Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wow, great topic. Do we all get to creat a 1-2-3-4-5 ... 19-20 list? I'll try. Human 00:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Solutions by God/Jesus discussion

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello over here, PJR. I was curious if you would briefly synopsize Jesus' solutions to 1 through 4 on my list? Thanks! Human 12:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

1 Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is a lack of food production in some countries, due to corrupt governments and worldviews that don't encourage productive effort. Believing in the God of truth would get rid of corruption, and believing in the God that tells us that we should do a fair day's work would increase productive effort.
Would it bring water to the desert, cure plant blight, bring rain to the drought areas and dryness to the floods? Starvation isn't always the result of corruption and laziness. Czolgolz 22:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Apart from Divine intervention to solve those problems (which should not be dismissed), then yes, those problems would remain. But they wouldn't be the major problems that they are today if everything else was working properly. Philip J. Rayment 23:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
2 Believing in the Prince of Peace (Jesus) and following God's instruction to love one another, and to love our enemies (not that we'd have any left) would stop people starting wars with each other.
3 Preventable diseases exist because of people's lifestyles, whether they be immoral ones or related to my comments in point 1. Leading moral lives as God expects would therefore eliminate preventable diseases.
4 God has given us the use of this planet, but it is still His and He expects us to look after it. If we did that, we would not waste or otherwise abuse natural resources.
Philip J. Rayment 12:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for humoring me, I appreciate your taking the trouble to clarify the answers. And the discussion continues... Human 13:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  1. There is a limit to food production (and living space): one planet can only support a certain maximum population, and we're approaching that limit.
  2. If everyone believed in one ideology there would be peace, for a while... conflict is part of human nature, history teaches us that the only way to unite humanity is to give them a common enemy.
  3. People get sick because there are viruses and bacteria around, don't forget genetic mutations: a person doesn't choose to get leukemia or Parkinson.
  4. Damn right, that's why your point about overpopulation is wrong.


  1. Yes, there is a limit, but I dispute that we are getting close to that limit. Population densities are far higher in some places than others, and food production is far higher in some places than others, indicating that there is still plenty of room for growth. (I realise that not all places will sustain the same population or food production, but I still believe that there is plenty of room for growth).
  2. Conflict is a part of a person's fallen nature, i.e. after rejecting God. If we all accepted and obeyed God, it would not be an issue. You are judging how a particular ideology would work by ascribing to it a characteristic of different ideologies.
  3. Yes, it wouldn't eliminate all disease. But human's point was preventable disease, and it was that which I was addressing.
  4. God has also told us to "be fruitful and multiply", meaning increase the population. So clearly that can't be something contrary to point 1.
Philip J. Rayment 22:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
  1. I for one don't want to see the whole world turn into one giant Tokyo: I enjoy breathable fresh air, and would like to have multiple! square meters to call my own. Really, why isn't 6.5 billion enough anyway?
  2. Conflict is in our hearts, our DNA and our brains (our ancient hunting instincts and such), Einstein once said: "there are only two things eternal: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even entirely sure about the first one", any ideology will eventually start to suppress "dissidents" for "the greater good", we've even been there with Christianity (the dark ages, aren't called that way because people hadn't invented the light bulb yet), no single ideology can please everyone, except maybe freedom, so let's just keep our freedom!
  3. No, medicine and hygiene are how you stop disease.
  4. Not multiply like rabbits, we're a sentient species, we should at least be able to control our own population, don't you think?


  1. We've a long way to go before the entire world has a population density of Tokyo. How much is enough?
  2. Please point me to the "conflict" gene in the DNA. Yes, it is in our hearts (but not our DNA) and minds because of sin, but that's why people returning to God would solve this problem. You are lumping all ideologies in together, without any attempt to see of perhaps one of them might be different. The "dark ages" are not called that for the reason that you think. They are called that for the very purpose of maligning Christianity. See the quotes below.
  3. Medicine and hygiene are not the only ways of stopping diseases.
  4. No, I don't think we should do something contrary to what the all-wise, all-knowing God has told us to do. That is logically stupid, with the only defence being to reject God, which is of course what you do.
...not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century… Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology… The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion.Rodney Stark, quoted by a reviewer of his book
What about the ‘Dark Ages’? The term was invented in the 19th century, and is now rejected by historians as being a pejorative incorrectly denoting it to be a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity (p. 129) By the reviewer of Stark's book, from the same link
Philip J. Rayment 22:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.

