- This topic is empty.
- Posts
P2A
Quote i'm not anti science at all, they do great things. there are many branches of science tht we all benefit from why would you say that i am? is that what you have pre planned in your mind that one must be,.thats you creating a fight before it being so. You wrote:
so what all physical evidence should last many thousands of years.
the things we make today fade away faster tahtn that.
however he believes in evolution and that things mutate and create itself into other things.How is that not anti-science?
Quote god doesn't attack science but it seems from your view that science attacks god? your same science has proven many things in the bible yet obviously that doesn't matter. your same science is searching for other things in the bible today. it seems that when they do it only backs up god and the bible then they try to search something else. your science is going to make you change your mind for it is backing up the bible things in the bible via science has been proven and i think that it is not a fake made up book.
Are you saying that because some things in the bible are supported by evidence that all of the bible is supported by evidence? It is historical fiction: Archeology tells us that Jerusalem existed in ancient times, but biology tells us that virgin births and resurrections do not happen. It also says there could never have been a time when there were just two humans. Archeology also tells us that the alleged Exodus never happened.So, while you expect me to believe that some things in the bible are supported by physical evidence, which I am of course, are you prepared to accept that there are things in the bible which are contradicted by physical evidence?
Exactly that same scientific method has given us theories of gravity, electricity and evolution by natural selection. Are you saying you accept some but not others? Do you have a philosophical objection to the theory of electricity? Or is it just the ones that contradict your bible, which just must be right regardless of the evidence?
Quote for one i see that those trees average age is 1000 it says and only a few are up to 4000 years old i also had read that also ont all trees life rings represent a single year. good thing about the internet you can find useful information. so your theory of the bristlepine is not without flaws or not a exact way.
Did you read about the part where you measure the thickness of the rings (variable due to variations in growing conditions year to year) and find the corresponding series of thicknesses in other trees of different ages, so you can construct an overlapping sequence back 10,000 years?Quote jesus was her on earth over 2000 years ago and noah was here way before that.
Jesus might have been ‘here’. I think it likely that there were many ancient Jewish preachers called Jesus, and that indeed the one you believe in was a real historical figure. The gospel writers went out of their way to make up stuff about him to force him into what they thought the prophecies should be, for example inventing a census so they could shift the story of his birth to where they thought that should be. There is no reason for anyone to think there really was a Noah. It is not true that people used to live for hundreds of years either. There would be plenty of evidence for that if it had happened, but there is none.Quote no man has all the answers or abe to comprehend everything tht god can do.
So let’s give up now then. What was the point of your god giving you curiosity if he will thwart it with his incomprehensibility?The universe seems nothing like that to me.
Stuart
Quote (peace2all @ Dec. 31 2009,04:12) i have been wondering when dinosaurs were in regards to man. i was raised a JW as a kid because my parents made me.
my answer to that from them was that they were around when man was, up into noahs day and thats how they died off ,in the flood.
but i have seen that a poster DAVID who is a JW had stated that we don't know the actual time frame from genesis. however that is not what i was taught when i went during the 1970's and 1980's.
i noticed now that some of there own ideas and new translation over to their own version of the bible is changing slowly then they deny having said certain things.
just curious because i was taught that those 7 days were literal 7 days
peace2alllook at my post in “CREATIN and SCIENCE”
Btw, those 7 days, were 7 days.
GeorgQuote (banana @ Jan. 01 2010,14:29) Quote (peace2all @ Dec. 31 2009,04:12) i have been wondering when dinosaurs were in regards to man. i was raised a JW as a kid because my parents made me.
my answer to that from them was that they were around when man was, up into noahs day and thats how they died off ,in the flood.
but i have seen that a poster DAVID who is a JW had stated that we don't know the actual time frame from genesis. however that is not what i was taught when i went during the 1970's and 1980's.
i noticed now that some of there own ideas and new translation over to their own version of the bible is changing slowly then they deny having said certain things.
just curious because i was taught that those 7 days were literal 7 days
peace2alllook at my post in “CREATIN and SCIENCE”
Btw, those 7 days, were 7 days.
