• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Tribulation physics

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
60
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟29,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, you assumed. If I said unlikely, then I meant unlikely.

Unlikely is winning the lottery.

Impossible is a triangle with four sides. If you cannot see the difference, then that is not my fault. And if you assume I mean impossible when I was very careful to say unlikely, then that is again your fault. I even gave an example of something that was unlikely and yet actually happened. Do you think this event that actually happened was impossible? The fact that it happened proves it is not impossible.

But we were originally talking about hings in the Bible, like Noahs flood, which you said were 'unlikely', which I then used the word 'impossible' to describe, which you took umbrage to. You then turned around and used the word 'impossible' to describe Noah's flood in a later post.

So, yes, there are a great many things in the Bible that science hasn't disproved (and a great many things it has). But I'm not going to accept that they must have been true simply because I can't prove that they were. Until I see convincing evidence that they occurred, I will assume that they didn't happen. I will, of course, remain open to the possibility that they DID happen, but the default position would seem to be that the more extraordinary the claim is, the less likely it is to be true.

Actually, the family trees of languages can be followed back quite a way into the past, and what we learn does not support the Biblical account of the tower of Babel at all. There are also many scientific impossibilities in the account of Noah's flood, and the story of creation contradicts DNA evidence.

So yes, they have been proven false.

That is obfuscation, and misdirection.

Not my fault that you did it, I didn't put a gun to your head.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
60
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟29,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was actually asking for a bit of clarification. If I wanted you to repeat yourself (I don't) I'd just read your post again.



Ah, so since no one has disproved it, then it means it's real?

Well, I don't see anyone who has EVER disproved the existence of magical fairies on the moon either. Never been disproved by anyone anywhere. So I guess that's evidence for magical moon fairies too, isn't it?

One could say the same thing about Darwinian evolution.

If no one has disproved it, that makes it real?

And it hasn't been proved, as I have already demonstrated. And no amount of saying it has, will make your statement factually correct. Just repetitive, and possibly annoying.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
46
Maastricht
Visit site
✟44,082.00
Faith
Agnostic
Those who can do, those who can't teach.
I know this is from way back in the thread, but can I for a moment here express my utter disgust for this quote. Teachers are some of the most important people we have in our society, and this holds regardless of your belief system. Without teachers to pass on the knowledge we have amassed, our society would crumble within a generation.

Anyone who actually believes the quoted statement is beneath contempt as far as I am concerned.

That is what science does, they teach and they do research.
And that way made possible the very computer you type this on, the medicines you take to stay alive, the transportation you use, the food you eat. In the West, our lives are more carefree, longer and healthier than they have ever been and this is due to scientific research. If you scoff at this, you are either ignorant or foolish, or both.
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
47
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
But we were originally talking about hings in the Bible, like Noahs flood, which you said were 'unlikely', which I then used the word 'impossible' to describe, which you took umbrage to. You then turned around and used the word 'impossible' to describe Noah's flood in a later post.

That is obfuscation, and misdirection.

Not my fault that you did it, I didn't put a gun to your head.

Peace...

And there are impossibilities. It is impossible for a salt water fish to survive if you fill its world with fresh water. Try it for yourself if you want to. It is also impossible for the koalas in Australia to make the trip to the middle east to board the ark. Not today (we could always get the RAAF to fly them), but they didn't have planes back then. These are impossibilities.

Here's a pro tip: If something can only happen by first having the laws of the universe altered, then it's impossible.

If the laws of the universe do NOT need to be altered in order for a thing to happen, then it is possible. The number and likelihood of events that need to occur in order to produce the particular outcome determines how likely or unlikely the outcome is. The more events, the less likely.

Like I said before, don't blame me for you confusion.

I even gave you a helpful example with the lottery thing.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,323
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,582.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I know this is from way back in the thread, but can I for a moment here express my utter disgust for this quote. Teachers are some of the most important people we have in our society, and this holds regardless of your belief system. Without teachers to pass on the knowledge we have amassed, our society would crumble within a generation.

Anyone who actually believes the quoted statement is beneath contempt as far as I am concerned.


