| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Gabriel" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2007 10:15:50 AM |
| Object: |
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
.
|
|
| User: "Wild Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
27 Dec 2007 10:53:59 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrj7n3t00f61v608f6l05frah3hkq8r8f4@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
Another hilarious example of pseudoscience brought to you by the cretinist
clowns at AIG!!
Shalom,
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "vernono vernono@hereandthere" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 07:16:54 PM |
|
|
"Wild Bill" <bilsgrdn@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:4773d8a8$0$511$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrj7n3t00f61v608f6l05frah3hkq8r8f4@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
Another hilarious example of pseudoscience brought to you by the cretinist
clowns at AIG!!
Shalom,
Bill
It may be right or wrong. Either way, you have NEVER worked in the field
and have near zero education.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
27 Dec 2007 03:39:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:53:59 -0800, "Wild Bill"
<bilsgrdn@qwest.net> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrj7n3t00f61v608f6l05frah3hkq8r8f4@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
Another hilarious example of pseudoscience brought to you by the cretinist
clowns at AIG!!
And your opinion passes with science with you, it seems.
Unfortunately, this is typical of those who practice the religion
of evolution. Suppression rather than refutation.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
27 Dec 2007 05:46:12 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:39:04 -0500, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:53:59 -0800, "Wild Bill"
<bilsgrdn@qwest.net> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrj7n3t00f61v608f6l05frah3hkq8r8f4@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
Another hilarious example of pseudoscience brought to you by the cretinist
clowns at AIG!!
And your opinion passes with science with you, it seems.
Unfortunately, this is typical of those who practice the religion
of evolution. Suppression rather than refutation.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
gabriel
Good for you, Gabe! That was SO well said.
The evolutionist/atheists have YET to reconcile the LONG list of
professionals (lawyers, judges) and SCIENTISTS (astronauts, engineers,
programmers, technicians) who believe.
They say "no scientist BELIEVES." I point out that there are
HUNDREDS we can NAME who believe.
They back up a step and say, "name one with International
Reputation."
We do. The astronauts.
They back up a step and say, "someone in the bio-sciences."
Every time we answer an objection, they CHANGE THE CRITERIA!!
That's not science!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
27 Dec 2007 05:43:08 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:53:59 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bilsgrdn@qwest.net>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrj7n3t00f61v608f6l05frah3hkq8r8f4@4ax.com...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
Another hilarious example of pseudoscience brought to you by the cretinist
clowns at AIG!!
I'm betting you took 10 seconds to review the material!
Scientists-- professionals in their fields-- have said the evidence
is there.
Those with biases who simply "will not believe" are those who don't
see evidence!
You seem to be in that last bunch!
Shalom,
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
27 Dec 2007 01:32:40 PM |
|
|
On 27 Dec, 16:15, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-...
"This article provides an overview of six geologic evidences for
the Genesis Flood, and in a series of six articles to follow,
each geologic evidence will be elaborated upon. "
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
27 Dec 2007 03:56:39 PM |
|
|
On Dec 27, 1:32=A0pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 09:04:38 AM |
|
|
<lsenders@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36d74d7f-a02d-4f1b-b6b7-7840d67c812f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 1:32 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
And there is NO objective verifiable evidence for the Jonah flood!
And there is NO LOGICAL or REASONABLE justification for any such flood!
Since when did the WHOLE world, except for a half dozen people commit such
atrocious sins that a God would drown them all???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 02:14:50 PM |
|
|
Bill M wrote:
<lsenders@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36d74d7f-a02d-4f1b-b6b7-7840d67c812f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 1:32 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it.
===>Scientists are interested in reality.
Porno is reality.
Creation is fantasy.
Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
===>WONDERFUL!
At least there are some people in this world who are up to the 20th-21st
Century instead of beliving in ancient fables about aliens (ELOHIM)
having created everything -- the Sun, the Moon, the stars -- out of the
formless watery mass this Earth supposedly was when they found it.
And there is NO objective verifiable evidence for the Jonah flood!
And there is NO LOGICAL or REASONABLE justification for any such flood!
Since when did the WHOLE world, except for a half dozen people commit such
atrocious sins that a God would drown them all???
===>Since when?
Since fiction writers were using their minds to produce such fantasies.
-- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 05:11:35 PM |
|
|
On 2007-12-28 15:04:38 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
<lsenders@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36d74d7f-a02d-4f1b-b6b7-7840d67c812f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 1:32 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
And there is NO objective verifiable evidence for the Jonah flood!
And there is NO LOGICAL or REASONABLE justification for any such flood!
Since when did the WHOLE world, except for a half dozen people commit such
atrocious sins that a God would drown them all???
Err.. Bill. Unusually I have a great deal of sympathy with your last
two paragraphs here. There IS evidence for localised floods in the
Euphrates delta that may have given rise to the Bible story, but a
worldwide flood? No.
On the other hand, I do have to wonder about the folk you were
associating with in that high energy physical lab (which, by the way? I
have former students working at some of them). A lack of "tolerance for
anything other than an impersonal, evolving universe" does not seem to
me to be a valuable trait. And I'm not sure what "evolving" means in
this sense, other than "changing".
