Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: texasmom on April 06, 2008, 12:54:01 PM
-
Geology is tough to dispute. Plate Tectonics are a reality and proven. The "Land Bridge" is quite possibly the reason, when looking into the "Various Routes into the Americas".
I've also talked to people who are adamant that the Earth is only 14,000 years old. I show them a chunk of Banded Ironstone from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I tell them that "this Metamorphic Rock is 3.0 Billion Years old." Some of the oldest rock formations on this Earth are Banded Ironstone Formations. I'm a "rock hound" and hope to pass on my learnings to my son. Imagining the Appalachians in their heydey is garganutan to fathom. 27,000ft tall mountains now worn down to 6,000 ft in height.
For those in Oregon and Northern California, you can acquire the rarest of rocks. I forget the exact location, but you can get Glaucophane Schist. As most know, "Subduction of the sea floor creates the magma for the Cascade Region". Well, Blueschist or (Glaucophane Schist) forms when the Basaltic Ocean floor subducts under the N.A. Plate and it finds itself flipped on top of the N.A. Plate, in an violent counteraction.
I was in Oregon twice and forgot to grab a piece. :frown:
National Geographic says this:
Siberian (or Amur) tigers are the world's largest cats. They live primarily in eastern Russia's birch forests, though some exist in China and North Korea. There are an estimated 400 to 500 Siberian tigers living in the wild, and recent studies suggest that these numbers are stable. Though their northern climate is far harsher than those of other tigers, these animals have some advantages. Northern forests offer the lowest human density of any tiger habitat, and the most complete ecosystem. The vast woodlands also allow tigers far more room to roam, as Russia's timber industry is currently less extensive than that of many other countries.
Have any of y’all seen the woodlands of Alaska? Compare Russia's vast birch forests to the ecosystems in Alaska. The Siberian Tiger would quickly dominate in this ecosystem. Why no Siberian Tigers in Alaska? They would absolutely have PRIME food there in Alaska; it’s population would have flourished.
If there was ever a land bridge ~ the Siberian Tiger would certainly be there. The absence of the Siberian Tiger is in direct opposition to the survival of the fittest crowd's standard line. This one thing alone is enough to dispute a land bridge ever having been present almost without question.
About 100 years ago, my Grandpa's family traveled across the Bering Strait to settle in Alaska. Is it only possible for migrants to have traveled to Alaska by land? Don't think so. The rest of those migrants came over in the same manner ~ boat.
-
Indians came by boat.
-
Perhaps at the time there was a land bridge, there weren't any tasty deer in Alaska.
-
Grizzlies would have a problem with Siberian Tigers competing for their food. In a fight between the two, I'd put my money on the Grizzly. It wouldn't surprise me if some bones were found in the future, so much of Alaska is still unexplored. No telling what's below the permafrost.
I think you may find this interesting TxMom.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/peopling_siberia.html
-
Are you saying that coconuts migrate?
-
National Geographic says this:
Siberian (or Amur) tigers are the world's largest cats. They live primarily in eastern Russia's birch forests, though some exist in China and North Korea. There are an estimated 400 to 500 Siberian tigers living in the wild, and recent studies suggest that these numbers are stable. Though their northern climate is far harsher than those of other tigers, these animals have some advantages. Northern forests offer the lowest human density of any tiger habitat, and the most complete ecosystem. The vast woodlands also allow tigers far more room to roam, as Russia's timber industry is currently less extensive than that of many other countries.
Have any of y’all seen the woodlands of Alaska? Compare Russia's vast birch forests to the ecosystems in Alaska. The Siberian Tiger would quickly dominate in this ecosystem. Why no Siberian Tigers in Alaska? They would absolutely have PRIME food there in Alaska; it’s population would have flourished.
If there was ever a land bridge ~ the Siberian Tiger would certainly be there. The absence of the Siberian Tiger is in direct opposition to the survival of the fittest crowd's standard line. This one thing alone is enough to dispute a land bridge ever having been present almost without question.
About 100 years ago, my Grandpa's family traveled across the Bering Strait to settle in Alaska. Is it only possible for migrants to have traveled to Alaska by land? Don't think so. The rest of those migrants came over in the same manner ~ boat.
TxMom, at the time that the 'land bridge' most paleantologist's refer to, would have sometime during the Pleistocene era. This was well before the modern Siberian Tiger as we know it. Think Sabertooth Tiggers. The big cats' kinda evolved from there.
-
no Mac, what she's saying is there's two different types of animals living in Alaska vs. Russia and if there had been a land bridge they would have comingled- as they didn't it's evidence if there ever was a land bridge it wasn't used by animals to migrate, and in all liklihood humans arrived in North America by boat- or, as many of us believe, by space ship.
-
I bet a Swallow could carry a coconut
-
I bet a Swallow could carry a coconut
NO, its a simple lift to wieght ratio. Tho maybe an african swallow... :D
-
Most people look to the simple creature; the lemming.
Each year adult lemmings unwittingly commit suicide by charging head-long into the Bering Sea. Scientists say it's because for millenia, lemmings migrated across the "land bridge".
Supposedly, because this annual migration was imbedded in their DNA, lemmings continue to die in the ocean....looking for their long lost "land bridge".
I'd also go with a scenerio that included glaciers. If in a period back in history that glaciers prodiced a "land bridge" early man wouldn't need boats...although boats would work. Humans are a curious lot, and it they can see land across some water...it's only a matter of time before someone goes there and comes back, even if it's just to say "I was there".
While Viking settlements in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have been noted, there are are stone structures with massive stone obelisks in New York State, Maine, and New Hampshire. The structures are believed to have been made betwen 1,600 and 2,000 BC. This timeframe is believed to be far older than North American Clovis Man or other "migratory" peoples that made use of the Bering Strait "land bridge". Some scientists say that Celtic peoples had temporary settlements in these locations...other scientists say they were built by ancient Minoan explorers. No one seems to know for sure.
So much for Columbus discovering North America.
There have also been discoveries of Chinese anchors in ports ranging from California to Peru...these anchors are dated as old as back to 1,000 BC.
BTW: When Russia still owned Alaska there was a small trickle of Russian citizens who volunteered to settle the region prior to the American Civil War. You will find their ancestors with russian names to this day.
I'd love to see more research done. The evidence is out there.
ROX
-
NO, its a simple lift to wieght ratio. Tho maybe an african swallow... :D
What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
-
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Chinese sailors landed in the Americas before the Europeans. Many people fail to realize how advanced the Chinese were back then, before opium.
-
...Many people fail to realize how advanced the Chinese were back then, before opium.