And that way made possible the very computer you type this on, the medicines you take to stay alive, the transportation you use, the food you eat. In the West, our lives are more carefree, longer and healthier than they have ever been and this is due to scientific research. If you scoff at this, you are either ignorant or foolish, or both.

Question: What did Jesus' disciples call him?

(Hint: two syllables, sounds like "rabbi.")

Follow up Question: What does "rabbi" mean in English?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tomk80
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
47
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
One could say the same thing about Darwinian evolution.

If no one has disproved it, that makes it real?

And it hasn't been proved, as I have already demonstrated. And no amount of saying it has, will make your statement factually correct. Just repetitive, and possibly annoying.

Peace...

You don't even care about the evidence to show that evolution has been proved, do you? You don't look at it, you probably wouldn't even understand it.

But first things first...

If no one had disproved evolution, would that make it more likely to be true? Well, yes. And the reason is simple. Because evolution CAN be disproved. A fossil rabbit in Precambrian rocks would do the job very nicely. Even though it never has been shown to be false, it is possible to come up with some idea which would disprove evolution in a second if it ever happened in reality.

This is called falsifiability.

But since religion goes out of its way to avoid being falsifiable, we can never do this, can we? We can never test religion to see if it is true, because it has carefully rigged itself so that there's no way it can fail the test.

So, because evolution goes out of its way to make sure that it has a weak spot, some way that it could (hypothetically at least) be shown to be wrong, it allows itself to risk defeat. And yet it withstands every single attempt to defeat it. Religion cannot say the same.

Now, as for showing that evolution has been observed and does happen...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Understanding Evolution

Observed Instances of Speciation

Study Catches Two Bird Populations As They Split Into Separate Species

Australian Lizard Evolves From Egg-Laying To Live Birth | Exami.net

And if you have any complaints, first see if it's covered on THIS wesbite.

And a final word...

If you come back and start complaining that it still isn't evidence, I will expect you to refute each and every link I have provided in order to show that you read them and properly understood what they were saying. And if you dismiss them without reading them and understanding, then you are just here to spout your opinion and not engage in a civilized discussion, and this is not the place for you.

Happy reading.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
None of this has been proven false.
Genesis is wrong according to science. As for "neither of these has been proven false"; Well considering that fairy tales have not been proven false either! Science does not spend its time proving anything true or false that is the domain of the unfalsifiable and spiritual.

Science does not need to chase every superstitious belief. Have a nice day there :wave:
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
60
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟29,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You don't even care about the evidence to show that evolution has been proved, do you? You don't look at it, you probably wouldn't even understand it.

But first things first...

If no one had disproved evolution, would that make it more likely to be true? Well, yes. And the reason is simple. Because evolution CAN be disproved. A fossil rabbit in Precambrian rocks would do the job very nicely. Even though it never has been shown to be false, it is possible to come up with some idea which would disprove evolution in a second if it ever happened in reality.

This is called falsifiability.

But since religion goes out of its way to avoid being falsifiable, we can never do this, can we? We can never test religion to see if it is true, because it has carefully rigged itself so that there's no way it can fail the test.

So, because evolution goes out of its way to make sure that it has a weak spot, some way that it could (hypothetically at least) be shown to be wrong, it allows itself to risk defeat. And yet it withstands every single attempt to defeat it. Religion cannot say the same.

Now, as for showing that evolution has been observed and does happen...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Understanding Evolution

Observed Instances of Speciation

Study Catches Two Bird Populations As They Split Into Separate Species

Australian Lizard Evolves From Egg-Laying To Live Birth | Exami.net

And if you have any complaints, first see if it's covered on THIS wesbite.

And a final word...

If you come back and start complaining that it still isn't evidence, I will expect you to refute each and every link I have provided in order to show that you read them and properly understood what they were saying. And if you dismiss them without reading them and understanding, then you are just here to spout your opinion and not engage in a civilized discussion, and this is not the place for you.

Happy reading.


You sound confused. Is the Bible proved false? Or is it not falsifiable? You cant have it both ways.

