Could someone explain why, if evolution is false, Christianity and a literal translation of their scriptures could possibly make a reasonable, plausible, scientific alternative.

No.
No one can.

Christians don't believe that evolution per se is false, just that goo morphed into you is false, so sans the Darwinian flare, it all fits nicely into the Genesis framework, when the specious nature of the radioisotope assumptions are considered, and the plainly water-deposited nature of almost all of the sedimentary strata, among other geological considerations which I've gone into ad nauseum, because you guys "never read that from me," so it all actually nicely lines up with Genesis.

So Roman, what do you know about the Global Flood Model which I have been presenting here for several months?

See?
I told you.

See?
I told you.

Haha, yeah.

So Roman, you retained nothing?

Could someone explain why, if evolution is false, Christianity and a literal translation of their scriptures could possibly make a reasonable, plausible, scientific alternative.

There is an element of the supernatural in Christianity, while natural philosophy is, by definition, based on naturalism. Hence, your original question is invalid.

There is an element of the supernatural in Christianity, while natural philosophy is, by definition, based on naturalism. Hence, your original question is invalid.

Wouldn't that actually make Christianity invalid, not my question?

Christians don't believe that evolution per se is false, just that goo morphed into you is false, so sans the Darwinian flare, it all fits nicely into the Genesis framework, when the specious nature of the radioisotope assumptions are considered, and the plainly water-deposited nature of almost all of the sedimentary strata, among other geological considerations which I've gone into ad nauseum, because you guys "never read that from me," so it all actually nicely lines up with Genesis.

So Roman, what do you know about the Global Flood Model which I have been presenting here for several months?

There is probably no creature that more resembles goo than slime mold, which is actually an excellent example of single cells cooperating into a composite organism. Our bodies are somewhat more sophisticated, but they are still collections of cooperating cells, so it's not that farfetched.

Could someone explain why, if evolution is false, Christianity and a literal translation of their scriptures could possibly make a reasonable, plausible, scientific alternative.
You're wanting someone to explain how "it was magic" could be a scientific alternative? :bugeye:

Ok then, slime mold to mole.

So Roman, you retained nothing?

Tell me what the biblical value of pi is again.

You're wanting someone to explain how "it was magic" could be a scientific alternative? :bugeye:

No, I want to know why "it was magic" is a better alternative. What's the reasoning?

There are no decimals in the Bible of which I'm aware.

Roman, after months of me explaining the GFM, and with you now indicating no knowledge of what I've said, you are obviously just jacking around, so I hope you have a real good time.

GFM:
1. How did a dude and his family, in the stone age, build a zoo big enough to fit 2 of every animal in it? How did they survive with only one window?
Your answer: magic.

2. Why aren't dinosaurs and humans found in the same layers?

3. How can you trust a book with poor historicity, a miserable grip of natural sciences, astrophysics, and math?

4. If god is such a great designer, why are there so many flaws? Why are there extinctions?

5. How did organisms that are extremely sensitive to salinity, pH, temperature, pressure, and water survive a global deluge?

6. Why are creatures distributed the way they are? Why are the North American grey squirrel and mink an invasive species in Europe, when according the flood model, they originated in the New World?

In other words, why have they spread New to Old, instead of the other way around?

7. Why did God
a) create two people & set them up to fail
b) decided to kill everyone, but then decided not to
c) use a flood to destroy everyone when
d) he wanted to preserve 2 of every animal

You retained nothing, sad to see.

Roman, I thought you are at least somewhat intellectually honest, but since you feign total ignorance of what I've been saying for several months, you are just a clown looking to be sassy, so carry on.

You never answered any of those, because you can't. Not with the bible.

The real question here, IAC, is why do you continue to cling to your outdated beliefs when they can't answer questions?

Since you feign ignorance of what I've said, talking to you is like talking to a hedgepost.

Roman, I thought you are at least somewhat intellectually honest, but since you feign total ignorance of what I've been saying for several months, you are just a clown looking to be sassy, so carry on.

I have had no time for your inane one line quips. None of your posts never had anything of worth. You advocated a position without evre really supporting it. You threw around buzzwords, mocked, called names, and spouted one line retorts that obfuscated the discussion rather than adding anything to it. You spouted one line bullshit for pages- if you don't care to post anything substantive, I don't care to read it.

