Posted on 09/05/2006 10:47:39 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser
You're free to believe Gilgamesh over Scripture. Of course, there's a lot more evidence for the veracity of Scripture than Gilgamesh....
"Are you afraid to admit you have no proof?"
CS, seems to me that there some realities in which people cannot provide proof of. The ancient story of the (or an) Ark has been handed down in different parts of the world....certainly this lends credence to it's existence....wouldn't you agree?
I'd also like your thoughts on my previous questions....
Scott
Are you afraid to admit that you're a man of faith?
Noah's Flotilla? Is that the one with Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell? Now there's some rather awful writing!
CS....safe to assume that you won't answer or reply to my questions?
I didn't see that one. Maybe one with Nelson Eddy and Jeannette MacDonald?
Your questions are not germaine to the point. Life did exist thousands of years ago, certainly before the 5000 year limit that the literalists say. There is ample proof in the fossil record and with a number of accurate dating processes to back that up.
As for the coding of DNA, it changes as the animals evolved. What you are asking me is who or what created the universe? I don't know, even the most trained cosmologist cannot prove that.
As for not answering your questions, I just spent a few hours on phone with a client and followup time working, so I wasn't snubbing you.
Whenever someone childishly clings to the quaint, atavistic nonsense of a bunch of bronze-age goatherders, I wonder the same thing.
"Your questions are not germaine to the point. Life did exist thousands of years ago, certainly before the 5000 year limit that the literalists say. There is ample proof in the fossil record and with a number of accurate dating processes to back that up."
Fair enough.
"As for the coding of DNA, it changes as the animals evolved. What you are asking me is who or what created the universe? I don't know, even the most trained cosmologist cannot prove that."
Your answer by definition denotes a creator ("....who or what created the universe"). You would agree then that there was some intelligent being that brought the universe into existence?
Scott
I believe in god and a creator, but I also want to know the process of how it started. That would prove the existance of a supreme being.
There is no ark, it was just a story used to teach people.
= = = = =
This NONfactoid being 'proved' by assumption built upon assumption built upon assumption built upon narro, rigid bias built upon assumption . . . .
Since it is highly unlikely that the author has searched every possible mountain peak involved remotely thoroughly.
Just exactly how many thousands of years ago are we talking about here?
[Will not ask "Were you there?" Will not... Will not...]
If you are gonna be a skeptical critic, at least be an accurate one. ;-p
= = = =
Now you KNOW that's NOT the custom, habit, practice! LOL.
Accuracy has nothing to do with it. It's an issue of loud, vain pontifications. And the more repeated, the better.
Would I then be out of bounds to then say that God (a Creator), cannot be measured by Human (scientific) standards.
Take my previous reference to DNA ....how could anyone (or anything) that created such a rich, complex system such as our DNA coding be scientifically measured?
"Just exactly how many thousands of years ago are we talking about here?"
I just meant was there life before humans could scientifically record it.
I still race a 1975 RX-3... :)
You wouldn't be out of bounds, but, surely you can't have that attitude to all life sciences and biology. You can't attribute to a mystery Creator that which you don't understand, and not do further investigation.
As for DNA, we have been uncoding it for years, we can measure it, and, hopefully, armed with what we know, we will be able to fight disease through DNA "re-coding". Just because something is complex, that isn't a reason not to study it.
Using your logic, we haven't searched every square inch of the North Pole so we can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus.
Oh, I think the pole has been more than adequately photographed.
But the habit of assumptions re such as the Ark get to be . . . sad and annoying. Especially when hiding under the pretext of scientific logic which isn't remotely involved in the assumptions.
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.