Debunking the Evolution Myth (10 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2001 9:24 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 120)  
 
  59.1  
 
Evolution Teaches that life as we know it evolved 
From primeval soup - goo through the monkeys in the zoo to modern day you! 
Evolution is a story an invention of the imaginations of man. Evolution is not even a viable theory. Evolution couldnt happen if you wanted it to. Here are a couple of the many web sites that easily debunk the Evolution myth. 

Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter 
This easy to follow guide Destroys the Myth of Evolution. 
www.ParentCompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm 

A mega Creation Site with many Links to other sites. 
www.Creationism.org 

Dr. Kent Hovind easily teaches the truths of Creation. 
Excellent Video series on Gods Creation of the Earth. 
www.DrDino.com 

*** The worst part about Evolution teaching is that Evolution dehumanizes. We Humans that are created in the Love and Image of the One and True Holy Loving God are termed as animals by the evolutionist.

My Maker is God and I am a Child of God. God/Bible define who and what I am. I refuse to be Labeled by worldly people and worldly science.







David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/6/2001 12:27:01 PM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2001 9:26 am  
To:  ALL   (2 of 120)  
 
  59.2 in reply to 59.1  
 
Anthropic Principal
Anthropic principal is a scientific principal that the universe exist in a well thought out and precisely created plan, specifically to sustain human life. A universe created for sustaining life and specifically fragile human life. For instance the fact that if the earth were 1% closer to the sun the earth would heat up, bubble and boil and would not sustain human life, likewise if the earth were 1% farther from the sun it would be to cold and would not sustain human life. There are thousands of factors that are precision tuned in our universe to sustain human life, here on earth. Correct; gravity ratio, oxygen content, mineral content, water to land ratio ect.. The fact that water when it freezes expands and remains on top instead of contracting like most other materials, therefore ice remains on top of water instead of collapsing down and killing the aquatic life. Water freezing and expanding, becoming ice, is a design to facilitate aquatic and human life; it is a design from God not a chance of fate or evolution. We do not have epidemics of germs and viruses that could easily wipe out all human life, instead we have the opposite of a random system, and we exist in a designed system of controls, checks, and balances. The smaller food for larger animals reproduce more frequently and more abundantly keeping a constant food supply available for the larger animals. This Anthropic design is evident in every element of existence, completely eliminating chance or random evolution.
How could a male and female evolve separately and still be compatible to create offspring, how can the more complicated eye and brain developed prior to wings, beaks and claws. Instead it all had to come together at the same time, this is creation. Some people say well the universe could be random, it could be chance, it could be evolution, but it is not! So to deal with our environment that we currently exist in, we have to deal with reality. Reality is that we exist in a complex delicate environment one that testifies of an intelligent creator, God, and one that testifies of sin and mans disobedience to God.

Excerpt from the book
Basic Christian: Theology
By David A. Brown






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/8/2001 12:53 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (3 of 120)  
 
  59.3 in reply to 59.1  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
Evolution is a story an invention of the imaginations of man. Evolution is not even a viable theory. Evolution couldnt happen if you wanted it to.
  Not only can it happen, but it has actually been observed happening; at least key parts of it have been.  Since before the excommunication of Galileo, religious zealots of all kinds have always looked the most foolish and the most ignorant when they have held their dogma above proven science.

  That evolution has happened, and continues to happen, in pretty much the manner described by Darwin, is proven scientific fact.  This is, of course, separate from the question of whether evolution is or is not one of the methods which God used to create this Earth and all that it on it.

  A strict creationist takes the account in Genesis as literal truth  that God merely waved his arms and said a few words and in this manner, the Earth was created in six days.  Personally, I believe that the process by which God created this Earth, and all that is on it, is far more involved than is described in Genesis, and is, in fact, far more involved than could be described in complete detail if every book and every publication ever printed was devoted to this task.  I'm sure that the entire process is well within God's understanding, but well beyond the ability of us mortals to comprehend more than a small portion of it.  I find it entirely believable that what our scientists do believe they have discovered may in fact be accurate clues to small portions of the whole creation process.

  Look at it this way:  To an atheist, evaluating the best evidence our scientists have been able to produce, the creation of this world, and of all that it on it, is the product of an incredible chain of coincidences.  There are countless points where highly-improbable things happened, just by random chance, which, had they happened in any different way, we would not be here to ponder it.  Where the atheist sees incredible instances of random chance, I see the Hand of God.

  And one more odd thought I'd like to throw in:  Genesis says that the creation process took six days.  What is the meaning of a day in this context?  We all understand a day be be the period of time it takes the Earth to rotate about its axis, so that the same side is facing the sun that was facing at the start.  But when describing the creation of the Earth, how meaningful can this definition be?  A day as we understand it would not have been definable, until the Earth was created, and until it had been set into its present pattern of rotation, a condition which did not exist until a few days into the creation process.  I suggest that the word day, as used in the biblical account of the creation of the Earth, means something other than what we normally understand it to mean.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2001 1:47 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (4 of 120)  
 
  59.4 in reply to 59.3  
 
Bob, 
Im curious is Evolution a part of your Mormon beliefs? 
Because it would make sense to me if it is. For starters evolution is incorrect just like Mormonism is. Also as a Mormon you believe that you are Evolving into a god. This would be a continuation of evolution and a basis of your Mormon belief. 

As the Bible puts it Mankind is Created in the Image of God. If according to Mormons we are not created in the Image of God, how could we by chance evolve into gods. We would have every chance of evolving into a tree or something else and not into god. I would think that evolving into a god would be very difficult and I will leave that Burden up to the Mormons. 

Also the not so hidden hostility of Evolution is that if people evolved from animals then they are animals and not people. According to an Evolutionist people are just more advanced animals and some people are more advanced then others and some races are more advanced than others. This Is Racism at its ugliest. Evolution is Racism. 

Christianity says that All humans are created in the Image of God and that the various races are the Glory of God. Something to be celebrated not condemned. 

I know that the Mormon Cult has a history of discrimination against blacks and other races, so again I can see how Evolution would be a preferred Mormon teaching. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/8/2001 5:28 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (5 of 120)  
 
  59.5 in reply to 59.4  
 
  I note that you treat Evolutionists the same way you treat Mormons, which is to attribute false beliefs to them which they do not necessarily hold, and then attack them based on these false beliefs.  For that matter, this seems to be your usual tactic in dealing with any set of beliefs which are not consistent with your own.  Are you familair with the term strawman argument as it relates to debating techniques?



Im curious is Evolution a part of your Mormon beliefs?
  I do not think there is any offical LDS doctrine concerning whether or not evolution was part of the creation process.



If according to Mormons we are not created in the Image of God, how could we by chance evolve into gods (sic).
  Mormons believe, just as do most other Christians, that man was created in God's image, so all that you've said based on the notion that we do not is nonsense.



Also the not so hidden hostility of Evolution is that if people evolved from animals then they are animals and not people. According to an Evolutionist people are just more advanced animals and some people are more advanced then others and some races are more advanced than others. This Is Racism at its ugliest. Evolution is Racism.
  It's a matter of scientific fact that humans are animals.  To argue otherwise only displays your abject ignorance.  Of course, I think nearly all humans are in agreement that humans are, in some manner, much more advanced and sophisticated than any of the other animals (with the possible exception of cats).  It does not follow, from there, to say that some humans are superior to others, so your argument that Evolution is Racism. is just more ignorant nonsense.  Further, your statement that This Is Racism at its ugliest. is most ridiculous.  Certainly, in the course of human history, we have seen some very ugly instances of racism.  A few examples that come immediately to mind are the current situation in the Balkans, the Nazi Final Solution of the 1930s and 1940s, and our own nation's early practices involving slavery.  Even if you could argue that Evolution is a form of racism, what practices can you associate with the belief that Evolution is part of the manner in which life was created on this world, which compare to the examples I just gave?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/8/2001 6:32 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (6 of 120)  
 
  59.6 in reply to 59.5  
 
People are not animals. 
Can you talk to animals, can you talk to a cat, No, But you can talk to God if you acknowledge that Jesus is God. 

Man is the Only being on earth that desires to be clothed. We are the only beings that know the shame of nakedness. Adam and Eve were once clothed in the Glory of God. Our desire to put on clothing is affirmation of our fallen condition. In case you havent noticed animals do not wear clothing to cover their shame. 

People are Humans Created in the Image of God and therefore we have a range and display of emotions that animals dont have. Animals dont cry, like humans do. Animals do not blush like humans do, if animals got embarrassed like humans do they would wear clothes like humans do. 

People are Similar in genetic physical nature to animals for a very Important reason. We eat animals to sustain our lives. We have to eat things that can nourish and sustain our lives. The grocery store does not sell gravel and tar and fiberglass for a good reason, the human body cannot be nourished by them. In Gods plan we eat some animals and some plants, if we couldnt eat these items and we were only similar to other people we would have to eat other people to sustain our lives. 

It looks like God knows what He is doing in Creating and sustaining Life. 

If this is what you are being taught at your cult that People are Animals, I would Recommend you leave that silly teaching, Repent for this sin and embrace Jesus. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/8/01 9:35:20 PM ET by DAVIDABROWN 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/8/01 9:37:43 PM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/8/2001 9:09 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (7 of 120)  
 
  59.7 in reply to 59.6  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) blustered:
People are not animals.
  And the Earth is flat, and is at the very center of all creation, and all the stars and planets revolve around it.  And flight is reserved for angels, and it is blasphemy to suggest that Man will ever fly.  And all heretics must be burned at the stake!

  The Dark Ages ended centuries ago.  Religion no longer gets to define science, any more than science gets to define religion.  The definition of an animal is scientific, not religious, and the scientific definition of what constitutes an animal happens to include us.  Your position is not unlike that taken by the Catholic Church, when it persecuted Galileo for discovering and telling the truth about the structure of the solar system, a truth which ran counter to the dogma preached by The Church.  Long gone are the days when Christians got to preach and promote ignorance; not that this stops you from trying.



People are Humans Created in the Image of God and therefore we have a range and display of emotions that animals dont have. Animals dont cry, like humans do. Animals do not blush like humans do, if animals got embarrassed like humans do they would wear clothes like humans do.
  It is true that we have these characteristics, which no other animal has.  We are truly created in the image of God, and blessed by him above all the other creatures.  But none of this has to do with what constitutes an animal.  It's this simple:  We are living organisms, meeting the scientific definition of life.  The cells of which we are composed contain complete nuclei, which means that we are not Monerans (bacteria and blue-green algae).  We are multicellular, which means that we are not Protistans.  Our cells do not have rigid cell walls, so we are not Plants.  We do not possess the characteristics which would define us as Fungi.  This leaves only one remaining group out of the Five Kingdoms of living things  that one group of which we do fit the biological definition:  Animals.



The grocery store does not sell gravel and tar and fiberglass for a good reason, the human body cannot be nourished by them.
  I'd be interested in knowing what grocery store you shop at.  Most of the grocery stores I've been in sell many things that we cannot be nourished by  cleaning supplies, paint, assorted household chemicals, etc.



If this is what you are being taught at your cult that People are Animals, I would Recommend you leave that silly teaching
  My religion does not take it upon itself to teach science.  That's not its purpose.  It very wisely leaves this task to those institutes of learning which are qualified to teach science.



Repent for this sin and embrace Jesus.
  I have no more to repent of, with respect to anything I've said in this conversation, than Galileo had to repent for his discoveries.  If there is any sin for which repentance is needed, it is the sin of preaching falsehood and ignorance, and most sinful of all, of doing this in The Lord's name.  Shame on you, David Brown!  Shame on you!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    6/8/2001 9:24 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (8 of 120)  
 
  59.8 in reply to 59.6  
 
WOW! 
This isn't even worth debating! 
Science has done more to prove the necessity of a Divinity than man ever has. 
By the way Dave, just how long WAS a day when you watched God create the world?


Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/9/2001 8:54 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (9 of 120)  
 
  59.9 in reply to 59.3  
 
You wrote: "What is the meaning of a day?" Here is some levity for you: 
God: "I just created a 24 period of alternating light and dark." 

Angel: "What are you gonna do now?" 

God: "I think I'm gonna call it a day." 

Ha, ha 

Seriously, I agree with you, a 'day' in the biblical sense is most unlikely to represent 24 hours. I also find no problem with God guiding the course of scientifically sound evolution. 

