Think about it, how many times have you witnessed people religious or not attack others for not believing what they want them to believe? Whether it's a scientist who loses everything by challenging a popular theory, a rival gang member who is killed, or a school kid who is picked on for not being cool, it's the same theme repeated over and over again. That's called ego, and it has nothing to do with God.

<<<<<playground player>>>> But I would rather keep plugging away at trying to understand it, than follow this world's wisdom into Hell.>

<1. Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.>

I can't find any claim of a tree dating more than 4600 years old.

<2. How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.>

I understand that insects weren't on the ark. It is possible that much vegetable matter was floating and the insects took refuge on/under it. I can't say anything more with confidence.

<3. How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?>

The earth was far more temperate before the flood. Things changed greatly in the years following the flood. I expect that there were land bridge issues. I think the example of Krakatoa shows that incredible migrations are possible.

<4. How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? >

I might have a look at the 110-150 years estimate, though I have heard much longer, but 200 years seems to be the most commonly cited timespan. Here's a 1% population equation: P = 2(1 + r)y
If we start with 8 people, who have 5 children each, and a minimal deathrate, after 7 generations, you'd have 312,000 people. Those who were on the ark survived hundreds of years after that, though lifespans were reduced rather quickly after that. I don't see a problem here.

A few questions for <TCE> 1. Why is it that the oldest living thing on earth is about 4600 years old?

You're talking about full grown, nonhibernating animals. I don't accept your assumption for starters.

The waters receded in part by the oceans settling and the mountains rising. The many marine fossils on mountaintops are a problem for evolutionists, who usually mumble something vague about volcanos and move on.

Per the drowning by not breathing air, I meant the people who died in the Flood drowned by not breathing air. You'll have to offer a few more specifics if you want me to take the point seriously.

Per the water in the earth's mantle, it's there. If you insist it is so hot it'd kill the marine life of today, I guess I can live with you thinking that.

Per the typo issue, you are making my point for me. I do not consider your comments invalid if they have a spelling error. You should not consider my comments invalid if I have a grammatical error. I won't consider <YourRang> posts invalid if he makes a typo. Nobody says all the copies of the Bible are inspired/perfect, but the orginal manuscripts.

<OCF: In a book full of poetry, of course you can find certain statements that appear to be contradictory.>

<TCE: And so the Bible contradicts itself.>

I think our liars in the Climate debate show that's often not true.

<As such, science will *always* seek a natural explanation for observed facts. >

Ditto

<This means that science will *never* accept a supernatural, or miraculous explanation -- even if that supernatural explanation should happen to be true.>

So you'll turn to the scientists to explain why that man was over at the neighbor's house at 3AM and ignore the many witnesses? I am at a loss why you give a free pass to one and only one field of study in the world to do that.

<This is not a bias against religion. >

Your flowery description isn't, but the anti-religion bias in modern science is stunning. We don't have to agree on that.

<It's simply working within the realm of science, which requires its theories to be *testable* within nature. Of course miracles performed by God at his whim are not.>

I'm okay with that.

<This is why it is absurd that creationists want science to accept miraculous explanations, such as those recorded in the Bible. >

I want them to accept that the evidence they insist proves their case can just as well prove the Creationist case. They won't do that. Their self serving set of assumptions is their Bible. But time is against them.

<When scientists don't -- because they can't -- the creationists accuse scientists of being liars and create the appearance the religion and science are in opposition. In fact, the only thing that these creationists are really doing is demonstrating that they (and their followers) don't even understand what science is. >

I am at a loss why you chastise me for questioning the integrity of scientsists, yet you've made repeated comments like the above. It doesn't hurt my feelings, but I see a distinct lack of consistency in your position.

<Worse, it means that the accusations they make are false. This has happened many times in history, and it's a primary reason for why so many people regard Christians as backward, stubborn, and hostile.>

I don't know about primary, but I accept there's a great deal of truth in this. There's some stunning disasters on the religion side in this matter historically.

<In fact, because creationists present their ideas as foundational to the integrity of the Bible, they are in essence gambling the reputation of the Bible itself on a bet that their ideas are scientifically correct. And it's a gamble they will lose.>

If we both could count on living another 100 years, I'd bet my house you'll be proven wrong in that timeframe.

<BTW, don't confuse this understanding of science with the fact that some scientists are openly anti-Christian.>

"Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany ..."

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

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> I understand that insects weren't on the ark. It is possible that much vegetable matter was floating and the insects took refuge on/under it. I can't say anything more with confidence.>

Insects die in salt water.

<3. How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> The earth was far more temperate before the flood. Things changed greatly in the years following the flood. I expect that there were land bridge issues. I think the example of Krakatoa shows that incredible migrations are possible.>

How do you know that the earth was far more temperate before the flooding? What were the Krakatoa migrations? Do you mean the volcano? Are you saying that species such as polar bears and penguins did not exist before the flood?

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>>A few questions for <TCE>

1. Why is it that the oldest living thing on earth is about 4600 years old?>

I don't understand the question. That's how long the redwoods live. What does that imply? That because we don't have a million year old tree there must have been a flood?

