Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:29 AM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, vimesey (9 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,004 Year: 12,040/19,786 Month: 1,821/2,641 Week: 330/708 Day: 24/81 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the Word of God II?
joz
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 97 (8205)
04-05-2002 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by techristian
04-05-2002 9:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
You have dug yourself you own hole to fall in here. That is precisely why evolution couldn't work. For a living organism to live, grow and reproduce, it must have at least 3 systems is place SIMULTANEOUSLY.

1) The organism must have developed a simple RESPIRATORY SYSTEM. (be able to breath)

2) The organism must have developed a simple DIGESTIVE SYSTEM. (TO EAT)

3) In order to pass on this to the next generation, the organism must have a simple REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. (to multiply)


Well done TXtian you just defined rust at being alive....

So now all I have to do to prove abiogenesis to you is leave a piece of iron out to oxidise.....

More seriously if this is some attempt to use percieved IC (irreducible complexity) to gainsay evolution you have got it wrong on 2 points first evolution is not the concept under attack but abiogenesis, second Muller (a Nobel prize winning biologist) pointed out in 1939 that evolution produces IC structures. Hence percieved IC does not stand as a valid method for gainsaying evolution....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 9:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3730
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 47 of 97 (8208)
04-05-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by techristian
04-05-2002 9:27 AM


From techristian (I think; the difference between previous quotes and new comments is sometimes vague (hint, hint)):
quote:
Since the majority here are trying to use science to disprove the bible...

The root of the entire debate is the Christian fundimentalist attempt to use their interpretation of certain portions of the Bible, to disprove certains portions of science. The science perspective, in return, is using science to disprove those specific interpretations of the Bible.

There may be a fraction of the science perspective that is hostile to the Bible in general, but I think they are in a small minority (kind of like the "science fundimentalists" counterpart to the "Christian fundimtalists"?).

See my new topic also:
A CHRISTIAN (AND CREATIONIST)'S CONDEMNATION OF "CREATION SCIENCE"
at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=16&p=19

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 9:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 48 of 97 (8209)
04-05-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by techristian
04-05-2002 9:27 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by techristian:
[b]For a living organism to live, grow and reproduce, it must have at least 3 systems is place SIMULTANEOUSLY.

1) The organism must have developed a simple RESPIRATORY SYSTEM. (be able to breath)
2) The organism must have developed a simple DIGESTIVE SYSTEM. (TO EAT)
3) In order to pass on this to the next generation, the organism must have a simple REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. (to multiply)

Now because I call each of these "simple systems", there are by no means simple, because even the simplest single cell animal is made up of THOUSANDS OF MOLECULES.

[/QUOTE]

1/ Nope, plants don't have a "respiratory system", nor do bacteria. In fact, if memory serves, only multicellular animals have respiratory systems. Methinks you are confusing respiration (metabolic) with breathing.

2/ Nope, most plants absorb minerals dissolved in water. Photosynthesis can hardly be described as a "digestive" system. Not to mention most single celled organisms.

3/ Ta-Da! Mostly right, partly wrong. It doesn't need a reproductive system, it just needs to be able to reproduce. Bacteria don't have reproductive systems.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 9:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

    
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5772 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 49 of 97 (8212)
04-05-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by techristian
04-05-2002 9:27 AM


quote:
Ok I should choose my words more carefully. Since the majority here are trying to use science to disprove the bible, I have only presented a scientific POSSIBILITY which would work. How can you prove that Adam WASN'T created with perfect DNA?

Firstly, you should perhaps consider what it means to "present a possibility" - an unsupported assertion dressed up in vaguely scientific language just doesn't advance the discussion even one step. Falling back on the old "prove it wasn't so" position does nothing to give your point of view any more credibility - you could say it of anything. Adam was 40 feet tall, bright green and spoke entirely in finely modulated variations of the word "wibble." Prove it wasn't so! Please, do choose your words more carefully.

