Citra!
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Of course not. He only represents variation within the Batboy Kind.
What's an f.christian and what relevance it has to God's creation of all that it is?
"When evidence controverts an existing scientific theory the theory is refined in face of the new evidence and retested.
If the theory continues to be unable to account for the evidence a new model is created to account for it and that is tested."
Very nice and concise. If a theory cannot stand, it is replaced, such as the geocentric theory of planetary motion. It got so complicated, it had to go.
Oh, but I *have*. And so have many others. That's how we have arrived at the inescapable conclusion that there's no possible way that the features of the Grand Canyon could have been formed by any such deluge. But hey, feel free to "enlighten" us by explaining how delicate *raindrop imprints* on sand could have been left a thousand feet deep down in the middle of the Grand Canyon strata while being formed UNDERWATER by a raging torrent. This should be fun!
Here's some more for you to ponder:
Problems with a Global FloodIf you ever managed to resolve all of those apparently insurmountable problems for the creationist version of a flood scenario, feel free to come back and present us with the results of your research. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with the totality of the evidence, however, and not just one tiny corner of it in isolation while violating most of the rest (a common creationist tactic).Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood
Is the Devonian Chattanooga Shale Really a Volcanic Ash-Fall Deposit?
Geology in Error?: The Lewis Thrust
Thrust Faults and the Lewis Overthrust
What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?
Problems with Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory
Burrows in the Orkney Islands contradict the Global Flood
The Fish is Served With a Delicate Creamy Mercury Sauce
The Letter The Creation Research Society Quarterly Didn't Want You to See
Microfossil Stratigraphy Presents Problems for the Flood
Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type?
Isotopic Sorting and the Noah's Flood Model
Evidence from the Orkney Islands Against a Global Flood
While the Flood Rages, Termites Dig, Dinosaurs Dance and Cicadas Sing
More Nonsense on "TRUE.ORIGINS": Jonathan Sarfati's Support Of Flood Geology
Why Geology Shows Sedimentation to Be too Slow for a Global Flood
But the deeper problem is that you still want the world without its Creator.
Wrong again.
I agree with you.
I also believe the "gnashing of teeth" won't be of regret ... but rather anger AT Him for their being so wrong.
Good grief, you try to make it sound as if the Pope and the Catholic Church reject the whole Bible...and that is certainly NOT, what this article you link to, states...
What I get from the article, is that the Catholic Church says that in, scientific, and secular matters, the Bible, as written today, may not be entirely accurate...it is a heck of a leap to go from that, to saying that the Pope and the Catholic church cannot make the claim(that you claim for yourself), that they believe the Bible, and believe Gods word to be true....
But you do seem to want to twist the meaning of this article to suit your own agenda...that is dishonest, at the very least...
No honest person would ever make the claim that one should 'read it and weep and if I have a problem with the Pope and the Catholic Church rejecting the Bible, I should take it up with them', based on this article...
This article addresses a very narrow scope of some things in the Bible...but in your way, you want to try to make everyone believe that the Pope and the Catholic Church reject the Bible, in its entirety...sure you did not say it that way, but you have made very broad, sweeping, generalizations which are untrue, hence are lies...You do go on at the end of your post to then say, well the Catholic church is teaching that 'some' things in the Bible are not true...but your earlier remarks are very general and broad sweeping, hinting that the Catholic Church rejects the whole Bible...I find this to be very dishonest on your part...
At the very least, you are twisting the truth to suit your purpose...and therefore I see dishonesty in you...just how I see it...
Other than your dislike for the Theory of Evolution and your belief that scientists' sole mission in life is to destroy religion, you've presented nothing. You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but they don't count for much in science.
Solution: Do your own research dear. You are the whiz bang so take a breath and plunge into the murky waters of Creation. Find out what the other side is saying yourself.
Been there, done that, left a donation. It's still not science.
Mankind is only becoming more informed, and the nation's sub-100s can do nothing about it. In our children's lifetimes, scientists will have perfected cell regeneration at the molecular level, thereby practically ensuring super-extended lives. They will look on us with pity.
Nothing the Cleti do will set back this advancement - best to make hay while the sun shines.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Stop it! You almost made me pee in my pants on that one!!! LOL!!!
"This is circular reasoning----get the drift?
Science assumes that it will be able to measure, analyze, and draw conclusions. The sciences of evolution are not trying to prove that anything is 'natural', they are simply trying to learn as much about our world as possible within the constraints the natural world provides. The only way you can state that science is begging the question is if you do not understand the methods and goals of science.
If you are really concerned with 'origins' I suggest you take your concerns to Cosmologists and the Chemists and Biochemists studying abiogenesis rather than biological scientists.
"Evos have decided that undermining Christian origin beliefs is their primary mission."
That is, in fact, their only intent. Thank God there are so few of them and so many of us.
This is a nice way to spend a Saturday nite...the hubby is watching football, I am supposed to be decorating the kitchen Christmas tree...but this thread is more fun, so I will stay and drink more and enjoy the shenanigans on this thread...its really immensely informative and quite entertaining...
OK, here is a flood story for you.
I am an archaeologist with 35 years of experience in the western US. I have been in a lot of sites all over the west, but there is no evidence for a "global flood."
Rather, there is evidence for continuity--uninterrupted--of Native American populations for thousands of years.
A flood of this magnitude would be noticed! We have a "little" flood in eastern Washington, resulting in the Channeled Scablands, but that's just a leaky faucet compared with the "global flood." And we can see it just fine-we can define its boundaries, time periods, and cause. The global flood should have been much easier to find.
On the other hand, we have residential sites with continuous occupation on both sides of the dates suggested for the flood--continuous faunal and floral evidence, continuous population and cultural development, and continuous mtDNA on both sides of the dates generally given for the flood.
If you are privy to some evidence to the contrary, please share it.
If it is your belief you are relying on, fine. But don't confuse your belief with scientific evidence.
Or the "church of lie your way into heaven".
Glad to be at this party...its really moving at a fast pace...gotta keep up...
Definitely agree about science being constrained. That is why evolution - or the latest edition of it - should be taught alongside other interpretations of origins of life.
No one version should hold exclusive rights to the classroom.
If you point to me to the essay, I shall read it and report. What essay are you talking about?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.