Why waste the time?

Originally posted by rwingett
Evolution is as close to being an established fact as is possible.

ah-ha, but it's not fact!

it is considered to be correct by many, but that doesn't mean it happened. there are still lots of scientific counter arguments for it. maybe quarks were a bad example. there's slightly less arguments against them...😛

http://www.creationresearch.net/
http://www.creationresearch.org/ has some nice articles (i found it whilst looking for the other one...😛)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You're leading me on a wild goose chase. First you submit eggs as a sound theory. When I challenge it, you retract and say they were more likely infants than eggs.

I submit that my refutations to the egg theory are exacerbated in the infant theory.

It's barely conceivable to me that a man could swipe a tyrannosaurus egg. It is beyond belie ...[text shortened]... imultaneously being the same sort of person who can avoid deadly mishaps for over 900 years.

Hey, I'm just speculating how it could have been done with minimal intervention by God. I scrambled the egg theory because it would appear to contradict Genesis.

As for gathering dinos - I don't think Noah did that himself. So it must have been God's hand (so to speak) that gathered all the animals as needed. Or at least God made the animals docile and readily available for rounding up. But for this same reason, Noah would have been able to walk up to a tyrannosaurus nest with Big Momma Try watching and picked out two eggs, knowing that God made Big Mama Try docile and assured he gathered a male and a female egg.

As for a man living 900 years that long ago - there's no other record I know of that would indicate otherwise. Maybe shortened lifespans that we have today reflect the loss of genetic longevity that comes from all these years of interbreeding (after all, even the TOE says we all have a common ancestor - so we're all brothers and sisters. 😉 )

But what I am surprised by is why you find any of this unreasonable. It is perfectly reasonable since the Bible is talking about the same God who created the universe. Considering all the miracles in the Old and New Testament - and considering the omnipotents of God - why would method He used surprise you?

Maybe you don't realize how your presuppositions are handicapping your reasoning. You keep falling into this view that pretends that this whole thing has nothing to do with an omnipotent God. If you reject God first, then arguing the details of the Great Flood is really sort of silly on your part - because you can't give an open minded assessment to the details. Thus you incredulity is really your own fault - not a problem with Genesis but with your narrowed view of Genesis.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
And here I am attempting to carry on a reasonable debate about it. I'm trying to convince a grown man that people don't live to be 900 years old, or if any do, they certainly aren't the sort that go around catching live dinosaurs.

Maybe RWillis is right.

I wish you wouldn't pretend to be so stupid. But I guess you get a kick out of it. Your acting like you think a person who is say 600 or 700 years old, with a lifespan of 900, would look or act any older than a 30-year old does today. Obviously if someone could live 900 years, they are not going to age at the same rate we do. We don't even know what the aging would appear like. Did they suffer from muscle loss or bone thinning? Maybe not, who knows. But you're more intelligent then you are letting on, and I think you have thought of these things. I know for a fact that you are highly intelligent.

Originally posted by Coletti
I wish you wouldn't pretend to be so stupid. But I guess you get a kick out of it. Your acting like you think a person who is say 600 or 700 years old, with a lifespan of 900, would look or act any older than a 30-year old does today. ...[text shortened]... hese things. I know for a fact that you are highly intelligent.

I know for a fact that the 900 year old, slow aging man that you have in mind is as much of a fiction as Rip van Winkle. There has not been even a single living animal on this planet that has been observed to live 900 years. As far as I know, the hypothetical 200 year old tortoise from the Blind Faith thread is the absolute upper bound of observed vitality. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis that people used to age at a significantly lower rate. There is no evidence to support that they were immune to muscle loss and bone thinning. I have thought of these things and dismissed them as pure fantasy. That's not to say that I deem it impossible, only that it's a far cry from being a reasonable belief, for it is not based on fact but on fancy.

I wish you wouldn't pretend to be so gullible. But I guess you get salvation out of it.

Originally posted by genius
ah-ha, but it's not fact!

it is considered to be correct by many, but that doesn't mean it happened. there are still lots of scientific counter arguments for it. maybe quarks were a bad example. there's slightly less arguments against them...😛

http://www.creationresearch.net/
http://www.creationresearch.org/ has some nice articles (i found it whilst looking for the other one...😛)

Wait til you get a load of the Higgs Particle ...LMAO

You thumpers will be resurrecting Leucippus.

AND BTW LaMarch is on da way back. LMAOOOOOOOOO

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I know for a fact that the 900 year old, slow aging man that you have in mind is as much of a fiction as Rip van Winkle. There has not been even a single living animal on this planet that has been observed to live 900 years. As far as I know, the hypothetical 200 year old tortoise from the Blind Faith thread is the absolute upper bound of observed ...[text shortened]... cy.