:rofl :aok
-
National Geographic says this:
Siberian (or Amur) tigers are the world's largest cats. They live primarily in eastern Russia's birch forests, though some exist in China and North Korea. There are an estimated 400 to 500 Siberian tigers living in the wild, and recent studies suggest that these numbers are stable. Though their northern climate is far harsher than those of other tigers, these animals have some advantages. Northern forests offer the lowest human density of any tiger habitat, and the most complete ecosystem. The vast woodlands also allow tigers far more room to roam, as Russia's timber industry is currently less extensive than that of many other countries.
Have any of y’all seen the woodlands of Alaska? Compare Russia's vast birch forests to the ecosystems in Alaska. The Siberian Tiger would quickly dominate in this ecosystem. Why no Siberian Tigers in Alaska? They would absolutely have PRIME food there in Alaska; it’s population would have flourished.
If there was ever a land bridge ~ the Siberian Tiger would certainly be there. The absence of the Siberian Tiger is in direct opposition to the survival of the fittest crowd's standard line. This one thing alone is enough to dispute a land bridge ever having been present almost without question.
About 100 years ago, my Grandpa's family traveled across the Bering Strait to settle in Alaska. Is it only possible for migrants to have traveled to Alaska by land? Don't think so. The rest of those migrants came over in the same manner ~ boat.
You aren't thinking properly for the time. Also by when the term "Land Bridge" is used, it is often used in a vague manner. Glaciers would provide a VERY LIKELY and treachorous method of travel for short distances if they existed back then. But the most likely cause of "having a land bridge" would be the amount of "sea water sucked into the Ice Caps, exposing the Basaltic Sea Floor." This is the most "plausible" reason to have a "land bridge". Heck even New Guinea and Tasmania were linked to the Australian Continent as we know it today. Plate Tectonics will ALWAYS be disputed, but it factually exists and has been proven.
The perfect example of "Hotspot volcanology" is not only Hawaii. But Central America and New Zealand. Hawaii is in Stage One. New Zealand will soon reach the Stage Three phase (last one) of an solid stretch of land resembling Central America.
Siberian Tigers weren't around then. Mastodons, Smilodons (Sabretooth Tigers - as Frode mentioned) would have been the primary mammals in the Alaskan/East Russain habitat. Not to mention that the last Glacial Period [not "Ice Age" as was most commonly taught] (in the Pleistocine) began about 110,000 years ago and ended between 10,000 and 15,000 from today. Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan have the most common remnants of this time. Minnesota is called "The Land of 10,000 Lakes". But it has a lot of very "small lakes". When the Glaciers last receded, they left behind large chunks of bedrock and the water melted around them (this also applies to most States that would have been covered by Glaciers). Except Virginia, it is the only State in the Union that does not have a Natural Lake.
Indians came by boat.
Wrong. But believe what you want.
I've bored you all enough. Just trying to inform and educate with no malice. <<S>>
-
I'm assuming part of the reason any timeline I use will never match up is that I'm basing all off of a creationism timeline rather than the "billions and billions of years ago, when life started as germs" timeline, also.
-
Take a look at this linky Xargos. I read this book but it is out there with some of its theories while a few others are dead on.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,225170.0.html
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Chinese sailors landed in the Americas before the Europeans. Many people fail to realize how advanced the Chinese were back then, before opium.
-
Have any of y’all seen the woodlands of Alaska? Compare Russia's vast birch forests to the ecosystems in Alaska. The Siberian Tiger would quickly dominate in this ecosystem. Why no Siberian Tigers in Alaska? They would absolutely have PRIME food there in Alaska; it’s population would have flourished.
If there was ever a land bridge ~ the Siberian Tiger would certainly be there. The absence of the Siberian Tiger is in direct opposition to the survival of the fittest crowd's standard line. This one thing alone is enough to dispute a land bridge ever having been present almost without question.
About 100 years ago, my Grandpa's family traveled across the Bering Strait to settle in Alaska. Is it only possible for migrants to have traveled to Alaska by land? Don't think so. The rest of those migrants came over in the same manner ~ boat.
Are you seriously using the argument that since there were no Siberian Tigers in Alaska it's proof that there wasn't a land bridge?
(http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T045265A.gif)
There were certain times during the Pleistocene Epoch when the temperatures were cold enough that most of the Earth's waters froze (also known as Ice Age(s)). The sea level dropped more than 300ft around the world, and in such places such as the Bering Strait, the land was exposed because the Strait lies in relatively shallow waters. Through this "land bridge" and glaciers, humans and animals were able to cross from Asia into North America.
If you really want some examples of some of the animal species that crossed via this land bridge then you only need to look at the Saber-Tooth Tiger (Smilodon populator), the Wooly Mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), Giant Cheetah (Acinonyx pardinensis), North American Lion (Panthera leo atrox), North American Cave Lion Panthera leo spelea).
Now, about your "Siberian Tiger" theory...the reason why there weren't Siberian Tigers in Alaska, there were no Siberian Tigers at the time of the Bering Strait/Alaska Land Bridge. It's really that simple, otherwise it may have crossed along with the other animals. The Cave Lion's range was wide spread, stretching from Europe, Asia and North America. The only way it could have gotten to North America is by crossing the land bridge during one of the Pleistocene's ice ages. Same with the other animals that I listed.
Here is a site that lists some of the animals that came across.
A Pleistocene Bestiary (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Pleistocene/6_Bestiary.html)
ack-ack
-
Most people look to the simple creature; the lemming.
Each year adult lemmings unwittingly commit suicide by charging head-long into the Bering Sea. Scientists say it's because for millenia, lemmings migrated across the "land bridge".
Supposedly, because this annual migration was imbedded in their DNA, lemmings continue to die in the ocean....looking for their long lost "land bridge".
ROX
Lemming do not "commit mass suicide" as portayed in the Disney documentary from the '50s. The filmmakers of that documentary induced the "mass suicide" by using a helicopter flying just a few feet off the ground to herd the Lemmings over the cliff to "record" their supposed suicidal behavior.
Lemming Mass Suicides Debunked (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp)
ack-ack
-
I'm assuming part of the reason any timeline I use will never match up is that I'm basing all off of a creationism timeline rather than the "billions and billions of years ago, when life started as germs" timeline, also.
Anytime you use a false science, you'll encounter those errors.
ack-ack
-
Anytime you use a false science, you'll encounter those errors. ack-ack
;) Why am I not surprised that you will deduce that I am the one using false science. ;)
-
I'm assuming part of the reason any timeline I use will never match up is that I'm basing all off of a creationism timeline rather than the "billions and billions of years ago, when life started as germs" timeline, also.
Hmmmmm....................
