|
|
|
Avenel
Skeptic Friend
USA
60 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2003 : 15:31:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
"Primitive anaerobic organisms...find oxygen quite toxic"
But that assumes that only anaerobic life forms on Earth. Wouldn't new life that was trying to form adapt and evolve to oxygen?
Eventually, yes. Free oxygen is a rarity in the universe. For at least some anaerobic organisms, O2 is a waste product, and is toxic. The hypothesis is that anaerobic life developed first, and, over time the O2 level rose. At some point, a mutation occured, that allowed an organism to use a more efficient aerobic metabolism. Yeasts have both an anaerobic and an aerobic metabolism. When confined to an anaerobic environment, their waste products are CO2 and alcohol (yes, I am a home brewer). Today, solely anaerobic life is generally marginalized, occupying extreme environments, like hot springs and subsea vents.
quote:
About the hammer: no, that doesn't sound like the hammer I'm talking about. The one they showed me had the handle rotted away and it was imbedded in solid rock that they said supposedly came from some age (I don't remember precisely which) that predates man. Also, they had it on exhibit and I saw it.
Okay, who showed it to you? Do you remember where you saw it exibited? |
"How many angels can swim on the head of a beer?" - Roger Ramjet |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 16:16:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
"Primitive anaerobic organisms...find oxygen quite toxic"
But that assumes that only anaerobic life forms on Earth. Wouldn't new life that was trying to form adapt and evolove to oxygen?
About the hammer: no, that doesn't sound like the hammer I'm talking about. The one they showed me had the handle rotted away and it was imbedded in solid rock that they said supposedly came from some age (I don't remember precisely which) that predates man. Also, they had it on exhibit and I saw it.
Actually, the oxygen is thought to have been a waste product of ancient organisms. These first appeared some 3.5 billion years ago, according to the fossil record, so there was plenty of time.
Sounds pretty far out, doesn't it? Well, it ain't. There are bacteria today that eat minerials and produce sulpheric acid as a waste product. Indeed, there is some thought that many caves were formed by the appetite and the defecations these bacteria. The waters going through them has a high enough concentration of the acid that a prolonged exposure can burn you.
As to the London Hammer, that antique, Champion spark plug found in a concretion and touted as an ancient artifact, the dino/human tracks and the trilobite in a foot print, et al, all that have been examined and found wanting.
You will please note that I haven't accused any Creationist or IDist of fruad, yet, but it certainly exists. The difference is that the frauds in Evolution are sood found out and corrected by, guess who? Students of evolution, who else?
My personal flim-flam favorite is Kent Hovind's 'petrified' dog lodged 1/2 way up a hollow tree.  Like the hammer, it does indeed exist, but Mr. Hovind seems confused between the terms: petrified (fossilized) and mummified (dried out). The claim is that fossilization took place in a modest portion of the tree's life. And indeed, under the right conditions, I'm sure it's possible. But a rotted-out sweet gum in GA is a far cry from those conditions. The tree incidently, has been sawn down, and is currently on display in one of those dreadful, little, roadside "museums" so common in southern, tourist areas. It's concievable that there is where "Dr." Dino found it.
The long and short of it is: don't buy the bald claim the moment it is hurled, cursing horribly, into the daylight. Examine the evidence, pro and con, and who put forth that evidence, before making up your mind.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I believe that Carl Sagan said that.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 04:22:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
"Primitive anaerobic organisms...find oxygen quite toxic"
But that assumes that only anaerobic life forms on Earth. Wouldn't new life that was trying to form adapt and evolove to oxygen?
First of all, evolution is a random event. To say "life that was trying evolve" is misrepresenting evolution. Such a statement suggests that a life form willfully decides in what direction to evolve. This is simply not true.
Lifeforms mutate, and the most adapted offspring gets the upper hand in the competition. It is we who project will-power on the process, in an attempt to understand it. That's why "common sense" have a nasty habit getting it wrong. And that's why many people say "Evolution don't make sense, but God do". Just like flipping a coin for heads-or-tail 100 times. If there is nothing wrong with the coin, or the flipping, and you get heads 99 times out of these 100 times, what's the probability that you'll get heads when you flip it again?
