Absurdities of so called science

[ragarth]

The second amendment has nothing to do with the national guard. It has to do with my right to own a .38 revolver... which i do...and to protect myself with it, which i will if i ever need to.

It also has to do with the right of the people to defend themselves against outrages committed by the government against such rights as we are endowed with by our creator.

If you are an American Citizen as i now proudly can call myself you should be aware that the supreme court recently ruled that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Just like free speech, and the rest of the rights we enjoy here.

Sweet! I'm happy to see naturalized citizens taking advantage of this right. I personally own a goodly number of firearms (I collect stuff in the 7.62 caliber). Handgun wise I own a 9mm semiautomatic compact, it's my absolute favorite weapon to use.

 

[Chalnoth]

The second amendment has nothing to do with the national guard. It has to do with my right to own a .38 revolver... which i do...and to protect myself with it, which i will if i ever need to.

It also has to do with the right of the people to defend themselves against outrages committed by the government against such rights as we are endowed with by our creator.

If you are an American Citizen as i now proudly can call myself you should be aware that the supreme court recently ruled that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Just like free speech, and the rest of the rights we enjoy here.

Actually, the national guards are the state militias. Of course, it's also been interpreted by the supreme court to mean that it gives the right to private citizens to own guns. But the primary thrust is to ensure that the national government can't oppress the states.

 

[Hespera]

>>>>>>>Sweet! I'm happy to see naturalized citizens taking advantage of this right. I personally own a goodly number of firearms (I collect stuff in the 7.62 caliber). Handgun wise I own a 9mm semiautomatic compact, it's my absolute favorite weapon to use.<<<<<<<

I think we are getting way off topic here.... if anyone minds, sorry.... but its not the first time we saw 'thread drift" (I just made that term up myself)

I really had no interest at all in guns and if i thought about them it was almost like revulsion.

Then I had a very terrifying and dangerous thing happen to me.

I guess i am lucky, like I am alive still. Also that my bf had the patience to stick with me and to start teaching me how to protect myself, and teach me about the 2nd, and a lot of other things I had never thought about.

The word "empower" is so cliche but I am going to use it anyway. I like the way I am empowered by this. I dont have to be a victim again not for anyone.

ok! that is my rant.

 

[gaara4158]

Dreaming again, I see. My position is anything but destroyed by your dreams and baseless rhetoric.

Irony check...

 

[AV1611VET]

[Genesis] is written almost as poetry.

I believe there's a very good reason for that.

Intelligence and art seem to walk together hand-in-hand.

When God foreordained the 40-some authors of each individual book that would eventually become the Bible, He foreordained 40-some highly-intelligent men (and possibly one woman).

For example:

1. Matthew --- could recall minute details of the OT to show Jesus as the Fulfiller of prophecy.
2. Luke --- a doctor, with an extreme eye for historical and minute details.
3. John --- could show God's logic superior to Greek logic.
4. Paul --- very intelligent --- had the ability to debate the most minute of theology to the most simple of people --- or the most intelligent of people. Could switch topics at the drop of a hat, then get right back on cue without missing a beat. Wrote deep theology in a way that a child or a well-seasoned theologian could understand and appreciate.

I said all this to make this point: That the [mundane] authors of the Scriptures wrote literally, but with a flair of poetry in the background.

Thus Genesis 1 is to be taken literally, even though some may be able to spot a flair of poetry in it.

If Tom says: I stood there and saw the red car bump into the green car.

If Bob says: I, as I patiently awaited the light to change its color so as to give me permission to continue my journey, witnessed the careening of the red vehicle, a victim of unstoppable momentum, kiss the green car ahead of it.

Does that mean they wrote two different things?

 

[NailsII]

I believe there's a very good reason for that.

Intelligence and art seem to walk together hand-in-hand.

When God foreordained the 40-some authors of each individual book that would eventually become the Bible, He foreordained 40-some highly-intelligent men (and possibly one woman).

For example:

1. Matthew --- could recall minute details of the OT to show Jesus as the Fulfiller of prophecy.
2. Luke --- a doctor, with an extreme eye for historical and minute details.
3. John --- could show God's logic superior to Greek logic.

Does it not bother you that some gospels appear to be plagerisms, and that a similar but less miraculous story is told in the 'heretical' gospels that the early church banned?

