A very specific question for evolutionists.

[AV1611VET]

Do you see change as necessarily a bad thing?

Nope --- NASA, for example, made some hefty changes in 1986.

They even made changes in 1967 --- it took a real scientist (and three dead men) to figure out that a door should open inward --- not outward.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nope --- NASA, for example, made some hefty changes in 1986.

They even made changes in 1967 --- it took a real scientist (and three dead men) to figure out that a door should open inward --- not outward.

At least they didn't chalk it up to "God's Will" and sit on their hands, too afraid to change anything.

 

[Split Rock]

Nope --- NASA, for example, made some hefty changes in 1986.

They even made changes in 1967 --- it took a real scientist (and three dead men) to figure out that a door should open inward --- not outward.

Are you referring to the Apollo 1 training accident on Jan 27, 1967? This was not actually caused by the door opening inward (you have it backwards, as usual). It was because they were using a pure oxygen atmosphere under high pressure. It is likely that an electical spark started a fire which killed the crew in seconds due to the high pressure oxygen environment. The critisism concerning the door was that under high internal pressure, it was probably impossible to open the hatch from the inside since it opened inward.

As usual, you over-simplify everything. There were a number of safety concerns with the old Apollo 1 capsule design. After the accident, the following steps and design changes were implimented:

At launch the cabin atmosphere would be at sea-level pressure and consist of 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen, lowering to 5 psi during ascent and gradually changing over to 100% oxygen at about 2 psi during the first 24 hours of the trans-lunar coast.

The hatch would open outward (which had already been planned) and be openable in less than ten seconds.

Flammable materials in the cabin were replaced with self-extinguishing versions.

Plumbing and wiring were covered with protective insulation.

1,407 wiring problems were corrected.

Nylon suits were replaced with suits made of early Beta cloth, a non-flammable, highly melt-resistant fabric woven from silica and coated with glass.

An explosive hatch was re-added (which had been removed after Mercury 4 when the hatch blew prematurely on Grissom's capsule and caused it to sink, irking NASA officials). The redesigned hatched used a cartridge of pressurised nitrogen to drive the release mechanism in an emergency, as opposed to the pyrotechnic bolts used on Mercury.
(wikipedia)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you referring to the Apollo 1 training accident on Jan 27, 1967? This was not actually caused by the door opening inward (you have it backwards, as usual). It was because they were using a pure oxygen atmosphere under high pressure. It is likely that an electical spark started a fire which killed the crew in seconds due to the high pressure oxygen environment. The critisism concerning the door was that under high internal pressure, it was probably impossible to open the hatch from the inside since it opened inward.

As usual, you over-simplify everything. There were a number of safety concerns with the old Apollo 1 capsule design. After the accident, the following steps and design changes were implimented:

At launch the cabin atmosphere would be at sea-level pressure and consist of 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen, lowering to 5 psi during ascent and gradually changing over to 100% oxygen at about 2 psi during the first 24 hours of the trans-lunar coast.

The hatch would open outward (which had already been planned) and be openable in less than ten seconds.

Flammable materials in the cabin were replaced with self-extinguishing versions.

Plumbing and wiring were covered with protective insulation.

1,407 wiring problems were corrected.

Nylon suits were replaced with suits made of early Beta cloth, a non-flammable, highly melt-resistant fabric woven from silica and coated with glass.

An explosive hatch was re-added (which had been removed after Mercury 4 when the hatch blew prematurely on Grissom's capsule and caused it to sink, irking NASA officials). The redesigned hatched used a cartridge of pressurised nitrogen to drive the release mechanism in an emergency, as opposed to the pyrotechnic bolts used on Mercury.
(wikipedia)

Thomas Aquinas was smart enough to realize that God can allow a small evil in order that a greater good can be accomplished somewhere down the line -- in this case, an accident leads to learning from a mistake which leads to a safer product which leads to all sorts of benefits from society (The Apollo program led to a whole slew of inventions most of us reap the benefits from every day).