Chemicals that combine into self-replicating molecules are extremely simple compared to a living organism. As the self-replicating molecule becomes more complex and turning into "life" it starts using energy-sources, where molecular hydrogen is one of the easier "power sources" to utilize.
Just like humans have to learn how to crawl before they can walk, an cell that has "just evolved into life" can't jump to burning carbohydrates with oxygen, it has to use increasingly more complex methods of utilizing energy. Mineral-eating bacteria are such life.
Life has existed on Earth for 3,5 billion years (that's fossiles of bacteria. However there are indirect evidence of bacterial life that is 3,8 billion years old).
During this time life has occupied all possible ecological niche there is. If new life was to form, it would be out-matched in the competition with more evolved bacteria, and would probably never survive.
It's not impossible, but unlikely.
A more complex structure can't stand the same about of heat, and that's why heat-loving bacteria are much simpler.
(edit: removed the probability-answer, because I failed to make it invisible) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 08/15/2003 04:31:39 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 12:13:12 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe it was the London hammer I saw, I don't know. Anyway, it was on a travelling exhibit and I saw it in Oregon. Do you have a web link to those sites examining the dino/human footprints? |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Avenel
Skeptic Friend
USA
60 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 12:40:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Maybe it was the London hammer I saw, I don't know. Anyway, it was on a travelling exhibit and I saw it in Oregon.
Do you remember who sponsored the exibit?
Pictures of the London hammer can be seen here.
quote:
Do you have a web link to those sites examining the dino/human footprints?
A good place to start is here.
Edited to add link to London Hammer photos. |
"How many angels can swim on the head of a beer?" - Roger Ramjet |
| Edited by - Avenel on 08/15/2003 13:34:45 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 15:36:45 [Permalink]
|
Ask, and thou shalt recieve. I should have tossed the references into the post. Laziness; aplogies.
quote:
History
Several known loose "man tracks" are reported to have come from Glen Rose, Texas, or nearby areas. Four of the slabs are strikingly similar in appearance: all having long toes, very wide ball, and other abnormal features, possibly indicating a common carver. At least three such "long-toed" slabs still exist, including the "Burdick track" and two slabs that led paleontologist Roland Bird to Glen Rose in 1938 (discussed below). A fourth long-toed slab is known only from a photograph. Yet another slab, often called the "Caldwell track," has a very different appearance (with short toes and narrower ball); although still promoted by Carl Baugh and a few others, it was shown to be a definite carving years ago (Neufeld, 1975).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html
quote:
In the December 1988 issue of ICR's Acts and Facts, John Morris explained that he had returned to the Paluxy this past September to investigate "new evidence" gathered by Carl Baugh and Don Patton.[1] Although Baugh and Patton acknowledge that the Taylor Trail is dinosaurian, they now are proposing that a human being followed the same trail, leaving a human print inside each dinosaur track. Although Morris stated that the "over printing" model "may sound bizarre," and that ICR does not advocate it, he proceeded to do just that, maintaining that the new model was "supported by the existence of somewhat human-like impressions, each rather consistent in length..." and "in several cases, toe-like impressions are seen in the proper location. Some are best denoted by an accentuated discoloration."[2]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/retrack.html
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 22:29:19 [Permalink]
|
Hey all.
Hippy, I am so glad that you are talking some sense into these people.
I stopped coming on here about a month ago because I was the only creationist on here. And all these people would give me snide rude remarks for voicing my opinion, and when they try to answer my questions they gave me mostly answers that had nothing to do with the heart of the question I was asking. Though I did have a couple questions answered for me, most of them did not relate to the topic I was talking about. And I feel the same is happening to you. They are all running from the big questions, and sidetracking you with other smaller things. You are the first christian/creationist I have seen on here, and I thank you for voicing your opinion. Though I may never be able to prove that God was there forever. It is an impossible thing to prove. It is alot more likely that there was a person there, to create everything, than atoms and molicules, forming into life like it is today. And I see evidence of God in my life every day. Even if I can't prove it to you.
Also: I wanted to know what everyone thought about the argument against evolution that, no living gets better as it go's.