They fact is, by your own admission in complaining that it is not falsifiable, you have admitted that it hasn't been proven false. Yet, the Bible is quite falsifiable. The bones of Jesus would stop it dead in its tracks. I can think of others, if you like.

Your statements are just words. They are not facts. Evolution has not been proved, as much as you may wish it were true. At least I can be objective an admit that fact. Your objectivety seems to be largely impaired.

Peace...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
60
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟29,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Genesis is wrong according to science. As for "neither of these has been proven false"; Well considering that fairy tales have not been proven false either! Science does not spend its time proving anything true or false that is the domain of the unfalsifiable and spiritual.

Science does not need to chase every superstitious belief. Have a nice day there :wave:

Thank you for your in depth analysis. That will change my mind, certainly. Why didn't I just ask you to begin with?

Evolution is the fairy tale. And self delusion by the secular/athiest community is the game they play on their fairy tale board.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

KimberlyAA

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2012
742
51
31
Caribbean
✟1,392.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Renowned geneticist and inventor of the gene gun, Dr John Sanford,10 in his landmark book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, highlights that the relentless net effect of random mutations is actually degradation or complete destruction of function.

This is not merely Dr Sanford’s opinion—the wider genetics research community, now accepts that point mutations in human reproductive cells are in the order of a hundred or so per individual each generation.12 And there are additional kinds of mutations, e.g. deletions and mitochondrial mutations, which exacerbate the situation. The overall contributions imply some 1,000 nucleotide changes in every person, every generation.

As Dr Sanford puts it, “So every one of us is a mutant, many times over!”13

Now a mutation rate of only a few per person per generation would be a problem because everyone recognizes that most mutations are harmful, even if only slightly, and natural selection can only get rid of one or two per generation. Several mutations in a genome the size of the human one would mean that deleterious mutations must accumulate.14 A figure many times this creates a huge problem.

And so the longer that people are on the earth, the worse it’s going to get, with increasing incidence of birth defects and other obvious symptoms of genetic disorders such as cancer. (Cancer is fundamentally the result of mutations within our body cells. And increasing evidence indicates that aging is due to the accumulation of mutations within the cells of our body.)

Such is the alarmingly high rate of increase in the human population’s total number of accumulated mutations (i.e. the genetic load or genetic burden) from generation to generation, that evolutionary geneticists are bewildered as to why we haven’t already become extinct. For example, evolutionary geneticist Alexey Kondrashov asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?”15 However, their puzzlement arises because they believe that humans have been on earth for at least 100,000 years (some would say a million years).

Further confirmation is that the genomic decline is consistent with the decrease in longevity after the catastrophic population bottleneck at the Flood (Genesis 6ff.).16,17 And this also helps us to better understand the generational timing of the injunction from God to Moses prohibiting marriage between close relatives (Leviticus 18:9, 20:17; Deuteronomy 27:22)—this became necessary to minimize the risk of deformed offspring that can result from shared mutations between genetically close parents.18

In his book, Dr Sanford bluntly warns that “there is no realistic method to halt degeneration”.13 This is bad news—like the Titanic, we’re going down, down, down; not ‘evolving up, up, up’. But Dr Sanford does not shy away from this. Here’s some of what he says in his ‘Personal Postlude’ in the book:
“One of my reviewers told me that the message of this book is both terrifying and depressing. He suggested that perhaps I am a little like a sadistic steward on board the Titanic, gleefully spreading the news that the ship is sinking. But that is not correct. I hate the consequences of entropy (degeneration). I hate to see it in my own body, in the failing health of loved ones, or in the deformity of a new-born baby. I find it all absolutely ghastly, but also absolutely undeniable. Surely a real steward on the Titanic would have a responsibility to let people know that the ship was sinking, even if some people might hate him for it. I feel I am in that position. Responsible people should be grateful to know the bad news, so they can constructively respond to it. If we have been putting all our hope in a sinking ship, would it not be expedient to recognize this and abandon the false hope? It is only in this light that we can appreciate bad news. Only in the light of the bad news can we really appreciate the good news that there is a lifeboat.”19
You can probably guess that Dr Sanford goes on to reveal the identity of the ‘lifeboat’, namely, Jesus Christ. And there’s a big difference between that freely-offered ‘lifeboat’ compared to the Titanic’s lifeboats. Many people died in the Titanic disaster largely because there was insufficient room in the lifeboats to accommodate all the passengers and crew. But the Author-of-Life’s20 ‘lifeboat’ has no such restriction, with plenty of room for all who gratefully receive Jesus’ offer of rescue:
“In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
47
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You sound confused. Is the Bible proved false? Or is it not falsifiable? You cant have it both ways.

