Friday, February 16, 2007

Light a Match Noah!!!

According to a story from National Geographic News this week, native Americans have been cooking with domestic chili peppers for at least 6,000 years.

So, since Americans were cultivating chilies about two thousand years before Noah, it is quite possible that Noah and his family could have had chili on their cruise--that's pretty cool. However, I don't understand how these chilies could have only grown in the place they were domesticated (Latin America) before the flood, and then only grown in Latin America until Columbus found them three thousand years later. It seems to me that the seeds would have floated around during the flood, and then sprouted in other favorable climates like Africa, or Australia. Maybe a creationist can clear this up for me.

There is one issue in the Bible that this report does clear up for me though.

As you may know, spicy Hispanic foods tend to give some people, myself included, problems with flatulence. If Noah and other Biblefolk had chili and the like, it would explain why the Bible talks about farting:
"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh." [Isaiah 16:11 KJV Bible]

Technorati Tags:


Michelle said...

So I don't understand, does the bible approve of farts or is it against them? It's really hard to tell sometimes.

R Nicolas said...

Well, y guess would be that farting by righteous believers would be considered okay, so long as they were male, and did so for the glory of God. But, women who did so were probably stoned.

I have no scholarly evidence for this, but I can make shit up if preachers can.

Dan Marvin said...

Speaking of Noah and scholarly evidence, The oldest trees in the world are the sequoia trees and the oldest one to date is almost 4000 years old. The reason for that is because there was a flood about that long ago and all of mankind came from that family that believed in God.

Google “Fossil hat” and you will see it does not take millions of years to create fossils.

Lets use mathematics: Lets say the population doubled ever 150 years (two people have two kids and so on) not every 40 years just every 150 years. And we start at Adam and Eve and after 32 doublings at 4800 years we get around 8.6 billion people but we take the “Flood” in account at 4500 years and we get a number around 6.5 billion people. Assuming the conservative growth rate the current population can be reached well within a 6000 year period.

Now evolutionists say mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Let’s take that same equation and use just 50,000 years. So we extrapolate that out 50,000 doublings every 150 years (332 doublings) and we get one followed by 100 zero’s. That figure is unimaginable, for it is billions of times greater then the number of atoms that are in the entire universe!

Lets use logic and faith in the Lord, not some dude's rant to figure these things out.

R Nicolas said...

The oldest trees in the world are the Bristlecone Pines in California, the Sequoia are the tallest. Your scholarly evidence for Noah's flood fails in too many ways to address here, but you can go HERE and read actual scholarly evidence about it.

Your mathematics are flawed in so many ways as to be laughable. Population growth has not been consistant it has been affected by technological advances, natural disasters, social evolution, and numerous other factors. And, if two people have two kids the population remains static due to the first two's dying.

By your calculations the Earth's population should be just over 2.5 billion since the Earth's population in 1850 was 1,262,000.

Logic and faith by their very definitions cannot be used together for anything.

Unlike proponants of mythology, I do not ask people to rely upon my words alone. I give my sources; encourage people to check them; and invite open debate on the issues I present. An invitation that has yet to be accepted, but is still open.

R Nicolas said...


I googled "fossil hat" as you suggested.

The site is quite funny, and gave me inspiration for several posts. So, thank you for helping me find it.

The hat's felt was impregnated by calcium carbonate, not replaced by calcium carbonate so has no more become a fossil than this hat. It has become a metal and felt infused piece of antacid


For an explanation of fossil formation that is understandable by even young school-children you can go HERE.

This way you won't be suckered by false claims based on faulty science in the future.

Dan Marvin said...


Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.

Dan Marvin said...

I get my answers from The Bible and you get yours from Wikipedia “good luck with that.”

I will pray for you though and hopefully God will give you mercy.

For Him,

John 8:31-32

R Nicolas said...

Dan said:

"Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years..."

Correct! And, it is a Bristlecone Pine.

So, what is your point--that you were wrong with the Sequoia statement?

I get my answers from many places--However, I use Wikipedia as an online reference, since you are unlikely to have the books that I would use as sources.

I have also used the Bible as a source. Since it contradicts itself, I guess we could both use it.

R Nicolas said...

