Fresh Problem with the Ark

In post 223 You have been told otherwise a number of times or the information is available to you. Continuing to repeat things that you now know is wrong is not debating in good faith.The rest of that post is showing similar disregard for honest debate.You next two posts are not even attempting to stay on topic.You will have a significant restriction in posting capability if this continues.

No, I am pointing out that whatever movement of the earth may have been involved with the flood scenario that it was over by the time the waters receded. To claim different is inconsistent with a literal reading. Prove it. Without proof this is just a statement of opinion. What does "kind" mean? (and has that interpretation changed in the last 150 years?) Is goliath a known human ancestor? Where is the evidence for his existence and for his relationship to humans? What evidence do you have for his "actual" size?Still does not refute the fact that the other tracks are (1) clearly dinosaur and (2) clearly the same as the supposedly human tracks used by the creationist hoax mongers.What other theory provides a better answer? What are the predictions and tests that said theory has passed? Funny how some people refuse to accept the facts as if denial were some scientific process that invalidated any result.The facts of evolution are truths that cannot be denied except by those too stupid, ignorant, malicious, or insane (or deceived) to understand it. The theories that combine those facts into coherent rational systems have yet to be challenged by any other system that comes close to explaining the process and fitting the facts. That is the reality. Because this is just another pure arkathon fantasy that has no relation to either the bible or to science. As I keep pointing out, whenever you use a fantasy to try to prove a literal interpretation you are turning the interpretation into a fantasy, which is not just illegitimate science it is illegitimate faith. No, because the layers are related to the geological age that the sediments were formed. This gets back to Neds Thread on {Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2} (http://EvC Forum: Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2 -->EvC Forum: Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2) and the relation of layers to actual ages. The layers are dated by several methods, more than enough to satisfy scientists who understand the processes. If you want to discuss validity of age dating methods there is a thread for that purpose at {Age Correlations and an Old Earth} (http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth). Again, this is just your opinion, and a rather fanciful one at that. The point really is that you do not really know what is really meant by this passage and choose to interpret it to satisfy your current need for an excuse to be willfully ignorant of the facts and reality around you.Enjoy.

You are beginning to get the picture.Throne of god carries little "low-lifes" animals but not the most favored organism? Wouldn't that put the little ones higher than those of us not quite angels?Not all asexual organisms are single cell, there are several multicell species known to reproduce asexually.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Change is good. Unless some poor soul used only so called information that was devoid of the creator.

---

All the information that NASA used to safely transport men to the moon and back was "devoid of the creator", in the sense that it did not involve any religious or spiritual component. It was 100% rational, non-religious science.Are you saying that the Apollo mission wasn't "good" because it didn't use any "creator" (whatever that means).Cures for cancer don't use anything other than 100% rational, non-spiritual, non-religious science. Are they "bad"?

quote:

---

Unless the information was so limited as to exclude the known spiritual!

---

ALL science "excludes the spiritual", so is all science, medicine, and technology bad?

quote:

---

Yes, stab in the dark all you like, but don't say there ain't no true light!

---

Carl Sagan's last book has a wonderful title, that is very apt considering yout last sentence:The Demon-Haunted World--Science as a Candle in the DarkSee, those of us who use our reason and the scientific method don't just stab in the dark, trying to make sense out of the natural world by invoking powerful gods and demons to explain why things happen.We have science to light the way.

quote:

---

Actually, yes I can. My suggestion is to ask Jesus in your heart, and to forgive your sins, and take you to heaven when you die. I wouldn't worry about Genesis at all, I would reccomend the book of John.

---

But I don't believe it's likely that Jesus actually existed, and if he did he certainly wasn't divine.The only way I could believe that Jesus existed and was divine was if I already believed that Bible was historically accurate.There is a great deal of evidence from outside the Bible that shown the bible to be very inaccurate, and there is no mention of Jesus in any Roman records, even though they were very meticulous record keepers and we have quite a lot of their records from their occupation of that part of the world.

Well, why not try it anyhow, just in case there may be something to it?

The throne of God is not the only vehicle in His creation! If the creatures in question were sea creatures anyhow, then I see no need for a flying saucer shuttle.

