Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 11:28 AM
39 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, edge, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (7 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,526 Year: 3,563/19,786 Month: 558/1,087 Week: 148/212 Day: 15/49 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   cambrian death cause
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 211 of 232 (128711)
07-29-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by simple
07-29-2004 2:50 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
What's wrong with Adam's rate of decay?

I see from this and you comment in post 209 that the answer is that you are, in fact, stupid and so forgiven. You are utterly ignorant of what is even meant by radioactive decay.

Unless there are direct complaints by other participants I'll let you carry on.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 07-29-2004 04:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 2:50 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:59 PM AdminNosy has responded

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 232 (128720)
07-29-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by simple
07-28-2004 1:54 AM


Re: chose your tail!
quote:
By the way, are we talking about cambrian sediment here that is exactly the same? It seems to me if sedimentary rocks were formed, say, in the flood, even though they may look just like some formed today, there was a great difference in degree, and volume, and scope!

We are talking about mechanisms of sedimentation, not rates specifically. Let's take shale as an example. Shale is a sedimentary rock that, at times, is made up of very, very small particles. For these particles to gather together in such a uniform body requires sedimentation in relatively calm waters. To explain the large layers of shale made up of extremely fine particles we have to assume that there were calm waters for a very extended period of time, a much longer time than the flood year. The mechanism of shale deposition is governed by water density, fluid dynamics, and gravity. All three of these things would have to be drastically different for shale to form in a violent flood, much less multiple layers with different sedimentary rocks in between.

In this example, the scope of the flood does not matter. In fact, the violence of the reported flood argues against the formation of shale, yet there it is. So let's assume that there were large amounts of sediment suspended in the flood waters. What happens/ The heaviest particles settle out first, something resembling sand or gravel. What settles out next? Heavier soil particles. What settles out last, and very slowly? Fine particles. What do we see in the fossil record? Sandstones above shale layers, boulders above sand layers. Things are in exactly the opposite layering position than we sould expect from any flood, no matter the degree, volume, or scope. The only theory that is able to explain these alternating layers is slow deposition from varying environments over long periods of time.

So now that we see this sedimentary sorting, we also notice that there is fossil sorting. Since it took long periods of time and changes in environment, we should also see a record of the animals that were alive during those times. And we do.

Sorry, flood geology does a piss poor job of explaining the fossil and geologic record. In fact, the theories put forward by creationists are falsified by the very rocks that they claim were deposited by the flood.

quote:
So if we 'conclude' that today a rock formed at one centimeter a year, therefore, it must have taken millions of years, we would be absurdly wrong!

Oh really. Care to explain how we are wrong given that the size of a flood does not change gravity, fluid dynamics, or the density of water?

quote:
Granny and the speck are mythical, and teach lessons too, that God was not there, as He says, but is a phoney.

Science only states the most accurate model of how the earth, rocks, and life developed. It is only you claiming that science denies the existence of God. If God does exist, then he created through the mechanisms that are described by science, not by a book written 3,000 years ago by scientifically ignorant sheep herders.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 07-28-2004 1:54 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:32 PM Loudmouth has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 213 of 232 (128730)
07-29-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by simple
07-29-2004 4:53 PM


Re: decaying questions
So you have no evidence whatsoever.

Not for even one of the questions.

There is ample evidence to support the Theory of Evolution, but you have no evidence for any of your wild assertions.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 4:53 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:55 PM jar has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3271 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 214 of 232 (128758)
07-29-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by simple
07-29-2004 3:43 PM


Re: the puzzle
Arkathon,

Anyhow, I think a philosophy, however well intentioned, that says God can not be included in science is fatally flawed! There needs to be some method that allows for an inclusion of the creator.

Even if you removed falsifiability from science your notion of God still wouldn't qualify. Science inductively derives a hypothesis, then deductively tests that hypothesis. Both parts must be met in order for a hypothesis to be considered scientifically valid. It's the deductive testing you need to worry about, that's evidence & predictions. You have none. Anyone can do the first bit: I inductively derive a hypothesis that their are elusive invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden. It's not science, is it?

So, no, science doesn't deliberately exclude your God, it's just that your God has no valid evidence of him/her/itself which which to deduce his existence. If God appeared tomorrow & started banging out miracles left right & center, then we would have ourselves a bona fida deity.