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 12:03:41 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:11:35 +0000, Andrew <thecroft@macunlimited.net>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On 2007-12-28 15:04:38 +0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> said:
<lsenders@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36d74d7f-a02d-4f1b-b6b7-7840d67c812f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 1:32 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
And there is NO objective verifiable evidence for the Jonah flood!
And there is NO LOGICAL or REASONABLE justification for any such flood!
Since when did the WHOLE world, except for a half dozen people commit such
atrocious sins that a God would drown them all???
Err.. Bill. Unusually I have a great deal of sympathy with your last
two paragraphs here. There IS evidence for localised floods in the
Euphrates delta that may have given rise to the Bible story, but a
worldwide flood? No.
There is evidence of a world-wide flood. Yes. I certainly
understand the somewhat universal attitude that such evidence "cannot
exist." Because if it does (it does) it cracks the door open to other
possibilities (like a Creator who caused the Flood).
See The Deluge Story In Stone at Amazon.com
You can pick up a copy (if you rush) for under $10.
It's a noteworthy read.
On the other hand, I do have to wonder about the folk you were
associating with in that high energy physical lab (which, by the way? I
have former students working at some of them). A lack of "tolerance for
anything other than an impersonal, evolving universe" does not seem to
me to be a valuable trait.
It's not. I have worked in the scientific community for YEARS. I
also ran into quite a few closet Christians. They were "in the closet"
because they needed to work, and they needed the company names on
their resumes, like anybody else. And they could count on
1. being fired
2. not getting good references
if they made a commotion about Creation. Or God.
That is NOT the scientific approach, but I have heard that at Boeing,
at GE (both DOD), at Microsoft (DOD), at Systems Northwest (DOD), at
Seattle Silicon Technology (DOD/Microsoft).
"If you believe in Creation, if you believe in God, you aren't
qualified to work here, no matter how good your resume is!"
That's not science. Science is taking ALL available information, NOT
just the stuff that doesn't point to a Creator.
I can't tell the # of times I've heard, "well, if I consider THOSE [
data sets ], I'd have to accept the concept of a Creator. Since I
flatly REJECT "The Creator", these are the data sets that are
available."
And I'm not sure what "evolving" means in
this sense, other than "changing".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 03:00:35 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 9:04=A0am, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
And there is NO objective verifiable evidence for the Jonah flood!
hmmm. Why do we have sea shells on Mt. Everest? ... in the unopened
position? Why is there undigest flowers in the stomach of Mammoths?
Do
you have any idea how fast and thorough the freeze would have to be to
accomplish that? Where is the support for Lyell's geologic column
which
hasn't a single "objective verifiable" on the planet? Why is there no
delta
at the base of the Grand Canyon and just how could there be such an
occurance when the exist of the river is higher than the entrance?
And
certainly after Mt. St. Helen's no one is any longer proposing that
such
geological occurrences and strata formation require "Billions and
Billions"
of years to form. Heck, we have a 12 foot stalactite hanging from
the
ceiling of the chemical plant where I work. It has taken aprox 5 yrs
for
it to form due to leaking caustic.
The geologic problems that arise IF there were no universal flood, are
the
strongest arguments for a universal flood. For instance, if this
geologic
column were an actuality, then why isn't there any erosion between the
strata layers if these layers take millions of years to form? Added
to
that, where did all the dirt forming the strata come from? Given the
std
time references, the strata themselves would be 100 miles thick!
Then you have the real problem of radiometric dating of which O'Rourke
in the American Journal of Science, Jan '1976, p. 54 states would not
even be feasible if the geometric column had not first been erected.
Talk
about your proverbial getting your cart before the horse. But even
beyond that, as if that were not enough, you cannot produce reliable
radiometric dating until equilibrium has been established. And you
would have us believe that it has?
Truth is, what strata formations evidentuaries we have today, are
reproduceable via hydrological sorting! Anyone can do this and they
can reproduce the same results time after time.
Get a grip!
And there is NO LOGICAL or REASONABLE justification for any such flood!
Since when did the WHOLE world, except for a half dozen people commit such=
atrocious sins that a God would drown them all???
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 11:58:03 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:04:38 -0000, "Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
<lsenders@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36d74d7f-a02d-4f1b-b6b7-7840d67c812f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 27, 1:32 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each.
All you have said is that where you are is TRULY a closed shop. They
will not allow "other views" to be expressed that are contrary to the
views of the "King of the Hill" and his cohorts.
I hope you won't take this wrong, and-- for obvious reasons-- I knew
(when he was alive) one of the BRILLIANT scientists (nuclear
physicist) who worked at Los Alamos.
He also believed that there had been a world-wide flood.
If he was smart enough to work on the Manhattan Project-- and if
you know enough of those name to know the "alternate pilot" for the
dropping of the bomb (the pilot who DIDN'T fly the mission that day),
my friend was him.
So if you're gonna pull rank, I just did.
We're now talking about "The Einstein Club." You know, the guys who
have devoted the last 50 years to "correcting Einstein's mistakes."
My buddy Jay (not his name) was a member of the select group that's
devoted the last 50 years or so to Fixing Einstein's Errors.
I've now met roughly half-a-dozen of those guys, worked with a
couple of them.
