Yuku free message boards

Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate;

Gen 7:4 For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground."

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;

Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man;

Gen 7:22 everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.

Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

Mat 24:37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

Mat 24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,

Mat 24:39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

Quote:

---

Jesus is silent about the extent of the Flood; this text leaves it an open question whether or not Jesus had no problem with drowning everyone on earth.

---

So you are proposing this Jesus varifies the story of the flood but declines to mention which parts of it are true.

Well he does mention the flood swept them ALL away.

And as to whether he had no problem drowning everyone on earth - you propose he would use the story if he thaught it was a terrible thing to do?

Keep in mind he is saying that when he arrives it will be the same. Life will be continuing on as usual, no one taking notice of his return and then .... destruction.

If he is going to destroy whom he desides are wicked people, I would think he very much agreed with drowning those his father deemed to be wicked back then.

Stuffed if I know.

But what does scisnce say about it, or what do scientists who make up the science community say?

Well...

Regarding the fact that there are no transitional fossils (halfway between snakes and frogs, cats and dogs, dogs and horses, horses and giraffes, dinosaurs and birds, apes and humans, etc.) in the geologic record, Charles Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory, wrote: "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against the theory." (Charles Darwin, "On the imperfection of the geological record", Chapter X, "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (6), June-July 1977, p. 24.)

"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." (Personal letter written 10 April 1979 from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin's Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89).

Again in his book, Darwin declared: "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." ("Americas God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations" by William J. Federer, FAME Publishing, 1994, PP 198-199)

"You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." (Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his "Origin of Species". As quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.)

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin confessed: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." ("Americas God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations" by William J. Federer, FAME Publishing, 1994, PP 198-199)

"His theory had, in essence, preceded his knowledge -- that is, he had hit upon a novel and evocative theory of evolution with limited knowledge at hand to satisfy either himself or others that the theory was true. He could neither accept it himself nor prove it to others. He simply did not know enough concerning the several natural history fields upon which his theory would have to be based." (Dr. Barry Gale (Science Historian, Darwin College, UK) in his book, "Evolution Without Evidence". As quoted in "John Lofton's Journal", "The Washington Times", 8 February 1984.)

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof." (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's "The Origin of Species", J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.)

In December 1996, one of the worlds leading paleoanthropologists and archeologists, the late Mary Leakey, said: "All those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, thats a lot of nonsense." Nonsense taught as fact. (Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis fact sheet # 105, September 1997)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." (H. S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution". "Physics Bulletin", vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.)

"There was little doubt that the star intellectual turn of last week's British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Salford was Dr. John Durant, a youthful lecturer from University College Swansea. Giving the Darwin lecture to one of the biggest audiences of the week, Durant put forward an audacious theory -- that Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of science and social progress. Durant concludes that the secular myths of evolution have had 'a damaging effect on scientific research', leading to 'distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science'." (Dr. John Durant (University College Swansea, Wales), as quoted in "How evolution became a scientific myth", "New Scientist", 11 September 1980, p. 765.)

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure (former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in "The Advocate", Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17.)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by NJ Mitchell, "Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes", Roydon publications, UK, 1983, title page.)

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." (Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.)

"In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing ('ex nihilo'), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both. The novelty of a scientific theory of creation 'ex nihilo' is readily apparent, for science has long taught us that one cannot make something from nothing." (Edward P. Tryon (Professor of Physics, City University of New York, USA), "What made the world?" "New Scientist", 8 March 1984, p. 14.)

"the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd" (Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) "Convergence to God", in "Evolution from Space", J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, London, 1981, pp. 141.)

"I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such nave thoughts." (Ernst Chain (world famous biochemist), as quoted by R. W. Clark, in "The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond", Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1985, p. 148.)

Sorry Argy.

My computer must have cut most of your respose out.

All I got was a response to just two of the quotes, my computer most have lost the rest.

If you like you can repost your respose to the ...I don't know...maybe 20 quotes, or 40?

So the scientists I quoted are Creationists?

You can show how the quotes were taken out of context?

You clearly have no idea what scientists believe if you will only read what you already believe.

I hate most arguments from christians against evolution.

I have never even bothered to read a christian site or book with their views against science. At least not knowingly anyway.

You know yourself how many sites pop up when researching such things and I never read the religious rubbish.

I never read christian sience rubbish.

I believe their scientists are just as biased and crooked as evolutionist scientists.

If I am ever researching anything, I like to go to the source I am against. e.g. I read christian material if arguing a case against christians. I find the information directly from the Catholic Catechism is far more damaging than information from a non-catholic sourse when arguing with Catholics.

But as you are probably there are not many christians on this site, and if there are they are certainly not picking an argument with me.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Atheists on this site so naturally you have only seen me arguing against Atheists.

Send me a christian with typical christian arguments against evolution and I will be happy to take them to task if they are at least slight;y reasonable.