dinosaurs on the ark and other scientific facts

[ChumpDumper]

Not that these debates haven't occurred there, but how is this political?

[tlongII]

Blingy Forum

[Phenomanul]

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?

GOD established the design. He dictated the bounds by which order was characterized. We simply became 'aware' of this fundamental concept.

Furthermore, GOD allows for man's understanding of His universe to progress. He dictates the timing as well.

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)


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.

Now this is a conundrum. This is like the "does a falling tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it" argument. The fact that hearing defines how we perceive sound does little to negate the fact that sound is being created. Similarly, the fact that order existed before we could perceive it does little to negate the fact that it has always existed.

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.

This universe is very much finite though it may appear infinite. That's how most "Big Bang Theories" have defined its creation; and upon which everything else is hinged.

Now if your dimensional eyeglasses happened to be "time" itself you may find that the universe is in fact infinite... and not finite.

If the elusive Unified Theory was ever finalized the constants would become that much more important not less...

"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.

It is a very eclectic quote. Probably something one of my collegiate friends would have said while on 'a high'.... not that I ever joined them

Anyways, it does have some measure of truth in it. But consider this; is not the very quote an explanation of 'How'?... does it not reveal a consequence? Somewhat paradoxical if you ask me.

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.

Ahhh.... that is why the very concept of understanding or reading the bible with the perspective of the Creator in mind (as revealed through the text) allows one to be transformed by its message. When you read it as a naturalist it will never satiate your needs. If read with spiritual thirst, however, the book is very powerful. Angel_luv alluded to the inherent trust we attach to the integrity of the compilation. With or without that trust the book manages to retain its power.... why?

Wow! real discussion from you.... now we're progressing.

[Extra Stout]

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.

Is this scale loose or is it a hard crust?

See the case of Joggins, Nova Scotia.

Joggins does not reinforce your argument. It refutes it.

[tlongII]

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.

I don't think they are suggesting that at all. Only that the salt flow may have contributed to the coal formations just as it may have contributed to the petrified trees placement. That doesn't disallow the two different processes for forming petrified trees and for forming coal.

[Phenomanul]

Alright, I must go to bed....

In this thread I'm the only one that has had to respectfully respond to posts from more people than the next guy.

Won't see you all til' maybe Sunday night or Monday.

[Extra Stout]

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.

The roots of the petrified trees are penetrating the coal seams. Not the trunk.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think they are suggesting that at all. Only that the salt flow may have contributed to the coal formations just as it may have contributed to the petrified trees placement. That doesn't disallow the two different processes for forming petrified trees and for forming coal.

Ummm yes it would.... coal is formed with much higher pressures and in the absence of oxidizers. The salts themselves negate this process.

Petrification, on the other hand, is not affected by the salts... but is adversely affected by the higher pressures required to make the coal. You would definitely not see the two processes occurring side by side

NOW let me sleep!!!

[Phenomanul]

The roots of the petrified trees are penetrating the coal seams. Not the trunk.

Read it again. Not in a condescending sense. I had to re-read to make sure that they were suggesting what I pointed out. Not that it matters.

[Guru of Nothing]

Phenom, the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince yourself, and others, of your beliefs, betrays what you really are.

You can only seek God, you cannot present him.

[tlongII]

Ummm yes it would.... coal is formed with much higher pressures and in the absence of oxidizers. The salts themselves negate this process.

Petrification, on the other hand, is not affected by the salts... but is adversely affected by the higher pressures required to make the coal. You would definitely not see the two processes occurring side by side

NOW let me sleep!!!

I believe you're mistaken, but I don't really want to look it up right now. Perhaps tomorrow.

[Extra Stout]

Ummm yes it would.... coal is formed with much higher pressures and in the absence of oxidizers. The salts themselves negate this process.

Petrification, on the other hand, is not affected by the salts... but is adversely affected by the higher pressures required to make the coal. You would definitely not see the two processes occurring side by side

NOW let me sleep!!!

Now petrification happens in an instant, geologically speaking. Once you get an area that is buried in sediments quickly, in an anoxic environment, you can get petrified wood in less than 100 years. It takes a long time for erosion to expose the fossils, but the process of forming them is fast.

So why would petrification and coal formation have to happen contemporaneously?

[tlongII]

Now petrification happens in an instant, geologically speaking. Once you get an area that is buried in sediments quickly, in an anoxic environment, you can get petrified wood in less than 100 years. It takes a long time for erosion to expose the fossils, but the process of forming them is fast.

So why would petrification and coal formation have to happen contemporaneously?

Excellent point! I should have thought of it. It would appear that there is no indication that the petrification and coalification happened simultaneously as Pheno is suggesting.

