Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
crochet1949 wrote:And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages.
Terrific. Well done. That's a start anyway.
The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers
Does he? If so, he's completely wrong. I'm not sure who the 'old earth' people are, but if you mean the glaciologists who spend years looking at the layers, then you couldn't be more wrong. They know very well that the lower layers are very different from the top layers. It is the 'creationists' who think that one can extrapolate from 70m of accumulation in 70 years, to 3000m in 3000 years. That's assuming 'the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers', and they're demonstrably wrong.
And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc.
Quite so. There are clear annual rings, but they are not all the same. They reflect the growing conditions of the time and the place. Good conditions: wide rings; poor conditions: narrow rings. And the conditions vary from place to place of course, as well as in time. Just like glacier layers, in fact, which depend largely on annual snowfall. Lots of snow: thick layers, not so much: thin layers, and the weather varies from place to place, of course, as well as from time to time. That's why you can't simply say: since 70m of ice accumulated in 70 years in this place, that means that 3000m of ice accumulated in 3000 years in that place. Selecting the places to take ice-cores from requires careful assessment of the conditions; you can't just grab a random drift and expect it to typify global conditions over thousands of years.
However So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence.
What utter nonsense. Nothing in what you have said suggests anything of the kind. The age of an ice core cannot be assessed by assuming that all the layers are the same thickness (unlike the creationist assumptions about the Lost Squadron ice), and where the layers are not clearly visible by eye, then numerous other ways of counting them are called into play. The examiners of ice-cores don't have biases; that's rather the prerogative of biblical literalists.
Not Everything is as it appears to be.
Too right. It all needs interpreting. Keep following the conversation and you'll learn a lot.
My bias says this tree is 8 billion yesrs old. Whst does your biss say?
A.rdeee? Get in here and date-by- bias, see what you get.
crochet1949 wrote:And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages.
Terrific. Well done. That's a start anyway.
The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers
Does he? If so, he's completely wrong. I'm not sure who the 'old earth' people are, but if you mean the glaciologists who spend years looking at the layers, then you couldn't be more wrong. They know very well that the lower layers are very different from the top layers. It is the 'creationists' who think that one can extrapolate from 70m of accumulation in 70 years, to 3000m in 3000 years. That's assuming 'the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers', and they're demonstrably wrong.
And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc.
Quite so. There are clear annual rings, but they are not all the same. They reflect the growing conditions of the time and the place. Good conditions: wide rings; poor conditions: narrow rings. And the conditions vary from place to place of course, as well as in time. Just like glacier layers, in fact, which depend largely on annual snowfall. Lots of snow: thick layers, not so much: thin layers, and the weather varies from place to place, of course, as well as from time to time. That's why you can't simply say: since 70m of ice accumulated in 70 years in this place, that means that 3000m of ice accumulated in 3000 years in that place. Selecting the places to take ice-cores from requires careful assessment of the conditions; you can't just grab a random drift and expect it to typify global conditions over thousands of years.
However So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence.
What utter nonsense. Nothing in what you have said suggests anything of the kind. The age of an ice core cannot be assessed by assuming that all the layers are the same thickness (unlike the creationist assumptions about the Lost Squadron ice), and where the layers are not clearly visible by eye, then numerous other ways of counting them are called into play. The examiners of ice-cores don't have biases; that's rather the prerogative of biblical literalists.
Not Everything is as it appears to be.
Too right. It all needs interpreting. Keep following the conversation and you'll learn a lot.
My bias says this tree is 8 billion yesrs old. Whst does your biss say?
A.rdeee? Get in here and date-by- bias, see what you get.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
crochet1949 wrote:What is Your definition of 'mock/ing'? Derogatory comments , then.
Yes, you Do make fun of what YOU consider to be stupid ideas. And, No, that is Not "completely unfair and unreasonable."
You refer to it as intellectual honesty or dishonesty. I call 'it' rationalizing Your reaction to acb's comments and mine as being okay because You KNOW that you're information is correct - beyond a shadow of a doubt - but Our information - obviously has problems because You choose to Not take Bible seriously.