Paul --- very intelligent --- had the ability to debate the most minute of theology to the most simple of people --- or the most intelligent of people. Could switch topics at the drop of a hat, then get right back on cue without missing a beat. Wrote deep theology in a way that a child or a well-seasoned theologian could understand and appreciate.
I said all this to make this point: That the [mundane] authors of the Scriptures wrote literally, but with a flair of poetry in the background.

Indeed Paul was an intelligent man, he found a way to sell Judaism to the masses in the guise of Christianity!!
All you island dwellers who want to eat shelfish - go ahead, we're Christians!!
You don't even have to chop parts of your genitals off anymore.
Desert dogma doesn't apply to us because we are not Jews.
And by God it worked, didn't it?

Thus Genesis 1 is to be taken literally, even though some may be able to spot a flair of poetry in it.

If Tom says: I stood there and saw the red car bump into the green car.

If Bob says: I, as I patiently awaited the light to change its color so as to give me permission to continue my journey, witnessed the careening of the red vehicle, a victim of unstoppable momentum, kiss the green car ahead of it.

Does that mean they wrote two different things?

Even if it is wrong?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe there's a very good reason for that.

I suppose "because it is poetry" never crossed your mind.

Intelligence and art seem to walk together hand-in-hand.

So do art and mythology.

I said all this to make this point: That the [mundane] authors of the Scriptures wrote literally, but with a flair of poetry in the background.


Thus Genesis 1 is to be taken literally, even though some may be able to spot a flair of poetry in it.

The problem is that what you said does absolutely nothing to support your point.

It rarely does.

 

[Hespera]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Intelligence and art seem to walk together hand-in-hand.<<<<<<<


here is something else that goes hand in hand

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/iq-fundamentalism-data-212900/

 

[atomweaver]

So then, all your harsh words on the stupidity of presuming one can know about the different state are all reserved for scientists, alone. Got it. You know the conclusion that this leaves lurkers with, right? You don't or won't defend your notions from other Creationists, because those notions are actually completely unimportant to you.

So called science believers. Some scientists don't swallow the poison pill of anti bible fables called science, falsely. Of course the people pushing a claim as part of science must have their positional feet held to the fire!

Those that merely believe a holy book a certain way are another story. Get it?

You want scientists to conform to your interpretation of the Bible, but you don't bother to ask other Christians to conform to that same interpretation. In other words, you'll happily capitulate for anyone who says the magic words. You are a hypocrite with a double standard that you yourself don't even understand. Got it.

I have sought to find where science went wrong, and think I am on the right track. I need not correct bible believers, that is fine tuning.

You have the most bizzare notion of fine tuning, then.

"the different state past is unknowable" vs. "the world is known to be 6000 years old with 4.4 billion years of embedded age"

You don't agree whether pre-Fall history is even knowable, and yet you still consider the differences between you to be "fine tuning". Keep talking dad, its a laugh a minute watching you abandon your Biblical interpretations in order to cower from the obvious implications of their direct conflict with the interpretations of your fellow Creationists... Chaos and discord, chaos and discord, chaos and discord.

The war on God, and His truth is the enemy. That is the dragon I like to stick ny foot on the neck of, after I killed it dead.

You cower from the actual truth of what that means; a coherent, single Biblical interpretation from all Creationists is a necessary precursor before you could even hope to start that war...

AV must find his own answers. At least he tries to use the bible. And as an added bonus he doubts science.

More cowering...

If one really believes in Jesus, and the word, even if they get it wrong on some things, it is no biggie. We have eternity to learn.
The day they lace all documentaries with AVi's views, and force it taught in school would be the day, I try to fine tune.

you'll have lost the fight decades before, for fear of defending your notions before your Creationist peers.

 

[dad]

You want scientists to conform to your interpretation of the Bible, but you don't bother to ask other Christians to conform to that same interpretation. In other words, you'll happily capitulate for anyone who says the magic words. You are a hypocrite with a double standard that you yourself don't even understand. Got it.

You have the most bizzare notion of fine tuning, then.

No, real reason includes God. Without Him there is no reason or rhyme for that matter! It is the claims and basis, and appalling lack, thereof, that needs to answer to the while glove on the ground here! Not the various takes and interpretations of the bible. Have you seen anyone mount even a mediocre bible case against the different past and future here? I know whereof I speak.