Furthermore, when faced with hard questions, such as these, your answers always faield to actually answer. All you do is misdirect, then when pressed, insult and behave as if the person questioning you on your wacky beliefs is somehow in the wrong for asking "how can you believe this? defend your position sir." You have been repeatedly questioned you on your flood myth, and you can never give a straight answer. It's always "goo morphed into you," or "I can't believe you didn't take what I posted on face value, even though it's only one line and has nothing to support it." You don't link to what you claim to have been "saying for months."

Maybe you could give a link to the posts where you answer the dispersal questions?

Since you feign ignorance of what I've said, talking to you is like talking to a hedgepost.

The burden of proof here, is on you. SO FUCKING DIG IT UP, AND POST IT.

Maybe you can go look for them, I've answered hundreds of questions, yours included, so have fun!

You can't honestly repeat anything which I've said in answer to hundreds of questions on all these topics, so you just look the fool Roman.

7. Why did God
a) create two people & set them up to fail
b) decided to kill everyone, but then decided not to
c) use a flood to destroy everyone when
d) he wanted to preserve 2 of every animal

Because the old testament is a lot rubbish and shit. The New Testement is revised and has more accurate accounts that follow logic. The Bible is strictly metaphor, not logic in regards to its stories.
Just chirping in for an answer.

You can't honestly repeat anything which I've said in answer to hundreds of questions on all these topics, so you just look the fool Roman.

I don't think you have. I've never actually seen you post more than one line. In fact, the only argument I've seen you make in favor of your story goes like this "abiogenesis is absurd; ergo, the Bible is true."

Please, please, PLEASE show me wrong.

Carry on, you are disingenous.

Carry on, you are disingenous.

:( :( :(

Roman, I thought you are at least somewhat intellectually honest, but since you feign total ignorance of what I've been saying for several months, Unlike Roman, I have retained the content of almost everything you have been saying, so I can help out here by pointing out that he is essentially correct. You have presented nothing by way of theory or argument or proposal of your own. You do not appear to have any idea, actually, of what a scientific theory or argument would be. You don't recognise them from others, let alone provide them on your own.

I haven't even been able to get a timeline out of you, for the various aspects of the Flood BS.

Here, in no particular order (their order doesn't matter, anyway) are your teachings. They consist of the following eight assertions (no arguments, no evidence, just the assertions themselves):

There is no evidence for the Oort cloud, and comets are pieces of a planet.
Sedimentary rock derives only from floodwater deposition of sediment.
"Species" is a meaningless term.
Noah's Flood really happened.
There are no riverbeds in the geological column
There are only a few thousand syngameons among all living things on earth.
All dating methods are based on assumptions, therefore invalid.
Science is based on faith.

I may have missed a couple. They would fit right in.

As far as the OP: as one raven said, No.

You are "out to lunch," but it seems to be common around here, misrepresent the opponent's positions, transparently sophomoric, and yet, it passes muster among the yakking Darwinists who have no viable position to defend, hence their inane attempts to do so.

There is no evidence for the Oort cloud, and comets are pieces of a planet.
Sedimentary rock derives only from floodwater deposition of sediment.
"Species" is a meaningless term.
Noah's Flood really happened.
There are no riverbeds in the geological column
There are only a few thousand syngameons among all living things on earth.
All dating methods are based on assumptions, therefore invalid.
Science is based on faith.

Dont forget 432.

Here, in no particular order (their order doesn't matter, anyway) are your[IceAgeCivilisations] teachings. They consist of the following eight assertions (no arguments, no evidence, just the assertions themselves):

There is no evidence for the Oort cloud, and comets are pieces of a planet.
Sedimentary rock derives only from floodwater deposition of sediment.
"Species" is a meaningless term.
Noah's Flood really happened.
There are no riverbeds in the geological column
There are only a few thousand syngameons among all living things on earth.
All dating methods are based on assumptions, therefore invalid.
Science is based on faith.

I may have missed a couple. They would fit right in.1: This really should be a sticky attached to a Forum Health Warning.
2: You didn't miss any that are important - but then you didn't include any that were important either. You and Roman have perfectly described the utter lack of capacity for reasoned argument (and nary a hint of politeness) that typifies ICA's contributions. One is left regretting that Darwinian selection is not always as effective as one might wish.

Ah, but the Christians are strong and growing, what would Darwin say?

Maybe you can go look for them, I've answered hundreds of questions, yours included, so have fun!

