Science, Creation & EvolutionRing SpeciesIt was you that first accused another of lying, how soon we forget:
If I am not mistaken, the story of the flood can also be found in the story of Gilgamesh in the Babylonian religious writting. However, I need not refer to such as the bible will serve just fine here. You hold that I ignored the bible And included insects on the ark, I say it was not so. Shall we take a look at what the goody-good book has to say about our crawly wee friends? I say we shall, do try to keep up friend Aineo.... Now it would seem to me that "every living thing" may just include insects... or is it that god did not make insects... ----- Vague reference to insects = 1 -----
"all life" would seem to include insects. "every creature that has the breath of life" would again seem to include insects. "Everything on earth will perish" would seem to include insects. ----- Vague reference to insects = 4 -----
"all living creatures" - insects are living ----- Vague reference to insects = 5 -----
"every kind of bird" - I presume he meant birds. "every kind of animal" - I presume he meant mammals (actually this statement does include insects too). "every kind of creature that moves along the ground" - Did god mean mammals again? Was god being redundant? Did he forget he already mentioned mammals (animals)? Could it just be possible he meant insects? Ya, I do believe this is insects. ----- Vague reference to insects = 5 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 1 -----
"clean and unclean animals" "birds" "all creatures that move along the ground" Is god being redundant, again? ----- Vague reference to insects = 5 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 2 -----
"every wild animal" - mammals of the wild sort. "livestock" - mammals of the domestic sort. "every creature that moves along the ground" - Hmmm, insects? Yep, here it is again. "every bird" - birds. "everything with wings" - flying insects perhaps ----- Vague reference to insects = 5 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 3 -----
----- Vague reference to insects = 7 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 3 -----
"birds" - duck, its a swarm of geese... "livestock" - look out, its a swarm of cattle... "wild animals" - quick, hide, its a swarm of tigers... "all the creatures that swarm over the earth" - I really have not seen geese, cattle Or tigers swarm. Now insects, boy do those guys swarm... ----- Vague reference to insects = 7 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 4 -----
"men" - thats us, not insects. "animals" - thats mammals, not insects. "creatures that move along the ground" - thats insects, not insects. Wait a minute, that IS insects. "birds" - these are birds, not insects. ----- Vague reference to insects = 8 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 5 -----
First Noah brings out the "birds" Then Noah brings out the "animals" Then, according to you Aineo, Noah puts the "animals" back in the ark so he can bring out "all the creatures that move along the ground" Or perhaps Noah just let out the insects after the animals. ----- Vague reference to insects = 8 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 6 -----
----- Vague reference to insects = 8 ----- ----- Specific reference to insects = 6 ----- -------- Consider yourself Owned --------
I can be accused of many things, of being hypocritical, however, is not one. I am simply what I am And do not claim Or pretend to be else. You Aineo continually demonstrate that you do NOT understand evolutionary theory Or concepts. Further, you have also demonstated that you do not even know the word of your god. I have indeed read the bible. Cover to cover. Twice. (Don't feel special, I have read several religious books cover to cover). To presume otherwise is an unfair assault on my person. No Aineo, your accusations concerning my lack of knowledge of things biblical is inflamitory And sadly misplaced.
What I Find odd is your use of scientific terminology as applied to the non-scientific. ID is not science. It is religious. I am open to the possibility that evolution may not be the Right answer. Currently, it makes the most sense. Thus I accept it (Or something similar) as a good indicator of what is going on. If it fails to be so, fine. I can live with that. What I cannot accept is the distortion of science in religious persuit. Religion is not science. It cannot be wrong. It can be modified, sure, like when religious belief held the Earth as the center of the universe. That changed in the face of acquired knowledge. The Earth is indeed round. However, those who hold to any religion will NEVER admit that there is no god. They cannot even entertain the idea. They will modify their beliefs, change the words around, shift the focus, move the mirrors, hide the card up their sleeve. Science is a persuit of the ultimate truth. Religion is the persuit to force knowledge to fit it's ultimate truth. There is a difference. In science nothing is known And knowldedge is sought to Find the answer. In religion the answer is known And the only knowledge sought is that which supports the answer. It is not that you disagree with me that offends, as you are free to believe as you wish. What offends is the fact that you cannot accept that religion may not be Right. Religious thinking is closed, religion is not open to other ideas. No matter what it MUST be Right. No evolution? I can live with that. God's existence? I can live with that. No god? Can you live with that?
