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.
...yes, six distinguished paleo-ecological geologists making what still amounts to an unprovable assumption based on an organically evolved world that no one was around to observe. Where are the transitional fossils of these "epoch-versions of whales, seals, etc...? Information must have a source. The Blessings of The Eternal One bring you joy...
As compared to what credible academic qualifications in religious (snort..) "scientific pronouncements"????
Sorry: you'll have to do the studing and reading on those transitionals. but... there are no half-whale, half-leopards out there anywhere. That's not how genetic transitions are represented. That's only in stupid religious comic books, which is the best they can do.
BTW, You are a transitional; you just won't accept or understand it.
Note to the Uninitiated and Scientifically Unread: The fossil record is NOT responsible to provide conveniently toe-tagged samples, laid out in undisturbed geological strata, with documented dates of death on said tags. We arrive at these determinations through exactly the methods my link provides. it just happens to clarify the scientific diversity and complexity that is used now before credible conclusions are conservatively made.
But in the past (> 15 - 20 yrs; the scientifically distant past), such conclusions were not nearly so well supported by unrelated disciplines. They may have been accruate, but today's findings are very much more reliable.
My intention with this particular link was to specifically counter exactly just such unconsidered knee-jerk denialist commentary as lw's. The huge and fruitful cross-pollination of ideas, of techniques, of entirely different methodologies in entirely unique and unrelated disciplines, is surely more convincing than the denialist's retreat, of bleating and yowling that "it's all just a theory" or that the careful conclusions, alongside the exact methods used to reach them, are "unsupportable". or that unimaginably contradictory and/or impossible biblical myths are somehow inerrant.
What IS supportable to you then? God's voice yelling through the rain storm?
Tell yah what: that ain't gonna happen! ('Cause He don't exist, or categorically refuses to show Himself to ANYONE!)
As the larger scientific process evolves and advances, it becomes ever more believable and reliable. Else that Concorde would not have flown, we would not have reached the moon, and electron microscopes and The Large Hadron Collider (Creator of The God Particle, coming soon!) would only be ineffective pipe dreams.
At some point, the truth just sorta takes hold of you, dunnit, lw?
(Hand the boy a crying towel; I think he needs one right about now...)
In my view, one comes closer to the truth by ignoring both camps, their endless need to discredit the other.
That view would be well and good if it were not for the three million American infants and small children being brainwashed with that ancient god nonsense each year. And that just uses the birth rate and does not address immigration.
Last edited by Melvin.George; 12-31-2010 at 04:29 AM..
Well I understand, but the evidence is there in archaeology that proves many biblical events. Yet Atheist and Christians are locked into a battle to disprove the other, as if one cannot disagree with them both. Well I do, and see hyproacy in them both, stimulated by a desire to be the king of whats real, when in reality they both are imputent and sullen. Neither can carry the light of understanding.
In my view, one comes closer to the truth by ignoring both camps, their endless need to discredit the other. My senselessness is then apparent, because I engage both at times, knowing the fruitlessness of it all.
Unfortunately, where there is evidence versus lack of evidence, compromise is a fallacy.
Person one says the sin rises in the west. The other says it rises in the east. Instead of looking at the evidence you may prefer to say that it rises in the middle. That's reasonable isn't it?
No. Look at the evidence. Don't just take a comfy way out by a false compromise, especially one that grossly misuses archaeology by buying into the false claim that it 'proves the bible'. It no more does that than history proves Ian Fleming's books true because America and The USSR are facts.
The Theist slant in the Bible is demonstrably false, even if Edom and Jericho were real places.
Quote:
There is a great gulf fixed in understanding, and those who think themselves wise will try to fill it, with themselves.
Not knowing that their understanding can never fill the gap.
Peace.
This 'science doesn't know everything' ploy is all part of the big fallacy of theistthink.
Science cannot answer all questions but opting for the fallacies of theism which claims to provide the answers is sheer self - delusion. I for one, prefer what we can show from evidence rather than what is believed because one cannot disprove it 100%
I believe this cartoon says it all when one argues about scientific vs biblical methods of research.
This isn't just the Creationist method but the method of all theist thinking and cult - thinking, too.
We saw it in everything from the undersea cities to the photos of squared and 'rebars' on mars We can't explain why they look odd and we don't know definitely what they are so they must be what the cultists claim. In essence, the good old 'We can't explain them, therefore we can explain them'.
Theism is just the same and it is why the Gospel problems are dissmissed in favour of the Faith - based assumption of their essential factuality.
is this discovery supposed to refute the existence of God in general or just refute the bible ?
Good question. Presumably as a refutation of the Bible with respect to the age of the earth debate - even though no one here (CD) has ever been able to point out where the Bible provides such information.
It's much easier to appear as the victor in a debate if one is successful in constructing a 'straw man' opponent.
no one here (CD) has ever been able to point out where the Bible provides such information..
Is that what the bible provides...information?
The entire universe created in six days about 6000 years ago?
A flood that covered the world to a level of six miles and evaporated within a few weeks?
Big fish puking up live men?
Entire cities being demolished and destroyed by an invisible man in the sky?
The earth standing still?
Walls falling at the sound of a trumpet?
Men enduring a 1200 degree furnace?
Seas parting long enough for the good guys to cross then drowning their pursuers?
Virgin Birth?
A man walking on water?
Healing leprosy by a touch?
Turning water into fine wine by blessing?
Feeding 6000 or 8000 hungry people with two fish and five loaves then gathering 12 baskets of leftovers?
Restoring life to dead people?
Resurrection?
The most illogical thinker on the face of the earth minus childhood brainwashing would think those stories match those in Mother Goose. Jack and the Beanstalk is as close to reality!
Last edited by Melvin.George; 12-31-2010 at 07:39 AM..
Remember what happened to Galileo for telling the truth (as opposed to The Truth).
From about 1500AD to 1700AD there were inquisitions all over Europe when ordinary folk had no right to an opinion...tens of thousands were tortured and/or murdered during the church's reformation. Witches were constantly tortured and hanged or burned. People who made the mistake of speaking up about anything were taking their lives into their own hands. No entity with power and authority in the history of civilization has done more wrong to people who did nothing to deserve it than the church itself.
Last edited by Melvin.George; 12-31-2010 at 02:01 PM..
Good question. Presumably as a refutation of the Bible with respect to the age of the earth debate - even though no one here (CD) has ever been able to point out where the Bible provides such information.
It's much easier to appear as the victor in a debate if one is successful in constructing a 'straw man' opponent.
It's not the atheist that invented the "young earth" argument.
You need to spend more time telling your fellow Christians you think their argument is a straw man, not the atheist.
Because apparently, between 40% - 57% of American's believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
Good post, Melvin. Misinformation is more like it. Remember what happened to Galileo for telling the truth (as opposed to The Truth).
To be fair, Galileo didn't really get in trouble solely for the Heliocentric arguments.
Galileo got in trouble because he mocked the Clergy while he was doing it.
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.