*************
M*W: IAC, you have answered absolutely NO questions at anytime on sciforums. Yesterday, a list of 25 of your infamous one-liners was posted and showed that you stated nothing true, nothing scientific, or nothing of interest. How long do you think you can go on like this? Is that why you've moved out of the Religion forum over to this forum? You'll eventually wear out your welcome here, too, so please start acting like a grown man (if you can), and stop acting like a spoiled little child. For a christian, you don't do your religion any justice. To put it bluntly, you are an embarassment to other christians and comic relief for the rest of us. Do yourself a favor. Find a christian forum where they would welcome and believe you.

I thought I would help IAC with the answers:

GFM:
1. How did a dude and his family, in the stone age, build a zoo big enough to fit 2 of every animal in it? How did they survive with only one window?

Magic


2. Why aren't dinosaurs and humans found in the same layers?

Magic


3. How can you trust a book with poor historicity, a miserable grip of natural sciences, astrophysics, and math?

Faith is not affected evidence and other silly myths.


4. If god is such a great designer, why are there so many flaws? Why are there extinctions?

Flaws are magically the result of Eve's choice to eat an apple. Dont you see?!?!? Eat an apple and flaw magically appears!! It all ties in!


5. How did organisms that are extremely sensitive to salinity, pH, temperature, pressure, and water survive a global deluge?

Magic


6. Why are creatures distributed the way they are? Why are the North American grey squirrel and mink an invasive species in Europe, when according the flood model, they originated in the New World?

Magic


In other words, why have they spread New to Old, instead of the other way around?

Magic


7. Why did God
a) create two people & set them up to fail
b) decided to kill everyone, but then decided not to
c) use a flood to destroy everyone when
d) he wanted to preserve 2 of every animal

a) Are you questioning the lord's plan? Heathen!
b) Because he loves people!
c) More love right there.
d) See?!?! He loves life! Why else would he preserve it?

I hope I have amply demonstrated why the bible of scientific fact and evolution is fantasy.

You are "out to lunch," but it seems to be common around here, misrepresent the opponent's positions, transparently sophomoric, and yet, it passes muster among the yakking Darwinists who have no viable position to defend, hence their inane attempts to do so.

no he explained very kindly why science people are argueing with you. he was very reasoned the least you could do is show him the same kindness

Wrong, he feigned ignorance regarding what I've said for many months here, he's trying to defeat the model by misrepresenting it, utter desperation.

You are "out to lunch," but it seems to be common around here, misrepresent the opponent's positions, transparently sophomoric, and yet, it passes muster among the yakking Darwinists who have no viable position to defend, hence their inane attempts to do so.

Thank you for illustrating by example the psychological phenomenon of projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

What do you project humans will turn into millions of years from now?

There's no guarantee that we will survive. It's very difficult to say, evolution can't be projected into the future, since it doesn't really have a direction. Things aren't evolving towards a goal, but they do build on previous complexity...

I believe the next step in evolution will be technological in nature. Our computers will become ever more powerful until they can replicate human consciousness. Perhaps we will then download into a virtual world and send copies out into space, where machines will recreate bodies for us from local materials.

Sweet.

Sure, heaven could be in the future. I find it surprising that Christians will believe such unbelievable things, but be unwilling to consider alternative interpretations. Why can't God have set things up in the first instant of time for life to evolve from a natural process?

His "magic" was done in the six days of creation, no mention thereafter of animals morphing into new kinds of animals, and no need for that, as we have genetic variation within the respective syngameons which survived the Deluge.

You are insane.

To some.

Ah, but the Christians are strong and growing, what would Darwin say?Christianity is wholly compatible with evolution. Only fundamentalists, who follow false prophets, believe otherwise. [Regretably those shall not be saved.]

Christians believe in evolution per se, but not in unfounded Darwinian dogma.

Christians believe in evolution per se, but not in unfounded Darwinian dogma.

Have you filled the newly created Protestant Papal position, overtaken Pope Benny & the Catholic Church, and now speak for all Christians?

Oh yeh, the Pope did say that didn't he.

The Popes have lost the "infallible word" tag for their pronouncements anyway.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/one_raven/castro.gif Sit down, Meester Benny Pope. I yam the nyew Pope! Pope Jimmy!

(that's supposed to be a non-descript dictator accent intended to conjure images of a caricature of a Castro-esque military coop leader, by the way - did it come across that way?)

