Fabnaq

[saltn00b]

since sometimes i put my 2 cents in the "controversial" threads that pop up on here, i thought i would start one of my own.
this is for the creationists, the young earthers/ lifers, etc etc etc. I encourage you to answer the questions to the best of your ability.
FABNAQ
(Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions)
Copyright © 1992 by Tom Scharle
1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?
1a. If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark, explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect.
1b. Why are many Christians evolutionists?
1c. If you are a young-earth creationist: Why are many creationists old-earth creationists?
1d. If you are a young-life creationist: Why are many creationists old-life creationists?
1e. Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?
2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false. Something which appears to support Lamarkian evolution rather than Darwinian, or punctuated equilibrium rather than gradualism is not enough. Also, the observation must be something which can be checked by an independent observer.)
2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory?
3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory? (The suggestion that major points are still under investigation will only be accepted for theories that are relatively recent. Any exposition which cannot be distinguished from solipsism or nihilism will not be accepted.)
3a. Is there any statement of the scientific (or other) rules of evidence which you accept? (If your answer is that some document is your guide, explain the rules for interpreting the document, and your rules for determining which document is your guide.)
4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.
5. Is there any feature of your theory which is subject to scientific test? This is often stated: is creationism scientific in the sense that it could be falsified? (After Karl Popper's criterion.) Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change your theory?
5a. Is there any observation which has changed your theory?
5b. Is your theory open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?
6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)
7. Is there a consistent reading of the Flood story of Genesis? How many of each kind of clean animal went on the Ark? Present a calendar of the events of the Flood from the birth of Noah through the birth of Arpachshad (sometimes called Arphaxad, grandson of Noah), paying special attention as to the day when Noah entered the Ark and how long the Flood lasted. If you change the text of Genesis, give a reason for the change other than the need to fit your beliefs.
7a. Why does the Flood story need to be consistent?
8. Where did all of the water come from and go to? (This is a very old problem for the Flood story, and it may be the most frequently asked. Quantitative answers are required.)

 

[saltn00b]

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
9a. Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.
9b. Explain how a viable population was established for all of those animal kinds from only a single pair of each.
9c. Discuss how symbiotic animals and parasites survived immediately after the Flood.
10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".
10a. Calculate the structural soundness and stability of the Ark, both loaded and unloaded, on land and on the Flood waters.
10b. Explain the logistics of loading and unloading the Ark. Relate this to the time available given in the answer to question (7) and to the distribution referred to in questions (6) and (9).
10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.
11. Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?
12. Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?

 

[renogaw]

yes, and no. well, maybe

 

[jmick]

It doesn't matter because the bible said so and that is all that matters

 

[renogaw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
It doesn't matter because the bible said so and that is all that matters

Oh, and 1journeyman says people who believe in global warming are the only people who drink kool-aid...

 

[mfp1016]

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute."

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by renogaw
Oh, and 1journeyman says people who believe in global warming are the only people who drink kool-aid...
lol

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by renogaw
Oh, and 1journeyman says people who believe in global warming are the only people who drink kool-aid...
LOL, I never said that... there's plenty of it to go around.

 

[mfp1016]

Ad hominem

 

[1journeyman]

The orignal premise to this question is flawed, of course. These questions are often answered; those asking the questions simply don't like the answers... That said I'll certainly bite:
1. Yup. I don't believe in the astronomical odds it would take for "unguided" evolution; therefore, I went with what makes the most sense to me-a Creator.
1a. I don't believe dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood. As for the other animals, I'm unsure if the flood was a truely global event, or rather if the author was writing in relation to the "known" world.
1b. Because Creation does not neccessarily rule out evolution; provided God is still given credit.
1c-d. Because the purpose of Genesis was not to chronicle Creation. Therefore many details are lacking and left up to interpretation.
1e. LOL. As Christians we believe the God of the universe love us so much He sent His Son to die on a cross. If we can believe in love that indescribable something as simple as Creation is easy to have faith in...
2. A sunrise, a unimpeded view of a starlit sky, a dive at 60feet on the Great Barrier Reef, a stroll among an ancient rain forest, walking on a beach on a desert island in the Caribbean... All of Creation cries out to it's Creator.
2a. Nope
3. I don't consider it to be a theory. Nor do I expect to be able to ever prove it in a lab.
3a. I'm a big fan of most scientific laws. Huge fan of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, (law of entropy) for instance.
4. Why is there any discrepency?

That said, to assume a Creator was somehow forced to create His masterpiece within laws we try to apply to said creation is absurd.
4a. Not sure. Could be as simple as "The Creator put em there"
5. Nope. Again, as Genesis was not written as a lab book it leaves a lot of blanks. Science should always be the search for the truth. Proper science points towards the work of the Creator and elightens us with more understanding of the complxity of His creation. The "createe" will never disprove the "Creator".
5a-b. Nope. Faith, by definition, is unquestioning.
6. Silly question. Natural Selection is certainly not exclusive to "non Creationists". It very possibly could be much more simple, however. It could be the Creator simply created it that way.
7. Way to broad of a question. Clearly the author of this question has an agenda with it. Ask the question more honestly and we can go from there.
7a. Again, as with Genesis, the story of the flood is not about a great flood, but rather about God's love and provisions for His Creation.
8. The same place it came from.....