Secondly, I doubt if anyone here is trying to "disprove the bible." I'm not even sure what the phrase means. There are some of us who try to show that particular sections of the bible are not to be taken as literal accounts of actual events. Again, "disprove the bible" is such a sweeping statement as to be quite unhelpful in the argument.

quote:
Why does she say she will punish the wicked? Why does not she not directly intervene to set them on the path to goodness?

Have you ever worked with a ROBOT? I work in an auto factory and see robots every day. They do just exactly what we tell them to do and that makes them very boring companions. God created man with FREE WILL. You have the choice. Use it wisely.


Actually I spend a large part of my time trying to make computers and artificial systems more interesting "companions." We surely have a long way to go! My point remains however - god could intervene to show the wicked the path to virtue, indeed she did so with Saul on the road to Damascus. Saul still had free will as to whether to follow gods direction. My suggestion is simply that there between the two extremes of free will and total control, god could do a lot more to guide us, but she does not. I am not saying that the christian god does not provide guidance - through the church, etc - but I am saying that she could imaginably do more. One would have thought that a good, loving god would do everything possible to save people from punishment.

quote:
Yes there are, but the example of Cane and Abel was the example used by the original person posting the question. I cases where people were considered UTTERLY EVIL, God not only condoned the killing of the EVILDOERS, but their entire families also. We do not understand everything from this earthly perspective. In the eternal perspective, however, the young children and innocents killed this way may have gone directly to Heaven rather than grow up like their evil parents and go to Hell for eternal suffering.

Again, it seems that god is either powerless or unwilling to find alternative ways to achieve these ends.

quote:
You have dug yourself you own hole to fall in here. That is precisely why evolution couldn't work.

I'm disappointed you didn't answer my question: was god not capable of setting evolution in motion such that it would work?

quote:
That is why scientists have almost totally abandoned Dawinian evolution. Darwin was not a scientist

Wow! You love your broad unsupported assertions, don't you? You'll find Darwininan evolution is very much alive and kicking. Sure it has developed a lot since Darwin's day - just like every other branch of scientific enquiry - but it has not been abandoned.

I wonder why you say Darwin was not a scientist?

quote:
but an atheist who sought to justify his evil by trying to explain away God.

I don't think poor Darwin was ever evil. He certainly struggled with faith, and quite possibly did abandon it, but he certainly didn't explain away god. Indeed, many of his supporters were churchmen. And of course, to this day, many christians find no difficulty in accepting an evolutionary explanation of the diversity life.

quote:
Anyone who has ever looked through a modern day microscope will tell you that the "single cell" organism of Darwinism is infinitely more complex.

Than what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 9:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18596
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 50 of 97 (8224)
04-05-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by techristian
04-05-2002 9:27 AM



techristian writes:
Since the majority here are trying to use science to disprove the bible...

Not to disprove the Bible, but to present evidence that the Creationist interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.


...I have only presented a scientific POSSIBILITY which would work. How can you prove that Adam WASN'T created with perfect DNA?

You've got science backwards. Sciences builds frameworks of understanding and interpretation around bodies of evidence and calls them theories. Evidence is the key component. Not only do you not know what "perfect DNA" is, but you have no evidence for it anyway.


That is precisely why evolution couldn't work. For a living organism to live, grow and reproduce, it must have at least 3 systems is place SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Though you say "evolution", the ensuing discussion makes clear you're really talking about the origin of life, which has it's own forum. But just to briefly address this here, the origin of life, often referred to as abiogenesis, and evolution are independent topics. There are Creationists who believe God created the first life and then let evolution create the generations of species resulting in the life forms present in the world today, including ourselves.


That is why scientists have almost totally abandoned Darwinian evolution.

If this were true we wouldn't be having this debate.


Darwin was not a scientist but an atheist who sought to justify his evil by trying to explain away God.

