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.
Actually, re-read it, and you will see a number of "if then" arguments in there from the Christian perspective. There may be some fuzzy logic applied in both cases, but it is logic still the same.
I enjoy the reference to duality and the absolutes (or non-absolutes) of it. It does stand to reason that cold does not exist and is merely a condition of the absence of heat.
The thing is, the scientist's arguments were based on logic. The creationist's weren't. He tried to fight the scientist's statements with arguments that sounded the same, but can't be proven or were not using proper logic.
For example, he said evil is the absence of God. That is not logic. That is a conclusion a person comes to based on the scriptures of their religion.
This is the reason I always say that many creationists make arguments and say they are based on logic to make them seem more valid. The thing is, most of them haven't even studied logical reasoning or critical thinking. You don't step into a field you have no knowledge of. That's like being a criminal attorney with no experience or education. It just doesn't work. That's not just theists either. There are also illogical atheists. You shouldn't be stepping into things you know nothing about. If you haven't studied logical reasoning, don't say your arguments are based on logic. That goes for atheists and theists alike. The thing is, in this story, the scientist was actually using logic.
If the scientist were really useing logic they would not of told us that soft tissue would never be found on dinosaurs bones because soft tissue can only last 10,000 years. Yet when they discovered that dinosaur bones are being found with soft tissue which confirmed that dinosaurs existed not millions of years ago but thousands. Well now, that was a little to close to the Biblical account, so now they are telling us soft tissue now can last up to 70 million years. Give me a break, so much for your scientist using logic. Of course they did not have to even do a study on that. Just an opinion and lab coat to confirm another scientific fact. LOL
Yet when they discovered that dinosaur bones are being found with soft tissue which confirmed that dinosaurs existed not millions of years ago but thousands. Well now, that was a little to close to the Biblical account
I've read Genesis but don't recall the portion that dealt with dinosaurs. Could you remind me where that's located? By the way, when fossils are being discovered with soft tissue it doesn't mean it's a chunk of meat you could cook on the grill, it has also become fossilized.
I've read Genesis but don't recall the portion that dealt with dinosaurs. Could you remind me where that's located? By the way, when fossils are being discovered with soft tissue it doesn't mean it's a chunk of meat you could cook on the grill, it has also become fossilized.
It's very difficult to discuss science with Creationists because they commonly don't have a clue what a scientific theory is or what the scientific method is. The fact that not a single credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology anywhere in the world supports Creationism, or it's thinly disguised brother-in-hokum Intelligent Design, should be enough to convince them that it's bogus. But, because logic plays no role in their thinking, it doesn't.
It's very difficult to discuss science with Creationists because they commonly don't have a clue what a scientific theory is or what the scientific method is. The fact that not a single credentialed biologist qualified to publish in a peer-reviewed journal of biology anywhere in the world supports Creationism, or it's thinly disguised brother-in-hokum Intelligent Design, should be enough to convince them that it's bogus. But, because logic plays no role in their thinking, it doesn't.
I've read Genesis but don't recall the portion that dealt with dinosaurs. Could you remind me where that's located? By the way, when fossils are being discovered with soft tissue it doesn't mean it's a chunk of meat you could cook on the grill, it has also become fossilized.
You will find them mentioned in Job chapter 40 and 41. It also speaks of the fact that dinosaurs had scales. This was just discoverd in recent times, yet the Bible spoke of their scales less than 3,000 years ago. I understand that we are not talking about chunks of meat, but I also understand that the soft tissue that has been found can be stretched and has cells that have become fossilized. This kind of soft tissue should not exist, and to suggest that it is 70 million years old verges on stupid. Yet, in order for the Evolutionist to cover yet another one of their errors, they will say anything.
Actually, re-read it, and you will see a number of "if then" arguments in there from the Christian perspective. There may be some fuzzy logic applied in both cases, but it is logic still the same.
I enjoy the reference to duality and the absolutes (or non-absolutes) of it. It does stand to reason that cold does not exist and is merely a condition of the absence of heat.
Everything exists on a continuum. Heat and cold are on the same continuum. Where does heat end and cold begin?
Everything exists on a continuum. Heat and cold are on the same continuum. Where does heat end and cold begin?
Laws of Thermodynamics. Although, it's not necessarily what we call "cold" but the diminishment of "heat". Make sense?
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.