I think what you should be worried about is that god(s) is/are potentially amenable to scientific enquiry, there is just no god that is, or has been. Not atheists or sciences problem. This is why you hear people say religions are fairy tales. Logically & evidentially they are equal.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 3:43 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:50 PM mark24 has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 215 of 232 (128821)
07-29-2004 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Loudmouth
07-29-2004 5:27 PM


come on now, reach up!
quote:
What happens/ The heaviest particles settle out first, something resembling sand or gravel. What settles out next? Heavier soil particles. What settles out last, and very slowly? Fine particles. What do we see in the fossil record? Sandstones above shale layers, boulders above sand layers

This flood here I guess was not in the cambrian? Anyhow, so, say you're way up in a flood layer for a minute then, you have as you say something resembling sand or gravel. If this landed on some say, cambrian shale, which was older, then wouldn't we have the sandstones above shale? Then wash in some boulders, and presto, "Sandstones above shale layers, boulders above sand layers"
quote:
Since it took long periods of time and changes in environment, we should also see a record of the animals that were alive during those times

Since there are no long periods possible, the animals we see in the rcord should jive with what we do know, about the records on paper that go back to the time. In this model they jive, it seems quite well, so far at least. They also do the cha cha, twist, and waltz all over the competition.
quote:
Science only states the most accurate model of how the earth, rocks, and life developed.

Given what it choses to accept as criteria. And what it choses to ignore. Besides these things didn't develop, in the large measure they were created, so trying to understand how they made themselves over time is reduntant. Now as far as say the cambrian, where this life/creation explosion was partially caught in the record, why that's another matter, and the reason this model tries to explain it.
quote:
If God does exist, then he created through the mechanisms that are described by science

What is described by science is only the mechanisms it both can perceive, and touch, and also what it choses to accept. Science at it's present state is utterly unsuited for the job on either score. As far as these sheepherders you disdainfully refer to, they were much closer to it than modern science, because they believed in God, which puts them at a wink of time much higher than blinded modern science, and it's chosen philosophy of accepting only the physical. Modern science, concerning cosmology, and orgins, would have to reach up to scratch one of those sheepherders heels, when it comes to true science and understanding.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Loudmouth, posted 07-29-2004 5:27 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Loudmouth, posted 07-30-2004 1:38 PM simple has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 216 of 232 (128837)
07-29-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by mark24
07-29-2004 7:26 PM


Re: the puzzle
quote:
Science inductively derives a hypothesis, then deductively tests that hypothesis.

Well in this case, inductivity and current deductively should be inducted into the hall of shame! Science can't test predict, and deduce the Almighty! Certainly not the kind that rules Him out first anyhow! Science should stick to the little bits it can do, and just accept there is a God, and try to work from there. Don't try to rise above your place in the order of things. The best science can hope for, in it's weak little way, is to humbly try to to work with what He has revealed, not fight against it.
quote:
God has no valid evidence of him/her/itself which which to deduce his existence.

More than Granny! His Son also banged out miracles left right and center, and raised from the dead to boot. So have most of His writers of the bible, and even some followers over the centuries. The rocks scream out His story, and the heavens declare His glorious creation. So don't blame Him that you can't 'deduce' His existance!
quote:
I think what you should be worried about is that god(s) is/are potentially amenable to scientific enquiry

Why would I worry about someone's handicap? Pity? Maybe. Besides, I know science will catch up in spades one day under His Personal guidance, and these dark ages will only be humor.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by mark24, posted 07-29-2004 7:26 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by mark24, posted 07-30-2004 4:41 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 217 of 232 (128845)
07-29-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by jar
07-29-2004 5:46 PM


Re: decaying questions
Any evidence you would accept at the same time as granny and the speck, no. But your philosophy and science choices, and evidence opinions, and opinions of evidence, is of no concequence. The thing I would be concerned with is if the model fits first with His revealed word, then, if it fits with real evidence. So far, it does.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 07-29-2004 5:46 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 07-30-2004 12:05 AM simple has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 218 of 232 (128846)
07-29-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by AdminNosy
07-29-2004 5:02 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
I am guessing what you think is stupid is my leaving room for the possibility atomic decay rates could have changed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by AdminNosy, posted 07-29-2004 5:02 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by AdminNosy, posted 07-30-2004 1:33 AM simple has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 219 of 232 (128853)
07-30-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by simple
07-29-2004 11:55 PM


Re: decaying questions
So finally we get to the heart of the matter. You have no evidence.