 

[1journeyman]

9. If the flood was local this is easily answered. If it wasn't then the answer would be "God provided" in some manner.
9a. DNA was better back in the day

9b. Explain how a viable offspring was produced through random genetic mutations created a mutant...
9c. How do you know they existed pre-flood? Explain how parasites and symbiotic relationships "evolved"....
10. Not needed if it was local event.
10a. I'll get right on that...
10b. Not needed if local event.
10c. Again, not needed if it was local event.
11. Don't presume that I do
12. Classic mistake made by 21st century critics. The Bible was written to an audience at the time of it's writings. While applicable today, we can't presume to "critique" it from a 21st century western literary standpoint.
Again, if you want to question the validity of the Bible there are far better stories to attack; Virgin birth, death and res., uneducated fishermen founding the first century church, etc.....

 

[1journeyman]

And now for my familiar warning;
To all posters that will participate on this lightning rod of a thread-play nice or it will get deleted/locked. We Mods have grown weary of weeding through the hatred that accumulates on these religious threads.

 

[saltn00b]

Journeyman -
1) sorry if these threads are now looked down upon because of all the work involved in them. i figured they have been going on for a long time so i would try one. hopefully it stays ok...
2) even though the questioning is called FABNAQ - its not that these questions are never answered, perse, but that they are skillfully avoided and not answered with any satisfactory response, as i feel you have just done in a majority of these questions. do you know what i mean by that or am i going to have to quote and explain each case?

 

[jerthunter]

You might be better off just picking one question at a time. With a list of questions like that people can talk around the answers and hope it gets lost among all the words..
One I would like to hear the answers of is concerning the flood. If the flood happened as stated how did all the freshwater and saltwater, and brackish animals survive the major hypo/hyper salinity the resulted...

 

[dlauber]

I personally like all of Journeymans responses. I dont think the answers were skillfully avoided, these are all questions to try to disprove anyones beleif, and you have to skillfully answer them to not sound like an ass.
But of course weather we like it or not, we all see things different ways, while see these answers as fitting, you and someone else may think that the question was avoided. Just something we have to accept.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
You might be better off just picking one question at a time. With a list of questions like that people can talk around the answers and hope it gets lost among all the words..
One I would like to hear the answers of is concerning the flood. If the flood happened as stated how did all the freshwater and saltwater, and brackish animals survive the major hypo/hyper salinity the resulted...
I believe Noah was a proponent of the drip method.
Jokes aside, if a flood like that happened, the animals would have adjusted/acclimated to the surroundings. There are many areas in the ocean that have very high salinities and areas with very low salinity. Also, if said flood happened, perhaps that explains the ability of many aquatic animals to willfully tolerate both fresh and salt water conditions, think Mollies and Bull Sharks.

 

[darknes]

I'm not sure I understand why evolutionists or atheists insist that creationists/young earth believers prove their theory; It's not a scientific theory.
You are basically addressing people who believe in a god that can do anything such as create the earth and perform miracles (events that cannot be scientifically explained), to prove these miracles scientifically. If they believe god can do anything, then it's not hard for them to believe that things occured that we cannot explain. I believe if God wanted to, He could magically cover the earth in water and then have it magically vanish (though that's not what I think happened).
I believe in God, and I also believe that He nor any miracles in the bible will ever be able to be proven or disproven, and this is the way He wants it. He gave us our free will to choose whether we want to believe or not.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
I believe Noah was a proponent of the drip method.
Jokes aside, if a flood like that happened, the animals would have adjusted/acclimated to the surroundings. There are many areas in the ocean that have very high salinities and areas with very low salinity. Also, if said flood happened, perhaps that explains the ability of many aquatic animals to willfully tolerate both fresh and salt water conditions, think Mollies and Bull Sharks.
If the only fish in existence were Molles and Bull Sharks that answer might work. However, I have yet to see anyone acclimate corals to freshwater, if all it took was time we could save a ton of money on salt mix and have our reeftanks in freshwater...

 

[mfp1016]

Maybe not to freshwater, but there are corals that live in salinities above and below our beloved 1.026. Also, if saltwater and freshwater mix in any proportion, salt will still be in that water. Thus, it seems to me that you could still acclimate most aquatic animals to their new conditions.
On a completely different note, how many of the atheists or anti-creationists are actually scientists?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by saltn00b
Journeyman -
2) even though the questioning is called FABNAQ - its not that these questions are never answered, perse, but that they are skillfully avoided and not answered with any satisfactory response, as i feel you have just done in a majority of these questions. do you know what i mean by that or am i going to have to quote and explain each case?
No, I got ya.
Here's the thing, however; I could have just as easily answered the majority of those questions with one word: God.
How did fish survive? God
How did animals get on ark? God
Where did the rain go? God.
Etc....
Like I said, if you believe in a God that created the universe little details like salinity become irrelevant.