My FTS Challenge

[Kylie]

1. 35 cm
2. 21 cm
3. 28 cm
4. 35 cm

You're Arab phoning those dimensions, aren't you?

How did we get from breadth, length, depth, and height to width, height, depth, and breadth?

And according to string theory, Paul is six spatial dimensions short, isn't he?

*sigh*

If you must be so pedantic...

What is the breadth of this box?

What is the length of this box?

What is the depth of this box?

What is the height of this box?

 

[[serious]]

Nothing is labeled. you failed to do literally the only thing he asked for

 

[Kylie]

Nothing is labeled. you failed to do literally the only thing he asked for

*she

 

[Chesterton]

It's also weird that people don't like soggy food. The inside of your mouth is soggy, so it's going to get soggy anyway, plus you need and want it to get it soggy to swallow it. Yet nobody would want to put a soggy Pop Tart in their mouth. Something's wrong with evolution.

 

[Chesterton]

Well look plus there's the ongoing problem of interpretive dance. And Sony Walkmans. Are you gonna point that bony finger at me and tell me we learned to dance then learned to talk then started dancing again, like cows walking back into the ocean? Music while walking? There's no law of physics or common sense that would have prevented a whale from walking anywhere it wanted. It's secular regicide. Worthless bums if you ask me, going around bragging about their Walkmans. It's utterly inscrutable. Like trying to prove the existence of Jarbidge. There are only 4 people alive today who can prove Jarbidge and I am all 4 of them. Fortunately I'm the weak silent type.

 

[Kylie]

It's also weird that people don't like soggy food. The inside of your mouth is soggy, so it's going to get soggy anyway, plus you need and want it to get it soggy to swallow it. Yet nobody would want to put a soggy Pop Tart in their mouth. Something's wrong with evolution.

Are you serious? Or joking?

 

[David_M]

That's a pretty open statement...what would you expect to see?

Strata in successive sedimentary layers that show evidence of being laid down in one event (which of course never resembles the stratigraphy we actually can see even where we do have a series of adjacent sedimentary strata).

Instead we find aeolian deposits between sedimentary layers, we also get layers formed from volcanic ash. Neither of those could ever be formed by a flood and that is only 2 examples.

Fossils where species are not sorted into discrete layers. In a global flood there is no explanation that covers why you have so many strata with only reptiles such as the dinosaur species but no mammals of corresponding sizes. No explanation why birds are always towards only the top of the column but pterosaurs are always lower down.

No explanation for faulting such as thrust faults. Not possible in recently formed deposits.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And that evidence only supports the theory of evolution.

"Having evidence" does not necessarily mean that evidence supports one's claims.

I have found that creationists as a rule do not understand the nature of evidence. They seem to be terrified of scientific evidence in particular.

First of all there is no conflict between science and the Bible. Show me any evidence you have that proves anything in the Bible is not accurate and true. The Bible has remained consistent, steadfast and true for well over 3,000 years. Science goes though constant revisions, modifications and changes. There are Science books that have been revised more then 20 times. Whole chapters have needed to be rewritten because they were found not to be accurate. Yet the Bible in the original Hebrew language remains consistent true no matter what new evidence people come up with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ephesians 3:18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

This is a reference to the love of God. Yet there are people that do not understand the Love that God has for mankind. They see God in His wrath and judgement. They do not understand the Holiness of God. They do not understand what sanctification and purity means.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Finish this sentence, please:

If evolution is true, then why _______________ ?

...are creationists so afraid of the truth?

You may also choose:

If creationism is true, then why _____________ ?

...are creationists so deathly afraid of the competition?

 

[KWCrazy]

What is the width of this box?
What is the height of this box?
What is the depth of this box?
What is the breadth of this box?

Breath = width.
BREADTH
bredth (rochabh, the root idea being to make wide, spacious):

It could also refer to the area.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And that evidence only supports the theory of evolution.

All the evidence that science has every produced supports the Bible that was written 3,000 years ago and remains unchanged. The theory of evolution is in a constant state of change.