Well -- you do that same with me and my ideas.
What about the comments about Jesus Christ being the Lamb of God or the Door. It's being Symbolism. Jesus, obviously was not a real sheep or a wooden door. But He WAS the Perfect Lamb of God who Did die on the cross For payment of mankind's sins. Jesus Christ was here to show us , by His actions, that there was something 'bigger' than you and me. The miracles that He performed to show Evidence Of that 'something bigger' going on. He prayed to His Father in heaven before He went to the cross -- for Us.
Okay -- your thoughts about the birth of Jesus?
You've shared on PM's about yourself -- I Do/ Have made an effort to understand about your and what you say.
A bit of that came up a while back by another poster. Lots of us have 'stuff' we deal with.
1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?
2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused
You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."
Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?
I was asking before -- what is Your definition of 'mocking' / and I changed to the word 'derogatory' comments. So -- what is your definition Of. Because you come across as being offended by such an accusation.
I was using the phrase 'most everything' as a generalization. I think it's an accurate assessment, so No I'm Not going to retract it.
Again -- what Is your definition of 'mocking'. And No you Don't show respect for the Bible -- You DO think about what the Bible is and what it says , but Not showing it much respect.
And I Don't concoct whatever meaning I like, to God's Word , and then say "It's God's Word'. I DO share God's Word --specific passages -- God's Word IS telling mankind about the flood, for instance, since that's been the topic. It's There, in plain English -- or whatever language a person is reading it in.
No part of God's Word is stupid or thoughtless. Segments of 'society' might not Like God's Word's view of morals / ethics. Segments of society don't especially like marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel that physical intimacy between two of the same sex is really okay. When God's Word tells us differently. Which is a whole different topic.
Again --what do You think about the birth of Jesus?
And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages. The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers -- but they aren't necessarily And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc. So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence. Not Everything is as it appears to be.
I asked you to name anything besides "flood" that falls under "most everything".
Evidently you cannot, but you still are going to stand by that gross misrepresentztion?
Provide examples,, or take it back. This isnt negotiable
So you consider That to be a 'gross misrepresentation'. Okay -- You find where I was using the phrase 'most everything' -- we'll look at the context. You DO have a way of alluding to other areas of Scripture -- finding something wrong with most everything someone is trying to say when you don't agree with them.
It's also okay for You to be mistaken about a few things -- it really is.
Oh, ya, there's been the discussion about God's existence or Not. And, I'm thinking -- about heaven or hell in everyone's future.
Uh no. "Non negotiable" does not mean any of that.
It means, "take responsibility" for your own false words, or, as you prefer,
there will be no further discussion.
Audie wrote:
1.
I pointed out that your "mosr everything", twice stated is false. You cannot provide examples,
and cannot simply retract it?
2. Pointing to the laws of physics to show a particular bibke interpretation is dumb is not mocking the bible.
You need to acknowledge that, and quit saying it is mocking. I dont mock thd bible and dont care to be so accused
You might even consider that a person who
actually thinks about what the bible is and what it says is showing more respect for it than one who
just concocts whatever meaning they likr, then says God backs them, "it is God's words."
Surely you dont think all resdings are correct, that none are thoughtless and stupid?
I was asking before -- what is Your definition of 'mocking' / and I changed to the word 'derogatory' comments. So -- what is your definition Of. Because you come across as being offended by such an accusation.
I was using the phrase 'most everything' as a generalization. I think it's an accurate assessment, so No I'm Not going to retract it.
Again -- what Is your definition of 'mocking'. And No you Don't show respect for the Bible -- You DO think about what the Bible is and what it says , but Not showing it much respect.
And I Don't concoct whatever meaning I like, to God's Word , and then say "It's God's Word'. I DO share God's Word --specific passages -- God's Word IS telling mankind about the flood, for instance, since that's been the topic. It's There, in plain English -- or whatever language a person is reading it in.
No part of God's Word is stupid or thoughtless. Segments of 'society' might not Like God's Word's view of morals / ethics. Segments of society don't especially like marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel that physical intimacy between two of the same sex is really okay. When God's Word tells us differently. Which is a whole different topic.
