believing Christians. You appear to have ignored them, which, again, is not very scientific.

alanorei said...

Lily: So why are posters still attacking him?

Thank you for your input, Lily. It is much appreciated.

You are certainly not thick. I hope that you are well again soon.

The answer to your question is that evolution is actually a religion, not a science and I am perceived as an iconoclast.

Unlike Lisa Simpson w.r.t Jebediah Springfield, if you ever saw that episode, I won't back off.

That pretty well makes me the Devil Incarnate in the perceptions of some.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Wisdom teeth, the cocyx and the appendix are three examples of things we no longer use but which were used by the animals we are descended from.


Which animals? You have to be specific on this point.

I have already explained about the cocyx. You listed three such vestigial organs. Bowden, Science vs Evolution states that once there were 180, i.e. the count is going down quickly.

He also states that the appendix may be used to resist bacterial infection and has a rich blood supply. It can be removed but it is not superfluous.

As for fingernails and toenails - from your comment below, this does not prove man is descended from animals with claws. Again, I suggest try imagining your fingers and toes without them. The nails are really evidence of intelligent design, not evolution.

Some cave dwelling creatures once had eyes, but have lost the use of them and have developed folds of skin which have grown over the eye socket as it is no longer needed in pitch blackness.

This is simply loss of function. The creature does not 'evolve' into another creature. Blind fish in deep caves are still fish.

There are plenty of other examples of evolution (the changing colour of the pepper moth, our finger and toenails which were are simply shortened claws, the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria) which is why it is so widely accepted.

Again, no change of the creature is involved, contrary to evolution. See an earlier post on the peppered moth, which Bowden also discusses. Kettlewell faked his results and all peppered moths are still peppered moths.

Berlzebub said...

I just find it funny that the link went to Time magazine. Not exactly a bastion of science. Surely if doctors were studying it, there would be peer reviewed articles published somewhere.

alanorei said...

jamie said...
Alanorei asks for a single mistake in the Bible. Well you don't have to look very far. On Page one the Earth is created before the stars!


I'll give you one better than that. The heaven and earth of verse 1 are not those of the rest of the chapter.

All you have done is assume that Genesis is incorrect. This is not proof of error.

alanorei said...

Berlzebub said...
I just find it funny that the link went to Time magazine. Not exactly a bastion of science. Surely if doctors were studying it, there would be peer reviewed articles published somewhere.


Apparently some scientests have studied the phenomena. It has been given the name geophagia. Though also from Time this reference refers to researchers at Mississippi State College.

A medical anthropologist named Dennis Frate from the University of Mississippi also studied the subject apparently, in the 1970s, along with a Professor Donald Vermeer of Louisiana State University.

http://www.time.com/time/
magazine/article/
0,9171,884551,00.html

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
That's Alan's best one yet.

"Mixed race offspring do, I believe, effectively become sterile after several generations, or the females are unable to go full-term"

This is just utter nonsense. Mind you, what do you expect from a BNP member.


I have placed an order for the CD which I believe has details of this subject. If you are interested, I can let you know how to get it via ebay.

In the meantime, this is a lengthy paper but does support the case for sterility between certain Whites and Negroes. The phenomenon is not universal but has been observed.

"There is thus a little less disparity and a little more affinity between the Europeans of the South and the Negroes, than between the latter and Northern Europeans, so that when we hear that intermixture succeeds better in the first than in the second case, it should not surprise us."

See http://campus.udayton.edu/~hume/
Broca/broca.htm

On the wider issue, of whether racial interrmarriage is beneficial for a nation in the long term, the evidence indicates that it is not. See Racial Realities in Europe by Lothrop Stoddard, who gives the decline of Portugal as an example.

Re: BNP member. That is again the ad hominem argument, which is unscientific. Please try to be a little more mature.

jerym said...

You have to give it to this "alanorei" he/she is fascinating in a disturbingly odd way but I still have a nagging feeling that urine is being extracted.

alanorei said...

Helen said...
The bacteria in a petri dish experiment certainly does show evolution in action. Use e coli and an antibiotic for good results...

If the bacteria were simply 'adapting' to cope as Alanorei says, then this wouldn't be passed on to the next generation...


Again, this is not evolution, in the same way as ants and mosquitoes are now resistant to DDT, which they were not during WW2.

But present-day ants and mosquitoes are still ants and mosquitoes, contrary to the requirements of evolution.

And the example you give is a laboratory example, which could be argued is not a 'natural' process as required by evolution.

Many scientists have tried to speed up the evolutiuonary process by bombarding generations of hapless fruit flies with X-Rays, in the hope of producing favourable mutations.

These attempts have all failed.

alanorei said...

jerym said...
You have to give it to this "alanorei" he/she is fascinating in a disturbingly odd way but I still have a nagging feeling that urine is being extracted.


Thank you.

Full name Alan James O'Reilly, i.e. male (Australian*), former lecturer in Chemical Engineering at the University of Teesside, for the sake of clarification.

*Probably one reason I support Barry Setterfield. You always stick with your mates in Aus., as even Neighbours will show from time to time.

Re: extraction. Well, not quite but you have to allow for a modicum of humour.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
If you're looking for inconsistencies in the Bible...I love the fifth one down personally.
The King James Bible was translated into English from Latin in 1611 and the Bible was first written down in about 100AD I believe? So for 100 years it was passed down word to mouth without any variation creeping in?
On top of which the Church has had about 1500 years to edit it as it feels like especially during the dark ages when the monks made up most of the folks who could read.


Thank you for the link, which I have bookmarked. You will understand, I trust, why I am responding only to the item you mention, insofar as the pdf item consists of 45 pages.

To respond to your above points:

1. The 47 King James translators had a comprehensive array of sources, including Greek, Hebrew and Latin documents. They also had copies of all preceeding English translations, from Wycliffe's to the Geneva Bible of 1599.

They did not translate the Bible simply from the Latin.

You may have confused their work with the 1582 Jesuit Rheims New Testament, which was translated into English from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

I believe that the King's men may have had access to English Bibles that pre-dated Wycliffe, e.g. from the time of King Alfred the Great of the 9th century AD, one of England's staunchest bible-believers. See In Awe of Thy Word by Dr Mrs Gail Riplinger.

It appears that many more folks were literate than is usually thought in England of those times. The desire to read the scriptures is always accompanied by a desire for literacy - maybe a possible strategy for St Jude's, I suggest.

2. The New Testament Books were completed by about 90 AD, with the Revelation of John, not 100 AD.

3. It was not passed down word-of-mouth but Greek manuscripts were faithfully copied and preserved for centuries until the advent of printing, especially by the Christians of Antioch, Syria. Early translations, such as the Old Latin and Old Peshitta (i.e. simple) Syriac, whose texts go back to the 2nd Century AD, also preserved the scriptures in other languages.

Jewish Masoretic scribes likewise preserved the Hebrew Old Testament. Stringent (we would say fanatical) rules were imposed to prevent corruption. No Jewish Hebrew scholar has any problem with the AV1611 Old Testament - many of the King's men were experts in Hebrew in their own right. See The Men Behind the KJV by Gutavus Paine.

See Our Authorised Bible Vindicated by Benjamin Wilkinson for a comprehensive history.

As for variations and edits etc., the majority of manuscripts (at least 90% of the available 5000+ copies) show remarkably little variation. It is known that deliberate corruptions were introduced and a minority of manuscripts, especially Codices Aleph and B, which are the basis of the modern translations, exhibit massive corruption.

Among the main corrupters were Origen of Alexandria, 185-254 AD, a 'Christian gnostic' and Jerome of Bethlehem, 342-420 AD (partly under pressure from the Pope, I understand). But the corruptions are well known and have been extensively documented, certainly since the 19th century.

See The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels by John William Burgon, 1813-1888, Fellow of Oriel College Oxford, Gresham Professor of Divinity and Dean of Chichester 1876-1888.

I can forward other useful references if you wish.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Bible eroors in the first few pages:

Noah's flood covered everything on Earth.
Sorry but there simply isn't enough water to cover the earth to a depth of 8 miles (height of Everest. Even if that were possible, The Geological footprint of such an event a few thousand years ago would be very obvious today.


The water came from what are known as "The Great Deeps," in sufficient quantity to cover the Earth as indicated. See for example Genesis 1:6. Water has been located in vast amounts above the known universe. I can forward a reference if you wish - it will take a little time to dig it out and I'm aiming to respond to all comments first.

I believe that the geological footprint does exist, e.g. mass animal graveyards in "ossiferous fissures," the sudden extinction of the Siberian mammoths and erratic boulders etc.

The age of the Matterhorn having been estimated as greater than that of the rock it rests on may also be an indicator of this footprint.

Many ancient writings refer to the catastrophe of the Flood. I believe that all known civilisations have records or traditions to this effect.

