Spirituality
05 Aug 17
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseIt could have happen in one earth quake, you don't know.
Don't let your religious training cloud you, look at the photo's and think how it could happen in 6000 years. They don't bend at room temperature, remember that. Think about the forces involved to bend rock 180 degrees in a space of 10 meters. The earthquakes would be devastating if all that were to have happened in 6K years.
I assume you looked at the ...[text shortened]... that level if all that had to happen in 6000 years. Try to do some critical thinking about that.
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe great quake along the San Andreas fault which struck San Francisco in 1906 displaced the ground by up to 6 meters (horizontally).
It could have happen in one earth quake, you don't know.
https://www.britannica.com/science/earthquake-geology
Whereas the terrible Tangshan earthquake of 1976, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, measured 7.5 Richter, displaced the ground only one meter.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Tangshan-earthquake-of-1976
A quake sufficient to raise mountain ranges some thousands of meters high in a short time, at any time during the past 6,000 years of recorded history, would have been noticed.
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasActually, the guessing is being done by everyone who are grasping about on things they
KellyJay falls in the same trap as so many other religious people trying to enter the field of science - they're guessing.
And furthermore they believe in their own guessings.
cannot know. For example, it was said here just a little while ago, we know what happen
5 billion years ago. My stance is, no you do not know, your guessing. Someone claims this
fossil is an ancestor to something else, they don't know, for all they know it was its own
unique species that was a live, or that some simple fossil was the oldest and everything
came from it, while we have simple lifeforms now, so why does simple mean it came
before everything else, the guess. We are all putting forward our best estimation on what
we see here, religious and otherwise.
19 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusMy only point to fossils and evolution is you cannot use fossils to avoid the issues with
Well, good; we agree on a crucial important point, that fossils are remains or imprints of things which were once really alive. What fossils show is this: different life forms appeared at different times. They did not all appear at once, at the same time, regardless whether you think life evolved or was created. The fact that some life forms existed at a ti ...[text shortened]... , we would be digging up their bodies in the topsoil, not their fossils from deeper down.
evolution, suggesting that fossils prove the issues were overcome, look we see fossils,
does not cut it, as I said even if you are totally correct about the times. One doesn't mean
the other is true, it is just another data point to look at, but it doesn't prove living systems
acquired eye sight, or genders over time when none had them before.
19 Aug 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @moonbusYou are of the opinion that we haven't seen an event at such a large scale therefore it
The great quake along the San Andreas fault which struck San Francisco in 1906 displaced the ground by up to 6 meters (horizontally).
https://www.britannica.com/science/earthquake-geology
Whereas the terrible Tangshan earthquake of 1976, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives, measured 7.5 Richter, displaced the ground only one meter.
https://w ...[text shortened]... hort time, at any time during the past 6,000 years of recorded history, would have been noticed.
could not have happen on a large scale? Islands grow, the earth can and does change,
people have just bought into the GC was carved out by time they don't even think it could
have happen another way, it could have formed that way for all we know along with the
rest of the planet.
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kellyjaySo you think guessing is a good method to find out the truth? Guessings without observation, without evidence?
Actually, the guessing is being done by everyone who are grasping about on things they
cannot know. For example, it was said here just a little while ago, we know what happen
5 billion years ago. My stance is, no you do not know, your guessing. Someone claims this
fossil is an ancestor to something else, they don't know, for all they know it was its ow ...[text shortened]... s. We are all putting forward our best estimation on what
we see here, religious and otherwise.
19 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kellyjayYes, it does matter whether humans have ever seen an event on such a scale, if, as you apparently believe, the history of the universe is co-temporaneous with human history (give or take 5 days).
You are of the opinion that we haven't seen an event at such a large scale therefore it
could not have happen on a large scale? Islands grow, the earth can and does change,
people have just bought into the GC was carved out by time they don't even think it could
have happen another way, it could have formed that way for all we know along with the
rest of the planet.