Leaves grow but then they shrivel up and die. Humans grow stronger but then as you grow older,(somtimes not even that old, I as a 15yr old, has a Right knee which i tore ligaments and cartalage in, and wrists that bother me daily, for no good reason) and then eventually we keel over and die. Now if you ask me every stage of evolution is getting better. example: I would rather be me, then a Neanderthal. For resons of communication, thought process, and many more reasons. I just want to know what everyone thinks. So for all of you who know me and are growning right now, because you have to deal with this kid again.(that means YOU Dave W.) I"M BACK!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 00:55:56 [Permalink]
|
Creation88 wrote:quote:
So for all of you who know me and are growning right now, because you have to deal with this kid again.(that means YOU Dave W.) I"M BACK!!!!!!!!
Well, since I am being rudely singled-out, I see you are back with some interesting revisionist history. You know, you're not supposed to lose your memory until you get older. For example:quote:
And all these people would give me snide rude remarks for voicing my opinion...
No, you received snide and rude remarks for spewing creationist lies as if they were "facts" that people who understand evolution also believe. You failed to understand why people got upset with you a month ago, and you still don't understand why people will get upset with you now.
The major difference between you and hippy4christ is that hippy actually asks questions (however misinformed they may be), while you've claimed "facts" about evolution which are actually lies. Given the choice, I much prefer hippy's ways of doing things to yours, especially since it makes hippy look so much less dogmatic and close-minded than you.
Listen: if you want to learn the truth about both creationism and evolution, you need to take the time to understand what people are saying. The creationists say, to take an example from your last post, that evolution means "getting better." But scientists will say that that's a load of crap, and evolution doesn't mean "getting better" at all. If you choose to believe the creationists, you will have a badly-formed understanding of what 'evolution' means, and skeptics will offer you little but snide and rude remarks.
On the other hand, if you'd take the time to learn what evolution really means, and argue against that, then people would present you with completely calm and rational arguments.
It's your choice, kid. You can choose to insult people by posting lies, or you can choose to debate the true facts about evolution. It's up to you. Nobody can force you to choose one way or the other. And you're not limited to those two options, either. You could also leave, or spew truly vile insults, or play the victim, or pretend to be posting in order to "test" us, or any of a number of other possibilities. There are many doors: be careful which you pick.
Oh, by the way:quote:
Humans grow stronger but then as you grow older,(somtimes not even that old, I as a 15yr old, has a Right knee which i tore ligaments and cartalage in, and wrists that bother me daily, for no good reason) and then eventually we keel over and die.
This is, of course, good evidence against "God's perfect creation." To anyone who looks, humans are "designed" very badly. For some odd-ball reason, we can eat with the same holes through which we breathe, leading to the deadly possibility of choking to death, "for no good reason." So, it seems to me that either humans were "designed" by an imperfect creator, or they've been built up from happenstance.
The third choice, of course, is that God is "ineffable," and people choke to death for a reason, or, as you've experienced, have "wrists that bother" you daily. Not for "no good reason," but as a part of God's Plan.
If that's the case, though, then anything and everything can be "explained" as part of God's Plan, and there's no need for science whatsoever. In fact, the ability that God has given us to do science would be a bad thing, since it exists to question, and God's Plan should not be questioned.
The tortured logic and hypocrisy in all of this makes me sick.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 10:26:15 [Permalink]
|
Dave Rocks!  |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 15:41:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans grow stronger but then as you grow older,(somtimes not even that old, I as a 15yr old, has a Right knee which i tore ligaments and cartalage in, and wrists that bother me daily, for no good reason) and then eventually we keel over and die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you said:
quote:
This is, of course, good evidence against "God's perfect creation." To anyone who looks, humans are "designed" very badly. For some odd-ball reason, we can eat with the same holes through which we breathe, leading to the deadly possibility of choking to death, "for no good reason." So, it seems to me that either humans were "designed" by an imperfect creator, or they've been built up from happenstance
You are responding to that from a non-christian perspective. From my perspective sin entered the world and that why there are things like wrists that are bothering me.
And now your doing exactly what I said you would, your avoiding the real question I asked. You say if I ask with an open mind you will give me answers. I asked the "getting better" question. You said:
"Scientists say thats a load of crap. And evolution doesn't mean getting better at all."