One site that addresses most of the issues is this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Home/Area/
AnswersBook/flood12.asp

It doesn't agree with what I mentioned about "The Great Deeps" but is comprehensive.

One book that is regarded by many as a classic - though it has its detractors - is The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris.

I believe that it will address the issues that you raise, however.

alanorei said...

cantdothat said...
This Young Earth idea has been around for a couple of decades but has a fatal flaw. It assumes that the speed of light (c) was greater in the past.

However, the speed of light is a very basic constant, which is linked with just about everything else in Physics.


Most estimation methods indicating a young earth do not depend on CDK. Only radiometric dating does. See my earlier post, summarising the data from Dr Monty White.

Experimental data exist to show that CDK has happened since C was first measured in 1740. See Taylor, In The Minds of Men Appendix D. See also Bowden, True Science Agrees With the Bible Appendix 1 and Bowden's update, http://www.ldolphin.org/
bowden.html.

It must be admitted that much scatter exists in the results from the estimation methods, including radiometric dating e.g. Leakey's 1470 man but the discrepancy between radiometric dating and other earth age estimation methods must have a unifying explanation.

CDK provides it.

Some physical constants are affected by CDK. Others are not.

It appears that 9 remain genuinely constant; e.g. Avogadro's Number, R Universal Gas Constant and others.

4 increased, including Planck's constant.

2 decreased, including specific charge and gyromagnetic ratio.

Barry Setterfield obtained as many measurements of all these parameters as he could and found that the values followed the changes - or not - predicted by CDK. (Note that this result is independent of Setterfield's mathematical abiiity, which has been criticised elsewhere.)

One knock-on effect is with respect to transport properties, e.g. viscosity. All else constant, higher CDK results in lower viscosity, resulting in turn in more efficient blood flow and other metabolic processes and greater longevity.

This would help to explain the long life spans of the patriarchs as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis.

Bowden addresses the above in some detail in his Appendix 1, which see.

Anonymous said...

I just came back on after a week and that nutter is still banging on :-)

Anonymous said...

That's cos people like me keep asking him questions to keep him spouting.Nobody else will listen to the poor sod.

Alanorei said

"Also, no evolutionist has answered the most crucial question, i.e. Why have no transitional fossils been found?"

There are hundreds of examples, here's some from one of your favourites, Time Magazine.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

Much as I am bored by this berk, I'm still enjoying his responses. Tell us oh great one, for I have to teach this tomorrow, where did coal and oil come from? I'm supposed to tell my pupils it took 250000000 years to form.
Can't believe you lectured chemical engineering, your poor students must have dreaded radioisotope questions, unless you swallowed your pride and taught them correctly.

alanorei said...

Anon and Anon said:

There are hundreds of examples, here's some from one of your favourites, Time Magazine.


The article consists of nothing other than subjective speculative comment, with any array of slightly dissimilar skull photos.

These do not constitute transitional fossils.

Show me an article which depicts the transitions between a bear and a seal (yes, one evolutionist at a marine life centre declared that the one came from the other) and I might begin to take you seriously.

Lucy was an ape, btw. She is no longer considered a 'humanoid' by serious researchers.

I note once again that you are resorting to the ad hominem argument. You anon. folks must be running out of steam.

Coal and oil are also residue from the Genesis Flood. But I guess to tell your students that is more than your job's worth.

And the correct teaching about radioisotopes is...?

alanorei said...

jerym said...
Tom Paine has been through all this and managed a compromise very many years ago.


"I would give worlds, if I had them, that Age of Reason had not been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! O God what have I done to suffer so much? But there is no God! But if there should be, what will become of me hereafter? Stay with me, for God's sake! Send even a child to stay with me, for it is hell to be alone. If ever the devil had an agent, I have been that one" - Tom Paine on his death bed in 1809.

From Last Words of Saints and Sinners by Herbert Lockyer, p 132.

jerym said...

Paine died 1809. Lockyer born 1886.Where did he get his information?

Anonymous said...

This is bloody hilarious. Keep it up!

Me, I'll go with the idea that the Earth is a tad older than 10,000 years.

lilyofthefield said...

I don't know why I'm even bothering but what evidence is there for the preposterous assertion that "It appears that many more folks were literate than is usually thought in England of those times"?

Anonymous said...

He's a lonely old git who just happens to be a bit of a racist. Wish he'd use more of this material at his BNP speeches, he'd have them rolling in the aisles rather than falling asleep.

Anonymous said...

Alanorei asks for mistakes in the Bible, the fact that Genesis chapter 1 disagrees with Genesis chapter 2 looks like a good one to me.
Jobrag

Anonymous said...

Alanorei is guilty of double standard here.

He is willing to ignore the evidence of the fossil record, which clearly shows more basic creatures in older strata and more modern ones in younger rocks.

Geological evidence showing how the continents have moved slowly over millions of years, the various dating methods which show the Earth to be billions of years old, along with astronomical evidence such as the red shift and the microwave background radiation, which show the Universe to be around 14 billion yers old.

However he is willing to believe that black people rub mud on their faces to 'try and get back to their original colour' because he once saw a photo. He is also willing to believe that inter racial breeding reduces fertility without any eveidence whatsoever.

Can you imagine what he must have taught in Science?

jerym said...

The proliferation of "anonymous" blogers is getting almost as confusing as this "alanorei" person.

Dean said...

Actually, there's a point. How do you explain the Microwave background radiation Alanorei?

Does it involve Black people in any way?

pat math said...

I am a creationist but have trouble with alanorei's comments which appear racist. From the readings on creation I have been following over the past two decades, creationists are anything but racist. In fact they are very, very much in favour of "We are all created in the image of God" vein. I have never read anything about this “eating dirt” story in 20 years of creationist reading. It smacks of racism that I find offensive. To me “creation” means that all mankind are related and are equal.

pat math said...

I used to be an evolutionist until I found out the best evidence in its day for this theory (the evolution of the horse) was in fact fraudulent. It has been exposed as such. This example has now been quietly removed from most high school text books.

My main concern is this. If this was THE best example, why is a lie needed?

Dawkins, in “The Blind Watchmaker”, uses the example of dog breeds for evolution. Excuse me Dawkins but dogs have not evolved. A great gane has less genetic variations in its makeup than the original breed of dog. (The short legged and long haired genes are now bred out - no longer in the genetic information within the great dane gene pool). In effect these animals have devolved not evolved into higher order animals.

Now I can understand this, so what is Dawkins thinking when he writes it in his book as indisputable fact?

There are only 2 alternatives:
A) either he doesn't understand the genetics of dog breeding
or...
B) he does understand it but he is hoping that because he is such a well known writer for evolution (and anti-creationist) that he won't be challenged and therefore caught out.

Laugh all you want at creation theory but most of high end science is more suited to science fiction.

jerym said...

O.k. Patmath assuming they got the evolution of the horse and the dog wrong therefor you believe that the world is 10.000 years old,the garden of eden and adam and eve,noahs ark and the flood etc., were literally true?

athemax said...

The Ku Klux Klan were/are big fans of the idea of divine creation of Man. If you believe that
one subspecies of human is superior to the others you've got to have something to base it on and there isn't anything logical to use. A hundred years ago when we whites were top dog due to the historical accident of the Industrial Revolution being here in good old Blighty it was a lot easier but nowadays it just won't wash. Whatever makes whites superior to blacks is something we all have to have and they don't. Using individual examples won't cut it, Einstein was white but Gandhi wasn't. (In what way is Jade Goody superior to Halle Berry?) The variations of intelligence, longevity, strength, health, speed of reflexes or whatever you care to mention is the same for all racial groups. So unless the rest of you are telepathic and concealing it from me so as not to make me feel bad about myself then we're just different not superior.
So all that leaves is divine creation, whites are better than blacks cos we're God's favourite children, what a load of bollocks. There are NO scientific arguments for creation that stand up under even the most trivial of investigation.
We went through all this crap with the flat earthers a hundred years ago, the basis of whose arguments were also the Bible. They're long gone and so soon will the creationists.

alanorei said...

jerym said...
Paine died 1809. Lockyer born 1886.Where did he get his information?


The publication date of the book is 1969.

Rev Lockyer died in 1984.

http://www.christianbook.com/
html/authors/3221.html

His sources are found on p 15-16 of his book.

If you do a google search on Paine, though, you will find that the Tom Paine Society and others are trying to cover up for him, which is not surprising.

alanorei said...

lilyofthefield said...
I don't know why I'm even bothering but what evidence is there for the preposterous assertion that "It appears that many more folks were literate than is usually thought in England of those times"?


See In Awe of Thy Word by Dr Mrs Gail Riplinger, Chapter 19, The Anglo-Saxon Bible and note the following from p 688, 700:

"Much of what we know about Christians in England between AD 597 and AD 731 is from Bede. He assures us that "the reading of the scriptures is in general use among them all.""