Some parts of the Bible have been proved true. These are inconsequential things like the existence of egypt, the existence of donkeys, etc. Big deal, we don't need the Bible to tell us about that.

Some other parts of the Bible have been proved false. Noah's flood, for example.

And other parts are unfalsifiable, such as the existence of heaven.

Geez, it's not difficult to understand. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately difficult.

They fact is, by your own admission in complaining that it is not falsifiable, you have admitted that it hasn't been proven false. Yet, the Bible is quite falsifiable. The bones of Jesus would stop it dead in its tracks. I can think of others, if you like.

No they wouldn't. We'd get people saying, "Those aren't the bones of Jesus!" You want to present me with a clear and unambiguous thing that would falsify the Bible? Go ahead. But some random skeleton isn't going to do it.

Your statements are just words. They are not facts. Evolution has not been proved, as much as you may wish it were true. At least I can be objective an admit that fact. Your objectivety seems to be largely impaired.

Peace...

Then you didn't read my links and you have no interest in a civilised discussion. Goodbye.
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
61
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Renowned geneticist and inventor of the gene gun, Dr John Sanford,10 in his landmark book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, highlights that the relentless net effect of random mutations is actually degradation or complete destruction of function.

Even more renowned Scientist, Jim Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA for which he received the nobel prize, has said the following:

stupidity is a disease and the bottom 10% should be "cured"

and, of course

"[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really"

The point being, that really famous people can be utterly wrong, and that there is a reason "appeal to authority" is a well known logical fallacy.

This is not merely Dr Sanford’s opinion—the wider genetics research community, now accepts that point mutations in human reproductive cells are in the order of a hundred or so per individual each generation.
Absolutely correct and empirically proven with the 1000 genome project.

As Dr Sanford puts it, “So every one of us is a mutant, many times over!”


Also correct

Now a mutation rate of only a few per person per generation would be a problem because everyone recognizes that most mutations are harmful
A load of complete and utter rubbish.

Total mutations known to cause disease in humans: 21340
OMIM Entry Statistics

Total point mutations known in humans: 187852828
dbSNP Summary

Percentage of harmful mutations: 0.011%

and natural selection can only get rid of one or two per generation.
And the rubbish continues

Several mutations in a genome the size of the human one would mean that deleterious mutations must accumulate.
Unless you have sexual reproduction.

My rubbish meter is full, so I will have to stop here.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You sound confused. Is the Bible proved false? Or is it not falsifiable? You cant have it both ways.

They fact is, by your own admission in complaining that it is not falsifiable, you have admitted that it hasn't been proven false. Yet, the Bible is quite falsifiable. The bones of Jesus would stop it dead in its tracks. I can think of others, if you like.

Your statements are just words. They are not facts. Evolution has not been proved, as much as you may wish it were true. At least I can be objective an admit that fact. Your objectivety seems to be largely impaired.

Peace...
PETER PAN is a fairy tale that starts in London, UK. Now according to you since London is a real and an historical place then PATER PAN is real and it is not a fairy tale.

Likewise the Bible contains real geographical places and historical places but it also contains talking snakes, flat earth, flowers before the sun, and a plethora of tales and superstitious beliefs.

You seem to be in want when it comes to differentiating the physical from the spiritual. Science does not indulge in the spiritual.

You simply cannot use the bible to dismiss science. By doing so you are acting in a hypocritical way as you are enjoying the fruits of science (internet,PC, Mobile phones, TV, Cars, Medicine, etc, ad infinitum.) while dismissing science at the same time.

