Question for disccusion

[Subduction Zone]

my my my .... do you feel better now? ROFL



Interesting that's what the bible teaches regarding those who dismiss His teachings.

Your chosen screen title say's it all LOL

"Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape"

You do not seem to realize that you are an ape too. And at least he does not claim that God is a liar. Creationists do that, even though they do not realize that that is what they are doing.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Mountains and the Flood

Uplift of continents and mountains, and deepening of ocean basins in the closing stages of the Flood, help to explain that the water which temporarily covered the whole earth (after mostly coming from subterranean sources—the ‘fountains of the great deep’) is now in the oceans. Here is where God has ‘set a bound that they may not pass over, so that they do not turn again to cover the earth’ (Psalm 104:9).

If the surface features of the earth were totally flattened out, water would cover the globe to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). That is still much less than the height of Mt Everest (some 8 km [5 miles]) and other Himalayan mountains.

However, the Flood waters did not have to be this deep in order to cover ‘all the high hills that were under the whole heaven’ of the pre-Flood earth (Genesis 7:19). The Himalayas show clear evidence of having been pushed up after layers of fossil-bearing Flood sediments had been deposited. Thus the ‘high hills’ (mountains) before the Flood were different from those we see today, and were probably not much higher than 2 km (1.3 miles). Much of this pre-Flood mountainous mass may have been eroded away during that cataclysm.

There is evidence of long-ago ocean life embedded in the limestone at Everest's summit: fossils, including those of crinoids, ancient underwater animals with tentacles and cone-shaped shells. These fossils are found at 29,000 feet because the highest point on Earth was once under sea.

A different opinon

You seem to have forgotten your citation. You wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism now would you?

 

[Aussie Pete]

You do not realize this but you claim that God is a liar with your beliefs. When I was a Christian I did not make that error. A person should be willing to test one's ideas to see if they are correct or not. A person with a strong faith will keep believing even if aspects of their beliefs are shown to be wrong. Bible literalism is the belief of those whose faith is not very strong.

It's plainly done you no good and for sure it has done me no harm. I'll continue to take God at His word.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You do not seem to realize that you are an ape too. And at least he does not claim that God is a liar. Creationists do that, even though they do not realize that that is what they are doing.

When a Chimp comes to the bars at the Zoo, and says to me, "Am I my keeper's brother?", I will accept that I have evolved from an ape. God created. He says so. There is no room for evolution in that statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's plainly done you no good and for sure it has done me no harm. I'll continue to take God at His word.

It has done both of us plenty of good. You rely on the science every day. And it is actually blasphemy to claim that the Bible is "God's word" in the way that you abuse it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a Chimp comes to the bars at the Zoo, and says to me, "Am I my keeper's brother?", I will accept that I have evolved from an ape. God created. He says so. There is no room for evolution in that statement.

That is just gross ignorance. You would not expect to see a cat mate with a tiger, would you? Like it or not you are an ape. You are not a chimp, you are not a gorilla, you are not an orangutan, but you are still an ape.

Now you may wish to bury your head in the sand and continue to claim that God is a liar, but most Christians do not make that mistake.

 

[Aussie Pete]

It really has nothing to do with atheism. It mostly has to do with whether one accepts basic physics.

Those who claim Noah's Flood shaped the world's geology ignore the physics that demonstrates that it wasn't possible.

Funny, lots of reputable scientists disagree. Of course, your put down for that is anyone who disagrees is not reputable. And of course, that is not a logical fallacy. How could evolutionists, doubters and unbelievers possibly be wrong? I would comment further but I'm enough trouble with the moderators as it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funny, lots of reputable scientists disagree. Of course, your put down for that is anyone who disagrees is not reputable. And of course, that is not a logical fallacy. How could evolutionists, doubters and unbelievers possibly be wrong? I would comment further but I'm enough trouble with the moderators as it is.

