Posted on 11/22/2004 5:54:52 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
And humans survived co-existing with T-Rex how, exactly?
The Earth is approximately 6000 years old, directly in line with the bible.
Liar. The Earth was created last Thursday. I think you should not laugh off things that sound foreign to you just because your indoctrination forbids you to think outside the box.
See, two can play at that game.
The dinosaur prints came first. Then the humans came, tens of millions of year later.
Why am I wasting my time with this nonsense?
An exercise in futility? You've probably considered if God is who He says He is, wouldn't He be able to confuse the likes of you?
FGS
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive paticles. In molten rock the traces of these radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
Not a very good analogy. Polonium's most stable isotope, polonium-209, has a half-life of 102 years. Alka-Seltzer has a half life of a few second. Polonium is formed when bismuth is irradiated. If the bismuth is in the granite and is irradiated with nearby radioactive elements it would be converted to polonium. No “instant freeze” would be required.
So, explain the presence of fossilized rain drop craters deep within the fossil record. There is also evidence of water deposits, followed by desert erosion, followed by water deposits deep within the geological column. Let's not even mention fossilized animal tracks, and the fact that animals are arranged by chronological order rather than body mass.
There are intermingled human and dino prints in many places.
Name one. If you say "Paluxy" I'll point you to a creationist site that debunks this hoary old chestnut. AIG included this in one of their "Arguments we think creationists should not make" article, IIRC.
Am I still asleep and dreaming this?
The Earth is approximately 6000 years old, directly in line with the bible.
I think you should not laugh off things that sound foreign to you just because your indoctrination forbids you to think outside the box.
And you should think about humility. Someone with absolutely no experience looking at the geological record (no one who has would make such an ignorant statement about fossils) slandering thousands of people who've spent their lives studying paleontology, stratigraphy, sedimentology, etc.
Many of them, despite your derision, are committed Christians. I personally attend a Bible-believing evangelical church, have taught geology at Christian colleges, and belong to the affiliation of christian geologists (http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/).
Unlike the claims of many young-earth creationists, salvation is not dependent upon believing in their odd theology. By the way, do you accept a heliocentric solar system? If not, I guess you reject the clear, unambiguous statement God made in Psalm 104:5 and are already on the slippery slope to rejecting Biblical inerrancy yourself.
That will teach me to waste the electrons replying to these threads.
So, God has gone out of his way to create a fossil and geological record that deliberately leads us away from the truth?
You're not talking about the Christian God. You're talking about Loki, the Norse god of mischief.
Sad fact is, only you were playing.
Thanks for that lesson.
K4
I suppose it's too simple to point out that the word "Unrefuted" is far different from the word "Unrefutable". In this usage it simply means no has bothered.
To each their own. I think the fossils are more representative of a lot of things dying at the same time. No one has lived a complete "life" of any dating substance so therefore it is assumed. Unless you believe that you were alive and were able to scientifically document that radiocarbons degradation rate, you have no proof. No offense to the scientists and other learned people who perform great research of high value. Anyone who read my prior post would not see that was my intention, rather I was answering a question posed regarding fossils.
God didn't go out of his way to create tantalizing alternatives to creationism. He is not responsible for evolution and the Big Bang. Someone who wants to turn us away from Him would be the most likely culprit.
Their must be a little democrat in every human...
Since the Democrat Party itself is just a story..
Everything the freepin party stands for is pure bullshit..
And the republicans are jealous...
(its all in my book).. d;-'
Thou sayest.
Put another way, do you think God would arrange things in such a manner we mortals could either prove or disprove Him? I dont' think so, but that's just my opinion. Since His plan gives us the option to believe or disbelieve, would not allowing us the ability to prove/disprove Him run counter to His plan. Where would be our freedom to choose then? He will not force Himself on us, and IF we have the ability to PROVE His existence, would that not essentially force us to believe? I suspect your blinders preclude you from even considering the possibility of His existence.
If you consider yourself a man that bases his decisions on (mostly)logic, would it not be advisable to at least consider the possibility of His existence? You have chosen to reject Him. If you're wrong, you stand to lose....everything. What is the downside of accepting Him? If you do, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose? Logical?
Would that I could persuade you to reconsider your rejection of Him, but I doubt anything I say would accomplish that. With that said, I've got to take a water hose to house.....inside ;^)
FGS
That is an assertion based on no evidence. What makes you think that I do not believe in God?
You have chosen to reject Him. If you're wrong, you stand to lose....everything. What is the downside of accepting Him? If you do, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose? Logical?
I'm familiar with Pascale's Wager.
Maybe it was the Loki remark. Seems like you assume His plan is one of mischief instead of possibly a stumblingblock to non-believers. IOW, you question His design to the point where it appears you are maybe being critical? You presume to label His plan?
I'm familiar with Pascale's Wager.
I'm not. Does it discuss which is the more logical choice; accepting or rejecting, and the potential outcomes of each choice? IOW, which choice has the greater liklihood of being a winner? It seems simple to me; one way you can't win, the other way you can't lose.
Now, back to hosing the place down...
FGS
Well no, Because there is not just the two choices you presented, there are 100s/1000s of other gods humans have thought of - Suppose for instance Mithra is the "real" God and he is really ticked at you Christians for copying his religion? Who loses then?
Using that logic you should find the religion that has the worst version of hell and pick that one.
There is only one God. Humans, rightly or wrongly, have chosen to customize Him for their own purposes. He may in fact be large enough to accomodate; I don't know. God himself will be the final arbiter; not you or me.
FGS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.