Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the Word of God?
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 260 (3774)
02-07-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by joz
02-07-2002 10:43 PM


"1)I thought you lot said animals started eating each other after adam and eve ate the fruit..... Bit befor3e noah that wasn`t it?"
--I sure don't ever remember sayin that
"2)I assume you are saying you would have to increase the replication rate that much to attain sizes that we see evidence of in fossils (given that they had no maximum size) in this case a factor of millions/billions would suggest the examples that we find fossils of lived to ages between 10^6 and 10^9 years, Given your assertion of a 6,000 year old universe how?"
--I think millions/billions was exadurative, i didn't do the math myself I admit
, I was pointing out that basically, lets say that a baby hatchling dinosaur weighed 6 pounds, so if you wan't to make the thing weigh say 30 tons, you have to have it multiply its weight by a factor of 10,000 in that year. These dinosaurs could have grown practically uniformly and lived for hundreds of years, just like humans, other animals that we know do not stop growing such as beavers, sea turtles, great white sharks, are found to be many times larger than today.
"3)Not really dinosaurs predominantly walked on 2 legs rather than 4, if say Allosaurs existed today they would be conspicuous as being the only lizards that walked on 2 legs......."
--Most dinosaurs did yes, I do realize your accusation, I was merely pointing out that it would still be seen as unique (especially if it grew to a more emense size). Some lizards can walk or run on 2 legs, but not the way the dinosaurs did.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 10:43 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 6:01 AM TrueCreation has replied