"Scripture study and memorization were widespread among [10th century] Christians in Britain. The oft repeated fable that during the Middle Ages 'few Christians had scriptures and could read,' is spun by those who know that Christians who have a perpetual and infallible Bible [1611 Authorised Holy Bible] have no desire for the so-called perpetual and infallible papacy."

I heartily recommend Gail Riplinger's book but it will take you a while to get through it.

It is 1200 pages long.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Alanorei asks for mistakes in the Bible, the fact that Genesis chapter 1 disagrees with Genesis chapter 2 looks like a good one to me.


If you are referring to Genesis 2:4, and the use of the singular word "day," it simply refers to the seventh day when "God ended his work which he had made."

Check Genesis 2:1-4.

Since your comment was not specific about the alleged error, I am unfortunately not able to respond much further on this point.

Genesis 2 does of course describe in more detail the creation of man, compare Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7, 21-25.

alanorei said...

"Anonymous said...
He's a lonely old git who just happens to be a bit of a racist. Wish he'd use more of this material at his BNP speeches, he'd have them rolling in the aisles rather than falling asleep."
.

Stratagem No. 26 in Bowden's Appendix 4 - List of Deceptive Stratagems, See Science vs Evolution.

Check it out. I dare you.

jerym said...

Is this alanorei in the book selling business? Seems to push them quite a bit.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Alanorei is guilty of double standard here.

He is willing to ignore the evidence of the fossil record, which clearly shows more basic creatures in older strata and more modern ones in younger rocks.


The geologic column is pieced together by means of strata from different continents. Only 0.4% of the world's land surface has the main divisions in the [supposed] correct order and various sub divisions are missing - which evolution cannot allow for.

The column as reproduced in student textbooks is cobbled together by means of assumptions favourable to evolution.

Moreover, the strata do not exhibit transitional fossils, e.g. single cells to invertebrates, as even Richard Dawkins admits.

But they do exhibit polystrate trees.

Each of the above is alone fatal to the theory of evolution.

But evolutionists lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge this.

See Bowden, Section 1 - Geology, Science vs Evolution.

Anon: Geological evidence showing how the continents have moved slowly over millions of years,

This is a theory, not evidence, which has major problems that evolutionists have still to resolve. See Bowden's detailed discussion on plate tectonics in True Science Agrees With The Bible p 376ff.

To take but one citation:

"The problem of the driving force.

"This is an intractable problem that all continental drift theories have yet to solve. The stiffness of the mantle that is supposed to be moving the continents is many orders higher than the lowest value that would allow any movement at all. To allow convection, the viscosity assumed by Wegener was 10^16 cgs. units, whereas the actual values range from 10^24 to 10^26 cgs. units. His value was 10^(8 to 10) too low.


Anon: the various dating methods which show the Earth to be billions of years old,

They do not. See my earlier post summarising the data compiled by Dr Monty White of CSM.

Anon: along with astronomical evidence such as the red shift and the microwave background radiation, which show the Universe to be around 14 billion yers old.

Bowden, True Science Agrees With The Bible p 52ff, has an extensive discussion on red shift and background radiation, in the context of the so-called 'Big Bang,' on which your comments are based.

Your figure of 14 billion years is middle-of-the range, btw, to accommodate evolution. Estimates vary from 2-20 billion years. Clearly the lower bound is uncomfortable for evolutionists.

Re: red shift, Bowden has this analysis:

"Cosmologists say that as the universe expanded, each photon of energy radiating from the BB lost energy, such that its energy now is only sufficient to register the very low 3 K radiation.

"But for the light from distant galaxies to be only Doppler shifted to give their measured red-shift, these photons of light must maintain their energy. Akridge has pointed out that this involves two contradictions.

"1. If the BB photons lose energy due to expansion then all photons must lose energy as they travel through space; you cannot differentiate between those photons from the BB and those from distant galaxies.

"2. Cosmologists cannot have their explanation of the 3 K radiation and at the same time use the red-shift as a measure of distance. Akridge gives a neat illustration of this.

"Take a galaxy that is 100 million light years (MLY) away from us. Its light is just now reaching us. If the star was rushing away from us, the Hubble constant will tell us how much its wavelength would be reduced due to Doppler red-shifting, and it comes to 0.5%.

"However, if the universe is expanding, the Hubble constant will also tell us how much the expansion of the universe had reduced the energy of these photons during their 100 MLY travel, and it comes to 0.5% also.

"Thus, the red shift has two possible explanations: recessional Doppler shifting or expansion of the universe; and they cannot both be operating at the same time to give the measured results.

"To put it another way; either the galaxy is 100 MLY away from us, or it is rushing away from us; but not both at the same time!

"This presents cosmologists with a major dilemma, and we would consider this a major objection to the BB theory that deserves to be more widely known."


He adds, "Furthermore, studies of the red-shift of galaxies show that they have changed in the brief space of ten years, which is inexplicable by orthodox theories."

Bowden has this comment on background radiation, p 54:

"The amount of variation in the 3 K background radiation is too small to account for the collection of the expanding matter into stars and galaxies. This is also discussed later. In Section 4, The Age of the Earth and Universe, [p 217ff] we shall show that the most likely explanation of the 3 K radiation is the heating of the intergalactic dust.

"Even secular cosmologists admit that the BB theory is unable to overcome many of these objections, but that it is still held to because there is no other theory around that they can adopt in its place. That the universe was created is barely considered, and then only to be dismissed as "unscientific.""


I think it is clear who has a "double standard."

See also the reference to CSM Pamphlet 265, Our Young Universe.

Anon: However he is willing to believe that black people rub mud on their faces to 'try and get back to their original colour' because he once saw a photo.

Misrepresentation. Check my original post on this issue. I also listed 3 reports of this phenomenon and gave the names and institutes of scientists who have studied it.

Negroid pilgrims, mostly women, to the 'Black Christ' crucifix in Esquipulas, Guatemala also purchase and eat clay tablets imprinted with religious symbols for fertility purposes. One at least has testified that it works. This happened in November 1990.

I also pointed out that I was not being disparaging to devotees of this practice. If you check my earlier post, you will see why.

Anon: He is also willing to believe that inter racial breeding reduces fertility without any eveidence whatsoever.

I gave a detailed reference. Check my earlier post.

alanorei said...

Dean said...
Actually, there's a point. How do you explain the Microwave background radiation Alanorei?

Does it involve Black people in any way?


Check the post above. It addresses both issues.

jerym said...

alanorei said "If you do a google search on Paine, though, you will find that the Tom Paine Society and others are trying to cover up for him, which is not surprising.

15:56 " could you be a little more specific?, and while you are at it just tell me the sources re. the last words of tom paine?

alanorei said...

pat math said...
I am a creationist but have trouble with alanorei's comments which appear racist. From the readings on creation I have been following over the past two decades, creationists are anything but racist. In fact they are very, very much in favour of "We are all created in the image of God" vein. I have never read anything about this “eating dirt” story in 20 years of creationist reading. It smacks of racism that I find offensive. To me “creation” means that all mankind are related and are equal.


Thank you for your input but you should check the references I gave before coming to a conclusion.

You will note from Genesis 5:3 that although the image of God still applies, James 3:9, we also bear the image of Adam, Genesis 5:3, i.e. we have 'devolved' since the Fall.

Genesis 9:18-27 clearly delineates three major racial groupings in the post-Flood era, i.e. to this day and sets forth their racial destinies.

That isn't 'racist,' it is history.

alanorei said...

jerym said...
alanorei said "If you do a google search on Paine, though, you will find that the Tom Paine Society and others are trying to cover up for him, which is not surprising.

15:56 " could you be a little more specific?, and while you are at it just tell me the sources re. the last words of tom paine?


Re: google, type in: Tom Paine last words.

Lockyer's sources included: The Book of the Craft of Dying, Words of Famous Men, The Art of Dying, Dying Sayings (in Brewer's Phrase and Fable), Putnam's Complete Book of Quotations and Proverbs, and Death in Art and Epigram.

I do not how how readily available these works are now. The first mentioned came from the British Museum and Bodleian Library, evidently.

alanorei said...

jerym said...
O.k. Patmath assuming they got the evolution of the horse and the dog wrong therefor you believe that the world is 10.000 years old,the garden of eden and adam and eve,noahs ark and the flood etc., were literally true?


Pat Math has good reason to.

If you check the references that have been given several times now, you will see why.

Re: Noah's Ark, the controversy over its discovery - or not - continues.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/
home/area/faq/noah.asp

What can be said is that naval architect David Collins stated in 1977 that it "was extremely stable, more stable in fact than modern shipping."

Its dimensions made it virtually impossible to capsize.

See A Case For Creation by Ian Campbell, http://www.case-creation.org.uk/index2.html

athemax said...