I moved this from the article page with the permission of the two main "discussers". Human 17:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. Bolly Ottihw 14:13, 10 May 2007
Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. HeartOfGold 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:

2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Signing... HeartOfGold 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. Philip J. Rayment 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. Bolly Ottihw 19:40, 10 May 2007
Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery.
The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
Philip J. Rayment 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. Bolly Ottihw 21:25, 10 May 2007

I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all incorrect; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
Philip J. Rayment 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. Bolly Ottihw 22:10, 10 May 2007
I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
Philip J. Rayment 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. Leopeo 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. Bolly Ottihw 17:47, 11 May 2007
While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. Leopeo 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have never been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
Philip J. Rayment 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.
I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. Bolly Ottihw 20:19, 11 May 2007
I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against its ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
Philip J. Rayment 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect. Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. Bolly Ottihw 22:34, 12 May 2007

I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God as described in the Bible are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is no proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe you don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
Philip J. Rayment 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --WikinterpreterLiaise with the cabal?
God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.
So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.
I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. Bolly Ottihw 13:56, 13 May 2007
So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion here.
Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that all the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
Philip J. Rayment 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction

I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.
My main problem with claims that the bible was guided by god or written by him or any variation on that theme, is that it is a circular form of logic. "The bible was written by god because the bible shows proof of god. These proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong." Do you see where I am coming from?
There is a lot of evidence against the great flood. Firstly, where did the water come from? If the world was covered in water then there would have to have been far far more water than exists today. Where has it gone? There is no evidence for this water. What about the animals that came off the ship? How big would the ship have to be to contain pairs of all the species of animals, plus the food to feed them with? What about inbreeding once the floodwaters subsided? A lot of animals would have simply failed to breed or have died out within a few generations. Where are the fossils? Of all of the animals and humans that were killed at the time of the great flood, a lot would have fossilised. So why are there no great bands of fossils that indicate a mass drowning such as this? There are more problems with the story, such as the current population of all the animal species etc. however surely these problems indicate that the bible is not actually literally true.
Ok, not 'all' the evidence does. But most of it. And it is the simplest theory, Occam's Razor strikes again. I have read the creationist theories of the age of the universe and starlight reaching the earth and so on, and I was impressed with how fair they can be. On the other hand it seemed to be a rather convoluted way to explain why we can see stars that are 13 billion years old, compared to the rather simple "because the star is 13 billion years old".
Ah ok, my mistake. Well he has his objections to the book, yet he is still an atheist. However I do understand his point of view (I think) because i did think that the book could have been improved a little and there were some weaknesses with his points. On the other hand there were some excellent arguments in there and also some very good scientific explanations regarding how god was created in the minds of humans and other things.
Bolly Ottihw 22:30, 14 May 2007
I believe that parts of the Bible should be taken literally (i.e. not the parts that are metaphor and otherwise were not intended to be taken literally) because that's the way it was intended to be taken, and because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record.
Yes, you mentioned that you considered evolution falsifiable, and I pointed you to my explanation of why it is not. So what is your response to my explanation? None. You simply repeated your claim without even giving any indication that you read my rebuttal.
Your "circular reasoning" explanation for the Bible's authorship does not prove that it was not written by God, and is in fact a straw-man. I do not argue that "these proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong".
I said that you offered no evidence for a lack of a global flood, and that you clearly have no knowledge of the idea that you so readily dismiss. So now you offer some weak "evidence", but they are straw-man arguments or arguments that you should know the answer to if you had any knowledge of the idea. You still clearly do not have such knowledge, but are still arrogant enough to criticise it! I hate to point you to an entire book to read, but at least it is on-line and free, so I suggest that you have a read of this book, then come back with whatever questions you still have. That will answer many of your questions and objections. Please find out something about creationism before you waste my time criticising it. Wouldn't you agree that it is best to have a working knowledge (at least) of a subject that you are going to criticise?
Personally, I think Occam's Razor often favours the creationist view. Surely it is better to explain the origin of the universe as "it was created by a being capable of creating it" than "nothing became something for no reason".
Yes, I'll admit that some of the creationist explanations are not as intuitive as one might like. However, I would argue that exactly the same criticism applies to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem to the starlight/time problem? It's known as the horizon problem, and it's discussed in that book. The cosmologists' solutions are just as convoluted, including proposing that the speed of light used to be different! Now where have I heard that before?
Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm again intervening between you two. Sorry... ;-) Philip, care to elaborate: "because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record."? By the way, TimS a few moments ago posted an interesting article on evolution being supposedly unfalsifiable, which might be of interest to both of you Leopeo 10:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT): User:Tims/A_Response_to_Locke's,_"The_Scientific_Case_Against_Evolution"