Not true. You would be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist in the field that disagrees. A scientist that is not an expert in the field cannot be reputable in a disagreement. That is now how science works. To have a reputable disagreement one must follow the scientific method. That includes publishing one's work in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. Can you think of any examples?

 

[Aussie Pete]

It has done both of us plenty of good. You rely on the science every day. And it is actually blasphemy to claim that the Bible is "God's word" in the way that you abuse it.

I would like to know what good evolutionary theory has done me or what doubting the universal flood has achieved for the human race generally. Don't start spouting genetic research. Christians are just as capable as anyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to know what good evolutionary theory has done me or what doubting the universal flood has achieved for the human race generally. Don't start spouting genetic research. Christians are just as capable as anyone else.

Do you drive a car?

And please. of course Christians are just as capable as anyone else. Most Christians do not appear to interpret Genesis literally. It is the ones that reject the sciences that of course cannot do work in the sciences.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Not true. You would be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist in the field that disagrees. A scientist that is not an expert in the field cannot be reputable in a disagreement. That is now how science works. To have a reputable disagreement one must follow the scientific method. That includes publishing one's work in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. Can you think of any examples?

Not that will satisfy you. I've been down this track before. Why do you care? I don't get this obsession. Is it because you are deep down not as certain as you claim to be?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Do you drive a car?

And please. of course Christians are just as capable as anyone else. Most Christians do not appear to interpret Genesis literally. It is the ones that reject the sciences that of course cannot do work in the sciences.

I drive a car. So do some apes. What does that mean? Nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not that will satisfy you. I've been down this track before. Why do you care? I don't get this obsession. Is it because you are deep down not as certain as you claim to be?

In the U.S. creationists attacking the sciences are a real problem. That is why I care. They try to harm humanity with their hypocritical ignorance. I would not mind if they did not rely on the sciences that they reject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I drive a car. So do some apes. What does that mean? Nothing.

Yes, of course apes drive cars, as you said you do. And it tells us that you do not know what you are talking about. Cars need oil. A complete knowledge of geology is needed to find oil. Yes, some minor technologists can interpret part of the work but someone that understands geology is needed before that time.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In the U.S. creationists attacking the sciences are a real problem. That is why I care. They try to harm humanity with their hypocritical ignorance. I would not mind if they did not rely on the sciences that they reject.

How do they harm humanity by saying that all men are created by God and are equal in His sight?

Yes, of course apes drive cars, as you said you do. And it tells us that you do not know what you are talking about. Cars need oil. A complete knowledge of geology is needed to find oil. Yes, some minor technologists can interpret part of the work but someone that understands geology is needed before that time.

People were extracting and processing oil long before atheistic evolution became the predominate philosophy. They were also finding gold, silver, precious stones, coal, tin, copper and iron, all the while believing in God the Creator.

 

[Ophiolite]

my my my .... do you feel better now? ROFL

That is an interesting reaction; that you choose mockery. It seems you feel it is fine, perhaps even noble, for you to have an intense belief in God and your interpretation of his teachings, but it makes you uncomfortable when someone displays a similar passion about knowledge and the search for knowledge. And so you respond with a remark more fitting from non-plussed teenager.
Feel free to disagree with me, but have the integrity to do so with reason, argument and evidence, not trite remarks that demean the giver more than the receiver.

Interesting that's what the bible teaches regarding those who dismiss His teachings.

I find the teachings of many religions to be interesting. The implied threat in your comment is, unfortunately, a common response from Bible literalists when their beliefs are challenged. I think you may find the Bible has something to say about that kind of behaviour also. Something for you reflect on.

I would like to know what good evolutionary theory has done me or what doubting the universal flood has achieved for the human race generally. Don't start spouting genetic research. Christians are just as capable as anyone else.

That is interesting. Something has to have value to you or humanity for it to be believed? Is that what you mean. If evolutionary theory is "true" is that not of value itself? What is good about believing an untruth?

