[_ Old Earth _] The face of change

[Guest]

Re: answers

Perhaps you can offer some believable answers to ALL the questions posed at the following link? I can assure you no one will dismiss a believable answer especially where there is evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

This line, in particular, is rather awesome:

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

I think that article pretty much buries the flood myth, so to speak.

but god is magic and can do anything how do u kno the devil isnt trying to trick u?

 

[reznwerks]

Re: answers

Perhaps you can offer some believable answers to ALL the questions posed at the following link? I can assure you no one will dismiss a believable answer especially where there is evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

This line, in particular, is rather awesome:

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

I think that article pretty much buries the flood myth, so to speak.

How so? Elephants and mammoths usually go to one place to die. If they lived in the Leningrad area for years how does having the carcasses of mammoths in one spot put to rest the flood myth? Secondly this only reinforces the flood myth because a flood would have scattered any living mammoths and they certainly would not have all wound up in one pile. Even you should realize this.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: answers

Perhaps you can offer some believable answers to ALL the questions posed at the following link? I can assure you no one will dismiss a believable answer especially where there is evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

This line, in particular, is rather awesome:

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

I think that article pretty much buries the flood myth, so to speak.

By the way, did you want to pull out some of the problems posed in the link I submitted and try to answer them? There is enough for all to give it try.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: answers

By the way, did you want to pull out some of the problems posed in the link I submitted and try to answer them? There is enough for all to give it try.

Wait, what? I'm agreeing that the article shows the idea of a Biblical flood in the vein of the Noah story to be extremely implausible. You know, "buries the flood myth". As in "clunks it over the head with a blunt object, kicks it in the stomach a few times, and buries it in a shallow grave alongside geocentrism and flat-earth theory."

 

[Grengor]

*Note* As for those links.....do you think you can find a reference to your ideas from a non-religious neutral site?

You will be hard pressed to find any person on either side of this debate who has a completely "neutral" viewpoint.

Both sides have a bias. One is biased on the side of God (Creation) and the other is biased on the side of man (evolution).

I had a discussion about neutrality in this debate recently. You can't be neutral and be factual, or at least be effective.

And no, one is the side of man's interpretation of a holy book, the other is man's interpretation of scientific evidence.

 

[Grengor]

Re: answers

By the way, did you want to pull out some of the problems posed in the link I submitted and try to answer them? There is enough for all to give it try.

Wait, what? I'm agreeing that the article shows the idea of a Biblical flood in the vein of the Noah story to be extremely implausible. You know, "buries the flood myth". As in "clunks it over the head with a blunt object, kicks it in the stomach a few times, and buries it in a shallow grave alongside geocentrism and flat-earth theory."

There's always the possibility of a non literal "world", as in the the currently known world getting flooded. The supposed location of Noah was prone to flooding.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: answers

By the way, did you want to pull out some of the problems posed in the link I submitted and try to answer them? There is enough for all to give it try.

Wait, what? I'm agreeing that the article shows the idea of a Biblical flood in the vein of the Noah story to be extremely implausible. You know, "buries the flood myth". As in "clunks it over the head with a blunt object, kicks it in the stomach a few times, and buries it in a shallow grave alongside geocentrism and flat-earth theory."

Sorry, I read it too quickly. My apology.

 

[Khristeeanos]

And no, one is the side of man's interpretation of a holy book, the other is man's interpretation of scientific evidence.

I think this further gives evidence that my opinion above is correct.

Both sides start out with the end already decided and intrepret all information according to their bias.

 

[Grengor]

Re: concept

If it is impossible to define "perfect" then why do Christians constantly use it to define the creator and all he has supposedly done? As to man writing beatiful poetry etc all(everything) that man puts a label on is HIS own interpretation and nothing more.

I'm a bit confused on your second part, I was merely suggesting that "perfect" isn't what we think it is.

 

[Grengor]

And no, one is the side of man's interpretation of a holy book, the other is man's interpretation of scientific evidence.

I think this further gives evidence that my opinion above is correct.

Both sides start out with the end already decided and intrepret all information according to their bias.

Of course there's bias, it's human nature. However, there's a very distinct difference between:

1. State the problem
2. Make Observations
3. Form a Hypothesis
4. Do the Experiment
5. Draw a conclusion.

(Granted this is a very basic form)

And:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

It appears the only people who "cherry pick" are those who hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, not scientists.

Now then, are we clear on this subject?