Skip to comments.Fossil finds shake up dinosaur theories
Posted on 07/22/2007 8:19:41 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Then as a CAD guru, you will no doubt find it simple to produce a diagram of the orbit of Venus from a geocentric perspective, and no doubt find it simple to show how it is compatible with the Newton's laws ofmotion and the Hohmann transfer orbit.
In a perfect, uninfluenced by agenda, world - your analogy would be good. But unfortunately, far too many “scientists” start with an assumption (agenda), and the set out to find “evidence” that supports that agenda/assumption.
So a better analogy would be if you had scattered a can full of dried beans on your property - and a scientist, who wanted to prove that beans were native to your area came by and looked for beans. He finds a handful of beans, declares that these were native beans that were 150 million years old. You then reveal that you had just recently scattered the beans around your property, thus the beans could not be 150 million years old. So the scientist comes back out to save face, looks around, and finds a bunch more beans, but because they are not exactly like the previous beans (they have been exposed to the elements for a while now), the beans were mistakenly identified as 150 million years old, but are actually only 95 million years old.
Thus, the scientist saves face by “correcting” his figures, and you just walk off shaking your head.
I believe that I made a good point.
I believe that you did too.
I am not “just walk off shaking your head.”
Intellectual honesty and funding is the problem.
Do yourself a favor, you wont regret it. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and read the factual scientific information there about Creationist claims and evolutionary theory, and you will see how you are terribly wrong. Referencing from Creationist or religious websites, with their a priori bias for believing in superstitious fairy tales, and outright lies and distortions about good science presented as “religious” truth, is wrong. I just checked the Biblegateway.com website and it is filled with distortions and contradictions. Obviously the people who wrote this either know nothing about science; or are deliberately distorting the facts to promote their agenda.
Showing compatibility with Newton would require a diagram of the entire universe, and even then, it’s not really compatible in any CS; that’s the reason for GR.
Don't get in over your head. If your system of gravity and your laws of motion work for the universe, they will work for the solar system.
Just draw us a simple diagram of the sun, earth and Venus, showing how they orbit, and how the phases of Venus occur. Then show us your simple laws of motion and gravity that explain and predict how Venus periodically reverses direction. I'm not asking you to diagram the entire universe.
I hope you change your mind someday. Until then.
The Earth is not only scientifically proved to be 4.5 billion years of age... it is also works easily with biblical philosophyHow do you figure that??
You are sadly muddled.
If your system of gravity and your laws of motion work for the universe, they will work for the solar system.
Just draw us a simple diagram of the sun, earth and Venus, showing how they orbit, and how the phases of Venus occur. Then show us your simple laws of motion and gravity that explain and predict how Venus periodically reverses direction. I’m not asking you to diagram the entire universe.
You read the bible don’t you? It is right there in scripture.... evolutionary science spelled out by God!!!
No Andy didnt- Andy stated beleif that there was sufficient evidence to form an opinion- one which differs, but ceedes the point that the evidence isnt conclusive and hterefore wasnt sure- whihc by the way, is the correct answer in light of the lack of perfect knowledge on the issue.
I feel a duty to clarify my position.
If I had to take an even money bet (and there were some way to confirm the answer) I would bet on an old universe being the case. So it might be fair to say it is my opinion that the universe is old. However it is not a firm belief. And I would not be bothered about finding out I was wrong (unless I had put a lot of money on such a hypothetical bet).
Concerning the Biblical six day creation, I do not see why it need be interpreted as literally six days. Thus I see neither view as being in conflict with the Bible.
If the divisions of time are symbolic, then what are they symbolic of...and remember that we are not only talking about a division by "days," but a further division of "evening and morning."
What truth do they represent?
I don't really know. Which does not alarm me, for there is a lot of other symbolism in the Bible I don't understand either. In some cases I'm not even sure if a particular passage is symbolic or not. Such would be this particular case except that I am applying evidence derived from the physical sciences to conclude that it was symbolic (with the acknowledged priori that it is a true story, whether I understand it or not).
Happily, some Biblical symbolism in Genesis does seem to have a meaning within my grasp. For instance, although the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" used to befuddle me, the meaning has become clear recently. Ironically I now see this concept as being so clearly and succinctly presented, that I can't think of a better way to sum the concept up.
Theology is a tricky business, best taken from a careful deliberative and humble perspective. Seek and ye shall find...but in God's time not ours.
Which is why I continue to interpret Genesis literally. No one has ever been able to answer that question for me. Even Schroeder's argument doesn't answer that question. A literal interpretation does though....and very easily. So easily in fact, that even a child, or anyone, from any era, can understand it. That, to me, is the plain wisdom of Genesis...and why such wisdom would befuddle some.
I tend to think that if God wanted to convey long periods of time, or eons, he very easily could have.....and in particular relation to evolution, if he wanted to convey the notion that all creatures are related, he very easily could have done that too. It probably would have made much more sense to the people of the time. Which is why I reject outright, the argument that God spoke in a veiled way so as to appeal to the sensibilities of his audience.
We see neither of these principles though, in Genesis. In fact, it goes out of it's way to use language that conveys the exact opposite.
I don't no how to explain the fossil record, or anything else that science proposes which seems to conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I do know one thing. I would rather put my faith and trust in God....than men.
Thank you for a very insightful post