I wish you wouldn't pretend to be so gullible. But I guess you get salvation out of it.

There is evidence - the historical record of the ages lived through generations. But you reject the idea due to a lack of contemporary data - and observations?!? The contemporary data reflects the same information I have in the historical record. By the time of Christ lifespans were much shorter for people who died of old age. Since this corresponds with contemporary observation, and we have the historical data, then there's no good reason to reject it unless you first reject the source of the historic data.

Now if you are going to reject the Bible, say so. Don't pretend that you have any other real basis for you objections. It's your prerogative to reject scripture - but just do it and admit it. Then you can admit you have really no idea how old people could have lived back in the time of Noah and really your objections are speculative.

"for it is not based on fact but on fancy."

Ridiculing my arguments only makes yours weaker - except to those who are too feeble-minded to recognize fallacious reasoning. To them you arguments may be persuasive. But reasonable minds will see them for what they are.

It would be better for you say you reject the Bible in toto then pretend you want to have a reasonable debate on the information therein.

Originally posted by Coletti
It's your prerogative to reject scripture - but just do it and admit it.

I reject the scripture that says Noah lived over 900 years. I invoke your "I can't believe that because it is unreasonable" rule as my justification for the rejection.

Originally posted by Coletti
There is evidence - the historical record of the ages lived through generations. But you reject the idea due to a lack of contemporary data - and observations?!? The contemporary data reflects the same information I have in the historical record. By the time of Christ lifespans were much shorter for people who died of old age. Since this corresponds wit ...[text shortened]... the Bible in toto then pretend you want to have a reasonable debate on the information therein.

What an utter load of crap.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I reject the scripture that says Noah lived over 900 years. I invoke your "I can't believe that because it is unreasonable" rule as my justification for the rejection.

Your rule is circular - you find it Noah unreasonable because you have rejected scripture. If you accepted scripture, you would find Noah reasonable.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
What an utter load of crap.

I see why that was rec'd - it's one of you better arguments. 😉

Originally posted by Coletti
Your rule is circular - you find it Noah unreasonable because you have rejected scripture. If you accepted scripture, you would find Noah reasonable.

This is incorrect.

My rejection of the scripture is not the reason that I find Noah's age unreasonable.

The reason that I find Noah's age unreasonable is because it is unprecedented in my empirical knowledge and understanding of man's longevity, and any sort of inductive reasoning I pursue based on that empirical knowledge leads me to confidently conclude that no man has lived to be 900 years old.

Based on this finding, I reject the scripture using your rule.

This is not circuitous.

Originally posted by Coletti
Your rule is circular - you find it Noah unreasonable because you have rejected scripture. If you accepted scripture, you would find Noah reasonable.

It's actually quite astounding that Coletti is the one accusing me of circular reasoning.

Can somebody explain why?
(Hint: See the last sentence in the quoted post.)

Originally posted by genius
ah-ha, but it's not fact!

it is considered to be correct by many, but that doesn't mean it happened. there are still lots of scientific counter arguments for it. maybe quarks were a bad example. there's slightly less arguments against them...😛

http://www.creationresearch.net/
http://www.creationresearch.org/ has some nice articles (i found it whilst looking for the other one...😛)

Your sources are a complete waste of time. I reject them out of hand. As I don't have the time to heap public scorn upon you as promised, just pretend I said something here which angers you greatly.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Read the passage again - Humani Generis is not critical of evolutionary theory per se, but of those people who apply tenets of evolutionary theory to events and processes outside the natural world. The name Herbert Spencer springs to mind.

Rather than going to your usual tactic of saying the Pope didn't mean what he said, I wish you and/or Ivanhoe or anybody else would cite some OFFICIAL source for the RCC's current views on evolution. Your point is absurd; a 1950 encyclical would hardly have been written to refute the views of a philosopher who had been dead for 50 years and who's intellectual influence had been waning for longer than that. And the Pope's referring to evolution as "monistic" and "pantheistic" hardly seems to be concerned with "processes outside the natural world". Check a dictionary and get back to me and see if you want to continue with this ridiculous assertion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Rather than going to your usual tactic of saying the Pope didn't mean what he said, I wish you and/or Ivanhoe or anybody else would cite some OFFICIAL source for the RCC's current views on evolution. Your point is absurd; a 1950 encyclical would hardly have been written to refute the views of a philosopher who had been dead for 50 years and w ...[text shortened]... a dictionary and get back to me and see if you want to continue with this ridiculous assertion.

does 1996 help?

http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html