Have a good day!! :) 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/9/2001 9:22 am  
To:  Horseshoes3   (10 of 120)  
 
  59.10 in reply to 59.9  
 
Genesis 1:11 And God said let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It doesnt look like the Bible left any room for evolution. Everything was created with the Seed inside of it to reproduce after its kind. This is the opposite of evolution.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own Image, in the Image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

God chose to use the word Create 3 times in this one verse. Do you think God is communicating to us that we are created in His image? If we evolved why didnt God just tell us instead of telling us we are created?


If mankind Evolved then we would not be eligible for Redemption.

Jesus took on the Image of Mankind to redeem mankind. Which image did He take on prehistoric man, goo-man, zoo-man or modern man.

According to the Bible Only Close Relatives can redeem the people that have sold themselves into bondage. Adam & Eve sold themselves into the Bondage of Sin and death. As the children of Adam & Eve we are also sold into the bondage of sin and death.

This is the significance of the Virgin birth of Jesus. Jesus creates Every individual Human in the womb. Jesus has Created every human in His (spiritual) Image. Jesus is our Spiritual Father. Jesus is the Closest relative to every person. We have similar physical appearance to our physical parents but we are in the spiritual Image of Jesus. 

Being created by Jesus makes us eligible to be Redeemed from Sin and death by our Near Relative Jesus.

If people had evolved, which we havent, then we would each need to be our own redeemer. By definition you cannot save yourself. Redeemed means to be Saved from Danger and to be brought Back into the Presence of God, something we cannot do ourselves.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hangin n there (juzmeagain)   6/9/2001 12:51 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (11 of 120)  
 
  59.11 in reply to 59.10  
 
Hey David, Ive always wondered about something? If the evolutionsit claims that man came from apes, then how come there are still apes around. Hmmmmmmmmmmm?????? Doesnt make much sense does it. KInda shoots holes in that theory. IM not aiming this at you. IM just kidding around with ya a bit. 



Raven Photography

Today I am feeling 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/9/2001 4:56 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (12 of 120)  
 
  59.12 in reply to 59.10  
 
Well, since you asked, the bible is using words and images that the people can understand. If it were written today, doubtless other words would be used. Also, we're reading an English translation of a work written in other languages. 
You mention that God "created" us in his image: male and female. So do you think God is genderless or a true hermaphrodite (both male and female)?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/9/2001 5:00 pm  
To:  Hangin n there (juzmeagain)   (13 of 120)  
 
  59.13 in reply to 59.11  
 
Wow. Evolution is a branching tree, not a straight line. It's not that one species suddenly replaces another and the first one ceases to exist. 
Food for thought: Why would God make a species extinct?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/9/2001 6:00 pm  
To:  Horseshoes3   (14 of 120)  
 
  59.14 in reply to 59.12  
 
John 4:24 God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. 
I think when the Bible refers to us being created in the Image of God in Genesis it is referring to our spiritual & Soulish image. 

God created Adam's physical body out of the dust of the earth. God was not a physical being, until Jesus took on the from and likeness of man. 

We are in the spiritual Image of God because God is our Father and being in His Image we can interact with Him. Like simular software operating systems can interact. Unix can interact with Unix and windows with windows because they are the same image. 

**** 

A friend just made the same comment that if evolution is true why are there still monkeys. It's funny. 

Even funnier is on www.DrDino.com I saw where scientist because fossils have been found but the species was unknown have declared them extinct millions and millions of years ago. But now divers and fisherman are catching these species that are susposed to be extinct millions of years ago. The scientist of course don't publish the new finds. So much for real science. 

Extinct species are not a problem for the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say that in this fallen sinful world anyone or anything has a right to exist. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/9/01 9:04:40 PM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Hangin n there (juzmeagain)   6/9/2001 8:43 pm  
To:  Horseshoes3   (15 of 120)  
 
  59.15 in reply to 59.13  
 
He didint make a species extinct. Man did not evolve from and ape or monkey as some think. But if thats what you beleive then heres a banana for ya.



Raven Photography

Today I am feeling 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/10/2001 3:56 pm  
To:  Hangin n there (juzmeagain)   (16 of 120)  
 
  59.16 in reply to 59.15  
 
More to the point: why does it matter if I espouse scientific views and you do not? Does that change our relationship with a higher power? You like salads and I like hamburgers, but we can still go to the same picnic. (Sorry David, I understand food better than computers!). 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/10/2001 5:00 pm  
To:  Horseshoes3   (17 of 120)  
 
  59.17 in reply to 59.16  
 
The Analogy is not about "preferences" like liking salad or hamburger it is about Being a salad or Being a hamburger. 
I also want to let you know that my References are directed at evolution and the theory and not at you personally. I do find evolution funny, because it is such a joke it is easy to make fun of, but your comments are appreciated. 

Anyone who says that they are following science is following a Philosophy. Science because of the agendas and politics involved in it is not the impartial arbitrator of fact that it pretends to be. Much good science that substantiates Creationism is covered up, not to further science but to further the belief of evolution. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/11/2001 1:55 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (18 of 120)  
 
  59.18 in reply to 59.10  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
Genesis 1:11 And God said let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
It doesnt look like the Bible left any room for evolution. Everything was created with the Seed inside of it to reproduce after its kind. This is the opposite of evolution.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own Image, in the Image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

God chose to use the word Create 3 times in this one verse. Do you think God is communicating to us that we are created in His image? If we evolved why didnt God just tell us instead of telling us we are created?
  The Bible says that God created all these things, but it really doesn't say much at all about how God did this, what processes he employed.  I do not think that anything in the Bible rules out the possibility that Darwinian evolution might have been one of the processes which God used to create the diversity of life on this Earth, nor even to create Man.



If mankind Evolved then we would not be eligible for Redemption.
  This simply doesn't follow.  Nothing in the Bible says that our eligibility for Redemption is dependent on the manner in which we were created. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/11/2001 2:28 am  
To:  Hangin n there (juzmeagain)   (19 of 120)  
 
  59.19 in reply to 59.11  
 
Raven (JUZMEAGAIN) wrote:
If the evolutionsit claims that man came from apes, then how come there are still apes around. Hmmmmmmmmmmm?????? Doesnt make much sense does it. KInda shoots holes in that theory.
  Do you know what triticale is?  It's a grain, which is descended from wheat and rye.  Normally, when you cross two different, but similar species, you get a hybrid, which has characteristics of the two parent species, but which is incapable of further reproduction.  A mule is an example of a hybrid, formed by crossbreeding a horse with a donkey.  Mules cannot reproduce.  You cannot breed mules to make more mules.  The only way to get a mule is to get a horse to mate with a donkey.

  Once in a great while, however, a mutation occurs in a hybrid, producing a new species which is capable of reproduction.  Triticale is the product of such a mutation.  Though it originally came about as a sterile hybrid between wheat and rye, two different species, a mutation occurred, producing a new species of grain, which can reproduce.

  I suppose the important point to make, connecting this back with your question, is this:  Although we now have a form of life (triticale), known to have descended from two different species (wheat and rye), we still also have wheat and rye.  That these two older species gave rise to a newer species does not mean that the two older species must now become extinct.

  If the manner in which God created Man involved crossbreeding apes, and inducing mutations in the offspring thus produced, in order to produce new species, this does not mean at all that the parent species of apes would have to die out or become extinct.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  dismas13   6/11/2001 6:48 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (20 of 120)  
 
  59.20 in reply to 59.7  
 
Bob, this is a very interesting thread to read.The give and go between you and David is both informative, and at times humorous.I have one question however, that I would like to pose to both of you.Regardless of which side you agree with, are'nt all of these arguments in the context of our salvation superfluous? If we believe that we are saved by "Faith Alone",absent the NEED for good works,then what we do right or wrong, sin or no is secondary to our belief in Jesus as our Savior.Whether Creationist or Evolutionary Creationist,all christians believe first and foremost that "In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.",John 1:1. 
How we began is not as important as who was there in the beginning.No other belief is greater in God's plan of salvation than belief in the redemptive power of the cross.This sole conviction intact,that through our faith in Jesus we are saved, renders all other beliefs to secondary importance.Jesus came to replace the Law with the free flowing Grace of His salvation.Belief in Christ is more important than belief in any interpretation of the Bible, or in fact than the Bible itself.Let's remember, that while the Bible is the word of God, Jesus is the Word. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Horseshoes3   6/11/2001 1:07 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (21 of 120)  
 
  59.21 in reply to 59.17  
 
Well, I'll agree that agendas and politics are involved in science, but many good people are very strict, with their methods and ethics, scientifically speaking, as regards their work. Also, religion is famous for agendas and politics! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/11/2001 1:08 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (22 of 120)  
 
  59.22 in reply to 59.18  
 
My thoughts exactly, Bob. God could have made all that is said in the Bible through the tool of evolution. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/11/2001 1:10 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (23 of 120)  
 
  59.23 in reply to 59.19  
 
Well said, Bob. Hey, off the subject, didn't triticale show up in a Star Trek episode? 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Horseshoes3   6/11/2001 1:13 pm  
To:  dismas13   (24 of 120)  
 
  59.24 in reply to 59.20  
 
A good point. Not unlike the salad and the hamburger co-existing at the same meal. I don't have to reject salad in order to eat hamburger, I can eat both and not have an upset stomach. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/11/2001 5:03 pm  
To:  dismas13   (25 of 120)  
 
  59.25 in reply to 59.20  
 
DISMAS13 wrote:
Regardless of which side you agree with, are'nt all of these arguments in the context of our salvation superfluous?How we began is not as important as who was there in the beginning.
  Indeed, you are right.  It really doesn't matter how God created us, just that we know that He did.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/12/2001 2:01 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (26 of 120)  
 
  59.26 in reply to 59.2  
 
In responce to Anthropic Principal... 
Are you fimilar at all with Chaos Theory? You know, the theory that states that, no matter how many variables you try to plug into the grand equation you can never get a precise answer? Chaos happens, my friend and its the major force of creation in the universe. 

After watching any nature show for half an hour, you'll be soon to notice that no matter how bad things get for the animal involved a vast majority of them still survive. Those who survive go on to breed, strengthing their species. 

If you'd like a HUMAN example of evolution, please take a looksee at any Playboy centerfold. (This is an acutal concept discussion given in most fashion design classes so hear me out.)Did you know that what men consider attractive has only been so for the past 600 or so years? Before that, you married because of who your parents told you to or you married for another trivial reason. There was very little physical attraction involved. If you take the dementions of a "beautiful" woman from the 1400's (corsets aside, some tailors would keep certian measurements) and compare them to the dementions of a modern model you'll see a drastic change in the overall difference between the measurements of her curves. Tummys and hips have gotten smaller and bust lines bigger. Why? Because, at that point in history is when men began to choose women for their looks and, being that there are certian things hardwired into a man's brain that turn him on, undesirables were "bred out". You would never see anyone even similar to a modern centerfold 600 years ago. In other words, there are more beautiful people in the world today then there were then. 

Other than that, if God started the human race from Adam and Eve then why is there less than 15% variation between the DNA of a carrot and that of a Human? Most animals only vary 3% from human DNA, therefore, between all the humans on the planet, there is less than a .5% difference. I'd think that, if God was to only start with two humans, he'd have a bit more genetic variation than that to prevent inbreeding. If Adam and Eve really existed, we'd have gone extince a long time ago form incest. 

And even if Adam and Eve did exist, then it was evolution by random mutation in genetics that saved us from going the way of the dinosaurs.


-The Mad Dr. Shock 
"There is no Grace. There is no Guilt. There is no God but Man."
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/12/2001 9:51 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (27 of 120)  
 
  59.27 in reply to 59.26  
 
As stated in an earlier post People have a similar genetic make up to animals and vegetables because God designed it that way so we can be nourished by eating these materials. 
Changes preferences in beauty would not be called Evolution, a woman is still a woman. 

Please explain again how we live in a universe of Chaos. We live in a universe of Sin and disobedience to God, but not Chaos. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/12/2001 3:32 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (28 of 120)  
 
  59.28 in reply to 59.27  
 
What about food substitutes which contain no DNA? Half the food you buy in a store these days contain no originally living material. 
A woman may still be a woman, but they sure look a lot different than they did 700 years ago. Evolution doesn't happen overnight. 

The universe is completely based in chaos. It can be proven in a lab. Its the reason nothing can ever be predicted for certian in the world. I can drop an egg off a building, and predict with fairly good precision where it will land and how it will fall but I could never determine just exactally how the egg would splatter.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   6/13/2001 3:00 am  
To:  ALL   (29 of 120)  
 
  59.29 in reply to 59.28  
 
Hi Shock how are ya! 
Now on to serious bussiness. 