The fascinating thing about the links alanorei posted is that most of them don't try and prove Genesis, they're all about disproving Darwin as if this would prove Genesis true by default. What about all the other creation myths such as the Hindu and Muslim ones not to mention the flying saucer nuts and their belief that we were created by little green men, they are just as valid as Genesis

alanorei said...

athemax said...
The Ku Klux Klan were/are big fans of the idea of divine creation of Man.


The Bible was around for centuries before the KKK.

athemax: If you believe that
one subspecies of human is superior to the others you've got to have something to base it on and there isn't anything logical to use.


Try reading the history of major civilizations.

athemax: A hundred years ago when we whites were top dog due to the historical accident of the Industrial Revolution being here in good old Blighty it was a lot easier but nowadays it just won't wash.

The United States (still run by Whites, just) is still the world's leading economy, followed by Germany and Japan - who got a lot of help from the US.

Where are the Africans?

The Industrial Revolution required work and innovation. It wasn't an accident and much of Africa and Asia still hasn't gone through an industrial revolution - certainly in the 19th century they were nowhere near an industrial revolution.

Also, name any individuals from those areas to match the pioneers in science and engineering that this country produced in the 19th century.

If everyone is 'equal' as you insist, you ought to be able to name a few.

athemax: Whatever makes whites superior to blacks is something we all have to have and they don't. Using individual examples won't cut it.

I gave you historical examples, not individual examples. Name one advanced, stable and productive country in the world - or in history - that is run by blacks.

Haiti is as close as you'll get and it is hardly a major nation.

Why don't you consider Rhodesia under Ian Smith compared to Zimbabwe under Mugabe?

athemax: The variations of intelligence, longevity, strength, health, speed of reflexes or whatever you care to mention is the same for all racial groups.

Not the issue. The issue is between racial groups, not within racial groups.

And between racial groups, significant differences do exist.

athemax: whites are better than blacks cos we're God's favourite children, what a load of bollocks.

This was not what I said. Have you been drinking?

athemax: There are NO scientific arguments for creation that stand up under even the most trivial of investigation.

Unsubstantiated dogma. And contrary to the facts.

I think you HAVE been drinking.

athemax: We went through all this crap with the flat earthers a hundred years ago, the basis of whose arguments were also the Bible. They're long gone and so soon will the creationists.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Matthew 24:35.

Creationists have been around for 6000 years. You haven't got rid of them yet.

You haven't even made a dent in getting rid of the 1611 Authorised Holy Bible, in the last 400 years.

I don't envy your chances over the next 100.

The nature of your comments above is such that if your fellow evolutionists on this site are even halfway honest (and I credit them with being more than that), they would surely be embarrassed at what amounts from you to nothing more than a juvenile rant.

If you are a teacher, I suggest that your students would be too.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
The fascinating thing about the links alanorei posted is that most of them don't try and prove Genesis, they're all about disproving Darwin as if this would prove Genesis true by default. What about all the other creation myths such as the Hindu and Muslim ones not to mention the flying saucer nuts and their belief that we were created by little green men, they are just as valid as Genesis


See my previous post.

And note that you have not disproved Genesis.

You simply dismissed it as a "myth."

Not very 'scientific.'

Anonymous said...

Mad as a box of frogs( which incidently, have been around for millions of years) and way, way too much time on his hands.

jerym said...

Typed "tom Paines last words" into google and can only assume that you hav`nt read any of it. Just accounts of unpleasant bigots bullying a sick and dying old man into renouncing his life long views. Tom Paine believed in a god as any one who has read his works can see he just could`nt stomach your unpleasant lurid claptrap.If the other references you quote are as contradictory to your "arguments" or simply just another load of bible based rubbish then I can only assume you are taking the piss,in which case BRAVO otherwise you should get your doctor to try you on some different tablets,not I hasten to add the Moses variety -----talk about trying to eat jelly with a bloody fork isnt in it.

pat math said...

jerym said...
“O.k. Patmath assuming they got the evolution of the horse and the dog wrong therefor you believe that the world is 10.000 years old,the garden of eden and adam and eve,noahs ark and the flood etc., were literally true?”

So I have debunked Dawkins with one spot of a huge error. That’s it?
Face up to it. I ask again - Is it A or B?
A) either he doesn't understand the genetics of dog breeding
or...
B) he does understand it but he is hoping that because he is such a well known writer for evolution (and anti-creationist) that he won't be challenged and therefore caught out.
Does Dawkings not understand simple genetics or is he deluding you?
If it is A then what is he doing being one of the major writers on evolution.
If it is B then I have proved my case.

What I am pointing out is that it takes faith to believe in evolution just as it does to believe in creation.

pat math said...

athemax said...
“The Ku Klux Klan were/are big fans of the idea of divine creation of Man.”
Yes they were and it is a sad part of history indeed.
But before you cast the first stone, remember that Hilter was a big fan of evolution with the Aryan race being the pinnacle of evolution.
In Darwin’s “The Decent of Man” he made overtones to the fact that the stronger tribes/races (in particular white Europeans) would overcome weaker races.

pat math said...

jerym said...
“O.k. Patmath assuming they got the evolution of the horse and the dog wrong therefor you believe … the flood etc., were literally true?”
Look at the pictures of Mars and Earth side by side.

The Earth is a sphere almost entirely covered with water, with small points of land protruding through it. Mars is a red dust/rock planet that may or may not have any surface water on it (so the scientific debate continues).

Some scientists believe that at one time the whole planet of Mars was once covered in water (you’ve read this haven’t you?)… Yet they mock Creationists who say that there was once a global flood in which the whole world was covered with water.

Do you see the irony here?

There isn’t enough water on earth to cover Mt Everest (assuming it was 8 kms high back then) but there is on Mars?

See it does have to do with faith.

pat math said...

I must be the only one on line...

That's what you get for living on the other side of the world. It's daylight here. Wake up everyone!

Crazy Miss Holloway said...

At the risk of sounding cheesy, can't we all just get along? I am a devout Christion...and a physicist. I believe in creation...AND evolution. I consider the study of science to be the study of how God set things up. So yes, God created the earth and the universe and all the creatures thereof...but he did so through the scientific processes that we now understand to be true, i.e. evolution. To quote one of my favorite professors "You need to memorize this equation because when God set up the universe, he used it a LOT, you never know where it'll pop up" (re: Second order DE's describing harmonic motion)

pat math said...

Crazy Miss Holloway said...
"At the risk of sounding cheesy, can't we all just get along? I am a devout Christion...and a physicist. I believe in creation...AND evolution..."

I have no problems with science exploring evolution, but I do have a problem with them labelling me as a basket case because I don't agree with/challenge the findings. I believe that all points of view should have a say and be respected for it. I'd be very happy to get along.

And yes that means a $25m museum is fine (it wasn't even taxpayer funded!) and should not have to be derided and ridiculed. Disagreeing with and challenging their findings is fine, just lay off the abuse.

Now back to Dawkins... A or B?

athemax said...

alanorei I'm perfectly entitled to dismiss Genesis as a myth considering how much evidence (including the links you supply to try and prove to the contrary) there is to that effect.
The breeding of dogs strikes me as excellent evidence for the reality of evolution. The only difference between breeding and evolution is that breeding is directed, the underlying principles are the same. Evolution works by chance and takes a lot longer, this is the old monkeys typing Shakespeare analogy.
After all substitute people for dogs and Man for God and in a nutshell and hey presto, it's Intelligent Design.
The ONLY evidence that you can actually offer for Genesis is your belief that it's true, If that's the case then do you believe what's in the Koran? Like the Bible it's a holy book claiming to be the direct word of God and plenty of Muslims are just as convinced it's true as Christians are about the Bible. Its claims are every bit as valid (or invalid).
As for insulting me and accusing me of being drunk, could it be that I've hit a sore point there and that the real reason you spout this claptrap is a burning desire to feel superior to other people?

pat math said...

athemax said...
"The breeding of dogs strikes me as excellent evidence for the reality of evolution..."

Which shows you don't underestand the evolution of genetics.

For evolution to take place more genetic information has to be added to the gene pool already present. Dog breeding is the opposite. There are less genes available in this animal than the more complex mixed breed dog. Do you understand this?
The gene pool is smaller/less/reduced. This is not evolution. The animal has not gained information but lost it.

Go have a visit to the "rare breeds" farms located around Britain. Have you really thought about why these people are so concerned about these breeds dying out?
The farm animals, Glostershire Old Spot pigs for example, are being saved because of the genetic informaion that in contained within them that has been bred out of the large white variety of pig common today. Once gone those genes are gone we cannot get that information back. These genes could be vital for future needs of our farming society.

To quote their website,"Our purpose is to secure the continued existence and viability of the United Kingdom’s native farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR).
... We advise, support and work with breed societies to ensure that important bloodlines and essential genetics are identified and diversity maintained."
http://www.rbst.org.uk/

So there goes Dawkins theory and yours too. I can understand that you may never have really thought about this but Dawkins should seeing as he is on the forefront of this topic.