You repeatedly ask 'how do you know?'; we repeatedly point out facts which are extremely well-established and throughly researched based on a some law of nature or other well-documented natural process or mechanism; you repeatedly say 'you still don't know, it could have happened some other way.' But you don't have a plausible alternative explanation how these things could have happened or how anyone could know that these things could happen in the manner which you seem to think they did. 'Goddidit' is not an explanation; it is a confession of intellectual defeat. If an explanation is to explain anything, then it must be less mysterious than what it explains. God is the most mysterious thing of all. To say 'Godiddit' is to explain the mysterious by an even greater mystery.
If, as you apparently believe, the history of the universe is roughly co-temporaneous with human history (give or take 5 days), then Adam popped into a garden in which the trees were already full-grown; that is, they had tree rings inside them 50 or maybe 100 years old. But there were no 50 or a 100 years before that, because God had just created it all. If, as you apparently believe, Adam popped into a universe which had been created a few days before he appeared, then, when he looked up into the night sky, he saw lights from stars millions of years away from Earth. But there were no millions of years before that, because God had just created it all. 'Well, God just made it that way,' I hear you say. Really? Then God made a universe filled with lies. He made a tree with a past which never happened. God making a tree with 50 years of rings in it when there were no 50 years is a deception. God made light from stars with a past which never happened; light from a star a million light-years away, when there were no million years, is a lie. God filling the Earth's crust with tons and tons uranium which had already decayed into tons and tons of lead is the same lie. God making a canyon which was already fully cut into the surrounding plain, with miles of fossils underneath from life forms which never lived because it was all created yesterday, is deception on a scale which defies reason, and for which there is no empirical evidence. There is only your contention, 'it might have been so.'
You squeeze through the most implausible mouseholes in order not to see the elephant in the room. Rather than vainly trying to resist the last five centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge about how nature works, it might be more fruitful for you to examine why you feel threatened by deep time.
Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that the Earth was created any specific time ago in the past, neither 6,000 years ago nor 6 billion years ago. The idea that the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago is a specifically Anglican interpretation propounded by a certain bishop, James Ussher, in 1658 (in his work Annals). His conclusion was that creation occurred on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C. Not every Christian accepts this interpretation and nothing compels you to either.
The eternal salvation of your soul does not depend on your steadfastly holding to the belief that Ussher got it right, even roughly. There is plenty of room within the mainstream Christian tradition for other interpretations of Scripture which do not look silly in light of massively coherent empirical evidence and scientific knowledge of how nature works (and how it does not work, e.g., Earth-shattering quakes which raise mountain ranges in a matter of hours or days).
As Joseph Campbell said, religion must be roughly compatible with what is known about nature, otherwise it is superstition.
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @moonbusNope but it does remove much doubt, and the father away in time it is the more can be missed. Bad assumptions can be made and fewer chances of being able to validate what is being pushed without our validation processes being able to be shown true. The closer to the here and now the better.
Do you believe that the only way to know something is to witness it oneself?
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayThe Book of Genesis was not written by an eyewitness. Why do you give it any credence? Why should anyone else?
Nope but it does remove much doubt, and the father away in time it is the more can be missed. Bad assumptions can be made and fewer chances of being able to validate what is being pushed without our validation processes being able to be shown true. The closer to the here and now the better.
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @moonbusI agree it wasn't so how would they know? Before the fall God and man walked together. Even after the fall God and Moses spent a lot of time together. Since Moses wrote it as God was sharing it was in my opinion a topic of discussion. Just like all the other things Moses wrote about.
The Book of Genesis was not written by an eyewitness. Why do you give it any credence? Why should anyone else?
19 Aug 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayWhat bad assumptions do you think are made in this case?
Nope but it does remove much doubt, and the father away in time it is the more can be missed. Bad assumptions can be made and fewer chances of being able to validate what is being pushed without our validation processes being able to be shown true. The closer to the here and now the better.