Oh, and 4,767 years would be over 200 years before the date you give for the flood above--that's one strong tree to be the only living thing to have survived a flood that wiped out all other life on the planet.

R Nicolas said...

Since Dan doesn't trust Wikipedia, I have some more sites you can look at concerning the population of the Earth in 1850.

1850 is considered the height of the Industrial Revolution, so it is often cited in history books when talking about population growth because there is reliable census data--that is why I used the date, plus it fits with the 150 year timeline supplied by Dan.

Here are two random sources:

Source 1
Source 2

Then we have the United Nations.

And out of fairness: a Biblical site. It uses an even lower number, which would make Dan's mathamatical formula that much worse.

Dan Marvin said...

Yes I was conceding that I was wrong and that the oldest tree is not the sequoias. But the pine here in California is exactly the same age of the last receding waters in this area from the “Great Flood”

So according to your site of it states "The world's population is expected to double in the next century to the inevitable 10 billion. According to the U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, WORLD POPULATION PROFILE"

So that helps my argument doesn't it? Century=100 years / My estimates=150 years. So you just shot yourself in the foot, it is even a higher number then billions of times more then all of the atoms of the universe and now you are pointing to sites that prove it. Not to mention that your wikipedia site said it went from under one million to 6.5 in 200 years so that is even more then I calculated. Sorry to be so snarky but you are in denial, buddy.

Please just admit that maybe, just maybe, in your thoughts there is a proof of a Creator because of the existence of creation and maybe, just maybe, we as a human race do not hold all the answers and maybe we might know just 5% of what God knows and he has 95% to reason why we are not to have all the answers because it is why we fell from grace, because Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and that angered God. He may have kept things from us because we want to be God like so bad, which is just out of the question. Use your reason I want to call you friend someday but I am afraid your pride will get in the way.

Until our eyes meet,


R Nicolas said...

So you are saying that the Bible lied when it said that the flood happened in the later half of the 24th century B.C.E. and that Noah left the ark a year after he went in?

For that tree to have been alive 400 years earlier would mean that either the tree is lying about its age, or the Bible is lying about the flood.

Are you saying that since your calculations were completely wrong that proves your point?

How am I pointing to sites that proved there are pine trees that survived a global flood underneath 6 miles of water, that the pyramids at Giza were started by Egyptians and finished by Noah, that there are, by your calculations, 2.5 billion people on the planet, or that there were around thirty people at the Tower of Babel story?

I used the Biblical site because I had it in my notes due to its teaching that the fire and brimstone Hell you people so often sling around is not real. So if this site is right about your calculations does that mean it is also right about Hell not existing?

Denial is not seeing one's calculations as wrong when they have been proven so.

Just so I know who you are talking about: Which Eve ate from the tree Genesis-1 Eve or Genesis-2 Eve?

No there isn't the slightest bit of maybe when it comes to the existence of your Creator--there is absolutely no evidence for it. If I have to believe in a creator because of creation then why not believe in Vishnu? Or, Marduk? Or, maybe Ra?

The Bible is so contradictory and confused that it can't even decide the order of its god's creations, much less get anything else right. So why believe anything it says that can't be proven elsewhere?

So to be your friend a person must believe what you tell them? That's sad.

Dan Marvin said...

Your wierd "good luck with that"

2 corinthians 6:14

R Nicolas said...

"Your wierd 'good luck with that'"

Not the most mature comment I have ever gotten, but unique. My weird and I have done well so far, so we should be fine.

Am I to assume that since you are using one of the cut-and-run verses that you are done?

Dan Marvin said...

No but close, I will admit I had loads of fun debating with you on these various subjects. I learned a great deal about an Atheist as a person. I will still say that my logic is just as valid as yours. The evidence I used with bible verses and such, that you hated, is still just that, evidence. The Bible itself provides concrete evidence of my position. I can refer to it on any subject and it will have relevant information that I use for my everyday life and to prove my position. I am sure if the Atheist had a manual that you would do the same also.

