Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Yes, thanks for the reply...
Something tells me you shouldn't hold your breath waiting to see your interlocutor post the Lotka-Volterra equation.
;-)
You made my point. If you Know something, then assumptions based on what you know are reasonable within limits. If you don't know something, then assumptions with regard to unknowns are blind and therefore not "reasonable". Practicality.
When using Carbon 14 to date recent ages, potential variances are taken into consideration.
That's what I hear..
Do you really think scientists would miss something as obvious as that?
Apparently they did for some time as the fact of variable nature of 14C sent everyone into a CYA dance for a while. I remember the flurry of articles about it.
If half-lives were shorter in the past there would be evidence of such. Really, how would you know what that evidence would be? Some have suggested that "assuming" the conditions of the origin of the earth, the result would be extreme heat that would have destroyed the earth. That's great if their assumptions are right. Given they don't know the conditions and that any such assumptions are inherently unreasonable as a result, No one can really say heat would be problematic.. much less detectable.
Right. That would be ideology speaking, that last line. Dating methodologies being what they are..
Seems to me that doctrines including the understanding of creation itself - are based on which of the revelations are believed and the weight given to them by the believers. Perhaps that could help in figuring the numerical value you mentioned?
No apologies necessary, dear RadioAstronomer. When we are hurting, we should expect our friends to "be there".
I'm not attempting to marry the two - religion and science. How you get to that is amazing. It is nowhere proferred as the case. Yet, it is the case that largely Christian minds are responsible for the mere existance of Science today and saw it thrive to get here. Christians had and have no problem with science. As I noted, calling into question methods or conclusions does not put science at a whole at risk. It may put method or conclusion at risk - that's about it. If a method or conclusion is so shoddy as to warrant scuttling, whatever rests upon it is no more worthy. A faulty foundation is doom for a home, a logical construct or an ideology. More simply stated, false premises do not a truth make.
Yep. Those heathen renaissance thinkers should have just gotten into their time machine and traveled to 1961 and got a copy of the 'New American Standard Bible' or to 1993 for a copy of 'The Message Bible' (the only versions that have a differing translation of Isa 40:22: 'vault' and 'ball').
The dummies!
< snip gold nonsense> So I'd say that the Bible is pretty much ahead of the ball on physics and science.
No it's not and neither are you.
Lying would be stating what I know not to be true as true.
;->
PH -- 'purified gold is transparent' has got to be a your-brain-on-creation winner.
It's only logical that some intelligence has to be the maker of the original dna code. We always know there is a maker to say, an automobile. It just couldn't gather itself together and yet our bodies are alot more complex.
Like Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul?
If Mark was an 'eyewitness' why would he need to relate what Peter said? (cf. Eusebius and Papias)
And if Matthew was an eyewitness why would he have to borrow so much from non-eyewitness Mark?
Luke, to his credit, admits that he depended on the testimony of others. That and some liberal 'borrowing' of Flavius Josephus.
John, of 'Gospel of John' fame, seems to have a pretty high Hellenic-style Christology for an unlettered and unlearned Jewish fisherman. Not to mention that he didn't seem to care to much for Jews ...
Paul claims he was blined by a bright light and heard a voice. Stuff which now days usually gets you admitted to hospital, but I guess in the first century you could become a shaman and found a religion.
Therefore, if they went to their deaths voluntarily for the sake of His name, it is proof that they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they were willing to die for what they knew, firsthand, to be true.
So what about the followers of Zeus, Aphrodite, or Apollo? Or the followers of Allah?
Jan Huss, the Waldensians, the Cathars all died for what they 'believed'.
Is that proof that they 'believed'? Certainly.
Is that proof that what they believed was true? Certainly not.
|
Clean the beer out of my keyboard ...
But you wouldn't want to rub it in ...
;->
You too, huh?
I think in speaking of white gold, you are talking about what is done with it to give it strength in use as jewelry etc.
Adding nickel is obviously NOT part of any purification process. Purifying Gold removes what is not gold - it does not include adding things to the gold, that is counter to the concept. IE, you don't seem to be paying attention, are misguided in your response or are being misleading.
No it doesn't. Some populations are growing. Others are diminishing. Every species population is in a struggle for limited resources (mostly food supplies) with the other species in their environment. That is why natural selection occurs. To take modern human population growth, which has resulted from a technological explosion over the last few hundred years, and extrapolate it backwards to the time before that technology, is simply a nonsense. Human hunter-gatherer societies that existed prior to agriculture (invented a few-thousand years ago) were very low-density and there was no particular reason for the population to grow.
LOL
Past technology isn't necessarily indicative of backwardness as relates to food production much less anything else. There is a field of archeology referred to as 'forbidden' because technologies uncovered as belonging to the distant past paint a picture incompatible with what the current regime in science wishes to be promulgated as true. Progress technologically seems to parallel laxness of morality within any given civilization. Advanced civilizations can without a doubt be the cause of their own demise. And forbidden archeology seems to paint that very picture.
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.