Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The OP has adopted the well worn practice of losing an argument in one thread, and then running off and starting a new thread based on the same losing argument, except now what proved the argument wrong in the first place is left back in the old thread.
Many a rightwinger has based their entire internet forum presence on such nonsense.
So....you really can't dispute the premise.
No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.
Where did I mention global warming exactly? Not in this thread! YOU brought it up in another thread. So for those who missed it and in deference to your apparent "senior" moment, the notion that man could effect climate was promulgated at least 100 years BEFORE temps could be accurately measured on a global scale. Your attempt make that an example of putting the cart before the horse doesn't withstand close scrutiny. TRY AGAIN!!!
Why, of course you did!
Didn't you claim: "One doesn't take a conclusion and try to fit the facts to it. That isn't science."
It's the very definition of global warming!
Here....see for yourself:
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: this particular mode of scientific activity has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science . Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity . Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones. The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian
 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.
You're confusing 'conclusion' with 'hypothesis'. You claim I mentioned global warming, but I don't see a cite to where I did. I certainly haven't mentioned it in this thread. That was my point. You're pulling things from other places without citation and confusing the issue. I know what I've said, but you should show a little consideration for those that haven't read the other thread.
As for ideological conviction, that mainly comes from the skeptic/denier side. They can't deny the fact that some gases absorb and then re-emit energy, so they have to make a political issue out of what should be a straight scientific endeavor. The question of AGW hasn't been 'if' for a long time, rather it's 'when' and 'how bad'.
The only premise seems to be "maybe God did it". Since this is a science forum, the only proper response is "so what"!
It's a math question, konny...
...and mathematics is the language of science.
Again?
What are the odds of the writer of Genesis 1 just happening to name the events in the order that modern science finds correct.....
Don't you like math questions?
But, whoever wrote the bible, didn't name the events in the order that modern science finds correct, and there are two genesis accounts, which contradict eachother, so your premise fails to get off the ground at all. I've pointed this out to you, but you don't seem to care. You just reload and reassert the same thing, over and over again.
The OP has adopted the well worn practice of losing an argument in one thread, and then running off and starting a new thread based on the same losing argument, except now what proved the argument wrong in the first place is left back in the old thread.
Many a rightwinger has based their entire internet forum presence on such nonsense.
So....you really can't dispute the premise.
No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.
The premise has been thoroughly debunked in the last three threads in which you stated the same underlying premise: that the biblical account of creation in genesis matches modern science, when it doesn't.
From the cited work on the Gap Theory:
As you might have guessed, biblical support for the gap theory is extremely thin. In fact, both the Bible and scientific theory contradict the construct on various points.
What Is The Gap Theory - Exploring Gap Creationism, The Ruin-Reconstruction Theory
I'm not asking you to support the gap theory, merely pointing out that there are attempts, even among fundamentalists, to incorporate a timeline different from a strict six-day narrative for creation.
The series of OP's on the chapter one of Genesis show the agreement as to the sequence of events.
The question remains: a guess?
What are the odds?
From the cited work on the Gap Theory:
As you might have guessed, biblical support for the gap theory is extremely thin. In fact, both the Bible and scientific theory contradict the construct on various points.
What Is The Gap Theory - Exploring Gap Creationism, The Ruin-Reconstruction Theory
I'm not asking you to support the gap theory, merely pointing out that there are attempts, even among fundamentalists, to incorporate a timeline different from a strict six-day narrative for creation.
The series of OP's on the chapter one of Genesis show the agreement as to the sequence of events.
The question remains: a guess?
What are the odds?
This is my read on the Genesis story myself, namely it isn't a literal 6 days 144 hour period, but a bit more metaphorical period of time. This jives with verses later in the Bible that explain that God has a different perspective of time. Considering the writer of Genesis probably received the story of the creation in a manner similar to how John received the Revelation or how Daniel received his prophetic dreams, it's not unlikely the numerical references are not literal but figurative.
In general, I've always found that science very rarely outright contradicts the Bible, just our understanding of the Bible.
So....you really can't dispute the premise.
No surprise, as it merely adds new material to others you couldn't handle.
The premise has been thoroughly debunked in the last three threads in which you stated the same underlying premise: that the biblical account of creation in genesis matches modern science, when it doesn't.
"...thoroughly debunked..."
The only thing debunked is that there is anything but a vacuum between your ears.
The premise has been thoroughly debunked in the last three threads in which you stated the same underlying premise: that the biblical account of creation in genesis matches modern science, when it doesn't.
"...thoroughly debunked..."
The only thing debunked is that there is anything but a vacuum between your ears.
As usual, your respond is that of a second grader. This I actually wouldn't mind so much you had the maturity enough to face the assertion made, that you have posted four separate threads all containing the same basic, failed premise. You seem to think that merely by asserting something, it is then actually true. This is called a proof by assertion. Might want to look that one up.