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 260 (3777)
02-07-2002 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"LUD: Indeed we can do those things today but we cant see planets like neptune,uranus and pluto with the naked eye...we require powerfull telescopes which were not invented before the 18th century. That means that there was no way back then to tell from earth that there were planets beyond saturn,and much less describe them in detail like the Sumerians do in their tablets. And the Sumerians make no claim of having received this knowledge through "divine inspiration"...they are quite clear that this knowledge was communicated to them verbally by their GODS....one of them,more precisely,the goddess Ishtar."
--This would be expected, Gods are divine inspiration, it would be typical for beliefs such as these to be bent. People would have been very knowledgable in those days, and would have passed this knowledge to the summarians and other groups that may have had the knowledge before they split.
LUD: The sumerians are not a post flood civilisation TC...historians place their origin 4000-5000 BC at least and thats from their tablets which were very clear and concise. Their writings are for the time being universally recognized as the first form of writings on earth. They kept very extensive writen historical records and thats where historians got their date of 4000-5000 BC.
"LUD:Most of their knowledge is catalogued in hundreds of clay tablets. Contrary to what you implied the other day,Sumerians were prolific writers...their writings are the oldest on earth as far as we know,dating back 4500-7000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of their most famous story.lots of interesting info on the subject here...
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/myth.html
--For one, I based the assertion that there werent many historical documents on what you previously stated. Also, you can't claim that they are dated at 4,500-7000 years without evidence, what would this evidence be? The epic of gilgamesh is very interesting.
LUD:according to historians,the evidence are in the tablets themselves.
"LUD:I'm curious TC....aside from the Bible and the cultures in the ME,is there any mention of Adam and Eve in any other civilisations? Do either the mayans,the Aztech,the norse,the celts,the aborigenals,the chinese,the africans,the native americans and so on mention them or people even remotely like them in any of their legends? Do you know of any mention in any of these cultures about this ME origin for all of humanity? even a word?"
--Besides the one's that you stated earlier, for the babalonians and summarians, there are many, I will site some that I have found
--Many of the following creation stories have some interesting parallels in the biblical creation story.
--Aborigenals
--iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
-- Here is where you can find more Creation legends, and there is also Flood legends.
-- http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/uranus.htm
-- As you see throught reading, many of them induce many parallels towards the biblical creation, more than half include the beginning as a creation of a man and a woman.
LUD: Thats is indeed common to some cultures but the names given to these folks and the means by which they came about varie far too much to be considered evidence of common ancestry from the ME. And most of them have completely different tales as to where we do originate.
"LUD: not all ancient cultures claim to have been visited by flying chariots...the aborigenals,africans,celts and native americans have no such claims in their legends."
--Expected, not all of the different cultures are going to have the same legends, if you were to put them all on a line, each of them next to their most simmilar ancient creation story, if you looked at the one at the beginning and the one at the end, they would sertainly be very different. This would be typical of creation stories passed on many of them by oral tradition.
LUD: But,if the Bible is indeed THE one true creation story,IT too was passed down oraly for close to 3000 years and so it too could well have suffered from corruption.
"LUD:the vast majority of young earth creationist subscribe to this notion of a water canopy around the earth...many of them,like Kent Hovind are convinced that it was actually a bubble of ICE."
--Majority doesn't mean anything though, The Majority of scientist may believe Evolution (I don't really know) but does that mean Evolution is right, it isn't based on majority.
LUD: Evolution is not a cult TC...its a scientific theory. Scientists who believe in it dont do so in a void of evidence.
"LUD: I would like you to explain to me TC how you go from cancer cells replicating themselve infinitely to people living 900 years."
--The thing is, is that what I explained was that by cancer cells, which are caused by mutation, can replicate forever, because I believe it is because they lost the gene that controls the ability to replicate at a set amount of replicates. this is controled by telemeres that are like the 'capping' at the end of chromosomes which after each replication, a tip is lost, thus controling the amount of replication the bodily cells can produce. All you really need to live 900 years, is a longer capping, or for the gene that creates this ability to control replication amount to not be active.
LUD:indeed but is there any genetic evidence that we once had those longuer capings? any residual evidence of those supposed mutations?
"LUD:The Bible does....it states that eating the apple gave man knowledge of good and evil."
--The bible does not say that the knowledge of good and evil came from the fruit, it says that when they ate it, they knew good and evil, it could be tied in with a simple concept of experience, they had not experienced sin, so they did not know it.
LUD: thats an opinion TC,not a statement of fact...for all you know,the autors did indeed believe that the knowledge was contained within the apple.
"LUD: i do not know where we originate from. I merely said that i see no credible reason why i should be convinced that we all originate from the ME...thats where Adam and eve supposadly came from,IF the book of genesis is true. But i have yet to be presented with imperical evidence that should lead me to conclude that there even was an Adam and a Eve at any point of history."
--How do you expect to find any imperical evidence of the origin of humanity out of the middle east, or that adam and eve creation story is true accept by ancient literature. Because I know of no scientific observational technique in which we can interperete the existance of this evidence leading to conclusions on these questions. To come to a conclusion or explination for answrs to these questions, there must be evidence to point either direction, I do not know of any evidence period of pointing either way accept by ancient literature.
LUD: I believe that at one time there were large lizards gallavanting around on earth because there are countless traces of their passages found on earth. But they have yet to find traces of Adam's civilisation AS SUCH. The guy supposadly lived for 900 years...even with a world wide flood,we should find imperical evidence of his passing.
"LUD: according to the description of the tower of Babel in the book of genesis,it reached into heaven...meaning it should have been as high as mount everest and pierce the clouds....the zigurats discovered were nowhere near as high."
--Actually the heavens are simply the sky, the birds as is depicted in the bible, fly in this expanse/firmament/heavens and birds sertainly fly at this hight. And to the people building the tower in that day, it sertainly would look as if it were reaching to inconceivable elevations in the time.
LUD: opinion again and mine's diferent. I dont see why God would take offense at a building that dos not pierce the cloud in the context of the Bible...
"LUD: So then how can your Bible be used in a scientific discussion since there is no way to falsify "divine inspiration"?"
--I am not discussing whether the bible is divinely inspired, thats your opinion on what the book presents, I am discussing biblical validity on historical accuracy. Thus it is a scientific discussion in which we are discussing what we can observe and present by historical records and various scientific attributes in the argument.
LUD: There is absolutely no independant confirmation that the Bible depicts actual events of 6000 years ago and yet you accept it as fact. But when i present studies by historians that identify the oldest civilisation,the Sumerians as being 5000 years old at least,you refuse to even consider it,saying that i present no evidence. I'm not an historian but my opinion is that if there's a concensus on the age of the sumerian civilisation,there's got to be a reason why and so i trust them until evidence to the contrary. You present me with a book that says that those historians are in error...so present me with independent confirmation through either archeological or anthropological evidence that 5000 years ago,there was no Sumerian empire.
"LUD:the Bible has some innacuracies...you just re-interpret them so they wont be inacurate anymore. Case in point,lust coming from the heart,which you point means from the soul. When i explain that lust is actually a chemical reaction in the brain,well you then say that by heart they meant brain. Also,the fact that lust is considered a sin is ridiculous...its a natural chemical reaction that cannot be controlled...we can control how we act on it but thats not at all what the Bible condemns...it condemns EXPERIENCING lust."
