- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I was being very serious too.
Have you ever seen the that Huge Crater under the Ocean in the Gulf?
You know what don't answer that.
I'd rather just imagine you explaining it to be a volcano or something. Maybe its that those are all millions of years old according to the people that can't tell you weather or not its going to rain tomorrow. K, got it!
Or maybe when we do start getting hit by ASTEROIDS…it will just be a miscalculation or something.
Yeah…
ok.
People on this rock are getting way to confident, prideful, and comfortable…to see what is fixing to blow them right out of the water!…figuratively speaking of course.
Quote (Samuel @ April 10 2008,20:40) I was being very serious too. Have you ever seen the that Huge Crater under the Ocean in the Gulf?
You know what don't answer that.
I'd rather just imagine you explaining it to be a volcano or something. Maybe its that those are all millions of years old according to the people that can't tell you weather or not its going to rain tomorrow. K, got it!
Or maybe when we do start getting hit by ASTEROIDS…it will just be a miscalculation or something.
Yeah…
ok.
People on this rock are getting way to confident, prideful, and comfortable…to see what is fixing to blow them right out of the water!…figuratively speaking of course.
If you go back and read what I wrote, it said small to medium-sized meteors.Stuart
You just don't get it.
You blame GOD as a taker of life…he is the one who gave you life…and you'll live again. He can give it to you and take it from you…then give it to you again.
You can't get past a piece of dirt saying how old another piece of dirt is.
Its like the Pot calling the Kettle Black? or however it goes.
Haha…
Have you ever kicked the side of an ant hill off? They all come running out running around trying to fix it. Thousands of em!
…
And they don't even know what happened.
Hi Samuel
Quote You just don't get it You blame GOD as a taker of life…. Yes. Maybe as many as 32,000,000.
I am still waiting for you to explain exactly what it is I ‘don’t get’.
Quote he is the one who gave you life…and you'll live again. He can give it to you and take it from you…then give it to you again. In a very real sense my parents gave me life but they do not have the right to kill me.
Quote You can't get past a piece of dirt saying how old another piece of dirt is.
Its like the Pot calling the Kettle Black? or however it goes.The ‘dirt’ that makes me up has decided that killing by a supposedly omnipotent being is immoral.
Quote Have you ever kicked the side of an ant hill off? They all come running out running around trying to fix it. Thousands of em! And they don't even know what happened.
Yes. Do you know how that came to be?
Stuart
The Kiwi is an astonishing bird. New Zealand has no ground-dwelling native mammals and the Kiwi has lost the ability of flight and virtually adopted the mode of life of a mammal. The Kiwi's existance and adaptations cannot be explained without the theory of natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi
Subject to further attempts to explain how the Kiwi got to Auckland from Turkey, the score stands at Reality 1 Biblical literalism 0.
Next question:
Why is there a fossil record with the oldest rocks containing the oldest fossils and showing a progressive change in the morphology of species over hundreds of millions to billions of years?
Stuart
Quote (Samuel @ April 10 2008,20:05) I don't know…. How about this one…
How come we are still here after living in a super huge Asteroid belt for like a billion years (so the scientists say due to “Carbon” dating” or what ever)?
I mean like DUH!
We can plainly see where the Moon …Mars…even Earth…has been hit by these things…yet its Still here.
AMAZING!
…Oh thats just coincidence…
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
I don't think so buddy.
How about this one…
How come we can't “SEE” the end of the Universe? I mean like There has to be a start point some where right? Laugh out loud…AS IF we could get there anyway!…for cryin' out loud!
I mean seriously! How come the planet we live on just happens to be the only one that we know about …that just Happens to have life on it? AMAZING! It just happens to be in just the right spot from the SUN to sustain life. With just the right Atmosphere and Magnetic Fields and all that Jazz to sustain life…aside from having survived a very LARGE ASTEROID BELT…for like Eleventy-Billion Years! AMAZING!
Just flat out AMAZING! How much “Faith” these Humans have over their own “Dumbfoundness” and their science. “The SUN is going to EXPLODE!” but not for another TEN GAZILLION Years!
…
What?
el oh el!
I mean like what if it blows up tomorrow?! I guess that we would have just been wrong…oops!
Yeah…I'll stick with GOD. He's got a 100% accuracy rate going for him.
Like the Weather…”Yeah we have a 50% chance of Rain”
haha! I mean like El oH El Big time….Like ROFLCOPTER! LOLLERSKATES!
PWNT!
What that means is …”We just quite frankly don't know”
Some science! AMAZING!
You'd think that if they can tell you how old a stupid rock floating around in space is with supreme certainty …they could at least tell you if its going to rain tomorrow without certainty?
I mean GET REAL DUDE!
Samuel,Sometimes the vehemence of your writings leaves me perplexed. That the earth is especially suited for life (at least as we know it) is obvious, otherwise life would be more apparent in other worlds or it wouldn't exist on ours. In a universe of apparently near infinite proportions, probabililty alone would dictate there would be some stars with planets that may develop in an area conducive to the development of life.
Science like spirituality is not static, but changes over time. How long ago was it that Christians thought the earth the center of the universe and that the Sun revolved around the earth? Look at the difficulties Galileo had with the Church so do not be so quick to judge foolish science. Science is not opposed to God, it tries to measure and explain the natural universe which if you believe was created by the Almighty, simply tries to explain the mechanisms of creation.
You must break free of the mindset that scripture equates with God's word, it is not. Science and scripture may be oppossed but science and God are not.