Since the vast majority of Christians have no problem with Evolution, and there is evidence to support the TOE, I guess what you have is both bad science and even worse theology.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:55 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 07-30-2004 3:47 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 227 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:57 PM jar has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 220 of 232 (128869)
07-30-2004 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by simple
07-29-2004 11:59 PM


Re: Adam's atoms
I am guessing what you think is stupid is my leaving room for the possibility atomic decay rates could have changed.

No that is not it (though there is no reason to think they have (that is evidenced reasons) ). What is stupid is suggesting that Adam would decay radioactively. It is so stupid I had to leave open the possibility of you just trying to avoid actually debating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:59 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 5:51 PM AdminNosy has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3271 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 221 of 232 (128891)
07-30-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by simple
07-29-2004 11:50 PM


Re: the puzzle
Arkathon,

Well in this case, inductivity and current deductively should be inducted into the hall of shame! Certainly not the kind that rules Him out first anyhow!

You're pulling my pisser, right? That teeny little scientific rule that requires evidence is a problem for you? That you have no legitimate evidence of a god is your tough, not ours. Live with it. That science requires evidence/testability is perfectly logical & reasonable, the rules aren't going to get changed to be: science requires evidence except for god which it must simply accept as being true. It's not consistent, equitable, or logical.

More than Granny! His Son also banged out miracles left right and center, and raised from the dead to boot. So have most of His writers of the bible, and even some followers over the centuries. The rocks scream out His story, and the heavens declare His glorious creation. So don't blame Him that you can't 'deduce' His existance!

I am becoming concerned for your sanity. You make a habit of blatant unsupported assertions, don't you? There is no scientifically valid evidence that ANYONE or ANYTHING banged out miracles. Certainly, you have presented no reason to accept that as being true here. Another baseless assertion. You want to change the rules again?

Science is a process by which we inductively derive a hypothesis, & with the exception of anything arkathon wants to be true, we must have evidence for & deductively test that hypothesis. Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

I know science will catch up in spades one day under His Personal guidance, and these dark ages will only be humor.

You hope rather than know, & as a point of fact, the Dark Ages are long gone & were filled with the kind of christianity you long for. You were born 1,000 years too late! TO you the renaissance was something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

The moment you make an exception for something scientifically, it becomes pseudo-science. No amount of whining & crybabying is going to change the fact that you require science to change into something that relaxes its standards for your beliefs it ceases to be science.

It goes back to your original statement.

Anyhow, I think a philosophy, however well intentioned, that says God can not be included in science is fatally flawed! There needs to be some method that allows for an inclusion of the creator.

The reason god can't be included in science is because there's no evidence for them, & not because there's an actual rule against gods per se. This is what is meant when people tell you that gods aren't amenable to, or aren't subject to scientific enquiry. If there were, he/she/it would be a valid scientific fact. This reduces your argument to being against a scientific methodology that requires evidence.

If you can't see what's wrong with that you're truly beyond help.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:50 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by simple, posted 07-30-2004 6:24 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 232 (128964)
07-30-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by simple
07-29-2004 11:32 PM


Re: come on now, reach up!
quote:
Anyhow, so, say you're way up in a flood layer for a minute then, you have as you say something resembling sand or gravel. If this landed on some say, cambrian shale, which was older, then wouldn't we have the sandstones above shale? Then wash in some boulders, and presto, "Sandstones above shale layers, boulders above sand layers"

Rinse and repeat hundreds of times and PRESTO, you have the geologic column. However, your problem is not just one layer of cambrian shale, but multiple layers of shale and sediments throughout the geologic column and fossil record that defy a single depostional event. This explanation doesn't work because there are thick layers of shale below boulders and sand beyond the cambrian, and throughout the fossil and geologic record. Your "THE BIBLE HAS TO BE TRUE" can't explain this. It loses, just as it lost 200 years ago when creationists started looking at the evidence.

quote:
Since there are no long periods possible, the animals we see in the rcord should jive with what we do know, about the records on paper that go back to the time.

So science shouldn't rule out God, but you can rule out long time periods? This seems pretty selective, don't you think?

And your right, the animals should jive, but they don't. Of course, inserting you totally unsupported assertions seems ok for you, but for rational people it isn't enough.

quote:
Now as far as say the cambrian, where this life/creation explosion was partially caught in the record, why that's another matter, and the reason this model tries to explain it.