Sooooo...... thanks for those answers. It's a good thing you explained why its "a load of crap", or it could look like you were dodging a question. And if you don't think evolution has gotten better as it has gone, you need to look again. To take the same example I used in my last post. Would you really rather be a Neanderthal, than yourself? Or would it not matter to you if you were to turn into a neanderthal because we havn't gotten any better.
maybe think about an answer before you try to give one next time. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 18:30:00 [Permalink]
|
The big mistake that you're making, C-88, is in assuming that descent with modification leads to "getting better"- that is, in insisting on imputing intent and purpose to a natural process. That's what Dave was trying to tell you- evolutionary theory doesn't require or imply an overarching purpose behind the workings of mutation and selection. As long as you insist on projecting human attributes onto the universe, you'll remain unable to understand what we know, what we infer, and why we draw those inferences, and you'll remain stuck with using preachers' caricatures of science to set up straw men to joust with.
Natural selection doesn't lead to "better" (after all, who will judge what "better" is?), it tends more to "good enough for the circumstances".
The vestigial leg bones of whales indicate that they are most likely descended from a long-ago species which was adapted to life on land. Which shall we say is "better", the extinct ancestral animal with four functioning legs, or the modern whale with some completely useless vestigial bones? Is "later" equivalent to "better", or is "lives on land" better than "lives in the ocean"? Or is "walks" better than "swims"? And what does your "Christian perspective" have to say about a creator that would include non-functional features in an animal which has to expend energy and materials in growing those bones but which derives no perceptible benefit from them?
Taking another example, the human eye which is so beloved by creationists as an example of "irreducible complexity", why can I not see into the ultraviolet, as a bee can? Why am I blind at light levels which are adequate for a cat to find and capture prey? Why does the resolving power of my eyes look sick alongside that of a hawk? And why is it that having passed the age of forty I need one set of glasses to walk around and drive and a different set to read? If I, as a human, am the pinnacle of physical creation and a member of the species for which the universe was "designed", then why do "lower" animals posess organs which are clearly "better" than my own?
You can seek answers in an interrogation of nature, based on observing systematically, inferring an explanatory framework and honestly testing those inferences against reality. This is what science attempts to do.
You can also do the whole thing backwards, by starting with the supposition that you already have absolute truth in your pocket and rejecting a priori any facts or ideas which don't perfectly conform to your dogma.
Or, you can abdicate the need to think about it at all by just waving your hands and saying "it's because of sin" or "God did it".
For your own mind, it really is your choice, and everyone here will respect your right to make that choice.
What noone will respect, or tolerate, are arguments based on misrepresentations of scientific thought, doubtful or phony evidence, outright falsehoods, or trying to bash the heathens with your Sacred Gobbledybook.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 20:53:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Natural selection doesn't lead to "better" (after all, who will judge what "better" is?), it tends more to "good enough for the circumstances
I think I can judge what is better. Good enough for the circumstances isn't always good enough. We are way better than we need to be for are circumstances. So therefore if they are good enough for our circumstances, and we are WAY better than we need to be. Than we have gotten better.
quote:
The vestigial leg bones of whales indicate that they are most likely descended from a long-ago species which was adapted to life on land. Which shall we say is "better", the extinct ancestral animal with four functioning legs, or the modern whale with some completely useless vestigial bones? Is "later" equivalent to "better", or is "lives on land" better than "lives in the ocean"? Or is "walks" better than "swims"? And what does your "Christian perspective" have to say about a creator that would include non-functional features in an animal which has to expend energy and materials in growing those bones but which derives no perceptible benefit from them?
Your going to accuse me of a cop-out. But once again that would be explained by sin entering the world. everything got a little worse. So before the fall a whale could have been both a land and water mammal. That is if your facts are correct which cannot be assumed. And in the first place, I wasn't talking about animals at all. Though it still applys, still no one has responded to two of my questions. I still have not gotten any real answers to the "getting better" argument. Just a flippent "load of crap" comment from Dave W. And the other in relation to the getting better argument. Is everyone seems to be avoiding the fact, that as I said, you would much rather be you than a neanderthal or any other pre-man being.
quote:
Taking another example, the human eye which is so beloved by creationists as an example of "irreducible complexity", why can I not see into the ultraviolet, as a bee can? Why am I blind at light levels which are adequate for a cat to find and capture prey? Why does the resolving power of my eyes look sick alongside that of a hawk? And why is it that having passed the age of forty I need one set of glasses to walk around and drive and a different set to read? If I, as a human, am the pinnacle of physical creation and a member of the species for which the universe was "designed", then why do "lower" animals posess organs which are clearly "better" than my own?
