| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
September 5th 05, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote: On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in .com: Mike Coslo wrote: snip That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that the world was *not* created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October in 4004 BC as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home. Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator rested on the seventh day. Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes.... LOL!!! That's from Time Bandits as well. snip I highly doubt that it was created by a supreme being. Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all in motion, and the Bang was just the method? I get a kick out of some of these discussions. I find them somewhat interesting and somewhat dismaying. The dismaying part is that the deeper meanings of the Bible stories are missed because folks are too busy taking them literally. For example, take the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis. First off, you find that relatively few have actually read them well enough to see the contradictions. But those contradictions only exist if the interpretation is literal. If you see the stories as parables, the contradictions don't matter. Or take the part about all of us being punished because of Adam eating the apple. Doesn't make any sense at first - you don't send a son to jail because his father robbed a bank! OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can* affect following generations. (Why the heck did anyone ever decide to build a major city on ground that is *below* sea level and right next to three major bodies of water? And in a hurricane zone?!) Especially regarding evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution' (even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so, then they are effectively attacking their own faith. I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car on a 4 hour drive with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time. I used to keep me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but after the second hour of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them. When did logic and reason become "the dogs"? Turns out they did not know where the water came from or went to, and didn't know why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order not to drown. Oh yes, the deluge. Lots of good stuff in there. Here's some mo The Book tells us how big the ark was and how many of each animal were taken aboard. Now since evolution supposedly doesn't happen, all of the land mammals and birds we see must have been on the ark, since otherwise they'd drown. The Book specifically mentions Noah sending out a bird, too. Not just the animals and birds themselves were on the ark but food and water for them. Look around for all the different species of land animals and birds around today. Then figure out how much space they'd all take up. Unless the ark was actually a tardis, it wasn't near big enough for all the different types of deer, bison, antelope, giraffe, elephant, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goat, emu, ostrich, eland, moose, horse, zebra, bear, lion, tiger, panther, caribou, etc., etc., etc. Even my more serious questions were troublesome for them, especially since they were engineers. They really hated my thoughts on how if they were correct about the young universe and Earth were fact, some of the "facts" that they tried to use to disprove Evolution, such as dating anomalies, could not be true because the basic nuclear decay rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with. The basic explanation they use for all that is that it was made that way. Even down to the light from the stars more distant than 6000 light years. Just popped into being. Of course if someone accepts that "popped into being" explanation, the universe could only be an hour old... I think the real attraction of the "young universe" idea is that it's comforting and reduces people's environmental responsibility. Global warming? Resource depletion? Species extinction? No problems, because the Earth isn't old enough for there to be enough data. But if the Earth is billions of years old, the situation is very different. If someone wants to believe the Earth is a bit more than 6000 years old, that's fine with me. Just as if they want to believe that pi is equal to 3, that the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese. Just don't try to pass off those beliefs as "science", because they simply don't stand up to the scientific method. When people insist that their religious beliefs be considered "scientific" even though they fall apart under scientific scrutiny, what they're really trying to do is destroy the scientific method. Not a new thing. Look at what happened to Galileo. How many years did it take for the Vatican to admit they were wrong? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| K8CPA Email | CB | |||
Threaded Mode
