Is there any historical evidence of c...

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

United States

#83 Jan 2, 2008
FossilBob wrote:
...
It would be like finding a large piece of the Ark. IF we did...we wouldn't NEED to find the rest, would we?...
Can you imagine the sh!tfit the Creationists would raise if they found half the Ark and we said, "Yeah, but where's the other half?"
Pat

Granby, CT

#84 Jan 3, 2008
Divine Alien wrote:
<quoted text>
You as well, Is your little boy being brainwashed by believing that the universe simply existed without a creation by the Pure Divine Energy/Forve, God. All these are nut, nonsense. Please debate in a professional way. Prove that you have all the smart brain to explain the existence of universe as if by magic or never to be created?
Why do people like you continue to believe that atheists think they have all the answers? I'm an honest person, I admit I don't know to thngs I don't know. Unlike you, I don't come to premature unsupported conclusions about things I know nothing about. I have too much respect for my own mind to do that. I can be honest with myself and you can't.
Ossuary

United States

#85 Jan 3, 2008
Divine Alien wrote:
<quoted text>
How did that electromagnetism come into being?
God has that stuff. He created that stuff. That stuff would not exist if there was no God. We would probably not debate here if we don't posses the life given by God.
This is downright silly. We generate electromagnetism every day, in every household in America, and knew how to do so long before Heinrich Hertz determined the mechanisms involved, in the 1880s. There is no supernatural force required for the process, simply the flow of electrons through a magnetic field.
Ossuary

United States

#86 Jan 3, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Starts with S for Stupid is at it again, I see.
First, he says that he interprets the bible LITERALLY.
NEXT, he contradicts himself, and NOW says that the Noah story had BABY animals!!
As if Noah did NOT know the difference between an adult and a baby animal.... as if the WRITERS did not know the difference!
You'd THINK that if BABY animals were EXPRESSLY to be taken, that SOMEone would've NOTICED.
And.... written it down?
But, NO. Not in there.
Hmmm.
Can anyone say, "reaching"?
And let us not overlook the obvious, that these "babies" would have to make their own way to the ark. Can you imagine the carnage as predator parents wound their way to Noah's back yard to deliver their offspring, along with all the other weak and defenseless nestlings being nursed along by their prey parents? For sure, that would have reduced the space needed in the ark, as a mass extinction took place. Silly notion, isn't it ...?~(:->)

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#87 Jan 3, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
Nope.
Even some very minor thought exercises show the Great Flood is a complete myth.
For example: If the flood killed off the dinosaurs and everything else that was alive on Earth at the time, why did all the dinosaur fossils clump together? Why aren't mammoth and zebra and kangaroo fossils found mixed in with dinosaurs? Did the water magically sort all the dead bodies?
I disagree. Using the phrase qouted in the Dover trial that "creation is an abrupt appearance..." would apply be applied to the beginning of the Universe. As far as the Big Bang goes, that is an affirmation that the Universe came into being. To that extent and the fact the Bible does make an attempt to describe the beginning to they are not all that far off in a relative sort of way....:)
So, there is a historical record in the radiobackground noise that supports the Big Bang can be used to say The Whole Universe came into being.
Ossuary

United States

#88 Jan 3, 2008
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree. Using the phrase qouted in the Dover trial that "creation is an abrupt appearance..." would apply be applied to the beginning of the Universe. As far as the Big Bang goes, that is an affirmation that the Universe came into being. To that extent and the fact the Bible does make an attempt to describe the beginning to they are not all that far off in a relative sort of way....:)
So, there is a historical record in the radiobackground noise that supports the Big Bang can be used to say The Whole Universe came into being.
Can you expand a little on this? You were responding to huggin's comment about the Flood being a myth, but your own comments address the singularity and appear to be a non sequitur that don't explain +why+ you disagree. Ummm...?~(:->)
Pat

Granby, CT

#89 Jan 3, 2008
Ossuary wrote:
<quoted text>
And let us not overlook the obvious, that these "babies" would have to make their own way to the ark. Can you imagine the carnage as predator parents wound their way to Noah's back yard to deliver their offspring, along with all the other weak and defenseless nestlings being nursed along by their prey parents? For sure, that would have reduced the space needed in the ark, as a mass extinction took place. Silly notion, isn't it ...?~(:->)
Not to mention that Noah would have had to go to Hawaii and drop off all those unique species, then Madagasgar and drop off all their unique species, then to Australia, then New Zeland and on and on. Not to mention that the vast majority of plant life would be lost too so was the ark a huge greenhouse as well capable of holding all the plants? If you believe this Noah's ark shit you deserve a good spankin!!

