patrick.net

Liv,

The writing style of the creation account is not technical writing. It's an artistic presentation of how the universe came into being. The point is that God created the universe. The details are left to the interpreters imagination.

Did you know that "The Bible" also says "the earth is firmly established, it shall not be moved"? Those passages were quoted during the Galileo affair. To this day, the Galileo affair is an ebarrassment to Christianity. The simplest explanation is that those passages are poetry and not meant as technical information on astronomy.

Christianity already made the mistake of using non-technical poetic language in the Bible as a technical description of the universe, and the results were disastrous.

Liv,

You can get anything you want from Revelation too. Same problem I described earlier. Remember Harold Camping's predictions of Christ's return, supposedly based on Revelation? Epic Fail.

It's amazing how some Christians obsess over every detail in poetic, non-technical sections of the Bible and try to get specific, technical information from it.

wthrfrk80 says

You can get anything you want from Revelation too. Same problem I described earlier.

Yep, the City of the Seven Hills was destroyed from the North and East (Visigoths) and South (Vandals) in the 4th and 5th Centuries BC. Famine, Disease, endemic War, etc. followed: The population of the Western Roman Empire collapsed, whole cities were abandoned, etc. resulting in the Dark Ages.

Thus, one could make a reasonable case the prophecies of Revelations came true around 400 AD.

Strange, just after adopting Christianity, the Western Roman Empire was obliterated. God rewards his followers very strangely if you ask me.

liv4ever says

On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best

I have my own view of "god" which is not an intervening being or personal god.

In my view, if there must have been some sudden event, it would far more likely be the intervention of some sort of alien life form than an all powerful God creator.

Again; I do believe in a sort of intelligence that is beyond our comprehension, but not a "creator" as you imagine, suddenly bringing man out of nowhere.

liv4ever says

Why do people come to Patrick. net?

Because it's one of the top google results for [housing crash].

Because main stream media dominates and controls the flow of info.

On the internet? Are you fucking kidding me?

Patrick.net offers an alternative point of view and no doubt we generally agree on this. To suggest that the scientific community is playing that same game is not far fetched.

Yes, it is. It's a heaping load of bullshit. While I'll certainly concede that there is some dubious science being done (and dubious papers written about it), the institution as a whole is vastly more transparent, open, and honest than any other entity that might claim authority on a matter.

It's fun to pretend that there's some conspiratorial scientific cabal who's just fleecing everyone out of their money, but that's just not happening.

The rest of your posts are...interesting. I hope you're not responsible for anything that requires actual scientific knowledge.

Here is a list of prominent Hominid Fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

liv4ever says

Then where are they ? Hiding behind Halley's comet? Why don't they contact us? Are they afraid of us?

FYI, it always looks a little -- maybe a lot -- silly when someone uses a line of reasoning that could also be used to disprove the religious beliefs of the person stating said line of reasoning.

liv4ever says

leoj707 says

line of reasoning.

is as follows:

liv4ever says

Isn't it more reasonable to stop and consider what the life we see all around us reflects? If you strip away the pollution, war and human-caused misery, what remains? Natural beauty teaches us what the maker of them is thinking. An artist paints a beautiful landscape with WHAT in mind? What is the artist communicating? He didn't paint it for himself, did he?

I am sorry, but you are going to have to be more clear on what you are getting at. I don't see your point and how that is supposed to be reasonable. It looks kind of like a mishmash of two different standard religious arguments for the existence of god(s).

liv4ever says

does that not suggest that Jehovah, “the happy God,” has a sense of humor?

Yeah, he must get a lot of Yuks from harlequin babies, after all they are by design.

Ohhh, Jehovah, you scamp that is quite a sense of humor you got!

https://www.google.com/search?q=harlequin+babies&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=RDE&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=qgkjT6a1NKPTiAKa9JH1Bw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAQ&biw=1228&bih=756

Hey Liv4ever

Using what is written in the bible as an argument for gods existence is a circular argument. You need to first prove -- in a method other than saying it is divine because god wrote it -- that the bible is a divine work. Your continuous postings, referencing the bible, are not convincing to anyone who does not trust the bible as being divinely inspired and quite frankly a waste of your effort.

It is highly unlikely that you have some evidence of the bibles divinity that has not been heard before and all evidence to date is... unconvincing...

liv4ever says

Your philosophy doesn't take into account the fact that God has his own view

Actually, since I don't claim to know or comprehend very much about god at all, other than that we are discussing something that I can't really know, that is, something which is beyond human comprehension, I therefore feel somewhat confident that my misconceptions aren't too great.

But what can I tell you, that's just how I roll.

liv4ever says

the nuts and bolts DISprove evolution

liv4ever says

"It's an ape not a human," said Wolpoff. "Toumai did not walk on two legs. And that is what is unique about humans that we didn't find in this specimen."

After examining scars left on the fossilized bones from its neck muscles, Wolpoff and his team concluded Toumai was a quadruped -- walked on four legs not two.

Okay, but if it's not an ape that exists now, it would seem to prove evolution rather than disprove it.

Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man?

liv4ever says

marcus says

Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man?

i am okay with whatever empirical evidence exists.

Your "Empirical evidence" seems to consist of "it says this in the Bible, and if you squint hard enough and only maintain a vague understanding of how stuff works, this observation supports it".

Please explain to me how evidence suggesting that Lucy was not actually a human ancestor "disproves" evolution.

All human ancestors (including your parents) are apes.

Nomograph says

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible

Hey, I read it on the internet.

That author is what I guess we might consider a proponent of de-evolution.

No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

Yes, it's the scientists who work backwards from their desired conclusion, and the creationists who are the truly objective ones.

