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.
-Where are the scientific books that teach us to take an abiogenesis hypothesis on faith?
-If bluepacific really knew that the claim was bogus, then why make it in the first place?
-Are there any specific complaints about the way genetic drift works or do people just rely on the fact that they do not live long enough to see significant(READ:Physical only) changes in populations?
-What's up with changing KCfromNC's name to KFC?
So you can see, an actual star colliding with earth, no. Volcanic eruption, much more likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
Connections:
A "living fossil" species (tuatara) > parietal eye > pineal gland > serotonin in humans
etc, etc,,,,,,
I traversed hyperlinks using my computer's web browser software to find and read these items of information in about 90 seconds. I don't see how, in today's age of the Internet, there is any excuse for a reasonable person not to be informed about the scientific basis, or rather about the OUTLINES of the scientific basis, for the theory of evolution.
One of the more astute observations made on C-D for a while, PT! Of course, we aren't dealing with reasonable people. Nor those with ANY interest in advancng their knowledge.
With all this gumph of the "star" hitting teh earf I wonder why the many domnominations have not colluded to change the translation from "star" to "asteroid"?
It should be pretty evident to most adults with a modicum of scientific knowledge (and not still reciting twinkle twinkle little star) to accept that if it were true, a star could not be what was mentioned. Unfortunately then it would fly in the face of of the inerrancy camp who claim the bible is teh "wurd of gawd" thus one would then fall into the whole conundrum (which really does not matter to the spinmeisters) of taking allegorical and literal standpoints in revelation.
The whole problem that C34 is taking is trying to make a 2000 year old document fit to 21st century scientific facts, a losing battle if I ever saw one IMO.
-Where are the scientific books that teach us to take an abiogenesis hypothesis on faith?
Why don't we just go straight to a horses mouth and see a definition of faith. You know this genius, since you and others are often found meme-ing him. Richard Dawkins "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is believed inspite of , even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence of."
In his other book, "The Selfish Gene" the man gives us an explanation for which I have already quoted here on his speculative version of the abiogenesis truth. After this big shpeel of his version of what the beginnings of the earth were with the correct atmospheric gases of methane, carbon dioxide, amonnia, and water. then we have energy supplied by sunlight, volcanoes and lightening storms, then elements are broken down to eventually form these basic building block componants of amino acids which turn into protein-like compounds and all of it together is this wonderful organic soup. Then he assumes that "a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident." Now though this man has no proof of this taking place, and actually calls it exceedingly improbable, he never the less insists that it happened this way. So what are we supposed to do with this genius' speculations and suppositions ??? We have to take it on faith that it happened that way and move on to this amazing genetic drift theory. If we dare continue to ask questions of mechanics of the how of the beginning, then we are said to be stupid, idiots, delusional, etc. You know the man's own words and terminology. Those are the kinds of things he says.
I've even watched news clips on the net where he repeatedly is asked those very questions of the beginnings and his usual response is "we don't know". But his explanations when he has given them have to be taken on faith. His main arguement is only that the origin of life is fascinating and that it only happened once. Now we need to move on to how evolution works. How convenient. Sorry, that isn't good enough.
I don't have the time to address the "genetic drift", but I will. I spent two decades of observing my own things in forestry and discussing this with a Marine Biologists friend of mine who worked for Lockhead doing environmental impact studies off San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant for years. I actually like all the experiments that are being done and have no problem with them. Who knows, maybe you'll find something of interest in what I've found.
With all this gumph of the "star" hitting teh earf I wonder why the many domnominations have not colluded to change the translation from "star" to "asteroid"?
It should be pretty evident to most adults with a modicum of scientific knowledge (and not still reciting twinkle twinkle little star) to accept that if it were true, a star could not be what was mentioned. Unfortunately then it would fly in the face of of the inerrancy camp who claim the bible is teh "wurd of gawd" thus one would then fall into the whole conundrum (which really does not matter to the spinmeisters) of taking allegorical and literal standpoints in revelation.
The whole problem that C34 is taking is trying to make a 2000 year old document fit to 21st century scientific facts, a losing battle if I ever saw one IMO.