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#90 Jan 3, 2008
Ossuary wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you expand a little on this? You were responding to huggin's comment about the Flood being a myth, but your own comments address the singularity and appear to be a non sequitur that don't explain +why+ you disagree. Ummm...?~(:->)
Ok yeah I see my mistake...I meant to answer the question asked in the title. Somehow I read hispost and well for reasons I cant explain answered to him. I dont disagree on the flood of Noah being oversold.

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#91 Jan 3, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you imagine the sh!tfit the Creationists would raise if they found half the Ark and we said, "Yeah, but where's the other half?"
funny!!! Yeah then you could beat all those IDers up with a line like god wasnt such a good designer he was even a worse ship builder.
Ossuary

United States

#92 Jan 3, 2008
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>Ok yeah I see my mistake...I meant to answer the question asked in the title. Somehow I read hispost and well for reasons I cant explain answered to him. I dont disagree on the flood of Noah being oversold.
Pax

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#93 Jan 3, 2008
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that Noah would have had to go to Hawaii and drop off all those unique species, then Madagasgar and drop off all their unique species, then to Australia, then New Zeland and on and on. Not to mention that the vast majority of plant life would be lost too so was the ark a huge greenhouse as well capable of holding all the plants? If you believe this Noah's ark shit you deserve a good spankin!!
Well, I've actually heard one creo-nutjob state that he actually believed that the earth was much smaller, then..... and that as it (by some as unyet known mechanism) expanded to it's present size, these parts became vastly separated.....

He likened it to an expanding balloon....

*sigh*

Nevermind the density issues of such expansion, the sheer magnitude of the earthquakes...?

*sigh*

Willful ignorance, coupled with imaginary "fixes" to try to cover the obvious.

Sort of reminds me of a small child's attempts to cover up his messes with crayon.

Only without the innocence of a child.

“Restore the Republic”

Level 1

Since: Jan 07

Burbs

#94 Jan 3, 2008
Ossuary wrote:
<quoted text>
Pax
ok PAx Dio to you but tell me do you think that I made any sense when I asserted that the background noise is a record of the beginning of the universe and as such supports at least a fragment of Creation as defined as an abrupt appearance. having said this I dont support that abrupt appearance ooccured on this planet.

I have been reading some of Robert Taylor, a Canadien Philosopher on his views of Neo-Darwinism and its failing in many ways to address things such as culture. He, like me like to focus on Ethics.

Somewhere in these forums are many indictment as to how Religion has burnt people to the stake, the Crusades and the like.

Well I like to remind people that Scientists are not above screwing up. Its those great scientists who brought us the Atomic bomb and Bilogical warfare. I could go on and on and even make an argument that NASA is being used to lmilitarize space. the advent of gun poweder and its refinment used to kill millions of men. so every man has character flaws. Taking the bible as a mere book does not implore broad killings. Neither does Science. Its the men and women who do these things.

Even lets look at Von Raun for one. A great visionary who was bestowed with many accalades when in fact here was a Man who dreamed of going to the moon. His Means? Well he had to make a faustian deal with the devil to do that. He saw all those Jewish laborers and knew they were worked in inhumane conditions. He was also coerced by hitler and it wasnt until the SS came afer him did he find it in his heart to defect. Stole his work from the German State for one and went to the alies in the hopes they might secure for him some means to continue on.

Gen Von Stauffenburg decided in his conscience that Hitkler must die. So he gave his life for that. Von Braun had the same opportunity.
Now all his Nazi involvment was exposed until around 85 as I recall. He surely was man who alot of people felt prviliged to meet and work with.

Did you know that at his funeral a NASA administrator eulogized him while paraphrasing an Hebrew Prophet, Joel. Von Braun to my knowledge never came clean. Having said that he was a man of vision and took us to the Moon and yet when it comes to firsts....the Russian scientist, Von Brauns counter part was first in space, put both the first man and woman in space, the first Sattelite in space and also managed to reach the Moon first although it crashed. But his name is not a household one.