As for your "cat catching the prey in light you can't even see in". That point works neither for you or against you. But it was stupid to even bring it up. Let me ask you somthing. When was the last time you were running around in a dark room, trying to catch a mouse? If you have done that anytime recently, thenyou have an argument......wait, no you still don't, that would just speak to your sanity. The point is you have absolutly NO use at all, for cat like eyes. Just like we don't have gills like a fish because, we don't need to swim under water.
And also I am TOTALLY sick of your attitude toward christians. Everyone says we have a "holier-than-thou" attitude. But though you may not be useing words like holy. You have by definition a holier-than-thou attitude. Though yours might be more like a your an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about attitude. Which is basicly what you just told me in your post. So you can quit your condisention, and you better do it quick, because your just being a jerk talking like you are now. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 09:52:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your going to accuse me of a cop-out. But once again that would be explained by sin entering the world. everything got a little worse. So before the fall a whale could have been both a land and water mammal.
So what exactly was it that whales did to so offend god that he decided to give them vestigal limbs? I wasn't even aware that according to Christian doctrine animals were even capable of sin.
You also use Neanderthals as an example. Can you point me to the passage in the bible that mentions these hominids, and can you then explain to me their relation to modern man?
|
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 12:59:14 [Permalink]
|
While we're on the subject of whales, I'm wondering what are the implications for C-88's "sin" theory of the transitional fossils described here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta
In particular, how does "sin" as an explanation account for the variety of modifications seen in these animals, and how they relate when the animals are placed on a timeline- changes in the teeth, the loss of the capacity for land locomotion, the corresponding development of the tail as a means of propulsion, the changes in skull structure that moved the nostrils from the front of the snout to the top of the head, the division into toothed and baleen lineages, etc? Were some of these animals more sinful than others?
Getting back to the notion that evolution should cause living things to "get better", here's one more try at explaining the principle which C-88 so resolutely refuses to grasp:
Attributing "progress" or "purpose" to biology is as necessary to understanding the operation of mutation and natural selection as attributing "purpose" to electrons is to understanding circuit analysis, or as necessary as adding carytides to a turret press. Remembering the principle of parsimony, that one should not needlessly multiply entities, we refrain from projecting our social ideas of "progress" onto nature because they don't contribute anything to the usefulness of our working model nor affect its relationship to the evidence.
There's a better explanation of why external teleology is a dead letter in biology and internal teleology is shaky here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
Oh, and C-88, if you want a good example of a condescending, holier-than-thou attitude, I'd suggest a look at your posting history here, followed by a look in the nearest mirror. 
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 22:19:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So what exactly was it that whales did to so offend god that he decided to give them vestigal limbs? I wasn't even aware that according to Christian doctrine animals were even capable of sin.
Whales didn't sin themselves, but sin basicly took over the WHOLE earth. Including the oceans. Thats what I believe at least.
quote:
You also use Neanderthals as an example. Can you point me to the passage in the bible that mentions these hominids, and can you then explain to me their relation to modern man?
Scientists say we "evolved" from Neanderthals, and many other stages of pre-man man. And don't get me wrong, I am using A neanderthal as an example. It is no different for what I am talking about than any other pre-man being. And my point is that we are clearly a more developed species than a Neandertha would have been. Therefore being better. Which relates to my "Getting Better theory" from a couple of posts ago. And no I can't point to a place in the bible where it points to them, because they never actually existed. Which is exactly what I am trying to prove.
ALSO: I am not stating these as clear facts, but I read them on the internet and I want to know what people think. So Dave, don't accuse me of being closed minded, or just dismiss it as "a load of crap". As you did my last question.
A recent study shows that at the rate it is going now, over 600M years the moon would have gathered many feet worth of dust. And astronauts on the moon clearly proved that wrong. Right now, there is very little dust on the moon, showing that the moon could not be nearly 600M years old. Forget 4.5B.
And then I was wondering if anyone heard about the tooth found by a man in Nebraska. Scientist hailed it as proof of an "Ape Man". And this was his tooth that they had found. Further study showed that it was not that of an Ape Man but that of a pig. That's how easily scientists are willing to exagerate to come up with "facts".
|
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
