cicerone imposter wrote:xingu, Have you seen the report on the insects and animals found in the caves of Tenneessee? They live in total darkness, and in order to survive, some don't even have eyes that their surface cousins might have. In others, their other senses have improved dramatically for survival in the darkness to protect themselves from predetors and to find food. National Geographic probably has a link you can access for this information; I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Have you heard that blind people develop their other senses as well?? You keep bring this
Tennessee stuff up like it is a great revelation to the world. Did you forget about the creatures at the bottom of the sea that also do not have eyes?
Brandon9000 wrote:Intrepid wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:LMBO! You just can't help yourself can you? Now, it's ludicrous, You can't say the same thing without using these words?
You could have just said you believed they were unworkable and that would have been clear, concise, and courteous.
You appear to want to drag the post off topic. Why? My personal qualities have no bearing in whether the non-scientific methods you use to determine matters of fact are workable.
Brandon9000,
No, I don't want to drag it off topic. I am sorry if it appeared that way. I was just asking why you felt you need to use those words. Just puzzled by it, that's all.
In my opinion, the only way to learn the structure of the universe is by observation, experiment, and logic, and I don't think you're going to end up with God that way.
For how long would you observe? What is the experiment that would be used? What logic process will be put into place?
All of science is done this way. Scientists should study the laws of nature, and the forces behind observed phenomena in every generation, as they have been doing. You talk as though we're about to start doing science for the first time. We've been doing it for thousands of years.
Science for thousands of years????? Anyhow, the conclusions of science have changed even in the recent past. Seems that a lot of time was wated for those
thousands of years 
Intrepid,
One thing I seem to see a pattern in is when "we" make a valid point, it is just ignored. But, I have to give Mesquite credit for being fair and pointing out a point that was made.
And one thing I don't understand. From the point of logic, if we, as Christians, are behaving kindly to the non-believers and the non-believers do not return the same, why would they feel this is something that might draw someone to their way of thinking?
Human behavior is so fascinating at times. I realize my questions may seem trivial at times, but I have gained quite a bit of insight from the discussions in these threads.
But, I miss Captain Kirk! LOL
xingu wrote:So all of the animals on earth walked, flew, craweled or swam to the ark. I'm trying to picture a tree slough crossing the Atlantic Ocean to meet Noah.
The largest earthworm in the world is the Giant Gippsland Earthworm in Australia. I wonder how that got to the Middle East?
See No 2 and 3 in the site given below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#gathering
Bed time; good night.
Hi Xing,
You must've missed Mesquite's post re: Gondwana
The plate tectonics thing and all that, ya know? If all the land mass was connected at some point, I don't see what the problem is.
Don't you love it when christians use science to support their ridiculous assumptions about Noah's ark? According to the bible, this earth is only 6,000 years old, but Gondwana started the separation about 150 million years ago.
When they discuss evolution, they claim evolution has not been proven.
They fail to see the contradictions in their arguments.
Real, I don't think Gondwana does much to help the Noah story. It was a few hundred million years before the hissy fit.
Edit: Oops, looks like c.i. beat me to it.
cicerone imposter wrote:Don't you love it when christians use science to support their ridiculous assumptions about Noah's ark? According to the bible, this earth is only 6,000 years old, but Gondwana started the separation about 150 million years ago.
When they discuss evolution, they claim evolution has not been proven.
They fail to see the contradictions in their arguments.
and you fail to see that 6,000 years are not literal
Oh yeah I forgot I was supposed to accept evolutionary dating schemes without question. Don't wanna rock your boat or wake you up or anything.
Genesis (if indeed it is referring to continental drift, etc) places the division of the land AFTER the Flood. Interesting that a bunch of ignorant shepherds would even add that detail without knowing about modern theories of plate tectonics, isn't it?
Momma Angel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Brandon9000,
Well, as a Christian, I believe God created everything. So, to me it's not about ending up with God that way, it's about beginning with him.
Oh yeah, anybody seen C.I.? I think he has some 'splaining to do.
Beginning with your conclusion is not a reliable technique for determining truth.
I take it you mean in your opinion that is?
Yes, in my opinion. However, it is also subject to testing to see whether it succeeds for cases where the veracity of the conclusion can then be verified. I guarantee you there is no variant of starting with your conclusion which will perform well in situations where it can be measured.