A or B?

athemax said...

pat math neither A nor B, Dogs haven't devolved because there is no such thing, evolution is
the process by which random events culled out by the principle of survival of the fittest cause life to change over long periods of time. Evolution has no end target, it doesn't aim to produce any particular species. The appearance of creatures smart enough to actually wonder about it is just chance, a few changes far enough back and humans would never have appeared.
The key thing is survival of the fittest, multi-cellular animals have a better chance than single ones, once a few random mutations had caused it to appear then its superiority over the
single-cell losers meant it was on the up and up.
We're the classic example of that, intelligence offers such an advantage that it easily won out and the smarter beasties survived.
Since when does evolution require genetic material to be added, evolution is the process of working with what there is.

pat math said...

athemax said, "Since when does evolution require genetic material to be added, evolution is the process of working with what there is."

Really? So to go from a single celled organism to you nothing was added?

So there you have it...
And people wonder why I am a sceptic…

“Since when does evolution require genetic material to be added” – for every animal that increases in complexity. For animals to go from simple to complex and then more complex again, requires the addition of genetic information. Dogs are not an example of this. Dawkins should not use them. It is blatant deception. He needs to use an example where the animal gains genetic information. This is evolution – animals changing from the simple to the complex.

The problem with Dawkins using dogs as his example is that the breeds "look" so vastly different that they appear to be a new animal. Dogs have such a large variety of genes that we have been able to thin out unwanted genes to make breeds that look startlingly different and then produce offspring true to breed. Cats do not have this gene pool hence the reason that the different breeds look much more alike each other.

Dawkins has used this difference in looks to deceive people into thinking that it is a new animal. It is not. There is nothing new in the genetics of a great dane that was not in the original mixed breed, there is only information that has been taken away so that the animal breeds consistently like its parent as there are no other genes that can interfere with its physical characteristics.

I am not interested in science that uses deceptive examples to fit an argument. Lay people are trusting Dawkins to tell the truth and he hasn’t.

Anonymous said...

I think Pat Math and Alanorei should get together, those long winter nights would just fly by!I wonder what their offspring would evolve into?

It's the usual case of letting God in the front door causing common sense to fly out of the window.

alanorei said...

jerym said...
Typed "tom Paines last words" into google and can only assume that you hav`nt read any of it. Just accounts of unpleasant bigots bullying a sick and dying old man into renouncing his life long views. Tom Paine believed in a god as any one who has read his works can see he just could`nt stomach your unpleasant lurid claptrap.


Tom Paine was a Deist. That I did not deny.

It is a case of Rev Lockyer's sources vs. those with a vested interest in promoting Paine - and they are not above revisionism in order to do so.

Because Paine was also an Illuminatist and disciple of Weishaupt. He sought to subvert the Christian foundations of the early American Republic, by mounting a blasphemous and prejudicial attack on Christian belief and the scriptures, via Age of Reason.

Distinguished Presbyterian Dr Ashbel Greene described Paine's book as one in which "the most contemptible ignorance, the grossest falsehood, the most vulgar buffoonery, the most unblushing impudence, and the most daring profaneness are united."

When Paine fetched up in the US in 1802, The New York Evening Post on December 8, 1802 addressed a poem to him as "Detested reptile!...Thy person filthy as thy soul is foul."

Paine's arrival was met with national fury. If his last words were not a recantation, they should have been.

Anonymous said...

Alanori I'll spell it out,
Genesis 1.11 Plants are created
Genesis 1.20 Fish and birds are created.
Genesis 1.24 Land animals are created.
Genesis 1.26 Man and woman are created.
But in Genesis book 2
Genesis 2.7 Man created
Genesis 2.9 Plants created
Genesis 2.19 Birds and land animals created.
Genesis 2.22 Woman created
The first two books of the Bible contradict each other on the order in which creation happened, by the way where did fish come from they get forgotten in Genesis 2.
Jobrag

alanorei said...

athemax said...
alanorei I'm perfectly entitled to dismiss Genesis as a myth considering how much evidence (including the links you supply to try and prove to the contrary) there is to that effect.


You are entitled to, of course.

But you have not supplied any evidence that Genesis is a myth.

However, at the beginning of this thread, you asked me several questions which I answered with references. You have not refuted any of this material but I readily acknowledge that you are free to reject it if you choose to.

The breeding of dogs strikes me as excellent evidence for the reality of evolution.

This is variation within a kind, i.e. dogs remain dogs, by definition not evolution.

this is the old monkeys typing Shakespeare analogy.

The probability is 1 in 10^375, i.e. zero.

After all substitute people for dogs and Man for God and in a nutshell and hey presto, it's Intelligent Design.

That does not follow.

The ONLY evidence that you can actually offer for Genesis is your belief that it's true,

I gave you archeological, historical and palaeontological data in support of Genesis plus references for you to consult - I recommend Ian Taylor's site.

However, on the basis of your opinion, you are free to reject all that of course.

If that's the case then do you believe what's in the Koran? Like the Bible it's a holy book claiming to be the direct word of God and plenty of Muslims are just as convinced it's true as Christians are about the Bible. Its claims are every bit as valid (or invalid).

The Qur'an fails as a prophetic book. I have checked it via The Prophecies of the Holy Qur'an by Q.I. Hingora, kindly given to me by the then Islamic Propagation Centre in Green Lane Birmingham (where the notorious mosque is). I have a 150 A4 page WORD file on the subject, which I am happy to forward to you as an attachment, though I would need an email address.

About half the document covers the Qur'anic prophecies, i.e. 70-80 pages. Most of the rest is on 9/11 and Islamic persecutions.

(If you wish to gauge the difference between Islam and New Testament Christianity, consider the latest honour killing case and name one bible-believing Christian who has done likewise to his daughter.)

By contrast, the Old Testament prophecies on the First Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ are all known to have been fulfilled exactly and the probability of this happening by chance is 1 in 10^48.

i.e. God wrote the Bible, specifically the 1611 Authorised Holy Bible - for which I also gave a considerable amount of evidence.

God did not write the Qur'an.

It was lashed together by an illiterate desert raider who haphazardly dictated the material to his followers effectively as a war manual and who was probably under the influence of demonic possession when he did so.

Again, I can forward references if you wish. In passing, I would highly recommend Slavery, Terrorism and Islam by Peter Hammond, long-term missionary to the Sudan.


As for insulting me and accusing me of being drunk, could it be that I've hit a sore point there and that the real reason you spout this claptrap is a burning desire to feel superior to other people?

My apologies for causing offence. No excuses.

alanorei said...

Anon said: It's the usual case of letting God in the front door causing common sense to fly out of the window.

Sense is not common.

alanorei said...

athemax said: evolution is
the process by which random events culled out by the principle of survival of the fittest cause life to change over long periods of time...The key thing is survival of the fittest.


This is actually a circular argument. See Bowden, Science vs Evolution p 155ff.

Moreover, the fittest - so-called - do not always survive. The fossil record reveals much larger specimens of animals, reptiles and birds than their counterparts today. Why did they not become dominant, instead of dying out?

athemax said: once a few random mutations had caused it to appear then its superiority over the
single-cell losers meant it was on the up and up.


Mutations are not beneficial, as the many experiments on fruit flies have shown. See my earlier comments, also Ian Taylor's site.

"It has been admitted that none of the mutations could survive under natural conditions" Malcom Bowden, Science vs Evolution, p 52.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
The first two books [chapters] of the Bible contradict each other on the order in which creation happened,


They do not. Genesis 1 is chronological. Genesis 2 is hierarchical, not dissimilar in layout to a newspaper article.

by the way where did fish come from they get forgotten in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2 explains how land animals and birds got their names.

Genesis 1:21 indicates that God named aquatic animals, or at least some of them.

Fish were not forgotten. See Genesis 1:28.

alanorei said...

pat math said...
athemax said, "Since when does evolution require genetic material to be added, evolution is the process of working with what there is."

Really? So to go from a single celled organism to you nothing was added?

So there you have it...
And people wonder why I am a sceptic…


Many thanks for your posts. I very much appreciate them.

Anonymous said...

Is it true that Creationalists believe that the animals were originally vegetarian?

The rather fearsome jaw of a Tyrannasaurus doesn't look very vegetarian to me.

Hill said...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6

This shows how the supernova seen in 1987 provided simple proof that the speed of light has not changed significantly in the last 170 000 years.

Check out the rest of the talkorigins site. It debunks a lot of the arguments of the Creationalists, (which on first reading can seem quite convincing especially if like most of us, you aren't a world expert on radiometric dating etc.)

The vast majority of scientists believe the standard model of the Earth's age and evolution for the simple reason that it fits the evidence. There's no 'conspiracy' many would like nothing more than to overturn a well known theory as a Nobel Prize would soon follow.