The reason the Christian text has not changed star to an asteroid, is because the prophet only reported what appeared to him. And the term asteroid did not come into existance until 1700 years later. And the Bible clearly gives warnings to anyone who would take it upon themselves to change the wording in the Book of Revelation. It's obvious, a falling burning asteroid would appear to anyone living in the past as a falling star. Yet as it got closer to earth, the prophet reported that it was something like a burning mountain. There is no losing battle here, unless you are trying to ignore, or deny an honest description by the one doing the reporting. 21st century facts do not allow us to dismiss this prophecy, in fact, they give us clearer insight as to what the prophet has viewed. The true spinmeisters, are the one's who would suggest that a falling burning mountain, is really hot lava, and burning rocks spewing forth from a volcanic eruption. The Biblical text simply does not support that view. And of course, they would try to force this torchered belief on us, in order to dismiss the obvious conclusion. And that would be, something that appears like a burning mountain falling through the atmosphere and striking the sea would be an asteroid. And that is something they really do not want to believe, because that belief, would indicate advanced knowledge.
I would suggest you need to do the research, because this event could only occur after the nations of the East had the abilitly to raise up an army of 200 million men. Only in our time have we had this ability. And the text in question tells us what was seen was something (LIKE A GREAT BURNING MOUNTAIN) another words, it was not a burning mountain. And this large object falls into the sea. This event is described in Revelation chapter 8,verses 8,9,10, and 11. The text does not describe large chunks of flaming mountain, it clearly states the intire falling object strikes the sea.
Isn't it literally 200 million HORSEmen? China only has about 13 million horses, so they can't actually mount 200 million horsemen on horses. Or is this another on of those times that it's not to be taken "literally"?
The reason the Christian text has not changed star to an asteroid, is because the prophet only reported what appeared to him. And the term asteroid did not come into existance until 1700 years later. And the Bible clearly gives warnings to anyone who would take it upon themselves to change the wording in the Book of Revelation. It's obvious, a falling burning asteroid would appear to anyone living in the past as a falling star. Yet as it got closer to earth, the prophet reported that it was something like a burning mountain. There is no losing battle here, unless you are trying to ignore, or deny an honest description by the one doing the reporting. 21st century facts do not allow us to dismiss this prophecy, in fact, they give us clearer insight as to what the prophet has viewed. The true spinmeisters, are the one's who would suggest that a falling burning mountain, is really hot lava, and burning rocks spewing forth from a volcanic eruption. The Biblical text simply does not support that view. And of course, they would try to force this torchered belief on us, in order to dismiss the obvious conclusion. And that would be, something that appears like a burning mountain falling through the atmosphere and striking the sea would be an asteroid. And that is something they really do not want to believe, because that belief, would indicate advanced knowledge.
I am guessing you kinda think that they back then did not have a term for a "shooting star"? Let us see if the Hebrew caters for the word shoot. (1st occurrence Exo 36:33)
H1272 בּרח bârach baw-rakh'
A primitive root; to bolt, that is, figuratively to flee suddenly: - chase (away); drive away, fain, flee (away), put to flight, make haste, reach, run away, shoot.
Now there are words for shooting (used twice) and there are falling used multiple times.
The object of my post was to ask why IF the bible is the word of god, how is it that the folk have not stayed with modern nuances of the English language? If the star falling was supposed to mean an asteroid (a modern word) as we now know what meteorites, comets etc. are now with modern science and seeing that we know more or less what impacts of meteorites with planets and moons cause, your suggestion of a mountain sized meteorite is going to do a lot more damage even if it hits the sea, souring the water will be an understatement and would lead to a serious multiple megaton thermic reaction that would render the entire planet extinct so that would be the "Game Over" scenario.
Then of course if this is literal in the sense of an altered spin for a star which we know are no longer pin-holes in the curtain of night, then we are supposed to take the beast as literal with 10 heads and multiple horns.
If the book of Revelation were to be the final notice warning to humanity of impending doom and gloom, one would think that the text would be pretty much self explanatory w/o the need for some guru to "interpret" what the various poetic gothic description would mean in the "future" you assimilate that John was talking about.
The need for the Euphrates to dry up for the nations from the East to attack seems pretty stupid when they can just press a button and wipe Israel from the face of the earth w/o moving one infantryman who BTW no longer use horses as a mode of transport other than in ceremonial parades.
This is what make the whole argument of futurists seem so out there as it sadly demonstrates the stubbornness to acknowledge that esp. this part of the bible is very mythological.
We can continue this conversation on 22 Dec 2012 when as in the past, life will go on as usual (it will be just after Barrack Obama is elected to his second term as POTUS)
I am guessing you kinda think that they back then did not have a term for a "shooting star"? Let us see if the Hebrew caters for the word shoot. (1st occurrence Exo 36:33)
H1272 בּרח bârach baw-rakh'
A primitive root; to bolt, that is, figuratively to flee suddenly: - chase (away); drive away, fain, flee (away), put to flight, make haste, reach, run away, shoot.