Next question:
Why is there a fossil record with the oldest rocks containing the oldest fossils and showing a progressive change in the morphology of species over hundreds of millions to billions of years?
Stuart
Question: Why is there a fossil record with the oldest rocks containing the oldest fossils and showing a progressive change in the morphology of species over hundreds of millions to billions of years?
(Please note the use of the present participle is).Nick's answer: Were you there?
This is heading rapidly for a 2-0 scoreline.
Stuart
Hi Stu,
You raise some excellent questions.
Should we answer them by making presumptions?
The search for precious truth should make allowances for what cannot yet be known.Quote biologists know. –stu
Fine, let's start with what biologists know about the kiwis. What do they know? What is the proof? (I don't need endless streams of information. Point form will do.) I'm also interested to know what they base their measurements of time on. I don't want to hear radiometric dating. I want to have you explain in simple terms what this involves. And, what obvious assumptions are made.
david
Quote Next question: Why is there a fossil record with the oldest rocks containing the oldest fossils and showing a progressive change in the morphology of species over hundreds of millions to billions of years?
Let's keep our questions in reality shall we? First, we'll need some actual proof of this “change in morphology.” And I'm not talking one horse with an extra toe or one horse that's bigger than the other horses. Yes, that would be considered a change in the morphology but it is no proof of what most consider to be evolution of species.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 13 2008,07:51) Hi Stu,
You raise some excellent questions.
Should we answer them by making presumptions?
The search for precious truth should make allowances for what cannot yet be known.
We should answer them by discussing evidence. We do so with the automatic presumption that we may find contrary evidence later. Are you happy to accept that knowledge is provisional? Otherwise is it not you making presumptions?Stuart
Quote (david @ April 13 2008,12:30) Quote biologists know. –stu
Fine, let's start with what biologists know about the kiwis. What do they know? What is the proof? (I don't need endless streams of information. Point form will do.) I'm also interested to know what they base their measurements of time on. I don't want to hear radiometric dating. I want to have you explain in simple terms what this involves. And, what obvious assumptions are made.
david
This thread is entitled “The Too Hard Basket, What biblical literalists can't explain”. It is not called “what biologists know”. Can you explain how the Kiwi got from Mt. Ararat to Auckland or not? If not, then either you just can't explain (in which case the title is vindicated) or it didn't happen (in which case we need a new thread called “Things in the bible that didn't happen”).Stuart
Quote (david @ April 13 2008,12:39) Quote Next question: Why is there a fossil record with the oldest rocks containing the oldest fossils and showing a progressive change in the morphology of species over hundreds of millions to billions of years?
Let's keep our questions in reality shall we? First, we'll need some actual proof of this “change in morphology.” And I'm not talking one horse with an extra toe or one horse that's bigger than the other horses. Yes, that would be considered a change in the morphology but it is no proof of what most consider to be evolution of species.
Not interested in 'proof of evolution of the species' (whatever on earth that is). Just want to know how biblical literalists explain the fossil record that shows changes in morphology of species over very long periods of time. It does. You could even drop the morphology bit if you want and just explain why new species have arisen throughout the last 3.7 billion years, and especially since the Cambrian explosion under 500 million years ago. How do you account for it?Stuart
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Definition of earth is as follows:
]land, earth
1. earth
1. whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2. earth (as opposed to heaven)
3. earth (inhabitants)
2. land
1. country, territory
2. district, region
3. tribal territory
4. piece of ground
5. land of Canaan, Israel
6. inhabitants of land
7. Sheol, land without return, (under) world
8. city (-state)
3. ground, surface of the earth
1. ground
2. soil
4. (in phrases)
1. people of the land
2. space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
3. level or plain country
4. land of the living
5. end(s) of the earth
5. (almost wholly late in usage)
1. lands, countries
1. often in contrast to CanaanGiven the definitions of the word earth, it is possible that a Kiwi never made it to Mt Ararat and didn't need to. That said, if the flood covered the whole sphere and killed every living thing including New Zealand, then there are still a ton of possibilities.
1) If humans can keep zoos, then I am sure that an eternal God can do a better job.
2) There is nothing stopping the notion that God created new species after a global flood.
3) Is it so hard to believe in the possibility of a great flood. Even the rocks hint at great catastrophes in the past including asteroid strikes.If the bible mentioned an asteroid strike, would you doubt that?
I put the idea that a singularity with less intelligence than an orangutan creating better stuff than NASA. That is not even in the too hard basket that is in the ridiculous basket.
Quote (t8 @ April 13 2008,21:15) 1) If humans can keep zoos, then I am sure that an eternal God can do a better job.
2) There is nothing stopping the notion that God created new species after a global flood.
3) Is it so hard to believe in the possibility of a great flood. Even the rocks hint at great catastrophes in the past including asteroid strikes.
1. You would not be a biblical literalist if you did not believe that all living things apart from what was on the ark (and presumably aquatic life) died.Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.2. The creationist trump card of god can do anything is not an explanation. It is still true that there is no explanation.
3. At least 6 major global catastrophies have made a devastating impact on life on earth in the nearly 4 billion years since the crust cooled. No global worldwide floods though.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 13 2008,21:18) I put the idea that a singularity with less intelligence than an orangutan creating better stuff than NASA. That is not even in the too hard basket that is in the ridiculous basket.
What singularity are we discussing here?If you want to start a thread called “What science can't explain”, you hardly need ask me for the go-ahead! I will be the first to admit all the areas where science has no satisfactory explanation as yet.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