And they're not all evolutionists. One of Einstein's "blind spots",
and it could have put his work YEARS ahead, was that he didn't see God
in creation. Someone in fact asked him if he thought there was any
possibility that Jesus had ACTUALLY been "The Son of God." The answer
he reportedly gave was, "I sure hope not."
He was not a man with an open --- ENOUGH -- mind or he might have
made MANY more discoveries.
I mentioned to a math person (NUMB3RS type) recently (perhaps 5
years ago, "I wonder what discoveries Al would have made if he'd had
access to a modern [P5 computer (at least a 2 Ghz) with Windows XP on
it.]
The scientist buddy replied, "You DO know that precisely that topic
has been discussed around every water cooler and coffee urn in the
world, (in the science community) right?"
I didn't know it then; I know it now.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it.
Thanks for admitting that so openly. I have known a number of
scientists in my time. They said that as brilliant and qualified as
they were, they quite literally had to LIE on paper, swear that they
didn't believe in the Creation story, just to get hired.
They could have impeccable credentials, work for the most prestigious
labs, 3M, IBM, DOD, Johns Hopkins, Boeing, Microsoft...
whatever. If they believe in Creation, the most prestigious labs
won't even TALK to them about working.
That's not science.
Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
AGAIN, that's not science.
And there is NO objective verifiable evidence for the Jonah flood!
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ And that's not true. You should read -- cover to cover--
The Deluge Story In Stone.
Available at Amazon.
Squinting your eyes TIGHTLY shut won't make the EVIDENCE go away.
EVER.
It's time you guys DEALT with it.
And there is NO LOGICAL or REASONABLE justification for any such flood!
And if you say that another 10 MILLION times in the next 5 minutes
(sort of like chanting a mantra) it still won't be true.)
So I wonder how come it is that -- as a scientist-- you look at ALL
the evidence, unless it points in a direction you don't choose to go.
(if there was a Flood, there must be the One who caused it)
Since when did the WHOLE world, except for a half dozen people commit such
atrocious sins that a God would drown them all???
If you don't believe in God, you don't need to worry about it.
But if you think of ancient man as those who-- after there was an
indigenous population, they were STILL having sex with sisters, with
mothers, with children, they were drinking HUMAN blood, they were
sacrificing unwanted children, EATING HUMAN flesh,
and that's just what I know about.
God said, "ENOUGH!" He found one righteous man (doesn't even say all
his children and in-laws were righteous.) It says, God found one
righteous man-- Noah. And he spared him and his family.
God gives life; God can take it away.
That is the nature of Deity. You can question all you like.
But try being in the Army as a private (E-2), and a 4-Star General
walks up to you and gives you an order.
"Take this envelop to your NCO!"
You don't ask 10 questions. You salute and you do it.
That's slightly similar to God being in charge.
You just morally and emotionally, are not in the mood to be taking
orders, like a private with a 4-Star.
"Grow up."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 04:01:45 PM |
|
|
On 27 Dec, 21:56, wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32=A0pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. =A0Talk about a closed universe! =A0I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. =A0They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. =A0Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
Now I would hazard a guess that you were the only one interested in
the topic of creationism, which would mean that the majority were not
interested.
Conclusion, it would have been a waste of time (and money) to book the
entire auditorium for an audience of one.
And I would also hazard a guess that you were the only one who would
have objected to the showing of pornography in the auditorium.
But what evidence do you have that they were showing such material in
the auditorium?
You claim that several scientists (of a Christian position) left the
laboratory because of the alleged intolerance for people's religious
points of view.
But what evidence do you have that this actually happened?
And while I am asking questions, what laboratory was this all supposed
to have happened at?
Finally, what problem do you have with the question in my previous
posting?
I do hope you can answer my reasonable questions in a reasonable
manner.
Thank you. :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Feng" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 02:56:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe! I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 04:02:38 PM |
|
|
On 28 Dec, 08:56, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. =A0Talk about a closed universe! =A0I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. =A0They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. =A0Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Well said Feng, however I doubt that our fellow poster will accept
your reasoning.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Feng" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 04:59:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:02:38 -0800 (PST), Harold Saxon
<saxon.harold@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 28 Dec, 08:56, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. ?Talk about a closed universe! ?I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. ?They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. ?Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Well said Feng, however I doubt that our fellow poster will accept
your reasoning.
I'm sure he will. I faith in him. :-)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 01:47:37 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 2:56=A0am, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
This is the myth of "logical science." I can refute this two ways.
One
being the philosophic the other the experiential. Of the later, I can
say
that "religion" was always a topic of great expression at the lab.
Also,
in over 100 creation vs evolution debates, nearly everyone of them had
either the religious or philosophical aspect broached by the
evolutionary
advocates.
In the area of philosophy, that is, epistemology, the science of
knowing, the logic of what you have just stated is absurd. For the
"science" of the physical is based upon presupposition that are of
"faith." Because no one knows all things exhaustively, equally
nothing is known absolutely. Man left to himself can investigate
what is and by his observation draw conclusion, but he can NEVER
elevate those conclusions in Laws, capital "L." All he can do is
project probabilities. So "physical science" isn't all that it
pretends
to denote -absolute assurance.