The Creationalist scientists tend to be enthusiastic amateurs who desperately try to fit the facts to their theory which is exactly the opposite of true scientific method.

Henry Beansprout said...

I happen to know that the Earth was created exactly three weeks ago on the Holy Date of May 21st.

A giant creature known as the Spaghetti Monster who lives at the centre of the Earth was responsible for this spontaneous creation of the entire Universe and its inhabitants.

In His infinite wisdon He saw fit to give us memories of imaginary times before this Date in order to make us feel comfortable with this state of affairs.

I know this to be true because it is written in a book under my bed.

No unbeliever has yet succeeded in disproving this (and never will)because it is Holy Truth.

athemax said...

alanorei said
God did not write the Koran, spot on pal that's the one thing you've said I agree unconditionally with. It was written by a bunch of uncivilised thugs running around the desert chopping off the heads of people they didn't like, exactly like the Old Testament was in fact.
Every criticism that can be levelled against the Koran can be applied to the Bible there is NO evidence other than its own statement that it is the word of God. The fact that you and a lot of people believe it to be is not proof there are plenty of equally deluded people who believe just as fervently in the Koran. I'll grant you that Christianity is a bit more rational and a lot less aggressive that Islam but again neither of those things are proof.
Surely if one of the world's religions was true and the rest were false then the true one would stand out like a sore thumb amongst all the others, the fact that they're all equally dubious would seem to indicate to me that none of them are true.
Incidentally you're right it is unscientific of me to dismiss Genesis as a creation myth but then I don't need be, it's not a scientific theory but the first book of a religous tome. To quote Arthur Clarke, science doesn't have to disprove religion it merely has to ignore it.

jerym said...

Thanks athemax,an excellent note to finish this hilarious episode on. Ignore them, they wont go away, so let them stew in their own pathetic and infantile delusions. Good night.

Anonymous said...

Alanorei.
So you assert that men are superior to women and that woman are in fact inferior to plants, is this a line that goes down well at BNP meetings?
Jobrag

Anonymous said...

Alanorei
Rubbish Genesis 2.18 to 2.22 are chronological and contradict Genesis 1
Jobrag

Anonymous said...

re. Henry Beansprout's post. How does the spaghetti monster cope with the enormous pressures at the Earth's core, what does he eat and how does he breathe. Also how does he know what's going on if he's stuck in the centre of the Earth?

Does anybody else know about him?

Anonymous said...

Fool. Everyone knows the Earth is hollow. There's plenty of squidgetty worms and huffalumps to eat.It breathes through its oxytube located between its buttocks.
I know this is true because it's written here and I'm edukated amd my mate said so too.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Is it true that Creationalists believe that the animals were originally vegetarian?

The rather fearsome jaw of a Tyrannasaurus doesn't look very vegetarian to me.


Yes, and will be again, following the Second Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. See Isaiah 11:6-8, the famous lion lying down with the lamb passage.

If they do it now, one of them is going to be pretty nervous all night long.

Re: T-Rex, evidently the skulls found that are attributed to T-Rex show relatively shallow teeth roots, more consistent with herbivores, rather than carnivores.

alanorei said...

Hill said...
http://www.talkorigins.org/
faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6

This shows how the supernova seen in 1987 provided simple proof that the speed of light has not changed significantly in the last 170 000 years.


The article does not address the observed decrease in the speed of light, which has been documented since the year 1740.

i.e. David Matson sidesteps the main issue.

See references in my earlier posts to Ian Taylor's Appendix D, In The Minds of Men and Malcolm Bowden's Appendix 1, True Science Agrees With the Bible.

Matson's conclusions are based on one astronomical phenomenon, i.e. Supernova SN1987A. Bowden has a much more comprehensive discussion and so does the CSM Pamplet 265 that I mentioned.

Check out the rest of the talkorigins site. It debunks a lot of the arguments of the Creationalists,

Check both sides of the arguments. See http://www.trueorigin.org/#to


The vast majority of scientists believe the standard model of the Earth's age and evolution

Those that do are exercising a religious faith. That is what the unqualified term "believe" implies.

Further, scientific fact is not decided by majority vote.

I listed some distinguished scientists from the past in one of my earlier posts, who rejected evolution. Check out their careers and achievements.

Here is a modern source. (Note, you can always take refuge in the Talk Origins denial of such.)

http://www.scienceagainst
evolution.org/v5i10f.htm

Moreover, even evolutionists have debunked evolution. See pamphlet of that that name from CSM, no. 277.

for the simple reason that it [evolution] fits the evidence [for the standard model of the earth's age].

You have not supplied any evidence. Check out my earlier post on the article by Dr Monty White.

The Creationalist scientists tend to be enthusiastic amateurs who desperately try to fit the facts to their theory which is exactly the opposite of true scientific method.

I repeat, you have not given any facts to support either evolution or the 'standard' earth-age model.

Michael Faraday, Sir John Ambrose Fleming, Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell were far from being "amateurs."

Professor Andrew McIntosh at Leeds University is not an "amateur.

Neither Malcolm Bowden nor Ian Taylor are "amateurs." Check out their books.

Professor E.H. Andrew (formerly) of London University is not an "amateur."

Professor Gerardus Bouw is not an "amateur." See http://www.geocentricity.com/.

(I'd like to see you debunk his maths.)

Evolutionists cannot apply "the true scientific method."

If they did, it would disprove their essential hypothesis.

"A self-advancing process [i.e. evolution] is contrary to both observation and scientific theory (the Second Law of Thermodynamics)."

Pamphlet 58 from CSM, Scientific Method and Evolution Theory.

Jim said...

All animals were vegetarians???

So snakes evolved venom to kill vegetables did they?

Maybe spiders developed poisonous fangs to kill and eat carrots and animals like crocodiles, sabre toothe tigers and sharks just happen to have teeth that are perfect for ripping apart other animals.

I thought some of the previous arguments seemed far fetched but this takes the biscuit.

athemax said...

Interesting collection of experts you've got there alanorei.
I don't think amateurs is the right word for these people myself, deranged nutters might be
better especially old Gerardus.
You going to try and persuade us that he's right about the sun going around the Earth are you?
Good Luck on that one.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
alanorei said
God did not write the Koran, spot on pal that's the one thing you've said I agree unconditionally with.


Well, that's progress.

It was written by a bunch of uncivilised thugs running around the desert chopping off the heads of people they didn't like,

Agreed. The same applies today.

exactly like the Old Testament was in fact.

Disagreed. We may have to agree to disagree on the casus belli of many of the wars recorded in Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings etc. but a lot of them had to do with either:

1. God's judgement on evil, i.e. the conquest of Canaan, where the pre-Israelite inhabitants were out of bounds.

2. Israel's national survival, then as now:

"They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance" Psalm 83:4.

Psalm 83 is prophetic, as a study of the nations ranged against Israel reveals, e.g. the Ishmaelites, who are the Arabs.

(Note, a couple of corrections from my earlier post. The site recommended is that of Ian Campbell A Case for Creation, not Ian Taylor. The probability of OT prophecies about the Lord Jesus Christ being fulfilled by chance at the 1st Advent is 1 in 10^157, not 1 in 10^48. The figure of 48 comes from 48 Messianic prophecies which were studied. See http://www.biblebelievers.org.au
/radio034.htm)


Every criticism that can be levelled against the Koran can be applied to the Bible there is NO evidence other than its own statement that it is the word of God.

Disagreed. You should read both.

I refer you again to the work of Prof. R.D. Wilson of Princeton w.r.t to the historicity of the scriptures and Halley's Bible Handbook.

You should also reconsider fulfilment of prophecy - see above - and the effect of the 1611 Authorised Holy Bible on individuals, communities and nations.

At the height of the British Empire, Queen Victoria, in speaking to an African chieftain, tapped her finger on a copy of the KJV and said "That Book accounts for the supremacy of England."

You should also consider the following:

"The King James Version of the bible, more than any other book, formed the English language and shaped the English mind" - Dr David Starkey, during the series Monarchy.

England's problem is simple, really. She has abandoned the Book and lost her mind.

That goes a long way to explaining the condition of St Jude's and the Cherry Tree Estate, btw.

"Them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed" 1 Samuel 2:30b.

I take on board your pdf file about supposed contradictions in the scriptures but I have shown above that the one you selected, and which you referred to as your favourite, is in fact spurious.

The fact that you and a lot of people believe it to be is not proof there are plenty of equally deluded people who believe just as fervently in the Koran.

You'd find Acts 26 a good read.

"Much learning doth make thee mad" verse 24b (aimed at St Paul, not you, i.e. being dismissed as 3 sandwiches short of a picnic is nothing new to bible believers).

Surely if one of the world's religions was true and the rest were false then the true one would stand out like a sore thumb amongst all the others, the fact that they're all equally dubious would seem to indicate to me that none of them are true.