"the different state past is unknowable" vs. "the world is known to be 6000 years old with 4.4 billion years of embedded age"

Patently false, and absurd. The world is thought to be old, by the religious based, belief based, anti God, anti bible anti creation, puffed up, think they know it all crowd.

You don't agree whether pre-Fall history is even knowable, and yet you still consider the differences between you to be "fine tuning".

Getagrip. There was only a short history pre fall, and it it well covered inthebible! How long do you think they lived inthe garden before the fall? Anyone know the answer to that??? Let's see if anyone can tackle that.

If you mean pre split past, well, first Avi woukld have to realize, or believe there was a different past state. I don't thionk he does. So how are we supposed to fine tune that??

Keep talking dad, its a laugh a minute watching you abandon your Biblical interpretations in order to cower from the obvious implications of their direct conflict with the interpretations of your fellow Creationists... Chaos and discord, chaos and discord, chaos and discord.

No idea what you are talking about at all. I abandon squat. I was a flood geology guy for a while. I simply found out it was too weak a position, thatwas always on the defensive, and could not have it's feet held to the fire of actual science, evidence, and etc.

You cower from the actual truth of what that means; a coherent, single Biblical interpretation from all Creationists is a necessary precursor before you could even hope to start that war...

No!!! Not at all. I think we may be on the verge of the coming of Christ to take over, so why would we need some universal agreement on the unknown, that science does not know? Even if we have to wait a while, do you really think that the truth is something that the world is interested in? I don't!

I give up on them, sorry. Do they accept that abortion is evil? No. So I give up trying to tell them it is, they must simply stand judged one day. Same with a lot of things. There can be no agreement! It is war to the death do us part. If I have a position that is solid, it likely will tend to be considered by believers, as they became aware of it. What else can stand up to the evidence? If there is no time for some great acceptance, too bad, we will all know soon enough!

More cowering...

you'll have lost the fight decades before, for fear of defending your notions before your Creationist peers.

No idea what you are fantasizing aboout now. The different future and past state is a new idea! What, 5 years old, or some such? No decades involved. I cannot lose, we cannot lose, all that canhappen is that iniquity abound inthe end times, as prophesied it must do. The rejection of the truth by the majority is not losing!!! It is the sign that total andeverlasting utter complete victory is close at hand!!!! Really. geton board, son, time is a tickin.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you mean pre split past, well, first Avi woukld have to realize, or believe there was a different past state. I don't thionk he does. So how are we supposed to fine tune that??

Dad, just fyi, I believe that prior to the Fall, the whole universe (i.e. all of God's creation) was operating on a higher plane of existence called, for lack of a better term, a "glorified state."

I don't know what all this entailed, but Scripture does hint at a few things:

1. We had a different rapport with animals --- w/possibly the ability to converse with them.
2. We had glorified bodies --- immune to suffering and death.
3. Everything was in its purest state of existence.

Comparing this state of glorification with the Milennial Reign and Eternity Future, we pick up:

1. The ability to go from Point A to Point B instantly.
2. The ability to walk through solid objects.
3. The ability to lift and carry tons of material?

Imagine, as we are rebuilding the Earth after the events of the Tribulation, one guy saying to another, "I need 3 tons of iron over here," and his co-worker just picking it up and bringing it over.

Or imagine us placing Uranium in a reactor with our bare hands.

What I'm wondering, is if God is going to completely return His creation to its pre-fallen state, or if He is going to make the New Heaven and the New Earth even "more glorified" than His Genesis 1 creation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Dad, just fyi, I believe that prior to the Fall, the whole universe (i.e. all of God's creation) was operating on a higher plane of existence called, for lack of a better term, a "glorified state."

I don't know what all this entailed, but Scripture does hint at a few things:

1. We had a different rapport with animals --- w/possibly the ability to converse with them.

1. We had glorified bodies

Imagine, as we are rebuilding the Earth after the events of the Tribulation, one guy saying to another, "I need 3 tons of iron over here," and his co-worker just picking it up and bringing it over.

That sounds cool!

Or imagine us placing Uranium in a reactor with our bare hands.

Why would we need reactors?

