Reply With Quote
plate tectonics?
Hit and miss.... I'm physically incapable of being involved in everything. I'll concede on that point considering I quoted it from memory and really hadn't looked into it. If what you say is true, it will no longer be a point of discussion for me. But that's OK... you make it sound like my beliefs were hinged strictly on that story.
And please continue to disregard the rest of the post. You really do have a one track mind. I'm surprised... considering no sheep are involved. I guess you must have gotten caught up thinking you had a 'smoking barrel' argument to rest your case on. Not really.
Can you google explanations for the fossilized trees that cut across multiple geologic strata... Such petrified forrests have been found in Australia, Arizona, Europe, Siberia and Botswana. Or explain to me why you feel the precise magnitudes of physical constants is nothing to be amazed at; were they any different; life would simply not exist.
plate tectonics?
There are instances of un-fossilized trees buried within multiple layers of sediment. Examples would be in the vicinity of volcanic eruptions where trees are buried under lahar flows, in alluvial deltas where sedimentation is relatively rapid, or in swamps where trees live partially submerged, and even partially buried in sediment.
You're falling into that false dichotomy again of Creation Science/Atheism.
That's precisely why you should Google more often. The ability to store information in your mind and use it during ad-hoc discussions does not make you superior in the art of debate on a message board. You must use the tools at your disposal. You'll never be able to memorize everything that can be Googled. Of course if you think Google was created by a group of anti-Creationists I can understand your reluctance.
BTW, do you believe in plate tectonics?
Ahhh yes... but they are not 10,000+ years old or living while another layer gets deposited.... Furthermore, each subsequent layer is not considered to span 100,000+ years.... much less millions of years.
There is no evidence for stumps that belong to trees that are 100's much less thousands of years old that then get buried by several sedimentary layers in intervals spanning millions of years.
In the case of volcanic lahar flows (an example I'd already provided when I mentioned Spirit Lake) the trees are buried in one swift blow; hence the entire layer can be dated as belonging to the same era. No known mechanism exists that can explain how millions of years can go by while preventing the exposed section of any tree from decaying. This is especially true in swampy marshes or the alluvial deltas you referenced in your rebuttal. These areas are inhabited by 100's of different organisms who use decomposition as their primary dietary means. Evidence for this phenomenon is abundant. Just take a trip to the Mississippi Delta and see for yourself.
In addition, volcanic flows provide the type of representative catclysm that could explain the formation of fossils in the first place. It is not a slow process spanning millions of years... it is a very rapid, cataclysmic one (i.e. one like a global flood). A detail that often gets overlooked is that some of the trees unearthed from lahar flows, such as the one in Spirit Lake, are beginning to show signs of fossilization! As you probably already know the lahar flow itself consists mostly of mud, gravel, rocks, some large boulders and other organic debris...not lava - which obviously would burn the tree, not preserve it... But lahar flows themselves don't explain a multiple strata effect. That could only be produced from a slower sedimentation process that is governed by the dissengagement/deposition of materials as accorded by their density.
No.... it's a discussion of young earth vs. old earth. And as I have stated multiple times, I don't preclude one theory or the other from being true. I simply don't accept the mainstream 'evidence' of an old earth as being a given, or 'full-proof'. Others may accept it cause they have to or because they've never really understood the issues. One thing is for sure; few if ever really question the data.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 05:26 PM.
Hardy har har.... no, I use google all the time. I simply don't like using it in the middle of an argument with an "A-ha.... see, I told ya so" at ude - and then act like I knew about some obscure detail all along. It rubs off with a stench of ignorance.
Much like my concession earlier on the Lompoc whale blunder. If I'm wrong about something, so be it. I'll accept my error and move on... I won't argue against something if it is clearly definitive. That's just it however... mostly everybody assumes that modern scientific viewpoints are completely full-proof; and that Mr. tlongII would be a gross over-statement of the truth.