Well I didn't read the whole book, however I did read a few of the more important chapters for this discussion. I find it interesting that when referring to the animals on the arc, and the common ancestors, such as the equine ancestor for the zebra, horse and mule, they in fact need to agree with evolution to allow for the species to become so separated. Noah's arc could only have fitted all the animals onto it if most of todays animals evolved from the much smaller number of animals alive at that time. The book didn't answer one of my other questions: why didn't a lot of species of animals die out, and why is the human population so large when it came from 7-8 people only 4000 years ago?
Occams Razor does not favour the creationist side of things, because to do so requires an incredibly complex creator or god. Compared to everything obeying the laws of physics etc., you invoke a being who is not only human in his emotions, jealousy, rage, love, hate and so on, and who is omnipotent and omniscient and so on. Just as an aside it is important to note that god cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent, as if he is omniscient then he can see his future self changing the future with his omnipotence, yet he has no choice as to whether he intervenes or not.
I think anyone who suggests that the speed of light used to be different needs to have a real look at cosmology and physics. That is highly unlikely and it is also not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable. Yes physics and science aren't perfect, and probably never will be but we try. And one day (barring disaster, destruction of the earth, extinction of humans etc.) we will have an almost complete understanding of the universe and how it behaves. I will go out on a limb and suggest that it is highly improbably that god will feature in it. And thankyou to Leopeo for pointing out that great article.
Bolly Ottihw 14:26, 15 May 2007
Thanks for taking the time to learn. Not that this would make you sufficiently knowledgeable to dismiss creationism, but it's a very good start.
Regarding the requirement for "evolution" of the animals on the ark, Chapter 18 of that book touches on it, but a better explanation is here. It is also covered very briefly in definitions of evolution, but you would be better off reading that external link.
Regarding human population, the real question is why there aren't many more people if humans have been around for 100,000 years, or whatever is the current figure. Doing the population growth calculations, it is quite easy to get today's population from eight people 4,500 years ago, but very difficult to get it with an evolutionary timescale without proposing "growth" rates that are virtually static (i.e. no growth) for most of that time.
I don't follow your question about species going extinct. Lots of species have died out.
It might seem counter-intuitive (it surprised me when I heard it), but God is not a complex being. Complexity means being composed of many parts, and God is not that; He is simply, God.
Your objection regarding omniscience and omnipotence is based on a caricature of those terms. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do things that are nonsense. For example, not even an omnipotent being can create a green drop, or a (thermally-)hot accent. Such are simply nonsense word constructions, not meaningful things. Similarly, an omnipotent being contradicting Himself is a nonsense thing. But perhaps more to the point of your specific objection, God has no "future", because "future" is a time-based term, and time is part of God's creation, along with space and matter, and God is outside of His creation, not part of it. What this means is that God does not exist in time. God is timeless. He has no past and no future, He just is. (This also explains why the question, "who created God" is nonsense. He had no beginning, because that is a time-base term, so there was no need for Him to be created.)
As I said, secular scientists have now proposed that the speed of light might have changed. I won't argue that it's falsifiable, but the reason it's perhaps not falsifiable is because it is something that only occurred (assuming it did) in the distant past, which we don't have to observe and test. But exactly the same criticism applies to the Big Bang, evolutionary history, etc. etc.
I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a faith position of yours.
Philip J. Rayment 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I found a couple of problems with that article. Firstly, they have admitted that natural selection occurs, fair enough, they give their reasons for that. But then they say that gene information is simply lost when natural selection favours, say long haired wolves over short haired ones. I only have to refer to the example of the moths (unfortunately I do not know what species of moth) who habit the woods around London. Before the Industrial Revolution these moths were very light brown as they matched the colour of the tree trunks. There was a slight mutation in one of the genes that occasionally threw up black or dark coloured moths, however they did not survive well as they were not camouflaged against the tree trunk. Then when London expanded rapidly and polution became a major issue, the trees around the city became covered in soot. Now it was the black moths who survived to breed and very soon the population of moths were entirely dark coloured. When the city cleaned up (a bit) and the woods returned to their previous colour, the odd moths that were born light coloured were once again the best adapted and so the population has returned to its pre-industrial state. According to that article, the gene information should have been lost and therefore the moths would have been unable to revert back to their original colouring.

