Absurdities of so called science

[AV1611VET]

Oh well, my bad then. My sincerest apologies. I don't want to misrepresent what you said.

I have more pet theories if you like. Pet Theories about what Independent Baptists really believe. Any time you want to trade pet theories, we can do so.

Lay 'em out, if that's your thing.

I'm not particularly interested --- they can't be worse than what we're already considered to be.

But if you're trying to make a point that my pet theory wansn't asked for, and is, in fact, unwelcome --- I'd say you're probably right.

 

[Freodin]

Hm... as my previous question in this thread was not answered - not fittingly by AV, not at all by dad - I like to ask again:

How did you arrive at that "pet theory" you just mentioned, AV... instead of, say, a "pet theory" of "hyper-geological forming"?

And again I´ll try to clarify... I don´t want anything about that certain theory. I´m not interested how you justify it... I want to know how you came up with this idea... and the one of "hyper-evolution".

 

[AV1611VET]

How did you arrive at that "pet theory" you just mentioned, AV... instead of, say, a "pet theory" of "hyper-geological forming"?

Hyper-geological forming? Nothing "hypered" --- and I simply arrive at that theory by concluding that GOD DID IT.

Nothing more --- nothing less.

And again I´ll try to clarify... I don´t want anything about that certain theory. I´m not interested how you justify it... I want to know how you came up with this idea... and the one of "hyper-evolution".

I don't believe in hyper-evolution --- so I don't know where you're coming from on that.

Was I espousing hyper-evolution at one time?

 

[Chalnoth]

Hyper-geological forming? Nothing "hypered" --- and I simply arrive at that theory by concluding that GOD DID IT.

The proper word to use there would be assuming, not concluding.

 

[AV1611VET]

The proper word to use there would be assuming, not concluding.

Good point --- since I did say it was a pet theory of mine.

It seems to be getting a lot of attention for some reason.

 

[Freodin]

Hyper-geological forming? Nothing "hypered" --- and I simply arrive at that theory by concluding that GOD DID IT.

Nothing more --- nothing less.I don't believe in hyper-evolution --- so I don't know where you're coming from on that.

Was I espousing hyper-evolution at one time?

QUOTE from post #55 "...but after seeing you guys make the point that what we see today couldn't possibly be real w/o hyper-evolution --- I'm [somewhat] inclined to go with it."

"Somewhat", you accepted the idea that the species evolved a lot quicker than current biology says... instead of, for example "somewhat" accepting that God created them all in their current form.

And you pet-theorize that God created geological formations in its current form "because they might be needed later"... instead of pet-theorizing that geological formations were formed much quicker that current geology says.


I would like to know why you use, in both cases, the one idea over the other.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Somewhat", you accepted the idea that the species evolved a lot quicker than current biology says... instead of, for example "somewhat" accepting that God created them all in their current form.

If --- and I do mean if --- what we see today could not possibly have micro-evolved into the animal kingdom that exists today, and if what we have today didn't come here via normal micro-evolution --- then there is only one explanation --- God hyper-microevolved the animals after they got off the Ark --- just like He did the flora in the Garden of Eden.

A fourth explanation, of course, is the evolutionists' theory that they macro-evolved over a period of n-million or n-billion years --- and that explanation is not an option for a short-time creationist.

And you pet-theorize that God created geological formations in its current form "because they might be needed later"... instead of pet-theorizing that geological formations were formed much quicker that current geology says.

Let's watch the wording --- okay? I didn't use the term "geological formations" --- and I certainly didn't say they were "formed".

I would like to know why you use, in both cases, the one idea over the other.

Because God is too far out of the picture with the one theory, and my pet theories put God right in the middle, and doing all the work, and doing it for a good reason.

 

[MoonLancer]

Good point --- since I did say it was a pet theory of mine.

It seems to be getting a lot of attention for some reason.

well Ann Coulter gets (or rather got) alot of attention. I am guessing that's not the kind of attention you want?