Clearly, the continents as shown by SpursWoman's neat picture (and addition to the thread) is the smoking barrel picture that they were once connected. They are an almost perfect jigsaw puzzle.
The prevaling theory, of course assumes that tectonic drifting occurred over millions of years... I don't know if scientists can claim however, that the current tectonic drift rate is representative of the rates in the past. Magnetic polar reversal adds volumes of supporting data but even this polar shift is not clearly understood. It is a somewhat erratic phenomenon with very little predictability with the possible exception of the sign bearing period preceding the magnetic reversal itself. Again, a hardly predictable phenomenon.
I'll try to explain my view later tonight as I have many things to do at work right now.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 05:49 PM.
Of course they aren't full-proof. People in science themselves admit this. Thoeries are constantly being tweaked and adjusted as new evidence comes to life. That's one of the beauties of science. I'm not a scientist myself, but I consider myself relatively intelligent. My brother is a scientist. My sister is a chemical engineer. And my dad has a PhD in engineering. I'm just an MBA with a BS in Accounting, but I've had quite a bit of math and science. Took a class in anthropology too. Loved it.
I am a very late comer to this thread, but I found this interesting.
So my question back- where did the idea of having a Higher Power to answer to originate?
I believe it originated from human need to explain the unexplainable. The idea has been around for thousands of years.
Also interesting.
Why does it follow that the workings of an All powerful God would make sense to us? And furthermore, Christians believe The Bible is God's testimony to them.
Why would any author purposely confuse people by writing things as fact if they were meant to be taken figuratively?
Do you mean where did the idea of god come from? Thats a pretty difficult question to answer in one post but I believe the basic premise is that it arose from a need to explain and rationalize the actions of the world. When people don't know how something came to be or how it is, they usually look for an explanation. In many cultures this has taken different forms.
I dont' have the attention span to read over the entire thread and I'm sure I've read much of it before in other threads either way. I do want to go back and address something that I believe is a very flawed piece of logic that Phenomanal uses and it is probably symbolic of other such leaps of faith.
Hector mentoined that the only way Moses would know the geneology of the Jews was if God told him. That right there is a highly flawed logic. You can believe that if you wish, and while I'm not an expert on true biblical archeaology, but is there even physical proof that moses actually exsist much less that he was the actual author of those books of the bible? Secondly, if there is such proof, in the absence of information to assume that the only way this could be would be for some type of supernatural communication is horrible science.
And thats fine if you want to believe things based on faith and faith alone, but Hector tries to present his views in a very intelligent (and he does) and scientific manner to which this does not lend itself to.
But what influenced the conscience? If people were meant to live with no responsibility, why the inate need for order and accountability?
Manny- I hope that you are unintentionally implying that faith is separate from intelligence.
Unlike many scientific theories, God's account of Creation has remained in tact since it's original publication.
And since I believe God is the Creator of the world and is the Author of the Bible, it only makes sense that I take His Word about what happened.
Unfortunetly, there is no physical proof that I am aware of that the bible is God's word to man. Once again, if you believe that based on faith and faith alone, then there's not much to discuss in this matter. But if you want to use the physical world to prove that the Bible is God's word to Man, then I'm afraid you will be unable to do so.
There is proof that the writtings that were supposed to be taken as fact are actually based upon folk stories and myths.
I am sure that what the ancient Greeks, Mesopotamians, and countless other cultures wrote was meant to be taken as fact as well, but as far as I know there is no physical evidence for the god Jupiter.
Scientific theories are ever changing. That is not a flaw of those theories, that is to point out that a theory based on science is simply as good as the information we have at the time of that theories formation. Scientific theories are not the end all be all but rather an attempt to piece together piece of a puzzle and provide the picture while gathering pieces. Of course the picture changes as new things come along.
Your second statement is false. The Chrisitian story of creation has never been proven. Whlie it hasn't been disproven, science does not work to disprove.