I guess the author is thinking "don't even get me started on the silly concept of exponential decay, and carbon dating."

I find the bible literalists who say maybe each of gods 6 days is a million years long to be more creative than this guy. Then again, this guy probably doesn't even believe what he's writing, which is presumably intended for children.

Silly creationists...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/J60LNkqsxz8

And that's why you'll never see a unicorn to this very day.

Too bad, because unicorns kick ass! IMHO, they are the most manly of the mythical creatures. They totally could kick a dragon's ass.

Can you believe god would kill such a lovely and innocent creature?

I wish I could figure out some way to fit two of every living land animal into a 1.5M cubic foot boat.

I find it really weird how people try to find scientific justifications for their religious beliefs.

Nomograph says

liv4ever says

I assume you believe that Jesus was a real person

I believe. Jesus and Eduardo mow my lawn every Tuesday.

bwaaa haaa haaaaa haa .... that is funny, no matter who you are!

quick joke:
A drunk dude was walking along a river and came upon a baptisim going on. He stopped to watch. After a bit the Pastor called out to the drunk and said, "Brother would you like to find Jesus?" The drunk nodded his head and so the Pastor told him to come on down to the river .... when the drunk got into the river the Pastor grabbed hold of the drunk in the common way baptizing is done and dunked the drunk!! When he pulled the drunk up to standing postion he asked the drunk in a strong and power voice, "DID YOU FIND JESUS??" .. and the drunk kinda stammered, "nnnooo sir..." so the Pastor dunked him again. Once again he brought the drunk to standing position and once again asked the drunk if he found Jesus and once again the answer was "no". So, on the third attempt the Pastor held the drunk down a little longer than normal ...... and when he pulled up the gasping drunk he asked the drunk in a loud and booming voice, "DID YOU FIND JESUS??!!" ..... the drunk wiped his eyes and said, "are you sure he fell in near here?"

Kevin says

I wish I could figure out some way to fit two of every living land animal into a 1.5M cubic foot boat.

I find it really weird how people try to find scientific justifications for their religious beliefs.

no reason to feel that any of the animals carried on the ark were full grown ... except Noah and his family. No need for them to be full grown, I don't think. Plus, there were only a few specialized breeds within any species. No need for anything but the base models to create more.

mammals could have all been young and small.
birds and reptiles could have all been eggs.
swimming things were ok

I dunno .... not too tuff to fit everything on a boat. Plus, lets not forget, God is into doing things in a manner that messes with science!

marcus says

Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man?

selective breeding - yes
morphing DNA that results in a new species and the old species keeps going along just fine - nope

That's what I come up with using my mind and reading what I can find. But, I'll ask Peter when I hit the gates!! lol

liv4ever says

The ark (Heb., te·vah′; Gr., ki·bo·tos′) was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design.

The ammonia smell must have been overpowering. Did it have abundant exhaust fans?

Not to mention shoveling all that literal crap. Too much for a dozen people or so.

What about the bees and ants? Not only do you need a colony, not just a Queen and her mate, but for bees, flowers for sure.

Don't hummingbirds and other creatures need living flowers for nectar?

What did the carnivorous animals eat? Many will only eat a fresh kill.

No refrigeration mentioned, so how did the meat for the carnivorous animals not spoil for 40 days?

Why are there only koalas in Australia, separated from the main Asian land mass by sea, but no koalas in India or SE Asia or elsewhere?

liv4ever says

Queen Elizabeth 2... Titanic

Both are boats made of metal and screw-driven. Naval Architecture isn't my strong point, but I think it's reasonable to assume that no BC era boat design could be so large using ancient methods.

Even the great Naos of the Portugese and the biggest Galleons of the Spanish would have been dwarfed by the Ark. The Golden Hind of Francis Drake would be a fraction of the size of the Ark.

Who manned the bilge? Noah and all his sons must have been full time at them, assuming it floated at all.

Again, attempts at scientific justification for bible stories is amusing.

It wouldn't matter one tiny bit how big the boat was, how large the animals are, whether they're in suspended animation, or whatever. God was in control.

Why do you feel the need to try to find scientific reasoning here? You're already starting from a world view that says that a divine being not only exists, but created the earth and man in its present form, talks to people from burning bushes, can bring the dead back to life, and has performed who knows how many other works that can't possibly be explained by actual science.

Is this some desire to not be seen as backwards and ignorant amongst educated people? Because, no matter what you do, that is going to happen anyway. You're not going to convince anybody that you're right and you're not going to be accepted as making a rational argument.

I just don't understand. If you want to believe that there's a magical being who created life on earth more or less as it exists today, go right ahead and do that. If such were true, there would clearly be no value in learning the truth of the universe anyway, because the bible has already told you how everything works.

"plausible" -- at a stretch. "concrete"? Not really. Far to many "mights" "could possibly" and circular references to the bible itself.

"Actual science" means using the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis. Performing experiments. Looking at anecdotal evidence and deciding that that must have been what the Bible is referring to is not science.

How on earth can you claim that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein disagree with me? Newton was certainly ignorant (we only knew a fraction of what we know now). Einstein was not a creationist. Let me guess -- did you find one of the misattributed quotes about christianity and god and think he did?

I have little problem with people who choose to believe in a higher power in a broad sense, and I'll even accept people who want to believe in the divinity of jesus if they keep it out of the classroom and congress, but creationism is pure and utter bullshit no matter how you slice it.

There are certainly plenty of scientists who are christians. Not a credible one is a creationist though. I think they're misguided and are simply clinging to tradition, but they aren't going around trying to convince everyone that the earth is 6000 years old and that god created man, so they're fine.

Yeah, like I said: Not a creationist.

I don't know why I'm even arguing with you.