Alas, AV -- who sees learning as an evil thing -- is no Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Split Rock]

Thomas Aquinas was smart enough to realize that God can allow a small evil in order that a greater good can be accomplished somewhere down the line -- in this case, an accident leads to learning from a mistake which leads to a safer product which leads to all sorts of benefits from society (The Apollo program led to a whole slew of inventions most of us reap the benefits from every day).

Alas, AV -- who sees learning as an evil thing -- is no Thomas Aquinas.

True enough! However, the lack of concern for basic safety precautions and record keeping during the Apollo program at that point in time was appalling.

 

[MoonLancer]

AV, is the faith you have in someones hear-say in regards to consumer prices equal to your faith in god?

is faith black and white, or is it a spectrum?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, is the faith you have in someones hear-say in regards to consumer prices equal to your faith in god?

I asked first here.

 

[Nathan Poe]

True enough! However, the lack of concern for basic safety precautions and record keeping during the Apollo program at that point in time was appalling.

Which is a good thing that such people are committed to learning from their mistakes.

Only those who are dead-set on their own infallibility don't learn.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I asked first here.

Nobody cares what you've asked -- please answer Moon's question.

 

[MoonLancer]

I asked first here.

I would need more info. Wikipedia is good, but if someones life depended on me knowing this, I would certainly do more research, or measure it myself if need be.

Otherwise knowing such info on a day to day basis doesn't effect me if it was exactly 11 Km or little bit more or little bit less. I would hope that Wikipedia is at least close to the correct depth. However its likely not exactly 11km as measurement can get so anal as to measure down to the atom, so my guess is 11km is just a simplification and a rough average, as even the sea floor may very in depth.

So good sir, I have answered your question to the best of my ability. Now you answer my question please.

 

[consol]

I can not see why you all bother to respond to AV, the guy has shown more than once that
he is not concerned with anything anyone has to say, his way is the one and only way,
don't say you do it for the lurkers because there are none left, they have seen how crazy
creationism is and they have all left, all you are doing is pandering to AV's ego.

There are only three captured creationists left on this forum, and all three are as nutty as fruit cakes,
nothing will ever get through to them ever again, they are completely lost to this world or any other,
Dad, AV and Servant of God are all that is left, creationism on this forum is dead, smashed by reason.

If Americans were not so considerate of their crazy ideas, creationism would never have got passed
first base, why they don't just dismiss them as the crazies they are is beyond me, just laugh at them,
America has a lot to answer for, allowing misguided religious lunatics to flourish being just one of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

So good sir, I have answered your question to the best of my ability. Now you answer my question please.

AV, is the faith you have in someones hear-say in regards to consumer prices equal to your faith in god?

It depends.

Let's simplify this and eliminate sales tax, etc. If I wanted a pound of coffee, and took just $3.98 down to the store, then yes --- that is akin to my faith in Jesus.

BUT --- if I took $5.00 down to the store, just in case it is not $3.98 a pound as I was told --- then no, it is not akin to my faith in Jesus. Whoever told me it was $3.98 a pound may just as well have kept their mouth shut.

is faith black and white, or is it a spectrum?

It is black and white --- in my opinion.

 

[Athrond]

Science changes --- God does not.

You put your faith in science, you change when science changes.

You put your faith in the Bible, you change when God changes.

Since God doesn't change, neither does our faith.

Thank you AV for clearing that up!

as someone said above the fault of this logic is that you equate "the bible" with "god"

It is your faith that the bible is infallible, that is the matter of debate* (at least for my part).

A side thought: Wouldn't your rigid view of the bible make you miss the changes God make?





* and it does BEG for debate that's for sure...

Trond
Live long and prosper

 

[AV1611VET]

as someone said above the fault of this logic is that you equate "the bible" with "god"

That ad hominem is cheaper by the dozen. They say I'm a YEC too, not to mention Omphalos, OEC, a liar, a deceiver, and everything else that's not in my profile --- big deal.

As many times as I've described the Bible and God, I'm sure they know the difference. It's meant to be a flame, nothing else.

It is your faith that the bible is infallible, that is the matter of debate* (at least for my part).