[exstatic]

You believe ( I'm assuming) that the world is round and yet you have never been to outer space to see for yourself that it is so.

1. Someone has.
2. You don't need to. Going to an ocean port, and actually watching a ship come over the horizon usually does the trick.

There was a time when such a belief was considered ridiculous by man and science and they were proven wrong.

Actually, it was considered ridiculous (and dangerous) by the church, an instrument of religion.

[scott]

This Thread minus MadeFromDust equals UberLame

[Phenomanul]

Now petrification happens in an instant, geologically speaking. Once you get an area that is buried in sediments quickly, in an anoxic environment, you can get petrified wood in less than 100 years. It takes a long time for erosion to expose the fossils, but the process of forming them is fast.

So why would petrification and coal formation have to happen contemporaneously?

This still doesn't get you past the multiple layer hurdle. You claim roots... but even tlongII's article doesn't suggest that.

Also, don't forget to look up what coal formation releases. Why does no diffusive evidence of these gases exist within the petrified wood but found in the rocks/strata in the surrounding area? I'm telling you there is more than meets the eye. But whatever... feel inclined to believe whatever theory happens to suit the needs of 'the establishment'. I'll believe it when it covers all its bases and then move on.

[Phenomanul]

Phenom, the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince yourself, and others, of your beliefs, betrays what you really are.

I'm the one who's dissenting beliefs get attacked... not the other way around. Remember?

If you can't see the multiple references of allowing free thought, that is your problem not mine.

You can only seek God, you cannot present him.

There is some truth to this. But it is not an absolute path to GOD. GOD created intelligence. We can also be led to Him through it.

[Extra Stout]

This still doesn't get you past the multiple layer hurdle. You claim roots... but even tlongII's article doesn't suggest that.

Also, don't forget to look up what coal formation releases. Why does no diffusive evidence of these gases exist within the petrified wood but found in the rocks/strata in the surrounding area? I'm telling you there is more than meets the eye. But whatever... feel inclined to believe whatever theory happens to suit the needs of 'the establishment'. I'll believe it when it covers all its bases and then move on.

There is more than one reference to Joggins out there. The interesting thing about the trees is that they sit in situ with complete root structures and everything. And the roots are penetrating the coal seams.

And what is the difference in porosity between the minerals involved in petrification as opposed to the surrounding strata?

[angel_luv]

1. Someone has.
2. You don't need to. Going to an ocean port, and actually watching a ship come over the horizon usually does the trick.


Actually, it was considered ridiculous (and dangerous) by the church, an instrument of religion.

Maybe so, but if you refuse to consider that the world is round, even someon's testimony or going to see a ship come over the horizion will not convince you.

You have to have enough faith to take the person's word and to believe that the evidence you're witnessing is sufficient proof.

Actually, it was considered ridiculous (and dangerous) by the church, an instrument of religion.

That was not my understanding. However, I'll give you that point. My, for lack of a better word, argument does not need it.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Faith + 1 = uber

[exstatic]

Science is the process of constantly redefining our understanding of the world (and science itself!) based on observation and critical thinking. Religion doesn't want to be redefined, and observation and critical thinking show it to be nothing, since everything is based on faith and rewards in the afterlife, things that absolutely CANNOT be proven. That is why religion and science are constantly at odds.

It's almost like two groups of people, at odds because one group is sighted, but deaf and thinks life is a color and the other is blind, but can hear and thinks life is a sound.

[angel_luv]

I'm sick of hearing the word Faith

Faith = excuse for shortcomings

I'm also sick of hearing "if its meant to be its meant to be" thats a typical bible thumper line.

If God is real which he isn't didn't he give you free will and the ability to lead your life by your choices. So if its meant to be it happenes because you willed it to happen.

That's really the heart of our difference.
You reject faith and I embrace it.

[angel_luv]

Science is the process of constantly redefining our understanding of the world (and science itself!) based on observation and critical thinking. Religion doesn't want to be redefined, and observation and critical thinking show it to be nothing, since everything is based on faith and rewards in the afterlife, things that absolutely CANNOT be proven. That is why religion and science are constantly at odds.

In my opinion, faith that can be redefined by trends and opinions, for that matter, anything that man decides, is worthless.
For me, it comes down to whose Word am I going to take- God's ( the Bible) or man's ( Science).
That is where free will comes in; everyone gets to choose who they believe.

[angel_luv]

Not entirely I just think faith is misused by most everyone. I don't dislike someone for having faith. I dislike someone for making faith the reason for all things good or bad or all actions good or bad. I reject people using faith as reasoning rather than belief.

That makes sense.

[angel_luv]

Great lets do brunch!!!

How about after church tomorrow?