The human population is an easy one. The population growth chart would only need static areas if wars and pandemics were left out. The bubonic plague killed almost three quaters of the population of Europe in the 1400's as well as many people in Asia and northern Africa. Wars and fighting over the past 2000 years have resulted in millions, if not billions of deaths as well as outbreaks of disease caused by poor health care up until recently. When such disasters and pandemics and wars are factored into the equation, the graph makes a lot more sense than the 8 people to 7 billion one. My other problem with noahs arc is: why did the human population not become infertile due to the human genes coming only from one families gene pool?

Yes it is counter-intuitive, it is also really weird. If god is so simple, then how can he do all the things you say he does? Creating the world and all the species of animals that inhabit it, creating the whole universe and being able to see and hear everyone on the world at the same time? That is not a simple being at all.

If god exists outside of time and space then how can he influence them? And contradicting himself is not a logical impossibility. What it basically means is that he has no choice in what he does because if he did then he would not be omniscient as he would not be able to see whether or not he interferes or not. So if god is omniscient then he has no choice or free will and therefore is not much of a god as praying to him will have no effect on what he does.

Well the only time I have heard the speed of light used to be faster argument was in that creation on the web book, however they did discount it. I find it hard to believe that serious physicists do actually think that.

I would disagree that it is a faith position, it is simply a prediction. I should not have used the word 'believe' to say how I think the future may pan out however it is not a cast iron faith position.

