Spirituality
03 Dec 09
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75That sounds like a lovely theory, but to be honest i don't really understand what you're talking about!!
The evidence is the ice caps themselves. The process that no doubt caused the layers in the ice is this. As the flood waters were recedding from the height it was above the surface of the earth and with the cold temps now affecting the polar regions, ice would eventually stick to any land masses it would settle on. But before this as the ice was forming ...[text shortened]... and settling and moving of the land masses below the water just as earthquakes still do today.
Could you back up this new fangled theory with any evidence though, if not, it doesn't really hold any water (pardon the pun).
07 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou make me laugh.
no, you know i do not accept the transmutation of species, they simply multiplied into the different 'variations', within a species that we see today, even among humans. This fact is verified in scripture and by science, for Noah himself had three sons, and what we get when we study sociology, is three distinct branches of the human family, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, as one would expect.
Quick to jump on the band wagon when science fits with your story, but obviously the DNA evidence which contradicts your story is swept under the carpet!!
If you check the actual categories are now Caucasoid, Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. I make that five.
07 Dec 09
does anyone have an idea why noah's ark story spawns such lengthy threads?
i mean it should be fairly simple: science disproves it, creationists believe it first and then try and bend science to fit in the cracks case closed.
is it because there are so many evidence that contradict the flood and the ones "supporting" are so easily refuted that nobody seems to let it go? it should have been obvious by now that the creationists are forbidden by go to look over the evidence and adjust their story on the pain of hell. they will never change. and the reasonable ones cannot make them change.
07 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have just skimmed through both of those and they seemed pretty clear to me. A year or so ago I was looking at the 'polystrate' tree issue and wasn't fully happy that I understood the scientific explanation. I think I understand it now, without any recourse to 'God Done It'.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
there you go, enjoy.
--- Penguin
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by PenguinCareful, you'll be labelled un-Christian by the fundamentalists who lurk round these parts soon.
I have just skimmed through both of those and they seemed pretty clear to me. A year or so ago I was looking at the 'polystrate' tree issue and wasn't fully happy that I understood the scientific explanation. I think I understand it now, without any recourse to 'God Done It'.
--- Penguin
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobnice try noobster but its simply a different system of classification, for as you people seem so found if wikipedia, i suggest you consider this statement, from wikipedia, and i quote with regard to your system of classification,
You make me laugh.
Quick to jump on the band wagon when science fits with your story, but obviously the DNA evidence which contradicts your story is swept under the carpet!!
If you check the actual categories are now Caucasoid, Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. I make that five.
This article deals with races defined craniofacially (based on skull measurements) and not by typology (physical type) or genetic distance. Races categorized using alternative methods yield different groups, making them non-concordant
so you see dear Noobster, the traditional categories of Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid are not in any way invalidated by your testimony, quite the contrary, for all you have posted is a different method of categorisation. As for science that is science we whole heartedly embrace it, for it both corroborates and supports the inspired word of God. Although i hasten to add, that these techniques in themselves prove nothing, for once one realises that the word of God is true, they merely add weight to its inspired testimony.
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobanyone who denies the teaching of the Christ cannot in any shape or form term themselves a Christian, for they have deviated from what the master taught, they are weed like, plastic and bendy, given to every whim of secularism that comes their way!
Careful, you'll be labelled un-Christian by the fundamentalists who lurk round these parts soon.
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by RBHILLits not the atheist that is the problem, i generally find them more reasonable and better fun, it is the so called *Christian* who had deviated from what the master taught and who works against the Christ's own interests.
even if the ark was found the athiest still would not believe in God.
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMaybe you could show me the DNA evidence that backs up this wonderful theory of yours, that all races originated from these three people 5,000yrs ago?! As far as i understand these matters, your theory holds about as much water as a sieve!!
nice try noobster but its simply a different system of classification, for as you people seem so found if wikipedia, i suggest you consider this statement, from wikipedia, and i quote with regard to your system of classification,
This article deals with races defined craniofacially (based on skull measurements) and not by typology (physical type) ...[text shortened]... nce one realises that the word of God is true, they merely add weight to its inspired testimony.
And while your at it, how can one man and one woman produce three offsrping that are all seperate races?
08 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobi have given my testimony in a sociological context, for its quite clear that humans can and are subdivided into these three major categories, your DNA method of invalidating this cannot be used, for like your vain attempt to discredit my theory, it simply relies on a different method as well. The theory appears to me to be self evident, considering that there are three main categories, as i have explained, which one would expect if the biblical account was true, which it obviously is. why can one man and woman not provide diversity, for when you consider the characteristics, its plain that this is the case, for the sons each had different wives, perhaps you are forgetting that Noobster.
Maybe you could show me the DNA evidence that backs up this wonderful theory of yours, that all races originated from these three people 5,000yrs ago?!
And while your at it, how can one man and one woman produce three offsrping that are all seperate races?