paultrr Posted May 16, 2005 Report Posted May 16, 2005 Agreed. The issue is whether it is reasonable to advocate a position and to concurrently contend that it is not an opinion, but fact. I offer my opinions to folks (including my kids) all of the time. I think I keep opinions and facts separate. I think when it comes to subjects like ID and is everything predetermined one begins to encounter the difference between opinion and fact. In science something general becomes fact when the majority of scientists out there looking at the evidence via observation tend to support a concept or theory. To a certain extent all scientists believe in determinism in one form of another because of the strong evidence in support of cause and effect. But not all scientists agree when it comes to a subject like free will. The same goes with evolution which is where we tend to find problems with the general ID camp's presentation. They tend to lack that same chain of evidence. As Linda agreed in part there are scientists out there who believe in God of one type or another. There are even scientists who have an opinion when it comes to this whole design issue. But almost too a tee Scientists in general tend to see evolution as a fact. When it comes to older seven day creationists the problem becomes even worse because their whole idea is based upon opinion stemming from faith in the first place with literally nothing else as supporting evidence even though a few tried jumping on the VSL bandwaggon because they thought it somehow could support a young earth/universe position. Probably an interesting example of strange bed fellows. But showed a strong lack of their understanding anything to do with the physics behind that more recent theory and rather shows their lack of real science in the first place. My real question to the ID camp is can you're general idea be presented without relying upon the assumption that order translates to design and without getting into the odds sort of debate that is really not that solid from either perspective to begin with? If it can then one could begin to have an honest scientific research path that's minus all the opinion stuff. The reason I mention this is it begins to strip the idea of personal bias in the first place and rather eliminates all those odds debates that tend to get no where. Notice, I did not say it could prove the idea. But it at least throws it more in a light where one could begin to compare evidence with evidence. This isn't presented as a setup either. Its an honest suggestion to try and put things more on an even ground to start with because it throws the belief and opinion out of the equation for discussion. Basically, try thinking of using Biology, Chemistry, and Physics alone as the source of evidence. You do not have to respond on this right away either. But I would be interested in if those who hold to this idea could use strict science and nothing else to explain their position?
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 What evidence do evolutionists have against the global flood theory?
Buffy Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 What evidence do evolutionists have against the global flood theory?Where'd all the water come from? Where'd it *GO*???? Depending on how much of all the mountains got covered up, wouldn't you need 10 to 20 times all the water that exists on earth to cover everything up? How'd it lay down all those layers that you see in the walls of the Grand Canyon and just about every other geological formation in prolly only a *week* or so? How'd all the right bones just *happen* to end up in the various layers so that they're all the same ones at the same levels? How'd the kangaroos and koalas survive when they're all no where near the middle east? Questions, questions, questions,Buffy
BEAKER Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 Questions, questions, questions,BuffyI am saying that it makes sense that God doesn't make any sense.:shrug:
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 How did the mountains form?....where did they come from? how did they get into a lined patern? when flattened how much more land would be available? how come when you put togeather the continents, they all kinda have a puzzle patern ..the water came from under the ground and from the firmament, which the firmament is the canopy that keeps our environment intact, keeps the earth safe form the beating in outerspace. the Bible says in Genesis that the ground rose and the water asided. there where eathequakes and volcanos, and the water had enough strength to move everything around, make holes and valleys and mountains How'd all the right bones just *happen* to end up in the various layers so that they're all the same ones at the same levels? what do you mean by this? are you asking how did the bones of one animal get stuch in various layers? It took at least nearly a year to form all this. Is the evolution theory of fossil formation not full of questions questions questions?
C1ay Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 What evidence do evolutionists have against the global flood theory?What evidence does anyone have to support a global flood theory? Huh? That's right, none. You do realize that a global flood would not only kill all of the land animals that couldn't stay afloat long enough, it would also kill most of the plants on land. If there were such a flood it would leave a mighty barren place when it receeded. Why is there no archeological evidence of this?
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 You do realize that a global flood would not only kill all of the land animals that couldn't stay afloat long enough, it would also kill most of the plants on land. If there were such a flood it would leave a mighty barren place when it receeded. Why is there no archeological evidence of this? Note. all plants have seeds.
BEAKER Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 What evidence does anyone have to support a global flood theory? Huh? That's right, none. You do realize that a global flood would not only kill all of the land animals that couldn't stay afloat long enough, it would also kill most of the plants on land. If there were such a flood it would leave a mighty barren place when it receeded. Why is there no archeological evidence of this?Gigantic deposits of petrolium and coal made from decaying plants; seashells on the top of every high mountain on Earth; the fossil remains of all the animals that perrished durring the flood burried in sediment laid down by water; etc, etc, etc. But of course you are looking at all this evidence through the conviently polarized lenses of evolution that effectivly block out the rays of the Son.
C1ay Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 Note. all plants have seeds.All plants all over the world have seeds that are all fertile at the same time? Name a time of the year that you could flood the planet when all the plants in the world are in season.
C1ay Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 seashells on the top of every high mountain on Earth...If sea level reached the peak of mountains like Everest, where did all of that water receed to?
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 there have been hundreds of flood stories told at diffrent times all around the world collected. ancient global flood stories from ancient Babylon, Greece, India, North America, South America and the Pacific...they all have simularities. how could you explain how this global flood story be so populer in ancient times?
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 All plants all over the world have seeds that are all fertile at the same time? Name a time of the year that you could flood the planet when all the plants in the world are in season.Before the flood, our environment was totaly diffrent...they have done several studies to how the environment would be. and they think they found out how the envirnment could have, you should read up on it. Just as oue could say you cannot trust a religouse scientist..I will say, the non religous scientist is untrustworthy. because just as the creationist is bias against evolution, he strives to look for flaws in creationism..and the global flood.
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 Check the material out on the Black Sea flood...It has come to belief of some that not the entire world was flooded just there known world...Big Roman ships were found, lots o' cool stuff...
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 many ancient stories have been found all over the world...many of them contain a global flood a man and his family..a god that worns him of the event a boat and animals. I will read up on the black sae flood. when did the empire of Rome begin?
BEAKER Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 when did the empire of Rome begin?About a thousand years (give or take) after the flood.
Smokinjoe9 Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 About a thousand years (give or take) after the flood.Yeah that's correct, sorry I was just saying they found some cool stuff in the Black Sea, including the fact they think there was a huge flood there...
BEAKER Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 Yeah that's correct, sorry I was just saying they found some cool stuff in the Black Sea, including the fact they think there was a huge flood there...Hey Joe! - its a sea! The floods still there!:shrug:
Recommended Posts