Bolly Ottihw 10:22, 16 May 2007

Of course they "admit" that natural selection occurs: A creationist discovered it before Darwin!
The example of the wolves involves environmental pressures removing all the wolves with the genes for short hair. But this is not always what will happen. In the case of the peppered moths, the environmental pressure caused most of the dark/light moths to be eliminated, but not all. So when the environment changed back, there was still a small population of the other form around to repopulate. By the way, although the story of the peppered moths is probably true, and is actually a nice example of natural selection without (information-gaining) evolution, the evidence (the photographs of the moths on tree trunks) was faked.
When I referred to a "static growth" for human population, I was meaning over the long term. Sure, in the short term, it can fluctuate up and down, which means that if you select just the right time period (some increase, some decrease), you can show the population remaining static. But to sustain that stasis for a long, and especially a very long, time, where the wars, plagues, etc. exactly balance out the growth, is a very unlikely ad hoc explanation.
I believe that infertility is not a direct result of inbreeding, but an indirect result. That is, it is not due to sexual intercourse in a small group, but to the rapid accumulation of genetic defects that results from that. If Noah and his family, living only a few generations after Adam and Eve, still had very few genetic defects, then there would have been no problem.
Your questions about the nature of God are things that I mostly can't answer, simply because His very nature is so unlike all that we understand. We can glean much about Him, especially from what He has revealed to us, but there is so much more that we don't yet know and probably never will (until we join him in heaven). You ask how he could influence time and space if He is outside of them. Rather, I'd ask why you think that's a problem. The question seems to presuppose that you know something about how these things work to know that it shouldn't be possible. But to give a possible answer, you and I can influence things outside ourselves. We don't have to be in someone's family, for example, to influence what happens in that family.
Omniscience can be hard to understand, I'll grant, but I don't see, for example, how praying is useless. Sure, God knows before you pray that you will pray, so He already knows what He is going to do, but if you don't pray, He instead already knows that and doesn't act on that non-prayer.
Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long. About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
Philip J. Rayment 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about. Now it seems that the only part of evolution that creationists object to is the gene mutations. Why is that when they have already taken the step of admitting natural selection? There is evidence of gene mutations that occur, such as bacteria and viruses mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics or other medicines. And the creationist explanation did nothing for me. How is it possible that they already had the genetic information for the resistance of antibiotics in them, not to mention all the other drugs and medicines that some strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to? What about leopards and tigers, they had a common ancestor and they share similar information yet how did they become so different when some of them live in the same environment? According to the creationist theory, the common ancestor of snow leopards and siberian tigers should have lost the same types of genetic information when they 'migrated' from Ararat mountain to Russia and Mongolia, yet the two species have split to the extent that they can no longer mate. Surely only the mutations of genes can account for this.
One thing i failed to understand was how the animals supposedly spread from Mount Ararat to all corners of the globe. Animals such as the kangaroo, and the koala, how did they get across asia and Indoniesia to end up here, without settling in other parts of the world? Why did most of the animals not stay around Israel? Why don't the native peoples of places such as Australia, North and South America and Asia have flood stories and tales of how they descended from Noah? How can you explain the diversity of species in different areas when it is obvious that some of them could not have crossed an ocean to get there. And the fact that the whole species (or its ancestor) must have crossed the oceans, leaving none of them behind? Birds is understandable but not sloths, grizzly bears, koalaa and buffalo not to mention thousands of others. There are plenty of holes in the story that have not yet been explained.
Bolly Ottihw 17:23, 17 May 2007
"Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about.". I'm sorry, I don't know what this is referring to.
Evolution could be described as the belief that a combination of two observed processes (natural selection and mutations) can result in creatures gradually changing into other types of creatures to the extent that all life has come from a single organism via this process. Creationists don't disagree that natural selection and mutations are real (both have been observed happening, and as I said, a creationist discovered and described natural selection before Darwin), but they do disagree that the combination of these two processes can lead to new organs, abilities, etc. (or more precisely, the new genetic information required for this). Not only has this part has not been observed, the opposite has been observed!
How did they already have the resistance? It depends on just how they have that resistance. I believe that it is not specific resistance to a given antibiotic as such, but rather some factor that results in them being resistant. Here is an explanation of one way this works (there are a number of different methods:
Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner.

However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.
You can see from that explanation that the bacterium does not have a specific resistance to a given antibiotic, but a defect that effectively makes it resistant to antibiotics that work in that way.
Perhaps leopards and tigers did not always live in the same environment. Regardless, surely evolution has the same problem? How did leopards and tigers become different in the evolutionary scenario if they lived in the same environment?
Scientists don't have all the answers. Scientific research continues, because there are still things to learn, still questions to be answered, still problems to be solved. This should be even more the case with creationism, because creationism gets practically no funding (what it does get is mostly from private donations), yet evolutionists get (by comparison) vast amounts of funding. So no creationist claims to have all the answers to every last problem (although considering the amount of research they have been able to do, I think they've done remarkably well). One area that I can't give a really good answer on is the animal migration one. However, there are still some points that I can answer:
  • Australia has no large carnivorous animals and not many medium-size ones either. Therefore, the kangaroo and koala have little in the way of natural enemies (except for disease, etc.). If there were larger carnivorous animals, the roo and koala would likely not fare very well. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand, would not survive so well where there are not other animals to eat. What this suggests is that as the animals spread around the world from Ararat, over many years, if not centuries in some cases, the vegetarians would migrate first, to be followed by the carnivores. So in some cases, the only vegetarians to survive would be the ones that kept ahead of the carnivores. If the kangaroos and koalas reached Australia first, and then rising sea levels following the ice age cut Australia off from Asia before the carnivores got there, the kangaroos and koalas on Australia would be protected and survive, whilst the ones remaining in Asia were wiped out.
  • Animals will spread out to find new food sources, especially as populations increase and there is more competition for food. Rabbits were released in one location in Australia 150 odd years ago, and within a matter of decades had spread to cover half the continent. That is what happens; there is no way that animals would stay confined to the Middle East.
  • Aborigines and other native peoples do have stories of the Flood, etc. See Great Flood for some examples.
Philip J. Rayment 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Animal Migration