Science judges theories by how well they explain the evidence, not by subjective assessments of their originators morality. Even if Darwin had been the Hitler of the 19th century it would diminish the value of his insights not one whit. However, the judgment of history is that Darwin was a scientist of the first rank, but was otherwise an ordinary man like many others.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 9:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

    
Hieyeck
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 97 (8416)
04-10-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by techristian
04-05-2002 9:27 AM


And he complains about me not reading his replies...

By your defintion of robots, humans are also robots. our thoughts are nothign more than a whole bunch of chemivcal reactions. we neeed to be told by chemicals what to do. And yu can't compare autofactory robots to humans. their capcity for memorization is nowhere close to ours. the largest hard drives these days are limited to about 1 terabyte, and that's only an IBM experimental hard drive. Free will is nothing more than to choose. Every living thing makes a choice. they all choose to live. Only two things are certain in life: death and choices. (don't say taxes, if you CHOOSE not to pay them you just get thrown in jail).

so sue my for using cain and abel. i'm not a Christian. i'm relying on 10 year old knowledge from when i went to catholic school (just because it was close and my parents didn't want to drive me to school) and from whatever is posted ont teh forums. Christianity is also evil, you always have to bow your head, it give you a bad neck. And stop using hell, the Pope already said there wasn't any hell.

TRIVIA - the devil is actually based on the deer. it was created to scare people from paegan religions, where the deer is a sign of fertility. Betcha didn't know that!

I ALREADY SAID, DNA IS THE KEY TO EVOLUTION. GET THAT THOURGH YOUR THICK SKULL (guess god made a mistake with your head). CAR PARTS DO NOT HAVE DNA. GEEZUS FOG.
1. again basic science - cells breath through a semi-permeable shell, breathing is just a more efficient way of gather large amounts of oxygen for the inner cells.

2.photosynthesis. or do they not teach that in the states?

3. cell division, check out your sperm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by techristian, posted 04-05-2002 9:27 AM techristian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 04-10-2002 12:48 PM Hieyeck has not yet responded
 Message 53 by TrueCreation, posted 04-26-2002 6:19 PM Hieyeck has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18596
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 52 of 97 (8417)
04-10-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hieyeck
04-10-2002 12:34 PM



Hieyeck writes:
I ALREADY SAID, DNA IS THE KEY TO EVOLUTION. GET THAT THOURGH YOUR THICK SKULL (guess god made a mistake with your head).

Ahem!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hieyeck, posted 04-10-2002 12:34 PM Hieyeck has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 97 (9023)
04-26-2002 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hieyeck
04-10-2002 12:34 PM


"I ALREADY SAID, DNA IS THE KEY TO EVOLUTION. GET THAT THOURGH YOUR THICK SKULL (guess god made a mistake with your head). CAR PARTS DO NOT HAVE DNA. GEEZUS FOG."
--This must be why I get frustrated debating in those yahoo chats (I think you remind me of someone :\, well this would be better in the 'free for all' forum
)

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hieyeck, posted 04-10-2002 12:34 PM Hieyeck has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3730
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 54 of 97 (9527)
05-11-2002 7:23 PM


I was just guided onto this, at the Yahoo branch:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Just making it available, for those interested in studying the history of the Bible. Putting it into this topic seemed to be as good of a place as any.

Moose

[Added it to the database, it will appear after the next update. --Percy]

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-11-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jet, posted 06-09-2002 6:02 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Jet
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 97 (11217)
06-09-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2002 7:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I was just guided onto this, at the Yahoo branch:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Just making it available, for those interested in studying the history of the Bible. Putting it into this topic seemed to be as good of a place as any.

Moose

[Added it to the database, it will appear after the next update. --Percy]

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 05-11-2002]


***This would be a good addition to the information you provided.***

http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe_j/martyrs/home.html

Shalom

Jet

p.s. Forgive the long signature. I wanted to read it in this format before editing it so as to help eliminate continuous criticism of taking quotes out of context, which is often difficult to avoid when using quotes from books without leaving them in such a long version as this.

