biblical creationism-7

Rstegman · Post by **Rstegman** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:43 am

biblical creationism-7

In the past notes, I have proposed what had happened after the antediluvian flood as what would be expected from the Biblical Creation theory. I also pointed out that the competing theories would expect there to be relative stasis among the species. Now I must describe what might be expected if Biblical Creation is true, and ways to test the theory in a scientific manner.
As presented all land life we see now were based on a generic member of each family of animals, and the maximum time that the Antediluvian flood happened was ten thousand years ago. I suggested that animals expanded to the world, changing as they expanded into the forms we now know.
We can presume that animals expanded far faster than humans did, and that all signs of human evidence (art work, crafts, structures, graves, etc.) we find were created after the Antediluvian flood.
The animals had about eight thousand years to change roughly into the forms we know, before science started cataloging them in detail.
In testing the theory of Biblical Creationism, there are many things we need to look at to find corroborating evidence for the theory. We need to deduce what would be the fastest logical rate that it would take to go from the generic KIND of animal to the most differentiated forms we now see.

One radical proponent of Catastrophic Evolution suggested that the last extinction event in the world coincided with Acidosis. Myths around the world suggests this could be about about the time the sea level dropped around that time.
I never mentioned it in previous notes, but there is evidence of sea shores 100 feet below our existing sea level. There are also evidences if sea shores a hundred feet above our existing sea levels. One suggestion was that the low sea shores were from before the flood, the high sea shores are from after the flood. it is then suggested is that the drop to present levels is when the land bridges to the continents of the world disappeared so to isolate life.

If the last mention has any sign of being true, then one can figure that the new world species and the old world species separated permanently at that time. Comparing similar forms on both sides of the ocean might give indication as to the change rate of different kinds. Any kinds that are really similar on both sides, especially if they are classified as advanced from the generic form, could well be used as a gage of the change rate of the kinds. Their differences and the amount of differences, would also be a measure of the change rate also.

We need to know the change rate of animals This would give us the latest date we would expect to find differences in remains in graves and collections. We need to do genetic and physical examinations of any animal samples whatsoever found in any tombs or graves to see if there are any detectable differences in the forms.
As mentioned, the animals spread out before mankind did. This would give them a head start in changing forms before mankind could include them in graves or tombs. Knowing the rate one can expect species to change will give us a range of likelihood that the buried remains will be different than what we see today. Would they be already fixed by the time grave sites and tombs were made, or were they changing after that time.

A drastic change from a few kinds to billions of species in ten thousand years indicates that life forms are mailable. Species might change drastically if conditions also change.
The competing theories indicate that the only real change of life forms are in size and physical necessities to handle the change in size and life style. The Hyrax, which looks like a rodent, is the closest relative of the elephant. The difference is due to the change of life style and size. Other changes are not obvious except over millions of years.

From all discussed in the past few notes, one must presume that if we see what is commonly called EVOLUTION, within the past ten thousand years, we have unquestioned proof that Biblical Creation exists.

Henry J · Post by **Henry J** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:07 am

Re " A drastic change from a few kinds to billions of species in ten thousand years indicates that life forms are mailable. "

Mailable? They can be sent through the mail?

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:28 pm

Henry J wrote:Re " A drastic change from a few kinds to billions of species in ten thousand years indicates that life forms are mailable. "

Mailable? They can be sent through the mail?

I prefer UPS myself.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:30 pm

From all discussed in the past few notes, one must presume that if we see what is commonly called EVOLUTION, within the past ten thousand years, we have unquestioned proof that Biblical Creation exists.

First we have to do a DNA test on the gas we put in our vehicles.

Rstegman · Post by **Rstegman** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:17 am

I never said my proof would be spectacular,
I just said I would try to show proof for Biblical Creationism.

how did I do?

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:53 am

To paraphrase someone else here just about every turn used to build a case for 'created us in his/her image' smacks of evolution.

Religion is supposed to be Faith. Or at least it used to be. Again to paraphrase, "Ya gotta believe." So those who have faith do so. Just don't try selling a specific belief as fact.

Unless, of course, you're Tom Cruise.

Rstegman · Post by **Rstegman** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:23 am

The hardest part for me
Is that not only do I know there is a god
Accepting the fact that she is not me.....

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:21 am

I saw a rebroadcast of a talk Kenneth Miller gave on C-SPAN this morning and found him to be a very interesting speaker. For those who may be interested : http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

Website · Post by **brian** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:20 pm

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17 ... 62,00.html

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:25 pm

Obviously another story slanted by the liberal media!

lswot · Post by **lswot** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:28 pm

I heard this Einstein quote on CSI......

Science without Religion is lame
Religion without Science is blind

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:24 pm

lswot wrote:I heard this Einstein quote on CSI......

Science without Religion is lame
Religion without Science is blind

Website · Post by **brian** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:32 pm

Was that CSI? I heard the same quote sometime in the past week, but I can't recall just where. And I don't watch CSI....

Could it have been Threshold? It had a church story last week.

Xjmt · Post by **Xjmt** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:52 am

That quote has probably cropped up in more than one place. Methinks the middle thinkers of the nation are getting concerned about places like Kansas, Ohio, Penn. etc. School boards dictating to the community at large about what is and what isn't science.

By the way this stunt the American Fundamentalists are pulling of having their members elected to positions such as local school boards sounds familiar as a political tactic. Isn't that the way the Nazis came to power in Germany in the 30s? Start small then dictate up?

I heard last night that some New England town just fired their entire school board for pulling such a stunt.

Website · Post by **brian** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:02 am

Now Pat Robertson is predicting natural disasters for Dover, because they "voted God out of their community." No, they voted God back into the church and the family, where He belongs. Why can't these people get it through their thick skulls that not everyone has the same belief they do? They would be tearing their hair out and setting themselves on fire if you tried to teach Islamic or Buddhist beliefs in school. Everyone pays taxes to run these schools. You shouldn't use those taxes to teach the faith of one segment of the population as fact. What's so hard to understand about that?

I'm still waiting for the meteor Robertson predicted would hit Orlando when the city allowed rainbow flags on light poles during Gay Pride Month in 1998.