3 times a year, at the end of every college term, her ladyship likes to have a joke to tell at the end of term party.
normally softly spoken and amiable, she likes to have a well rehearsed, totally original joke to tell at the party, the more raucous the better as far as she is concerned.
in fact, she has become something of a legend now, so that she is already being asked if she has her joke sorted out for xmas, so good at the telling of them is she.. the problem is, that this terms joke, whilst being exceedingly funny, does require the use of a welsh accent.
E-man,
A man sees a sign in a dry cleaners/launderers in a Jewish part of New York City (or Golders Green perhaps) that says "Clothes laundered while you wait." Being in a hurry he goes in and hands his stuff over to be cleaned, picks up the receipt and asks how long they'll take. She says come back in 3 days - they'll be ready then. He says, but your signs says "while you wait." She says, so, you gonna stop waiting after two days!
Gedanken
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
: I have no reason to defend my position to the likes of you.
So why did you?
Gedanken
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
:He purposely created you to create crap that you must excrete. And you do. You have no choice but to create WASTE. Stinky smelly WASTE. Is crap "good" gumby?
The pinnacle of rational Christian thought and argumentation. Excretion being on a par in badness with the black death. It is amazing that anyone able to ascend such heights of critical thinking is simultaneously able to type or log on to the computer needed to do that - or do you have a helper?
But it's my own fault for trying to debate a creature with the intellect of a three-month old baboon.
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
So it's OK for you to insult people like Francois but you don't like being insulted yourself. Just like you don't care to accept, or comment on, the argument that because someone who believes in God - even a cleric - may also accept evolution, then that indicates that evolution is consistent with belief in God.
You have yet to demonstrate that the individuals you named did their work _because_ they believed in God; perhaps they believed in God simply because, at that time, pretty much everyone believed in God. Nor did you tell me what you know about Mr. Kelvin and his estimates for the age of the Earth.
However, the original question I raised is whether Geology (note the capital G - that means the modern scientific field of Geology) is consistent with a Noachian Flood - or whether it rejects it flat out. I argued that the modern field of Geology is absolutely inconsistent with the idea of a flood. And it is. You have presented a list of names of people who have degrees in geology perhaps, and who have written scientific papers, and, who, you claim believe in a flood or at least Creation.
Very nice but absolutely dishonest (or stupid - you take your pick) - now your task is to produce papers written by these people in professional Geology publications that make the case for the flood - or which base their conclusions on the idea of a Noachain flood about 4000 years ago. Only if you can do that can you establish that the modern field of Geology considers the flood to be a credible possibility. Otherwise all you have shown is that some people can get degrees in a field and still not understand that field - and we all know that.
For example, I know personally an organic chemist who writes for one of the Creationist outfits. One of the people you cite works for the Geoscience Research Institute - a well known Creationist outfit that has zero scientific credibility. Another is at Bryan College which is Christian college.
To argue that these people are part of the scientific field of Geology is nonsensical.
Actually you are making a very common logical mistake - the resort to authority - except those you resort to have no credibility in Geology. Of cousre, you'll argue that mainstream Geology is miseld. Well, whether it is or it isn't, mainstream Geology is the scientific field of Geology and it rejects the flood. Totally and unequivocally. It is only your distance from even the semblance of educated thought that make syou unable to distinguish between having a PhD and being credible. That isn't an insult by the way.
You have demonstrated precisely nothing and you still haven't told me how Kangaroos got to Australia.
Gedanken
Edited by - Gedanken on 23 October 2002 19:48:43
Edited by - Gedanken on 23 October 2002 19:49:43
Edited by - Gedanken on 23 October 2002 19:51:56
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
Nathan,
: there is present phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning.
aka as "the force of fundamentalist argumentation..."
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
You have only demonstrated that people who believed in God could make scientific progress - that does not mean they did it because of their belief in God. No more than a fundamentalist auto worker can build a car because he believes in God. The evidence is overwhelming - as your own behavior demonstrates - that religious beliefs tends to impede an objective examination of the facts which impedes progress in science.
