Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 3,898)

Showing posts 77,941 - 77,960 of112,047
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82542
Mar 24, 2013
 
>>>>Joshua commands the Sun to stand still in the sky

Here Joshua was imagined to have commanded the Sun and the Moon to stand still over particular geographic locations like a helicopter could be imagined to hover over a particular mountain or valley as if the Sun and the Moon were only a few miles high instead of 93 million (Sun) and 1/4 million (Moon) miles away. To the author the Sun and the Moon were attached to a rotating solid sky dome, just a few miles above his head.

(Josh 10:12-13 NRSV) On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

>>>>>Jesus probably saw the universe the same way everyone else did in his day

Here it is indicated that Jesus himself pictured the stars as objects that could fall to the earth which would seem reasonable if he pictured the stars as little lights attached to a solid sky dome just a few miles up like everyone else in his day.

Instead, apparently unknown to Jesus, stars are objects typically millions of times larger than the earth and unimaginably distant.

(Mark 13:24-25 NRSV) "But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82543
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimens’ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.
Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]
But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks of unknown age? "
So tell me Langoliers, what are you trying to say with your essay against radiometric dating??

Are you thinking that the scientists are in cahoots with each other to disprove the Biblical flood and/or creationism?

Do you think there is a conspiracy going on??

Or do you think the scientists are idiots and don't know what they are doing?

Serious questions.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82544
Mar 24, 2013
 
Wow, Gillette. God doesn't know shit about the universe or Earth he created...

why is that, yathink?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82545
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Just going off an atheist rules for rock dating.
There are no "atheist rules" on rock dating.

You may be trying to apply creatard rules to it, after I showed you how false your creatard rules are.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82546
Mar 24, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
Wow, Gillette. God doesn't know shit about the universe or Earth he created...
why is that, yathink?
'Cos he's just as ignorant as the goatherding nomads who invented him?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82547
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You were the one that jumped into a conversation. If you run away I don't really care.
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).(By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.

His book on oceanography is still considered a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. Maury used the Bible as a
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:

Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!

In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:

"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).

"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).

"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82548
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There are no "atheist rules" on rock dating.

You may be trying to apply creatard rules to it, after I showed you how false your creatard rules are.
Billions and billions of years is what atheist need. Faulty rock dating gives you that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82549
Mar 24, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>'Cos he's just as ignorant as the goatherding nomads who invented him?
Shhh!

That's supposed to be kept secret.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82550
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The universe, its elements and other planetary bodies tells me so. These are never a man or mortal made things, but immortal(s).
Of course you have proof/evidence for your assertions??

This all sounds like supernatural superstitious beliefs from the bronze age.

You understand that magik and the supernatural are disproven don't you??

Have been for centuries.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82551
Mar 24, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82552
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).(By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")
Right, no word for "sphere". They did have a word for ball. What shape are balls, with the exception of balls that first appeared in the 19th century?

And if the Earth is a sphere you cannot be "above" it. You can be above a flat circle. This verse in context describes a circle. You are reinterpreting it with the knowledge that the Earth is spherical.
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents.
So he took inspiration from some vague verse. That is not evidence of oceanic currents.
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
Actually it didn't. It merely stated the obvious. It did not explain why water rises.

Speaking of which, why do you think that water rises Langy?

You have provided one verse that definitely refers to a flat Earth. Actually two, I almost missed the verse from Job. With a spherical Earth there is no up or down in space. The verses you quote only make sense with a flat Earth where down is always in the same direction.

Care to try again?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82553
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Billions and billions of years is what atheist need. Faulty rock dating gives you that.
And correct rock dating gives us that. So do astronomy, sedimentology, the rate of evolution recorded in our DNA, and various other sources.

Did you know that you have to go so far as to reject even Newtonian physics if you want to believe in a young earth?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82554
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Billions and billions of years is what atheist need. Faulty rock dating gives you that.
No, the facts tell everyone that.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82555
Mar 24, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).(By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.").
There is a perfectly good word for "ball" in Hebrew ("dur") which is used elsewhere in the OT and which could have been used had the author REALLY thought the earth was a sphere and not a flat disc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Orig...
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job#Orig...

Quote

Origin and textual history
Modern scholarship dates the work between the 6th and 4th century BC.

End quote

About a thousand years off there aren't ya? Anyway....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH133.h...