Oh yeah, the cambrian shure recorded that creation event. It caught the creation of reptiles, bony fish, mammals, amphibians, sharks, flowering plants, grasses. . . Oh, that's right. IT DIDN'T. If you think the cambrian captured the creation event, then humans and a large proportion of the biomass shouldn't be alive today.

quote:
What is described by science is only the mechanisms it both can perceive, and touch, and also what it choses to accept.

You come close in this statement, but you messed it up in the end. Science accepts what can be percieved by touch, and the other senses through direct observation or inquiry through instrumentation. What is wrong with this approach? If God created the world 6,000 years ago, then you should be able to gather evidence that supports this view through the vestiges of science. Why can't you?

quote:
As far as these sheepherders you disdainfully refer to, they were much closer to it than modern science, because they believed in God, which puts them at a wink of time much higher than blinded modern science, and it's chosen philosophy of accepting only the physical.

Then why did they believe the sun orbited the earth and the eart was flat? Why did Joshua ask god to stop the sun in the sky when he should have asked God to stop the earth rotating? Why didn't the healers of the time use antibiotics instead of animal sacrifices? If they were scientifically more advanced, why would you prefer an athiest doctor over a local pastor for treatment of an infection? Biblical authors had more scientific knowledge than current science? Bullshit.

quote:
Modern science, concerning cosmology, and orgins, would have to reach up to scratch one of those sheepherders heels, when it comes to true science and understanding.

Really. Cosmology huh. Care to give me a biblical reference on black hole physics?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 11:32 PM simple has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 223 of 232 (128983)
07-30-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by simple
07-29-2004 3:13 PM


Re: that is the question
quote:
no. they do not say anything of the sort. in fact, i've said before, the big bang should align well with creationism.

Say it all you like. The question here it time.

you can take that up with the old-earth creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 3:13 PM simple has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 224 of 232 (128989)
07-30-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by simple
07-29-2004 4:45 PM


Re: scientific eunuch
quote:
because they're constant. maybe you should look up what that means.

Before, and after...also some good words to look up.

"constant" means "not subject to change."

and before and after what? you've provided exactly nothing in the evidence category.

quote:
what the hell does that mean? we're talking about radioactive atoms gaining or loosing various subatomic particles.

The reference to Adam's basic changes were to illustrate a change took place. Simply put, if a whole man can go through a change that can result in his decay rate changing rapidly, why not an atom?

we're talking about ATOMS not ADAMS. and adam didn't change, he was not immortal in the garden of eden. the bible even says so.

quote:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

how does this present any kind of change, other than that of intelligence? adam's sin did not bring death into the world; adam was already going to die. the biblical text tells of longer lifespans, yes, until you read it in context and know that in many ancient cultures, great historical figures tended to be given longer lifespans to add to the sense of their importance.

Let me try to translate for you here, correct me if I'm wrong. '82% of the dirt, soil, or earth,- despite it's lack of fossils from the kind of massive life explosion in the cambrian, - is in the pre cambrian'

yes. about 80% of the history/rock of the earth comes before/below the cambrian.

How does this speak to a worldwide average? For example what is the average global thickness of the cambrian, and precambrian?

pre-cambrian? you don't even want to know. remember, i was just using a small section of that 20% post-cambrian rock to illustrate a point: that you really have no idea how much rock is there.

Interesting, as it bears on the model here. OK, we would need to know the worldwide average for the cambrian level first. (because if we looked at, say an area of uplift, thrust, continental sliding, or any such extraordinary things, it would not reflect the amount of sediment laid down on average in the cambrian.)

eh, good question. i don't know off the top of my head. but if it helps, the cambrian period was about 65 million years long, which comprises about 1.5% of whole of earth's history. so it'd only be 1.5% of the total record, if we had all of it in one place.

Normally, as the believer Newton no doubt understood, there are certain laws we are subject to. There are exceptions. We need to apply reason. Apples fall. People die. Then we need to add God to the picture. We will never die, and rather than falling like apples, we will be able to fly. Elisha flew up in a flaming chariot, normally we can't do this, and if we tried to rule God out, we would neuter our understanding, and be a scientific eunuch

well, i've certainly never seen anything like that happen. it's all well and good to believe a book written thousands of years ago... but why not, say, greek mythology? or norse? it's kind of hard to say such a thing actually happened.