What I'm wondering, is if God is going to completely return His creation to its pre-fallen state, or if He is going to make the New Heaven and the New Earth even "more glorified" than His Genesis 1 creation.

Sounds pretty neat!

 

[Nathan Poe]

What I'm wondering, is if God is going to completely return His creation to its pre-fallen state, or if He is going to make the New Heaven and the New Earth even "more glorified" than His Genesis 1 creation.

Because He just didn't do good enough the first time?

 

[BananaSlug]

So far there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood but some evidence for a huge localized flood around the Black Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory <BTW, "theory" should be replaced with "hypothesis.



Just because a large part of the universe is unknown to us now does not mean it will always be. You're creating a "God of the Gaps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps


"God of the gaps" is sometimes used to describe the retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations. An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As science found explanations for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the 'need' for a god to explain phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge. This line of reasoning commonly holds that since the domain of natural phenomena previously explained by God is shrinking, theistic or divine explanations for any natural phenomenon become less plausible.

The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelical lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain — "gaps which they will fill up with God" — and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

Try researching information about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist).




Though we may eventually find evidence for a global catastrophic flood in the future, for the past 200 years or so we have failed to find any.

Does anyone else get annoyed when you post something that you think is really good then the creationists ignore what you did?

 

[ragarth]

Does anyone else get annoyed when you post something that you think is really good then the creationists ignore what you did?

No, if they do that then either they missed it, couldn't understand it, or are ignoring it to protect their ignorance. In the first case, it's a bummer and a comment to highlight your post is valuable, if it's the second, then the post wasn't as good as you thought it was, if it's the third, then their position isn't well thought out to begin with, and they're not worth talking to. In the third case, comments to them are more often for the people reading the thread, rather than for the individual anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, if they do that then either they missed it, couldn't understand it, or are ignoring it to protect their ignorance. In the first case, it's a bummer and a comment to highlight your post is valuable, if it's the second, then the post wasn't as good as you thought it was, if it's the third, then their position isn't well thought out to begin with, and they're not worth talking to. In the third case, comments to them are more often for the people reading the thread, rather than for the individual anyway.

My only comment for those who try and tell me there's no evidence for a global flood is simply, "Keep looking."

I get tired of hearing, "There's no evidence for [this]", and "There's no evidence for [that]."

I never accept that as a viable answer --- especially in light of this: 1 .

 

[gaara4158]

My only comment for those who try and tell me there's no evidence for a global flood is simply, "Keep looking."

We'll never stop looking. But meanwhile, you need to keep looking for all those things you don't think exist. Like fairies and leprechauns.

 

[ragarth]

My only comment for those who try and tell me there's no evidence for a global flood is simply, "Keep looking."

I get tired of hearing, "There's no evidence for [this]", and "There's no evidence for [that]."

I never accept that as a viable answer --- especially in light of this: 1 .

There's no evidence for leprechauns, but if you do find one, I take 10% off the top on all pots o gold found.

 

[AV1611VET]

We'll never stop looking. But meanwhile, you need to keep looking for all those things you don't think exist. Like fairies and leprechauns.

There's no evidence for leprechauns, but if you do find one, I take 10% off the top on all pots o gold found.

Surely, you guys can think of better examples than fairies and Leprechauns.

When F & L document their histories in a book that leads to hostile governments trying to eradicate it w/o success, when F & L write the history of a nation in advance, then fulfill that history with 100% accuracy, when F & L become the prime target of atheists and scientists on an Internet forum, then --- and only then --- will I consider elevating F and L from that of mythical characters, to that of false prophets.

 

[gaara4158]

When F & L document their histories in a book that leads to hostile governments trying to eradicate it w/o success, when F & L write the history of a nation in advance, then fulfill that history with 100% accuracy, when F & L become the prime target of atheists and scientists on an Internet forum, then --- and only then --- will I consider elevating F and L from that of mythical characters, to that of false prophets.

So what determines how real something is... is how much opposition it faces?
Even you can do better, AV. I'd expect that from dad, but you?

It's incredibly irresponsible to conclude that something is due to one factor out of dozens simply because it's the first that comes to mind, and the only one that works for your argument. If evolutionary biologists did this, you'd be all over them. It's double standards like these that completely ruin your credibility.