If one starts a theory with an assumption and work backwards to make it true, one could make anything true, as long as one avoids evidence.

If god did it is good enough for you, why do you bother comeing up with 'pet theory'?

 

[AV1611VET]

If one starts a theory with an assumption and work backwards to make it true, one could make anything true, as long as one avoids evidence.

Believe me --- I won't work backward with this pet theory. I couldn't, even if I wanted to --- I know zero about geology.

If god did it is good enough for you, why do you bother comeing up with 'pet theory'?

I just want to slow down a runaway train (the Uniformitarian Express) by fixing the brakes with the proper Tool.

 

[AV1611VET]

No offense, guys, but I didn't expect my little pet theory to be so popular.

Suffice it to say that I've exhausted my defense of it, and you may now resort to your ad hominems and jokes.

If you still don't understand it, then simply fall back on the one thing you can understand, viz. GOD DID IT --- and let it go.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Lay 'em out, if that's your thing.

Oooh, snippy. "If that's your thing." Don't like it when others do unto you what you do unto them?

I think baptists are a great group, the Independent Baptists are fantastic. I think they are a gift to America. But only when they steadfastly believe in evolution and read the book of Genesis figuratively and disbelieve in God and consider the New Testament little more than a collection of some stories with a few bon mots in 'em.

(Does that sound familiar yet? When you tell us how scientists are a gift from God but then you don't want them to do what scientists do when it disagrees with your interpretation of your "holy book" it sounds just like that to me)

I'm not particularly interested --- they can't be worse than what we're already considered to be.

You're not particularly interested? So you don't mind spewing it out at us all day every day but when someone turns it back to you, you suddenly get all distant and uncaring. (Or did you mean that most people already consider you to be a hypocrite?)

Sorry but in my book HYPOCRISY (even the most pious Independent Baptist Variety) can take a hike.

You know, sometimes I think the most wonderful verse in the Bible is:

Lk 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

Have you ever read that one?

Try reading the words for the meaning, not just "counting the letters".

 

[thaumaturgy]

Good point --- since I did say it was a pet theory of mine.

It seems to be getting a lot of attention for some reason.

Don't be disingenous! I suspect you posted it precisely to get this type of response so you could feel slighted and justified in your "standard issue Fundamentalist Christian Persecution Complex"!

Why else would you preface it with all the big red letters?

You whine so well. Act so hurt. But yet you put it out there, did you not?

And be honest: didn't you secretly want a response?

 

[Freodin]

If --- and I do mean if --- what we see today could not possibly have micro-evolved into the animal kingdom that exists today, and if what we have today didn't come here via normal micro-evolution --- then there is only one explanation --- God hyper-microevolved the animals after they got off the Ark --- just like He did the flora in the Garden of Eden.

A fourth explanation, of course, is the evolutionists' theory that they macro-evolved over a period of n-million or n-billion years --- and that explanation is not an option for a short-time creationist.Let's watch the wording --- okay? I didn't use the term "geological formations" --- and I certainly didn't say they were "formed".Because God is too far out of the picture with the one theory, and my pet theories put God right in the middle, and doing all the work, and doing it for a good reason.

So you made it up... ok, that is what I wanted to know.

 

[MoonLancer]

Believe me --- I won't work backward with this pet theory. I couldn't, even if I wanted to --- I know zero about geology.

seems like your going to have a difficult time. better grab a few books. better yet, start with the books, do some research, then come up with the theory.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I know zero about geology.

I just want to slow down a runaway train (the Uniformitarian Express) by fixing the brakes with the proper Tool.

Oh, I'm almost gasping for breath that is so hilarious! HERE we see a man confess that he knows zero about geology yet he wants to "slow down the runaway train" of "Uniformitarianism"!

Oh that is HILARIOUS!

