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.
Well if you want to talk about meanings, please tell us how your usage of the term 'flood' can possibly apply to a >3.2 billion year old already water-world?Halbhh said:Since the story is a parable, if someone misses the parable side of the story, they have literally missed most of the meaning, so I've then tried to help people by telling them, "If you miss the parable side of the story, you've missed about 99% of the meaning."
I mean, you should be more concerned with the process of land emergence than the process of flooding(?)SelfSim said:Well if you want to talk about meanings, please tell us how your usage of the term 'flood' can possibly apply to a >3.2 billion year old already water-world?Halbhh said:Since the story is a parable, if someone misses the parable side of the story, they have literally missed most of the meaning, so I've then tried to help people by telling them, "If you miss the parable side of the story, you've missed about 99% of the meaning."
Well if you want to talk about meanings, please tell us how your usage of the term 'flood' can possibly apply to a >3.2 billion year old already water-world?
I've decided to post this thread in the Physical and Life Science forum instead of the Creationism and Evolution forum as it deals with debunking YEC when it presents itself as a "science" (creation science) rather than a purely literal interpretation of the Bible.
A typical YEC argument is radiometric dating can't be trusted as the decay rates may have been much faster in the past before setting down to the rates we observe today.
Even if this was true radioactive decay being an exothermic process produces heat irrespective of the decay rate which raises the question how was all this heat spanning Earth's history dissipated in the YEC time frame?
Scientists have been contemplating creating life, and some claim to have even developed a blue print in creating a universe with life in a lab. I don't think they've put any strict parameters on how it would be done, if it would absolutely require a type of primordial soup/evolution scenario, or even if lab universe/life absolutely could not be developed in a mature state?Miracles really come in handy as alternative, unarguable explanations.
When in doubt - insert a miracle.
OB
If you'd actually listened to the video in the OP, you'd know the science lady I disagree with also admits she's just giving her opinion. So she and I have opinions but you are the Anointed One who has the Facts engraved in stone tablets on a mountain somewhere?That you have a opinions.
And seem to think they are facts.
So young earth creationism is a secular idea? An atheistic idea? A Buddhist idea? I think you're the one who should depart the thread until you watch the video and know what's being discussed.Its not about "god". Its about yec.
Im not the confused one who blundered
into the wrong room.
'Life' is almost always defined by evidence of a series of biophysical processes.Scientists have been contemplating creating life, and some claim to have even developed a blue print in creating a universe with life in a lab. I don't think they've put any strict parameters on how it would be done, if it would absolutely require a type of primordial soup/evolution scenario, or even if lab universe/life absolutely could not be developed in a mature state?
No ..The problem is that we apply this principle that with human endeavor, there's limitless possibilities. For some reason with God, all of a sudden there's restrictions and impossibilities.
I mean, you should be more concerned with the process of land emergence than the process of flooding(?)
It is equally stupid to comment on a video you either completely misunderstood or didn't bother to look at in its entirety.That video is almost as stupid as Aron Ra trying to use science to deny Noah's flood.
So your claim about " god" and his behaviour have nothing whatever to do with fact, or science.
That's true only if one believes in a Roman/Greek Pagan type of deity standing at the ready to hocus-pocus things at their desire.
Complete knowledge is an impossible standard.
We have theists who claim to know more than every scientist on earth.
No evidence of any kind can address the hypothesis that God miraculously did X and then miraculously removed all evidence of X.
God's existence isn't dependent on your [dlamberth] belief.
The existence of any god is.
If you'd actually listened to the video in the OP, you'd know the science lady I disagree with also admits she's just giving her opinion. So she and I have opinions but you are the Anointed One who has the Facts engraved in stone tablets on a mountain somewhere?
So young earth creationism is a secular idea? An atheistic idea? A Buddhist idea? I think you're the one who should depart the thread until you watch the video and know what's being discussed.
Sure. Especially if they've adopted that hypothesis based on what the Bible says, since they have no way of knowing for sure what it says. Maybe God miraculously changes the words between the page and their eyes. Once you've decided to reject the evidence of your sense, you've rejected the possibility of knowledge and you cease to have anything of value to contribute to discussions.I guess they're SOL* then, aren't they?
Ive seen wild stretches trying to concoctScientists have been contemplating creating life, and some claim to have even developed a blue print in creating a universe with life in a lab. I don't think they've put any strict parameters on how it would be done, if it would absolutely require a type of primordial soup/evolution scenario, or even if lab universe/life absolutely could not be developed in a mature state?
The problem is that we apply this principle that with human endeavor, there's limitless possibilities. For some reason with God, all of a sudden there's restrictions and impossibilities.
Thats why I dont try.Sure. Especially if they've adopted that hypothesis based on what the Bible says, since they have no way of knowing for sure what it says. Maybe God miraculously changes the words between the page and their eyes. Once you've decided to reject the evidence of your sense, you've rejected the possibility of knowledge and you cease to have anything of value to contribute to discussions.
It's the nature of God that I pointed towards, not His existence..God's existence isn't dependent on your belief.
I think you're missing the point, unless you can provide a list of absolute, unquestionable impossibilities that humans will never have the ability to achieve. And why they would be impossible.'Life' is almost always defined by evidence of a series of biophysical processes.
Biophysical processes also gives 'maturity' its meaning.
Maturity thus, by necessity, implies the existence of prior (temporal) process flows.
Something 'developed in a mature state', yet again, implies evidence of prior process flows.
No ..
In scientific human endeavour, inferences of objective existence are contextual, and subject to change with new evidence.
There's you constraints on 'possibilities', in a nutshell, right there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?