"Related Words
Gentile, Gothic, Philistine, allotheist, allotheistic, animist, animistic, atheist, atheistic, barbarous, bibliolatrous, bookless, chthonian, deceived, disbeliever, disbelieving, ethnic, faithless, fetishistic, functionally illiterate, gentile, grammarless, heathen, heathenish, hoodwinked, idol worshiping, idolater, idolatric, idolatrical, idolatrous, idolistic, ill-educated, illiterate, infidel, infidelic, led astray, lowbrow, minimifidian, misinformed, misinstructed, mistaught, nonbeliever, nonintellectual, nullifidian, paganish, polytheistic, profane, rude, secularist, unbeliever, unbelieving, unbooked, unbookish, unbooklearned, unbriefed, unchristian, uncultivated, uncultured, unedified, uneducated, unerudite, unguided, uninstructed, unintellectual, unlearned, unlettered, unliterary, unread, unrefined, unscholarly, unschooled, unstudious, untaught, untutored, zoolatrous "-1. pagan - a person who does not acknowledge your God " (http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pagan)
Go ahead, pick me a better word.

you probably meant athiest.

Then I guess they are not allowed in court these days. The new testament writers were I believe mostly firsthand witnesses, and though I would disbelieve many others, these are gospel.

they are allowed in court, but they are often HEAVILY refuted. there's cases where rape victims have picked the wrong attacker. eyewitness testimony often has problems.

and most of the new testament was written by people who didn't even CLAIM to be eyewitnesses. where was paul during the crucifixion? the john who wrote revelation? luke? we have three books written by people who DO claim to be eyewitnesses, and those are matthew, mark, and john. john is easily refutable, since it contradicts earlier gospels, like mark, on major theological points. so we're down to two.

perhaps you should read a little more on the history of the bible. or like, watch one of those history channel documentaries next time they're on.

quote:
prophesies, and they fail time and again

Bible ones are unerring. Tried and proven.

i posted one that has already been discussed here that did fail. it failed so badly you can find a webpage on the tourist industry there. alot of your unerring prophesies are either really vague, distorted by christians to mean something else, or fall under teh excuse of "well, it just hasn't happened yet."

do you know why there's a big gap between the life of jesus and the first written gospel? because they expected him to come back within their lifetimes. it was only after 50 years or so, and people started dying off, that the christian churches decided that it would be good write stuff down for posterity. wanna count the existance of the bible as a failed prophesy?

A truth that leaves God out. It is therefore truth challenged.

yes. and it leavse out chocolate brownies too. and i really like chocolate brownies. so obviously, this truth is missing something, because it doesn't address chocolate brownies.

since i'm sure you won't get the point, i'll explain. evolution and the big bang and gravity and whatever don't have much to do with god specifically. they may be addressing how god works, but they're not addressing whether or not he, she, or it exists. it's about understanding how the universe operates, not who's responsible. it keeps it out of nasty fights between different religions.

I wasn't looking for the Messiah's lineage here, I was talking about creation. We have the dates from Adam, to within a small margin of possible error. Look up some things on chronologies like Usher's.

quote:
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith

The age of the earth according to the bible is not even remotely what is talked about here.

biblical chronology is ALWAYS taken from genealogies. that's how the hebrews kept track of things. in this case, the age of the earth at 6000 years or so was first determined by adding up the ages in the line of succession from christ through adam.

but you are correct, it is not what is being talked about. however, it applies. i'm not taking things out context anymore than any creationist i've talked to before.

paul was actually trying to establish christ as a messiah separate from judaism. this instruction was to ignore the line-of-david genealogies, since they were contradictory and caused too many questions. the idea was to rely on faith, and the teachings of christ, rather than him being related to david, which was in question.

Sorry, I'm still here in the cambrian, where men tried not to step on trilobites.

well, the must have, considering we have no trilobites in human footprints!

ok, jokes are fun and all, but -- trilobites are still marine animals. not land animals.

btw. another interesting fact to note: trilobites went extinct in the PERMIAN extinction, NOT the cambrian. in other words, just before the dinosaurs. trilobites ruled the paleozoic era.

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-30-2004 02:45 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 4:45 PM simple has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 225 of 232 (128991)
07-30-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
07-30-2004 12:05 AM


Re: decaying questions
I guess what you have is both bad science and even worse theology.

this is why he won't debate biblical question with me. because i've read the bible, and i'm a christian, and i understand it better than he does. and it just doesn't say anything like what he's talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 07-30-2004 12:05 AM jar has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019