Evolution? How?

timberlandko wrote:

Just because many claim - earnestly and perhaps in all honesty - to have seen the Loch Ness Monster does not mean such a critter exists, and while such a critter might exist, all indications are it does not.

That doesn't mean there's no reason to seek confirmation of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, that simply means that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster has not been demonstrated.

It, the Loch Ness Monster, remains undemonstrated, and in that the requisite condition is not demonstrated, no argument proceeding from the premis that the Loch Ness Monster exists can be valid. Same thing.

So are you also beginning your premise that a deities power cannot be demonstrated? That is a biased approach especially for someone scientifically minded...

I speak in tongues... I can demonstrate the power of God in me and it is something that can be witnessed and I can do it at any time I choose...

Who in this forum has ever witnessed a person receiving the holy spirit for the first time... (new born babe)

So it is no wonder you do not "believe"... It is simply a lack of spiritual experiences.

I had a friend that was visiting the other day and most of our discussions have been of a secular nature.

But... I got on the subject of the apostle Paul. (as I have a propensity of doing.)

I started quoting this as best I could from memory...

Acts 26:
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Comment:
I was reciting this so I was a bit occupied and had not noticed my friend crying...

timberlandko wrote:

No, rl, it is those of your mindset who have problems with fact and reason - let me rephrase that - have A problem with reason and fact; to such as endorse the proposition you forward, reason and fact are foreign concepts - that is the problem. That which does not comport with the fairytale of which they are convinced must be dismissed. ID-iots do not propose, nor even seek, answers; they are unwilling to attempt, even incapable of, an understanding the questions.

Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

Another 'you guys are stupid' , name-calling response from Timber.

So what else is new?

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

No, rl, it is those of your mindset who have problems with fact and reason - let me rephrase that - have A problem with reason and fact; to such as endorse the proposition you forward, reason and fact are foreign concepts - that is the problem. That which does not comport with the fairytale of which they are convinced must be dismissed. ID-iots do not propose, nor even seek, answers; they are unwilling to attempt, even incapable of, an understanding the questions.

Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

Another 'you guys are stupid' , name-calling response from Timber.

So what else is new?

No, rl, not at all. However, there is nothing new in mischaracterization of negative assessment of a statement, argument, or assertion as personal attack. Infer as you wish, should you find that inferrence more convenient or otherwise more readily achievable than substantively responsive address of the counter argument presented.

RexRed wrote:

A bud must be tender to sprout and bloom...

Humorous Interpretation:

Hey bud you must be soft to spout and spume...

rl, it is neither my fault nor my concern should you or anyone else fail or refuse to recognize reasoned, factual, documented, scientifically and academically valid evidence such as has been here presented ad infinitum. Nor do I much care that you or others tapdance around the refutations and demonstrated absurdities of religionist propositions as opposed to providing any valid support for the ridiculous assertions made by, unfounded allegations presented by, ignorance displayed by, in behalf of, and on the part of the religionists engaged in this discussion.

Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

We're currently discussing the dinosaur bones that have soft tissue in them even though they are supposed to be 60+ million years old.

Like the model Ford trying to study Henry...

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

By the way, i am not claiming to be an expert on naval architecture, either. However, i am a student of history, and one to the longest abiding interests in history which i have is naval history.

I assert, without equivocation, that the vessel you're plumping for was simply not possible.

How did old Noah keep the secret from his neighbors for over a century? You know, people will talk.

I don't think he tried to keep it secret. The Bible describes Noah as 'a preacher of righteousness' who by his deeds 'witnessed to the ancient world'.

BTW the term 'preacher of righteousness' doesn't mean Noah was sinless. Far from it, as the Bible itself plainly shows. That's why Noah 'found grace in the eyes of the Lord'.

I suspect your text--witnessed to the ancient world? How quaint. Got a citation for that?

I find it hilarious, though, that your response to absurdities is to pile up yet more absurdity.

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

But let's grant that Noah was able to collect all the birds and mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, and a couple of million insects that he is said to have gathered together on his boat. There is still the problem of keeping the animals from eating one another. Or, are we to believe that the lion was lying down with the lamb on the ark? Did the carnivores become vegetarians for the duration of the flood? How did he keep the birds from eating the insects? Perhaps the ark was stocked with foods for all the animals. After all, if Noah could engineer the building of a boat which could hold all those animals, it would have been a small feat to add room to store enough food to last for more than six months. Of course, Noah would have to store enough food for himself and his family, too. But these would have been minor details to such a man with such a plan guided by God.

Still, it seems difficult to imagine how such a small crew could feed all these animals in a single day. There is just Noah, his wife, their three sons and three daughters-in-law. The "daily" rounds would take years, it seems. Delicacy forbids me from mentioning the problems of the "clean-up" detail, but I would have to say that if the noise of all those animals didn't drive Noah insane (not to mention the insect bites), the smell should have killed him. At least they didn't have to worry about water to drink. God provided water in abundance.

Finally, belief in the universal flood or even belief in the building of the ark are not nearly as strange as the belief that this event of mass destruction was the direct work of the Creator to show anger at people who would dare to enjoy this life and have a good time rather than spend all their free time worshipping the Almighty.

Some comment about this idiotic flood story.

Quote:

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

So since this source doesn't understand how it could be done, does it follow that it cannot be done?