Creationist Claim CH133:

Ancient people thought that the water from rivers flowing into oceans spilled over the ends of the earth. On the other hand, Ecclesiastes 1:7 says, "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." This shows the Bible's unexpected accuracy.

Response:

Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy. Job 38:22, for example, says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses. Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle.

Ecclesiastes 1:7 does not describe the water cycle. It merely says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground.

Interpreting that passage literally completely rejects its context. The chapter says, briefly, that "there is nothing new under the sun," and gives several examples. If, in fact, knowledge of the water cycle were interpreted as a new bit of knowledge, it would contradict the chapter as a whole.

Attributing a requirement of some special knowledge to account for this verse assumes the ancient Hebrews were idiots. Knowledge of a spherical earth is ancient, and with it no edge for water to spill over. It is theologically reasonable to assume that God is not constantly creating new water (Gen. 2:3). It is easy to see mists rising from waters and rain coming from clouds. A water cycle would be difficult not to deduce.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82556
Mar 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
adif made a stupid claim, that the ancient Hebrews did not even have word that for a sphere. I showed that he was wrong.
No. you showed they had a word the meant a toy called a ball. That is not a sphere and it is idiotic of you to insist that they should have used it in order for your infertile mind to grasp a concept that the vast majority of everyone else has been able to.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>He had to make the pathetic claim that not all balls were round, obviously referring to American footballs and Rugby balls. A pathetic dodge at best.
Face it, the people of the time were able to understand the word used at the time and you are somehow not. It's ok, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know these things but you do have to let go of your fictitious reality you have created and be open to what is real.

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I challenged him to show a non-spherical ball from before the year 1. He continued to dodge and brought up the idiot claim that I hadn't described sphere as anything but a ball. Why the frack should I? Would it make a difference to you tards if I did? I could always use a more mathematical description of a sphere, would that have changed the minds of you morons? I don't thin so.
And here is your problem. As I explained already- although in words probably too big for you to comprehend, that is you describe a ball without using the word sphere, you end up with almost an identical description of circle. Therefor if you ever did describe a ball without using the word that was invented after the fact, you would see how stupid your argument is. You have failed to do it and now you are projecting your insecurities and failures onto others.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>He never responded to the three verses I listed that described the world as flat without using the word round.
Why do you think that he did that?
He did what creatards always do, he ran away.
I responded, I told you that the verses- all 4 not 3 of them, did not say what you think they said and that you were losing it. You are the obsessed with injecting flat into everything when it is no where near the source- yet you claim people aren't addressing what is not there as being a sign of their failures. Well, it's your failures and as you have consistently failed throughout this entire conversation, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

I also like how you claim people run away from the big bad sub when they have other things to do. Not everyone has the luxury of living in their mom's basement with no responsibilities and can hang out on the internet 24 hours a day. One day, if you ever grow up, you will know that too. But until then, there will be a lot of people laughing at you just like I am right now. IT is almost sad how pathetic you are but I'm betting you have a lot of people encouraging you to show how ignorant you are so you will never notice it yourself. BTW, it's sort of like midget wrestling, they are only encouraging you to laugh at the spectacle you create of yourself. It's like giving a kid a lemon- you know it's wrong, but laugh every time they try to bit into it and make that sour face.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82557
Mar 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Look before you leap!
Just an advice. She asked a question about education and i gave her what she deserves. Both Atheist and Theist are educated, are you against that?
I'm not against being educated at all. I just didn't see anyone demonstrating they were in the comment I replied to.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82558
Mar 24, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>There is not much that is contradicted by science. You will find that there are more stuff in the bible that can be scientifically explained then there is that is contradicted.
As for morals, I don't really care about them. If it is your concern, I suggest you find someone who does.
Well, the science that does contradict the Bible, is attacking the foundational stories of your religion....the very heart of Christian Dogma is contradicted by science.

It is contradiction that is going to topple your favorite myths.

The morals that the Bible is contradicting are pretty serious stuff for law abiding citizens of the 21st. century.

You see your God and Jesus of the Bible condone slavery and various violent forms of reprisal to small indiscretions, the repression of women, and the killing of gays.

Now I can understand many people are dead set against gays, but they shouldn't be allowed to kill them. Do you really want to kill your child for talking back to you....Or kill your neighbor for working on the Sabbath??

