Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Irony meter just went off the scale.
("...Theories...Unless you were actually there...[ell, it could have been local at tbe time Pangea existed...
Just do your research like I did...If you read the biblical account of the directions the people went after the came down off the mountain it seems impossible that it is the Mt. Ararat in Turkey....Josephus speaks of barbarian historians that speak of a group of people on top of a mt. where they were escaping a flood and there was a large boat that landed there with eight people (I think)....So as science has proved Pangea this may have been a local flood that seemed global...")
Engineer..again
Seems that you are using a misunderstanding of both elements of change to justify your own views. Science doesn't change its tune, but adds further information to what it already knows.
Religion does change its tune to grudgingly get in line with secular popular views when it risks losing its audience, but still says it's singing the same song.
Do you have something against engineers?...And yea, science does change it's tune...
Do you have something against engineers?...And yea, science does change it's tune...
It's something I noted in my UFO research days. The 'scientists' trumpeted as believers in UFOs so very often turned out to be Engineers rather than..(as Bill Hicks put it) forgive me .... bona fide scientists. And I have long since seen the similarity between cult-think of the UFO kind and Theist-think of the religious kind.
And damn' me if theist -thinkers didn't so often also turn out to be Engineers rather than bona fide scientists. I discussed this with an Engineer recently in PM and the fact is that engineers think differently to scientists. Scientists use the scientific method which is that you don't go along with what look good, workable or convincing, but keep doing double -blind checks until you are sure that you have the truth.
Engineers, on the other hand, are not concerned with the truth, only with finding workable solutions to particular problems. Thus, this results in finding some sort of explanation of the Ark, Creation, Exodus, Gods from outer space, and all the Jesus -stuff and making it work, or look like it works and never mind the truth, especially when (by Faith) your engineer is convinced that he has it already - the Problem which just needs to be made to Work - anyhow.
The perfect recipe for 'This is the conclusion - what evidence can we find to support it?'
'Evidence' of the backhanded kind, like the crafty equivocation of 'Science does change its tune' making the discovery of new information to add to existing fact look like getting everything wrong all the time, is the next best that our Bible- believing engineer can do in the absence of actually being able to produce any evidence for Genesis that even looks feasible.
It's something I noted in my UFO research days. The 'scientists' trumpeted as believers in UFOs so very often turned out to be Engineers rather than..(as Bill Hicks put it) forgive me .... bona fide scientists. And I have long since seen the similarity between cult-think of the UFO kind and Theist-think of the religious kind.
And damn' me if theist -thinkers didn't so often also turn out to be Engineers rather than bona fide scientists. I discussed this with an Engineer recently in PM and the fact is that engineers think differently to scientists. Scientists use the scientific method which is that you don't go along with what look good, workable or convincing, but keep doing double -blind checks until you are sure that you have the truth.
Engineers, on the other hand, are not concerned with the truth, only with finding workable solutions to particular problems. Thus, this results in finding some sort of explanation of the Ark, Creation, Exodus, Gods from outer space, and all the Jesus -stuff and making it work, or look like it works and never mind the truth, especially when (by Faith) your engineer is convinced that he has it already - the Problem which just needs to be made to Work - anyhow.
The perfect recipe for 'This is the conclusion - what evidence can we find to support it?'
'Evidence' of the backhanded kind, like the crafty equivocation of 'Science does change its tune' making the discovery of new information to add to existing fact look like getting everything wrong all the time, is the next best that our Bible- believing engineer can do in the absence of actually being able to produce any evidence for Genesis that even looks feasible.
I tend to be a black and white person, it either is or it is not...There is enough ancient mssg. out there to piece together truth...Do you really think that modern Science is the only discipline that got it right?...There are 6000 year old batteries sitting in the Baghdad museum right now, how did they create them 6000 years ago?...Through the Science of observation...If our ancestors in fact crawled out of some primordial soup, then how is it that the chemical makeup of our own bodies match that of earth?...Science has for so long stated that we descended from monkeys but now admit that they have been wrong all this time...Now they state that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor and that line branched into the two species...So now there is a couple or more generations that believe we are descended from monkeys...