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>>

2. Why is it that human history only began to be recorded a few thousand years ago?>

"Africa provides a comprehensive and contiguous time line of human development going back at least 7 million years."

Actually though, I think you completely missed my point.

You want to talk about what science says, and what it's motives are. I was attempting to step back from that, and discuss more fundamentally what science *is*. I think this is where the root of the "creation vs. science" issue really rests. This is exemplified by your comment:

<I want them [scientists] to accept that the evidence they insist proves their case can just as well prove the Creationist case. They won't do that.>

IMO, this reveals a few misunderstandings about what natural science is:

1. Science doesn't *prove* their case. As I've mentioned before, they try to construct theories that successfully explain observed facts in a manner that is testable within the realm of nature. But they never consider a theory to be a "proof", because it may fail a future test.

2. Science doesn't even have a "case" to begin with. Only religion has a "case". That is, Christians know ahead of time what conclusions they want science to reach -- conclusions that happen to coincide with their interpretation of their holy book. Good science proceeds without any such preconceived conclusions.

3. The Creationist case isn't provable at all, let alone provable by science. They "won't do it" because they can't. It involves a miraculous event that is outside the realm of science. You seemed to acknowledge this fact, but you don't seem to realize the significance of it.

Other points:

<So you'll turn to the scientists to explain why that man was over at the neighbor's house at 3AM and ignore the many witnesses? I am at a loss why you give a free pass to one and only one field of study in the world to do that.>

I have to admit that I don't see the connection between this comment and anything I said. Anyway, I addressed your example of the 3AM neighbor in an earlier post: OhioChessFan chessforum

For some reason, you assume that scientists are like suspicious gossipy neighbors who jump to conclusions without demanding evidence. If that's all science was, it would hardly be the successful enterprise that it has obviously proven to be.

<I am at a loss why you chastise me for questioning the integrity of scientsists,...>

If I was chastising, it was for misunderstanding science. I think if creationists actually understood what science is, then there would be little need for questioning the integrity of scientists.

<I don't know about primary, but I accept there's a great deal of truth in this. There's some stunning disasters on the religion side in this matter historically.>

Yes, literalist-creationists freely admit the terrible mistakes of the past. I only wish that they would learn from those mistakes so they could stop repeating them.

<If we both could count on living another 100 years, I'd bet my house you'll be proven wrong in that timeframe.>

Well, it's besides the point I was trying to make, but I think that within a few generations, people who still push for the young-universe hypothesis will be viewed as crackpots, much the same way we view those few who still push for the geocentric hypothesis which was widely demanded by literalist creationists a few generations ago.

<It doesn't hurt my feelings...>

Incompetent: bad at doing something: lacking the skills, qualities, or ability to do something properly.

The god of the Bible is incompetent at making people. If I try to bake a cake and it doesn't come out, and then I try to make billions of more cakes and they don't come out, then it's fair to say that I'm incompetent at baking cakes. Most Christians believe that only a small percentage of people will make it into Heaven.

Unjust : not just or fair: contrary to what is right, just, or fair, or lacking fairness or justice

The god of the Bible is unjust for giving people an eternal punishment of unimaginable suffering for a few short years here on earth. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Not even our own justice system does such a thing. If a father burns his child here on earth he gets arrested. Are the people who burn homeless people with gasoline justified?

Stupid: unintelligent: thought to show a lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense

The god of the Bible was stupid for creating untold numbers of people who could never get to Heaven because they had never heard of Jesus. Why would a good God create people just so they could suffer unimaginably for all eternity? Is that Divine Love?

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> If I disagree with you about who is incompetent and unjust, does that prove I'm wrong?>

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

"When two continental plates collide, one has to give and the other rises over the first. It there are fossils in this material, it can be pushed to the highest peaks of mountains. Evidence of this is found in the grand canyon where fossils of ocean creatures are found many thousands of feet above sea level."

<TCE: "Africa provides a comprehensive and contiguous time line of human development going back at least 7 million years.">

If I can cite 1000 scientists who say they have proven Darwin's theory is correct, will you admit your statement above is wrong?

<The Creationist case isn't provable at all, let alone provable by science. They "won't do it" because they can't. It involves a miraculous event that is outside the realm of science. >

It involves recorded history, which is outside the realm of science. But then again, science is free to affirm what happened historically and you're okay with that.

<For some reason, you assume that scientists are like suspicious gossipy neighbors who jump to conclusions without demanding evidence. If that's all science was, it would hardly be the successful enterprise that it has obviously proven to be.>

I assume scientists reject the testimony of the neighbors and still insist that their science can prove what happened when what is under discussion is in fact a historical occurence.

<I think if creationists actually understood what science is, then there would be little need for questioning the integrity of scientists.>

<TCE: This is America. You are free to disagree with anything you like >

At least one of them is wrong. Do we simply throw up our hands in despair and claim it's beyond our capacity to determine who's right, if either?>

Well, without any compelling reason to side with one religion over another, what is one to do? What method do you propose to determine who is right and who is wrong? War has been a popular approach across the ages (and continues to be), but runs contrary to some of the most fundamental religious messages.

Did they 7000 years ago? Were the ocean waters as salty 7000 years ago as they are today?>