Question: Where the [offensive word] did Noah (Noach) get all the wood? In order to build an ark that could comfortably house all the current species on the world including food supply (what did the carnivores eat by the way?) and such, he'd have to have build a boat the size of Australia and the height of the Mount Everst (I'm just selecting a random continent here), that thing wouldn't be lifted if it rained for 400 days and nights. (and what about all the insects that have a lifespan shorter then 40 days?).


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/13/2001 10:03 am  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (30 of 120)  
 
  59.30 in reply to 59.29  
 
Noahs Ark Capacity 
www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-273.htm 
Noahs Ark did not need to carry every animal only every type of animal. A pair of dogs would give us all the modern dogs, a pair of cows, sheep, goats, etc. would give us all the modern animals of their kind. 

Noah since he was continuing the species on the earth would have brought baby animals onto the Ark animals that had a lifetime of reproduction in front of them. Baby animals would be easier to feed handle and require less space. 

Insects can live in hay, straw, anywhere aboard ship. Many Insects might not have needed to come aboard the Ark they might have survived on floating flood debris. 

The earth prior to the flood was Radically different than after the flood. We cannot even begin to compare pre-flood to post flood. There was no rain on the earth before the flood and the human lifespan was almost 1,000 years. For rain to form drops of water it requires a certain amount of impurities in the air w/o the impurities water will only mist. 

Likewise Before Sin and the fall of mankind the relationship between man and God was much different. We cannot look at Sin and look at the Earth post flood and then Conclude that it has always been this way. And it will not always be this way, Jesus is Returning to the earth to Restore the earth and to Install His Righteous Kingdom on earth the way God has always intended it to be. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/13/2001 10:30 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (31 of 120)  
 
  59.31 in reply to 59.28  
 
A splattering egg is not chaos. It is a Lack of Information if the splatter cannot be determined not chaos. 
Chaos is when No amount of information describes the event. If a falling egg suddenly went horizontal then fell up then entered into another dimension or became a newspaper, every time the egg did something unexplainable that is Chaos. 

I think you did a good job of proving my point that the universe is Created, orderly and predictable, All Because the Hand of God is Divinely overseeing His creation. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/13/2001 4:24 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (32 of 120)  
 
  59.32 in reply to 59.31  
 
I just think you don't understand the nature of chaos. The way the egg splatters is always unexplainable. No matter how you graph it, there are always extranious variables. As I said before, no amount of information plugged into any computer or any equation can totally precict the outcome of anything. Haven't you ever heard of the butterfly effect? The future isn't written in stone. If the universe is so oredrly, they why can no weatherman ever predict the weather correctly no matter how hard he tries? If you'd like me to go into the quantum mechanics explinations of chaos I will. 
(Oh, and we scientists can turn lead into gold, FYI.) 

And as for the Noah thing, if there were only two of every creature then we'd still have the problem of inbreeding, wouldn't we? And where'd they keep all that food? The epic of Gilgamesh actually gives a reasonable explination for the whole situation.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/13/2001 5:02 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (33 of 120)  
 
  59.33 in reply to 59.32  
 
So then according to your Modern theories and understanding the world. A butterfly can cause a Hurricane the butterfly effect but God cant cause a flood nor can He save the animals that He wants to save from His own flood. 
Sounds like modern science has mixed up butterflies and God. 

I will stick with God and the Bible over the theories of men. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/13/2001 5:13 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (34 of 120)  
 
  59.34 in reply to 59.33  
 
God has never been proven but the butterfly effect has. Intresting that. Maybe the butterfly is God since, back in the day, EVERYTHING was caused by God. We know better now. 
Thankyou for proving my point.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/13/2001 5:22 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (35 of 120)  
 
  59.35 in reply to 59.34  
 
God hasn't been proven. 
What planet do live on? 

You exist, but God dosn't. 

I'm not Buying it!




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/13/2001 6:58 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (36 of 120)  
 
  59.36 in reply to 59.35  
 
Do you have solid proof that God exists? No? Thats what I thought. All you have is a Bible, written by man, that has been historically proven to have revised over 50 times. Most notably the Church of Rome council in the 700's which decided that most of the information in the Bible needed to be drastically "edited and changed". The reason the Gnostic texts don't survive in modern day Bibles although they're older and more accurate. 
All we know for sure was that Jesus was a Jewish carpenter that later became a Rabbi. He never claimed to be the savior or even divine, just a teacher. Its the Romans who first called him divine and he told them basically, "call me what you will". 

There's better evidence that Aliens exist than God. 

-The Mad Dr. Shock 
"2000 years ago, there was a really nice guy named Jesus. He told everyone to get along... So they killed him for it." 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/13/2001 10:08:03 PM ET by DR_SHOCK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/14/2001 11:01 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (37 of 120)  
 
  59.37 in reply to 59.30  
 
>>Noahs Ark did not need to carry every animal only every type of animal. A pair of dogs would give us all the modern dogs, a pair of cows, sheep, goats, etc. would give us all the modern animals of their kind. 
Wait. Two dogs bringing forth over 100 different species? You've just screwed up your theory in two ways. 

1.) Two dogs would have had to inbreed, thus killing themselves off. My dog is licking my hand now, so obvioulsy the ark did not happen. 

2.) If somehow 2 dogs were able to spawn over 100 species, well... they have a name for that. Its called evolution.

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/14/2001 11:10 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (38 of 120)  
 
  59.38 in reply to 59.37  
 
Dogs havent spawned over 100 different species they have given birth to over 100 different kinds of dogs they are still dogs not new species. 
Dogs having baby dogs is normal. Dogs having baby birds would be evolution. 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alternative Religions Guide (JENNIFER417)   6/15/2001 3:19 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (39 of 120)  
 
  59.39 in reply to 59.1  
 
Kent Hovind is an absolute fraud. Do some research on his 'PHD' and see what pops up.

Discussions at All religions: 
Jesus a drug pusher? 
The Beatles a satanic plot? 
A gentle tap? 
Satanic panic? 
What's the worst line ever used on you? 
A non Christian Narnia?  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
 From:  Dr_Shock   6/16/2001 5:32 am  
To:  Alternative Religions Guide (JENNIFER417)    
 
    
 
(I'll warn you now. This is VERY long but worth the read.) 
I've heard those wonderful things about Kent Hovind many-a-time before (not unlike Bob Larson, might I add, however worse). "Institute for Creation Research", huh? Last I checked, research involved the timely and constructive use of known and proven facts. He's a complete and total quack, as are 95% of the so-called "creation scientists" who fill peoples' heads with all this completely absurd, pseudoscientific nonsense about how things like Noah's could have taken place. They wouldn't know a scientific laboratory (or a real degree) if Einstein himself rose from the dead and showed them one. 

Here's some real science: 

I'm a physics major who has done a little research into the area of Noah with some friends of mine a few years back. For fun one day while waiting for the NMR to finish up its tests in the lab we decided to crack out ye olde Bible. It was a pretty serious and philosophical discussion at first between my associates (one of which was a professor) and myself... Until we just happened to run across the measurements for that o-so-famous, almighty, colossal, "God" inspired boat. Being the good scientists we are, we decided to keep our skills sharp by determining whether or not the ark could actually float when made with materials of the time and containing two of every animal known from the region at the time. 

We started with the basics: Genesis 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 

Since a cubit is roughly between 16-18 inches (the distance between the tip of a man's middle finger and his elbow) we took the cubit measurements at 18 inches to be generous (even though people were smaller back then), added up all the inches and converted it to meters to make things simple. Okay... So the ark was a little larger than the size of one and a half football fields long but with the curved sides at roughly a 45 degree angle (the only way it could float without getting leaks due to primitive material, waves and boat building methods of the time) most of its gigantic holding capacity was lost. Flat bottomed boats, although consistent with the time period, wouldn't be able to withstand the pressure of the water on the bottom and sides of the ark or from the waves hitting it from the front. 

With a little research thanks to the WWW, the college library and some history profs, we were able to determine that a boat that big, made out of standard wood and pitch would float... Barely. The pressure of the displaced water on the hull with materials of the time would make it fall apart easily since the ark was fashioned out of many, many separate pieces of wood since trees that big don't grow in that region, or any region, of the world. Remember that most boats of the time were made out of as few pieces of wood as possible for the best structural integrity. If there was a bad storm (the whole reason it was supposedly built in the first place) it would crack like an icicles as soon as it hit a large wave or anything putting stress on the bottom of the mid hull. I'm pretty sure there was a lot of stuff floating around in that water, too. The ark is just too long and not "thick" enough to take a lot of bashing from a force like water. Modern boats made out of steel still have their hulls crack in bad storms from hitting the wrong wave. And don't forget, pitch has a nasty habit of rubbing off. 

We decided to take the animals into account and forget about the large issue of the ark not being seaworthy. We didn't even need to get a list of animals in the region after we thought about it for a bit. If you have a boat the size of a football stadium (minus the height) there is no way you could possibly get all of the following on the ark and still have room for supplies: 

"every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female. 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female." 
(It wasn't just two by two, in other words.) 

Not to mention the fact that animals usually do poorly in close quarters captivity since, for obvious health reasons, they have to stay out of their own waste. And what if they breed? Rats breed a lot, for example. The list of problems goes on and on. (Originally, we had 10 or so notebook pages of problems with the wildlife) 

Even if Noah was only adrift for 6 months (although the Bible says 7 months), a half year's supply of modern, freeze dried rations is a lot of space and weight. Unfortunately, they didn't have that technology back then so expect a much bigger load. And don't forget that most food begins to spoil after only 3 days without refrigeration and there's no way they could grow plants on the ark (no sunlight). Think of how much food those animals (mostly warm blooded) would consume after 7 months! 

The only windows on the ark were on top and only 18 inches long with three floors beneath. The problems with this alone would, if nothing else, kill everything on board. Since glass wasn't around for windows back then, in a big storm with waves and a low floating craft you'd get a good amount of water in the boat itself. Possibly enough to drown the lower levels out or, once again, sink it. Everyone knows that cross-top circulation doesn't work well. Also, poor circulation would make the disease rate phenomenal and the gas produced by the animals would literally fumigate the place and pose a major health risk in more ways than one. Hey Noah, don't light that oil lamp! 

So Put all the animals on board and what do you get? We came to the conclusion that: 

There is no possible way in all of creation that Noah's ark could function as a floatable ecosystem and survive the weather for 7 months at sea. 

I used to have the whole formal lab report, concentrating mostly on the structural integrity of the ark, listing the equations used (we went mostly Newtonian), CAD blueprints, print ups of the computer simulations, etc. It was up on a geocities web page but they took it down after too many people complained (none of these people who complained had so much as an associates degree in science, by the way). If I ever find it completely again, I'll post it back on the WWW. I was only able to find bits and pieces of it on my computer. Its probably on one of a hundred disks somewhere in my house. 

If you want a good laugh, go to http://arksearch.com/ provided the bad coding doesn't crash your browser. They absolutely avoid the issue of air circulation in the boat and waste disposal, along with basic physical mechanics in their model of the ark. The guy here is supposedly looking for the ark and doesn't even know what pitch is! I knew the answer to that one when I was a little kid. 

(Long again, I know. Very sorry. I just can't stop typing!!!) 



-The Mad Dr. Shock 
"No more coffee for me please! I can't hold the cup still enough to keep it from all spilling out."
 
From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/16/2001 1:40 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (41 of 120)  
 
  59.41 in reply to 59.38  
 
No. Every dog breed is a different species. And dogs being bred to do what they do is called evolution. Somewhat forced evolution, but evolution none the less. 
Retrievers have been bred to be gentle bites, and they have been bred to have webs between their toes for swimming. Look at a golden retirever, they have them. 

Greyhounds have been bred for racing. 

Mastiffs have been bred for fighting. 

Every dog has been bred for a purpose. The dog it came from 1000 years ago was very very very different from today. 

And you still haven't answered what the carnivores ate.

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother fucker in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/16/2001 6:24 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (42 of 120)  
 
  59.42 in reply to 59.40  
 
Your Calculations leave many variables unaccounted for, so many that you are only guessing and I dont think you are calling it legitimate science but only a guess.
For starters you have no Idea as to the size and conditions of the animals, most of the animals were probable babies and all of the animals could have been in a hibernation state.

You also have no Idea as to the technology of the day and Just how the boat was built. I dont think Modern Science could even build an ancient Egyptian Pyramid, but the ancient Egyptians did and just a easily Noah could build an Ark.