I tend to be a black and white person, it either is or it is not...There is enough ancient mssg. out there to piece together truth...Do you really think that modern Science is the only discipline that got it right?...There are 6000 year old batteries sitting in the Baghdad museum right now, how did they create them 6000 years ago?...Through the Science of observation...If our ancestors in fact crawled out of some primordial soup, then how is it that the chemical makeup of our own bodies match that of earth?...Science has for so long stated that we descended from monkeys but now admit that they have been wrong all this time...Now they state that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor and that line branched into the two species...So now there is a couple or more generations that believe we are descended from monkeys...
You really are not listening. That we now know about quantum theory does not mean that Einstein had been 'wrong all this time' nor Newton for that matter. That we have demoted Pluto to a planetoid and discovered a half dozen new ones and found rings around planets other than Saturn does not mean that astronomers 'have been wrong all this time', nore does the discovery of undersea vents or giant Squid or neolithic towns at Stonehenge or the Higgs -Boson or any other discovery adding to the original theory mean that science has 'been wrong all this time'. The monkey (or primate line - I suspect the 'monkey' thing is more the jibe of ignorant Bible -literalists than anything evolutionist ever said) was based on the best information we had. Since then a more complex picture has emerged. This is not 'being wrong' about it, even if every particular detail has had to be revised.
Are those 'batteries' really batteries? (if so - you tell me what they were used for) And if they are, it is more likely to be a lucky discovery like how to brew beer or refine Iron without actually knowing the technology. This 'Science can't explain that' stuff is simply more confirmation that your think along cult -lines, not rational lines.
And I don't quite get your point about being made of earth - chemicals. We are all made of atoms that were once part of stars, let alone the earth.
You really are not listening. That we now know about quantum theory does not mean that Einstein had been 'wrong all this time' nor Newton for that matter. That we have demoted Pluto to a planetoid and discovered a half dozen new ones and found rings around planets other than Saturn does not mean that astronomers 'have been wrong all this time', nore does the discovery of undersea vents or giant Squid or neolithic towns at Stonehenge or the Higgs -Boson or any other discovery adding to the original theory mean that science has 'been wrong all this time'. The monkey (or primate line - I suspect the 'monkey' thing is more the jibe of ignorant Bible -literalists than anything evolutionist ever said) was based on the best information we had. Since then a more complex picture has emerged. This is not 'being wrong' about it, even if every particular detail has had to be revised.
Are those 'batteries' really batteries? (if so - you tell me what they were used for) And if they are, it is more likely to be a lucky discovery like how to brew beer or refine Iron without actually knowing the technology. This 'Science can't explain that' stuff is simply more confirmation that your think along cult -lines, not rational lines.
And I don't quite get your point about being made of earth - chemicals. We are all made of atoms that were once part of stars, let alone the earth.
Like I said narrow mindedness exudes from this thread...
Like I said narrow mindedness exudes from this thread...
So in your little world we should give credence to every whacky idea that anyone has, but dismiss the conclusions that science has made regarding our origins? We should believe that those ancient ceramic jars that have never been dated (thought to be just over 2000 years old, not 6000) are batteries even though most modern archeologists disagree? Dispute that life on earth came from the sea even though the sea contains every element that exists on earth?
From reading past C-D R&P sub-fora, it's obvious that a number of fundamentalist Christians absolutely believe in the literal bible. Included are all of the bible's gloriously magic stories, like a completely inundating global fludd, and Noah beckoning two of each of all the world's animals onto his little wooden unpowered Ark in order to re-populate earth after the salty fludd waters subside.
Who here believes this?
(PS: This will be a short thread, I promise!)
I see that you know very little about what you post. Noah's ark actually had 2 of "unclean" animal and 7 of the "clean" animals. When you start misstating what you are against shows me that there is nothing to debate. You lose.
I see that you know very little about what you post. Noah's ark actually had 2 of "unclean" animal and 7 of the "clean" animals. When you start misstating what you are against shows me that there is nothing to debate. You lose.
...sigh....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
forgive me .... bona fide scientists. And I have long since seen the similarity between cult-think of the UFO kind and Theist-think of the religious kind. 