Georg
so then, dinosaurs were around from adam until the floodi cannot accept that ever. that sounds insane.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 01 2010,08:28) P2A Quote i'm not anti science at all, they do great things. there are many branches of science tht we all benefit from why would you say that i am? is that what you have pre planned in your mind that one must be,.thats you creating a fight before it being so. You wrote:
so what all physical evidence should last many thousands of years.
the things we make today fade away faster tahtn that.
however he believes in evolution and that things mutate and create itself into other things.How is that not anti-science?
Quote god doesn't attack science but it seems from your view that science attacks god? your same science has proven many things in the bible yet obviously that doesn't matter. your same science is searching for other things in the bible today. it seems that when they do it only backs up god and the bible then they try to search something else. your science is going to make you change your mind for it is backing up the bible things in the bible via science has been proven and i think that it is not a fake made up book.
Are you saying that because some things in the bible are supported by evidence that all of the bible is supported by evidence? It is historical fiction: Archeology tells us that Jerusalem existed in ancient times, but biology tells us that virgin births and resurrections do not happen. It also says there could never have been a time when there were just two humans. Archeology also tells us that the alleged Exodus never happened.So, while you expect me to believe that some things in the bible are supported by physical evidence, which I am of course, are you prepared to accept that there are things in the bible which are contradicted by physical evidence?
Exactly that same scientific method has given us theories of gravity, electricity and evolution by natural selection. Are you saying you accept some but not others? Do you have a philosophical objection to the theory of electricity? Or is it just the ones that contradict your bible, which just must be right regardless of the evidence?
Quote for one i see that those trees average age is 1000 it says and only a few are up to 4000 years old i also had read that also ont all trees life rings represent a single year. good thing about the internet you can find useful information. so your theory of the bristlepine is not without flaws or not a exact way.
Did you read about the part where you measure the thickness of the rings (variable due to variations in growing conditions year to year) and find the corresponding series of thicknesses in other trees of different ages, so you can construct an overlapping sequence back 10,000 years?Quote jesus was her on earth over 2000 years ago and noah was here way before that.
Jesus might have been ‘here’. I think it likely that there were many ancient Jewish preachers called Jesus, and that indeed the one you believe in was a real historical figure. The gospel writers went out of their way to make up stuff about him to force him into what they thought the prophecies should be, for example inventing a census so they could shift the story of his birth to where they thought that should be. There is no reason for anyone to think there really was a Noah. It is not true that people used to live for hundreds of years either. There would be plenty of evidence for that if it had happened, but there is none.Quote no man has all the answers or abe to comprehend everything tht god can do.
So let’s give up now then. What was the point of your god giving you curiosity if he will thwart it with his incomprehensibility?The universe seems nothing like that to me.
Stuart
stu those trees are not as old as you think they are. they don't go back 6000- 10000 years ago. so your pines are futile in your response.if there are no trees dating back to that period then get off your pine tree theory it doesn't and can't hold up ever.
science doesnt say anything, scientists do.
scrience bashes at creation and god even when there is no reason for it and when they continue to prove nothing.
god does not bash science. its the scientist who try to iterpret science that says what it says.
i've never said anything about science, you decidedto try to start a arguement by saying i do. i'm not going there, theres nothing to fight about.
science has proven lots of biblical things. and if there are lots of proof and writtings and historical facts then i will take it all for what it says there is no reason not too.
you can ignore all of it if you want , thats your choice.
you had said that there is not enough physical evidence for you even with things proven by science in its defence
how is ny me saying that the things we make today with the technology today doesn't even last nearly as long as the things yuo wont acept that were from 2000, 4000,6000, or 10000.
nothing there is anti science. if its the year 3000 only and hardly anything from 2000 is around does that mean it didn't happen or that science can't explain.
thats your thinking and not mine.
Quote (peace2all @ Jan. 03 2010,08:31) Quote (banana @ Jan. 01 2010,14:29) Quote (peace2all @ Dec. 31 2009,04:12) i have been wondering when dinosaurs were in regards to man. i was raised a JW as a kid because my parents made me.
my answer to that from them was that they were around when man was, up into noahs day and thats how they died off ,in the flood.
but i have seen that a poster DAVID who is a JW had stated that we don't know the actual time frame from genesis. however that is not what i was taught when i went during the 1970's and 1980's.
i noticed now that some of there own ideas and new translation over to their own version of the bible is changing slowly then they deny having said certain things.
just curious because i was taught that those 7 days were literal 7 days
peace2alllook at my post in “CREATIN and SCIENCE”
Btw, those 7 days, were 7 days.