I merely challenge Scientists on ethics , and nothing more.
Ossuary

United States

#95 Jan 3, 2008
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>ok PAx Dio to you but tell me do you think that I made any sense when I asserted that the background noise is a record of the beginning of the universe and as such supports at least a fragment of Creation as defined as an abrupt appearance. having said this I dont support that abrupt appearance ooccured on this planet.
I have been reading some of Robert Taylor, a Canadien Philosopher on his views of Neo-Darwinism and its failing in many ways to address things such as culture. He, like me like to focus on Ethics.
Somewhere in these forums are many indictment as to how Religion has burnt people to the stake, the Crusades and the like.
Well I like to remind people that Scientists are not above screwing up. Its those great scientists who brought us the Atomic bomb and Bilogical warfare. I could go on and on and even make an argument that NASA is being used to lmilitarize space. the advent of gun poweder and its refinment used to kill millions of men. so every man has character flaws. Taking the bible as a mere book does not implore broad killings. Neither does Science. Its the men and women who do these things.
Even lets look at Von Raun for one. A great visionary who was bestowed with many accalades when in fact here was a Man who dreamed of going to the moon. His Means? Well he had to make a faustian deal with the devil to do that. He saw all those Jewish laborers and knew they were worked in inhumane conditions. He was also coerced by hitler and it wasnt until the SS came afer him did he find it in his heart to defect. Stole his work from the German State for one and went to the alies in the hopes they might secure for him some means to continue on.
Gen Von Stauffenburg decided in his conscience that Hitkler must die. So he gave his life for that. Von Braun had the same opportunity.
Now all his Nazi involvment was exposed until around 85 as I recall. He surely was man who alot of people felt prviliged to meet and work with.
Did you know that at his funeral a NASA administrator eulogized him while paraphrasing an Hebrew Prophet, Joel. Von Braun to my knowledge never came clean. Having said that he was a man of vision and took us to the Moon and yet when it comes to firsts....the Russian scientist, Von Brauns counter part was first in space, put both the first man and woman in space, the first Sattelite in space and also managed to reach the Moon first although it crashed. But his name is not a household one.
I merely challenge Scientists on ethics , and nothing more.
I have no problem with the notion that the cosmic background radiation represents the echo of that singularity, across 13 billion years or so.
I also have no problem with the notion that there could have been a "something" beyond my comprehension to cause that singularity - a "First Cause", as some might put it.
Nor do I have any problem with the notion that the first life-form +could+ have been a "divine spark."
With the exception of the first, I +do+ have a problem when people insist "it MUST have been" - such certainty is out of place in a scientific discussion.

With regard to Darwin's failure to address "ethics and philosophy", I think you're being a little bit unfair: he tried, but his views were not exactly widely-accepted in his day. So, just as with "On the Origin of Species", he watered them down substantially; just how much I couldn't say, because the original manuscripts are not readily accessible to me, unlike his "Species."

On the topic of the "evils" (aka "screwups") of Christians and the "evils" (aka "screwups") of scientists, I believe you make some very valid points - there are subtleties and nuances that I might choose to debate; but, viewing the broad picture, our roads are not widely divergent, and certainly not to the point where I would be discomfited.
Ossuary

United States

#96 Jan 3, 2008
us ourYF 22s wrote:
<quoted text>ok PAx Dio to you but tell me do you think that I made any sense when I asserted that the background noise is a record of the beginning of the universe and as such supports at least a fragment of Creation as defined as an abrupt appearance. having said this I dont support that abrupt appearance ooccured on this planet.
I have been reading some of Robert Taylor, a Canadien Philosopher on his views of Neo-Darwinism and its failing in many ways to address things such as culture. He, like me like to focus on Ethics.
Somewhere in these forums are many indictment as to how Religion has burnt people to the stake, the Crusades and the like.
Well I like to remind people that Scientists are not above screwing up. Its those great scientists who brought us the Atomic bomb and Bilogical warfare. I could go on and on and even make an argument that NASA is being used to lmilitarize space. the advent of gun poweder and its refinment used to kill millions of men. so every man has character flaws. Taking the bible as a mere book does not implore broad killings. Neither does Science. Its the men and women who do these things.
Even lets look at Von Raun for one. A great visionary who was bestowed with many accalades when in fact here was a Man who dreamed of going to the moon. His Means? Well he had to make a faustian deal with the devil to do that. He saw all those Jewish laborers and knew they were worked in inhumane conditions. He was also coerced by hitler and it wasnt until the SS came afer him did he find it in his heart to defect. Stole his work from the German State for one and went to the alies in the hopes they might secure for him some means to continue on.
Gen Von Stauffenburg decided in his conscience that Hitkler must die. So he gave his life for that. Von Braun had the same opportunity.
Now all his Nazi involvment was exposed until around 85 as I recall. He surely was man who alot of people felt prviliged to meet and work with.
Did you know that at his funeral a NASA administrator eulogized him while paraphrasing an Hebrew Prophet, Joel. Von Braun to my knowledge never came clean. Having said that he was a man of vision and took us to the Moon and yet when it comes to firsts....the Russian scientist, Von Brauns counter part was first in space, put both the first man and woman in space, the first Sattelite in space and also managed to reach the Moon first although it crashed. But his name is not a household one.
I merely challenge Scientists on ethics , and nothing more.
I have no problem with the notion that the cosmic background radiation represents the echo of that singularity, across 13 billion years or so.
I also have no problem with the notion that there could have been a "something" beyond my comprehension to cause that singularity - a "First Cause", as some might put it.
Nor do I have any problem with the notion that the first life-form +could+ have been a "divine spark."
With the exception of the first, I +do+ have a problem when people insist "it MUST have been" - such certainty is out of place in a scientific discussion.