Actually if you read the Bible as it is written rather then listen to what some call the traditions of men I think you will find that the earth is VERY old!
The creationist part many refer to as the beginning of time in the Bible is not the beginning of time in the Bible.
What you see referred to as the creation is the beginning of the 2nd Earth Age.
J. R. R. Tolken stated that he used the Bible as the base for his Trilogy of the Rings.
-
;) Why am I not surprised that you will deduce that I am the one using false science. ;)
It's a given...religion disguised as science is by its very nature false science.
ack-ack
-
Ack-ack, the problem is that the sabre tooth tigers and wooly mammoths all crossed over the land bridge what, 30,000-100,000 years ago, and were extinct how long ago? If man came across that landbridge at the same time then how come we have no evidence of man going back more than the recently discovered Oregon poop?
-
I'm assuming part of the reason any timeline I use will never match up is that I'm basing all off of a creationism timeline rather than the "billions and billions of years ago, when life started as germs" timeline, also.
I'm merely using Geology to prove this. Historical Geology was a fun class. I'm sorry you don't feel that Radiometric dating isn't accurate. It is.
-
Ack-ack, the problem is that the sabre tooth tigers and wooly mammoths all crossed over the land bridge what, 30,000-100,000 years ago, and were extinct how long ago? If man came across that landbridge at the same time then how come we have no evidence of man going back more than the recently discovered Oregon poop?
That's easy. Simply put, whereever on the "Land Bridge" they crossed, they might have been close to the Ice Caps or Glaciers. If so, within the span of a few years (our time, days were longer back then) the "progression and recession" would destroy any carcass (potential fossils) and evidence. The Earth is scored by the sheer mass of the movement. Prime example? Drumlins in SE Wisconsin.
-
Except there's fosils of other mammals still existing- and evidence of early human populations in Africa, Asia and Europe- there has always been a real lack of evidence of human residents in the Americas going back very far, relatively speaking.
-
If there was ever a land bridge ~ the Siberian Tiger would certainly be there. The absence of the Siberian Tiger is in direct opposition to the survival of the fittest crowd's standard line. This one thing alone is enough to dispute a land bridge ever having been present almost without question.
14,000 years ago, humans were probably much more intelligent and resourceful than Siberian Tigers were. So to say that humans could not do something that Tigers were not able to, is really comparing Apples with Oranges.
Humans somehow did manage to reach Australia 40,000 years ago. So some kind of primitive boats must have existed back then, despite the fact that no such evidence has ever been found.
The Bering sea, though, is sort of a nasty place to be out and about in a canoe. The odds of getting across it in a primitive canoe seem very remote to me, unless the distance was extremely short back then. But if so, that would virtually be a land bridge too, then. Just one that only humans were able to cross.
.
-
Ack-ack, the problem is that the sabre tooth tigers and wooly mammoths all crossed over the land bridge what, 30,000-100,000 years ago, and were extinct how long ago? If man came across that landbridge at the same time then how come we have no evidence of man going back more than the recently discovered Oregon poop?
Actually, that's not quite true. There are other archeological finds of Clovis man that go back just as far as 14,000+ years. Prior to the evidence in Oregon, the oldest known settlement of ancient North American was in the Russell Cave National Monument. Some of the stuff found in there dates from 9,000 to 12,000 years ago. There also have been some recent finds off the shores of the Savannah River in South Carolina that predates Clovis man, some of the tools date from 16,000 years ago. Some fossilized burnt plant remains might be as old as 50,000 years, though there still remains testing on the fossilized plant remains and still under dispute.
There are also other pre-Clovis man sites in Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pa., and Cactus Hill, Va. One of the speculated reasons as to why the Eastern part of the US has more pre-Clovis sites than the midwest and west, is that they crossed using the Wisconsin Glacier and then spread out towards the East Coast. Whereas Clovis man is thought to have come across the Bering Land Bridge and then migrated along the coastline and rivers into North America, Central America and South America.
ack-ack
-
LOL this thread is teh funnay! :lol
Speaking from an anthropological perspective, some people are on the right track. The best thing to do is take a step away from the biblical mythology and look at the evidence in the archaeological record.
There is ample evidence of a land bridge between the Asian and American continents during the last ice age. Tectonic Plate movement had an impact on only the most early of earths' history, but when it comes to the migration of modern man, it was left to the ingenuity of the people themselves.
Many travelled over now submerged terrain, others used water craft, but migrate they did. There is evidence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens inhabiting Australia as far back as 40000 years ago at sites such as Lake Mungo.
-
At the time of the Land Bridge, the most fearsome predatory bear in the world roamed Alaska. The short-faced bear.
-
At the time of the Land Bridge, the most fearsome predatory bear in the world roamed Alaska. The short-faced bear.
That makes me nervous just thinking about it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/ArctodusSimusReconstruct.jpg)
-
stop it mac or i shall taunt you a second'a time'a.
-
Wrong. But believe what you want.
I've bored you all enough. Just trying to inform and educate with no malice. <<S>>
Hello, i was being sarcastic?What the hell is with everyone being so damn serious these days :D
-
If man came across that landbridge at the same time then how come we have no evidence of man going back more than the recently discovered Oregon poop?
Lack of evidence isn't evidence of inexistence...
That makes me nervous just thinking about it.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/ArctodusSimusReconstruct.jpg)
That thing's just begging for swords and pikes to be invented.
-
It's also been widely understood that native Americans 'recycled' stone (obsideon & flint) knife & arrow/spear points of Pre-Clovis man that they found. For collectors like myself--it means we really don't know if the knife or arrowhead in our collections are 300 or 500 years old...or 14,000 years old.
The whole "land bridge" theory needs far more research. If they are finding 14,000 year old human feces, well...at least someone is working on it.
ROX
-
I'm assuming part of the reason any timeline I use will never match up is that I'm basing all off of a creationism timeline rather than the "billions and billions of years ago, when life started as germs" timeline, also.
So yours is fictional? That helps.
-
I'm assuming part of the reason any timeline I use will never match up is that I'm basing all off of a creationism timeline rather than the "billions and billions of years ago, when life started as germs" timeline, also.
Wow. Just another case highlighting the old proverb, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make her drink." I'm sorry you're still stuck in 18th Century dogmatic (no pun intended) thinking. Science, however, has pressed on without you. No offense intended, ma'am. Thankfully, a preponderance of people on this thread have balked at your ideology. The debate on evolution was 150 years ago...
The feline lineage is generally considered "new" and can be tracked much like our own, through mRNA.
Despite their occasional fierceness, the domestic cat diverged from its “roaring” cousins, such as lions, jaguar and tigers, 10.8 million years ago – just after the evolution of the ancestor of all modern cats. The revelation comes from a thorough new genetic analysis of the cat family tree.