I not only "keep posting" that evolution is the best current explanation. It IS (as you agree) the best current explanation.
Not familiar with Lorentzian relativity, will look into it though.
I take it that you meant that it took 50 years for scientists to accept that he speed of light is not INfinite. For, as we know, you argue that the speed of light has decayed, which would have moved it further from the "not finite".
Agreed, scientists can be bigoted, dishonest, fake results, And lie when it comes to supporting their favorite theory. Of course, religion has done much, much worse when it has defended its favorite (only) theory. Difference here is that it has only taken scientists 50 years to accept light as finite. 2,000 years later And we are still dealing with the bigoted resistance of the religious to ANY scientific thought that may infringe on their favorite theory.
I am somewhat familiar with biology, And yes, I would not be suprised to learn that some plants could survive total submesion in water. However, it would be my guess that the majority of plants cannot survive extended submersion in water. I have given up keeping plants beccause I tend to over-water them And they die. I do not mean to, I just do. Now I would never submerge them in water for 150+ days, as this would amount to plant homicide, but I did dump a lot of water on them. They died. I would suprised to Find any botanist that would suggest I keep any but a few species of plants submerged in water for 150 days Or more. Can olive's survive this? I don;t know, do you? Of drought, I have stated nothing as it is moot to the story of the flood.
You refer to my rationale of the flood. I have offered no rationale. It is not a rational story, And I have offered no rationale. I have simply pointed out the irrationality of the story. The need for rationalization lies with you, not I.
I judge christians based on my daily dealings with them, catholic ot otherwise. Again, scientists may resist change, but they have never burnt someone at the stake, Or damned someone to hell, because they did not agree with them.
I am not sure I caught what you were saying there. Clarification would be appreciated.
Evolution takes as much time as it needs, not a second more, not a second less. Speciation is evolution. Speciation has been observed over short time frames. Agreed, evolution does not take vast amounts of time.
I appeal to nothing. I simply state fact. Ice forms layers which are counted/estimated. Isometric dating is Used to confirm the count/estimate. Isometric dating is not Used to "compute" the years, it is Used to confirn what is already known. Isometric dating is widely accepted as being rliable. It is a check. Not a computation. Example: I hurt my foot. It is black And blue And hurts like a dickens. I cannot move it. I know it is broken. I go to to the doctor to confirm this, not because i do not already know, but for confirmation. Again, I have checked into dating methods, apparently more carefully than you have checked into your bible.
It does beg that question, does it not? What has happened in the past? Lets see, perhaps it was 299,792.458 Km/s. Its the Law. You see, it does not matter what Tifft "may have" demonstrated (by the way, "may have" is not "unimpeachable"). Why? Because the dynamic And atomic clock are in sync now, that's why. No more discrepency. Either the dynamic clock has slowed down Or the atomic clock has sped up. If, as Setterfield would have us believe, it was the atomic clock that slowed And then sped up, then his theory is wrong. Being wrong, by "negative evidence" existing, his whole theory is seriously hurting. As in like, "Wow-time-for-the-creationists-to-Find-another-pet-theory-to-endorse-And-just-bury-this-one" Dead. The atomic clock has not, does not, And will not decay. At best it varies. It may have even been way faster than it is currently Or it may have not moved at all. Nobody knows. Really, nobody knows If it was the atomic clock that varied in the first place (the variance of the atomic clock over the dynamic clocl was an assumtion Sutterfield made). *Pigblood* ditects Aineo scratching his head trying to figure a way to use "dynamic clock decay theory" to support his belief in god. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame