09 Jul 10
==================================
the story of the three little piggies and the wolf who hoofed and poofed is any less meaningful because there weren't any piggies that build straw, stick and brick houses respectively?
================================
Did you hear the one about the frog that gradually became a prince ?
It took 10 million years you see. They call it "science".
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillWe have an ongoing dispute that there may or may not have been a global wide flood. If all the people were concentrated in a certain area, for intents and purposes, the would constitute the whole world as far as mankind is concerned.
[b]=========================
oh i do see it
as an allegory.
be nice or god might kick your ass. new beginning. stay true to your convictions even if the world is evil. and so on.
==========================
An allegory without enforcement is a joke.
If you do not realize the danger your soul is in in coming before God with a ...[text shortened]... e. Run with what you think. Should make it all very interesting in the end to say the least.[/b]
A speculative hypothesis at very best. Even if this were the case, there is not a shred of genetic evidence to back it up.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywill400 million yrs, not 10 million.
[b]==================================
the story of the three little piggies and the wolf who hoofed and poofed is any less meaningful because there weren't any piggies that build straw, stick and brick houses respectively?
================================
Did you hear the one about the frog that gradually became a prince ?
It took 10 million years you see. They call it "science".[/b]
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by Proper Knob=========================
400 million yrs, not 10 million.
400 million yrs, not 10 million.
=======================
Alright. A frog turned into a prince and it took 400 million years.
I still detect "Mother Goose" somewhere in the backround.
09 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob=====================================
[b]We have an ongoing dispute that there may or may not have been a global wide flood. If all the people were concentrated in a certain area, for intents and purposes, the would constitute the whole world as far as mankind is concerned.
A speculative hypothesis at very best. Even if this were the case, there is not a shred of genetic evidence to back it up.[/b]
A speculative hypothesis at very best. Even if this were the case, there is not a shred of genetic evidence to back it up.
======================================
I don't know about the current state of "genetic evidence."
I do like the cartoon I saw. It shows a bunch of white coated scientists standing in front of a blackboard with all kinds of complicated calculations.
And one of the scientists is saying "The most depressing thing is that everything we believe here today, will one day be proven wrong."
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillWe have an ongoing dispute that there may or may not have been a global wide flood. If all the people were concentrated in a certain area, for intents and purposes, the would constitute the whole world as far as mankind is concerned.
[b]=========================
oh i do see it
as an allegory.
be nice or god might kick your ass. new beginning. stay true to your convictions even if the world is evil. and so on.
==========================
An allegory without enforcement is a joke.
If you do not realize the danger your soul is in in coming before God with a ...[text shortened]... e. Run with what you think. Should make it all very interesting in the end to say the least.[/b]
they weren't concentrated in one are.
also global means global. as in the whole planet. if you consider the noah flood to be a devastating disaster restricted to a region of the world in which noah resided then you are 1 step ahead other christians. but then we no longer have a literal global flood and then we no longer have a 100% literall bible. which sets a precedent i am not sure you are comfortable with.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywilldid you hear the one about how Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at one time?
[b]=========================
400 million yrs, not 10 million.
=======================
Alright. A frog turned into a prince and it took 400 million years.
I still detect "Mother Goose" somewhere in the backround.[/b]
if you don't understand a concept it is easy to mistake it for a mother goose fairy tale. or you could be so intelligent that you see obvious flaws in it. but then you would be able to point out what those flaws are.
what is it dude? are you so intelligent that you can disprove evolution or you just don't understand it?
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillsome. not all. and i don't view that as depressing. if newton would be alive today he would be thrilled about how new theories showed flaws in his. he would understand that he (newton) had an important contribution to said new theories.
[b]=====================================
A speculative hypothesis at very best. Even if this were the case, there is not a shred of genetic evidence to back it up.
======================================
I don't know about the current state of "genetic evidence."
I do like the cartoon I saw. It shows a bunch of white coated scientists s ...[text shortened]... pressing thing is that everything we believe here today, will one day be proven wrong."[/b][/b]
09 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi===============================
[b]We have an ongoing dispute that there may or may not have been a global wide flood. If all the people were concentrated in a certain area, for intents and purposes, the would constitute the whole world as far as mankind is concerned.
they weren't concentrated in one are.
also global means global. as in the whole planet. if you consider the no ...[text shortened]... nger have a 100% literall bible. which sets a precedent i am not sure you are comfortable with.[/b]
also global means global.
==============================
Point out the words "global" in Genesis.
======================
as in the whole planet.
=======================
Point out the phrase "whole planet" in Genesis.
=================================
if you consider the noah flood to be a devastating disaster restricted to a region of the world in which noah resided then you are 1 step ahead other christians.
==================================
Plenty of Christians thought this way before I did.
Anyway, Judged is Judged. Whether it was global, half global, one third global, one tenth global, they were all judged.
We're kind of experts at missing the point when it comes to the Bible.
Some years ago a hurricane came through the south. The reporter was talking to a farmer whose entire crop was flattened by the high winds. They were questioning him how fast he thought the wind was going.
He said in essence - "It doesn't matter. Whether it was 80 miles an hour or 90 miles an hour or 120 miles an hour. Flat is flat. My whole crop is GONE."
Judged is judged. They all died except for the believers in Noah's preaching.
==============================
but then we no longer have a literal global flood and then we no longer have a 100% literall bible. which sets a precedent i am not sure you are comfortable with.
=================================
Point out the Hebrew words which would translate "global flood".
What is "global" in ancient Hebrew ?
09 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI don't know about the current state of "genetic evidence."
[b]=====================================
A speculative hypothesis at very best. Even if this were the case, there is not a shred of genetic evidence to back it up.
======================================
I don't know about the current state of "genetic evidence."
I do like the cartoon I saw. It shows a bunch of white coated scientists s pressing thing is that everything we believe here today, will one day be proven wrong."[/b][/b]
I do.
It doesn't back up the flood story.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by Proper Knob==========================
[b]I don't know about the current state of "genetic evidence."
I do.
It doesn't back up flood story.[/b]
I do.
It doesn't back up flood story.
=========================
Well, Proper Knob here's my view:
The Bible is God's revelation. Science is man's invention. If the two do not agree the problem must be with man's invention of science because God knows all the facts.
Let's wait and see what they say next year.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillPoint out the words "global" in Genesis.
[b]===============================
also global means global.
==============================
Point out the words "global" in Genesis.
======================
as in the whole planet.
=======================
Point out the phrase "whole planet" in Genesis.
=================================
if you consider the noah f ...[text shortened]... d translate [b]"global flood".
What is "global" in ancient Hebrew ?[/b]
i can "put two and two together".
when god says "will wipe all humanity from the face of the earth" i assume all humanity.
i also assume the animals on the arc were supposed to have a purpose to repopulate said earth.
Judged is judged. They all died except for the believers in Noah's preaching.
there is a difference in how they died. i think you are circling the concept but refuse to grasp it. the bible says flood was global. you try to say it wasn't quite but the point is that all the wiked were judged later. that is irrelevant. common, just come out and say it, there was no flood to cover the whole planet. i am sure you will be expelled from the nutty christian club but you can join the next club, slightly less nutty.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by jaywillactually the bible is claimed by men to be god's revelation.
[b]==========================
I do.
It doesn't back up flood story.
=========================
Well, Proper Knob here's my view:
The Bible is God's revelation. Science is man's invention. If the two do not agree the problem must be with man's invention of science because God knows all the facts.
Let's wait and see what they say next year.[/b]
men who don't prove that claim. because it's faith.
science is also an invention of man. but it is quite proven.
09 Jul 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi================================
[b] Point out the words "global" in Genesis.
i can "put two and two together".
when god says "will wipe all humanity from the face of the earth" i assume all humanity.
i also assume the animals on the arc were supposed to have a purpose to repopulate said earth.
Judged is judged. They all died except for the believers in Noah's preaching.[/ elled from the nutty christian club but you can join the next club, slightly less nutty.
Point out the words "global" in Genesis.
i can "put two and two together".
when god says "will wipe all humanity from the face of the earth" i assume all humanity.
=============================== [/b]
I didn't say it was not all living people except the 8 on the ark. I said the word "global" needs to be pointed out to me.
And putting two and two together I realize that the language of the Bible is at time pre-scientific. Or it is scientifically imprecise in its way of speaking, according to modern standards of scientifc language.
The Queen of Sheba came from "the ends of the earth" to hear Solomon's wisdom. It was not that far away by modern standards of transportation.
I think there is a difference between "unscientific" and language which is scientifically imprecise according to modern standards.
I believe in a "Big Bang" Theory. But there was NO air and thus no BANG to be heard.
The phrase "Big Bang Theory" may not be unscientific at all. It may be scientifically imprecise language according to modern standards of physics talk.
09 Jul 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzi====================================
did you hear the one about how Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive at one time?
if you don't understand a concept it is easy to mistake it for a mother goose fairy tale. or you could be so intelligent that you see obvious flaws in it. but then you would be able to point out what those flaws are.
what is it dude? are you so intelligent that you can disprove evolution or you just don't understand it?
what is it dude? are you so intelligent that you can disprove evolution or you just don't understand it?
=======================================
What is it dude ? I guess being a person of faith I recognize other people of faith.
I can see the difference between a religion and established scientific facts.
Actually, if Evolutionary gradualism is true, I think it has to be because of Intelligence anyway.
What a program ! And what a wonderful designing Programming Mind behind such a system, if it is indeed a fact.