According to the Bible the Reason for the Ark and the Global Flood is that mankind became Corrupted by interbreeding with fallen Angels. Jesus said that the time of His second Return to earth to reign and rule will be a time Just like In the days of Noah.

Noahs Ark is not a story about a man and a boat, it is The event of God keeping Humanity safe from Demonic spirits.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it also be in the days of the Son of Man.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alternative Religions Guide (JENNIFER417)   6/16/2001 6:29 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (43 of 120)  
 
  59.43 in reply to 59.38  
 
Dogs having baby dogs is normal. Dogs having baby birds would be evolution. << 
Absolutely, one hundred percent wrong. Dogs having baby dogs with ever so slightly different dna is evolution. Parents having babies who are not identical to them is evolution.


Discussions at All religions: 
Jesus a drug pusher? 
The Beatles a satanic plot? 
A gentle tap? 
Satanic panic? 
What's the worst line ever used on you? 
A non Christian Narnia?  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Alternative Religions Guide (JENNIFER417)   6/16/2001 8:08 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (44 of 120)  
 
  59.44 in reply to 59.40  
 
LOL! The T/O website has very good stuff on 'flood geology', it's great.

Discussions at All religions: 
Jesus a drug pusher? 
The Beatles a satanic plot? 
A gentle tap? 
Satanic panic? 
What's the worst line ever used on you? 
A non Christian Narnia?  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/16/2001 10:10 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (45 of 120)  
 
  59.45 in reply to 59.41  
 
DW (DEATHWISH123) wrote:
Every dog breed is a different species.
  Not true.  Not true at all.  All of the domesticated dogs, along with the wolves, are all the same species.  It appears that you do not understand what the definition is of a species.

  If two animals can mate and produce offspring, and if the offspring so produced can mate, and produce more offspring, then the two original animals are of the same species.  This is the definition of th term species.

  Two similar, but different species, can sometimes mate and produce offspring, but the offspring so produced are infertile, and incapable of further reproduction.  These cross-species offspring are called hybrids.  A mule is an example of a hybrid.  A mule is the offspring of a horse and a donkey.  The horse and the donkey are of different species, but they are similar enough that they can mate and produce offspring.  But the offspring produced by this mating  the mule  cannot further reproduce, except under extremely rare conditions.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/16/2001 10:15 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (46 of 120)  
 
  59.46 in reply to 59.45  
 
Okay. I may be wrong as to what a species is, but dogs being bred for superior qualities IS evolution. I think...

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother fucker in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/16/2001 10:18 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (47 of 120)  
 
  59.47 in reply to 59.42  
 
If you would have actually bothered to read the post, you would have noted that we took all of the variables which you say we were "missing" into account. How can it be a guess when all the facts are there? The only point was to see if the ark would survive and we found over 100 reasons it wouldn't (some of which were more condemning than others). 
For example, as I said before in my post, even if the animals were young you still wouldn't have enough room. And the ventelation problems... And the waste from the animals... How only about 9 people could care for all the animals... Spoilage of food, even if they could possibly fit enough on the ark... etc... etc... 

The fact still remains, though, that the ark wouldn't float (or stay afloat) very long. We talked to several history professors specializing in Middle Eastern history on the subject since we're physicists and not historians. We needed to go to the proper source for accurate information. You know, MANY ancient boats form Noah's time have been found on archeological digs and so we know what materials and construction methods they used. The profs, however, were actually able to give us a list of materials avaliable for the time peroid along with several diagrams and construction methods for boats of the time. By the way, none of them (even one who is a Jew) believes the ark was possible (espically since Noah nor any of his sons were boat makers to begin with). 

And, for your information, modern science has built a pyramid using only old world materials. I believe it was actually completed as a tourist attraction somewhere in the Middle East around 1990. I think it was actually done in Egypt by an American. You can probably find info for it on the net somewhere. The new pyramid is roughly the size of the smallest at Giza and, as the modern builders said, they could have went further but ran out of time and international funding. We might not know precisely how they did it, but we still built one with only the same resources the Egyptians had. Just bronze, wood, rope and a lot of manpower. How could Noah have done it with only his sons, himself and the materials fo the time? He couldn't have.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/16/2001 10:29 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (48 of 120)  
 
  59.48 in reply to 59.46  
 
DW (DEATHWISH123) wrote:
Okay. I may be wrong as to what a species is, but dogs being bred for superior qualities IS evolution. I think...
  Yes, that is indeed, a form of evolution.  Normally, evolution assumes natural selection, inasmuch as those organisms which survive to reproduce, and which do a good job of protecting their offspring, are the ones who get to pass on their genetic patterns, reinforcing in future generations those characteristics which enabled this survival.  Selective breeding is, of course, a man-made selection, rather than purely natural, but the principle is the same.  Those animals which are selected for breeding are the ones whose genetic patterns are passed on to future generations, reinforcing in the breed those characteristics for which they were selected.

  But this does not produce new species, just new variations within the same species.  Every domestic dog, from the Chihuaha to the Mastiff, is the same species as every other and of the wild wolves from which the domestic dogs are descended. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/16/2001 10:38 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (49 of 120)  
 
  59.49 in reply to 59.48  
 
Now that may also be where the problem lies in the human race. We breed too early in our lives. Lets go at the thought the average human lifespan is 75 years, roughly. Now also take into account that today the average age of loss of virginity is 15. We are only 1/5 the way into our life, and already passing down genes. Jut because you can make it out of infancy and adolescence does not mean that you are the strong. If we do not breed until 30 or so, then we still have a good percentage of our life left, and you are relatively sure you aren't passing on any bad traits (heredity disease, STDs, insanity). I'll stop rambling now.

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother fucker in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/16/2001 10:45 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (50 of 120)  
 
  59.50 in reply to 59.47  
 
DR_SHOCK wrote:
The only point was to see if the ark would survive and we found over 100 reasons it wouldn't (some of which were more condemning than others).

For example, as I said before in my post, even if the animals were young you still wouldn't have enough room. And the ventelation problems... And the waste from the animals... How only about 9 people could care for all the animals... Spoilage of food, even if they could possibly fit enough on the ark... etc... etc...

The fact still remains, though, that the ark wouldn't float (or stay afloat) very long. We talked to several history professors specializing in Middle Eastern history on the subject since we're physicists and not historians. We needed to go to the proper source for accurate information. You know, MANY ancient boats form Noah's time have been found on archeological digs and so we know what materials and construction methods they used. The profs, however, were actually able to give us a list of materials avaliable for the time peroid along with several diagrams and construction methods for boats of the time. By the way, none of them (even one who is a Jew) believes the ark was possible (espically since Noah nor any of his sons were boat makers to begin with).

How could Noah have done it with only his sons, himself and the materials fo the time? He couldn't have.
  Certainly you will agree that one of the most important assertions of the Bible, is the existence of a powerful God, who has the ability to create worlds, such as ours, and to create life, such as that found on our world, and to create advanced, civilized beings, such as ourselves.  If you don't accept this assertion as truth, then there's really very little point in wondering whether anything else in the Bible is true.

  Could mortal men, of Noah's time period, acting of their own accord, have created a vessel which could hold representative samples of all the species of life that would need to be preserved during a great flood, and could this vessel have stayed afloat for the time required?  Probably not.  Could a powerful God, one who has the power to create and populate worlds, have instructed men like Noah and his sons in how to successfully build and operate a vessel to meet these needs, to preserve all life that needed to be preserved through a great flood?  I cannot see any reason to suppose that he could not.  Where we are discussing men who are acting under the instruction of, and with the assistance of God, I see no logical basis in assuming that there's much of anything that they could not do, so long as God wishes them to do it. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/17/2001 12:30 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (51 of 120)  
 
  59.51 in reply to 59.50  
 
I, myself, while not Christian do believe that although not completely true many stories of the Bible do hold historical truths buried beneath mythology. 
God does tell Noah how to build the ark, what materials to use and even where to put the windows. God orders him to do it a specific way. While you can make a fairly strong structure out of weak materials such as a small, foot long paper bridge which can support 500 Kg, it takes a lot more than just a few pieces of notebook paper to achieve. Although the area Noah lived in was once a fertile, rich land, reasonable pieces of wood were still difficult to find especially before the Assyrian Empire (when people really started to trade all over areas of the Middle East and northern Africa). However, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, there is a mention of a large forest where wood is plentiful but hard to haul from place to place. 

So lets say Noah gets all the building materials, the massive man force and the help from God that he needs and finishes his ship. So it floats pretty well, with all the animals and needed food and God is watching to make sure everything is running smoothly. The Old Testament God loves to take on a pet human from time to time and show them his way. However, before he does this, he always tests them well past their limits. He told Noah how to build the ark and what to do with it, but the true test was surviving the storm itself. Even God says that he won't wait for Noah if he happens to be behind on schedule in building the ark. The Old Testament God was nasty and mean. I doubt he would have given Noah any leeway for shoddy construction or misplanning. God would have let the storm rage as it will and (going back to the dimensions, construction and materials used to make the ark) it would surely sink. The old God was not that heavily into mercy. 

Like I said before, even the best modern day ships sometimes break in half for hitting a wave at the wrong angle and God isn't testing them. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/17/2001 12:50 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (52 of 120)  
 
  59.52 in reply to 59.51  
 
DR_SHOCK wrote:
God does tell Noah how to build the ark, what materials to use and even where to put the windows. God orders him to do it a specific way

So lets say Noah gets all the building materials, the massive man force and the help from God that he needs and finishes his ship. So it floats pretty well, with all the animals and needed food and God is watching to make sure everything is running smoothly. The Old Testament God loves to take on a pet human from time to time and show them his way. However, before he does this, he always tests them well past their limits. He told Noah how to build the ark and what to do with it, but the true test was surviving the storm itself. Even God says that he won't wait for Noah if he happens to be behind on schedule in building the ark. The Old Testament God was nasty and mean. I doubt he would have given Noah any leeway for shoddy construction or misplanning. God would have let the storm rage as it will and (going back to the dimensions, construction and materials used to make the ark) it would surely sink. The old God was not that heavily into mercy.

Like I said before, even the best modern day ships sometimes break in half for hitting a wave at the wrong angle and God isn't testing them. 
  I think you are making some assumptions about God which are not supported by the meager facts that are known of this matter.  I think it is quite clear that God wanted Noah and his family to survive, and he wanted many, if not all, of the forms of life that were extant at that time to survive.  For whatever reasons, God wasn't going to make this any easier on Noah than he had to, but with God's help, Noah and his family built the ark; and with God's help, Noah and his family and all the plants and animals that were on the ark survived the flood.  Now without God's help, perhaps Noah could not have built this vessel.  Had this vessel been built as it had, perhaps, without God's help, perhaps the fully-loaded ark would not have floated, and perhaps it would not have survived the storm.  But none of this happened without God's help.

  With God's help, there's really nothing remarkable about the ark.  If God had commanded Noah to build a spacecraft, and take his family, and all the animals, to another galaxy, then I have no doubt that God would have provided Noah with all the knowledge and skill and materials and whatever help was necessary to achieve this.  Surely this would be well within God's power.  But God didn't command this; he commanded something much less impressive. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  M_DAuvergne   6/17/2001 8:16 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (53 of 120)  
 
  59.53 in reply to 59.50  
 
Also, you are forgetting that if the whole world is in flood, how did Noah and his sons collect Polar Bears, from the Arctic Region, or even Bison, which had not been discovered yet by the eastern world? Also, how did Noah and his sons populate the whole world? Including those of Australia, and even Native Americans? Wouldn't we all look exactly alike, since there are only two sets of genes to choose from (Noah and his wife, his sons were makeups of those two. Also, you can't assume that he had been cheating with many women, because he was so virtuous that God chose him. 
Also, if Noah and his wife populated the world after the flood, wouldn't the Jewish tradition be passed all over the world as well?

Je te remercie! 

~M. D'Auvergne
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/17/2001 2:59 pm  
To:  M_DAuvergne   (54 of 120)  
 
  59.54 in reply to 59.53  
 
Coronus D'Auvergne (M_DAUVERGNE) wrote:
Also, you are forgetting that if the whole world is in flood, how did Noah and his sons collect Polar Bears, from the Arctic Region, or even Bison, which had not been discovered yet by the eastern world?
  Without God's help, I think I would have to agree that this would not be possible.  But I've already stated that I do not think much of anything connected to this story was done without God's help; and with God's help, who are you to say that something could not be done?