Cats are “one of the world’s most successful carnivore families, inhabiting all continents except Antarctica”, say the researchers, but modern species evolved only relatively recently – about 11 million years ago.
Originating in Asia, they successfully traversed and colonised the globe, with the periodic rise and fall of the sea level facilitating their spread and evolution into new species, suggests the study by Stephen O’Brien, Warren Johnson and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute at Frederick in Maryland, US.
As well as the domestic cat and roaring cats, other modern cat species include pumas, cheetahs, lynxes, ocelots and wildcats.
Land bridges
The cat family tree has been notoriously difficult to decipher because there are few dated cat fossils and because most of today’s species appeared so recently.
But O’Brien’s team managed to piece together a tree by analysing DNA sequences from the 37 living cat species. They used DNA from the sex chromosomes, X and Y, and from mitochondria – structures in the cell which provide energy and are inherited only via the mother.
They suggest that after modern cats arose in Asia, the eight main lineages diverged during the course of at least 10 migrations across continents. The felines used geographical features such as the Bering land bridge, which once connected Eurasia to North America, and the Panamanian land bridge, connecting North and South America, to spread across the world.
The team also suggests that 60% of the modern species arose in just the last million years.
Journal reference: Science (vol 311, p 73)
-
Jumping on the "hey, look at this science snippit" bandwagon, eh? :) Ok, that's fine ~ it's a norm. Drive on there wagoneers.
-
Indians came by boat.
After ice age nearly 12,000 years ago. Many of the native nations have different stories of the migration. NW natives have many stories of arriving by foot. Chasing food across land bridge. Some peoples in South America may have arrived by boat via south sea islands.
Earth only 14,000 years old? Bunch of revisionist bull. File that one with the flat earth society.
Creationists trying to change science. They want people to be as ignorant as they are. So we are supposed to believe everything in the bible but question science? Science depends on fact. Religion depends on faith.
If Adam and Eve were the first humans where did Cain get his wife?
There are many errors in the bible. Creation is just another one. Remember the central message; Faith
-
Looking at the Siberian tiger’s present range, it looks like the Bering Strait is way too far north for them.
I'm curious why you think the presence of a land bridge is a mark against creationism. IMO it doesn't matter if people walked or sailed to North America, it doesn't prove or disprove the origin of life either way.
-
Go back to 1st page. Claims earth is only 14,000 years old.
-
The existence of a Bering straight land bridge is indisputable. During the last glacial maximum, the extent of the Laurentide ice sheet is well documented and understood. A calculation of ice volume allows for a calculation of how much sea level would have dropped to accomodate the amount of ice on the continents. The Bering straight was dry.
As far as human migration goes, native north americans have asian and european roots. asians crossed the Bering straight land bridge, and europeans crossed the Atlantic from France. Remember, the latitude of central France would have been at the southern limit of the ice sheet, and would have extended across the atlantic. To cross, people would have made their way across the ice at the southern margin, hunting seals and catching fish along the way.
Modern Inuit people of northern Canada carry a majority dna of asian descent, but also carry european dna as well.
For more info on the last glacial maximum, google laurentide ice sheet, or wisconsin glaciation.
If you read closely you will also find lots of evidence that made made global warming is unsubstantiated.\
Have fun.
-
Jumping on the "hey, look at this science snippit" bandwagon, eh? :) Ok, that's fine ~ it's a norm. Drive on there wagoneers.
You mentioned that you home school one of your sons. When you teach him about this stuff, do you actually use text books or trips to the local natural history museum or do you just crack open the Bible?
ack-ack
-
Go back to 1st page. Claims earth is only 14,000 years old.
What does that have to do with it? We've only seen a very small snippet of time and IMO it would be scientifically unsound to base all earth history on what we see around us right now. Rapid climate change could well have happened within that time period.
Our understanding of our current climate is changing rapidly too. One reason global warming is such a hot topic.
-
Some of the oldest rocks on earth are believed to go back some 3 Billion years. Other rock may be older and then again it may have been subducted at "Innie" contintal shelves and later "recycled" as magma.
The problem with prehistoric man is just that, "before history".
There is an increasing group of scientists that are beginning to ask the question...
"What IF human life on Earth didn't evolve over the epochs from algae, sea life, or even monkeys...but was BROUGHT here by extra terrestials?"
There are a number of "creationists" who point to the emergence then dissapearance of differnet kinds of human-like (Cromangnan, Neanderthal, Ostrolopicithus, etc.) as God's "experimentation" before he decided on humans. They figure if, at the same time, he was experimenting with animals (dinasaurs) and plantlife (and consequently wiping most of it all out before starting over)...why not with man?
Not my beliefs, mind you...but there's nobody around to disprove it.
ROX
-
If Adam and Eve were the first humans where did Cain get his wife?
There are many errors in the bible. Creation is just another one. Remember the central message; Faith
The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. So, Cain's wife was most likely one of his sisters. Therefore, there is no "error" as you put it.
You have proven a point that basing an opinion on limited knowledge can lead you to wrong conclusions. This is a lesson everyone should be mindful of whether studying science or the Bible.
-
I always had a feeling this game attracted scientifically/skeptically/logically-thinking people.
txmom: <S> but wtf? Do you reject science as a whole? Or just the things that directly contradict your Sacred Text (TM)?
Ahhhh we have nuclear weapons, spacecraft, computers.. but plate tectonics and evolution... nahhhhh thats too "out there"!
-
You mentioned that you home school one of your sons. When you teach him about this stuff, do you actually use text books or trips to the local natural history museum or do you just crack open the Bible?
What better natural history book could you find than the Bible? There isn't one.
I always had a feeling this game attracted scientifically/skeptically/logically-thinking people.
txmom: <S> but wtf? Do you reject science as a whole? Or just the things that directly contradict your Sacred Text (TM)? Ahhhh we have nuclear weapons, spacecraft, computers.. but plate tectonics and evolution... nahhhhh thats too "out there"!
No, I absolutely don't reject science ~ I just understand that God made man in his own image. And for us as humans (who are still making an attempt to even comprehend how all of the elements of nature are intertwined) to be so arrogant as to believe that God, who is all-knowing, isn't the designer of everything around us is foolish.
And LOL at the notion (which it appears that y'all are trying to portray here) that anyone who believes in God as the creator is like the crazy God-lady off of the movie "The Mist" is just laughable.
-
the "science" of evolution and geography are at best pseudo science and just as much a religion as any these detractors on these boards attempt to deride.
