Reply With Quote
Thank you, I was.
Now that we have both clearly expressed our views, any further clarification would be redundant.
This is where I bow out. *Curtsey*
i know, i was just pointing out that it was mainly the Church opposed to the view, not the learned community.
Thank you, I was.
Now that we have both clearly expressed our views, any further clarification would be redundant.
This is where I bow out. *Curtsey*
Ants live with order and accountability. I doubt they have a conscience though.
To me that's probably its biggest problem.
You realize you're playing right into their hands, right?
Ants were designed by God.
According to the Bible, humans are the only part of creation given free choice and hte right to live otherwise than how they were desinged to.
Okay, I really am leaving now.
Ants were designed by God.
According to the Bible, humans are the only part of creation given free choice and hte right to live otherwise than how they were desinged to.
Ants evolved, like all other earthly creatures, from a primordial soup that existed in the sea. From a collective viewpoint, all fauna live to perpetuate their particular species and dominate their landscape. Humans are no different. Humans have the intellect however, to create catastrophe. Just as one pride of lions will try to eliminate or absorb another pride of lions, groups of humans will try to eliminate other groups of humans. Unfortunately, humans have achieved the power to wipe out nearly everything else as well.
That type of thinking will have you sent straight to . ing blasphemer. Science = blasphemy
Actually this statement coming from someone supposedly well versed in quantum physics sounds pretty stupid. I know you have the forum's greatest scientific and religious credentials but it can easily be argued that the entire concept of order is something that our human minds are naturally inclined to impose upon our surroundings.
Order is a sign of purpose and plan? I think you need to read up on some ancient philsophy for 3-4 years in addition to your scientifically religious studies.
this genius thinks that me and you telling him noah's flood was bull is a troll post, yet he's seriously trying to convince people that it was real based on the BIBLE
and my takes are weak....why dont we start a poll asking if noah's flood was real
I would ask you to cite one instance where a "polystrate" upright tree trunk has penetrated multiple sedimentary layers, where the layers in that immediate vicinity were considered by mainstream geologists to have spanned hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
The roots don't count, since of course roots can penetrate the soil.
If we are allowed to consider that the Flood was the transformation of the Great Euxine Lake into the Black Sea c. 5400 B.C., then sign me up.
this genius thinks that me and you telling him noah's flood was bull is a troll post, yet he's seriously trying to convince people that it was real based on the BIBLE
and my takes are weak....why dont we start a poll asking if noah's flood was real
Wow a real take... after what? Months of deliberation?
Anyhow... my statement stands.
And I'm glad you brought up quantum physics... I'll use it to explain why that philosophical circular logic of yours doesn't make any sense with regards to the structure of the Universe. It's not how we perceive it... order existed well before the first human ever did!
Order in the cosmos arises from a very intricate balance of universal parameters. The weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the Coulombic electrical constant, (about 15 constants in all) etc.... If any one of these constants were slightly different. This universe could not have 'been created' (or in your case 'come into existence') the way it was. If the weak nuclear force had been greater... atoms such as C, N, H, and O would be immensely and extremely rare... all of those atoms are of course the biological backbone of organic compounds and hence of biological organisms... ahem... LIFE (in the non-consciousness sense of the word). More importantly, Hydrogen would be so rare that stars could not exist. Without stars no planet would be able to 'create', harbor, or sustain life.
If the gravitational constant had been greater, again by ever so slightly, "The Big Bang" would have expanded for a couple of years and then quickly collapsed on itself. The fact of the matter is that these constants were flawlessly 'set', a sign of design. Most astronomers are aware of this cosmic sensitivity but instead are willing to accept the notion that this universe is somehow the causality of infinite 'Big-Bangs'... In essence, they recognize just how amazingly unique our universe is and recognize that they need an infinite amount of 'tweaked' universes in order to validate the existence of our own. Our 'physical constant' combination is more than just the result of chance. It is the language of existence. It defines the succesive language of math. That is ORDER.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 10:09 PM.
You couldn't have made my search any harder....
Ever been to the petrified forest in Arizona??? I suggest a visit if you feel you need to "see it to believe it" with your own eyes...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 10:31 PM.
I'm still wondering what mythical combination of folklore and legend would render the statistical anomaly held by the Ararat mountain range as credit to purpose. Or why would the name of a mountain range stand to this very day after so many thousands of years - Even labeled as such on the earliest known maps of the region?? The Bible simply could have read, "and Noah settled his ark on a mountain where they waited for the waters to recede". But no, the clause is explicit.
The fact of the matter is that no myth could have produced such a particular location on earth at random; much less by name. And that the localized area would 1000's of years later be determined as the most terracentric spot on earth. One that would facilitate the re-distribution of animals on earth. Again... PURPOSE.
Your argument hinges upon the existence of such fossils.You couldn't have made my search any harder....
The Petrified Forest does not prove your hypothesis.
And who/what decided that there was order before humans? Who passed on this information? How was this information passed on to the first human to decide this?
Circular, eh?
Okay, I get it, everyone gets this. When human minds arose, capable of fleshing out and discovering concepts of quantum physics, they discovered that certain concepts and laws had to be exactly how they were, for their understandable universe to exist. We all know this. You are right (as far as I know)Order in the cosmos arises from a very intricate balance of universal parameters. The weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the Coulombic electrical constant, (about 15 constants in all) etc.... If any one of these constants were slightly different. This universe could not have 'been created' (or in your case 'come into existence') the way it was. If the weak nuclear force had been greater... atoms such as C, N, H, and O would be immensely and extremely rare... all of those atoms are of course the biological backbone of organic compounds and hence of biological organisms... ahem... LIFE (in the non-consciousness sense of the word). More importantly, Hydrogen would be so rare that stars could not exist. Without stars no planet would be able to 'create', harbor, or sustain life.
If the gravitational constant had been greater, again by ever so slightly, "The Big Bang" would have expanded for a couple of years and then quickly collapsed on itself.
Why does it have to be black and white? For someone so intent on reading between the lines and coming to your own conclusions based on research, do you even find it possibly possibly possible that the nature of the universe is such that even our current physical models are still far from describing it? Since I was a teenager, I recall them admitting they have discovered like 3 or 4 more dimensions than they had thought existed. Why do these laws and rules have to be exactly the way humans think they are, for our universe to exist? The fact of the matter is that we have no idea of the nature of our universe without a conscious, analytical, thinking human mind to receive and interpret all the data around it.The fact of the matter is that these constants were flawlessly 'set', a sign of design.
Maybe it would not exist at all, maybe those precise laws would exist, maybe its all bull that our minds are trying to impose upon a universe that can quite possibly be infinite.
"Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite."
This is a quote from Heretics of Dune by Frank Herbert. And i almost completely agree with it. Do you, as an educated man, see any end in site to physicists finding the 'final dimension' (if i can call it that) ? I believe our universe is infinite. Our human minds and abilities are not. It really is simple when you keep that in mind before trying to make concrete beliefs based on a book written by humans.
Your logic here is circular. Even if Ararat were whatever you are saying it is, that hardly cons utes evidence of a global flood.
However, Ararat is not what you claiming that it is. The "terracentric" point you are looking for indeed is on Asia Minor, but it is not Mt. Ararat. Close, but no cigar.
That Ararat has kept its name over thousands of years likewise is neither unique nor strengthens your point. The Bible does not even actually say that Noah's ark landed on Mt. Ararat. As detailed earlier in the thread, it says "mountains of Urartu." The kingdom of Urartu covered a pretty wide area from Asia Minor up into the Caucusus.
So which mountain was it?
I suggest a small hike to the northern edge of the park....
The clues lie with the sediment 'film' that surrounds the petrified chunks themselves, since they have unfortunately (due to their brittle nature) fallen apart when exposed by the most recent geologic uplift. Had they all been buried in the same layer, the outer 'scale' surrounding each chunk would all be composed from the same stratum. Instead, several chunks were surrounded by different sediments. Some by the 'older' clay strata, others by sandstone strata and yet others from a basaltic granite layer that was originally thought to have created the petrified trees themselves (as in volcanic influence from ash)...