For instance, no one can scientificly prove that I am not God himself, yet that doesn't make it scientific fact.
Your last statment is fine, but that is a faith based statment, not a scientific one.
To me, what you've said here is an example of attempting to explain the unexplainable.I believe it originated from human need to explain the unexplainable.
Perhaps man's doubt of God arose from the human need to rebel from authority and/or seek earthly pleasures without guilt.
Mere speculation, of course, and I don't think any point of view is less logical than the other.
You're right... spirtual matters are not science; but naturalists such as yourself want a 2+2=4 answer to everything in life. Some things, however, "don't lend themselves to that type of proof", as a parphrase of your comment below.
The problem (with the nature of this thread) is that you all keep insisting that belief in such things requires proof, that is necesitates physical evidence. You wouldn't be content with any other answer; so I, like others, try and provide perspective that lack of physical proof does not necessarily mean that biblical events never took place. Observations and phenomena in our world today allow for the possibility that certain biblical truths hold merit... the problem with these however, is that many are quick to brush these inconveniences aside (most are blissfully unaware that they even exist).
Furthermore, in the case of the scriptures, you all have continually insinuated that people have purposely changed the text's meaning over the years. That people have deliberately tried to confuse the masses by using a GOD as their means. And while that last statement bears a cup of truth - it only applies to those who used said route as a twisted means for obtaining power. But consider this: Hebrew prophets had no power. They were usually meek, starved individuals with nothing to gain. And yet a chunk of GOD's revelation was made possible by their role.
Besides if the scriptures, GOD's Word, were completely fabricated... they would lack the power to transform and heal. But apparently no amount of anecdotes would budge you from accepting this claim either. Your mind, like that of others around here, may already be made up.
So somehow Faith is subservient to intelligence??? Is the spiritual en y worth any less than the physical one?
Sure... I believe the evangelistic message on faith alone. I definitely don't need proof. But why would that make me less of an individual than someone who has rationally come to the conclusion that there is no GOD on lack of proof?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 06:27 PM.
I agree with you as far as that faith cannot be separated from the equation.
But everything operates on some measure of trust. 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.
There was a time when such a belief was considered ridiculous by man and science and they were proven wrong.
In that light, can you be fully comfortable to dismiss the Bible as nonsense?
I refer you to my lastest post.
You should be in debate Manny. I don't agree with your views but they are very well expressed.
Don't assume that because I don't buy into the Christian belief system I do not have a spiritual side. I won't accept the way things are presented in the Christian bible on faith because they don't make sense to me. The ideas presented through Christianity on what God is and how he has done do not present themselves as what I belive spirtuality to be.
In that light, I need proof of those events to believe them.
As far as faith being subservient to intelligence, everyone is allowed to value specific ideas and characteristics as they wish. I unintentionally implied that one cannot have faith if they are intelligent. Thats obviously not the case because you put a lot of your eggs in the faith basket and are obviously intelligent. (Did you like that? Forget debate as Veronica suggests, I should go into diplomacy.)
actually, in classical antiquity most learned people believed the earth to be round. if anything, the Catholic Church (namely Augustine) vehemently opposed this view. Most middle age textbooks supported the view the earth was round, but the romantic conception of the middle ages still dominated.
I feel perfectly comfortable dismissing the Bible and the churches that go along with it. I see far more evidence for the evolution of the bible from stories of the cultures in the regions it came from than for it being the word of God.
I see a very flawed aspect to the stories presented in the Bible and the way those stories have been used and manipluated through history. I see what in essence a tool for control and rules, not a spiritual guide. The thought that spirituality has rules is a thought that makes no sense to me. The thought of a heaven where I would go based upon whether or not I had premarital sex or whether or not I worship someone or whether or not I ask for forgiveness is something that is far from spiritual to me.
The bible simply doesn't make spiritual sense to me.
I believe she was simply making the point that I believe in something I have not seen for myself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