That's right --- the technical term is Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and here is one of the best definitions I've seen in a long time:

[FONT=MS Reference Serif, Gill Sans MT, Trebuchet MS]"Verbal Plenary Inspiration" means "God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture that, without waiving their intelligence, their individuality, their personal feelings, their literary style, or any other human factor of expression, His Complete and Coherent Message to mankind was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture: the very words bearing the Authority of Divine Authorship."

[/FONT]

A side thought: Wouldn't your rigid view of the bible make you miss the changes God make?

For I am the LORD, I change not...

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Nope --- NASA, for example, made some hefty changes in 1986.

They even made changes in 1967 --- it took a real scientist (and three dead men) to figure out that a door should open inward --- not outward.

and if the bible commanded "all doors shall open outward" what advice should they heed? that of the new discovery or that of the bible?

 

[Split Rock]

It depends.

Let's simplify this and eliminate sales tax, etc. If I wanted a pound of coffee, and took just $3.98 down to the store, then yes --- that is akin to my faith in Jesus.

BUT --- if I took $5.00 down to the store, just in case it is not $3.98 a pound as I was told --- then no, it is not akin to my faith in Jesus. Whoever told me it was $3.98 a pound may just as well have kept their mouth shut.


It is black and white --- in my opinion.

First of all, very little in this universe is black-and white.

Second, you just contradicted yourself. You use this coffee story to explain that your faith in Jesus may or may not be the same as your faith that coffee is $3.98 a pound, then you claim faith is all "black and white." Which is it?

Third, is there anything that would change your faith in Jesus as your saviour? Is there anything that would change your faith in coffee being $3.98 a pound? If you answer No for the first question and Yes for the second, then it is not the same "faith."

As many times as I've described the Bible and God, I'm sure they know the difference. It's meant to be a flame, nothing else.That's right --- the technical term is Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and here is one of the best definitions I've seen in a long time:[/FONT]

So does this "Verbal Plenary Inspiration" not constitute faith that The Bible was not only inspired by God, but also constitutes a perfect reflection of His message? Is this not different from having faith that Jesus is Christ, or in the existance of God?

 

[Naraoia]

The changes God makes =/= God changes

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

do any of you creationists realize how retarded science would be if it only regarded claims that conformed to the bible or any religious ideology(retard = to prevent progress)? one of the earliest discoveries of geology was the recognition of the pattern of simple to complex life from bottom layer to top. this predated Darwin. this is the only time where legitimate scientists were creationists. this discovery led to ideas such as gap theory. creationists back then could not ignore this relationship. yet this relationship is denied by Flood Geology. stratification has never been scientifically explained through Noachian flood sorting, not even before Darwin when many scientists would have agreed with the genesis account.
to summarize, if science was held to the "standards" of the bible, scientific progress would be impossible.

 

[Athrond]

That ad hominem is cheaper by the dozen. They say I'm a YEC too, not to mention Omphalos, OEC, a liar, a deceiver, and everything else that's not in my profile --- big deal.

Ok my bad in using "metaphorical" language. I think you got it though.

As many times as I've described the Bible and God, I'm sure they know the difference. It's meant to be a flame, nothing else.That's right --- the technical term is Verbal Plenary Inspiration, and here is one of the best definitions I've seen in a long time:[/FONT]

"Verbal Plenary Inspiration" means "God the Holy Spirit so supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture that, without waiving their intelligence, their individuality, their personal feelings, their literary style, or any other human factor of expression, His Complete and Coherent Message to mankind was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of Scripture: the very words bearing the Authority of Divine Authorship." boldeh mine

Ok so it IS possible that the writers of the bible wrote in metaphors and such then Glad we can agree on that. No more "genesis did actually happen" then, because it just reflects the authors style. I wins!!!

Eh, AV?


Trond

 

[Naraoia]

Ok so it IS possible that the writers of the bible wrote in metaphors and such then Glad we can agree on that. No more "genesis did actually happen" then, because it just reflects the authors style. I wins!!!

Eh, AV?


Trond

Also note the mention of the "original languages of Scripture". So much for KJV supremacy. (Unless AV thinks an "original" can come later than first)