--First, the bible doesnt' say that it comes from the soul, it states that it comes from the heart as the same way we use it today when we would be to say 'have a heart', or 'its in the heart', or 'trust your heart'. These arent implications on a bodily organ, but as I stated previously, it contributes to the character or personality of a sertain someone. And considering the condemnation of lust, the bible does not condemn lust, it condemns a lustful heart (again the heart thing), ie someone that lusts to feel that serotonin get pumped into their brain when they see a naked girl, or something like that. The bible does not condemn experiencing lust in the scence that you describe, but it condemns the desire to experience lust. This is illustrated when david was on top of his house and spotted bathshebba taking a bath (what a coincidence) and he lusted with his eyes, the literal translation of the word that is used is 'gaze' he didn't just glance at her, this would not be a sin, but he gazed, as in, to view with interest, or study.
LUD: desires ARE the result of this chemical reaction,not the cause of them. In the brain,everything(feelings,impulses,ideas,memories) all of it is CHEMICAL reaction,period. The male body reacts this way to either the image or memory of a naked woman because its PROGRAMMED to react that way...If God did indeed create man,as your Bible implies,thats how he created man. You cant NOT have the impulse unless you suffer from a chemical imbalance of some kind...that means that a healthy,functionning brain functions that way EVERY SINGLE TIME. How you ACT on those impulses MAY be sinfull or not...but FEELING that lust is what whoever designed us meant for us. Thats why i tell you that homosexuals are born that way...their sexual attraction toward members of their own gender is simply a chemical reaction in their brains,not a consious choice. I.e. Gay men dont choose to feel lust towards other men...thats happens despite them. What they chose is what they do about it. As for those expression,they were obviously born from that belief that the heart was the seat of the emotions in the human body and remained in use even when it was discovered that the brain was actually the muscle of emotions in humans out of habit.
"LUD: So why should i assume that there ever was a disaster caused by God?"
--Whether it is caused by God is your own opinion, whether it happend is a scientifically valid question. Though I should say that with such a Flood for instance, it was an act of God.
LUD: why exactly?...lets assume for a moment that the flood did happen. Couldn't the legend of Noah have been born from the survivors of the flood? Couldn't the belief that it was a Godly punishement be noting more than mere superstition? Are you saying that this is impossible?
Here is some information and reading on this enzyme activity in its shortening telomerase:
"LUD: I'm afraid your gonna have to provide me with a site where i can study the result of these researchs..."
"This enzyme, called telomerase, was discovered in 1980 by the winner of the 1998 Australia Prize, Prof. Elizabeth Blackburn. Without telomerase, cells cannot copy their ‘caps’."
New Scientist: November 22, 1997, p. 7; January 3, 1998, p. 6; February 7, 1998, p. 14; February 28, 1998, p. 23.
‘Can science beat the body clock?’ Sunday Times (London) January 18, 1998, p. 15.
‘Extraordinary lifespans in ants: a test of evolutionary theories of aging’, Nature 389:958—960, 1997.
‘Why do we age?’ U.S. News & World Report, August 18—25, 1997, pp. 55—57.
‘Genetics of Aging’ Science 278(5337):407—411, 1997.
--As I would also get frustrated if I did not have these resources, here is a web page that seems to be focused on the telomere:
http://resolution.colorado.edu/~nakamut/telomere/telomere.html
LUD:Interesting...i'll look into it,although i dont see why this absolutely has to be a condition that we had and not one that we are discovering for the first time.
"LUD: Yes it is possible to evaluate all of those things simply by analysing the dent (crater) caused by the meteorit. Its a complex mathematic calculation but thats how they do it."
--Yes, but they must assume that the place of impact had the same viscosity, density, etc as their calculations will give. If I hit a brick wall with my fist, it isn't going to do much anything, If I hit a wall made out of mud, it might do something, If I hit a damp mud wall, it will make an even bigger dent, If I hit a liquid-like muddy area with my fist, I could possibly make my own little crater. Also, with the effects of this impact, the distribution of dust as a result of impact in the atmosphere, will also be assumed by its density, particle size, and so on, If I threw a cup of flour in the air, it would take much longer to settle as if I threw sand or mud in the air. As it would fall right back to the ground.
LUD: again,i'm not an expert in astronomical impact so i rely on the experts for their judgement...Pope's research is being reviewed...lets see what the experts think about it.
"LUD: Interesting Article indeed. Thats not the first time someone challenged the well accepted conviction that a large enough asteroid strike would plunge the earth into an ice age and it probably wont be the last but Pope is not refuting earlier claims...he's merely casting some doubts,having done no actual research on his own. It is also pointed out that the spectacular anture of his announcement is somewhat suspect...Usually,researchers consult their collegues before making such anouncements,to make sure that their data is not in error...Pope seems more concerned with flamboyant public display than scientific truth...interesting indeed..."
--Yes it was an interesting article, Pope does do his own research, as some of the article addresses some of it. But more than these implications on celectial body impacts on the earth, would be the assumtions in the calculations as I addressed in my last comment.
LUD:again,lets wait and see if it holds.
"LUD:as i said,not being an expert on the subject i go with what the experts say and most of them still say that big rock hitting the earth means disaster. they are reviewing the pope study...lets see if it hold or if it goes the same way as other challenge did in the past..."
--No doubt it would have been disaster, the question is, how much disaster, as I stated previously, I think that the argument I place against the evidence for calculation used is quite valid and needs explination. Also, I would not just go with what the experts say, one because, they could be totally wrong, and thus throw your beliefs way out of scale, or something of that nature. Also, because there are many experts that have different opinions and interperetations on the evidence, including the phenomena of astroidal impact.
LUD:see above
"LUD: I do not reject God....i do not even reject the Bible...i've never accepted the Bible as being THE truth so i cant reject what i never accepted to begin with. Thats doesn't necessarely mean its in error or that i buy the whole ToE head on...i go with the one i find the most credible...at the moment,thats not the Bible."
--I've been meaning to ask you, what would sway you toward the belief that the bible is in the least, scientifically accurate, and indeed has without a reasonable doubt, an accurate historical record. What is there that needs to be addressed to substantiate this question.
LUD: anyone of a couple of things would do it...seeing a humanoid wigned man called Micheal,watching someone part the waters of the saint laurent's river by waving his/her arms. Watching a couple of guys inside a raging furnace,talking confortably,see a dead guy of three days come back to life...in short,being an actual witness to one of those flamboyand,visual miracles that the Bible so often talk about. These guys had the benefit of seeing miracles back then...why couldn't i get one to "aid my faith along"? But i return the question to you TC...what could make you believe that the Bible is in fact a collection of superstitious belief with no substance to back them up...US finding intelligent life/civilisations older than 6000 years on another planet perhaps?
"LUD: i'm tired of this particular debate...i say poteto,you say potato and it never ends...I believe its been falsified,you dont,lets just agree to disagree on this for the time being."
--Ok thats fine, but I would just like to have a friendly discussion, what do you think is in the bible that you could point out is invalid?
"LUD: God also showed me the truth and that truth was in the universe around us,not writen in any book."
--Then God doesn't seem to be interested in the previous living people, because they did not have the universe to look at to find answers, they just had a book inspired by God.
LUD: By universe,i mean everything around us.i.e. the world we live in and so on,not necessarely the cosmos.
"LUD: There now i did. happy now?"
--I'd have to say that I am very glad you were willing to discuss in this fashion, this it would greatly seem is an advancement in our discussion, more accurate and direct inductions are able to be induced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 9:42 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 11:28 PM LudvanB has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 228 of 260 (3780)
02-07-2002 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by LudvanB
02-07-2002 11:07 PM


[QUOTE][b]LUD: Indeed we can do those things today but we cant see planets like neptune,uranus and pluto with the naked eye...[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Uranus is barely visible to the unaided eye (presently mag 5.9, with typical good unaided eye limit being mag 6.0, and the lower the number the brighter the object) and was charted as a star on an early sky atlas years before its discovery. Neptune can be seen with binoculars but for both planets one must know exactly where to look. I have identified neither but haven't made a major effort. Of course, I'm just being a gadfly for technical correctness.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by LudvanB, posted 02-07-2002 11:07 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by redstang281, posted 02-08-2002 9:17 AM gene90 has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 229 of 260 (3791)
02-08-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by redstang281
02-07-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
So for 15 years the students never asked him any technical science questions?

Could I ask at what level this individual taught science ?
I have a friend who is a Science teacher who teaches up to A level
here in the UK (that's exams you take at about 17 that are the
basis for your University entry).
When we were at Uni. he wasn't all that good at science, but he's
learned how to teach stuff ... from text books. Doesn't mean
he's actually that knowledgeable on scientific matters ... and he's
a friend of mine!!
Have you ever heard the saying:
'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by redstang281, posted 02-07-2002 1:32 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by redstang281, posted 02-08-2002 9:21 AM Peter has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 230 of 260 (3792)
02-08-2002 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by TrueCreation
02-07-2002 10:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"1)I thought you lot said animals started eating each other after adam and eve ate the fruit..... Bit befor3e noah that wasn`t it?"
--I sure don't ever remember sayin that
"2)I assume you are saying you would have to increase the replication rate that much to attain sizes that we see evidence of in fossils (given that they had no maximum size) in this case a factor of millions/billions would suggest the examples that we find fossils of lived to ages between 10^6 and 10^9 years, Given your assertion of a 6,000 year old universe how?"
--I think millions/billions was exadurative, i didn't do the math myself I admit
, I was pointing out that basically, lets say that a baby hatchling dinosaur weighed 6 pounds, so if you wan't to make the thing weigh say 30 tons, you have to have it multiply its weight by a factor of 10,000 in that year. These dinosaurs could have grown practically uniformly and lived for hundreds of years, just like humans, other animals that we know do not stop growing such as beavers, sea turtles, great white sharks, are found to be many times larger than today.
"3)Not really dinosaurs predominantly walked on 2 legs rather than 4, if say Allosaurs existed today they would be conspicuous as being the only lizards that walked on 2 legs......."
--Most dinosaurs did yes, I do realize your accusation, I was merely pointing out that it would still be seen as unique (especially if it grew to a more emense size). Some lizards can walk or run on 2 legs, but not the way the dinosaurs did.

Picky I know, but dinosaurs WERE NOT lizards. They're not even
reptiles .... they are dinosaura ... an extinct order of animals,
and possible antecedants of the modern day birds and/or mammals.
There is even discussion that dinsosaurs may have been warm
blooded ... not cold-blooded like reptiles. It's to do
with size and bodies constructed for high speed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by TrueCreation, posted 02-07-2002 10:59 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 11:32 AM Peter has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 260 (3799)
02-08-2002 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by joz
02-07-2002 4:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Doesn`t really matter though does it they believe in God and thus get to play the I go to heaven regardless of my actions card, just as Hitler and the KKK do, Me I`m off to hell by your rules and to be frank I think I will find a better class of person there.....
So do you think Hitler accepted Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 4:58 PM joz has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 260 (3801)
02-08-2002 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by joz
02-07-2002 4:38 PM


[b] [QUOTE] Originally posted by gene90:
Note that ice is denser than water..
[/b][/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Actually ice is one of the few solids that is less dense than its liquid state...

Ooopsy, I guess gene90 better go study some more science too, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 4:38 PM joz has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 260 (3803)
02-08-2002 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by gene90
02-07-2002 4:29 PM


[b] [QUOTE] Not very thick apparently because water blocks so much light. Note that ice is denser than water and that 30 ft of water effectively removes the red portions of the solar spectrum that plants require for photosynthesis. 30 ft of ice would probably leave far less light than water. How long would a layer of 30 ft of ice last around the orbit? Not terribly long would be my answer. Probably six months would be my guess. Maybe as astronomers continue to study comets we can get a better answer.
[/b][/QUOTE]
You mean we shouldn't just guess just yet?
[b] [QUOTE] Saturn is nine times further from the Sun than Earth. Ice orbiting Saturn would recieve 1/81 or 1.2% of the amount of solar energy the same particle would receive orbiting Earth.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Did you know there's ice on mercury?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_mercury.html
I know it's not orbiting mercury, but my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun. It just goes to show things happen all the time that surprise scientist.
Who's to say the universe acted exactly the same before the flood as it does now?
[QUOTE][b]
redstang281 posted:
And what did the evolutionist community think of the claim before it was announced a fraud?
Sun Pictures' claim? They probably laughed and went about their business. [/QUOTE]
[/b]
Oh you mean they didn't get on the internet and post it in creation forums?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 4:29 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by gene90, posted 02-08-2002 8:44 AM redstang281 has replied
 Message 235 by gene90, posted 02-08-2002 8:48 AM redstang281 has not replied
 Message 238 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 9:08 AM redstang281 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 234 of 260 (3804)
02-08-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by redstang281
02-08-2002 8:40 AM


[QUOTE][b]I know it's not orbiting mercury, but my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Note that I'm losing patience here. You might have noticed that the supposed ice on Mercury would only exist in polar craters where it is never exposed to light. How many posts have I spent explaining the necessity of light for ice to sublimate into space?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by redstang281, posted 02-08-2002 8:40 AM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by redstang281, posted 02-08-2002 9:30 AM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 235 of 260 (3805)
02-08-2002 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by redstang281
02-08-2002 8:40 AM


[QUOTE][b]Who's to say the universe acted exactly the same before the flood as it does now?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Who's to say it didn't? Is there any evidence that it did not? Another Creationist fantasy they create -- entirely different laws of physics -- just so they can have ice in Earth orbit. And why do they need the ice? So they can have a flood, for which there is no evidence, of course. Wouldn't it just be easier for them to say that a bunch of aliens or toothfairies or something just trucked it in to play a practical joke on evolutionists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by redstang281, posted 02-08-2002 8:40 AM redstang281 has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 260 (3807)
02-08-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by LudvanB
02-07-2002 5:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
In that case,the words FUTUR mate would have been the accurate appelation...