------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet

Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proven that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe? Was the Universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered together out of pre-existing materials? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion. An entire world, rich in structure and history, may have existed before our Universe appeared; but if it did, science cannot tell what kind of world it was. A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. To which St. Augustine added, "Who can understand this mystery or explain it to others?" The development is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. We have been able to connect the appearance of man on this planet to the crossing of the threshold of life on the earth, the manufacture of the chemical ingredients of life within stars that have long since expired, the formation of those stars out of the primal mists, and the expansion and cooling of the parent cloud of gases out of the cosmic fireball.

Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2002 7:23 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 97 (11943)
06-21-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LudvanB
02-15-2002 4:05 PM


Your notion that the Bible is merely "an interpretation of the divine" made by primitive people, is at odds with plenty of valid historical and empirical information. To cite one proof, primitives were incapable of producing the linguistic phenomenon known as ELS (equidistant letter sequences)that is displayed throughout the Old Testament. Modern people, even with the aid of computers, cannot produce a phenomenon like that. In consideration of the notoriously Messianic passage of Isaiah 53:10, for example, beginning with the second Hebrew letter that appears in the phrase "he shall prolong," and counting forward in use of every 20th letter thereafter, the additional phrase "Yeshua [Jesus] is my name" appears. The probability of this combination occuring by random chance is one chance in 50 quadrillion. Thousands of this sort of example appear in the Bible. Man-inspired (secular) works do not display this, so it isn't as if any text of substancial letter content would work. This is the merest fraction of like-impressive and like-undeniable data that the legitimacy of the Bible rests upon.
I agree with your statement that we know more about the physical world than the people who wrote the Bible, if by that you are talking about the wealth of specifics that creationists and evolutionists agree about regarding the operation of physical systems. But if you mean that evolutionists (people who accept by blind faith that NOTHING really did cause physical existence to come into being) know more about ultimate origins than creationists, such as those who wrote the Bible, then I disagree with you. The creationist advantage is that the physical and empirical evidences support their beliefs to a greater degree than they (the physical evidences)can be manipulated to support your beliefs.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LudvanB, posted 02-15-2002 4:05 PM LudvanB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 06-21-2002 8:20 PM Martin J. Koszegi has responded
 Message 58 by Peter, posted 06-24-2002 8:24 AM Martin J. Koszegi has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18596
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 57 of 97 (11945)
06-21-2002 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi
06-21-2002 7:42 PM


Martin J. Koszegi writes:

In consideration of the notoriously Messianic passage of Isaiah 53:10, for example, beginning with the second Hebrew letter that appears in the phrase "he shall prolong," and counting forward in use of every 20th letter thereafter, the additional phrase "Yeshua [Jesus] is my name" appears. The probability of this combination occuring by random chance is one chance in 50 quadrillion.

The book The Bible Code is based upon a very common statistical fallacy. There are numerous refutation sites around the web if you care to check them out, Scientific Refutation of the Bible Codes for one.


But if you mean that evolutionists (people who accept by blind faith that NOTHING really did cause physical existence to come into being)...

Evolutionists are people who accept the theory of evolution. Perhaps you're thinking of Big Bangers?


The creationist advantage is that the physical and empirical evidences support their beliefs to a greater degree than they (the physical evidences)can be manipulated to support your beliefs.

The earliest evidence for evolution is still the best, namely the distribution of fossils in the geologic column, with increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth. This isn't an appropriate topic for this thread, though. If it interests you you could join one of the threads over in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.