How about making the blacks slaves again..do you want to accept and promote this as the Bible and Jesus does.

These are all moral things the Bible condone, that we as a enlightened and moral society do not do--or advocate.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82559
Mar 24, 2013
 
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible doesn't "teach" the world is flat, as in "Yea, verily, I sayeth unto you, the world is flat."
However....
The Bibles flat earth/solid sky dome universe
http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earth...
Excerpts:
You, and the site you are linking to are reading into the bible in order to come to those conclusion. The wording is vague enough by today's terminology that you can easily do so but in the limited vocabulary of the time, it was sufficient enough to convey a correct understanding of the shape of the earth.

Flat is imposed by the reader's bias, you as well as anyone else making the claim of a flat earth is injecting their own bias into the translations. It really is that simple.

But, if you insist the bible teaches the world is flat, you should be able to find canon that echos this teaching. To date, there is absolutely none that I know of. But please, go right ahead and show me where there is some. There certainly was some for the geocentric earth hypothesis- that was also derived from people pretending to know and not the bible, but it is illustrative of how the early worshipers understood the world around them. No one believed the bible teaches a flat earth until recently when people like you attempted to pick through it and claim it was wrong. The only people who believe the bible teaches a flat earth are those trying to claim it is wrong.

Do you see a problem there? If not I can explain it to you. There is no flat earth until it was created by the very people trying to claim that because of it, the bible is flawed. This is like saying pluto is not a planet and all of astronomy before 1999 is wrong because of a vote on a definition in the mid 2000's. It's a fallacious argument put forth by ignorant people attempting to find flaws where they do not exist (and yes, there are flaws in the bible) in order to satisfy a need of their own.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82560
Mar 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Shhh!
That's supposed to be kept secret.
Oops.

Shadding ap.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82561
Mar 24, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You, and the site you are linking to are reading into the bible in order to come to those conclusion. The wording is vague enough by today's terminology that you can easily do so but in the limited vocabulary of the time, it was sufficient enough to convey a correct understanding of the shape of the earth.
Every quote I gave you suggests the idea of a flat circular disc covered by a dome with holes in it.

Let those reading along on this thread decide which of us is making sense and which of us is BSing.:)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Flat_earth

Excerpts

The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common in pre-scientific societies.[1]

The Jewish conception of a flat earth is found in biblical and post biblical times.[2][3][4]

[2] Like the Midrash and the Talmud, the Targum does not think of a globe of the spherical earth, around which the sun revolves in 24 hours, but of a flat disk of the earth, above which the sun completes its semicircle in an average of 12 hours.(The Distribution of Land and Sea on the Earth's Surface According to Hebrew Sources, Solomon Gandz, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 22 (1953), pp. 23-53, published by American Academy for Jewish Research.

[3} The Egyptian universe was substantially similar to the Babylonian universe; it was pictured as a rectangular box with a north-south orientation and with a slightly concave surface, with Egypt in the center. A good idea of the similarly primitive state of Hebrew astronomy can be gained from Biblical writings, such as the Genesis creation story and the various Psalms that extol the firmament, the stars, the sun, and the earth. The Hebrews saw the earth as an almost flat surface consisting of a solid and a liquid part, and the sky as the realm of light in which heavenly bodies move. The earth rested on cornerstones and could not be moved except by Jehovah (as in an earthquake). According to the Hebrews, the sun and the moon were only a short distance from one another.- How to cite this article: MLA (Modern Language Association) style: "Cosmology." Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier Online, 2012. Author: Giorgio Abetti, Astrophysical Observatory of Arcetri-Firenze.

[4] The picture of the universe in Talmudic texts has the Earth in the center of creation with heaven as a hemisphere spread over it. The Earth is usually described as a disk encircled by water. Interestingly, cosmological and metaphysical speculations were not to be cultivated in public nor were they to be committed to writing. Rather, they were considered to be "secrets of the Torah not to be passed on to all and sundry" (Ketubot 112a). While study of God's creation was not prohibited, speculations about "what is above, what is beneath, what is before, and what is after" (Mishnah Hagigah: 2) were restricted to the intellectual elite.(Topic Overview: Judaism, Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Ed. J. Wentzel Vrede van Huyssteen. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003. p477-483. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson).

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 77,941 - 77,960 of112,047
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••