DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Big Bang and creation of the universe
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 276 - 300 of 810, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/12/2005 04:46:46 PM · #276
Originally posted by RonB:
As is the assumption that radioactive carbon existed in-situ in samples being tested. For example, dating a mollusk shell by carbon dating would result in an extremely erroneous date because the carbon atoms in the shell were not "originally" part of the shell. They were placed in the shell out of context ( they were drawn from the sea ).

Yes. Bad dating on mollusk shells has been known since the â60s and experiments were done, in 1964 if Iâm not mistaken, to determine just that. That hasnât stop a number of young earth creationists from using this data to imply that all radio-carbon dating is flawed.

Originally posted by RonB:
If you look back at my post of 04/10 at 10:24:46 p.m. you will see that I already answered your question. But, to repeat myself, 1) paddled, and/or 2) walked ( ref Pangaea ).

Yes, I saw that answer. I just found it difficult to believe. Pangea becoming separate continents is a modern geological concept covering millions of years and as far as I can tell, you reject modern geology. So you accept that either (1) at least two flightless cormorants walked/swam roughly over 8,000 miles across two continents and an ocean or (2) less than ten thousand years ago at least two flightless cormorant walked across two continents whereupon the continents divided and separated until they arrived at the present position we see them at today. Separating continents are accompanied by tectonic movement, sometimes exhibited as earthquakes. This past December there was an earthquake along the Indo-Australian Plate which caused a tsunami which was responsible for the deaths of over two hundred thousand people. The distance the plates shifted for this 9.1 Richter Scale earthquake was approximately 50 feet. The distance from Liberia on the coast of western African to the coast of Brazil is 2,848 miles. Current geology has the plates mostly moving at just under four inches per year. To be generous, letâs start the divergence of the plates containing at about 9,000 years ago and, heck, letâs double the divergence to 8 inches per year. In 9,000 years the grand distance between Africa and South America is just under 1.5 miles.
04/12/2005 05:15:46 PM · #277
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
And how do you "date" the rock layer?

Sedementation rates are measurable. the depth at which the layer lies is a pretty good indicator of its age.

Yes, sedimentation rates are measurable. At Mount St. Helens, 25 feet of sediment was layed down in a matter of hours. But the measurements that "scientists" use do not take such rapidity into account. As you say, the depth is a good indicator of its age, but only to the point of it's being older or younger than the layer below it or above it, an THEN, only if the multi-strata has not been convoluted into an 'S' shape by earthquake activity.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
When you're talking about dates in the millions of years, a few hundred is an insignificant detail.

True in your case. I don't believe in the "millions of years" theory.

I thought you believed in Pangea? So the birds could walk from the Ark to New Zealand? If the change from Pangea to the present tectonic configuration didn't take "millions of years" then I, too, would expect an account of "the Big Quake" to be in the Bible. [/quote]
No need to. Man was not impacted. After the flood receded, there was only Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives were alive. Even if the realignment of the continents took 100 years, they probably wouldn't have noticed anything more than the normal tremblors in the region. They didn't travel a lot in those days.
 04/12/2005 05:27:05 PM · #278
Originally posted by RonB:
...how do you "date" the rock layer?


By measuring the radio isotopes introduced from seawater (as you pointed out) into the sediments that formed the rock layer.

Originally posted by RonB:
I don't believe in the "millions of years" theory.


Congratulations. You could also not believe the earth orbits the sun, but that doesn't make it any less true.

You can only make a valid argument against the use of a word like "chemical" or "life" if you provide some definition for those words that you will accept. Claiming that 747s have wings, but penguins only have flippers is a convenient way of dodging a problematic response, but doesn't prove or disprove anything.

So either non-migratory cormorants that eat eels and fish spent years walking thousands of miles over land, or large land masses moved thousands of miles in less than 10,000 years with no mention of earthquakes that would completely dwarf the biggest in recorded history? You're actually going to cling to that explanation with a straight face? Wow!

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 17:51:45.
 04/12/2005 05:51:17 PM · #279
Originally posted by RonB:
Even if the realignment of the continents took 100 years, they probably wouldn't have noticed anything more than the normal tremblors in the region.