Now there are words for shooting (used twice) and there are falling used multiple times.
The object of my post was to ask why IF the bible is the word of god, how is it that the folk have not stayed with modern nuances of the English language? If the star falling was supposed to mean an asteroid (a modern word) as we now know what meteorites, comets etc. are now with modern science and seeing that we know more or less what impacts of meteorites with planets and moons cause, your suggestion of a mountain sized meteorite is going to do a lot more damage even if it hits the sea, souring the water will be an understatement and would lead to a serious multiple megaton thermic reaction that would render the entire planet extinct so that would be the "Game Over" scenario.
Then of course if this is literal in the sense of an altered spin for a star which we know are no longer pin-holes in the curtain of night, then we are supposed to take the beast as literal with 10 heads and multiple horns.
If the book of Revelation were to be the final notice warning to humanity of impending doom and gloom, one would think that the text would be pretty much self explanatory w/o the need for some guru to "interpret" what the various poetic gothic description would mean in the "future" you assimilate that John was talking about.
The need for the Euphrates to dry up for the nations from the East to attack seems pretty stupid when they can just press a button and wipe Israel from the face of the earth w/o moving one infantryman who BTW no longer use horses as a mode of transport other than in ceremonial parades.
This is what make the whole argument of futurists seem so out there as it sadly demonstrates the stubbornness to acknowledge that esp. this part of the bible is very mythological.
We can continue this conversation on 22 Dec 2012 when as in the past, life will go on as usual (it will be just after Barrack Obama is elected to his second term as POTUS)
Islamics can not use nukes against Israel. The reason being because of the pollution created from such an attack would destroy most of the middle east, yet even if that were not the case, they still could not use them. Jerusalem is holy ground to the Islamic faith. Only in a great land invasion would they be able to retake Jerusalem. However, God will not allow their army to enter the land, and He will destroy five sixths of their army when they finally make their move against the Jewish people. It will be at that time when those invading nations will use their nukes against America, and the Bible states that America and all her cities will be destroyed in one hours time. And this is what makes the Bible so current, because it speaks of a nation being destroyed in one hours time, while at the same time it speak of Israel being attacked by an invading army. The United States is a remote land where such an attack would be possible. Where as Israel is way to close for nuclear consideration, and is considered to be holy ground. I might also state, that after the attack on the U.S.. The prophecy tells us no one will ever be able to live in that land again, because the land will be fully polluted. And it also tells us the nations near us will be destroyed as well.
We will be here long after 2012, I believe somewhere around 2034 is when things will really begin to fall apart.
It's pretty obvious, that the horses described in Revelation is not your standard horse. If the prophet was speaking of an ancient military of the past, he would not have to use such descriptive language. I don't recall any horses of the past having heads that appeared like lions heads, which had fire and smoke, and sulfur coming out of their mouths. That sort of thing is more in keeping with modern warfare. The current modern ratio for gunpower is 75% nitrate, 15% charcoal, and 10% (SULFUR.) It's obvious, the prophet did his best trying to describing a future military presence that was thousands of years ahead of his time.
Isn't it literally 200 million HORSEmen? China only has about 13 million horses, so they can't actually mount 200 million horsemen on horses. Or is this another on of those times that it's not to be taken "literally"?
Another thing worth considering is that in the age of nuclear weapons and other advances in military warfare it's unrealistic to think that a world war would involve millions of soldiers in the first place. If there was a world war in which all of the nuclear powers attacked each other the entire world could be obliterated in less than an hour and not a single soldier would even be involved. The need for an army of millions has been replaced by technology.
Isn't it literally 200 million HORSEmen? China only has about 13 million horses, so they can't actually mount 200 million horsemen on horses. Or is this another on of those times that it's not to be taken "literally"?
The prophecy found in Revelation chapter 9 speaks of the 200 million cavalry troops. It does not say there would be 200 million horses. It does speak of how the prophet in his vision saw the horses and their riders. And I might add here, the vision does not match anything we could point to in the past. Nor are the horses described as horses we would think of. He speaks of horses that had heads that look like the head of a lion, and out of the mouths of these heads came fire, smoke, and sulfur. This is more in keeping with modern warfare than an actual horse. And so powerful was what came out of their mouths, that the prophecy states that a third of the human race was killed off. This is obviously an attempt by the prophet to explain something he was really unfamiliar with. Only in our time have we the ability to put together such an army that could destroy a third of the human race. The prophet goes on here to tell us that the power of the horses is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like snakes, with heads that inflict harm.
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.
Broth!