AV, you have now become "King of the Tools"

I have GOT to save this one for future reference. UNIFORMITARIANISM IS A KEY POINT UNDERLYING GEOLOGY. One could say that it is among the REVOLUTIONS THAT HELPED GEOLOGY MAKE SENSE.

What if I said "I don't know a thing about Dispensationalism but I want to alter it or stop it". How would YOU respond. Would you think I was someone whom you should treat with respect in regards to your faith?

Remember, O' great King of the Tools: Luke 6:31.

Oh my. You have, again, made my day.

I bow down in awe of your near onanistic love of your own ignorance. I never thought I'd see someone so proud of their ignorance yet so ignorant of where that pride would lead them:

Proverbs 11:2 When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.

Proverbs 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

Levitiucs 26:19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

Yes, the Bible can teach you something. But you have to read it for content sometimes, not just for word count.

 

[juvenissun]

First, there is not enough water on the planet to cover all of the land on Earth, at the same time, as the Earth currently exists.

So, the only way you could believe the flood could cover all of the land is if you thought the earth was "more flat" when the flood occurred... and then everything rose up into place afterward.

Here's the problem...
-The "younger" portions of the rocky mountains uplifted over 65 million years ago... the older portions uplifted during the precambrian! (up to 3.9 billion years ago)
- The himalayas are some of the "youngest" mountains on the planet... and their formation began 50-70 million years ago (date range only due to different definitions of when a mountain is a mountain).

There simply is no physical way that the Earth could have been flat enough to be covered in water during the time that the story of Noah correlates to (roughly 5,000 years ago) and then suddenly bulge up to it's current state.

Furthermore, you have only presented information that, you say, leads you to believe a global flood COULD happen. I asked you for the facts that make you believe it is more probable than not that a global flood DID happen. They are two very different questions.

Mountain building process started at the same time with the crust building process of the earth. If you take a look of any video which shows lava flow from a volcano, the dark color solid floats on the surface of the lava is an analogy of the early continents. It is pretty flat even this thin plates collided to each other. Now, what we need to have a global flood is only "some" water, not too much, but just enough to cover these thin continents. This would be the easiest time to have a global flood. As the earth gradually cooled, the continents became thicker and collisions started to raise higher mountains. Then it would be more unlikely to have a real global flood, which covered all the mountain peaks.

Two problems: 1) Where came the water needed to cover the earth? 2) What is the time frame for this model of global flood?

The first one is easier to deal with. There are several models to address the origin of our ocean, particularly the early ocean. The second one is sticky. Just like what you said, I don't think a global flood is likely to occur by the time we got the Rocky and the Himalaya mountains made. So, a global flood should happened earlier than that. However, everyone can also see the problem to have this scenario accommodated other details in the Biblical description of Noah's Flood. Namely, where is Noah and other people/animals at that time?

Regardless the difficulties. I do see the very real possibility of a global flood. To have a global flood is not a problem at all. The problem is how to fit other things into the event. Of course, this model is made based on the current understanding to the origin of continent and ocean. To be short, this model is called the plate tectonics. It is still possible for earth scientists to make everything wrong right from the beginning. The reason of this suspicion is very simple: the earth is the only known planet which works based on this version of plate tectonics.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Mountain building process started at the same time with the crust building process of the earth. If you take a look of any video which shows lava flow from a volcano, the dark color solid floats on the surface of the lava is an analogy of the early continents. It is pretty flat even this thin plates collided to each other. Now, what we need to have a global flood is only "some" water, not too much, but just enough to cover these thin continents. This would be the easiest time to have a global flood. As the earth gradually cooled, the continents became thicker and collisions started to raise higher mountains. Then it would be more unlikely to have a real global flood, which covered all the mountain peaks.

Two problems: 1) Where came the water needed to cover the earth? 2) What is the time frame for this model of global flood?

