Posted on 08/05/2008 9:56:54 AM PDT by Scythian
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks colorado tanker. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
So, "millions of years" of "evolution" through natural selection have left these organisms indistinguishable from today's living creatures... hmmm... must be something wrong here... oh well, I'll just ignore this anomaly and keep on declaring "millions of years" because the alternative has consequences for me and my life... /s
She has a few miles on her but still good to go ;)
And your evidence for this is?
(Note: see tagline.)
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
“A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear.”
IE... Don’t waste your time.
In other words, don't bother to try to defend religious belief where it conflicts with scientific evidence.
That's actually good advice. Religious belief has a very poor track record when it opposes science.
On the contrary, the gospel doesn’t need “defending”.
You’ve declared yourself wiser than God. Have fun.
interesting
The gospel does not require a 6,000 year old universe.
And the scientific evidence makes that belief completely untenable.
Nothing new. Lots of evidence for Neogene vegetation in numerous areas of Antarctica. Not only was the climate likely different, but Antartica was in a different place. Assuming an average rate of 1cm per year movement of continental crust, any given spot in Antarctica was 140 km away from where it is today.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/session_2865.htm
How about this quote: “Those who claim science and religion are incompatible are missing the point.” -Doctor Who
:p :p :p
“The really cool thing is that all the details are still there,” even though the plant has been dead for 14 million years. “These are actually the plant tissues themselves.”
And they redicule me for believing in the bible ... 14 million years, ya right”
So, you don’t believe living things may have existed before the strict Biblical time period, eh?
In refutation, allow me to present Exhibit A - - Helen Thomas.
In deference to the gag reflexes of the FR community I shall refrain from posting photographic (very ‘graphic’) evidence of this Exhibit A.
Doctor Who - I like the show...
If that character were real, he’d laugh at the inaccuracies that are in our contemporary scientific understanding of the universe, because most of it is probably wrong, and needs to change. The arrogance of man to say that his reason should be accepted as truth...
Another source, however, has never had to change, because the Author knows His Creation.
‘Doctor Who’
I liked those Doctor Who shows back from the 1980’s 90’s.
"You have to understand where these thresholds are," he added, "Because, if human beings are unfortunate enough to push climate over one of these thresholds, it could be a total catastrophe."
There is the Idiot of the Month statement. Is he afraid we will reverse a 50 million year cooling trend with SUVs? (Yes, he is.) Is he saying that it would be a catastrophe if life were to become more abundant in Antarctica again? (Yes, he is.) Did he just indicate that climate has crossed "thresholds" in both directions for millenia but it's only a catastrophe if humans have some role in it? (Yes, he did.)
If I had a dog this stupid I would neuter it for that reason alone.
So if we don't *push* the climate (guessing with excess CO2) towards this invisible threshold, it will never happen?
On the other hand, if we start messing with the natural progression of the Earth's climate, we could *push* it back or forward over another catastrophic threshold. Of course, if you're close minded or monetarily obligated to the first thought, you might not see the second one at all.
Really good points, but please dont make any dogs suffer that consequence!
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.