-
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
-
The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. So, Cain's wife was most likely one of his sisters. Therefore, there is no "error" as you put it.
So what you are saying is that someplace like Arkansas is similar to the garden of eden because brothers and sisters get married.......... :huh :huh
-
What better natural history book could you find than the Bible? There isn't one.
But there are just as "unbiased" stories in just about every single myth and legend ever improvised by man. You arguing this just shows you don't really understand the intolerance of science for irrationality.
No, I absolutely don't reject science ~ I just understand that God made man in his own image.
You understand God's mind?
And for us as humans (who are still making an attempt to even comprehend how all of the elements of nature are intertwined) to be so arrogant as to believe that God, who is all-knowing, isn't the designer of everything around us is foolish.
Where does science pretend this? Science isn't interested in the supernatural.And LOL at the notion (which it appears that y'all are trying to portray here) that anyone who believes in God as the creator is like the crazy God-lady off of the movie "The Mist" is just laughable.
Might as well be.. Back in the medieval times, some of today's technology, achieved by scientific protocol, would seem like magic or heretic to that time's people (eclesiastic esp.), as well as some of today's accepted (even by religious people) social/lifestyle trends.. They would refuse those trends and habits the same way you "reject science".
The idea that science and religion are mutualy exclusive is the first mistake.
As far as the bible is concerned... It's got no answers and all the answers at the same time. It will probably survive down the ages as a perpetual parable for man's life, progress, and ultimate fate. To pit it and science against one another is completely missing the point.
-
So what you are saying is that someplace like Arkansas is similar to the garden of eden because brothers and sisters get married.......... :huh :huh
OK...being an Arkansas resident (not native) I can tell you that brothers & sisters do not marry (it just seems like it).
ROX
-
the "science" of evolution and geography are at best pseudo science and just as much a religion as any these detractors on these boards attempt to deride.
Storch, I have to know if you are being sarcastic, its hard to "read" sarcasm in print. My hunch is you are being very sarcastic, but please confirm.
-
So much for domesticated breeds.. Can you get much more obvious than that? Flat Earth here we come (back) !
-
But there are just as "unbiased" stories in just about every single myth and legend ever improvised by man. You arguing this just shows you don't really understand the intolerance of science for irrationality. You understand God's mind?Where does science pretend this? Science isn't interested in the supernatural.Might as well be.. Back in the medieval times, some of today's technology, achieved by scientific protocol, would seem like magic or heretic to that time's people (eclesiastic esp.), as well as some of today's accepted (even by religious people) social/lifestyle trends.. They would refuse those trends and habits the same way you "reject science".
The idea that science and religion are mutualy exclusive is the first mistake.
As far as the bible is concerned... It's got no answers and all the answers at the same time. It will probably survive down the ages as a perpetual parable for man's life, progress, and ultimate fate. To pit it and science against one another is completely missing the point.
Science is about what we know, religion is about what we have faith in. They are most indeed mutually exclusive. Science and religion are founded on two completely different premises.
And the bible is if not the worst, a close second to the worst reference regarding earth history.
Texasmom, please google Laurentide ice sheet, and wisconsin glaciation, you will find loads of info on earth history going back to the last glacial maximum, about 12k years before present. Also, do some research on earth history in general. Study the geologic time scale. It really is quite interesting.
Also, read up on cosmology to get a feel for the workings of the universe as a whole. Another very interesting topic.
Enjoy knowlege for its own sake.
-
All very interesting comments here. I can't wait to see where this ends.
-
Science is about what we know, religion is about what we have faith in. They are most indeed mutually exclusive. Science and religion are founded on two completely different premises.
Why are they mutually exclusive? Science is merely the study of God's world around us. I think that more than ever, those two are combined, at each instance I learn anything science related.
The absence of acknowledging God's handiwork in any scientific study does not make it not so.
I will, btw, look at what you recommended.
-
God is no God if mere men can work out what he's on about. Science is reason, religion is faith. That's all there is to it. Neither of those two contradict or refute the other.
-
You understand God's mind?
No, what I said is that I understand that God made man in his own image. "In his own image" is not "in the form of a few random cells which eventually formed some early life... which evolved into apes... which evolved into someone like Lucy... which evolved into modern man." I don't need to understand God's mind to know what is written about that.
"As far as the bible is concerned... It's got no answers and all the answers at the same time. It will probably survive down the ages as a perpetual parable for man's life, progress, and ultimate fate. To pit it and science against one another is completely missing the point.
Actually, why pit them against one another? To reconcile one with another is the obvious choice. The hinderance in doing that would be on the part of the scientists refusing to add God as having created everything into any of their equations.
In fact, you could probably preface every scientific theory with this silent phrase, and it would be an accurate portrayal of any intent in scientific "progress:"
Absent of God, how could this have happened?
-
God is no God if mere men can work out what he's on about. Science is reason, religion is faith. That's all there is to it. Neither of those two contradict or refute the other.
I have to agree that man will never fully know the mind of God even if we live forever in eternity. That does not mean we can't understand what we do know or that we shouldn't strive to know the mind of God. So long as there is more to learn both science and faith will help us to grow.
-
No, what I said is that I understand that God made man in his own image.
How do you know this for a fact? Not only do you not, but approaching an issue of faith with a rational, scientific method will lead you nowhere.
"In his own image" is not "in the form of a few random cells which eventually formed some early life... which evolved into apes... which evolved into someone like Lucy... which evolved into modern man." I don't need to understand God's mind to know what is written about that.
More faith stated as though it was scientific fact.
Actually, why pit them against one another? To reconcile one with another is the obvious choice. The hinderance in doing that would be on the part of the scientists refusing to add God as having created everything into any of their equations.
Scientists are not concerned with God. You need to work this out before going any further.
In fact, you could probably preface every scientific theory with this silent phrase, and it would be an accurate portrayal of any intent in scientific "progress:"
Preface scientific work with a religious statement? Irrelevant.
Absent of God, how could this have happened?
Well, you understand God, so why don't you explain it? You don't and won't, because you can't.
-
:lol I need to work it out further? Don't think so. :)
I'm pretty solid on God having created everything. The thing about God, though, is that yes (as you stated) it is entirely on faith. So, are you given the choice to believe it as well? Absolutely ~ I don't need to work it out any further before continuing m00t. It's all well and good for you not to believe. And I won't be posting any firey pictures of hell burning. :aok
As long as I continue to mention God, if everything will be discarded as irrelevant, that's fine too. :)
-
I have to agree that man will never fully know the mind of God even if we live forever in eternity. That does not mean we can't understand what we do know or that we shouldn't strive to know the mind of God.
Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy. No faith required. In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.
