Except that the legs of the LEM are not that long at all. Indeed, if you look at the picture above, you'll see they're just long enough to give the rocket some clearance.
Posted on 01/08/2004 7:21:37 AM PST by Scenic Sounds
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:45:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors: that the 217-mile-long chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Notice, I didn't say fossilized trees, I said coal. Trees can be easily convered to charcoal in less than a day, but the process of making coal from trees by clay, pressure and heat, less than a year.
As for "insulting", there is no place for scientific discussion based upon emotions. It is either possible or not possible. http://www.creationresearch.net/PDF%20files/photo%20essay%20A4%20p3.pdf http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-316.htm
Except that the legs of the LEM are not that long at all. Indeed, if you look at the picture above, you'll see they're just long enough to give the rocket some clearance.
On first blush, I speculate that the rise of new age mysticism has caused both some rewriting of history concerning the ancient texts and also the ignoring of writings by the early Church fathers. A quick read of current research into the possible alternative ancient roots of (and definitions of) gnosticism gives that impression.
For Lurkers interested in new age Gnosticism: Gnostic Society
If true, that would be typical of what I run into trying to do research on ancient texts at all. Many of the oldest texts are embraced in new age mysticism, evidently for authentication of new ideas. Moreover, the number of such websites is far greater than the true, scholarly websites - making it difficult to find the baby in the bathwater. Sigh...
I wish I had more time to research this speculation, but it'll have to wait until next week. Thank you for your thoughts and leads!
Tertullian was a genius but even they have their blind spots.
Lurkers who are interested in Tertullian's own statements might wish to follow this link: Tertullian.org.
The specific quote from Tertullian, which was used in the broken link, can be found here: Chapter III.-Concerning the Genuineness of "The Prophecy of Enoch"
Thanks for the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia entry! It was an interesting read.
And that is that all men die and there their conciousness is lost forever. Evolutions philosophy is everlasting death (and cycles of death) and that only the mechanics of genetics is important and that people are not. There is no escape from this in evolution.
If evolution is true, there is very little significance to mankind.
The scripture says the very opposite. It says that man is very significant and that his purpose is very high:
1) That he was created an eternal being.
2) That he was meant to be enveloped in absolute love forever.
3) That mankind was to be fed and taken care of by God forever.
4) That he would have freindships forever.
On number 1, God decided not to give up this purpose. He decided not to be thwarted in this part of the design.
Number 2-4, he made available to all mankind.
The sad thing is that the majority of mankind will reject 2-4. Yet still be impacted by #1.
Do you understand the implications of this?
The warning is that all mankind will live forever, but that forever could mean life without love, food, water or freindships: Being like dried up brittle dinosaur bones forever.
Living without 2-4 is not God's wish for you.
Evolution will not give you 2-4.
The only person who can give you 2-4 is Jesus Christ.
The trouble is most folks don't want 1-4. They don't want to live eternally, don't want absolute everlasting love, don't want to be taken care of better than the fanciest hotels, and don't want freindships to last forever.
If you are honest with yourself, you will ask yourself why you don't want 1-4? Since the philosophy of Evolution denies 1-4?
I have the feeling that you may claim this is "insulting", but I challenge you to find out why you may feel it is so.
I was challenged as an evolutionist in this way, and found my way out of the box called evolution and into the facinating universe called intellegent and ultimate design.
I leave this thread open for any of your questions. Please feel free to use private as you wish.
SR
Hello A-G! You were asked whether you "believe" in evolution. Seems to be a very simple, straightforward question, and I agree with the answer you gave.
Personally, I am very perplexed by the entire notion of "evolution." For it seems to me that evolution implies moving from one state to a better or more "progressive" state (e.g., improved survival fitness). Evolution implies that things are "getting better." Logically, this would implicate either a preexisting purpose that can be fulfilled by the organism on its own, or by means of a big assist from an omnicompetent and foreknowing, purposeful Nature. I don't see how the mechanism of a "random walk" could at all be considered an adequate mechanism to achieve this purpose. Indeed, that which is random and that which is purposeful appear to be mutually exclusive.
So, I guess I don't believe in "evolution," at least not the Darwinian account of it as random occurrence selected for by Nature. For this account to be true, Nature -- in order to be the "guiding hand" of increased fitness -- must possess attributes of intelligence, foreknowledge of what is needed, and a sense of purpose. Thus the Darwinists are, at the very least, investing Nature with human attributes; or at most, making of Nature a kind of god.
I do believe, however, that things do change over time. I just doubt that the Darwinists have a non-self-contradictory explanation for this.
In any case, I seems to me that things not only "evolve"; but they may "devolve," as well. I can tell that just by looking around me.... FWIW.
Yes indeed. Nature is the Greek name, Random Chance the Roman for the same god.
Or to name names: We might say the "Greek name" seems to be code for the progeny of Plato and Aristotle, incorporating the pre-Socratics as needed (who are reliable guides still on certain lively questions, IMHO). "Random Chance" seems to encode the progeny of the Stoics, notably Epictetus.
Humankind has always found ways to discover divine principles at work in nature. Indeed, the entire idea of "law" -- physical or moral -- would be totally unfathomable without reference to the idea of Lawgiver -- who is both constitution maker and final judge.
The Stoic finds his fundamental principle in his natural instinct for survival in an indifferent, even hostile world.
The Greeks, on the other hand, didn't exactly spend too much time worrying over their physical butts (as it were). They knew that an unimaginably greater reality than could ever be sensed by five senses in four dimensions was the actual Reality from which and in which all and everything derived their particular existence; and that this same Law -- being divine -- held forever, in the here and now and into the future eternally.
As for the corresponding Stoic case, I highly recommend a reading of Walter Pater's Marius, the Epicurean.
Personally, I found that novel dispiriting, even quite depressing. But the tale it tells is relevant for us humans in the "here and now." (IMO)
Why? To evolve is merely to exhibit new characteristics. The potential was there already, and the new characteristics wouldn't have to be higher or better, or worse for that matter.
No such claim is inherent in evolutionary theory; only that entities with more children tend to have more grandchildren (to anthropomorphize things.) Being better able to have offspring has no notion of "better" in any other sense and the definition of "better" does depend on the environment.
Don't forget selection. (To build on another example for which I can't remember the author here on FR): evolution proceeds like a big draw poker game where the hands are dealt randomly; which combination wins chances; but the players get to continue drawing and those that score have offspring to perputuate their strategy.
Indeed, that which is random and that which is purposeful appear to be mutually exclusive.
Not necessarily true. One can set up processes that proceed randomly. (I do this regularly.) On the other hand, there is no claim of purpose in evolutionary theory. Such claims are not part of biology nor science in general.
I have used the analogy of a casino in which players keep their winnings but never have to pay their losings. Free money, in the form of energy, is constantly supplied by the sun. The players, in this analogy, are genes.
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.