1. The Founder of Christianity has had 500+ hymns and songs composed about Him. No other religious leader shares this distinction or anything like it.

2. All other religious leaders died and were buried in tombs that can be visited, where their remains still lie. The tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ is empty and no other burial site exists for Him.

3. He has promised to return and He will, though you'll have to wait a bit to see that happen.

To quote Arthur Clarke, science doesn't have to disprove religion it merely has to ignore it.

Like you, he has the liberty to do so now - w.r.t. the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the central issue.

He will forfeit that liberty the moment he dies.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement" Hebrews 9:27.

I suggest you don't wait for that kind of proof, though.

alanorei said...

Jim said...
All animals were vegetarians???

So snakes evolved venom to kill vegetables did they?

Maybe spiders developed poisonous fangs to kill and eat carrots and animals like crocodiles, sabre toothe tigers and sharks just happen to have teeth that are perfect for ripping apart other animals.

I thought some of the previous arguments seemed far fetched but this takes the biscuit.


The references I gave were essentially for land animals.

Nevertheless,

Re: snakes. The essential explanation is in Genesis 3:14.

"The poison of serpents" Deuteronomy 32:24 would have been a consequence of the curse of Genesis 3:14.

As a result of the curse, snakes are also the one creature that is shied away from more than all others, even small ones.

See also Genesis 3:15.

Isaiah 65:25 indicates that after the 2nd Advent they will only eat dirt - or dust.

Re: spiders. These are "creeping things" Genesis 1:26 and their current venomous properties are also a consequence of the Fall described in Genesis 3 - as are the habits of the larger (and smaller) carnivores.

The scriptures acknowledge that large carnivores now exist, e.g. Deuteronomy 32:24 above, Judges 14:5, 6, 14, 18, 1 Samuel 17:34-36, Daniel 6:24.

Re: aquatic predators, e.g. sharks, crocodilians. Fish appear to have been a staple food for humans - and by implication aquatic predators - throughout the scriptures, certainly from Genesis 9 onwards.

But God appears to have had a 'food chain' in the oceans from Genesis 1 onwards. See Psalm 104:25-27. These verses show it is not meant to include humans and certainly won't, after the 2nd Advent.

I guess the post-Fall sharks glutted themselves during the time of Noah's Flood, though, Genesis 7:21-23.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
Interesting collection of experts you've got there alanorei.
I don't think amateurs is the right word for these people myself, deranged nutters might be
better


"Everyone in the world is quite mad, except for me and thee. And sometimes I have my doubts about thee" - an anon. Yorkshireman, apparently

especially old Gerardus.
You going to try and persuade us that he's right about the sun going around the Earth are you?
Good Luck on that one.


I suggest read his book, Geocentricity.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Alanorei.
So you assert that men are superior to women and that woman are in fact inferior to plants, is this a line that goes down well at BNP meetings?
Jobrag


Please clarify. I don't recall asserting either.

Why are you hung up on the BNP?

You're not from Searchlight and/or UAF are you?

alanorei said...

Alanorei
Rubbish Genesis 2.18 to 2.22 are chronological and contradict Genesis 1
Jobrag


Genesis 2:1-7 gives the total picture of the finished creation but from verse 7 on, the chapter is dealing essentially with man's initial home, Eden, not the creation of the whole earth.

See verse 8, which follows the details of Adam's creation in verse 7.

There is therefore no contradiction with Genesis 1.

Specifically, Genesis 2:18-20 is referring to beasts being formed in the Garden, as individual representative samples, so Adam could name them, not over the whole earth, as indicated in Genesis 1:24. (Genesis 1 does not refer to man naming any of the created beasts.)

So again, there is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

However, if you want a 'contradiction' to go on with, compare Genesis 1:26 and 27 and give some thought to the shift from the plural "us" in verse 26 to the singular "him" in verse 27.

That's a much bigger fish to fry than Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2, if you can manage it.

Hogie said...

So to sum up, Alanorei.

You believe that the sun goes round the Earth.

You believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

You believe that some people lived to be 900 years old

You believe that Tyrannosaurex Rex was a vegetarian.

You think that Black people put mud on their face because they want to go back to being Red.

You do not believe in evolution. You believe that all forms of life were put on the Earth by God in their present form.

You think that mixed race offspring become sterile after several generations.

You believe that the entire Earth was completely covered in water a few thousand years ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong in any of the above assumptions.

Anonymous said...

I'm de-lurking here.

Well, I'm going to ignore the extreme and ludicrous / racist beliefs of Alanorei.

sigh ... Creationism , as told in the Bible, is a stack of cards that can easily tumble. Sad, but true. I'd love to have ben made in the image of a God but I really doubt that it happened.

Reasons? DNA evidence, fossil records, vast periods of time as evidenced in out landscape, rocks and soils.

Even if you pull the 7 days over a vast period of time, (each 'day' equating to millennia), there are still gaps.

It really doesn't work.

The Bible as a whole has faults, ( e.g. Luke's gospel is historically inaccurate), and I'm afraid the Genesis creation myth is also fatally flawed.

Evolution, too, has its flaws. Its a theory. A good widely accepted theory, but still a theory. Unfortunately, it has enough holes in it to be chisselled open by blinkered and ignorant people.

As this is a education forum, I thought i'd posit a view of teaching the thing. State both sets of beliefs and let people decide for themselves.

athemax said...

Alanorei said
The probability of OT prophecies about the Lord Jesus Christ being fulfilled by chance at the 1st Advent is 1 in 10^157, not 1 in 10^48. The figure of 48 comes from 48 Messianic prophecies which were studied

Oh come on! You’re quoting from the New Testament in order to prove things in the Old Testament.

Alanorei said
At the height of the British Empire, Queen Victoria, in speaking to an African chieftain, tapped her finger on a copy of the KJV and said "That Book accounts for the supremacy of England."

I didn’t know Queen Victoria had such good speechwriters but it doesn’t prove anything about the Book. Islam spread like wildfire across the Middle East, Africa and Europe building a huge empire in a very short time too and we both agree the Koran is tosh.

Alanorei said
"The King James Version of the bible, more than any other book, formed the English language and shaped the English mind" - Dr David Starkey, during the series Monarchy.

It’s certainly an important historical and literary document no doubt about that but then so are the Origin of Species and the Age of Reason.

Alanorei said I take on board your pdf file about supposed contradictions in the scriptures but I have shown above that the one you selected, and which you referred to as your favourite, is in fact spurious

Where did you do that, did I miss something? And what about the other 699 in the document? Any single one of them automatically derails your statement that the Bible is the literal word of God. There can’t be ANY mistakes in the word of God surely? On this subject I’ve though of one more all on my own little own some.
Exodus 22:18 the bit about doing in witches, Why does God tell the faithful to knock off witches if there is no such thing? Surely this means that witches do in fact exist, does that mean all the old fairytales are true after all?

Alanorei said The Founder of Christianity has had 500+ hymns and songs composed about Him. No other religious leader shares this distinction or anything like it.

True and writing nice songs is much better than blowing up infidels but from the point of proving a belief both are equally valid.

Alanorei said All other religious leaders died and were buried in tombs that can be visited, where their remains still lie. The tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ is empty and no other burial site exists for Him.

Really where is it then? If you know where it is let the rest of us know, there are countless archaeologists, scholars and theologians who would love to know where the Tomb of Jesus actually is.

Anonymous said...

Show me Budda's body.

alanorei said...

Hogie said...
So to sum up, Alanorei...


Thank you for this most useful summary.

It is correct except in two respects:

You think that Black people put mud on their face because they want to go back to being Red.

They ingest it. See my original comment and the later ones with references. The phenomenon is observed in northern Alabama.

You think that mixed race offspring become sterile after several generations.

In certain cases. See the reference I gave. Some of the research into this phenomenon was carried out in the 19th century by J.H. Evrie M.D.

I can recommend a CD available via ebay if you are interested.

On a third point,

You do not believe in evolution. You believe that all forms of life were put on the Earth by God in their present form.

Yes, but the original perfect forms have been marred by the Fall, as recorded in Genesis 3, resulting, for example, in limited life spans.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
I'm de-lurking here...


You are entitled to your opinion, as are all other contributors, but you present no evidence and appear unable to counter any of the points I have made above.

As I've indicated before, denial is not the same as refutation.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
Show me Budda's body.


Check out Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gautama_Buddha

You can't view his actual grave because it appears he was cremated and the remains distributed to a number of sites, some of which are still known.

One of his teeth is on display apparently, in the Temple of the Tooth, in Sri Lanka.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
Alanorei said
The probability of OT prophecies about the Lord Jesus Christ being fulfilled by chance at the 1st Advent is 1 in 10^157, not 1 in 10^48. The figure of 48 comes from 48 Messianic prophecies which were studied

Oh come on! You’re quoting from the New Testament in order to prove things in the Old Testament.