I've written much more forcefully in previous posts. It is an
illusion to press such a distinction because it just doesn't exist.
Science and humanistic philosophy has no substantial theory
let alone answer to the many and the one, unity and diversity,
though it pretends to be the hounds of hell in search of its
answer!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Feng" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 05:52:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:47:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 28, 2:56?am, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
This is the myth of "logical science." I can refute this two ways.
One
being the philosophic the other the experiential. Of the later, I can
say
that "religion" was always a topic of great expression at the lab.
That's unheard of. It's a joke, right?
Also,
in over 100 creation vs evolution debates, nearly everyone of them had
either the religious or philosophical aspect broached by the
evolutionary
advocates.
I figure that's unsubstantiated claim.
In the area of philosophy, that is, epistemology, the science of
knowing, the logic of what you have just stated is absurd. For the
"science" of the physical is based upon presupposition that are of
"faith." Because no one knows all things exhaustively, equally
nothing is known absolutely. Man left to himself can investigate
what is and by his observation draw conclusion, but he can NEVER
elevate those conclusions in Laws, capital "L." All he can do is
project probabilities. So "physical science" isn't all that it
pretends
to denote -absolute assurance.
Sorry, last time I check, philosophy has nothing to do with science
either. According to what I understand, philosophy is the knowledge
regarding the nature of the mind which has to do with thoughts and
consciousness, and science is the knowledge regarding the perception
of the mind which is the physical world.
I've written much more forcefully in previous posts. It is an
illusion to press such a distinction because it just doesn't exist.
Science and humanistic philosophy has no substantial theory
let alone answer to the many and the one, unity and diversity,
though it pretends to be the hounds of hell in search of its
answer!
It appears you have mixed everything up. No wonder you can't find any
distinction between them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 11:42:39 PM |
|
|
On Dec 29, 5:52=A0pm, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
that "religion" was always a topic of great expression at the lab.
That's unheard of. It's a joke, right?
Not at all. Admittedly, it wasn't often open but rather couched in
philosophical discussions. But because men a reasonable, philosophy
has been correctly called the "handmaiden of theology."
Again, everyone lives out their existence via faith. Everyone is
oriented in some regard to God, either positively or negatively,
the later including the lukewarm agnostic. Fence sitting is an
illusion.
Also,
in over 100 creation vs evolution debates, nearly everyone of them had
either the religious or philosophical aspect broached by the
evolutionary
advocates.
I figure that's unsubstantiated claim.
I've got maybe 30 different debates on tape. They include mostly
organized
debates on a university/college campus or occassionally in the
classroom. But
there are also recordings of conversations at the college cafeteria or
union hall.
I think that the most obvious demonstrations are those discussions,
those one-
on-one opportunities in informal gatherings. Often empirical science
is never
even offered by the opposition. I'm of course speaking from personal
experience.
What I have observed over my 60 yrs is that evolutionary theory has
not
led to objective investigation, but has been taught from an
indoctrinational
perspective. After Eisenhower pressed it into the educational system
it
has all be destroyed independent thinking.
In the area of philosophy, that is, epistemology, the science of
knowing, the logic of what you have just stated is absurd. =A0For the
"science" of the physical is based upon presupposition that are of
"faith." =A0Because no one knows all things exhaustively, equally
nothing is known absolutely. =A0Man left to himself can investigate
what is and by his observation draw conclusion, but he can NEVER
elevate those conclusions in Laws, capital "L." =A0All he can do is
project probabilities. =A0So "physical science" isn't all that it
pretends
to denote -absolute assurance.
Sorry, last time I check, philosophy has nothing to do with science
Admittedly, science in this generation has all but handed philosophy
its
hat. As philosophy in the late 1700's and 1800's first overshadowed
and
then dismissed theology, so to the new priesthood of "science" has
done
to philosophy. Philosophy laid the foundation of humanism which in
turn naturally delivered the abomination of this new priesthood. But
what
I find both interesting and fearful, is what has begun to overshadow
the
religion of humanistic science. A few years ago all the talk was
about the
"post modern" world. But that is pass=EA. Cause and effect. You reap
what you sow. Columbine, 9-11, a bankrupt financial and moral America
are all evidences of this. Unless there is yet another Reformation or
another "awakening", America is not long lived.
either. According to what I understand, philosophy is the knowledge
regarding the nature of the mind which has to do with thoughts and
consciousness, and science is the knowledge regarding the perception
of the mind which is the physical world.
But science never operates independent of a "world view" or set
of philosophy/theologic presuppositions. Man was not made so
that that is even a possibility. Sarte understood that. Nietzsche
not only understood this fact, I maintain that he is the only one
that I can think of who actually sought to live accordingly. Of
course even he admitted that it was vain pursuit.
I've written much more forcefully in previous posts. =A0It is an
illusion to press such a distinction because it just doesn't exist.
Science and humanistic philosophy has no substantial theory
let alone answer to the many and the one, unity and diversity,
though it pretends to be the hounds of hell in search of its
answer!
It appears you have mixed everything up. No wonder you can't find any
distinction between them.