Evolutionary theory was not developed to mock God, or to disprove God, but to better discern the character of life. Many of those who contributed to the development of that theory were and are practicing, devout Christians. For them, learning more about evolution is one way they can celebrate the majesty of their God and of his Works. Revealing aspects of that majesty, it seems, are of great value to them personally and to those who accept the facts they reveal. You can benefit from that also. Just open your mind and your heart.

Christians I know, who not only accept, but relish evolutionary theory, do so because it tells them more about the wonderful interlocked relationships within the biosphere; shows the elegance of the Hand of God; and expands upon the beautiful metaphor of Creation expressed in Genesis. It has done them a great deal of good.

Not that will satisfy you. I've been down this track before. Why do you care? I don't get this obsession. Is it because you are deep down not as certain as you claim to be?

I have a compulsion to educate. (Others must decide if that is healthy or unhealthy.) I rail against ignorance, but I abhor wilfull ignorance. Rejecting evolutionary theory on the spurious grounds that there is no meaningful evidence is ignorant. Refusing to seriously examine the evidence is willfully ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do they harm humanity by saying that all men are created by God and are equal in His sight?

That is not what you have been saying or believe. In fact the Bible has been historically been used to justify racism and slavery. There is no doubt that it is a pro-slavery book. You have been denying the fact that you are an ape. When it comes to equality that is a trait of evolution not the Bible.

People were extracting and processing oil long before atheistic evolution became the predominate philosophy. They were also finding gold, silver, precious stones, coal, tin, copper and iron, all the while believing in God the Creator.

So what? I see that you know as little about oil development as you know about all science and technology. Back in the good old days there was even a man who was just shootin' at some food when he found his oil. Things are not so simple today.

And why did you use the term "atheistic evolution" ? Is that how you admit that you are wrong? After all Darwin was a Christian when he first came up with the idea. There are more Christians that accept evolution than any other group. Evolution is no more "atheistic" than gravity or the germ theory of disease. It sounds as if you are claiming that Christianity is a false belief when you use qualifiers improperly.

 

[Ophiolite]

You seem to have forgotten your citation. You wouldn't want to be accused of plagiarism now would you?

Whether or not one is accused of plagiarism, if one has practised it, as seems to be the case here, then one is guilty of it. Although Ihave a question in that regard: if the writer fails to provide acknowledgement of the plagiarised text, does that still count as plagiarism?

Based on a couple of dictionary definitions it appears that it is. I found a remark on the Oxford Students website telling: "Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence." Reckless plagiarism, presumably, is where one "can't be bothered to provide sources", or "don't think it is important".

Of course, the act of plagiarism in this context is enormously damaging to the argument of the plagiariser. It strongly suggests they do not have a proper grasp of the argument or facts they have plagiarised. They are repeating them parrot fashion, unaware of any strengths or weaknesses the material has. That can be frustrating to debate with. I would prefer to deal with the organ grinder directly, not the organ grinders monkey - or, in this case, the organ grinders ape.

 

[Strathos]

The only way to support a literal worldwide flood is to believe in a form of Last Thursdayism, where not only was every geological record of such an event completely erased, but billions of years of geologic history that never actually happened were planted as a deliberate deception.

 

[Shemjaza]

When a Chimp comes to the bars at the Zoo, and says to me, "Am I my keeper's brother?", I will accept that I have evolved from an ape. God created. He says so. There is no room for evolution in that statement.

Why?

Can you explain why fully human intelligence chimps is necessary for evolution?

Funny, lots of reputable scientists disagree. Of course, your put down for that is anyone who disagrees is not reputable. And of course, that is not a logical fallacy. How could evolutionists, doubters and unbelievers possibly be wrong? I would comment further but I'm enough trouble with the moderators as it is.

Except these alleged reputable scientists can never present any coherent evidence for a global flood.

I would like to know what good evolutionary theory has done me or what doubting the universal flood has achieved for the human race generally. Don't start spouting genetic research. Christians are just as capable as anyone else.

Doubting the global flood allowed the development of modern geology. This has been invaluable to the development of our resources and saved many lives with a better understanding of the Earth.