Looking at life and saying it must be "the hand of God", despite all the evidence for natural evolution, is like looking at a heavier-than-air craft in flight and saying "it must be magic" without researching the mechanisms of aeronautics.
"...thoroughly debunked..."
The only thing debunked is that there is anything but a vacuum between your ears.
As usual, your respond is that of a second grader. This I actually wouldn't mind so much you had the maturity enough to face the assertion made, that you have posted four separate threads all containing the same basic, failed premise. You seem to think that merely by asserting something, it is then actually true. This is called a proof by assertion. Might want to look that one up.
The only think that has failed is you, on your final exam, pinhead.
Looking at life and saying it must be "the hand of God", despite all the evidence for natural evolution, is like looking at a heavier-than-air craft in flight and saying "it must be magic" without researching the mechanisms of aeronautics.
So.....where did the energy of the Big Bang come from?
Look...nothing wrong with being an atheist....or a believer....but if you understand concepts such as the "multiverse" you have to see that said concept requires more of a leap of faith than a belief in God.
If you haven't studied the "multiverse," check this out:
The Accidental Universe
Sciences crisis of faith
By Alan Lightman
- See more at: The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
Looking at life and saying it must be "the hand of God", despite all the evidence for natural evolution, is like looking at a heavier-than-air craft in flight and saying "it must be magic" without researching the mechanisms of aeronautics.
So.....where did the energy of the Big Bang come from?
Look...nothing wrong with being an atheist....or a believer....but if you understand concepts such as the "multiverse" you have to see that said concept requires more of a leap of faith than a belief in God.
If you haven't studied the "multiverse," check this out:
The Accidental Universe
Sciences crisis of faith
By Alan Lightman
- See more at: The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
You've moved the goalposts. Since the subject of YOUR thread is "From Cambrian to Permian in the Bible", the Big Bang would seem to be irrelevant. You constantly misconstrue anti-ID posts as atheistic. There's nothing in my post that says that. I'm just saying that after "let there be light", God stood back and let things happen.
As usual, your respond is that of a second grader. This I actually wouldn't mind so much you had the maturity enough to face the assertion made, that you have posted four separate threads all containing the same basic, failed premise. You seem to think that merely by asserting something, it is then actually true. This is called a proof by assertion. Might want to look that one up.
The only think that has failed is you, on your final exam, pinhead.
Fantastic insult.
Then where did God come from?
If God can exist without having been created by the 'hand' of something else,
and anything can exist without the need to have been created by the 'hand' of something else.
Does God have a God He worships?
So.....where did the energy of the Big Bang come from?
Look...nothing wrong with being an atheist....or a believer....but if you understand concepts such as the "multiverse" you have to see that said concept requires more of a leap of faith than a belief in God.
If you haven't studied the "multiverse," check this out:
The Accidental Universe
Sciences crisis of faith
By Alan Lightman
- See more at: The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
The Accidental Universe | Harper's Magazine
You've moved the goalposts. Since the subject of YOUR thread is "From Cambrian to Permian in the Bible", the Big Bang would seem to be irrelevant. You constantly misconstrue anti-ID posts as atheistic. There's nothing in my post that says that. I'm just saying that after "let there be light", God stood back and let things happen.
I responded to your post.
If you don't care to read it....don't.
You've moved the goalposts. Since the subject of YOUR thread is "From Cambrian to Permian in the Bible", the Big Bang would seem to be irrelevant. You constantly misconstrue anti-ID posts as atheistic. There's nothing in my post that says that. I'm just saying that after "let there be light", God stood back and let things happen.
I responded to your post.
If you don't care to read it....don't.
You responded incorrectly. If you can't take criticism, get out of the kitchen. I'm sorry but I'm a stickler for logic, so trying to to get by with that kind of post is going to get you slapped every time. You didn't respond to my post, you constructed a tale that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
Looking at life and saying it must be "the hand of God", despite all the evidence for natural evolution, is like looking at a heavier-than-air craft in flight and saying "it must be magic" without researching the mechanisms of aeronautics.
Looking at life and saying it must be "the hand of God", despite all the evidence for natural evolution, is like looking at a heavier-than-air craft in flight and saying "it must be magic" without researching the mechanisms of aeronautics.
now speaking of evolution. if we all evolved from the same original single cell that developed out of some nitrogen rich pool millions of years ago, why is it that out of all of the millions of species only man has developed as an individual? and only man has developed with the level of intelligence, ability to reason, develop, build, control the world and dominate the other species. all other species have the basic functions of reproduction, gather food and energy to survive, the basic traits. But only man has developed to the level we have. i mean if it truly was evolution alone, why is it only us who have developled on this advanced path? and why is it that only man is a unique species? i mean for mammals there are horse and sheep and cows and cats and dogs. fish have bass and trout and flounder and marlin. and this hold true for every other category. but there is only one man. we are the only species that has developed singularly and unique. like the bible says