No, I well understand it. What is the big event at Cern? It is to
find that which unifies the diversity. All physical science
presupposes
an orderly system. But why? How? And on what basis can its
data claim absolute truth? Absolute truth, apart from an Infinite-
Personal God, is merely an ideology. You might reproduce 2+2=3D4
a million, billion, trillion times on a "super" computer in one's life
time. But truth be told, all it would ever succeed in producing is
a statistical projection. It will never **absolutely** determine that
2+2=3D4 always and everywhere in the universe. Man is finite and
by that defined restriction, he is never able to produce any
transcendental. Man cannot operate out of the design parameters
predetermined by God. ALL science fiction is always based upon
some projection of what is already known. Man cannot escape
his finiteness. Therefore, in order to know anything absolutely,
he is required to find himself an infinite reference point. Apart
from
that, as Sarte concluded, the particular is an absurdity.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to
understand these things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Feng" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
30 Dec 2007 07:50:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:42:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 29, 5:52?pm, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
that "religion" was always a topic of great expression at the lab.
That's unheard of. It's a joke, right?
Not at all. Admittedly, it wasn't often open but rather couched in
philosophical discussions. But because men a reasonable, philosophy
has been correctly called the "handmaiden of theology."
Again, everyone lives out their existence via faith. Everyone is
oriented in some regard to God, either positively or negatively,
the later including the lukewarm agnostic. Fence sitting is an
illusion.
Yet, none of these has anything to do with natural science.
Also,
in over 100 creation vs evolution debates, nearly everyone of them had
either the religious or philosophical aspect broached by the
evolutionary
advocates.
I figure that's unsubstantiated claim.
I've got maybe 30 different debates on tape. They include mostly
organized
debates on a university/college campus or occassionally in the
classroom. But
there are also recordings of conversations at the college cafeteria or
union hall.
I think that the most obvious demonstrations are those discussions,
those one-
on-one opportunities in informal gatherings. Often empirical science
is never
even offered by the opposition. I'm of course speaking from personal
experience.
What I have observed over my 60 yrs is that evolutionary theory has
not
led to objective investigation, but has been taught from an
indoctrinational
perspective. After Eisenhower pressed it into the educational system
it
has all be destroyed independent thinking.
I'm afraid your observation does not count because you are not a
scientist. Only the scientific community can decide the fate of
evolution theory just like only the catholic church can decide the
fate of its own church doctrine. Outside people's opinions don't mean
much.
In the area of philosophy, that is, epistemology, the science of
knowing, the logic of what you have just stated is absurd. ?For the
"science" of the physical is based upon presupposition that are of
"faith." ?Because no one knows all things exhaustively, equally
nothing is known absolutely. ?Man left to himself can investigate
what is and by his observation draw conclusion, but he can NEVER
elevate those conclusions in Laws, capital "L." ?All he can do is
project probabilities. ?So "physical science" isn't all that it
pretends
to denote -absolute assurance.
Sorry, last time I check, philosophy has nothing to do with science
Admittedly, science in this generation has all but handed philosophy
its
hat. As philosophy in the late 1700's and 1800's first overshadowed
and
then dismissed theology, so to the new priesthood of "science" has
done
to philosophy. Philosophy laid the foundation of humanism which in
turn naturally delivered the abomination of this new priesthood. But
what
I find both interesting and fearful, is what has begun to overshadow
the
religion of humanistic science. A few years ago all the talk was
about the
"post modern" world. But that is passĂȘ. Cause and effect. You reap
what you sow. Columbine, 9-11, a bankrupt financial and moral America
are all evidences of this. Unless there is yet another Reformation or
another "awakening", America is not long lived.
I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure
it's not about natural science.
either. According to what I understand, philosophy is the knowledge
regarding the nature of the mind which has to do with thoughts and
consciousness, and science is the knowledge regarding the perception
of the mind which is the physical world.
But science never operates independent of a "world view" or set
of philosophy/theologic presuppositions. Man was not made so
that that is even a possibility. Sarte understood that. Nietzsche
not only understood this fact, I maintain that he is the only one
that I can think of who actually sought to live accordingly. Of
course even he admitted that it was vain pursuit.
It's not necessary for science to operate without any moral guidance,
but moral guidance should not interfere with the actual scientific
study itself. It should only be for the purpose of maintaining
individual moral ethnics.
I've written much more forcefully in previous posts. ?It is an
illusion to press such a distinction because it just doesn't exist.
Science and humanistic philosophy has no substantial theory
let alone answer to the many and the one, unity and diversity,
though it pretends to be the hounds of hell in search of its
answer!
It appears you have mixed everything up. No wonder you can't find any
distinction between them.
No, I well understand it. What is the big event at Cern? It is to
find that which unifies the diversity. All physical science
presupposes
an orderly system. But why? How? And on what basis can its
data claim absolute truth? Absolute truth, apart from an Infinite-
Personal God, is merely an ideology. You might reproduce 2+2=4
a million, billion, trillion times on a "super" computer in one's life
time. But truth be told, all it would ever succeed in producing is
a statistical projection. It will never **absolutely** determine that
2+2=4 always and everywhere in the universe. Man is finite and
by that defined restriction, he is never able to produce any
transcendental. Man cannot operate out of the design parameters
predetermined by God. ALL science fiction is always based upon
some projection of what is already known. Man cannot escape
his finiteness. Therefore, in order to know anything absolutely,
he is required to find himself an infinite reference point. Apart
from
that, as Sarte concluded, the particular is an absurdity.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to
understand these things.