"The half-life of knowledge is the amount of time that has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue. The concept is attributed to Fritz Machlup (1962). For example, Donald Hebb estimated the half-life of psychology to be five years." Wiki

 

[Paul Finch]

First of all there is no conflict between science and the Bible. Show me any evidence you have that proves anything in the Bible is not accurate and true. The Bible has remained consistent, steadfast and true for well over 3,000 years. Science goes though constant revisions, modifications and changes. There are Science books that have been revised more then 20 times. Whole chapters have needed to be rewritten because they were found not to be accurate. Yet the Bible in the original Hebrew language remains consistent true no matter what new evidence people come up with.

Thankfully beliefs like this are dying out rapidly.

 

[joshua 1 9]

are creationists so afraid of the truth?

We are not afraid of truth at all. We just know that the theory of evolution is under constant revision and is not as dependable as the Bible. The Bible sets the standard for the truth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Thankfully beliefs like this are dying out rapidly.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is dead, not God. God is still alive and well and the belief in God is growing. Unless of course you are talking on a subjective level and projecting that as it it were objective.

 

[Jimmy D]

We are not afraid of truth at all. We just know that the theory of evolution is under constant revision and is not as dependable as the Bible. The Bible sets the standard for the truth.

I'm reluctant to argue about the bible, it's certain people's attitude to it that's the problem. And I think that you could substitute the word 'revision' for 'refinement' and your statement would be more accurate (albeit without the negative connotations you're attempting to add).

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm reluctant to argue about the bible, it's certain people's attitude to it that's the problem. And I think that you could substitute the word 'revision' for 'refinement' and your statement would be more accurate (albeit without the negative connotations you're attempting to add).

Reminds me of my dad. He said he knew it when he saw it. He use to take us over to see a patient of his. This was a young man that was maybe 18 years old. He had Polio and his head was normal sized but his body was withered and the size of maybe a 3 year old. His family set up a hospital bed for him in the dining room so they could all take care of him. They were Christians and they were all very happy and cheerful people. They were always so happy that my dad brought his kids with him. This was an example of living the Christian life and doing what the Bible said to do. Even though his patient was still sick, even though he died when he was maybe 23 years old. My dad knew what was real when he saw it. But he could not explain it to people. Everyone had their own understanding and their own interpretation and he did not try to get into any of that. He just knew he liked a happy message and he hated the gloom and doom type of stuff. Matthew 11:17 " We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented."

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all there is no conflict between science and the Bible. Show me any evidence you have that proves anything in the Bible is not accurate and true. The Bible has remained consistent, steadfast and true for well over 3,000 years. Science goes though constant revisions, modifications and changes. There are Science books that have been revised more then 20 times. Whole chapters have needed to be rewritten because they were found not to be accurate. Yet the Bible in the original Hebrew language remains consistent true no matter what new evidence people come up with.

Joshua, you don't even understand the concept of evidence. Showing you any evidence would not be productive as a result. First you must show that you understand the concept. Past posts of yours indicate that you don't have this rather basic understanding.

And yes, science changes over time. It improve. That is one of the huge problems with the Bible. At best people try to reinterpret it, but it is still wrong in so many places that it is not at all funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the evidence that science has every produced supports the Bible that was written 3,000 years ago and remains unchanged. The theory of evolution is in a constant state of change.

Wrong again. Perhaps you should not use terms that you do not understand. Let's work on your inability to understand the concept of evidence.

"The half-life of knowledge is the amount of time that has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue. The concept is attributed to Fritz Machlup (1962). For example, Donald Hebb estimated the half-life of psychology to be five years." Wiki

That of course is just a poetic way of stating the fact that we are learning faster and faster as time goes by. Errors in knowledge are corrected or improved upon faster than ever these days. Posting quotes that you do not understand does not help your position either.

 

[Mobezom]

All the evidence that science has every produced supports the Bible that was written 3,000 years ago and remains unchanged. The theory of evolution is in a constant state of change.

"The half-life of knowledge is the amount of time that has to elapse before half of the knowledge in a particular area is superseded or shown to be untrue. The concept is attributed to Fritz Machlup (1962). For example, Donald Hebb estimated the half-life of psychology to be five years." Wiki

Indeed; we don't know anything for sure. But at least we admit it. Remember Socrates?

But that's irrelevant. There is a spectrum of wrong. Newton was wrong about gravity. But he was less wrong than those before him! Science builds on itself. This is not a flaw! This is a good thing!