You quote the example of Kelvin who estimate dthe earth to be 100 million years old, and no more. He's on your list. Do you accept his estimate? If so why? If not why not? Do you know anything at all about the people you put forth to bolster your beliefs?
Gedanken
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
: There are modern geologists that agree with a global flood. Would you like me to list some of them for you with their credentials
Yes, please do. Simply put, you are a total moron if you think that someone who calls himself a geologist and believes in a flood is evidence that the field of Geology accepts the possibility of a flood. Yo wit, I know clergymen who believe in evolution. So does that prove that evolution is a fact? Mayeb it proves that evolution is consistent with belief in God? Do you buy that, or is your argument only valid when it suits your own purposes?
The whole field of genomics relies on the assumption that we evolved - so there's another example of how religious belief would have held back progress were it given free rein
When Jesus was up on the mountain top, how could the devil show him all the kingdoms of the earth unless the earth were flat. What does dwelling in the center of the earth mean? Or are you going to parrot that WTS nonsense about "circle" "carrying the meaning of sphere."?
It makes me feel bad, pomegranate that you are so emotionally incapable of accepting reality - but that's the fact of the matter. You see, personally I don't care whether we evolved or we were made by an alien from a can of instant human powder. All anyone can do is assess the evidence and come to the best conclusion we can. Or are you subscribing that evolution is an excuse cooked up so that people can indulge themselves in unchristian acts?
Gedanken
ps: how did kangaroos get to Australia and why are there none elsewhere?
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
The Catholic Church is simply one example of the religious mindset which you are now demonstrating - thatis, an a priori determination of how the universe is, rather than one based on observation. Modern Geology absolutely rejects the idea of a Noachian flood. So your "Untrue" statement is idiotic. Modern Geology cannot and could not exist if the flood account were taken literally - nor, by the way can modern day celestial mechanics, and even Newton's laws of motion be reconciled with the flood account.
Celestial mechanics developed because people made observations of the actual universe that eventually led to strongly held - and Biblical teachings such as a flat Earth - being rejected. The same thing has happened with evolution, and, incidentally the fact that the Solar System is chaotic. All of these ideas have steadily been opposed by ignorant "true believers" such as yourself.
Philosophically, in rejecting the physical evidence for evolution you are behaving in exactly the same was as the Catholic Church did.
Emotionally you are unable to deal with reality. Nothing will shake you from your "true belief" - so much so that you are unable even to understand the arguments you are battling against. In reality your opinions are just as sane as those as Woodworth's views on science as recounted in Golden Age.
Gedanken
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
jrizo,
You really are getting desperate - here are some of the discoveries made since pomegranate's list was current:
quantum mechanics
relativity
genomics
quantum chromodynamics
etc etc.
pomegranate's arguments could be used to justify the flat earth, the idea that the earth is the center of the universe, etc.
But can you answer my question: would any evidence, in principle, be able to dissuade you from your belief in Creation? Or would you reject it just as you reject the evidence that evolution happened?
Gedanken
more than any time in history respect and the awe of god has seriously eroded .
man has taken creation for granted and have allowed themselves to believe that no intelligence was required in the making of the universe.
random impersonal forces they delude themselves could have caused all we see in the universe.
pomegranate,
I said that "religious belief" has impeded scientific progress and still does. One need only consider the Catholic Church's persecution of pioneers in celestial mechanics, the opposition of many religions to Darwin, the continued opposition to evolution by modern day "Creation Scientists" and their followers and the opposition by people like George Bush to stem cell research on religious grounds to see that what I stated is and was the case.
The people you cited may have believed in God but progress was slowed down in many fields by the necessity to reconcile scientific findings with preconceived notions about the universe.
Certainty about the universe is thevery antithesis of the scientific method. Geology could not have developed without the absolute rejection of the idea of a global flood.
Gedanken
ps: the WTS emerged partly because of the crazy pseudo-scientific notions that were being nandied about in the 19th century as people had their religious beliefs challenged by new scientific findings.
Edited by - Gedanken on 23 October 2002 16:58:38