So long as there is more to learn both science and faith will help us to grow.
Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.
-
Scientists are not concerned with God. You need to work this out before going any further.Preface scientific work with a religious statement? Irrelevant.
That was exactly the point I was making when I said you could preface any scientific theory with the phrase:
"Absent of God, how could this have happened?"
Science entirely rejects the possibility of a divine creator, to the point where it's not even considered.
-
Jumping on the "hey, look at this science snippit" bandwagon, eh? :) Ok, that's fine ~ it's a norm. Drive on there wagoneers.
Oh, you mean the "look, I can prove this with fact wagon"?
While you say... "I just have faith that tells me the earth is 14,000 years old."
-
I have no problem with Txmom believing whatever floats her boat. Sher is an adult and free to live her life as she chooses. I have a HUGE problem with home schooling children who will never have an incling of the scientific method or the reasons why it has served so well over the years. I find this development troubling indeed.
-
:lol I need to work it out further? Don't think so. :)
The maternal thing won't work.. it has no pertinence whatsoever on the subject.
I'm pretty solid on God having created everything.
Solid in faith or reason? If the former, there's nothing arguable about it, and so neither proof nor disproof possible for it. It's no grounds for any concrete argument for or against anything, including land bridges.
The thing about God, though, is that yes (as you stated) it is entirely on faith. So, are you given the choice to believe it as well? Absolutely ~ I don't need to work it out any further before continuing m00t. It's all well and good for you not to believe. And I won't be posting any firey pictures of hell burning. :aok
Who says I don't believe? You still don't see the logic to all this. It has nothing to do with :aok 's or pictures of hell burning. In fact I could argue that, I, using the brain that "God" has given me, am closer to Truth than you are, clinging to unreasonable ideas that just don't stand up to Reason.
As long as I continue to mention God, if everything will be discarded as irrelevant, that's fine too. :)
Irrelevant in a scientific metric of things.
-
Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy. No faith required. In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.
So basically, what we do know (a matter of reason, philosophy) can only be done objectively with the understanding that God doesn't come into the picture anywhere? That's just silly to think that bringing God into anything automatically discounts it as 'without reason.'
And I totally agree on the point you made several times about us seeking the knowledge of God. Yes, I think it's impossible for us to ever reach that level ~ and I think that in our own scientific studies we have only scraped the surface of what God has already perfected.
-
Science entirely rejects the possibility of a divine creator, to the point where it's not even considered.
Wrong. This is proof you don't know what you're talking about.
Show evidence of this or admit you're wrong.
-
So basically, what we do know (a matter of reason, philosophy) can only be done objectively with the understanding that God doesn't come into the picture anywhere? That's just silly to think that bringing God into anything automatically discounts it as 'without reason.'
It spoils the rational mechanics and makes any prediction from such assertions UNTESTABLE. Brass tacks, here.
And I totally agree on the point you made several times about us seeking the knowledge of God. Yes, I think it's impossible for us to ever reach that level ~ and I think that in our own scientific studies we have only scraped the surface of what God has already perfected.
I don't see what God has to do with anything we might gleam out of scientific work.
And that's it for me, for now, I'm going to enjoy a nice jog up the mountain and some starry sky.
p.s. I saw you appreciated litterary suggestions.. I'd suggest Plato's study of ideas vs. concrete reality, and the confusion between the two by people, and his consequent distrust of media. As a start..
-
Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy. No faith required. In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.
Faith that there is more to know is necessary for learning to take place.
-
I don't see what God has to do with anything we might gleam out of scientific work.
And that's it for me, for now, I'm going to enjoy a nice jog up the mountain and some starry sky.
Again, scientific work is merely the study of what God created.
Enjoy your jog. :)
And my son is almost finished with his science test, so I'm off as well.
-
I have no problem with Txmom believing whatever floats her boat. Sher is an adult and free to live her life as she chooses. I have a HUGE problem with home schooling children who will never have an incling of the scientific method or the reasons why it has served so well over the years. I find this development troubling indeed.
I agree with this statement more than any other ever written on these boards. Brainwashing such as this was the main force behind the "Dark Ages". Rational thought and scientific methodology was at a standstill to wrote repetition of dogmatic principle.
It does not make you godless to rationally question the world around you, including "God". It does make you irresponsible to the highest degree to subjectively dismiss the advances of the preceding 1000 years "just because you think so", especially when dealing with children who need to think in a rational capacity.
But then again, both political parties are counting on your dismissal of rationality... So, I guess that makes you more "American" than all of us, by default.
-
I don't see what God has to do with anything we might gleam out of scientific work.
And that's it for me, for now, I'm going to enjoy a nice jog up the mountain and some starry sky.
p.s. I saw you appreciated litterary suggestions.. I'd suggest Plato's study of ideas vs. concrete reality, and the confusion between the two by people, and his consequent distrust of media. As a start..
moot... you have earned a new respect. I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations to the lady.
(last night's stupidity aside.)
-
Faith that there is more to know is necessary for learning to take place.
No. So long as I (an exemplary specimen) can't predict everything that happens, there's still something missing from the puzzle and I want to know. Choice is what sets off motion, not faith. Faith is no good for anything concrete.
Again, scientific work is merely the study of what God created.
The rational study, which excludes any irrational cog in the cogwheel modeling of hypothesies and testing of them until they boil down to tolerably accurate theories. Whether God made it so or not has no consequence on anything in that process.
I'm going now, my shorts are on and I'm running out! :lol
-
And my son is almost finished with his science test, so I'm off as well.
That singular statement is more scary to me, than any other you have ever made. I have a feeling that it might be the easiest test ever... every answer being "God said so".
-
No. So long as I (an exemplary specimen) can't predict everything that happens, there's still something missing from the puzzle and I want to know. Choice is what sets off motion, not faith. Faith is no good for anything concrete.
The rational study, which excludes any irrational cog in the cogwheel modeling of hypothesies and testing of them until they boil down to tolerably accurate theories. Whether God made it so or not has no consequence on anything in that process.
I'm going now, my shorts are on and I'm running out! :lol
Predict? I think your scope is too limited. So long as you can't control everything that happens you should realize there is more to know. However, when you gain complete mastery over your universe will you rest in knowledge complete without imagining other universes which may exist beyond your own physical realm?
-
*smile* I know Moray, that's why I put it in there. :lol
His science studies are entirely secular material.
I just make sure to tell him that God is the creator of what we're learning about.
-
The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. So, Cain's wife was most likely one of his sisters. Therefore, there is no "error" as you put it.
You have proven a point that basing an opinion on limited knowledge can lead you to wrong conclusions. This is a lesson everyone should be mindful of whether studying science or the Bible.
