danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 If we evolved from a mucky soup some "billions" of years ago, and have since then continuted to evolve into homo sapien sapien, then why have they found skeleton remains of humans over 11' tall. Isn't this a little contradicting to the "theory" that we once were smaller, but now getting bigger? Also Evolution would have us believe that the earth has been here for "billions" of years. Do some research and find out how far the moon moves from the earth each year. Now that you have that figure, back the moon up and see just where it puts the moon in relation to the earth. Interesting. God Bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 11' tall - citation? The current trend of getting taller is about good nutrition. The moon is currenty receding at about 4 cm a year. To assume that it's doing so in a linear fashion is folly. But, at that rate, it would have been 40,000 km closer a billion years ago. But since the current configuration of continents and oceans gives really efficient tidal coupling, the rate at which we transferred angular momentum to the moon would have been smaller in the past. Interesting, yes; but not, I think, for the reasons you imply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Do you mean cubits tall? Maybe they had short arms If it's feet then maybe someone had a growth hormone problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmoore80 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Share Posted January 11, 2004 http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/lagoon/1345/giants.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 If they were inbreeded then a genetic problem causing that would expand so fast that it would seem normal to them. Inbreeding it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #5 :http://www.geocities.com/thetropics/lagoon/1345/giants.html As much as trust the fortean prints, I don't think they're the best source for anything, well, accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 hay, we have our very own creationist. so who made God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Good one! And who made the guy who made God? And who made the guy who made the guy who made God? And...you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Anyone who uses a GeoCities website as their source deserves to be stuck in their own personal dark ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post #10 :Anyone who uses a GeoCities website as their source deserves to be stuck in their own personal dark ages. A geocities website based on stuff from Fortean Times (or equivilent publications), no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Radical Edward said in post #8 :hay, we have our very own creationist. so who made God? I'm glad you asked....and I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say..... I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. REVELATION 22:13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 So everything you read in 2000 year old books carries more basis in fact than science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 And what if the bible was written by a guy in his basement drinking whiskey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #12 :I'm glad you asked....and I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say..... I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. REVELATION 22:13 That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #14 :And what if the bible was written by a guy in his basement drinking whiskey? Then at least one part of the Bible would have been disproved by now would'nt you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Sayonara³ said in post #15 : That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question. If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case – always, for nothing simply remains nothing – forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” – applied to the same object, at the same time – are mutually exclusive terms. Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always? In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight. Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature. Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes – what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit? The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist. Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself. In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material – which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) – an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being. Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #16 : Then at least one part of the Bible would have been disproved by now would'nt you think? Why? What if he had a proofreader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmoore80 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #18 : Why? What if he had a proofreader? Through historical evidence, through using time and space, not one single claim that the Bible makes has ever been proved wrong. Are you missing the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Who said everything came from nothing? What if there was another universe that compressed then exploded, making ours? And one before? And one before that? Obviously that leaves the question where did the first come from, but where would God come from? And why are there so many religions? The fact there are so many leaves you wondering if ANY is correct. But if all were created originally by someone, why couldn't he jsut be scizophrenic and make it all up? That would make lots of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #17 : If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case – always, for nothing simply remains nothing – forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” – applied to the same object, at the same time – are mutually exclusive terms. you are of course talking only about the universe. cause and effect arguments like these are meaningless if there is no time and space. Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always? what do you mean by always. let us go to the beginning of time for a second. You cannot have a vector that points in a negative direction. That makes about as much sense as being at the north pole and then heading in a "northerly" direction. Ignoring the temporal aspect of the argument, and the cause-effect arguments, this still does not help your case, as I will address later. In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight. in what geometry. please define straightness. Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature. what do you mean by "not material"? surely you need to define something like that before you can say something has that property. besides your proof there is pointless. All you say is that if A has the property B, it follows that A has the property B. Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” well you can call it anything you like. I will call it cheese, but please do not get confused with the two alternate uses of the word. Just because I define something as "cheese" does not mean I can ascribe the "conventional" properties of cheese to it. The question now becomes – what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit? well first of all we need a full explanation of what matter is. you do not have one. we need a full explanation of what energy is, you do not have one. we need a full explanation of earlier logical flaws as I have addressed too. The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist. this is true. In the early stages of the universe matter could not exist. this is well known. However there are clearly processes which allow energy to become matter, as can be seen in particle accelerators. Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself. you are of course talking about the universe in it's current form. There is also the falsehood that the universe must hence be finite in age too. All we can say is that the universe has existed for a certain time, since time became a meaningful concept. I could go into this further by discussing the ramifications of effects before one planck time, but I see no benefit in doing so at the moment. and now all the flawed arguments come together in a veritable cataclysm of question begging. In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, not nescessarily true, and a meaningless concept, as outlined above and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, non-material remains undefined the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material no, because your axioms are not axioms. – which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. now you have added your own qualities of "spirit" and you have also baselessly added the concept of a "being". there is no requirement for either “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) – an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being. ooh special pleading now. how does God get to be (a) eternal and (b) a being and © a spirit (what is a spirit?) Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS. false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 I also feel compelled to warn you. Unless your name is Wayne Jackson, then you have just commited an act of plagarism: http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/whoMadeGod.htm or alternatively they have. It is not only polite to acknowledge others when you take their text verbatim, it is also a legal requirement, and also rather irritating for posters here, since it takes time to respond to a post like that, and only 2 seconds to click Ctrl-c in one window, and then Ctrl-v and post in another. If you wish to quote people again, please acknowledge your sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 danmoore80 said in post #19 : Through historical evidence, through using time and space, not one single claim that the Bible makes has ever been proved wrong. Are you missing the point? Numerous literal interpretations have been disproved, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 St John the Divine was funky. And about as down to earth as Coleridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 The HLA gene in humans has 59 alleles - that is, 59 different versions of this one gene. The minimum population that can contain 59 alleles is 30. How could Noah and his family have possessed all of those variants? There are many example of multiple alleles in other animals, which is even more problematic if you have just a mating pair, rather than a family. It is often argued by creationists that mutations are always harmful. How does one explain this discrepancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now