Georg
so then, dinosaurs were around from adam until the floodi cannot accept that ever. that sounds insane.
peace2allI did not say that; I said the 7 days of creation in Gen. 1, were 7 days.
Do you believe our scientists and geologists, and all the others that dig around in the earth, are wrong when they say; the earth and the universe is billions of years old?
Have you read my post in the other thread? I don't want to repeat myself here.Georg
P2A
Quote stu those trees are not as old as you think they are. they don't go back 6000- 10000 years ago. so your pines are futile in your response. if there are no trees dating back to that period then get off your pine tree theory it doesn't and can't hold up ever.
Actually what do you know about it? You obviously don’t understand how it works.Quote science doesnt say anything, scientists do. scrience bashes at creation and god even when there is no reason for it and when they continue to prove nothing. god does not bash science. its the scientist who try to iterpret science that says what it says.
So how should we describe a person who discusses a well-established dating technique like dendrochronology, rubbishing it without knowing anything about it?I bet you have never once complained about a technique that has confirmed some aspect of biblical history.
Is it honest for you to have it both ways? No.
Quote how is ny me saying that the things we make today with the technology today doesn't even last nearly as long as the things yuo wont acept that were from 2000, 4000,6000, or 10000. nothing there is anti science. if its the year 3000 only and hardly anything from 2000 is around does that mean it didn't happen or that science can't explain.
Like what, exactly?Stuart
Quote (banana @ Jan. 03 2010,14:01) Quote (peace2all @ Jan. 03 2010,08:31) Quote (banana @ Jan. 01 2010,14:29) Quote (peace2all @ Dec. 31 2009,04:12) i have been wondering when dinosaurs were in regards to man. i was raised a JW as a kid because my parents made me.
my answer to that from them was that they were around when man was, up into noahs day and thats how they died off ,in the flood.
but i have seen that a poster DAVID who is a JW had stated that we don't know the actual time frame from genesis. however that is not what i was taught when i went during the 1970's and 1980's.
i noticed now that some of there own ideas and new translation over to their own version of the bible is changing slowly then they deny having said certain things.
just curious because i was taught that those 7 days were literal 7 days
peace2alllook at my post in “CREATIN and SCIENCE”
Btw, those 7 days, were 7 days.
Georg
so then, dinosaurs were around from adam until the floodi cannot accept that ever. that sounds insane.
peace2allI did not say that; I said the 7 days of creation in Gen. 1, were 7 days.
Do you believe our scientists and geologists, and all the others that dig around in the earth, are wrong when they say; the earth and the universe is billions of years old?
Have you read my post in the other thread? I don't want to repeat myself here.Georg
that makes no sense! you just said creation was 7 literal days and man was included along with animal in those 7 days.yuo can't have both ways
if the creation is a literal 7 days that would mean that all animals including dinosaurs were then with man?
for you are saying that nothing excisted on earth before that because 7 days is 7 days and all was made within that time frame
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 03 2010,15:28) P2A Quote stu those trees are not as old as you think they are. they don't go back 6000- 10000 years ago. so your pines are futile in your response. if there are no trees dating back to that period then get off your pine tree theory it doesn't and can't hold up ever.
Actually what do you know about it? You obviously don’t understand how it works.Quote science doesnt say anything, scientists do. scrience bashes at creation and god even when there is no reason for it and when they continue to prove nothing. god does not bash science. its the scientist who try to iterpret science that says what it says.
So how should we describe a person who discusses a well-established dating technique like dendrochronology, rubbishing it without knowing anything about it?I bet you have never once complained about a technique that has confirmed some aspect of biblical history.
Is it honest for you to have it both ways? No.
Quote how is ny me saying that the things we make today with the technology today doesn't even last nearly as long as the things yuo wont acept that were from 2000, 4000,6000, or 10000. nothing there is anti science. if its the year 3000 only and hardly anything from 2000 is around does that mean it didn't happen or that science can't explain.