If a 50ft tectonic movement can be felt 1000 miles away and cause 60ft tsunamis, I'm pretty sure global shifts measured in miles would get anyone's attention (even if you are 120 years old).

Mt. St. Helens could leave 25 feet of sediment or 25 inches. Either way, it's a single layer that represents one event, and samples taken from within that layer would have similar geology. So what? The next layer down would still be older and have different characteristics.

Just curious, which is easier to believe... that terrestrial Galapagos Tortoises paddled across the ocean with the cormorants or that the fish-eating cormorants wandered hundreds of miles over land before the continents broke apart at 4,000 times their recorded average speed without anybody noticing? Hmm... that's a tough choice.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 19:06:48.
 04/12/2005 06:03:00 PM · #280
wow, a picture really is worth a thousand words
04/12/2005 06:07:07 PM · #281
Originally posted by karmat:
wow, a picture really is worth a thousand words


Depends on your point of view. Maybe it really only took 84 words, and everything else you see is an illusion based upon faulty assumptions. Maybe your conclusion is false because it's grounded on the artificial principle of worth. Or maybe the value of the picture is irrelevant, and the word count is just the result of individuals with nothing better to do than pointlessly debate an age-old topic. I'm gonna go with the first hypothesis. ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 18:49:31.
 04/12/2005 08:36:43 PM · #282
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:


"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson
(from this article)


The collection of quotes you referred were interesting and appear to confirm my understanding of Jefferson's position and the basis upon which the US was founded (though I do not pretend to have read all of them in context). The US led the way for a while in terms of constitutional reform, refining the preceding French thinking, and much of the world followed. It is astonishing how quickly these ideals can be corrupted by religous extremists. I would have those principles - the principles upon which freedom is based - which have a sound philosophical grounding taught in schools, and have the danger of religious bigotry exposed.

As for RonB, you are demonstrating a strong ability to follow a belief system that you have been taught. However, I am sorry, but you demonstrate a weak ability to independently analyse and assess the strength of the arguments that you are making and make a logical connection. The position you are adopting, a literal interpretation of all Biblical events, is bordering on the absurd (at the very least). Your faith is blind to the realities of the situation.

I would imagine that you have been told what to believe at some point in your life by people you trust. I think that you have probably never been taught, or taught well, by people you trust, any sciences, or the history of science (ie the explanation of the steps taken to reach our current understanding of the world and the universe). You do not have the motivation to find out more from relatively independent sources, or the reason to choose a new authority over your existing belief system

[For this reason I cannot stand certain popular books that use quotations and theories out of context, warping and twisting explanations of our understanding - best example at the moment: The Da Vinci code, for twisting the history (ironically here) of Christianity out of all recognition using misleading, incomplete and inaccurate, so-called "facts". Further examples include most creationist or intelligent design criticisms of evolutionary theory (read Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventurefor a good one!) plus few others, such as that one about humans needing two litres of water a day (that misses off the bit about us getting most of that from the food we eat)]

I do not blame you, but your approach lacks a certain sophistication.

Apologies if this sounds like a personal attack - it is intended to be directed at all those who share your view (of whom, I believe, there are too many)!
 04/12/2005 08:46:40 PM · #283
So if someone -- ron or otherwise -- arrived at their opinions through a logical, self-directed study, it would be okay? even if the outcomes or beliefs adopted were what you seem to feel are absurb beliefs?

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 20:48:27.
 04/12/2005 09:53:02 PM · #284
If someone claimed that all life on earth was deposited here by aliens in a giant blimp, then that is an opinion they are free to make, regardless of whether they've reached that opinion through meticulous research or merely believe it to be true because an authority figure said so. I respect the right of others to have their own beliefs and opinions. However, if that person went on to insist that schools refer to the law of gravity as an unproven hypothesis because it contradicts the idea of interstallar blimp travel, then that's not so OK and I will speak up. If blimp proponents presented evidence that their model better explains our observations (WITHOUT claiming that the blimp was invisible, or requiring a series of physics-defying miracles beyond the comprehension of mortals), then they'd have my full support. I think that cultural history and world religions should be part of a diverse and rich education, but I'm not going to lobby the school board to place labels on Greek mythology books as a collection of fantastic stories with no basis in reality.