As far as I know, there can not be absolute truth regarding natural
science. Only God is the absolute truth that all things in the
universe must rely on. Scientists search all over the world and the
entire universe looking for the Truth, yet they can never imagine that
the Truth has always been with them hiding in a place where they never
dreamed to look - in their own heart.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 08:23:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:16 -0500, Feng <Feng@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe!
Exactly. Rather than address the scientific information in the
article, they instead try to discredit it, as _always_, by asking
such pointless questions like that.
I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each.
Of course not. Most evolutionists hate God. Evolution was created
in an attempt to reject God, not because it actually makes sense
and is observable, testable, or verifiable.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Their focus becomes the same because it's obvious that the
scientific evidence shows itself to be clearly pointing to what
the Bible has been professing all along: the truth of the
existence of God.
Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite
impotent to figuring out many things. But because of intellectual
pride, and hate for God, they refuse to admit this, and refuse to
let God into the equation, even when it's beyond obvious that's
what scientific evidence is pointing to. Suppression,
intimidation and the silencing of any who try to point out the
obvious is what their science has really devolved into when it
comes to those practicing this branch of it.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com will talk about exactly such suppression
things. Scientists that get blacklisted because they dared to
point out the obvious: that scientific evidence doesn't support
evolution but instead shows intelligent design.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wild Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 10:54:48 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g71an39t2fs2a2qjjcnh0v2pahgmod553u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:16 -0500, Feng <Feng@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe!
Exactly. Rather than address the scientific information in the
article, they instead try to discredit it, as _always_, by asking
such pointless questions like that.
I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each.
Of course not. Most evolutionists hate God. Evolution was created
in an attempt to reject God, not because it actually makes sense
and is observable, testable, or verifiable.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Their focus becomes the same because it's obvious that the
scientific evidence shows itself to be clearly pointing to what
the Bible has been professing all along: the truth of the
existence of God.
Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite
impotent to figuring out many things. But because of intellectual
pride, and hate for God, they refuse to admit this, and refuse to
let God into the equation, even when it's beyond obvious that's
what scientific evidence is pointing to. Suppression,
intimidation and the silencing of any who try to point out the
obvious is what their science has really devolved into when it
comes to those practicing this branch of it.
You really are one fundie nutcase, Gabriel. I agree with Feng, and you
should take your pseudoscience religion right back to the confines of your
church where it properly belongs and keep it out of the scientific realm and
the classrooms. Religion is about spirituality, the supernatural and the
possible existence of God. Science has nothing to say one way or the other
about those things because they're not in the physical area.
Shalom,
Bill
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com will talk about exactly such suppression
things. Scientists that get blacklisted because they dared to
point out the obvious: that scientific evidence doesn't support
evolution but instead shows intelligent design.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 02:08:25 PM |
|
|
On Dec 28, 10:54=A0am, "Wild Bill" <bilsg...@qwest.net> wrote:
You really are one fundie nutcase, Gabriel. I agree with Feng, and you
should take your pseudoscience religion right back to the confines of your=
church where it properly belongs and keep it out of the scientific realm a=
nd
the classrooms.
You're not much of a historian are you? Where do you think "science"
came
from? Why do you think we have terms like "uni-verse" or "uni-
versity". BTW,
what was the premise of a "uni-versity?"
Religion is about spirituality, the supernatural and the
possible existence of God.
"Religion" is about God and in that God is the Creator, there is order
to be studied and dominion to be granted. "Religion" extends to or
reigns over all of the sciences. It is the very essence and reason
for scientific exploration. "Religion" also, because it has a Creator
God, has a Source for true truth in that God knows all things
exhaustively. We don't and never will, being by nature, finite. For
"science" to place itself as the supreme adjudicator what is or what
is not, is the supreme arrogance based upon the unproveable,
unsupportable thesis of uniformitarianism.
Hail! the great priests of "physical science" who use fossils to date
strata and strata to date fossils. Hail! the great deluded minds of
men who make themselves the final reference point of all that is!
Hail! humanism that leads all its people to hell! The great and
mighty Cassey has struck out!
Science has nothing to say one way or the other
about those things because they're not in the physical area.
Theoretically, maybe. However, in actual day-to-day living,
"physical" science
crosses over all the time. It point of fact, it has to because it's
presuppositions
are based upon "order" without ever giving a valid explaination as to
the why and
wherefore of the order that is in the midst of all the disorder. It
can't even explain
where matter came from let alone the laws that it supposed came from.
Why isn't the cosmos consistent throughout as to the distribution of
matter or why, if the law of conservation of angular motion is true,
the stars, planets even galaxies do not conform to it? Indeed, even
in proton/anti-proton collisions!
Science has nothing to say one way or the other
about those things because they're not in the physical area.
Theoretically, maybe. But when a system of truth fails at any point
of remaining consistent to itself, then it invalidates itself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 11:55:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:54:48 -0800, "Wild Bill"
<bilsgrdn@qwest.net> wrote:
You really are one fundie nutcase, Gabriel. I agree with Feng, and you
should take your pseudoscience religion right back to the confines of your
church where it properly belongs and keep it out of the scientific realm and
the classrooms. Religion is about spirituality, the supernatural and the
possible existence of God. Science has nothing to say one way or the other
about those things because they're not in the physical area.