The first one is easier to deal with. There are several models to address the origin of our ocean, particularly the early ocean. The second one is sticky. Just like what you said, I don't think a global flood is likely to occur by the time we got the Rocky and the Himalaya mountains made. So, a global flood should happened earlier than that. However, everyone can also see the problem to have this scenario accommodated other details in the Biblical description of Noah's Flood. Namely, where is Noah and other people/animals at that time?

Regardless the difficulties. I do see the very real possibility of a global flood. To have a global flood is not a problem at all. The problem is how to fit other things into the event. Of course, this model is made based on the current understanding to the origin of continent and ocean. To be short, this model is called the plate tectonics. It is still possible for earth scientists to make everything wrong right from the beginning. The reason of this suspicion is very simple: the earth is the only known planet which works based on this version of plate tectonics.

Am I to understand that you are specifically trying to find a way to make the facts support your pre-determined conclusion? You don't see a problem with that?

It's not like it really matters... there is simply no way to make your facts and your story line up. As I said, the moutain ranges in question are over 50 million years old... and humans didn't even resemble their current forms until 200,000 years ago. There is physically no way for a global flood to have occurred in the last 50 million years... and there certainly wasn't anyone around that long ago to witness it, let alone build a boat and ride it out.

I really don't understand your post. You list several of these difficulties... and then just say "oh, it's no problem"... but provide absolutely so reason for why there is no problem.

You also have yet to tell me why you think it is more probable than not that a global flood DID occur... and not just your reasons for thinking such an event was possible.

 

[Hespera]

Am I to understand that you are specifically trying to find a way to make the facts support your pre-determined conclusion? You don't see a problem with that?

It's not like it really matters... there is simply no way to make your facts and your story line up. As I said, the moutain ranges in question are over 50 million years old... and humans didn't even resemble their current forms until 200,000 years ago. There is physically no way for a global flood to have occurred in the last 50 million years... and there certainly wasn't anyone around that long ago to witness it, let alone build a boat and ride it out.

I really don't understand your post. You list several of these difficulties... and then just say "oh, it's no problem"... but provide absolutely so reason for why there is no problem.

You also have yet to tell me why you think it is more probable than not that a global flood DID occur... and not just your reasons for thinking such an event was possible.

It is good that you cant understand what he is saying. he doesnt, i dont, nobody could. it is made up gibberish!

IF the bible of juv said that the earth rests on the back of a turtle, he'd find a way to show that its true.

It would be fun to talk to someone coherent who knew what he was talking about, and could present it in a form that make sense. Zero knowledge, wild assumptions, preconceived ideas, impenetrable prose and words that mean whatever he decides that they mean.... nah. Cant get anywhere with that.

The guy has no idea of what intellectual integrity would mean.



You DO know you are wasting your time?

 

[juvenissun]

Am I to understand that you are specifically trying to find a way to make the facts support your pre-determined conclusion? You don't see a problem with that?

It's not like it really matters... there is simply no way to make your facts and your story line up. As I said, the moutain ranges in question are over 50 million years old... and humans didn't even resemble their current forms until 200,000 years ago. There is physically no way for a global flood to have occurred in the last 50 million years... and there certainly wasn't anyone around that long ago to witness it, let alone build a boat and ride it out.

I really don't understand your post. You list several of these difficulties... and then just say "oh, it's no problem"... but provide absolutely so reason for why there is no problem.

You also have yet to tell me why you think it is more probable than not that a global flood DID occur... and not just your reasons for thinking such an event was possible.

I said a global flood is very likely a fact. I did not say Noah and his animals were there. The former is a geological argument. The latter is a Biblical description. So far, they do not match well. BUT, the science could be wrong.

Yes, I have the answer first and then seek scientific support (nothing wrong with that). The Bible is never wrong even we do not know why. That is called faith.

 

[Danyc]

BUT, the science could be wrong

Show it already.

Yes, I have the answer first and then seek scientific support (nothing wrong with that).

There is everything wrong with that.

The Bible is never wrong even we do not know why. That is called faith.

If the Bible is never wrong, what is the point of your "search" for scientific evidence?