Message edited by author 2005-04-12 22:51:29.
 04/12/2005 10:00:33 PM · #285
Originally posted by karmat:
So if someone -- ron or otherwise -- arrived at their opinions through a logical, self-directed study, it would be okay? even if the outcomes or beliefs adopted were what you seem to feel are absurb beliefs?


Depends on what your 'okay' means.

Personally I donât think any humans should believe any things that fail the test of legitimacy, like creationism.

Really it is quite simple.

Scientific research and observations which are tried and true and based on the laws of physics.
vs.
Mystical beliefs based off a few books that were written and re-written in several different languages by many different people over thousands of years.

The whole trying to prove false the theory's of evolution, one that is fully accepted in the worlds scientific communities, while maintaining another theory which has little to no scientific backing is just ridiculous.

It boils down to that because humans are smart and conscious, we can choose to ignore rational, logical and fully apparent realities for thoughts and ideas that feel better. If humans had no or much less emotional fears or desires this life would be completely different and probably much more âutopianâ, much like ancient Indian cultures that have since been wiped out by mans emotional greed and desires, and in many cases, religions.

"Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings, admiring, asking and observing, there we enter the realm of Art and Science."
-Albert Einstein
04/12/2005 10:54:51 PM · #286
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:


"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson
(from this article)


The collection of quotes you referred were interesting and appear to confirm my understanding of Jefferson's position and the basis upon which the US was founded (though I do not pretend to have read all of them in context). The US led the way for a while in terms of constitutional reform, refining the preceding French thinking, and much of the world followed. It is astonishing how quickly these ideals can be corrupted by religous extremists. I would have those principles - the principles upon which freedom is based - which have a sound philosophical grounding taught in schools, and have the danger of religious bigotry exposed.

As would I - especially the religious bigotry exhibited by the anti-religious secularists.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As for RonB, you are demonstrating a strong ability to follow a belief system that you have been taught.

If I am demonstrating a strong ability to follow a belief system that I have been taught, then the same holds true for you and the others who believe as you do. Very few adults living in the industrial nations are self-taught in all disciplines.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
However, I am sorry, but you demonstrate a weak ability to independently analyse and assess the strength of the arguments that you are making and make a logical connection.

Because you are already biased against the conclusions I arrive at - it is imperative that you discount my arguments as weak and illogical. I would not expect otherwise - but, then again, I believe that your arguments are weak and illogical.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The position you are adopting, a literal interpretation of all Biblical events, is bordering on the absurd (at the very least). Your faith is blind to the realities of the situation.

I could counter that YOUR faith is blind to the possibility of God. And your 'reality' no more real than snakes and elephants to a man in delirium tremens. Try to convince such a man that his demons are NOT 'real' and he will scoff at you as you have at me.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would imagine that you have been told what to believe at some point in your life by people you trust.

Yes - they were science teachers and professors. But, then I discovered, years later, that they had really been teaching pseudo-science based on assumptions.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I think that you have probably never been taught, or taught well, by people you trust, any sciences, or the history of science (ie the explanation of the steps taken to reach our current understanding of the world and the universe).

Ooops. I responded too early. Yes, I have - and as I said, they taught what they believed, but didn't admit that their beliefs were based on assumptions - not observable, repeatable, science.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
You do not have the motivation to find out more from relatively independent sources, or the reason to choose a new authority over your existing belief system

Actually, I DO have the motivation to find out more - I've read Einsteins works and Stephen Hawking's works, for example. And I always read the science articles in the newspapers, magazines, and on the web. But you are correct that I have not found a reason to choose a new authority over my existing belief system. It's interesting that there are MANY, MANY avowed atheists, like Antony Flew, who after many years denouncing the very existence of God, come to change their beliefs; but I've heard of only a very few who, having believed, come to change their minds. I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
[For this reason I cannot stand certain popular books that use quotations and theories out of context, warping and twisting explanations of our understanding - best example at the moment: The Da Vinci code, for twisting the history (ironically here) of Christianity out of all recognition using misleading, incomplete and inaccurate, so-called "facts". Further examples include most creationist or intelligent design criticisms of evolutionary theory (read Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventurefor a good one!) plus few others, such as that one about humans needing two litres of water a day (that misses off the bit about us getting most of that from the food we eat)]

I actually agree with you on this last sentiment.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I do not blame you, but your approach lacks a certain sophistication.

