New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Maybe because you don't really know for sure, but rather you assume they beleive whatever it is that you think.

[AndrewC]

Not following.

Essentially StolarStorm said that creationism was not science and a waste of time, maybe specifically for only this thread, but I got the impression for any science thread. Now you actively seek the creationist viewpoint on this thread. Those are contradictory viewpoints.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Doesn't Genesis 2 give a different order for Creation, though? How does that fit in?

Well, without getting into a lot of detail here unless you want me to - the passages of Genesis 2 and Revelation 2 indicate that the tree of life is located in the center of paradise/Eden.

This indicates to me that Genesis 2:4 through 3:24 are describing events concurrent to Creation week, but taking place in the Spiritual realm. In the end, Adam/Eve are banished to mortality, i.e. the physical realm.

Once that distinction of Spiritual v physical was made, all the other pieces seemed to fall into place easily - for me.

[StolarStorm]

No, not at all. If you don't believe opinion polls and you don't believe all the scientists on this board who've told you their views, what will you believe? I have no idea what is left. However, and I'm trying not to be offensive so sorry if it comes out that way, but if you had any real exposure to the scientific community, you wouldn't even be questioning that most of them share the position that evolution provides the best theory currently. I have yet to run into one that didn't.

[DittoJed2]

I have not read anything specifically on the karst topography of the canyon, however, he following has information regarding both karst topography (in general) and Cocconino Sandstones from a Creationist perspective. Answers in Genesis has a karstologist that may be able to give you more information.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-210.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp

[Da_Shrimp]

This indicates to me that Genesis 2:4 through 3:24 are describing events concurrent to Creation week, but taking place in the Spiritual realm. In the end, Adam/Eve are banished to mortality, i.e. the physical realm.

Thanks for the explanation.

You know something, you're the first Christian I've met who's ever said anything about the discrepancy that makes sense to me.

Interested in the Kabbalah?

[Alamo-Girl]

Confirming and agreeing as well! You had to stop a flame war from starting - I would also have tried to intervene.

[Doctor Stochastic]

No. Polls are reasonably accurate. Unless you believe that statistics has been refuted.

[Da_Shrimp]

I have not read anything specifically on the karst topography of the canyon, however, he following has information regarding both karst topography (in general) and Cocconino Sandstones from a Creationist perspective. Answers in Genesis has a karstologist that may be able to give you more information.

Thank you for the links, I'll certainly read them.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and the kudos!

I am much interested in the Jewish Kabbalah - particularly in the true, Jewish form. Here's a thread where we explored some of the aspects: Extension of Objectivism discussion concerning the Soul

I'd love to chat with you about it, if you have anything you'd like to share!

[RightWingNilla]

see 918

[StolarStorm]

"Now you actively seek the creationist viewpoint on this thread. Those are contradictory viewpoints."

The thread clearly evolved into a evolution/creationism debate thread. I didn't start it... I just got into the spirit of it. But normally, I really wish we kept these debates limited to threads devoted to the evo/crevo discussion rather than flooding every science thread with creationsim info... as well as flooding every creationism thread with evolution info.

[AndrewC]

You had to stop a flame war from starting - I would also have tried to intervene.

I'm puzzled as how you can conclude that when neither of you addressed anything to the aggrieved party? Plus I fail to see how Post 72 is anything but inflammatory.

[js1138]

I quite vividly remember at one point I "saw" Santa Claus out my frosty window as well. I do not, however, believe in Santa Claus.

Interesting. I have also seen a couple of things that weren't there over the past 50 years. I have always wondered why seeing is regarded as proof of anything. Most of us have at least occasional vivid dreams -- without assuming them to have any physical basis "out there". Schizophrenics routinely see things that aren't there. Somewhere between sleep and madness, many of us have occasional moments of waking dream.

[AndrewC]

see 918

Of course, I whole heartedly agree with that. But that change does not solve the disparity with the unwelcomeness expressed by the comment that started the name-calling sequence.

[Da_Shrimp]

I'd love to chat with you about it, if you have anything you'd like to share!

I've really only made a very cursory study of it, concentrating mainly on the characteristics of the Sephiroth. I'm fascinated in the concept of the path to conciousness from Kether through to Malkuth.

[Right Wing Professor]

,They are convinced that what they think is science and what the creationist thinks is religion.

Of course. Evolution is a scientific theory; it's based on a naturalistic world-view, and references only verifiable observational evidence. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on a religious text.

[BMCDA]

Well, "come from" suggests that it was an event in time but with the big bang this is not the case. The big bang is the beginning of space and time.
So "come from" doesn't make sense in this case for the same reason that "before time" doesn't make any sense.

[whattajoke]

I have also seen a couple of things that weren't there over the past 50 years.

Yeah, me too... I forgot to mention those infamous undergrad parties. ; )

[PatrickHenry]

I'm puzzled as how you can conclude that when neither of you addressed anything to the aggrieved party? Plus I fail to see how Post 72 is anything but inflammatory.

I assume "the aggrieved party" you're speaking of is gore3000. All my agreement-related posts concerning his conduct were addressed to him. As for post 72, ALS had previously been declared a troll in accordance with the agreement. My comments were thus not improper. It seems you are greatly interested in the agreement. Why not sign on to it? Try it; you'll like it.