With regard to Darwin's failure to address "ethics and philosophy", I think you're being a little bit unfair: he tried, but his views were not exactly widely-accepted in his day. So, just as with "On the Origin of Species", he watered them down substantially; just how much I couldn't say, because the original manuscripts are not readily accessible to me, unlike his "Species."

On the topic of the "evils" (aka "screwups") of Christians and the "evils" (aka "screwups") of scientists, I believe you make some very valid points - there are subtleties and nuances that I might choose to debate; but, viewing the broad picture, our roads are not widely divergent, and certainly not to the point where I would be discomfited.

Apologies if this is a repeat - my first attempt may be sitting on an accretion disk somewhere.
Ossuary

United States

#97 Jan 3, 2008
BTW, YF22, you might like to take a quick glance at this website for "Darwinism and its Discontents: a review"
http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/artic...
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#98 Jan 3, 2008
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you imagine the sh!tfit the Creationists would raise if they found half the Ark and we said, "Yeah, but where's the other half?"
Exactly! "But there's still missing links!":)
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#99 Jan 3, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I've actually heard one creo-nutjob state that he actually believed that the earth was much smaller, then..... and that as it (by some as unyet known mechanism) expanded to it's present size, these parts became vastly separated.....
He likened it to an expanding balloon...
Yes... This was actually proposed by some. I saw an article about it in a scientific journal of the early 70's. Marine geology, I think, Australian professor, I believe.

This is the source (for me) of a phrase you may have seen me use: "Outrageous Hypothesis".

It was the term used by one of my U of I professors to describe the article.

Basically, the article proposed no explanation, no mechanism...just a hopeful wish of how the continent could fit together without the need for plate tectonics!

“Pingustopher Walken”

Since: Dec 06

Cornwall, Canada

#100 Jan 3, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Starts with S for Stupid is at it again, I see.
First, he says that he interprets the bible LITERALLY.
NEXT, he contradicts himself, and NOW says that the Noah story had BABY animals!!
As if Noah did NOT know the difference between an adult and a baby animal.... as if the WRITERS did not know the difference!
You'd THINK that if BABY animals were EXPRESSLY to be taken, that SOMEone would've NOTICED.
And.... written it down?
But, NO. Not in there.
Hmmm.
Can anyone say, "reaching"?
If they know the difference and clearly should specify, why did they not specify "adult"? Perhaps Noah wasn't told to choose adult or baby creatures, but used his brain to figure it out. Again, logic.
Ossuary

United States

#101 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
<quoted text>
If they know the difference and clearly should specify, why did they not specify "adult"? Perhaps Noah wasn't told to choose adult or baby creatures, but used his brain to figure it out. Again, logic.
C'mon S-Bend, you're reaching further and further out. For instance, why did they not specify herbivores, in line with your own thinking? And how do you explain all those "babies" (not juveniles, since they'd be fecund, just like we humans) making their way from their far-distant homes to Noah's back yard, without growing up along the way? Go read the autobiographical account of Slavomir Rawicz, "The Long Walk", and you'll quickly grasp the flaw in your rationality. If you'd prefer a more practical perspective, take a day's walk along any part of the Appalachian Trail - 2200 miles of relatively-benign landscape that's tough to traverse afoot any faster than about 12-15 miles a day.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#102 Jan 3, 2008
Starts With S wrote:
If they know the difference and clearly should specify, why did they not specify "adult"? Perhaps Noah wasn't told to choose adult or baby creatures, but used his brain to figure it out. Again, logic.
It may be too late, but I think you'd be a lot happier if you could adopt a belief system that didn't require you to keep making things up. Maybe a god that didn't require a lot of excuses to cover His lack of performance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
One species or three 1 hr replaytime 13
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr replaytime 61,602
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr Dogen 220,717
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Dogen 2,721
Curious dilemma about DNA 9 hr Dogen 14
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr Aura Mytha 28,325
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 hr Subduction Zone 160,325
More from around the web