Thank you. Scripture says that we must come to God "as children".

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Apologies if this sounds like a personal attack - it is intended to be directed at all those who share your view (of whom, I believe, there are too many)!

And of whom, I believe, there are too few.
 04/12/2005 11:07:53 PM · #287
Originally posted by RonB:
... Very few adults living in the industrial nations are self-taught in all disciplines.

For a really stirring (fictional) account of an engineer who seemingly defies this thesis (and who is a devout believer in the Creator of All Things) I heartily recommend The Mysterious Island by Jules Verne, available as free downloadable text from Project Gutenberg.
 04/13/2005 12:40:42 AM · #288
That's your evangelistic side showing through now, Ron, but it's also the crux of the problem because many people don't want to be saved or their democratic nations converted to a theocracy. You can believe whatever you want to, but I find it to be, and I know others do as well, a personal affront When confronted by the religious ultra-right Christian agenda. Christians make up 33% of all the religions in the world. That's more than any other religion. Why do you need more converts unless to attempt at ruling the world?

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Apologies if this sounds like a personal attack - it is intended to be directed at all those who share your view (of whom, I believe, there are too many)!

And of whom, I believe, there are too few.
04/13/2005 09:27:31 AM · #289
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I would have ...the principles upon which freedom is based ...taught in schools, and have the danger of religious bigotry exposed.

Originally posted by RonB:
As would I - especially the religious bigotry exhibited by the anti-religious secularists.


Sorry - don't understand. The principle I espoused is the need to separate individual and arbitrary belief systems from the way we govern ourselves as a nation. It is not anti-religion, merely recognition that religion does not offer an objective approach to self-rule.

Originally posted by RonB:
Very few adults living in the industrial nations are self-taught in all disciplines.


True - I do not pretend to have researched from the ground up. But that is the beauty of peer-review. In my specialism, I know an awful lot. I can comment sensibly on it, and my opinion will be given its appropriate weight. There are many highly rated academics whose careers are spent in this research, and which is tested and peer reviewed by more. There are very few who attempt to defend creationism (especially at the literal level) and very many who have dedicated their careers to evolutionary theory. That does not make them "right", or "prove" anything, but for those relying on their work, the probability of accuracy is enormously in their favour.

Originally posted by RonB:
...YOUR faith is blind to the possibility of God. And your 'reality' no more real than snakes and elephants to a man in delirium tremens. Try to convince such a man that his demons are NOT 'real' and he will scoff at you as you have at me.


I have considered the possibility of there being a god. I was once, as a child, a believer. I now conclude that it is possible that there are unanswered and maybe unaswerable questions about what is beyond the universe (possible but unlikely - "outside the universe" seems to me to be a redundant concept given our current understanding of time and space). However, do I believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and that the literal truth can be derived from the pages of the Bible? No - there is no reason why the Bible is right and every other belief system is wrong.

It is possible that the entire universe is a fabrication for us - a la Matrix - but that involves such a huge assumption (that nothing we sense is real) that it is not useful for discussion purposes. There could be a million alternative realities elaborately hidden from us (not necessarily supporting the existence of a god - see the Hitch-hikers' Guide to the Universe for a good one!) - each one is such a long shot that if one of those is the case, "all bets are off".

Originally posted by RonB:
...science teachers and professors... had really been teaching pseudo-science based on assumptions.


The assumptions being... that our senses are accurate, and that when we observe the same incident a reasonable number of times, it is fair to assume that in the same circumstances the same thing will happen in the same way every time (and has always done so) - eg , if repeatedly dropped apples continue to fall due to gravity, metals always have and will conduct electricity, radiation decay rates have and always will be predictable, etc etc? Those are the key assumptions that science relies on.