Guess who said this: "HYPOCRITES AND PHARISEES"
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, I saw you disprove it, when you made the mistake of posting about the Oklo reactor. Does that count?
Here are some notes on Oklo. You cannot support the fable.



"
Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the
uranium 235 concentration, at less than
1 percent, is just too low.

1[so they assume that differences existed..proof?]


But this isotope
is radioactive and decays about six times
faster than does uranium 238, which indicates
that the fissile fraction was much
higher in the distant past. For example,
two billion years ago (about when the
Oklo deposit formed) uranium 235 must
have constituted approximately 3 percent,
2
["Must have"??? Prove it]



The third important ingredient is a
neutron “moderator,” a substance that
can slow the neutrons given off when a
uranium nucleus splits so that they are
more apt to induce other uranium nuclei
to break apart

3[so we need water every few hours for millions of years?]



Cowan described, for example, how
some of the neutrons released during the
fission of uranium 235 were captured by
the more abundant uranium 238, which
became uranium 239 and, after emitting
two electrons, turned into plutonium
239.

4[after being kissed by the tooth fairy?]



Although almost all this
material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,
has since disappeared (primarily
through natural radioactive decay),
5[ah, the case of the missing stuff-prove it was here]

The
abundance of those lighter elements allowed
scientists to deduce that fission
reactions 'must have' gone on for hundreds
of thousands of years.
6
[missing stuff forces same state past conclusion!]

From the
amount of uranium 235 'consumed', [i.e. missing!] they
calculated the total energy released,
15,000 megawatt-years, and from this
and other evidence were able to 'work out'
the average power output,
7
[present state calculations]

It is truly amazing that more than a
dozen natural reactors spontaneously
sprang into existence and that they managed
to maintain a modest power output
for perhaps a few hundred millennia.
8
[truly amazing indeed]



Xenon
is extremely rare, which allows scientists
to use it to detect and trace nuclear
reactions, even those that occurred in
primitive meteorites before the solar system
came into existence.
To analyze the isotopic composition
9
[attribute all this gas to same state causes...absurd]



We applied this technique to many
tiny spots on our lone available fragment
of Oklo rock, only one millimeter thick
and four millimeters across.
10
[all this fable based on a teensy fragment. wow]


The second epiphany was that the extracted
gas had a significantly different
isotopic makeup from what is usually
produced in nuclear reactors.
11
[so there was a difference...from what we now see]


'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon
136 and 134 that would 'certainly'
have been created from fission, whereas
the lighter varieties of the element were
modified to a lesser extent.
12
[large amount of missing stuff]


For example,
measured with respect to the
amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion
of xenon 136 (being four atomicmass
units heavier) would have been
twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass
units heavier) if physical sorting had operated.
We did not see that pattern.

13
[IF physical sorting of the present kind existed...who says it did? so now we need to look at sorting in the former state as a possible cause rather than reaction]


None of the xenon isotopes
we measured were the direct result
of uranium fission. Rather they were the
products of the decay of radioactive isotopes
of iodine, which in turn were
formed from radioactive tellurium and
so forth, according to a well-known sequence
of nuclear reactions that gives
rise to stable xenon.

14 [this became that and that became this and on and on in a same state dream fest]

xenon
136 began at Oklo only about a
minute after the onset of self-sustained
fi ssion. An hour later the next lighter
stable isotope, xenon 134, appeared.
Then, some days after the start of fission,
xenon 132 and 131 came on the
scene. Finally, after millions of years,
and well after the nuclear chain reactions
terminated, xenon 129 formed.

15 [woulda coulda]

The
most likely mechanism involves the action
of groundwater, which presumably
'boiled away' after the temperature
reached some critical level.


16[same state speculation]

very likely they pulsed
on and off in some fashion, and large
quantities of water 'must have' been moving
through these rocks—enough to
wash away some of the xenon precursors,
tellurium and iodine, which are
water-soluble.


17[large quantities of water must have...must have ..must have...same state religion]


another—it is
unlikely that aluminum phosphate minerals
were present before the Oklo reactors
began operating.

18[says who?]


Instead those
grains of aluminum phosphate 'probably'
formed in place through the action of the
nuclear-heated water, once it had cooled
to about 300 degrees Celsius.