Ok Prove it Chapter and verse.
-
That was exactly the point I was making when I said you could preface any scientific theory with the phrase:
"Absent of God, how could this have happened?"
Science entirely rejects the possibility of a divine creator, to the point where it's not even considered.
Actually, no, science is based on open minded skepticism. Conclusions are drawn from the study of evidence.
We go where the evidence takes us. Science does not completely discount the existence of a creator, but rather seeks to explain natural phenomena based on evidence collected. Because the existence of a creator cannot be disproven, it cant be discounted completely. However, the evidence to support the existence of a creator is scant.
It is most unfortunate that a lot of lay people find science easy to discount. It simply shows that many are not familiar with just how rigorous the scientific method is.
I have also noticed that religious types are very prevalent at discounting the validity of science. I think it is because when you are used to a faith based belief system it is difficult to recognize that science works on a completely different mindset. Science is not a faith based system, religion is. Science is based on evidence, religion is not.
Science are mutually exclusive systems, neither one requires the existence of the other.
-
Because the existence of a creator cannot be disproven, it cant be discounted completely. However, the evidence to support the existence of a creator is scant.
I believe your choice of the word "completely" reveals a bias. I will still argue that for evidence of a creator we have everything in existence. The question is was everything created or not? If it was created then everything itself is evidence of a creator.
-
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." - Albert Einstein
-
I believe your choice of the word "completely" reveals a bias. I will still argue that for evidence of a creator we have everything in existence. The question is was everything created or not? If it was created then everything itself is evidence of a creator.
Are you open to the possibility that a creator might not exist, and if conclusive evidence were to ever reveal that, would you acknowledge the conclusion?
-
Are you open to the possibility that a creator might not exist, and if conclusive evidence were to ever reveal that, would you acknowledge the conclusion?
I consider that possibility almost every day. Certainly I know that I derive comfort in believing that when our universe fades into non existence my life will not have been completely pointless. My faith is by choice and I continually examine my beliefs.
-
Fair enough.
-
Predict? I think your scope is too limited. So long as you can't control everything that happens you should realize there is more to know. However, when you gain complete mastery over your universe will you rest in knowledge complete without imagining other universes which may exist beyond your own physical realm?
I'll worry about those when there's evidence for them. In the mean time they're just fancies of the mind.
His science studies are entirely secular material.
I just make sure to tell him that God is the creator of what we're learning about.
And I'm telling you that whether that's true or not is inconsequential.
Iron:
The question is was everything created or not? If it was created then everything itself is evidence of a creator.
You're on a wild goose chase. You're asking if we'll ever find evidence of supernatural stuff while looking thru a natural, empirical lens.
You will never find any proof or disproof of something that's outside the scope of your inquiry. You'll never know enough to pretend to see God or his visions or whatever. You can have faith that you do, but you can't show any supporting evidence for it, and so, those effective fancies of the mind have no sovereignty anywhere outside of anyone's mind.
If I had any faith about anything, this last notion would warrant never admiting it, or doing anything that'd be justified only by that faith. Just like you can't kill people and then testify that God told you so, or (less polemic) that you had some divine inspiration that took over your conscience, you can't assert anything of faith as true, except in the sense that you believe in it.
-
And I'm telling you that whether that's true or not is inconsequential.
*shrugs* okay. That was in response to Moray's comment about my son's science test.
And why would my saying his studies being entirely secular be up for question on whether or not that's truth?
-
I know. It's not a negligible part of the picture, though, in what we're discussing.
Sorry for the derail.
It's up for question because God being pulling the strings backstage, or not, is inconsequential to the science he's being tested on, or to what he'll retain from studying it. It's analogous to other arguments in the thread.
I'm off to bed..
-
You guys done hijacking yet?
I'd like to see it get back to sensable discussion about early man's arrival in North America on the land bridge.
It's cool that we're finding out that some of the speculative history taught in the past can be "fixed" by recent finds & research.
There is now also DNA tracking that science can use to track a living human back to an ancestral source. $100 bucks for your moms side, $100 bucks for your dad's side.
Please keep those on-topic posts & research links coming in.
ROX
-
I don't understand people tracking their ancestry through paperwork. You all do understand that people in the old days had affairs too? But that's not really relevant in this thread.
-
It's up for question because God being pulling the strings backstage, or not, is inconsequential to the science he's being tested on, or to what he'll retain from studying it. It's analogous to other arguments in the thread.
I'm off to bed..
:) Goodnight. I read your posts with interest today. The secular science he learned today was regarding heat transfer using radiation, convection & conduction. And you're right, whether or not God is pulling the strings backstage on that, it's inconsequential to the lesson he was tested on.
-
In the beginning God created the Laws of Physics, then He simply let it run its course.
Or maybe God is the Law of Physics.
-
Iron:You're on a wild goose chase. You're asking if we'll ever find evidence of supernatural stuff while looking thru a natural, empirical lens.
You will never find any proof or disproof of something that's outside the scope of your inquiry. You'll never know enough to pretend to see God or his visions or whatever.
Never is a long time. I'm old, another 20 years or so and I'll have all the proof needed. If I exist beyond death it will be at the very least proof that there is a supernatural realm. If my faith is unfounded then nothing means anything which means nothing matters anyhow.
-
There is now also DNA tracking that science can use to track a living human back to an ancestral source. $100 bucks for your moms side, $100 bucks for your dad's side.
I did not know about this. Can you point to a source or what it is specifically called.
-
I did not know about this. Can you point to a source or what it is specifically called.
Here is one, but it's $300 a pop.
http://www.rootsforreal.com/index.php
-
After ice age nearly 12,000 years ago. Many of the native nations have different stories of the migration. NW natives have many stories of arriving by foot. Chasing food across land bridge. Some peoples in South America may have arrived by boat via south sea islands.
Earth only 14,000 years old? Bunch of revisionist bull. File that one with the flat earth society.
Creationists trying to change science. They want people to be as ignorant as they are. So we are supposed to believe everything in the bible but question science? Science depends on fact. Religion depends on faith.
If Adam and Eve were the first humans where did Cain get his wife?
There are many errors in the bible. Creation is just another one. Remember the central message; Faith
Have you read it?
Says he created mankind on the 6th day.
Then he rested
THEN we get into 2nd Genesis...
NOW is 2nd Genesis a repeat of 1st or a continuation?
Why repeat it? Why go over it again? Traditions of men????? (does it not say BEWARE THE TRADITIONS OF MEN?)
If you read it AS IT IS WRITTEN..........