If we cannot trust our senses - no point going any further for reasons stated above. If we cannot trust the laws that we repeatedly observe around us to be true for every repetition in the future or the past and regardless of spatial position, we cannot say anything with certainty. We have not observed that to be the case: again - no point going any further.

Otherwise, no, science is not a series of "facts" - it has limitations (which is why it can be developed) - but it's application has moulded the world we live in today (which is the greatest testament to its usefulness and probable authenticity).

Originally posted by RonB:

I've read Einsteins works and Stephen Hawking's works, for example.


And understood them? I think they are hard going. I have to rely in part on the qualititive assertions of others, who do (claim) to understand the mathematics involved to a greater degree than me. Peer review, with constructive criticism, supports and does not dismiss their theories.

Originally posted by RonB:
It's interesting that there are MANY, MANY avowed atheists, like Antony Flew, who after many years denouncing the very existence of God, come to change their beliefs; but I've heard of only a very few who, having believed, come to change their minds. I wonder why that is?

Antony Flew is a philosopher, not a scientist.

I have come the opposite way. Christianity in the UK is dwindling as a whole, with fewer and fewer devout attending church year on year. I have not heard of any reputable scientists who rewrite their textbooks and renounce their research on the basis that the Earth should now be considered to be 6k yo or that biological diversity can only be explained by creation and a flood.

The fastest growing religion is Islam - if conversion rates are the scorecard, maybe you ought to be reading the Qu'ran (Islam is even more strongly creationist than Christianity!).

Originally posted by RonB:
I actually agree with you on this last sentiment.


cool - we can start another rant slagging off together the Da Vinci Code.

Originally posted by RonB:

Thank you. Scripture says that we must come to God "as children".

Get 'em young when they know no better!! I would interpret that as follows. As an informed adult, you are allowed to make a grown up assessment. If you decide, as an informed adult, that Christianity provides the most convincing explanation of life etc, then adoption of its principles may be childlike (ie start at the beginning, accept without questioning, probably something about innocence too).

As a general point - quoting Biblical text in support of an argument that the Bible is accurate is a circular argument and provides no support.

Originally posted by RonB:

And of whom, I believe, there are too few.


Therein lies the rub...

You are swimming against the tide. We need anti-tide swimmers every now and then, but they should not be allowed greater influence than they are due. If they are to turn the tide, they must do so at the highest levels, by convincingly demonstrating that everyone else is swimming the wrong way. They should not be allowed to impede the tide by manipulating the weakest (ie the children) to swim in the opposite direction.
 04/13/2005 09:43:49 AM · #290
On the example of Antony Flew as a convert, from an interviewer:

he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force
 04/13/2005 09:58:17 AM · #291
No wonder we weren't supposed to eat the fruit of knowledge. Independent thought and reason is the greatest challenge to mythology and religion. It's much more difficult for a shepherd to lead his flock if the sheep start reaching their own conclusions.

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 10:04:05.
 04/13/2005 10:21:31 AM · #292
Originally posted by scalvert:
No wonder we weren't supposed to eat the fruit of knowledge.

Actually, it's really just the tree of "knowing good and bad".

"Eat from it," said Yahweh, "and on that day death touches you."

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 10:21:49.
 04/13/2005 10:37:15 AM · #293
Most references I can find refer to the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil." It was apparently also the fruit of realization that that you're not wearing any clothes, which seems completely unrelated to good or evil unless knowledge itself was the evil, hence my reference. Note also the declaration that a person eating or even touching this fruit would die, but obviously didn't. Thus the creation of the first fib. ;-)
 04/13/2005 10:40:40 AM · #294
Adam's still alive?

Originally posted by scalvert:
Note also the declaration that a person eating or even touching this fruit would die, but obviously didn't. Thus the creation of the first fib. ;-)
04/13/2005 10:47:06 AM · #295
Originally posted by hopper:
Adam's still alive?


LOL! You're proposing that he would still be alive if he hadn't eaten the fruit?