I did get lost sometimes in a subject that I was pushing and ignored some subjects that you brought up just to keep myself focused and on tract. But if there is truly any lingering questions you may have for me I will do my best to answer it, even if the answer is “I don’t know”. In all my years I still do not know all things in the universe. I think we are both trying hard to find out the truth and this is a good thing to me. I was na├»ve to think I can change an atheist mind by giving what I consider facts and logic, only to be shot down quickly with a different twist and view every time. You have given me some ammo to continue my fight for what I believe is right and I hope I did the same for you. I wish I had a picture so I can link a face to the name but I will leave that up to you. I want to recognize you when that day comes, ha ha.

I am not the most formally educated man in the world but I have a street savvy that has served me well. I tip my hat to you as a formable opponent. I hated to say that because I feel I am defeated twice as much. I did not get through and we may have lost another. You know my position and if I am right then I loose you to hell and I just can’t stand the thought that you will end up there because I feel that would be a tremendous waste of a mind. Being wrong does not make you bad as far as I am concerned. I apologize if I was out of line in any personal manner because you did share a little with me. If I referenced your wife it was only to make a point about the subject not to make you feel bad. I hope I am wrong and we all end up in heaven together and we can have a good laugh about these days, although I doubt that will be the case because then God lied and that is just something he can not do. When I type the letter “R” in IE address bar your rant is the first thing that pops up and I hope that doesn’t change. I think it is time you wrote a book about what you know and make millions here on earth and “live it up” because with your position it will be all you have. The subject is a hot one and any book with your position these days would sell.

MY question to you is: Did I help change your thoughts in the least? Did I help make you think that there maybe is a God a little?

For Him,


R Nicolas said...

I too have enjoyed our little back and forth, and I hold no grudges what-so-ever.

As for your making a dent in my disbelief--I'm sorry, but you didn't. People have been trying for decades now to no avail. To be quite honest, it would take a hand coming from the sky and slapping me upside the head before I could believe it.

Believe it or not, my disbelief is not stubborness, it's a long story about searching and hoping and finally realization. Maybe I will cover my search sometime on this blog. Good luck with others though. Later.

Dan Marvin said...


I think it's a young earth not an old one. If you take these numbers and extrapolate anything out, even cockroaches, over millions of years it just doesn't fit. If you take these numbers in the 6000 year time frame it’s a plausible fit. All of it was reset and started over with Noah's flood 4500 years ago.

Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Everything was destroyed before that, in the flood, nothing is older because of that reason. You want to know when the flood was, just look at that one Bristlecone Pine in California.

There is an exponential acceleration after a certain point. One can conclude that after a short time there had to be catastrophic events to reset the numbers, along with it being a young earth. Why aren’t we finding trillions of animals before a certain point because of the “millions” of years or any evidence to support it?

And I submit this from 1925:

I like you too much to give up on you, Ron.

R Nicolas said...

First of all Dan, just so you will quit saying it and destroying your own argument--When you say the flood happened 4,500 years ago and a tree that is two hundred years older proves it--it makes it look like you aren't paying attention to yourself.

By the way, the flood would have actually been 4,300 (+/-50 years depending on who is talking) years ago. Those nummbers are based on the "begats" in the Bible--I did the math a few years ago.

As for the numbers and cockroaches that don't add up--what are you talking about?

As for catastophic events--the geological, and fossil evidence show the events clearly, none of which were in the 24th century B.C.E. There have been asteroid impacts, Ice ages, and many localized events.

As for the trillions of fossils thing I don't know what you are getting at or talking about.

Now to the 1925 math:

The Reverand's thesis was written well before many of the scientific discoveries of the twentieth century that support evolution and put it into the realm of an accepted process.

There have been advances in the fields of Acheology, palaeontology, chemistry, cosmology, astronoy, physics along with many other sciences including the big one--genetics, that the reverand, and many scientists of the time couldn't have dreamed of. Einstein's General Relativity was still a new and unproven idea, and Hubble's evidence for an expanding universe was still four years away.

So, basing any kind of scientific arguent on this paper is similar to trying to repair a 2007 Ford Mustang, using a repair manual for a 1925 Model-T written by a man who didn't want the Model-T to run.

Basically this comment is too incomplete and lacking of a point of referance for me to adequately respond.

This comment section is beginning to get unwieldy, so I will probably start another soon.