Also, how did Noah and his sons populate the whole world? Including those of Australia, and even Native Americans? Wouldn't we all look exactly alike, since there are only two sets of genes to choose from (Noah and his wife, his sons were makeups of those two. Also, you can't assume that he had been cheating with many women, because he was so virtuous that God chose him.
  You forgot the wives of Noah's sons, who could very well have come from diverse ethnic backgrounds.  In fact, I've never thought of this before, but if there were different races of humanity at this time, and God wanted to preserve them, he could easily have guided some young women Noah's way who represented the various races which God wanted to preserve, and Noah and his sons could have taken these women as wives.  (Don't make the error of supposing that each man was allowed only one wife; though I don't think there's any mention of it here, there are numerous instances elsewhere in the Old Testament where it is made clear that, at those times, God allowed and sanctioned polygamy.)



Also, if Noah and his wife populated the world after the flood, wouldn't the Jewish tradition be passed all over the world as well?
  The division between Jews and non-Jews occurred well after Noah.  I believe Jacob, whose name also was Israel, is considered to be the father of the Jewish race, with the Twelve Tribes of Isreal being descended from Jacob's twelve sons. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/17/2001 3:25 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (55 of 120)  
 
  59.55 in reply to 59.54  
 
I think Jews were a little bit before Noah's time. I say this because there is a flood story in almost every major culture in the world, but, in other "versions", its usually stated as happening close to the dawn of humanity. There have been many assumptions that the story of Noah was Sumerian or even pre Sumerian in origin. The ice age ended well before organized human society started, but we do know from geological records that when the big thaw began there was some major flooding in many parts of the world. Humans (in one form or another) were around for part of the ice age and, having at least some scrap of intelligence, probably committed such a struggle of survival to oral tradition. There are even cave paintings depicting whole forests and mountain ranges being submerged underwater with creatures of all sorts drowning. The story of Jack and the Beanstalk actually comes from a stone age myth and was also first depicted in northern European cave drawings. The original story of the beanstalk is a lot different from the one we have today but it does have its origins in pre linguistic man. Perhaps this is where the story of Noah has its origins and was, through time, changed through time and human error. 
And, if God really wanted to save Noah and his family, then why didn't he give Noah good plans for the ark to begin with? I think making a bunch of smaller arks would have been a better and more structurally sound idea. (Some other versions of the flood use several, smaller boats rather than one big one.) 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/17/2001 5:53 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (56 of 120)  
 
  59.56 in reply to 59.55  
 
DR_SHOCK wrote:
I think Jews were a little bit before Noah's time.
  Perhaps the people from Adam up through Noah considered themselves to be Jewish, but any real divisions occurred after Noah.  If you'll think about, I think you'll realize that it really doesn't make any sense otherwise.  I believe Noah's three sons went off in different directions, and populated different parts of the world.  I note that the division between Jews and those who eventually became Moslems occured with Abraham's two sons; the Jews are descended from Isaac, and the Moslems from Ishmael.

  (My father, who is up here visiting, has corrected me on a point that neither of us appears to have correctly understood.  Strictly speaking, the term Jew properly refers, in this context, only to descendants of Judah, who was one of Jacob's sons.  The race that is descended from all of Jacob's sons should be properly referred to as Israelites.  In any event, this is a distinction which did not come about until well after Noah.)



And, if God really wanted to save Noah and his family, then why didn't he give Noah good plans for the ark to begin with? I think making a bunch of smaller arks would have been a better and more structurally sound idea.
  Apparently, God thought otherwise.  What matters is that he gave Noah instructions which, when Noah followed them (probably with a great deal of assistance from God), resulted in Noah and his posterity, along with much of the diversity of life, being preserved.  God offered a plan which worked, as I'm sure he knew it would.  Who are you to say that God's plan was not a good one?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/17/01 8:57:44 PM ET by BOB_BLAYLOCK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/17/2001 6:26 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (57 of 120)  
 
  59.57 in reply to 59.55  
 
There IS ONLY One Ark Because there is only One Salvation Jesus. Had God made many little Arks then the Bible would be saying that there are many little Saviors. One Ark one Savior one Jesus. Again God Has the Best and Only Plan of Salvation. 
Abraham is the First Jew he received the Covenant with God and the sign of the Covenant Circumcision. 

Genesis chapter 6 God calls Noah. 

Genesis Chapter 12 God calls Abram (Abraham). 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    6/17/2001 8:26 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (58 of 120)  
 
  59.58 in reply to 59.49  
 
You have one flaw in your argument. Unlike men who continuously produce new sperm until they die, women are born with a finite number of eggs whose quality deteriorates as she ages. At age 30, most women are but 20 years or less from total infertility. By age 40, the possibility of producing a handicapped child increases greatly. [perhaps the reason for the mental maturation of females at a younger age than males?] 
Am NOT advocating babies having babies here, just pointing out a small problem with your theory. 

Another problem is that one can not be sure of their genitic traits that will or will not be passed on based on age alone. At age 30, few know if Alzheimers or Parkinson's [to name just 2] are in their genetic make up. 

Just food for thought.


Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/17/2001 9:17 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (59 of 120)  
 
  59.59 in reply to 59.57  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
There IS ONLY One Ark Because there is only One Salvation Jesus. Had God made many little Arks then the Bible would be saying that there are many little Saviors. One Ark one Savior one Jesus. Again God Has the Best and Only Plan of Salvation.
  I'm sure I've seen you claim this before, that Noah built only a single vessel, because this single vessel symbolizes that there is only one Plan of Salvation and only one Savior.  Now I'm not saying that this isn't true, but I can find no direct support for this in the Bible, and I am wondering what your source is for this claim.  Have you found some passage in the Bible which explicitly makes this connection?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/17/2001 11:00 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (60 of 120)  
 
  59.60 in reply to 59.59  
 
Bob, 
The ark is a Refuge for Salvation.
Hebrews 6:18 .. we might have a strong consolation who have fled for refuge Followers of Jesus

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the Power of God unto Salvation to Everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also the Greek.

There is always only one Ark in the Bible: and the Ark brings salvation to the people.
Genesis 6:14 Noah built one ark
Exodus 2:3 Moses as a baby was saved in one Ark 
Exodus 25:10 One Ark containing the Covenant and the Mercyseat remained with the Jews

The Ark is salvation, Those who entered the Ark were saved those who didnt perished. 

Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Hebrews 11:7 By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen of yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  Dr_Shock   6/18/2001 2:23 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (61 of 120)  
 
  59.61 in reply to 59.56  
 
You're right about the Jewish origin thing. Its a topic which Jews and Muslims still fight about today. 
I believe in things other than the physical world. If I didn't I'd be an Atheist (which, I feel, would be an unnecessary waste of my energy and time). However, the numbers don't lie. I'm not saying that God couldn't have stuck his hand in and helped things along, however I'm doubtful of such because of the way he used to portray himself in the Old Testament. Before Jesus came along, God was all about fire and brimstone (quite exact in some cases). It would take one heck of a miracle to make that ark work but God didn't really seem to be into performing miracles at that point in the Bible. It seems like it would just be "out of character" for him to help Noah too much. 

Thanks for arguing this on a philosophical level with me and not slinging straight Bible quotes, by the way. =)


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/18/2001 2:27 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (62 of 120)  
 
  59.62 in reply to 59.57  
 
Why would there have to be a savior for each ark? And if Noah was a savior (as you yourself said) then what is Jesus supposed to be? And how does Jesus equate into the whole Noah thing since Jesus doesn't come into the picture until the New Testament (which is some while afterwards)? 
I'm sorry but to equate the ark or Noah to Jesus doesn't make any logical sense unless you believe in reincarnation.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   6/18/2001 7:07 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (63 of 120)  
 
  59.63 in reply to 59.62  
 
you know this thread makes me think of a new local song (it's a reaction to a television show called 'Starmaker'.. we started it we also started Big Brother .... ya us Dutchies rule!) I'll post the first lines here and then you decide why I reference it with this thread: 
"one-day fly, 
I wanna be a one-day fly, 
I wonder, wonder why I'm just a (oh ah) one-day fly!!"


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/18/2001 8:04 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (64 of 120)  
 
  59.64 in reply to 59.60  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
The ark is a Refuge for Salvation.
  .
  .
  .
There is always only one Ark in the Bible: and the Ark brings salvation to the people.
Genesis 6:14 Noah built one ark
Exodus 2:3 Moses as a baby was saved in one Ark
Exodus 25:10 One Ark containing the Covenant and the Mercyseat remained with the Jews
The Ark is salvation, Those who entered the Ark were saved those who didnt perished.
  Hmmmlooks like there are/were three arks, and not just one.  I shall admit that it's possible that God truly intended, by using only one ark at a time, for this to be symbolic of the one Savior, and the one Plan of Salvation.  Perhaps, by the existence of three arks, in use at different times, he meant to symbolize the three beings who compose the Godhead.  But it does not appear to me that there is any support for this symbolism in the Bible; it appears to me that this symbolism is a man-made interpolation, and not a part of God's word.  You've cited scripture which affirms that Noah did, indeed, build only one Ark, and you've cited other scripture to describe two other devices which were also called arks, each of which was also the only of its kind.  But I don't see that anything in the Bible suggests that there is any more meaning or significance to the uniqueness of each object than that there was only a practical need for one of each.  From what source are you getting this symbolism?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/23/2001 8:19 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (65 of 120)  
 
  59.65 in reply to 59.3  
 
Dear Bob, 
From all that I've read I've seen there is no fossil evidence of evolution. (Recalling the famous horses of many sizes and no relation pulled out of different places of history and placed in order of smallest to highest to illustrate evolution) There is plenty of change within a species but this was always well observed well before Darwin. That ducks grow smaller and larger and adapt hereditarily is one thing. Evidence that a duck might become a bat? Haven't seen any of it. Try as I might, I haven't found humans evolving into something else, dogs evolving into something else, etc. Though I'm always open to new evidence I haven't seen it yet. 

But I really don't care that much about the issue as the means God chooses does not ultimately affect my moral beliefs. I only care about it as much as I care about any significant popular truth not actually being 'true'. It is funny how the scientific community is so largely against evolution, but popular culture accepts it like the current 'Pet Rock'. The Fundamentalists pitiful stand against it probably has something to do with it as well. 

Anyway. Avoiding this dicussion beyond that comment and to note, SIGH, that Galileo was never excommunicated. In trouble yes, excommunicated no, never found that in the histories I've read. Bright Catholic guy, him, though a little stubborn and untactful. Reminds me of Copernicus, save Copernicus was a canon of the Church and more pleasant of personality. Gah. Popular 'scientific' myth. We're just full of it lately. 

I think Galileo would've had a better time of it if he hadn't tried to pronounce his theory fact (theories were fine), without an adequate proof. Actually, though he was right about the most famous conclusion, his proof based on the actions of the tides was hideously flawed and now universally recognized as a grave error (which it was pointed out then to him as well, by Kepler even). 

Thanks. 

Sincerly, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/23/01 11:21:24 AM ET by WKNIGHT001 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/23/2001 2:31 pm  
To:  wknight001   (66 of 120)  
 
  59.66 in reply to 59.65  
 
You don't even have basic high school knowledge of either Galileo's proof. He was able to prove his theory with a simple sun dial experiment invented by the Greeks some 1200 years earlier. Then again, how many people knew how to add and subtract back then? 
Secondly, Galileo wasn't excommunicated but rather muzzled for his beliefs by the Inquisition and put under house arrest. The Pope himself warned Galileo not to speak his mind. However, he was brought before the Inquisition for publishing "Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, tolemaico e copernicano". 

The Church never kicked him out, just labeled him a heretic and censored him. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/23/2001 2:58 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (67 of 120)  
 
  59.67 in reply to 59.66  
 
Dear Dr. Shock, 
I'm afraid you're the one believing popular myth. I haven't seen even elementary level science in your letter. Nevermind HS. 

As I have noted his proof is universally recognized as having been fatally flawed, even though his conclusion was correct. You have failed to evidence otherwise, I'm afraid. You want proof? Read the proof. 

He not only failed to explain the lack of stellar parallaxes (which were not discovered at the time), he also insisted, despite Kepler's discoveries, that the planets orbitted the sun in perfect circles. Which is just flat out wrong. 

Galileo suffered for his views, but he could easily have avoided it with a modicrum of tact and a little more research. Yes. He was confined to house arrest in the country. Sensitive times, and not the right decision even in a time when Church and State intermingled and men had a responsibility to abide by the laws of the state, but hardly the mythological parting of science and faith this little affair has been made out to be. 