God is truth. The scientific evidence points to Him as well, as
it should.
Now, you can either back up what you claim, and give a scientific
refutation of that article. Or I suppose you can just continue to
throw insults at the hopes intimidation will make the truth go
away. Scientists get this treatment all the time, and are
intimidated into not daring to speak the truth if they want to
keep their jobs and not have their reputation smeared.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 09:21:05 AM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g71an39t2fs2a2qjjcnh0v2pahgmod553u@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:16 -0500, Feng <Feng@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe!
Exactly. Rather than address the scientific information in the
article, they instead try to discredit it, as _always_, by asking
such pointless questions like that.
I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each.
Of course not. Most evolutionists hate God. Evolution was created
in an attempt to reject God, not because it actually makes sense
and is observable, testable, or verifiable.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Their focus becomes the same because it's obvious that the
scientific evidence shows itself to be clearly pointing to what
the Bible has been professing all along: the truth of the
existence of God.
And your objective verifable evidence for this nonsensical assertion is???
Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite
impotent to figuring out many things. But because of intellectual
pride, and hate for God, they refuse to admit this, and refuse to
let God into the equation, even when it's beyond obvious that's
what scientific evidence is pointing to. Suppression,
intimidation and the silencing of any who try to point out the
obvious is what their science has really devolved into when it
comes to those practicing this branch of it.
Your still ranting on without supplying any objective verifiable evidence
to support your assertions. Your a bible thumper - not a scientists!
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com will talk about exactly such suppression
things. Scientists that get blacklisted because they dared to
point out the obvious: that scientific evidence doesn't support
evolution but instead shows intelligent design.
gabriel
More totally unsupported nonsense! Where is your objective verifiable
evidence???
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harold Saxon" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 04:17:48 PM |
|
|
On 28 Dec, 14:23, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:16 -0500, Feng <F...@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. =A0Talk about a closed universe! =A0
Exactly. Rather than address the scientific information in the
article, they instead try to discredit it, as _always_, by asking
such pointless questions like that.
So it is pointless to ask why the original posting is presented in
only religious newsgroups when the article in question is supposed to
present geological (in other words scientific) evidence for a global
flood.
Perhaps you can tell me why you feel my question is pointless?
I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each. =A0
Of course not. Most evolutionists hate God. Evolution was created
in an attempt to reject God, not because it actually makes sense
and is observable, testable, or verifiable.
Evolution was not "created" in an attempt to reject God, Charles
Darwin was a devout Christian at the time that he published his work
"On the Origin of Species".
And he became an agnostic when he lost a beloved child to a disease
that today's science is more than capable of curing.
He was never as so many creationists claim an atheist.
And if I am not mistaken bearing false witness against one's
neighbour is a sin.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. =A0Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Their focus becomes the same because it's obvious that the
scientific evidence shows itself to be clearly pointing to what
the Bible has been professing all along: the truth of the
existence of God.
Perhaps you can present this scientific evidence for the existence of
God.
After all if you have evidence for the existence of something, that
something is a fact and does not require anyone to believe in it for
it to continue existing.
Whereas something for which there is no evidence requires people to
believe in it's existence.
And in conclusion if there was actual irrefutable evidence for the
existence of any supernatural entity, then people that followed that
entity wouldnt be called believers they would be called knowers.
Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite
impotent to figuring out many things. But because of intellectual
pride, and hate for God, they refuse to admit this, and refuse to
let God into the equation, even when it's beyond obvious that's
what scientific evidence is pointing to. Suppression,
intimidation and the silencing of any who try to point out the
obvious is what their science has really devolved into when it
comes to those practicing this branch of it.
Science as you people have been told so many times is about
understanding the physical world, it is not the means by which the non-
existence of the supernatural is proven.
Theology (of whatever flavour) is the field of study that deals with
the intangible.
Perhaps if you and your fellow fundamentalists could accept that you
would find the world a heck of a lot easier to live in.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.comwill talk about exactly such suppression
things. Scientists that get blacklisted because they dared to
point out the obvious: that scientific evidence doesn't support
evolution but instead shows intelligent design.
And truly on a last note in this posting, even some of the major
supporters of Intelligent Design have admittted that they havent got a
working theory of ID yet.
When it is a testable hypothesis and you can present supporting
evidence for ID and present also predicitions that emerge from that
theory, then - and I mean then - it may make it to the grade of
theory.
Come back when you have real evidence and real predicitions.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Feng" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
28 Dec 2007 02:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:23:15 -0500, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:16 -0500, Feng <Feng@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe!
Exactly. Rather than address the scientific information in the
article, they instead try to discredit it, as _always_, by asking
such pointless questions like that.
I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each.
Of course not. Most evolutionists hate God. Evolution was created
in an attempt to reject God, not because it actually makes sense
and is observable, testable, or verifiable.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Their focus becomes the same because it's obvious that the
scientific evidence shows itself to be clearly pointing to what
the Bible has been professing all along: the truth of the
existence of God.