Like what, exactly?Stuart
stu we didn't even have a conversation about science or anything close to that and you accused me and started a anti-science debate in your own mind before it was even a issue.i never said nor implied anything anti science.
its ok for you to use that in youe defense regarding the trees but when a point is made, that other person is not allowed to say anyting,
whatever stu, those trees do not go back as far in time as you want them too, so its pointles to use that, go try something else in your fight.
i understand enough from what i read that they do not go back far enough to be evidence in your theory.
i did not say anything bad about scientist or of science, you keep wanting to fight for it when there is no reason too, you created your own fight not me.
however it is man that voices their interpretation and not science, it is the scientists. that it is very plausible that one might have a agenda of ones own.
not all scientists are together in every way, the ones that speak out get tossed aside. so try to to assume scientist that use the science are all in union.
however i can see by yuor words that you would also toss aside those not in union to your person reasoning even if one has a valide point or proof to the contrary
good for you, thats your path stu not mine.
you can think that your life is nothing and that you are from a single celled organism that sludged its way into the various forms of life
i choose to think that there is a intelligant source that created all for a purpose and giving hope and meaning.
thanks
Quote (peace2all @ Jan. 04 2010,01:21) Quote (banana @ Jan. 03 2010,14:01) Quote (peace2all @ Jan. 03 2010,08:31) Quote (banana @ Jan. 01 2010,14:29) Quote (peace2all @ Dec. 31 2009,04:12) i have been wondering when dinosaurs were in regards to man. i was raised a JW as a kid because my parents made me.
my answer to that from them was that they were around when man was, up into noahs day and thats how they died off ,in the flood.
but i have seen that a poster DAVID who is a JW had stated that we don't know the actual time frame from genesis. however that is not what i was taught when i went during the 1970's and 1980's.
i noticed now that some of there own ideas and new translation over to their own version of the bible is changing slowly then they deny having said certain things.
just curious because i was taught that those 7 days were literal 7 days
peace2alllook at my post in “CREATIN and SCIENCE”
Btw, those 7 days, were 7 days.
Georg
so then, dinosaurs were around from adam until the floodi cannot accept that ever. that sounds insane.
peace2allI did not say that; I said the 7 days of creation in Gen. 1, were 7 days.
Do you believe our scientists and geologists, and all the others that dig around in the earth, are wrong when they say; the earth and the universe is billions of years old?
Have you read my post in the other thread? I don't want to repeat myself here.Georg
that makes no sense! you just said creation was 7 literal days and man was included along with animal in those 7 days.yuo can't have both ways
if the creation is a literal 7 days that would mean that all animals including dinosaurs were then with man?
for you are saying that nothing excisted on earth before that because 7 days is 7 days and all was made within that time frame
why do i need your other threads when you clearly came here and posted your logic. you don't want to talk about it, then go to another post i won't be offended.you make no sense though
its 7 days that all was created, as you say
but then to make your thinking fit, you say its not literal then when that idea is full of holes.
so for you its… its seven days literal but not really.
if all is billions of years old then creation cannot be 7 literal days plain and simple. if things excisted before then, then creation that took place had been done before and that the genesis account of the literal 7 days is false because it states that all things were made in your literal 7 days.
i read and responded to you stu.
thats your right to have that view and thats good that you have a view of something.
my point is that your pine trees are from back as far as the flood so they are not a good point for you to argue.
i do have questions myself about the whole flood thing and possibly its just a illistration for man to use and not a literal thing.
for the earth to have been so submerged in water and for noah to have been on that ark i think the bible says for a year before they came out would have made all things barron. for them to have gotten all the animals from earth onto it sounds shaky. possibly it was a localized flood that happened in a certain relgion of the world and not the whole world. that would make more sense.
however when they find sea shells and fossils in mountain tops it makes one wonder.
maybe one is not ment to be able to really figure it out.
i've said that both god and science is good. i stand by that
P2A
You don’t have to take my word for it:
Bristlecone pine dendrochronology:
The bristlecone pine, being exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, has been used for this purpose, with still-living and dead specimens providing tree ring patterns going back thousands of years. In some regions dating sequences of more than 10,000 years are available
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
Shells on mountain tops indicate a global flood(this is a JW lie by the look of it):
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html
Fossils can be found in the sandstone and shale rocks on the other Ranger Districts of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. The fossil beds usually contain a community of marine creatures that inhabited the sea floor beneath an ocean that covered the area west of the Blue Ridge in the distant geologic past (Paleozoic Era). Crinoids (sea lilies), Trilobites (arthropods), Bryozoans (coral) are some other fossilized marine creatures found in these fossil beds. Some fossil beds contain fossil trees and plants.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/natural_history/fossils.shtml
As the Indo-Australian Plate, with India firmly embedded, approached the Eurasian continent 20 million years ago, its leading edge, comprised of oceanic crust, was first to be crumpled and uplifted. Slowly, the Himalayas rose and the leading oceanic crust of the Indian sub-continent, carrying the fossilized remains of its ancient ocean inhabitants, was thrust up by the crumpling crust in its wake. Thus, plate tectonics explains how the majestic peaks of one of the world’s great mountain ranges were once the deep sea-floors of an ancient drifting plate.