Yes, that sentence was fairly poor and made little sense except to me. I do apologise for such poor argument techniques, my only (very poor) excuse is that I was absolutely wrecked at the time.

How do you mean that the opposite has been observed? From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection. Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day. Other animals appear to be evolving as we watch, such as the Hawthorn Fly and its new sub-species: the apple fly. go to [1] and have a look at the Hawthorn fly at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly, and the differences between some of the species that were chosen as having a common ancestor are so marked that they must have divulged from the ancestor at a much much earlier date.

Well I don't pretend to understand how bacteria are resitant to antibiotics so I won't argue that point.

Leopards and tigers would have evolved to be quite different as their common ancestor split into two seperate breeding groups that became isolated from each other, either by mountains or migration of prey and then over thousands of years, mutations and differences in the two populations led to the differences between the species. That is my rather simplified understanding of how it occurs.

Well of course scientists don't know everything, if they did then religion would either be undisputable truth or ridiculed as fiction. That is the beauty of science, that there is always disagreements that lead to research in that area.

My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago. Regardless, how did animals get to the Americas? Specifically animals such as jaguars and pythons who would not have survived the cold temperatures in the north of Russia, where the only real land bridge between Asia and America may have existed. And how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?

Of course the animals would not have stayed in the middle east, that is understandable, however how did they spread so far? It is not feasible that so many large animals travelled by rafts of seaweed or vegetation for so long without the herbivores eating the raft or carnivores eating the herbivores or each other.