Intrepid wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Intrepid wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Momma Angel wrote:LMBO! You just can't help yourself can you? Now, it's ludicrous, You can't say the same thing without using these words?
You could have just said you believed they were unworkable and that would have been clear, concise, and courteous.
You appear to want to drag the post off topic. Why? My personal qualities have no bearing in whether the non-scientific methods you use to determine matters of fact are workable.
Brandon9000,
No, I don't want to drag it off topic. I am sorry if it appeared that way. I was just asking why you felt you need to use those words. Just puzzled by it, that's all.
In my opinion, the only way to learn the structure of the universe is by observation, experiment, and logic, and I don't think you're going to end up with God that way.
For how long would you observe? What is the experiment that would be used? What logic process will be put into place?
All of science is done this way. Scientists should study the laws of nature, and the forces behind observed phenomena in every generation, as they have been doing. You talk as though we're about to start doing science for the first time. We've been doing it for thousands of years.
Science for thousands of years????? Anyhow, the conclusions of science have changed even in the recent past. Seems that a lot of time was wated for those
thousands of years
Sure. They've made more progress in the past few centuries than say the ancient Greeks did. What's the funny part?
No funny part. Just a smile. Past few centuries? How about the past few years?
Intrepid wrote:No funny part. Just a smile. Past few centuries? How about the past few years?
My point is that the only way I'll believe in God is if I am presented with some reasonable verification. Failing a divine visitation or something like that, I will only believe in conclusions regarding the structure of the universe that are arrived at by logical reasoning. Starting with your conclusion doesn't make it for me.
It would seem a little odd if I said that the only way I would believe in the existence of sound is if I could smell it.
Or that I would not believe that light exists unless I could taste it.
You state that you will not believe in a transcendent Being such as God unless you have empirical evidence. Seems a little odd.
real life wrote:Oh yeah I forgot I was supposed to accept evolutionary dating schemes without question. Don't wanna rock your boat or wake you up or anything.
Genesis (if indeed it is referring to continental drift, etc) places the division of the land AFTER the Flood. Interesting that a bunch of ignorant shepherds would even add that detail without knowing about modern theories of plate tectonics, isn't it?
I haven't followed enough of your posts to have a feel for your take on age of the earth, flood chronology etc. Your comment above indicates young earth thinking. Is that correct?
What is the biblical reference for division of land after the flood that could be interpreted as continental drift?
real life wrote:It would seem a little odd if I said that the only way I would believe in the existence of sound is if I could smell it.
Or that I would not believe that light exists unless I could taste it.
You state that you will not believe in a transcendent Being such as God unless you have empirical evidence. Seems a little odd.
I will not believe that a fact is true unless I have an indication that it is true. Having the being show himself would certainly be sufficient. Failing that, I will only accept evidence that comes from reason.
Brandon9000 wrote:real life wrote:It would seem a little odd if I said that the only way I would believe in the existence of sound is if I could smell it.
Or that I would not believe that light exists unless I could taste it.
You state that you will not believe in a transcendent Being such as God unless you have empirical evidence. Seems a little odd.
I will not believe that a fact is true unless I have an indication that it is true. Having the being show himself would certainly be sufficient. Failing that, I will only accept evidence that comes from reason.
This may seem slightly pendantic, but start with "What was there before the Big Bang" and see where you end up. Not saying anything will be different in your mind, merely stressing that "evidence" isn't always empirical and as such, can sometimes be no more than a good guess.
As for having the being show itself. . . if only it were that easy.
Once again I must remind you that our perceptions of reality are limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of the existence of other 'dimensions', we are unable to accurately articulate their nature, much less explore their boundaries. God, if there is a God, by definition must transcend those boundaries. It would therefore be the height of arrogance on our part to presume anything about the nature of God, His powers, or His dealings with mankind. Our only hope is that He would communicate with us in a form easily understood by the most unsophisticated among us.
If you study the bible with an open mind, you will discover this to be the case.
How is trying to sense the undetectible 'logical'?
thunder_runner32 wrote:
How is trying to sense the undetectible 'logical'?
I tasted light once, when I fell asleep on a lawn chair with my mouth open. It tastes faintly of cheddar.