He was not, however, outrightly condemned for heresy in the end. Only reprooved under the suspicion of it. Unjust? Yes. The court made a bad decision. You would think however, that the mythology that gathered around it would be disregarded by now by anyone with a real sense of history able to read the sources and not the commentary of people with an agenda to pit faith vs. science. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thomas 
+AMDG 

A Reference: 

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/23/2001 3:16 pm  
To:  wknight001   (68 of 120)  
 
  59.68 in reply to 59.67  
 
I happen to be a physics major (although that doesn't mean much in a discussion on history). As for "believing popular myth", perhaps you should go read the article at Bertannica.com for yourself. 
True, Galileo didn't get it all right but no one did until Newton came around some years later. It takes calculus to accurately prove elliptical motion as well as a universal gravitational constant. Galileo only had an old Greek experiment and star chart observations to go on. Remember, math was very simple back then and very few understood it. 

<<<I haven't seen even elementary level science in your letter. Nevermind HS.>>> 

Last I checked, this argument here between you and I had nothing to do with science but rather history. If I need to (which I won't in this debate since it has nothing to do with science) I will get technical. 
-The Mad Dr. Shock 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/23/2001 6:21:20 PM ET by DR_SHOCK 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/23/2001 4:00 pm  
To:  wknight001   (69 of 120)  
 
  59.69 in reply to 59.65  
 
WKNIGHT001 wrote:
There is plenty of change within a species but this was always well observed well before Darwin. That ducks grow smaller and larger and adapt hereditarily is one thing. Evidence that a duck might become a bat? Haven't seen any of it. Try as I might, I haven't found humans evolving into something else, dogs evolving into something else, etc. Though I'm always open to new evidence I haven't seen it yet.
  I do not think any credible scientist has ever claimed that such dramatic changes as a duck evolving into a bat could occur, at least not without many, many, many generations in between.  Most of evolution has always consisted of subtle changes within a species, brought about through natural selection, enhancing those characteristics which are most conducive to survival of the species.  Occasionally, a new species comes about, but this is fairly rare.  Earlier in this thread, I mentioned triticale, which is one of few species for which we have records of its origin having been observed and witnessed by Mankind.  Triticale came about when a hybrid of wheat and rye (which was, as all hybrids are, sterile) mutated into something capable of reproducing.  Though descended from wheat and rye, which are two different species, and having many characteristics in common with its two parent species, triticale is something new, something different from wheat, and something different from rye, and a new species unto itself.  Give this process enough time, and enough repetitions of this particular sort of mutation, and we could eventually wind up with a plant, descended from wheat and/or rye, but bearing no obvious resemblance at all to these distant ancestors  perhaps even being as different from wheat or rye as a bat is from a duck.



Anyway. Avoiding this dicussion beyond that comment and to note, SIGH, that Galileo was never excommunicated. In trouble yes, excommunicated no, never found that in the histories I've read.
  My point in bringing this up was not to engage in any Catholic-bashing, but merely to point out the folly of letting religion define science.  Galileo was right, on many points, but since his scientific discoveries contradicted established religious dogma, he was persecuted and imprisoned, and his life was ruined.

  Personally, I believe that religions is ultimately a source of truth, and that science also, is a source of truth.  If we had a perfect understanding of both of these sets of truth, we would find, I believe, that they are in perfect harmony with one another, and that there are no contradictions or inconsistencies between them.  However, we have only a terribly imperfect and incomplete knowledge of both of these areas of truth, with the result that we often find, not only apparent inconsistencies between religion and science, but even with each of these separate fields, inconsistencies within themselves.  I believe that these apparent inconsistencies are the result entirely of our own relative ignorance  of our imperfect and incomplete knowledge of these truths.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  wknight001   6/23/2001 5:47 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (70 of 120)  
 
  59.70 in reply to 59.69  
 
SIGH. He didn't contradict dogma. We never had a dogma about the universe's position. He just treaded on too many literalist's toes. 
Though I well know that in the secular world the term dogma has the connotation of a stereotype and is not the theological term anymore. 

However, the wheat was somewhat interesting. I would like to however, see something more compelling in the evidence than a hybrid species, the equivalent in wheat terms, of a mule, or a hinny that can reproduce--And there are some rare ones that can. I fail to see evidence historically of a number of these kinds of changes to produce ducks, cats, dogs, etc. Oh, I suppose it's possible, but I really insist on evidence before you go pronouncing something as a sound theory, nevermind the way it's popularly assumed as 'fact'. 

I'm open to the idea, but I don't -see- it. 

Faith and reason (Fides et Ratio) go together hand and hand. That has always been the Catholic method of thought and exploration. Scripture was never meant to teach science, though to a degree it shows us fundamental scientific truths about the universe, this is only after you realize the mode it is relating it. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffrey Thoams 
+AMDG 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/23/2001 8:50:48 PM ET by WKNIGHT001 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/23/2001 8:27 pm  
To:  wknight001   (71 of 120)  
 
  59.71 in reply to 59.70  
 
WKNIGHT001 wrote:
He [Galileo] didn't contradict dogma. We never had a dogma about the universe's position. He just treaded on too many literalist's toes.
  He was condemned, was he not, by the Catholic church?  And the reason for this, was it not because of his scientific discoveries, which contradicted some of what the church was teaching at the time?  And did not your current Pope admit that what the Catholic church had done to Gaileo was wrong?  I really did not want to get into a Catholic-bashing fest when I first brought up the plight of Galileo, and I still wish to avoid this.  I do not believe that the Catholic church, even if it now had the power that it had in the 17th century, would do to any modern Scientist what it did to Galileo.



However, the wheat was somewhat interesting. I would like to however, see something more compelling in the evidence than a hybrid species, the equivalent in wheat terms, of a mule, or a hinny that can reproduce--And there are some rare ones that can. I fail to see evidence historically of a number of these kinds of changes to produce ducks, cats, dogs, etc. Oh, I suppose it's possible, but I really insist on evidence before you go pronouncing something as a sound theory, nevermind the way it's popularly assumed as 'fact'.
  I have a hard time, then, imagining what it would take to convince you.  Triticale is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is a fact of science.  The process by which this new species came into existence was observed and recorded.  Now it's true that if we just leave things up to random chance, then it is a stretch to suppose that by this process, and by other evolutionary processes which have been observed and recorded, that we could get the diversity of life that we now have on this world, in the time that this world has existed.  But I do not assume, as I suppose you do not either, that our world and the diversity of life upon it is entirely the product of random chance.  Imagine the intervention of a God who has the power to bring about the necessary mutations at will, and I think it becomes a very viable theory indeed that the evolutionary processes which we know about may have been a major part of how God went about creating the life that is on this Earth.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/24/2001 12:44 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (72 of 120)  
 
  59.72 in reply to 59.71  
 
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein 
<<<I do not believe that the Catholic church, even if it now had the power that it had in the 17th century, would do to any modern Scientist what it did to Galileo.>>> 

Actually, I think the current Pope is a pretty cool guy. Unlike a few of his predacessors, he doesn't get carried away with his power. 

(Thank you for referenceing Britannica.com. I tried to do the same earlier today but instead kept getting fatal errors with both the Britannica itself and Delphi.)


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   6/24/2001 9:41 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (73 of 120)  
 
  59.73 in reply to 59.72  
 
As a note on evolution... 
Darwin wrote his paper on evolution basing much of it on the observable change that he watched on the isle of Galapados. If one reads the whole paper he does make a few statements covering the fact that it was th harsh conditions that made the evolution he observed to be observable. Evolution has been found to exist, it is that it tends to be hard to follow any fossil record with high levels of consistancy that many have argued that it doesn't exist th way darwin observed it. 

Personal Opinion - Evolution exists but it is an unpredictable process. We overtook Neanderthal which had a larger brain case and had invented such ideas as Fire and made tools that were razor sharp, some of thier tools had a 'mono-molecular' edge (And edge that is one molecule wide, a very effective cutting surface). We still are not quite sure what it is that we did to kill them off other than th thoer that we were more capable of deception or that we were able to adapt to some change in climate that they could not, or that we were genetically dominant. The climate change seems hard to believe since they were better made for harsher climates than we were. 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/24/2001 4:09 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (74 of 120)  
 
  59.74 in reply to 59.73  
 
I was taught in school that the Neanderthals went away due to interbreeding between them and us.

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 7:20 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (75 of 120)  
 
  59.75 in reply to 59.6  
 
People are not animals. 
Sorry David, but just making that statement doesn't make it true.

Can you talk to animals, can you talk to a cat, No, But you can talk to God if you acknowledge that Jesus is God. 

This is not a prerequisite for being classified as an animal. And the example of talking to a diety is a belief, not a repeatable, verifiable fact.

Man is the Only being on earth that desires to be clothed.

Not true. Neandertals clothed themselves as well, and were not human. Likewise, there are/were many tribes of humans that do not wear clothing, until missionaries imposed upon them.

Our desire to put on clothing is affirmation of our fallen condition.

Wow, you are really denying as much as you can, aren't you? Clothing, originally skins and foot coverings, were used by early man for the sole purpose of protection from the elements. This allowed man to roam out of his natural habitat in hot climates into colder ones and populate the world through migration. It had nothing to do with shame. Mummies found that are over 20,000 years old were of men in the ice age with perfectly preserved clothing meant for cold environments. Similar findings in hot climates (not mummified) showed men to be naked due to the lack of necessity of clothing.

In case you havent noticed animals do not wear clothing to cover their shame. 

In case you haven't noticed, animals don't have shame. (That's a joke, David.)

People are Humans Created in the Image of God and therefore we have a range and display of emotions that animals dont have. Animals dont cry, like humans do.

Apes cry. But are you saying that god is emotional?

If this is what you are being taught at your cult that People are Animals, I would Recommend you leave that silly teaching, Repent for this sin and embrace Jesus. 

I think that worshipping a cow in India is silly. I think that sacrificing goats to a volcano is silly. I think that believing the sun is pulled by flying chariots is silly. I think that attempting to cast spells is silly. I think that confessing sins to a priest is silly. I think that believing in dragons is silly.

What makes you think that believing that woman was made from a man's rib, that angels exist, that a man walked on water, that the earth is 6000 years old or that a virgin gave birth is NOT "silly"?

You insult Bob by presuming that only YOUR belief is right. They are only beliefs.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 6/26/2001 10:39:16 AM ET by SEABREN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/26/2001 9:16 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (76 of 120)  
 
  59.76 in reply to 59.75  
 
Neanderthal wore clothing because Neanderthal is Human not an animal and as a Human feels the need to cloth themselves. 
Humans stand Alone in Creation with Emotions, A physical Body, spirit, and Soul. 

Humans sweat, laugh, cry, blush, react, feel, and interact on a level that has Nothing in common with animals. Humans are not animals. 

The Bible is Divinely written explaining Mankind and God. 

Existence Requires an Explanation. God and the Bible are the Explanation to existence, Everything Else is False. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Adrasteia & Lyrk (ToilnTrouble)   6/26/2001 9:32 am  
To:  Hangin n there (juzmeagain)   (77 of 120)  
 
  59.77 in reply to 59.11  
 
I usually don't do these arguments, as I see arguing with evolution to be pointless. However, I've heard this one before, said with the same smug tone, and I must point out that it is incorrect. According to the theory of evolution, man did NOT evolve from the higher apes. Both man and the higher apes evolved from a much earlier species. 

When in the Hell/Purgatory area, feel free to visit the Den of Iniquity! Join the fun! 
http://forums.delphi.com/firefight/start 

I've got a dragon, and I'm not afraid to use it! 

Adrasteia & Lyrk: 
The Sapphic Spellcasters!
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   6/26/2001 11:26 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (78 of 120)  
 
  59.78 in reply to 59.77  
 
hmmmzzzz let's see, description of an animal: living thing with a celluar build that does not consist with the build of bacteria, fungi and flora. In other words, and I don't know the exact names in english, Cell membrames, a Cell core (nucleous) and no chlorophile 
*takes microscope* 

Uh-hah, Cell membrames ....... Nucleous ..... absence of chlorophile, jup, I'm animal ....... (and human ...... sort of ....)


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 1:02 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (79 of 120)  
 
  59.79 in reply to 59.76  
 
Neanderthal wore clothing because Neanderthal is Human not an animal and as a Human feels the need to cloth themselves. 
David, you can't have it both ways.