I looked up the word futur in my dictionairy and couldn't find it? I think God is smarter than to use non-existant words.
Sorry, just messing.
I think you know this is a poor arguement. I think we can all read the flood story in the Bible and understand the animals aren't supposed to mate until after they get out of the ark, that implys future. In which case any age animal would be acceptible.
[b] [QUOTE] Some animals like turtles do have instinctive knowledge but most require adult supervision...especially animals who do not have more than a few cubs per birth.
[/b][/QUOTE]
So which kinds of dinosaurs have you observed that require adult supervision?
[b] [QUOTE] and frogs are not reptiles BTW...they're amphibians.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh, you're right about that. Thanks.
[b] [QUOTE] As for Hitler,my point was not that he was a typical christian but that Hovind completely eclipsed the fact that he was christian born and raised and that he mentionned GOD as his inspiration in Mein Kaft,not evolution.[/b][/QUOTE]
Here I found this on Hovind's website.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=14

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by LudvanB, posted 02-07-2002 5:22 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by LudvanB, posted 02-08-2002 9:28 AM redstang281 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 260 (3808)
02-08-2002 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Jeff
02-07-2002 8:03 PM


[b] [QUOTE] And yet you have no problem with the DEMONSTRATED dishonesty of certain YECists.
Why do you not hold YECies to the same standard you pretend to hold for mainstream science ?
I suppose, as long as one is lying for Christ — then being a liar is OK with you.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Hah. For one, I was not shown a link or backing evidence to support this claim. For two, I don't think the creationist intentionally lied. Maybe they thought it was a peice of noah's ark. In which case it was a mistake, not a lie.
[b] [QUOTE] Actually you have it backwards. Again. (Surprise!)
Any Scientist who could provide evidence to convincingly OVERTURN the ToE would be the most famous and highly sought scientist in the world.
So what is this ‘demand for scientist to find transitionally [sic] fossils’ ?
Field paleontologists who find fossil evidence that is consistent with the ToE may make headlines in scientific journals but not much attention will be paid from the general public. However, if one finds the fossil that falsifies the ToE, she will make the front page on every new paper and be guesting every cable program on TV.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Post some transitional fossil on here in new threads. That way the local creationists can research and rebuttle.
[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Jeff, posted 02-07-2002 8:03 PM Jeff has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 260 (3809)
02-08-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by redstang281
02-08-2002 8:40 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
1)You mean we shouldn't just guess just yet?
2)Did you know there's ice on mercury?
3)Who's to say the universe acted exactly the same before the flood as it does now?

1)sublimation is only half the problem you have to construct a canopy that won`t be torn apart by gravity first....
2)Yes I did you will however note it is in the regions that never get exposed to sunlight. The evidence is actualy against you here the reason we only find ice in the craters is that all the other ice, having been exposed to sunlight, sublimated off. your canopy would be exposed to sunlight (unless you also postulate some sort of giant parasol).....
3)Oh I see it didn`t have to collapse under gravity and it didn`t have to sublimate off because everything worked differently. Yeah right, what you have just done is construct a fantasy object (firmament) then when told it wouldn`t work said well the laws of physics (gravity) and chemistry (vapour pressure) didn`t apply then..... In other words spurious bollocks....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by redstang281, posted 02-08-2002 8:40 AM redstang281 has not replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 260 (3810)
02-08-2002 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by gene90
02-07-2002 11:28 PM


[b] [QUOTE] Of course, I'm just being a gadfly for technical correctness.
[/b][/QUOTE]
You must have just started doing that. A few post back you said all reptiles are fully grown in 1 year and that ice is denser than water

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by gene90, posted 02-07-2002 11:28 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by joz, posted 02-08-2002 9:27 AM redstang281 has replied

redstang281
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 260 (3811)
02-08-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Peter
02-08-2002 5:46 AM


[b] [QUOTE] 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' ????
[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh, well that explains why 99% of our public school teachers are dumb enough to teach evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 5:46 AM Peter has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024