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_11.asp
This link discusses your idea that the Noachian flood myth could have been a legend built around a local flood, the Black Sea flooding of 5600BCE. The date does not match dating of the flood done from scripture, but then that is based on the fantasy idea of humans living for hundreds of years.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
Of course, a local flood really makes the whole concept of the Noah myth pointless, as pointed out by the numbskulls at Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/flood.asp
Speaking of agendas, I take it you have read the Wedge Document? ‘Intelligent Design’ creationism is just as bad as any kind, and those who invented it are most certainly engaged in a conspiracy. Is there evidence that scientists have agendas? There is too much competition in science for that to have any credibility.
The conspiracy to lie to our young people, in the words of the conspirators themselves:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 04 2010,09:17) P2A You don’t have to take my word for it:
Bristlecone pine dendrochronology:
The bristlecone pine, being exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, has been used for this purpose, with still-living and dead specimens providing tree ring patterns going back thousands of years. In some regions dating sequences of more than 10,000 years are available
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html
Shells on mountain tops indicate a global flood(this is a JW lie by the look of it):
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).
Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html
Fossils can be found in the sandstone and shale rocks on the other Ranger Districts of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. The fossil beds usually contain a community of marine creatures that inhabited the sea floor beneath an ocean that covered the area west of the Blue Ridge in the distant geologic past (Paleozoic Era). Crinoids (sea lilies), Trilobites (arthropods), Bryozoans (coral) are some other fossilized marine creatures found in these fossil beds. Some fossil beds contain fossil trees and plants.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/natural_history/fossils.shtml
As the Indo-Australian Plate, with India firmly embedded, approached the Eurasian continent 20 million years ago, its leading edge, comprised of oceanic crust, was first to be crumpled and uplifted. Slowly, the Himalayas rose and the leading oceanic crust of the Indian sub-continent, carrying the fossilized remains of its ancient ocean inhabitants, was thrust up by the crumpling crust in its wake. Thus, plate tectonics explains how the majestic peaks of one of the world’s great mountain ranges were once the deep sea-floors of an ancient drifting plate.
http://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_11.asp
This link discusses your idea that the Noachian flood myth could have been a legend built around a local flood, the Black Sea flooding of 5600BCE. The date does not match dating of the flood done from scripture, but then that is based on the fantasy idea of humans living for hundreds of years.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
Of course, a local flood really makes the whole concept of the Noah myth pointless, as pointed out by the numbskulls at Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/flood.asp
Speaking of agendas, I take it you have read the Wedge Document? ‘Intelligent Design’ creationism is just as bad as any kind, and those who invented it are most certainly engaged in a conspiracy. Is there evidence that scientists have agendas? There is too much competition in science for that to have any credibility.
The conspiracy to lie to our young people, in the words of the conspirators themselves:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Stuart
ok stu everything is false except for what scientist say.i've read just briefly on your pine trees and nowhere did they state that they were from 10000 years ago. longest they said that is documented if like 4000, thats not close to the flood if in fact it did cover the whole earth.
either way you pines are not old enough to use today.
no stu there is no dating sequence of more than 10000 years because from what i've read they are not that old on earth right now. if they say 4000 years dating back is as far as they have you can't take 4000 and make it 10000..
i don't really care anymore i still believe in god even with me beleiving in science.
so this is the last post on this thread.
thanksexcept for this post.
stu please tell me that you don't go by what wikipedia says.LMAO
stu, any person can go there and update anything they want on that site.
please look at the right corner after each section ( it says edit)
you can edit into it whatever you want and update it.
come on now.
stu you even say that the mountain even back then would have been smaller but not by much. your link to the fossils on mountain tops said it could have been a flood but they can't see how, that doesn't mean that it couldn't they just can't explain it is all they say.
funny how if they can't expalin it then its just didn't happen. if they don't know, then they don't know. its ok not to know everything.
don't think everything can be known,
that doesn't prove anything eitherP2A
Quote i've read just briefly on your pine trees and nowhere did they state that they were from 10000 years ago. longest they said that is documented if like 4000, thats not close to the flood if in fact it did cover the whole earth. 