Why is that a problem?

Both Testaments are accurate historical records, as even our current calendar indicates in part.

But the point at issue is the mathematical probability of events occurring between 0 and 33 AD exactly as predicted 400+ years in advance.

Check out the site I gave you.

Alanorei said
At the height of the British Empire, Queen Victoria, in speaking to an African chieftain, tapped her finger on a copy of the KJV and said "That Book accounts for the supremacy of England."


I didn’t know Queen Victoria had such good speechwriters

Please name them to substantiate this point.

but it doesn’t prove anything about the Book.

Queen Victoria was arguably in a better position to judge, I suggest.

Islam spread like wildfire across the Middle East, Africa and Europe building a huge empire in a very short time too and we both agree the Koran is tosh.

Fire and sword is a good analogy, the 'gospel' of armed warfare.

But Charles Martel stopped Islam at the battle of Tours in 732 AD and forestalled any further major expansion by Muslim armies.

Islam has never had an empire on which "the sun never set."

It has never produced a world-wide language.

Nor has it ever colonised hitherto unchartered territories that became advanced nations within a few generations, e.g. Australia, claimed for Britain in 1788, federated as a sovereign state with its own parliament and prime minister by 1901.

Effectively the same is true for the other old dominions. Even the US owes much of its constitutional foundations to early English settlers, especially Baptists.

Nor has any Islamic nation ever been a major maritime power (though Barbary pirates did raid the southern English coast to abduct local inhabitants as slaves in the 17th century. They weren't finally defeated until 1830, by the British and French navies).

Islam would have made no inroads into the West were it not for the subversion by Western leaders of their own nations - including HM with her Muslim 'prayer room' in Windsor Castle, sadly, in complete violation of her Coronation Oath.

And it is unable to annihilate Israel, even though the surrounding Muslims outnumber the Israelis 10:1 and Israel has basically been ostracized by the other developed nations.

Each of Islam's four major attempts to overwhelm Israel, 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1976, ended in utter defeat and humiliation for the Muslim armies, even though Israel fought alone.

Alanorei said
"The King James Version of the bible, more than any other book, formed the English language and shaped the English mind" - Dr David Starkey, during the series Monarchy.

It’s certainly an important historical and literary document no doubt about that but then so are the Origin of Species and the Age of Reason.


The AV1611 has gone into over 800,000,000 copies. I doubt whether Darwin's or Paine's works are anywhere near that number.

Check out which of the three is easiest to obtain in your local bookshop.

Alanorei said I take on board your pdf file about supposed contradictions in the scriptures but I have shown above that the one you selected, and which you referred to as your favourite, is in fact spurious

Where did you do that, did I miss something?


Check my answers to your remarks about the New Testament being transmitted only by word of mouth before 100 AD and the KJV being translated from the Latin.

And what about the other 699 in the document? Any single one of them automatically derails your statement that the Bible is the literal word of God.

I am unable to check them all now because I am working on another project which will take several more months to complete.

Perhaps you'd like to pull out 10 that you think are the most decisive and forward them to me here:

alan.oreilly@ntlworld.com

I think I could work that into my schedule. And 10 examples should be sufficient to prove the case.

In the meantime, see my reply to Jobrag showing that in fact Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict, with respect to the Creation account.

There can’t be ANY mistakes in the word of God surely?

Apart from typos in early editions of the AV1611, no.

On this subject I’ve though of one more all on my own little own some.
Exodus 22:18 the bit about doing in witches, Why does God tell the faithful to knock off witches if there is no such thing? Surely this means that witches do in fact exist, does that mean all the old fairytales are true after all?


Check out Doreen Irvine's testimony here:

http://www.angelfire.com/md3/
pafn777/doreen.html

I did meet her on one occasion and I believe that her testimony is authentic.

Note that Exodus 22:18, as a means of punishment, was rescinded in the New Testament. See Acts 13:1-11. This country essentially repealed the 1735 Witchcraft Act in 1951 but the Act's existence in English law for over 200 years shows that the need for safeguards against occult practices was taken seriously - and during a time of 'reason.'

Folk these days, especially young folk, are mainly subjected to the occult through rock music. This is easy to substantiate.

Alanorei said The Founder of Christianity has had 500+ hymns and songs composed about Him. No other religious leader shares this distinction or anything like it.

True and writing nice songs is much better than blowing up infidels but from the point of proving a belief both are equally valid.


My essential point remains.

Handel's Messiah is rather more than a nice song, I suggest.

Note, I don't include blasphemies like Jesus Christ Superstar and The Last Temptation of Christ in this category.

Alanorei said All other religious leaders died and were buried in tombs that can be visited, where their remains still lie. The tomb of the Lord Jesus Christ is empty and no other burial site exists for Him.

Really where is it then? If you know where it is let the rest of us know, there are countless archaeologists, scholars and theologians who would love to know where the Tomb of Jesus actually is.


Gordon's Calvary is the most likely site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Garden_Tomb

Halley's Bible Handbook p 551-3 also describes the site.

As indicated in another post, Buddha's remains got reduced to ashes and distributed around but he is still dead and buried (even if in bits, like King Canute).

Jesus Christ isn't.

athemax said...

Alanorei
Well here we are again, No the Bible is not an historical record any more than it is a scientific textbook. You cannot prove the Bible by quoting from
the Bible when the only thing you can cite as proof of its veracity is your own belief.
There are no non-biblical sources to back up your claim of accurate prophecies.
It's like me quoting from the Harry Potter novels to prove that wizards exist (though I imagine you class those as the work of the Devil)
I have no doubt at all that much of the Bible is based on historical events, there is no independent proof for the existence of Jesus but there is
plenty for that of Pontius Pilate but that is not the same thing.
I'll ignore the next few paragraphs since they seem to be mostly evidence of your own quite remarkable prejudices against foreigners more than anything else.
How does the fact that the Bible has sold so many copies prove it's true? I suspect even more people than that have seen a Disney movie does that
prove the existence of Mickey Mouse?
I also doubt that you've read the PDF I linked too either. The fifth entry the one I said I liked was actually this

"And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth." Really? Then why are only a tiny fraction of stars visible from
earth? Under the best conditions, no more than five thousand stars are
visible from earth with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of
billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies.
Yet this verse says that God put the stars in the firmament "to give
light" to the earth. 1:17

This is another good one

Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me
shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two
other humans alive at the time -- his parents! 4:14

or this

"And Cain knew his wife." That's nice, but where the hell did she come
from? 4:17

or how about this

God was angry because "the earth was filled with violence." But didn't
God create the whole bloody system in the first place? Predator and
prey, parasite and host -- weren't they all designed by God? Oh, it's
true that according to 1:30 God originally intended the animals to be
vegetarian. But later (3:18) he changed all that. Still, the violence
that angered God was of his own making. So what was he upset about? And
how would killing everything help to make the world less violent? Did he
think the animals would behave better after he "destroys them with the
earth"? I guess God works in mysterious ways. 6:11-13

and lastly

Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove
returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes
out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree
survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly
wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11

Which brings us back to your buddy Gerardus. I downloaded the primer from his website and made an honest effort to read it, I managed about ninety pages before I gave up. First thing that struck me is according to his calculations the Sun must be tanking round the Earth at over 3000 miles per second pushing about 2% speed of light. At this velocity the Doppler effect on it's light and radio wave output must be enormous. Why have none of the vast array of instruments both in orbit and on the ground detected this?
Secondly NASA plots the courses of its probes using a Copernican model rather than a Tychonian one yet somehow they all seem to get where they're going.
As for the location of Jesus's Tomb yes you're right that is probably where it is/was. However if no-one has actually found it how do you know it's empty?

fedup said...

Wow. Just finished reading the lot. I had been bamboozled by the science. Flabbergasted by the amount of "references" that "back up" the creationist stuff. My mind is in a whirl. I have studied the evidence. Researched the facts. Looked up to the heavens. I now truly have seen the light.

It was indeed the spaghetti monster wot made the universe.

youthleader said...

Makes sound argument for non denominational schools, no collective worship, and a humanistic approach to schooling. Keep religion and politics out of schools.
Ultimately, these two elements are behind all wars.
"There is probably no god, so stop panicking, and get on with your life".

If you teach science, then give all views. You don't have to believe, or push any single theory. If you adopt a particular view, and there is an opposing argument, but you fail to mention it, then you yourself must have doubts. If you believe any other view is preposterous, then allow students to make up their own mind. If you do not, you are effectively censoring education.

Anonymous said...

So good topic really i like any post talking about Ancient Greece but i want to say thing to u Ancient Greece not that only ... you can see in Ancient Greece Demography and the Spartan Economy and more , you shall search in Google and Wikipedia about that .... thanks a gain ,,,