Spell Jimmy Jeemie, and Benny Beenie.

Christians believe in evolution per se, but not in unfounded Darwinian dogma.You are speaking of the cult of false Christians, called fundamentalists, who have corrupted the message of Christianity, and may well be damned eternally.

Yada yada yada.

You are speaking of the cult of false Christians, called fundamentalists, who have corrupted the message of Christianity, and may well be damned eternally.

Very well said.

Anyone who gives you a belief system is your enemy, because you will only believe what you have learned from personal experience.
Although, if a person with an open mind reads the Bible, he will find it very useful as it was meant for people like us, who are asking the same questions of virtually every generation since the beginning of times.

So who will supposedly damn Christians for believing the words of the Bible?

So who will supposedly damn Christians for believing the words of the Bible?

Christians not necessarily follow the teachings of Jesus my friend. Their religion is based on man-made assumptions.

It is known that Christ went to meditate to the dessert for 40 days, without food or water, sounds like Buddhism to me, not Christianity.

Jesus tought how equal all fellow humans are, not to differenciate ammong you, like Christians do, when they call themselves Christians.

To believe in all the words of the Bible is like believing in a Political Manifesto translated 10 times by people with personal political agendas, who burned the original, and killed and tortured others that do not concur with what it says.

Hipocresy is another issue here, how Christians tend to believe that going to temples is the path to salvation, I wonder who gave them that idea in the first place? Certainly not Jesus.

Belief systems are made by men to control us, it is only logical.

To follow your inner-self, that is to follow God.

There's absolutely no convincing evidence that Jesus was even a real person. The supposed contemporary chronicle by respected Jewish/Roman historian Josephus was proven to be a forgery during my lifetime.

Everything that's said to be "the teachings of Jesus" is just stuff that members of the early little "cult" of Christianity made up and passed along because they thought they were good rules to live by.

There's absolutely no convincing evidence that Jesus was even a real person. Doesn't it seem to you that the older compilations of (allegedly) Jesus's sayings, are by style and feel compilations of the sayings of one person?

The Book of Thomas, say. That list of quotes just sounds like one particular guy talking, to me. They're quirky, and have personality.

Doesn't it seem to you that the older compilations of (allegedly) Jesus's sayings, are by style and feel compilations of the sayings of one person? The Book of Thomas, say. That list of quotes just sounds like one particular guy talking, to me. They're quirky, and have personality.You are obviously more of a biblical scholar than I am. The references I have tracked down without putting more time into it are divided into two camps:Those who agree with this hypothesis, and incidentally have already established their credentials of accepting Jesus as a historical figure. Those who insist that the evidence is inconclusive, and incidentally have already established their credentials in the opposing camp.My familiarity with this controversy is limited. I had accepted the authenticity of the Josephus link, but many years ago on SciForums some kind soul let me know that it had already been proven fraudulent, so the historical-figure camp was losing other members besides myself.

Christians don't believe that evolution per se is false, just that goo morphed into you is false

(1) Standing on the point about "goo morphed into you is false" relies pretty much on the easily-observed fact that scientific inquiry is an ongoing process. For instance, last week I drove from Bothell, Washington south to Olympia, to meet my father for lunch. Along the way, I stopped to purchase gasoline. Analogously, the creationist resistance to abiogenesis is the same as pointing out that I had not yet made it to Olympia, therefore my trip was folly. Certainly, I might die along the way; terrorists might strike or a 747 might just fall out of the sky, and there's always meteors and killer comets to worry about. But to make a point of ridicule out of the fact that a journey is incomplete pretends humanity has achieved a mastery of time that simply isn't possible. The end of the journey remains in the future. Refusing to get on the road is the only thing that makes the journey impossible.

(2) That said, legitimate scientists will achieve abiogenesis under laboratory conditions long before creationists prove the existence of God.

Additionally, we must also remember that the only difference between the goo-to-you and God-to-you theories is the nature of whatever principle caused the change. God assembled the clay of the earth (e.g. lifeless) and breathed life into it. Literally speaking, this is abiogenesis. Figuratively speaking, it speaks well enough to the truth. Nature, by whatever principle, wrought from its components an arrangement of matter and energy that we define as "life".

Proper scientists will eventually show how nature did it. The only things that could stop them is a species-scale catastrophe or the coming of God itself. Showing how God did it first requires a demonstration of God's existence. The existence of nature is self-evident in this context; the existence of God is not.