The paleontologist guide was completely stunned that no one had managed to notice this before I mentioned it to him. Sometimes first hand experience comes in handy much better than google would.
Besides there have been other do ented cases.
See the case of Joggins, Nova Scotia.
A University of Alberta geologist and his research associate in Nova Scotia have published new research which may answer long-standing questions about the formation of a world famous stand of fossilized trees near the Bay of Fundy.
Dr. John Waldron of the U of A and Michael Rygel of Dalhousie University published their paper, Role of evaporite withdrawal in the preservation of a unique coal-bearing succession, in the May issue of Geology Magazine, a publication of the Geological Society of America.
The Joggins Formation, on the coast of Nova Scotia, contains fossilized trees five to six metres in height preserved upright in layers of sandstone and shale, as well as numerous coal seams. The fossil trees, called lycopsids, grew during the Carboniferous period in tropical wetlands very different from Nova Scotia's current climate. Now, 300 million years later, the lycopsids can be seen in the cliffs overlooking the Bay of Fundy, exposed by erosion.
Though the formation has been studied since the 19th century - it's described in Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology and in Sir Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species - questions have persisted about how the trees were preserved in standing position. The area must have sunken rapidly to allow great thicknesses of sediment to ac ulate in a few decades.
"The main suggestion in the paper is that the subsidence in the basin and the reason it sank so fast, was because of the flow of the salt, which is quite a lot of different from what most previous geological research anticipated," Waldron said. "A lot of the subsidence in the basin that allowed the sediment to ac ulate and allowed these amazing fossil trees to be preserved was the result of rock salt flowing under the surface during the Carboniferous period. The subsiding areas filled up with sand and mud, forming swamps in which forests grew, and those trees were able to be entombed in sediments before they fell over."
The study also suggests that this movement of salt under the surface may have contributed to the conditions for coal formation.
"Geologists have historically focused on areas where salt appeared to be rising," Waldron said. "Our new perspective on the berland basin reflects a more recent appreciation that subsidence is just as important for an understanding of salt tectonics.
Waldron said the findings in the paper are the result of a unique collaboration between geological researchers and industry. Devon Canada, a petroleum company based in Calgary, Alberta, was doing exploration work in the berland Basin and allowed Waldron and Rygel access to their seismic profiles - "pictures" of the subsurface made by sending shockwaves into the ground and recording the reverberations from the layers of rock under the surface.
Currently the Joggins Formation is the subject of Canada's application to UN to have the area declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Waldron said he and Rygel hope to continue his collaboration with Devon Canada and extend his research to take in more of the region.
"We hope to produce a more thorough, longer analysis the differential subsidence in this part of the berland Basin - what was subsiding when. And in the long term what I would like to do is relate this particular area to the evolution of the whole of the Maritime basin, a much larger area that underwent subsidence during the same general time period."
Ah my friend.... refer to HEBREW.
Besides, in case you missed the earlier reference. I considered an area bounded by 100 miles squared or 10,000 square miles. However, if you summed up the exposed area of all the mountain peaks in the range above 14,000 ft (highly conservative considering that Mt. Ararat itself is 16,854 ft tall) you would end up with a tabulated figure much lower than what I originally conceded. And one that would span the entire mountain range!!! I'm thinking in three dimensions here, not only the two provided by the surface itself at sea level... context ES, context.
But you missed the point; I never said it was 'smoking barrel' evidence of a flood. I only alluded to the fact that I found the distinction highly fascinating as that would be a clear indication of purpose (to me anyway)... revealed many years after the fact - and tarnish free from all allegations of post editorial tampering.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 11:08 PM.
That is what happens when biology is taken out from the equation... tisk tisk tisk at the geologist's one-tracked approach. So we are to believe that coal and petrified trees were formed side by side by the same process even though they are physically two completely different processes?
I will make it a point to visit someday.
All I know is that Jesus is the reason for the season.
Politcal Forum
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