You can either:

1. Accept the fact that Neanderthals existed (you have) and by that accept the fact that evolution occurs and man and his homonid ancestors and cousins have been around for thousand (millions, actually) of years...

or

2. Accept the fact that Neanderthals were NOT human since humans were created in Genesis separately from the other homonids 20,000 years AFTER the last of the Neanderthals were alive. Then there would have been another species of animal on this earth that is an exception to your "clothing and emotions" rule.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. Pick one.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/26/2001 1:40 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (80 of 120)  
 
  59.80 in reply to 59.79  
 
Neanderthal Is your term. I called them Humans which is what they are, minus the science manipulation. 
What science calls Neanderthal, scientist that actually studied the bones called them Humans with vitamin and mineral deficiencies called Rickets disease which cause bone deformations. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/26/2001 2:48 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (81 of 120)  
 
  59.81 in reply to 59.80  
 
What science calls Neanderthal, scientist that actually studied the bones called them Humans with vitamin and mineral deficiencies called Rickets disease which cause bone deformations. 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha....*gasp*...hahahohohohohohoohoohooo...

*whew*

Now THAT was GOOD!!

Where did you get THAT one from? I don't think that I can even BEGIN to come up with a counter-arguement against THAT claim. That is WAY out in left field...

Listen, Dave, I've seen Neandertal bones when I worked at the Field Museum in Chicago. I have SEEN their comparatively large braincases and the structural differences in their facial and bodily bone formations. If anyone out there believes that one's brain can GROW due to a case of Rickets then THEY MUST BE VICTIMS OF THE DISEASE'S INVERSE!

Really, Dave, you're reaching. I think you are willing to accept any loony theory that helps you cling to the notion that evolution is a conspiracy by a bunch of devil-worshipping scientists. There doesn't need to be a conflict, Bob's description of the parallel between Genesis and the fact of evolution is pretty thought-provoking.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Adrasteia & Lyrk (ToilnTrouble)   6/26/2001 6:15 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (82 of 120)  
 
  59.82 in reply to 59.81  
 
I'm betting he got that from Dr. Dino.com

When in the Hell/Purgatory area, feel free to visit the Den of Iniquity! Join the fun! 
http://forums.delphi.com/firefight/start 

I've got a dragon, and I'm not afraid to use it! 

Adrasteia & Lyrk: 
The Sapphic Spellcasters!
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/26/2001 6:22 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (83 of 120)  
 
  59.83 in reply to 59.75  
 
>>Apes cry. But are you saying that god is emotional? 
God is emotional. God was/is human. God can no longer be objective. God is flawed. 

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/26/2001 8:29 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (84 of 120)  
 
  59.84 in reply to 59.80  
 
Since when, in all of the studied medical history, has rickets caused skull malformation? Even in the height of the rickets epidemic in 1800's London the only deformity ever observed was bowing of legs amongst children and slight spine disfigurement. 
Do you even know how one gets rickets? Its from lack of sunlight. I seriously doubt that any species of man from an antique world could ever encounter such a deficiency since going out doors is usually needed to gather food, build shelter, hunt, etc, etc... 

You probably got this from the quite pitiful Dr. Dino....


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/26/2001 8:58 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (85 of 120)  
 
  59.85 in reply to 59.84  
 
As usual you are Slandering the Wrong person!! 
I got it from the Book 
Bones of Contention 

Its the same book which Documents where scientist have Wrongly Identified and called a pigs tooth, as an ancient person and deemed it to be an important Evolutionary find. 

Also scientist found the Lucy bones in Africa scattered over a 200 mile radius and buried in various depths from 0 - 15 feet deep. And Lucy bones were taken from known chimpanzee site finds. But we are supposed to believe that Lucy is the authentic find of one ancient woman. 

Also the book tells how scientist filed the jawbone of various animals and fit them to human sculls in an attempt to prove evolution. 

Also the book describes scientist that have soaked human bones in chemical solutions and then claimed them to be ancient, even going as far as to burry the doctored bones, then a year later leading a dig to find the Faked bones. 

*Of course All of these Hoaxes were richly paid in additional research dollars. And Several of the hoaxes are still in school science books and science Museums being taught as actual science. 

Desperate people will do desperate things. And Evolution Scientist are about as desperate as they come for proof! 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/26/2001 9:44 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (86 of 120)  
 
  59.86 in reply to 59.85  
 
One problem with the book you referenced: 
Despite seeing all of this uncertainty about evolution, the author (Roger Lewin) is still a believer in evolution because of other evidence he has encountered. Lewin just believes that modern science is on the wrong track. Roger Lewin is the author of sixteen science books, including four with anthropologist Richard Leakey. Last I checked Leakey was a Darwinist. 

Also, Lewin is a science writer, not a scientist. He's more of a historian than anything. You're nitpicking bits and pieces of the book without looking at the full picture. All of the examples you mentioned were part of a personal war between Richard Leakey and Donald Johanson over which path of evolution humans took, not weather or not they evolved (which both men strongly believe). Not once does he say that evolution is a conspiracy against the public. If anything, his books are about how scientists fight with one another, not how they fleece the public. 

Try again.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/26/2001 9:50 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (87 of 120)  
 
  59.87 in reply to 59.86  
 
We read different books. 
The one I read stressed that the science of Evolution, is a hoax!! 

And this scientist was a firm believer in Gods Creation of the Universe!! 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   6/27/2001 3:31 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (88 of 120)  
 
  59.88 in reply to 59.87  
 
yup, which mean that the so called scientist was influenced and hardly impartial. There are more then enough scientists out there who are impartial about the matter.

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/27/2001 1:00 pm  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (89 of 120)  
 
  59.89 in reply to 59.87  
 
Perhaps its the book by Marvin L. Lubenow then? Lubenow isn't a scientist in any way, shape or form, just some guy who decided to write a book. His medical knowledge is poor and all of his arguments against Neanderthals are based on the fact that "rickets is almost an unknown desease these days". If rickets is so unknown then why do most laymen know about it? Knowledge of rickets comes with basic medical training. Lubenow's arguments are completely blown apart at: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html 



-The Mad Dr. Shock 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/27/2001 6:47 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (90 of 120)  
 
  59.90 in reply to 59.89  
 
From what the Book Bones of Contention said. 
Evolutionist to not accurately draw and diagram replica skulls and other bones. 

For instance a small skull fragment will be found about the size of a quarter then the Artist will draw an entire skull even the jaw and sometimes a whole body just from a nondescript fragment of skull. 

One Exhibit even modeled an entire family from one small bone fragment. 

I would not confuse Art and Science so I doubt the claims that your site is making, although scientist now call Neanderthal a human. Wonder why, unless of course Neanderthal is a descendant of Adam and Eve! 






David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   6/28/2001 3:42 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (91 of 120)  
 
  59.91 in reply to 59.90  
 
that's bull David and you know it, if want ot misinterpret facts, then be my guest, but when you just start an all out lie I have to object.

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   6/28/2001 4:03 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (92 of 120)  
 
  59.92 in reply to 59.90  
 
If Neanderthals were modern humans then why do we still use the term "Neanderthal? Similarly, is a dire wolf a modern timber wolf? They're only the same in very basic features. 
<<<I would not confuse Art and Science>>> 

Since when was a page written off of a bunch of scientific abstracts "art"? You won't believe a well thought out web page but you'll believe a laymen who says rickets (which he knows nothing about) is an unknown illness when it isn't?


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/28/2001 6:27 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (93 of 120)  
 
  59.93 in reply to 59.90  
 
For instance a small skull fragment will be found about the size of a quarter then the Artist will draw an entire skull even the jaw and sometimes a whole body just from a nondescript fragment of skull. 
I keep hearing this argument and it has been circulating for decades. Back when they had little to work with, they even made the mistake once of finding a fragment of a pig's jaw and mistaking it for a homonid bone fragment. 

Of course mistakes were made. The problem is that your "Champions of Creation" neglect to discuss all of the FAR more complete skeletons that were found, nullifying the need to investigate the "pig jaw" incidents further. Your champions write as if all other evidence doesn't exist and the only thing that the investigators have to work with is a single bone chip and nothing more. But in actuality, researchers have an almost complete line of remains from every era of modern man's development going back to the earliest homonids. But you don't read about those finding in the one-sided books you read.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/2/2001 2:29 pm  
To:  ALL   (94 of 120)  
 
  59.94 in reply to 59.93  
 
A simple question: If at all possible, find a 7th to 12th grade science text book, or for that matter a university one. Or if you have time, visit your local museum. Find the section on DATING of fossils. 
You will read that fossils are dated based on where in the geological column they are found. Then find out how they determine the age of the strata layer in the geological column. You will see a reference to the 'index fossils' which are found in the layer of the column. They tell us they know the age of the layer based on the index fossils found therein, and they know the age of discovered fossils by the age of the layer they are found. 

Is this not circular reasoning?? 

I saw a textbook almost apologize for the fact that it 'seems' to be using circular reasoning. Museum guides (who in all fairness usually are just told to memorize what they are told for the job's sake) have acted like the proverbial light bulb went off in their mind for the first time when brought to such a simple observation. 

If any of you have a different explanation for the dating of fossils and layers in the geological column, please reply. You should be published!!! To take the place of the circular reasoning in every science textbook.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/2/2001 4:00 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (95 of 120)  
 
  59.95 in reply to 59.94  
 
Its called carbon dating. Its been around for quite awhile.

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    7/2/2001 5:45 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (96 of 120)  
 
  59.96 in reply to 59.95  
 
And most high school text books haven't been truly overhauled since the 1950's. They add a chapter now and then but do not revise much of what was already there.

Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/2/2001 5:49 pm  
To:  Rowan (POTIONS)    (97 of 120)  
 
  59.97 in reply to 59.96  
 
Yeah, but carbon dating is still the most widely used form of dating objects. I mean come on! That "whatever layer its on" method of dating is crap! I could bury something in a hole 200 feet down, leave it there for a year, dig it back up, and claim its an ancient artifact if that method of dating is true.

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    7/2/2001 6:16 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (98 of 120)  
 
  59.98 in reply to 59.97  
 
Hey. 
I was agreeing with you that a high school text book is not always the best place to find the most current information? 
sheesh....... 
lol

Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/2/2001 6:20 pm  
To:  Rowan (POTIONS)    (99 of 120)  
 
  59.99 in reply to 59.98  
 
Oh, well, all my science textbooks were updated. 
Sorry about that. Didn't know if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  StevenJn316   7/2/2001 10:59 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (100 of 120)  
 
  59.100 in reply to 59.95  
 
Well, I am amazed the paleontologist can tell the press the very day a new dinosaur find is unearthed how many million years old the bones are - before any carbon dating has taken place, and all the bones are still in the ground. 
If you study any radiometric dating method (not just carbon) you will soon learn the 'experts' place little confidence in dates over a few thousand years old. You will also learn WHY that is the case (based on the assumptions built into the method itself) and finally if you really do some digging you will find scores of examples where the age determined at one time differs from the determination made at another time (or other method) on the very same fossil, by hundreds of thousands of years. You also will find a few 'frauds' where recent bones are fossilized and then 'proven' to be thousands of years old by radiometric methods. 

But I do not want to argue with you. If you want to believe the fossils are all dated by carbon dating (and all the textbooks on the subject are outdated) then be my guest. Might talk to some paleontologists though too. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 4:59 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (101 of 120)  
 
  59.101 in reply to 59.100  
 
Well, I am amazed the paleontologist can tell the press the very day a new dinosaur find is unearthed how many million years old the bones are - before any carbon dating has taken place, and all the bones are still in the ground. 
That's because the paleontologists are not the drooling idiots you make them out to be. Usually, when they find a significant cache of fossilized bones that are worth disclosing to the press in the first place it is because they have been digging and working a site for months, sometimes years. By this time they are VERY familiar with the layer that they are working in and have found MANY smaller, more incomplete fossils from the same period that they can correlate to. And unless the fossil is of an unknown species, they can immediately correlate the age to other known and previously dated specimens of the same type.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  kyop    7/3/2001 8:31 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (102 of 120)  
 
  59.102 in reply to 59.100  
 
If you study any radiometric dating method (not just carbon) you will soon learn the 'experts' place little confidence in dates over a few thousand years old. You will also learn WHY that is the case (based on the assumptions built into the method itself) and finally if you really do some digging you will find scores of examples where the age determined at one time differs from the determination made at another time (or other method) on the very same fossil, by hundreds of thousands of years. You also will find a few 'frauds' where recent bones are fossilized and then 'proven' to be thousands of years old by radiometric methods. << 
Yes Steven, you will find (very) occasional 'frauds' such as the Piltdown Man but I don't recall any that were supported by competent radiometric dating. BTW, when such frauds are unmasked, guess who does it? Scientists not ministers! 