The bristlecone pine, being exceptionally long-lived and slow growing, has been used for this purpose, with still-living and dead specimens providing tree ring patterns going back thousands of years. In some regions dating sequences of more than 10,000 years are available
Quote stu you even say that the mountain even back then would have been smaller but not by much. your link to the fossils on mountain tops said it could have been a flood but they can't see how, that doesn't mean that it couldn't they just can't explain it is all they say. As the Indo-Australian Plate, with India firmly embedded, approached the Eurasian continent 20 million years ago, its leading edge, comprised of oceanic crust, was first to be crumpled and uplifted. Slowly, the Himalayas rose and the leading oceanic crust of the Indian sub-continent, carrying the fossilized remains of its ancient ocean inhabitants, was thrust up by the crumpling crust in its wake. Thus, plate tectonics explains how the majestic peaks of one of the world’s great mountain ranges were once the deep sea-floors of an ancient drifting plate.
You either have a problem with reading, or honesty. Which is it?
Quote stu please tell me that you don't go by what wikipedia says. I don’t go by what Wikipedia says. Do you go only on what scripture says? I only use Wikipedia links because I have already made myself familiar enough with the subject to know whether the Wiki link leads to stuff that has be verified by other reliable sources, and then only because it is able to describe the idea simply on one page. One way, but certainly not the only way of verifying a Wiki claim, is to follow the reference links at the bottom of Wiki pages. They lead to things like publications by the authors of primary research, maybe on their university web pages, those universities having given those authors tenure on the basis of their reputations in their particular fields of science.
You don’t have any kind of reassurance like that with creationist websites. The authors at AiG, for example, are paid to write anything that matches their interpretation of the bible. There is no reliability in assuming any onesource is right, which is the point you are making about Wikipedia, although that is exactly what creationist websites do. I think the same of your scripture, based on the fact that it does not reference anything and treats things that are wrong identically to the way it treats things that are right.
Stuart
ok stu, the whole world was completley flat at one time and there were no volcanoes or mountains at all and thats why there are sea fossils in the mountain tops.
whatever. good luck with that.
yes i do believe in the bible, no proof anywhere from anyone tells that its fake or incorrect. and is backed by science and history.
places in time and historical writings and painting and carvings and science has shown it to be very accurate and not a large book made up of smaller fairy tales.
good enough for me.
you can believe your 1000 – 4000 year old trees or that the whole earth was once flat and under waterand no mountains or volcanoes or hills exsisted.
stu maybe were not even real but just a dream or a illusion.
or you think like another of your fellow science fellows that i know , he claims that god is RNA,
HAHA
P2A
Quote ok stu, the whole world was completley flat at one time and there were no volcanoes or mountains at all and thats why there are sea fossils in the mountain tops. whatever. good luck with that.
That is NOT what happened, but as you don’t seem to care, then I can not care too! This is JW mythology and it is as wrong as anything could possibly be!Quote yes i do believe in the bible, no proof anywhere from anyone tells that its fake or incorrect. and is backed by science and history. places in time and historical writings and painting and carvings and science has shown it to be very accurate and not a large book made up of smaller fairy tales. good enough for me.
The flood didn’t happen (as I have shown you with dendrochronological evidence, plus the evidence that the layers claimed to have been deposited in the ‘flood’ date very differently, plus lots more: see the thread called “The Too Hard Basket” for more. The alleged exodus didn’t happen, according to archeology. There has never been a time when there were just two humans, according to biology. The myth of the Tower of Babel does not fit at all with any of our knowledge of how languages develop. It is not possible to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain in the Middle East (Tonga was a kingdom in 30CE, and you definitely can’t see that from Palestine). Do you need MORE?These are myths, not reality. How mad would you have to be to believe in the face of clear physical evidence to the contrary? Thank goodness we (living in Western democracies) have a secular society that demands a high standard of evidence and does not just accept religious fantasy stories as the basis for policy.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