Welcome aboard!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-21-2002 7:42 PM Martin J. Koszegi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-27-2002 4:29 PM Percy has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2119 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 58 of 97 (12052)
06-24-2002 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi
06-21-2002 7:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

Your notion that the Bible is merely "an interpretation of the divine" made by primitive people, is at odds with plenty of valid historical and empirical information. To cite one proof, primitives were incapable of producing the linguistic phenomenon known as ELS (equidistant letter sequences)that is displayed throughout the Old Testament. Modern people, even with the aid of computers, cannot produce a phenomenon like that. In consideration of the notoriously Messianic passage of Isaiah 53:10, for example, beginning with the second Hebrew letter that appears in the phrase "he shall prolong," and counting forward in use of every 20th letter thereafter, the additional phrase "Yeshua [Jesus] is my name" appears. The probability of this combination occuring by random chance is one chance in 50 quadrillion. Thousands of this sort of example appear in the Bible. Man-inspired (secular) works do not display this, so it isn't as if any text of substancial letter content would work. This is the merest fraction of like-impressive and like-undeniable data that the legitimacy of the Bible rests upon.

While I'm still finding out about ELS in the Hebrew Bible, I have
a question which you may have already come across an answer to (
save me some time perhaps).

The ELS that you mention can only be found in the Masoretic text
upon which the King James bible was based. This version on
the bible is considered the LEAST accurate by biblical scholars,
and has evidence of the genealogical data in genesis being changed
for some unknown reason.

[See the 'Where did the Egyptians come from ?' thread for another
poster's description of this problem].

Should ELS proove the Masoretic text to be THE text for the bible,
my incredulity over the time taken from the flood to a pharoah
led culture in Egypt still needs answering.

If ELS is borne out it may proove that some higher intellect
designed the text of the bible, but it also makes it increasingly
likly that the message contained within the bible is NOT an
accurate history of humanity.

Another contention within the ELS literature is that it would
be impossible for a human to embed this type of information.

Is that based upon the assumption that the ELS appeared on
FIRST writing ?

How would that be affected by the possibility of taking a
written text, and maniulating it to embed ELS after the fact ?

Admittedly the prominent Rabbi thing is intriguing.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

But if you mean that evolutionists (people who accept by blind faith that NOTHING really did cause physical existence to come into being)

I don't know anyone who believes by blind faith that nothing caused
physical existence to come into being.

I know plenty of people who beleive by blind faith that
God brought existence into being.

And I know plenty of people who accept the interpretation of
observable phenomena and evidences as compelling support for
the theory of evolution.

quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

know more about ultimate origins than creationists, such as those who wrote the Bible, then I disagree with you. The creationist advantage is that the physical and empirical evidences support their beliefs to a greater degree than they (the physical evidences)can be manipulated to support your beliefs.

Please elaborate this, by, for instance, stating how, without
manipulation, the fossil record directly supports genesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-21-2002 7:42 PM Martin J. Koszegi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 07-03-2002 6:47 PM Peter has responded

    
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 97 (12290)
06-27-2002 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
06-21-2002 8:20 PM


I'll take a look at the (inevitable) "refutation" site about Bible codes.

"Evolution" (biological) is a subset of the overriding "cosmic evolution" theory, which is entirely "big banged" and materialistic (except for the sincere, but default, position of "theistic evolutionists").

I appreciate the tip about engaging the proper thread. But just one more violation of forum: The evidence itself shows that the geologic columns were deposited more suddenly than over vast stretches of time. And the simple-to-complex life forms indicated from lower to higher levels in the columns, reflects an increasing ability to escape from the Flood.

And thanks for the welcoming. Glad to be here.

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)

--Marty


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 06-21-2002 8:20 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 06-27-2002 4:55 PM Martin J. Koszegi has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18596
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 60 of 97 (12293)
06-27-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Martin J. Koszegi
06-27-2002 4:29 PM


Margin J. Koszegi writes:

I appreciate the tip about engaging the proper thread. But just one more violation of forum: The evidence itself shows that the geologic columns were deposited more suddenly than over vast stretches of time. And the simple-to-complex life forms indicated from lower to higher levels in the columns, reflects an increasing ability to escape from the Flood.

You may be interested in joining the Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow thread over in the Geology and the Great Flood forum.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-27-2002 4:29 PM Martin J. Koszegi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-27-2002 5:31 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 06-27-2002 7:18 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019