It's a CONTINUATION of the story not a repeat (see the Companion Bible Authorized Version of 1611 KJV) Orig. Pub. 1922 Notes and appendixes by E. W. Bullinger
A little note Bullinger is or was the ONLY Christen EVER invited to assist with the Massara(spelling?).
If it's a continuation then Adam and Eve were created on the 8th day.....
Thus Cain did NOT marry his sister...............
Also according to the first 4 vs of Genesis the earth already WAS ... "THE WORLD THAT THEN WAS" (2Pet. 3,5,6) so it's FAR older then 14,000 years ...... VS "THE HEAVEN AND EARTH WHICH ARE NOW"
Genesis concerns the beginning of the 2nd earth age (biblical).........
Little note here... it is reported that J.R.R. Tolkein based his book LtoR on the Bible....
-
I did not know about this. Can you point to a source or what it is specifically called.
Some guy did have a thread on it, but now I cannot find it.
Here's the wiki on the what & why...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test
He's the where & how
http://www.ancestry.org/articles/dna-tracing-ancestors/index.php
ROX
-
I have no problem with Txmom believing whatever floats her boat. Sher is an adult and free to live her life as she chooses. I have a HUGE problem with home schooling children who will never have an incling of the scientific method or the reasons why it has served so well over the years. I find this development troubling indeed.
Excuse me?
You're saying that her children will never learn HOW to read and learn on their own?
You make a claim I find hard to agree with!
I pretty sure that TxMom will teach her children how to read and comprehend and look into things on their own.
AND I'm pretty sure that the scientific method is STILL taught even if the child is HOME SCHOOLED.
As to her beliefs, she IMHO has EVERY RIGHT and DUTY to share those with her children AND when her children come of age they have EVERY RIGHT and DUTY to themselves to seek out their OWN way of looking at things USING the knowledge gained through their OWN efforts!
WHO are you to decide what TxMom's children should or should not learn?
IMHO you do NOT have such a right!
Following what APPEARS to be your reasoning all MUST be taught what YOU believe is correct in the manner you believe correct?
You can PROVE this?
TxMom stick to your guns!
Many of these detractors can't PROVE they are right, that there is no God, anymore then it can be proven there is a God.
As to Science... it's been proven ON IT'S OWN, by IT'S OWN RULES to be wrong just as often as it is right.
I submit that Science is a form of RELIGION!
Based on the argument that it only exist if it can be PROVEN it exist.
Don't EVEN START with the THEORIES B.S. Too many of them have been proven wrong! And the word THEORY means it is a form of logical imagination! Sometimes that logical imagining is correct and sometimes it is not.
The Scientific method has merit yes, BUT there are many things they STILL DON'T KNOW!
Many things that Science has thought was SO and then it's been proven, using the scientific method, that it was NOT SO!
The excuse has often been "Well we didn't KNOW this prior to..." or "Had we known this before..." I could go on..........
IMHO many here are trying very hard to IMPOSE THEIR OWN BELIEFS upon you.
AND IMHO they have no more TRUTH to their claims then anyone else.
As to the Bible.
Many make claims regarding it but very few have actually read it!
And of those that have actually read it, many lack the understanding that it is CROSS REFERENCED repeatedly from one part to another, and that the New portion often refers to the Old portion and vice versa!
-
I did not know about this. Can you point to a source or what it is specifically called.
I think he might have been refering to the National Geographic's "Genographic Project"
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ (https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/)
Regards,
Wab
-
Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy. No faith required. In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.
Sorry moot but your illustration didn't work for everyone.
You may believe it did but NOPE didn't.
And now your a math genius?
Perhaps your lack of total sobriety is affecting your view?
-
God is no God if mere men can work out what he's on about. Science is reason, religion is faith. That's all there is to it. Neither of those two contradict or refute the other.
I disagree!
IMHO Science is a form of reasoning............
Religion is also a form of reasoning...........
IMHO Science know perhaps as much as 9% of what is. And I'm being generous with that amount!
I could explain but I'll save that for another discussion.
Science claims to be based on FACT which way too often proves out that the FACTS are incorrect to begin with.
IMHO many try to come across as if Science is the know all be all end all of everything!
NO!
It's proven over and over it is NOT!
-
That singular statement is more scary to me, than any other you have ever made. I have a feeling that it might be the easiest test ever... every answer being "God said so".
Insulting................
IMHO you just made an ASSUMPTION that may reflect on your own prejudice's rather then fact.
Her Son will have to pass state exams I really don't think the answer you suggested will be used by her Son or acceptable to the state.
-
Ok Prove it Chapter and verse.
Genesis 5:4.
The bible directly names only three of their children . . . Cain, Abel, and Seth . . . but says they had other sons and daughters. It names Seth after Cain had already slain Abel (Genesis 4:25), and states Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3). We do not know how old Cain and Abel were at the time of the slaying, but obviously they had both grown to adulthood. Therefore, there is plenty of time to have had plenty of other children in the interrim, one of whom (or perhaps a grandchild/great grandchild, etc.) became Cain's wife.
-
What came first?
The Wheel, Snowshoes or Ice Skates.
Please no clubbin baby seal jokes.
Mac
-
So what you are saying is that someplace like Arkansas is similar to the garden of eden because brothers and sisters get married.......... :huh :huh
Humor aside, if you start from one couple, what other choice do you have? ;)
Whether you believe the first humans came about as the Bible states or as a genetic mutation via evolution, you would have to have your first couple who are in all likelyhood very, very closely related (perhaps, siblings, perhaps father/daughter or mother/son) in order to solidify that mutation. Evolution clearly dictates we all have the same mother at some point in the past, doesn't it? IIRC they even dated when that common ancestor lived using mytocondrial (SP?) DNA.
-
I disagree!
IMHO Science is a form of reasoning............
Religion is also a form of reasoning...........
IMHO Science know perhaps as much as 9% of what is. And I'm being generous with that amount!
I could explain but I'll save that for another discussion.
Science claims to be based on FACT which way too often proves out that the FACTS are incorrect to begin with.
IMHO many try to come across as if Science is the know all be all end all of everything!
NO!
It's proven over and over it is NOT!
You could start a new thread, e.g. titled "General Religion/Science thread". The same issues keep coming up in semi-related topics and could use a dedicated once-for-all discussion.
-
Here is one, but it's $300 a pop.
http://www.rootsforreal.com/index.php
Thanks Xargos, ROX and Wabbit.
-
You could start a new thread, e.g. titled "General Religion/Science thread". The same issues keep coming up in semi-related topics and could use a dedicated once-for-all discussion.
Might be worth a discussion...............
probably have to lay out the basic argument 1st and the watch everyone get their jokes n such in before it settled into any real discussion :rofl