Archaeologica.org

archaeologist wrote:

dang. where'd all you intelligent designers go? i was kinda hoping for a wide-open, freewheeling discussion on this one. after all its already run 33 pages. a couple more wouldn't kill you........

its been 33 pages, we need a break but feel free to post something intelligent pertaining to the topic and you will get responses. just make sure you have source material links to back you up or mention which book you got it from.

the quotes i have posted, are not only food for thought but also supporting what i have been saying all along.

sorry if you think they are out of context, i am just highlighting to bring my previous points home.

archaeologist -

reviewed your posts and damned if i can find continuity. not throwing rocks at you. please summarize, as in 300 words or less; footnotes can come later.

john

marduk wrote:who wrote this book Arch ?

Allow me to butt in here...It was written by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith.

Tyson is an astrophysicist.

Complete title "Origins - Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution"

donald Goldsmith is an astronomer
and
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a astrophysicist
and they are somehow qualifed to find evidence of a geological event
ok
normal accepted standard for biblical evidence then

i don't suppose they're both christians as well then ?

But of course!! As long as it happens in the deepest receses of space


As for being christians, who really cares???

Allow me to butt in here...It was written by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith

i mentioned their names when i first starting using their quotes, that is why i never responded to the question.

no they are not christians which makes the quotes allthat more effective against evolution and the big bang theory.

but of course, the big bang theory is just a secular version of what took place when God created everything in the beginning, just like the flood & creation myths that copy the Bible and are found throughout the world.

a few final quotes from the book 'origins' this time from chapter 15--

"Astrobiologists will tell you honestly that this question (what is life?) has no simple or general answer...No matter what characteristic we specify to sparate living from nonliving matter on earth, we can always find an example that blurs or erasesthis distinction."

"The originof life on Earth remains locked in murky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginning's stems in large part from the fact that whateverevents made inanimate matter come alive occurred billionsof years ago and left no definitive traces behind."

"Plate tetonic motions have slowly buried everything thatonce lay on the earth's surface. as a resultw, we cpossess few rocks older than 2 billion years, and none more than 3.8 billion years in age."
(or the earthis only 4 billion years old or the dating systm is inaccurate and so on)

"Most paleobiologists believe that life must have appeared on earth at least 3 billion years ago...Their conclusion relies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."

"We do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm, or whether life arose on earth onlyafter relative tranquilit began"

"In either case, the crucial question of how life began on earth, either once or many times, has no good answer, though speculation onthe subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."

i could go on but i wanted to illustrate what you have when you reject the Bible. man's way of investigating leads them to nowhere, and this is not saying that they are unintelligent or that science is useless rather it is saying that the process of investigation, the restrictions, the fallible influences, the bias and so on only lead to nothing.

at least with the bible i have answers and it leads somewhere and to someone. it provides all the answers one is looking for and removes the doubt of our existence. science and geology among other fields are still valuable as they provide more details and help us understand how things work but they all falter when you remove God of the Bible from the picture.

i could go on but i wanted to illustrate what you have when you reject the Bible. man's way of investigating leads them to nowhere, and this is not saying that they are unintelligent or that science is useless rather it is saying that the process of investigation, the restrictions, the fallible influences, the bias and so on only lead to nothing.

religion has had in excess of 7000 years to get all the answers and it still sometimes comes up short
modern science has had less than 200 years and has most of the answers already

give it a chance eh Arch
when they do find the answers would you listen anyway ?

and it still sometimes comes up short

Sometimes?????

sometimes

adverb

Once in a while; at times: betimes, intermittently, occasionally, periodically, sporadically.

give it a chance eh Arch
when they do find the answers would you listen anyway

i think you would realize that though i believe the basics of the Bible, i search for details and answers. when i say the basics i mean i believe the Bible as written--God not evolution, The Flood, Jesus and so on.--i look for more answers myself and have listened to science as it is a tool to help me to better understand what God did.

But when they veer off into their own theories which are unproveable and i might say quite fantsatic, i have to draw the line. i do not oppose the field of science, i oppose the restrictions, the bias, the omittance of data, the pre-drawn suppositions, the wierd conclusions they come up with.

take the walking fish story in the other topic, they find a part of the fossil and they build a fantatsic theory without all the proof and then declare that it is evolution in action. that is just poor science and poor thinking.

all they have is a piece of a fossil and nothing to corroborate what they propose. the theories keep getting wilder and presented with even less proof than say 25 years ago. it is as if the evolutionary researchers are getting out of control and just make things up as they go.

i oppose the restrictions, the bias, the omittance of data, the pre-drawn suppositions, the wierd conclusions they come up with.

the same could be said for religion
at least it isn't scientists out starting all the wars that have ever taken place and killing millions for having a degree in a different discipline

the walking fish story

Arch there are walking fish on earth today
they are built the same as all ancient fish
they have bony fins and can breath out of the water
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrate ... ipnoi.html
this is a scientific fact
they are precursor creatures halfway to being something else

at least it isn't scientists out starting all the wars

no but their work does aid in the killing as they develope bigger and more dangerous weapons. scientists hands are not cleanin that matter either.

the same could be said for religion

true but i think religion biggest handicap is fear and too many believers are afraid of breaking a command of God so they limit their investigation and stick to their 'accepted' rules of faith.

i face the same fears but i rely on God to help me branchout to find the evidence needed without breaking my faith or His commands. that is why i can read secular books and post here--i rely on Him.

your fish story could also (and does) demonstrate the variety and creativity that is in God and since we are made in His image, we find that same desire of variety and creativity in a lot of humans.

no but their work does aid in the killing as they develope bigger and more dangerous weapons.

hmmm
got any evidence of that ?
like for instance something that proves that modern weapons result in more deaths in battle than ancient ones and that the modern weaposn were invented by scientists
and not armourers who hold no scientific qualification

marduk wrote:

no but their work does aid in the killing as they develope bigger and more dangerous weapons.

hmmm
got any evidence of that ?
like for instance something that proves that modern weapons result in more deaths in battle than ancient ones and that the modern weaposn were invented by scientists
and not armourers who hold no scientific qualification

This is surely not a serious question.

well I could mention that the most advanced weaponry i.e. biological was first used by christians almost 1000 years ago
and that the deadliest weapons that scientists ever invented i.e. nuclear have actually saved more lives than theyve taken
but i won't