If there is really scientific evidence to support anything that is
mentioned in the Bible, then that is more reason for religion to stay
out of it to allow science reaching its own conclusion independently
and scientifically.
Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite
impotent to figuring out many things. But because of intellectual
pride, and hate for God, they refuse to admit this, and refuse to
let God into the equation, even when it's beyond obvious that's
what scientific evidence is pointing to. Suppression,
intimidation and the silencing of any who try to point out the
obvious is what their science has really devolved into when it
comes to those practicing this branch of it.
What you don't realize is, by letting God into the equation, you are
making God an object of scientific study. That is idolizing God to be
nothing but a physical phenomenon. You are quite correct to say:
"Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite impotent
to figuring out many things." Exactly for this reason, science is
incapable of studying God. I hope you realize the limitation of
science.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com will talk about exactly such suppression
things. Scientists that get blacklisted because they dared to
point out the obvious: that scientific evidence doesn't support
evolution but instead shows intelligent design.
Evolution IS intelligent design. That is the scientific way of
describing the origin of life. They are free to express their view of
the world just like everybody else. Just because people prefer to
describe the same process in different ways from different
perspectives, does not mean they are wrong and you are right, and vice
versa.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood |
29 Dec 2007 12:06:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:46:51 -0500, Feng <Feng@earth.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:23:15 -0500, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:56:16 -0500, Feng <Feng@earth.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:56:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 27, 1:32?pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
If this article provides geologic - and therefore scientific -
evidence for a flood covering the entire planet, why haven't you
posted it in the scientific newsgroups?
If you were a scientist, then you would have to ask such a silly
question. Talk about a closed universe!
Exactly. Rather than address the scientific information in the
article, they instead try to discredit it, as _always_, by asking
such pointless questions like that.
I worked 25 yrs at the
most prestigious high energy physical lab in the world and they
would not even allow an open debate on the merits of each.
Of course not. Most evolutionists hate God. Evolution was created
in an attempt to reject God, not because it actually makes sense
and is observable, testable, or verifiable.
They
would allow porno to be shown in their auditorium, but try to get
a creationist booked for discussion, in no uncertain terms it was
almost career suicide to suggest it. Several Christian scientist
left the lab because there was absolutely no tolerance for anything
other than an impersonal, evolving universe.
What can you expect? That is physical science. It's supposed to be
that way. Religion should not stick its nose into physical science
just like physical science should not stick its nose into
spirituality. Science is the study of the physical world. Religion is
the search of the spiritual God. Their focuses are entirely different.
Their focus becomes the same because it's obvious that the
scientific evidence shows itself to be clearly pointing to what
the Bible has been professing all along: the truth of the
existence of God.
If there is really scientific evidence to support anything that is
mentioned in the Bible, then that is more reason for religion to stay
out of it
That makes absolutely no sense. God is truth. Why should truth be
kept out of science if scientific evidence points to it? Are you
saying you want science to be based on lies instead?
to allow science reaching its own conclusion independently
and scientifically.
That's just it - they don't reach conclusions _independently_, or
objectively - evolutionists will only consider any conclusion
that does not contradict their belief in evolution and throw out
anything else. Some scientists don't like this dishonesty, and
it's those that get blacklisted and their reputations smeared.
Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite
impotent to figuring out many things. But because of intellectual
pride, and hate for God, they refuse to admit this, and refuse to
let God into the equation, even when it's beyond obvious that's
what scientific evidence is pointing to. Suppression,
intimidation and the silencing of any who try to point out the
obvious is what their science has really devolved into when it
comes to those practicing this branch of it.
What you don't realize is, by letting God into the equation, you are
making God an object of scientific study.
Only in terms of His existence, and looking and describing His
creation. Science has _always_ done this - it's now they refuse
to admit He exists.
That is idolizing God to be
nothing but a physical phenomenon.
If you think that, then you don't get it. We refer to the Bible
as the source of truth about God. That doesn't change. We're just
removing the dishonesty of science, that wants to stay in a
bubble excluding one of the biggest truth's about the universe:
the existence of God and His role in creating everything.
What kind of science is that where you ignore truths you don't
like, and base science instead on lies? Is this the science you'd
prefer to have taught to your children?
You are quite correct to say:
"Science is not the begetter of all knowledge, and is quite impotent
to figuring out many things." Exactly for this reason, science is
incapable of studying God.
They're not studying Him - they are studying the physical
creation He made to show what they claim can't be shown: that He
exists.
You seem to get confused with the concept of studying God's
creation (which science has always done, only recently no longer
wanting to acknowledge it's His creation), and "studying" God
Himself, which comes rather from prayer, fellowship and studying
God's Word.
I hope you realize the limitation of
science.
I do. It's evolutionists that don't realize it.
I hope you realize the need for science to not be dishonest and
remove God from the equation, thereby rejecting God in the
process, and pass those lies onto every young mind, creating
dishonest doubts in their minds about the existence of God.
www.ExpelledTheMovie.com will talk about exactly such suppression
things. Scientists that get blacklisted because they dared to
point out the obvious: that scientific evidence doesn't support
evolution but instead shows intelligent design.
< | | | | | | |
