that's exactly how i felt when i read his post. i was like, where do i begin with this 100 line block of nonsense.
_________________________________________ Having been around genetics and the evolution world for many years my question was to see how many clueless posts I could get. Guess it worked.
PBS is excellent and last night we watched the series on Antarctica....unbelievable....my big problem with a lot of these science theories is that they are just that....theories...yet they act as if it is undeniable fact and you are ignorant or stupid to even debate the point....the other thing i find odd is the giant gaps in time and science that they just glance over and casually gloss over....like max was talking about with evolution, they have no idea how a plant cell or algae.....could suddenly become a animal cell which would then start the mutation process toward evolution....I saw on one Nova how scientists with strait faces were saying...' lightning strikes energized a plant cell casing it to become an animal cell"....if that was true, Tampa would have trees walking down the street.....another very curious thing that gets left out of this whole equation is the supposed " meteor that hit the earth and destroyed all the dinosaurs and animals and plunged earth into darkness clouds for thousands of years....if you accept this as fact, one would have to wonder a) how plant cells came back after thousand years of darkness and b) .....How come dinosaurs didn't come back? after all, wouldn't it stand to reason that the predominant animal and dna that was developed from the Earth first beginnings would also reappear??? I don;t have all the answers either but i think evolution scientist are too quick to just cover up huge holes in their argument.
I realize that PBS is interesting and entertaining but I quit watching them several years ago. At that time I was involved in or witness to several stories they ran. I knew what had really happened but what came out on TV was so far from the truth and so slanted toward their prejudices that since then I absolutely don't trust anything they have anything to do with. Their misreporting borders on criminal.IMO
When discussing evolution, you must be very precise. Some forms of evolution is considered fact as much as gravity is. Other types of evolution, are still considered theories. In any case... the derailing continues. How does this apply to intelligent design? I am still hypothetically assuming that all evolution is bunk. There...now drop it and attempt to defend intelligent design some more Or start a new "evolution is BS thread". I'll be happy to shoot you down there peace axeman
i believe there is a god, BUT it is obvious john mc dowell is wrong on this point. best, surfer ________________________________________ I tended to agree with you on this conclusion for some time several years ago. What Josh asked the atheist debaters was " If I can prove to you beyond doubt that Christ was who He said he was will you believe?". Nearly all answered that they would not so he concluded that the issue was not evidence but issues within their own lives. What brought this to mind was a recent letter written by an acquaintance to some friends of his. I have known this man for about 8 years and know that he is a highly educated engineer and has worked for the biggest names in the computer industry. He was for 90% of his life an ardent and vocal atheist and would debate anyone anytime on his disbelief. Another friend gave him a bible and he read it in record time to disprove its claims which he did when he finished, much to his satisfaction he could out argue nearly everyone. This letter went over all these points again but this time it ended differently. After some major changes in his life his view has changed and one point he went over several times was that it was the sin in his life that had caused him to feel and argue as he had in the past. This transformation took place outside of any organized church or religion just one highly intelligent, highly educated man finding peace for himself. After knowing lots of people with the same story and conclusions I have since begun to agree with Josh, but it took quite a few years and many acquaintances.
We've got about four discussions at once going on, so I'll start with this one I guess. I did a little research and the current astronomical thinking is that the earth's water came from asteroids (which are full of water). These then coalesced (along with the rocky elements) into the earth. This tends to produce heat and would create an earth that is molten in the center. The current thinking is that the earth would not be molten (in general of course) on the surface because of water's cooling effect. Eventually enough water would be added that the earth would be almost entirely covered in water even though this was pre-plate-movement. (By "entirely" I mean, there's no guarantee it was completely covered. There could have been small patches of "land" since the earth, even with our current Himalayan ranges, is as smooth as a billiard ball.) And keep in mind that in verse 2 it clearly says that the Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters. In other words, everything past verse 2 already has oceans (or close) established. I think another point of confusion is the word firmament. It simply (in Hebrew) means "sky". And to me verses 6 and 7 are simple descriptions of the establishment of the water cycle where water was translated up into the sky and recycled. This is rife of course with examples of extreme fine tuning. The earth's gravity is tuned w/n just a few thousandths of a % of what is necessary to retain water. As I'm sure you know, methane and ammonium, which are produced in the feces and urine of all animal life, are extremely poisonous to animal life. In other words, our gravity just happens to be tuned to the proton level to retain water and expel molecules that would lead to self-poisoning. Another coincidence is that light refracting over this escaping methane and ammonium (again because gravity is tuned with a thousandth or less of a percent) was what created our ozone layer. And of course it was the ozone layer that allowed for advanced plant life (and not just ocean algae).
This is rather insulting to the author of Genesis if you stop and think about it (and hopefully you didn't it that way). My four year old son would not make the blunder you are accusing the Genesis author of. Can you imagine someone, for example, creating days before there was even a sun (or moon)? Can you imagine someone that does not understand that the sun produces light? I know you're not a big Bible fan, but you've got to give the author a little more credit than that. It is much more believeable to accept that the author was reporting this section (as the rest of the passage corroborates) from the vantage point of an observer on the earth. Again, this fits chronologically with the scientific record. Also, another important point is that the tense of the create-type-word here is past tense. This is even reported in the English translation that I have of verse 16 where it says "made". This is different that rest of this passage and shows that the author was saying the sun and moon were created previously but now are showing through the atmosphere which, again, fits remarkably with what we know today.