Bolly Ottihw 21:05, 22 May 2007

"How do you mean that the opposite has been observed?". Goo-to-you evolution requires the generation of massive amounts of new genetic information, whilst observations show that mutations not only do not result in increases in genetic information, but actually destroy genetic information. Destruction of genetic information is the opposite of the generation of new genetic information.
"From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection.". That depends on what you mean by "evolve". Sure, they change, but they don't generate new genetic information.
"Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day.". Very true. And you know what? They are still bacteria! They have not generated new information to become anything else. If bacteria are still bacteria after, say, 100,000 generations (ten generations per day for less than 30 years), how did ape-like creatures change into men in, say, 33,000 generations (1 million years divided by 30 years per generation)?
"Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly". Yet just before that you commented about how fast creatures change and how we've seen new species appear fairly quickly!
I attended a public meeting many years ago, put on by the Australian Skeptics, attempting to debunk creationism. They had four speakers, three scientists and a journalist. Two scientists and the journalist attacked creationists' motives and tried a guilt-by-association argument, and only one scientist actually discussed science! And his argument was that species form quite rapidly. I was puzzled (and I wasn't the only one) as to how this argument was supposed to refute creationism when it actually helped explain the very question you are asking.
The point is that speciation can occur rapidly in the right conditions; it's been observed in our lifetime, so the 4,500 years since the flood is plenty of time. Your ideas of the pace of speciation are probably based on evolutionary ideas of how long evolutionists have think it has taken, rather than any actual observations.
"My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago". That's according to the evolutionary timescale, which young-Earth creationists reject. My point about scientists not knowing everything was that I probably can't answer all your questions about how animals got to other parts of the world from Ararat.
" do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?". First, was it really predatorial? Second, was it post-flood or pre-flood?
" did they spread so far?". Slowly. They didn't need to travel all the way from Ararat to Australia in one trip, or one generation. Just as rabbits have spread across much of Australia in the say, 50 years after they were introduced, animals would have spread around the world over, say, 200 years (to pick a couple of figure out of the air).
Philip J. Rayment 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
This will probably be the last thing I say in this discussion as I feel that there are some major differences of opinion and the like that will inhibit any progress from here.
Gene mutations do lead to the destruction of genetic material and it does not create new material, it alters genetic material which alters the organism slightly. Most mutations result in very little or no change because they are useless and simply get bred out again however some are productive and that is when the species advances.
Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism. Also there are a lot of strains or species of bacteria because they change so rapidly.
I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve, look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that.
Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old and therefore science must be wrong. I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.
Well the some of the megafauna that existed was predatorial, insofar as they had long, sharp canines and incisors, their eyes were facing forward from the front of their skull and all the other indications that show predatorial habits. Well I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old.
Bolly Ottihw 19:39, 23 May 2007
"...I feel that there are some major differences of opinion...". You reckon? I'm glad you told me, because I wouldn't have guessed!  :-)
"...however some [mutations] are productive and that is when the species advances.". Some mutations do confer a benefit on the creature, but even these are not increases in genetic information, but losses. For examples, beetles on a windy island that have a mutation that causes their wings to not develop have an advantage in that they don't get blown off the island into the sea. But even though this is an advantage, and could result in them being classified as a different species, it still doesn't explain where the genetic information for wings (etc.) came from in the first place. In other words, the genetic change is going in the wrong direction for goo-to-you evolution.
"Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism.". Which explains nothing about evolution. That's equivalent to saying that bacteria are still bacteria because they haven't evolved into something else. Wow! Isn't that precisely what I was saying?
"I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve...". Yes, which is why if you were going to see something evolving into something else, you would expect to see it in something like bacteria. But you don't!
"...look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that". Of course not, because (a) I believe that cro-magnon men were fully human, and (b) the timescale is based on assumptions that I disagree with.
"Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate ...". Despite the fact that the evidence for such has been shown so many times to be unreliable.
"...while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old ...". I have it from a very reliable source, and the counter-evidence is demonstrably unreliable.
"...and therefore science must be wrong". No, it's not science that is wrong, but the materialistic assumptions of evolutionists.
"I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.". The dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions that, as I have mentioned, have been shown to be unreliable.
"...I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old". I'm not saying that they were not predatory, just questioning whether or not we can say for sure that they were. Neither am I saying that they are pre-flood, just wondering if we know that they weren't.
Philip J. Rayment 06:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeh I know, I know. What I meant was that there really isn't anywhere for this arguement to go because you know what I think and vice-versa and basically because you accept the bible as fact and I think its a load of fairytales, and you say you have scientific evidence for them and I say I have evidence against it and so on and so forth, it'll only devolve into glorified "I'm right" "No you aren't, I am" and so on. But whatever!!

But you do! Bacteria evolve into different types of bacteria, becoming resistant to antibiotics, adapting to different organs and so on. If you took two different strains of bacteria that had a common ancestor, say three years ago, and examined these two bacteria, they would be so different as a result of living in a different environment that they would have very little resemblance to each other. That is a change of genetic material, where did it come from? Mutations of their genes of course.

What assumptions do you base your timescale on then? When the agricultural revolution began before god created the world then there is a slight problem, and I still fail to see why you doubt such dating methods, because even if they are hundreds of thousands of years off, even millions of years, the earth is still a lot older then the bible says it is.

Well the animals have been dated to have lived since just after the last ice age. So over 10,000 years old easily although again you have a different dating method. What I would like to know is why there are no records of the ice age in the bible or anywhere else from around the period of time after Noahs Arc? Bolly Ottihw 13:56, 28 May 2007