Again --what do You think about the birth of Jesus?
And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages. The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers -- but they aren't necessarily And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc. So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence. Not Everything is as it appears to be.
I asked you to name anything besides "flood" that falls under "most everything".
Evidently you cannot, but you still are going to stand by that gross misrepresentztion?
Provide examples,, or take it back. This isnt negotiable
So you consider That to be a 'gross misrepresentation'. Okay -- You find where I was using the phrase 'most everything' -- we'll look at the context. You DO have a way of alluding to other areas of Scripture -- finding something wrong with most everything someone is trying to say when you don't agree with them.
It's also okay for You to be mistaken about a few things -- it really is.
Oh, ya, there's been the discussion about God's existence or Not. And, I'm thinking -- about heaven or hell in everyone's future.
Uh no. "Non negotiable" does not mean any of that.
It means, "take responsibility" for your own false words, or, as you prefer,
there will be no further discussion.
Is it that easy to get you to shut up?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I was asking before -- what is Your definition of 'mocking' / and I changed to the word 'derogatory' comments. So -- what is your definition Of. Because you come across as being offended by such an accusation.
I was using the phrase 'most everything' as a generalization. I think it's an accurate assessment, so No I'm Not going to retract it.
Again -- what Is your definition of 'mocking'. And No you Don't show respect for the Bible -- You DO think about what the Bible is and what it says , but Not showing it much respect.
And I Don't concoct whatever meaning I like, to God's Word , and then say "It's God's Word'. I DO share God's Word --specific passages -- God's Word IS telling mankind about the flood, for instance, since that's been the topic. It's There, in plain English -- or whatever language a person is reading it in.
No part of God's Word is stupid or thoughtless. Segments of 'society' might not Like God's Word's view of morals / ethics. Segments of society don't especially like marriage being between one man and one woman. They feel that physical intimacy between two of the same sex is really okay. When God's Word tells us differently. Which is a whole different topic.
Again --what do You think about the birth of Jesus?
And I DID click into one of the articles about glaciers and ice ages. The author suggests that old earth people assume that the top layers of a glacier are just like the lower layers -- but they aren't necessarily And the comparison to the age rings of a tree to determine it's age. But Those rings and the space between them are not consistent -- depending on what all has happened to the tree - the given climate changes, etc. So - it Apparently depends on the bias of the examiner Of the evidence. Not Everything is as it appears to be.
I asked you to name anything besides "flood" that falls under "most everything".
Evidently you cannot, but you still are going to stand by that gross misrepresentztion?
Provide examples,, or take it back. This isnt negotiable
So you consider That to be a 'gross misrepresentation'. Okay -- You find where I was using the phrase 'most everything' -- we'll look at the context. You DO have a way of alluding to other areas of Scripture -- finding something wrong with most everything someone is trying to say when you don't agree with them.
It's also okay for You to be mistaken about a few things -- it really is.
Oh, ya, there's been the discussion about God's existence or Not. And, I'm thinking -- about heaven or hell in everyone's future.
Uh no. "Non negotiable" does not mean any of that.
It means, "take responsibility" for your own false words, or, as you prefer,
there will be no further discussion.
Audie -- first of all -- what 'false words' are you talking about? We're starting to go around in circles with 'this'. First you said I was 'bearing false witness against you'. Which means that you felt I was making false comments/ lying/ Against you in a public way that would harm your reputation. And That is not true. I simply do Not agree with the conclusions you make -- scientific though they are. You've even said that You question text books -- but it's because you find errors in them. Which apparently makes You correct and those who Agree with you, Great. Those who Don't , oh my.
If you don't want any more discussion that's your choice.
crochet1949 wrote:RickD --- OUCH (Is it that easy to get you to shut up? @ Audie)
Guess I'll not find out what Audie thinks about the birth of Jesus. <sigh>
Audie knows I'm teasing. She's smart enough to get my sense of humor(even if she doesn't think I'm funny).
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I already have two wives. I don't need another. Besides, I have to be smarter than my wives. Therefore, Audie doesn't qualify.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