I tried your experiment and recieved no results. Can you explain this discrepancy?Ok, your turn. You try being an atheist for a week with an open mind and see if it sticks.

quote:

---

You have been told otherwise a number of times or the information is available to you

---

Didn't you bring up Bill, and the dating rocks by fossils stuff? Doesn't matter how much information on this belief is out there! So as for the 'how do we know it was millions of years' you seem to have nothing to offer? All your posts strike me as disregard for honest debate!

How folks I'm new here but can I just make the following comment?Is there much point in progressing this "debate" - don't both sides want to discuss science to make it "worthy" for this site?RegardsCharlesThis message has been edited by Monarch, 07-05-2004 02:11 AM

Post - in error.sorry.This message has been edited by Monarch, 07-05-2004 02:09 AM

Really? I believe when someone asks Him into their heart that they will start to see things very differently. It may take a while, (unless you are just pulling my leg)-like for a baby to grow, but it is a certainty.
Me try atheism? A baby can't crawl back in the womb! Especially if it's a grown man! Doesn't mean there aren't fun things to do, just that that particular excercise isn't an option.

quote:

---

All the information that NASA used to safely transport men to the moon and back was "devoid of the creator"

---

Some astronauts apparently didn't think it so devoid! Besides, going a relative few feet, to the moon, does not give us a creation date with the kind of info I was mentioning. Let's not try to hide the bad stuff in with the good stuff.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the Apollo mission wasn't "good" because it didn't use any "creator"

---

My own humble opinion was that the money would be better spent on mankind. But, surely you must realize I was talking about stuff like assumptions on light, and granny, and the big bang?

quote:

---

Cures for cancer don't use anything other than 100% rational, non-spiritual, non-religious science.

---

I'll trade you 20 cures for cancer (are you sure there are real cures even?, yet?) for 400 causes for cancer some of this knowledge is causing.

quote:

---

ALL science "excludes the spiritual"

---

No, creation science doesn't, and many men of science through history worked with the Hand of God as much as they could. Science, by and large is after all, inspired! Some good, some bad. Like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there is both.

quote:

---

The Demon-Haunted World--Science as a Candle in the Dark

---

So thank you for pointing out that one of your, (correct me if I am misinformed on the guy, as I don't know him well) atheistic, pagan, respected 'leaders' seems to indicate he believes in Demons!!!!! If he is being sarcastic, and does not really, I guess I have to apply that to his candle in the dark statement too, to mean, 'gross darkness in athe light'!

quote:

---

See, those of us who use our reason and the scientific method don't just stab in the dark

---

So you seem to think! But if you don't have the Light, then really, you can't even see that that is exactly what you are doing!

wow.you never cease to amaze me.first of all, it's called a metaphor. it doesn't mean he believes demons literally exist. second, pagan and athiest are mutually exclusive terms. you cannot be both. third, carl sagan was a DEIST:

quote:

---

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

---

OK, so, as for Sagan, I said I didn't know him, and correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you, apparently, if you are corect, he wasn't a pagan, or an atheist. Also, I think you are saying he did not really believe in demons? Makes me wonder what "God" he thought he believed in. The God of the bible believed in demons. Which god was Sagan into? The site I pulled up on Deism, offered this quote.
"Deism, is a word that comes from the Latin word Deus that means God. So, Deism means a belief in God. Deism has come to mean a religion or classification of believing in God, through reason and nature. Because the people who follow Deism, Deists, believe that they can best understand God through reason and nature. They refuse to accept what are called revealed religions"
So, refuse to accept what God has revealed? What then would Sagan's bible be? Just make it up as you go? If it feels good, believe it? There are no demons or angels? Great! Any satanist, or witch, or atheist, or insane person then can say nature is showing him "god", and, since all that He revealed does not count, you can go ahead, and spout off any old thing that finds it's way to your tounge? No way to check this philosophy! Forget the bible, doesn't fit that nonsense! Only Sagan's opinion I guess would matter?
Did this "God" of Sagan's have anything to do with the big bang?
Who would want such a man to supposedly cast out their ficticious demons, and bring that so called light into the world? Not me, for darn sure!