"But you do! Bacteria evolve into different types of bacteria...". When I said that you don't see it evolve into something else, I mean something that is no longer bacteria. Creationists accept that living things have a range of adaptability, but not that they can create new genetic information and become something entirely different, which is what evolution requires to go from the first living thing to the vast variety we have today. There is a "change in genetic material", but no new genetic information.
"What assumptions do you base your timescale on then?". That the Bible is an accurate historical record.
"When the agricultural revolution began before god created the world ...". Only according to the timescale connected to the theory which denies God.
"I still fail to see why you doubt such dating methods, because even if they are hundreds of thousands of years off, even millions of years, the earth is still a lot older then the bible says it is.". But not if they are off by hundreds of millions of years (or whatever the case may be). I doubt them because (a) they conflict with the reliable historical record of the Bible, and (b) because they have been shown to be unreliable when tested on rocks of known age, as well as inconsistent with each other in some cases.
"What I would like to know is why there are no records of the ice age in the bible or anywhere else from around the period of time after Noahs Arc?". Have a read of ice age and see that there are likely references in the Bible.
Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible

How about these for some starters?
Some of these are not as good as others but there are a lot of errors and inconsistencies in the Bible that are shown here. Please give me your opinion on them. Bolly Ottihw 19:42, 30 May 2007
There are a lot of alleged errors and inconsistencies shown there. I've seen these lists many times before, and the main problem is that they are looking for inconsistencies rather than objectively looking to see if they really are inconsistencies.
Also, what might at first appear to be a contradiction or error might in fact have an explanation. The onus is on the person claiming a contradiction or error to demonstrate that it is one, not on someone else to prove that it's not. To put it another way, there might be several ways to explain an alleged contradiction or error. The mere fact that it can be explained means that one cannot claim that it is a contradiction or error, even if nobody knows for sure which explanation is correct.
Another problem is that, despite these lists often being directed against "literalists", they argue from an overly-literalistic reading of the Bible. In other words, they are being literalists in arguing against literalists.
Anyway, to get to the point...
The first one assumes that a supernatural, all-powerful, God is not able to interact in a physical way with the physical world He created. There is no argument offered as to why this would be so.
The second part of that one is a case of begging the question. He argues against the biblical record by assuming and citing the opposing viewpoint!
The second one (regarding night and day) is illogical. He asserts that night and day is not possible without the sun, whereas what really distinguishes night and day is light, and Genesis records that light had already been created. The second part, about light from the stars (although he doesn't explicitly mention them), is the first one that is at all reasonable, yet even it has been answered by creationists.
The third one claims that plants began to grow before there was sunlight. Wow! So what's the problem? First, there was already light, even if the sun wasn't at that stage the source of the light. Second, they existed for about 24 hours without sunlight. Does he think that plants can't survive for 24 hours without sunlight?
There's the first three passages (about five "errors") answered, which should be enough to show that this list has no credibility. I don't intend to waste my time refuting more.
Philip J. Rayment 07:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong link, those absurdities aren't very good are they. You should look at the contradictions page, that's what I meant to send. I don't ask you to refute all of them I just ask that you consider them because there are some that are just plain obvious and show that the bible does contain contradictions. Bolly Ottihw 10:22, 8 June 2007

No, they are no better. The introductory comments I made in my last post apply here just as much. An added point is that the author of the list doesn't even both to justify that they really are contradictions; he just expects you to believe him, or to see them the way that he does.
But just to prove the point, here are answers to the first few.
Genesis records God creating light on day 1, and the sun on day 4. What exactly is the contradiction?
Genesis 1 records a chronological sequence of what days God created various things on. Genesis 2 (actually starting around verse 4) records a non-chronological sequence of what was involved in creating man and woman, that is, a different look at a point briefly covered in chapter 1. You know those movies that have "flashback" sequences? Genesis 2 is a bit like that, with flashbacks to events in chapter 1.
So the next few contradictions may be explained, in part at least, by the chapter 2 events not being a chronological sequence, but by references back to events in chapter 1. Additionally, God creating trees on day 3 does not preclude him creating a few more later, specifically for the Garden of Eden.
Genesis one records man and woman both being created on day 6. They are mentioned together, but there is no statement to indicate that one didn't come before the other. So the chapter 2 reference to Eve being created after Adam is not a contradiction of chapter 1 at all. This is a classic example of bibliosceptic idiocy, with no contradiction being presented as a contradiction, and why these lists have no credibility.
That's enough to prove my point.
Philip J. Rayment 22:34, 7 June 2007 (EDT)