So... an all-knowing, all-seeing entity gives you the some serious cranial capacity, then creates something he doesn't want you to have in the first place and puts it in the center of your home. He further allows a small-brained (yet talking) animal with amazingly detailed inside knowledge of the setup into your home and holds you accountable for suddenly becoming fashion-conscious after eating something that magically transferred information to your brain. Additionally, had you NOT eaten said fruit, you might still be scampering about the garden as a 6000 year old man. This is the model for the origin of man that I'm supposed believe over evolution? Oh, I feel so foolish.

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 11:36:42.
 04/13/2005 11:37:04 AM · #296
Originally posted by scalvert:
Most references I can find refer to the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil."

Mostly owing to the popularity of certain translations I would guess. In my translation, for example, there is no equivalent to Genesis' first chapter (so the whole "how long is a day" question is largely irrelevant).

Originally posted by scalvert:
Note also the declaration that a person eating or even touching this fruit would die, but obviously didn't.

I interpret "death touches you" as a literary form of "you'll become mortal". Much like Disney's version of historical events, it's a body of fiction thinly veiled by scant facts.

"A device perhaps from the incontrovertibility of the one to win credence for the other." - S.Beckett.
04/13/2005 11:51:31 AM · #297
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
...it's a body of fiction thinly veiled by scant facts.


That's pretty much my opinion of religious texts in general. FWIW, I used the King James version for reference, but only by reducing these stories to the most vague interpretation possible can you avoid such ludicrous conclusions.

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 11:59:50.
 04/13/2005 12:33:22 PM · #298
I am getting caught up in the details far too much, in this thread. My main points are:

1) There is a lot of highly regarded evidence that is held by many (whether you agree with it or not) to evidence the evolutionary theory, the age of the Earth and the big bang theory.

2) There is no reputable evidence that a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story is accurate, beyond the words themselves.

3) Why is the Biblical creation story to be believed over all other creation stories (religious or not)? Does Christianity have a veto on the accuracy of all the other stories by virtue of current subscription rates? Surely Christianity provides one of many creation stories (none of which can be substantiated)?

4) Is it accepted that the sciences seek to provide a coherent and objective analysis based on theory, prediction and observation?

5) Is it accepted that Christianity is a faith based on personal & spiritual feelings & belief?

6) Why should any science lesson make any concession to any faith based creation story, and in particular the Christian creation story?

hmm - too many main points, I think. Main one is probably (3).

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 12:34:48.
 04/13/2005 12:46:52 PM · #299
re-read our short exchange:

you pointed out the creation of the first fib because Adam was told he was going to die and didn't ... All I said was, he did, in fact, die.

laughing, being sarcastic and condescending won't change the fact that you made a small error in regards to whether or not that was a fib. but i'm sure you'll dismiss this post with more witty humor about how stupid all christians are.

Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by hopper:
Adam's still alive?


LOL! You're proposing that he would still be alive if he hadn't eaten the fruit?

So... an all-knowing, all-seeing entity gives you the some serious cranial capacity, then creates something he doesn't want you to have in the first place and puts it in the center of your home. He further allows a small-brained (yet talking) animal with amazingly detailed inside knowledge of the setup into your home and holds you accountable for suddenly becoming fashion-conscious after eating something that magically transferred information to your brain. Additionally, had you NOT eaten said fruit, you might still be scampering about the garden as a 6000 year old man. This is the model for the origin of man that I'm supposed believe over evolution? Oh, I feel so foolish.
04/13/2005 12:52:09 PM · #300
Originally posted by hopper:
you pointed out the creation of the first fib because Adam was told he was going to die and didn't ... All I said was, he did, in fact, die.


My point was that either you assume that the death many years later was caused by the fruit, or that he wouldn't have died had he not touched the fruit. If I claim that you'll surely die if you eat a pomegrante, but you eat it anyway and then die at the ripe old age of 96, does that prove me right? If you assume that the pomegranate was the cause of death, then you are suggesting that I wouldn't have died at 96 if I hadn't eaten it. If the pomegranate WASN'T the cause of death, then my initial claim that it would kill you was false.

Message edited by author 2005-04-13 13:05:28.
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 01:23:23 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 01:23:23 PM EDT.