19[speculation in the extreme]



During each active period of operation
of an Oklo reactor and for some
time afterward, while the temperature
remained high, much of the xenon gas
(including xenon 136 and 134, which
were generated relatively quickly) was
'driven off'.

20
[missing stuff again with same state beliefs]


incorporated into growing grains of aluminum
phosphate.

21
[remember they said it was unlikely that aluminum was there before the 'reactions' they don't really know]


Then, as more water
returned to the reaction zone, neutrons
became properly moderated and fission
once again resumed, allowing the cycle
of heating and cooling to repeat. The result
was the peculiar segregation of xenon
isotopes we uncovered.

22
[The result of what? The result of the water they imagine 'HAD to' be there for millenia and in the right time and amount]


It is not entirely obvious what forces
kept this xenon inside the aluminum
phosphate minerals for almost half the
planet’s lifetime. In particular, why was
the xenon generated during a given operational
pulse not driven off during the
next one?

23
[GIANT leap of faith]

Presumably it became imprisoned
in the cagelike structure of the aluminum
phosphate minerals, which were
able to hold on to the xenon gas created
within them, even at high temperatures.
The details remain fuzzy, but whatever
the fi nal answers are, one thing is clear:
the capacity of aluminum phosphate

24[[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?]


The Oklo reactor
we studied had switched “on” for 30 minutes
and “off” for at least 2.5 hours.


. The more
important lessons may be about how to
handle nuclear waste. Oklo, after all,
serves as a good analogue for a long-term
geologic repository,


25 [dangerous false prophesy]

The Oklo reactors may also teach scientists
about possible shifts in what was
formerly thought to be a fundamental
physical constant, one called (alpha),
which controls such universal quantities
as the speed of light [see “Inconstant
Constants,” by John D. Barrow and John
K. Webb; Scientifi c American, June].
26
[fables like Oklo form basis of alpha now?]


For three decades, the two-billion-year old
Oklo phenomenon has been used to
argue against alpha having changed. But last
year Steven K. Lamoreaux and Justin R.
Torgerson of Los Alamos National Laboratory
drew on Oklo to posit that this
“constant” has, in fact, varied signifi -
cantly (and, strangely enough, in the opposite
sense from what others have recently
proposed).


27 [so - opposite now of what they said then]

"


Now then, on topic...we see that the Tribulation period described in the bible most likely again involves different state nature.


Would you agree?
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟26,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You simply cannot use the bible to dismiss science. By doing so you are acting in a hypocritical way as you are enjoying the fruits of science (internet,PC, Mobile phones, TV, Cars, Medicine, etc, ad infinitum.) while dismissing science at the same time.

Guess who said this: "HYPOCRITES AND PHARISEES"

I see you're still trying to get people to worship the physical, "You cannot simply glorify life over the physical body. If you dismiss the physical body you are acting in a hypocritical way as you are enjoying the fruits of the physical body (digestion, sight, hearing). The stones around you give your physical body shelter. You don't want to make stone idols or glorify stones but you choose the spirit instead. HYPOCRITES AND PHARISEES."

There is no reason to exalt the physical body, etc, and your citation is misplaced.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I see you're still trying to get people to worship the physical, "You cannot simply glorify life over the physical body. If you dismiss the physical body you are acting in a hypocritical way as you are enjoying the fruits of the physical body (digestion, sight, hearing). The stones around you give your physical body shelter. You don't want to make stone idols or glorify stones but you choose the spirit instead. HYPOCRITES AND PHARISEES."

There is no reason to exalt the physical body, etc, and your citation is misplaced.
I enjoy the physical world and I certainly do not dismiss it like you dismiss science yet you continue to enjoy the fruits of science. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Look it up in any dictionary.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟26,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I enjoy the physical world and I certainly do not dismiss it like you dismiss science yet you continue to enjoy the fruits of science. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Look it up in any dictionary.

Worshipping physical ("scientific") instruments is hypocrisy in my book.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
284951_10152010775870023_1552704579_n.jpg
 
Upvote 0