The "Biblical" approach is that IT'S ALL FAKE so why be selective? Ignorance is bliss and global as well. 

It should tell you something that science is self-policing. If it doesn't oh well. It boils down to this: 

Science has questions that may never be answered. The Bible has anwers that may never be questioned. 

Now, about carbon dating. It is used to date items that generally are less than 25,000 years old. It can be stretched out to 40-50,000 years but the estimation errors get too large and other isotopic dating methods are superior. 

There is an excellent discussion that addresses your questions here: 

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html 

But you don't REALLY wan't to discover the TRUE answer to your question do you?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/3/2001 8:58 am  
To:  kyop   unread  (103 of 120)  
 
  59.103 in reply to 59.102  
 
Thank you for mentioning that carbon 14 isn't the only isotope used to date rocks. 
<<<Yes Steven, you will find (very) occasional 'frauds' such as the Piltdown Man but I don't recall any that were supported by competent radiometric dating. BTW, when such frauds are unmasked, guess who does it? Scientists not ministers!>>> 

The scientific community is on of the few professions which censors itself. On the other hand, most religious institutions disregard any fraud which comes to light, trying their darndest to keep their own credability. 

When was the last time you saw the Pope call any cheesy televangelist (like Rev. Bob Larson) a fraud? The answer: Never. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 10:12 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (104 of 120)  
 
  59.104 in reply to 59.101  
 
You really should not assume so much. Never did I malign paleontology, in fact I am grateful for the multitude of discoveries made by these men and women. 
However, your reply seems to support my first post, namely the dating is based on the assumed age of the layer based on the other fossils found within the layer - you mention nothing of carbon dating in this reply. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 10:34 am  
To:  kyop   unread  (105 of 120)  
 
  59.105 in reply to 59.102  
 
I asked a simple question. The answer I received from another (radiocarbon dating) I challenged and I am glad to see you in complete agreement with THAT aspect of my post. Thank you for telling this other poster and the board that these dinosaur bones of millions of years are NOT dated by carbon dating methods. 
Your other comments are so hostile (you have no idea who I am or what I beleive) as almost to not be worth commenting upon, but I will on a couple items. 

<The "Biblical" approach is that IT'S ALL FAKE so why be selective?> 

Huh? The topic is age dating, not falsity. 

<Ignorance is bliss and global as well.> 

Who is ignorant and of what??? 

<It should tell you something that science is self-policing. If it doesn't oh well.> 

Yes, it tells me that science is often wrong and these errors can last for years before more competent scientists correct them. Yet, while the error is in vogue, it is 'preached' as SCIENTIFIC FACT and not properly as simply a theory in need of further research. 

It also is amusing to me to read of the WIDE difference in opinion among NONCHRISTIAN, 100% devoted evolutionists in terms of the fossil record, Lucy, age-dating, missing links and the like. Seems like a lot of competing opinions (theories) all wanting to be shown as SCIENTIFIC FACT. Or did you think Gould, Leakey and others all agree 100% with each other??? 

You also mentioned something about scientists not ministers correcting these errors (I did not copy/paste that line). Anyway, you are aware of the many Christian scientists of the past - Newton, Faraday etc. I hope you do not think one can't be both a Christian and a scientist. 

<Science has questions that may never be answered. The Bible has anwers that may never be questioned.> 

That is a childish comment as there are internet boards en masse devoted to a discussion of some of the more difficult Biblical issues. Not to mention lectures, books and the like. Maybe you have been talking to the wrong Christians. 

<Now, about carbon dating. It is used to date items that generally are less than 25,000 years old. It can be stretched out to 40-50,000 years but the estimation errors get too large and other isotopic dating methods are superior.> 

THANK YOU for posting this, as the support of my earlier reply. 

<There is an excellent discussion that addresses your questions here: 
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html> 

I will go check it out right now! 

<But you don't REALLY wan't to discover the TRUE answer to your question do you?> 

There you are with those assumptions again. What a shame. 



 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 11:38 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (106 of 120)  
 
  59.106 in reply to 59.103  
 
The scientific community is on of the few professions which censors itself. On the other hand, most religious institutions disregard any fraud which comes to light, trying their darndest to keep their own credability. 
You are forgetting David's crusade against Bob and the LDS.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 11:42 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (107 of 120)  
 
  59.107 in reply to 59.104  
 
You really should not assume so much. Never did I malign paleontology, in fact I am grateful for the multitude of discoveries made by these men and women. 
Sorry, but you are the one who assumed that they drew their conclusions all from the same day that they instantly turned around and made their "press release" as you claimed. I was just restating the connotation of your "report".

However, your reply seems to support my first post, namely the dating is based on the assumed age of the layer based on the other fossils found within the layer - you mention nothing of carbon dating in this reply. 

Then you had trouble with the content of my post. I was just trying to say that layer dating is ONE way to establish a relative age, but it by no means is the ONLY and most accurate means to do so.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 11:50 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (108 of 120)  
 
  59.108 in reply to 59.105  
 
THANK YOU for posting this, as the support of my earlier reply. 
Nice shift and dodge. Your POINT concerned the inaccuracy of dating methods in general, that there was NO REAL WAY to accurately date a fossil. It was pointed out that all methods have their flaws when used outside of their area of application (you picked at me for clarifying the use of layer dating, you picked on Dr Shock for describing the use of carbon dating) but with multiple tests available scientists EVENTUALLY establish an accurate approximation of the age. This is the issue that you have been artfully dodging since this particular subject began. 

Can we move on without you jumping on top of your monitor and declaring a victory that doesn't exist?






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/3/2001 12:00 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (109 of 120)  
 
  59.109 in reply to 59.105  
 
>>That is a childish comment as there are internet boards en masse devoted to a discussion of some of the more difficult Biblical issues. Not to mention lectures, books and the like. Maybe you have been talking to the wrong Christians.<< 
This board and the many others you speak of aren't devoted to discussing the bible, they're devoted to mindlessly quoting it and to disreputing the claims of all who question it.


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 12:47 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (110 of 120)  
 
  59.110 in reply to 59.108  
 
I tried out for the role of 'the artful dodger' from OLIVER once, but was picked to play Fagan. 
Yes, let us agree to disagree about the ability for these dating methods (whatever the radiometric substance being used) to accurately do their job. Especially since they rely on uniform assumptions of the past, which of course we do not know for sure. 

However.....I will close this topic with a quote from the 1971 Yearbook of Science from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (hardly a bastion of Christian support). 

Note also that some bristlecone pines live up to 4000 years as datable from tree rings. Recent labratory experiment have shown disintegration rates on growth rings older than 1000 BC are FASTER than the present C14 rate...the discrepancy in rate MAY BE due to changes in cosmic ray intensity OR changes in equilibrium between the atmosphere and the volume of ocean water. The deviation MAY partly be due to the volume of ocean water OR partly to the Ice Age rhythms that were influenced by solar wind patterns. (Emphasis added by me) 

Seems like a lot of specualtion and possibilities, except for the fact that this world has not remained uniform and constant over the centuries, even in the levels and rate of radiometric decay. On that I heartily agree!!!! 

Moving on.....
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 1:33 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (111 of 120)  
 
  59.111 in reply to 59.109  
 
Now Rob....have I just mindlessly been quoting the Bible and dismissing out of hand all who question it?? Or have I been engaged in discussion. 
On the flip side, one could argue that many who post against the Bible and Christianity are also not interested in rational discussion as seen from their many posts whose purpose seems to be only to insult, denigrate or ridicule the Christian person involved. 

Present company excluded of course....(wink)
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 2:29 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (112 of 120)  
 
  59.112 in reply to 59.110  
 
Interesting. Do you have anything newer than 30 years old that still maintains this conclusion? Did they say how much the percentage of accuracy varied over time? (It would not make much difference if the rates were different by a percentage of, say, 2%, since that would mean that it would translate to a rough inaccuracy of about 500 years for an item that was dated around 25,000 years ago. Hardly "inaccurate" in that case.)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
4.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/3/2001 2:37 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (113 of 120)  
 
  59.113 in reply to 59.111  
 
insult? ..... the words 'minion(s) of Satan'come to mind ....

. 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
4.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 2:42 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (114 of 120)  
 
  59.114 in reply to 59.112  
 
The difference listed is 650 years over a period of 3300 years (4810 BC compared to 1499 BC) - not a small percentage. 
I will admit I am not an expert in this field, but the point is that these methods require a uniform assumption over centuries of time, which I have a hard time swallowing, especially since this one case at least is proof the rates have changed, though the reasons are potentially many and varied. 

And again, I thought the issue at hand was in the OLD dating of things like dinosaur fossils hundreds of millions of years old (supposedly). 

But since we agreed to move on, I must ask this. Are you aware of the work of Sir Charles Lyell, often called the 'father' of uniformitarianism???
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 2:59 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (115 of 120)  
 
  59.115 in reply to 59.113  
 
I never wrote those words, and I only represent myself. I was presenting myself as a specific example CONTRARY to your generalization posted earlier. 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/3/2001 3:03 pm  
To:  StevenJn316 unread  (116 of 120)  
 
  59.116 in reply to 59.115  
 
I'm not talking about what you WROTE steven......

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   7/3/2001 3:09 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (117 of 120)  
 
  59.117 in reply to 59.105  
 
You say that science is sometimes wrong, and it takes years for someone to come along and disprove it. Actually, there have been times when science has been correct, and the various religions of the world have silenced the speakers in one way or another. 
I apologize for not being knowledgeable about the various scientists and who discovered what. 

At first, most everybody thought that there was nothing past the horizon, or nothing very far past the horizon. Then we went there and found there are things past the horizon. Then we said that everything in the universe revolved around us, and that the world was flat (in some cases, flat carried by four elephants upon a giant turtle). Now this is where it gets hazy for me. Its been awhile since I've picked up a history or science textbook. I'm sorry for refering to people as "some guy". Anyways some guy in the greek world, decided to study the world, and found out that the world was not flat. Of course, it is, but he was silenced. Someone else came along and said that we revolve around the sun. He was silenced. And through the years everyone who has come out and said that the world might be something other than what the bible says was silenced or branded a heretic. Everything that we KNOW IS TRUE was rejected at once. Rejected not by scientists, but by the various religions. 

Hell, the bible says that the universe revolves around the Earth. I guess its one of those mistakes that wasn't fixed the last time the chuch decided to hack the bible to pieces. 

There. Thus ends my uneducated rant about how religion is the ultimate censor.

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do?
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 3:38 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (118 of 120)  
 
  59.118 in reply to 59.117  
 
You will get no argument from me for the folly of religion which seeks to censor scientific fact. The Galileo example no doubt comes to mind. 
I like to see people (namely our school children) be presented with all sides of a debate so they can think and decide for themselves. 

The Bible does not say the universe orbits the Earth. Please provide a source. 

Actually the Bible teaches the sun is travelling through the universe (NOTE-NOT revolving around the Earth, but making a circuit through space). 

Jesus indicated he knew the world was round in one of his discourses. 

And the Bible NEVER mentions some of the ancient ideas you posted man once believed like the flat earth, elephants and the like.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


Message 119 of 120 was Deleted    



   From:  MAYFLY (RozMarija)    7/7/2001 4:31 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (120 of 120)  
 
  59.120 in reply to 59.100  
 
You might try reading a collection of essays dealing with tectonic plate movement focusing primarily on North America, a book which got the Pulitzer for non-fiction in 2000 for author John McPhee, called "Annals Of The (A?) Former World" - sorry notto have the exacttirle, because I had read the essays singly in the New Yorker magazine. 
Not to deliberately pun, but it gives a moving picture, poetic, concise and factual, of how the world got the way it is. In a later essay, he wrote of forensic geologists, who can take dirt from a shoe or a stone trapped in a fatal wound, and tell you where in the world it came from, determined by its magnetic pole orientation (if iron is present) and general mineral content. 

Of course fossils sometimes are disturbed by earthquakes and floods which separate a chunk of their matrix from its "layer",and then the fossil is dated on its own merits while its new location fits a picture of geologic activity separate from what caused the fossil's original entrapment. 

Did you know that quite often, in the case of mass "burial" of creatures, it was seismic tremor that caused them to be buried by huge mudslides - mud, because such gatherings were quite frequently at watering places. 

Also, if you know that the peak of Mt Everest is composed of marine limestone, you will surely agree that a mountain over 20,000 feet tall did not suddenly - boom!- blast up out of the earth instead of inching up over untold millennia! 

. 



~ ~ ~ "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" Albert Einstein, 24 March 1954 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
