Floods, Fossils, Science and Faith (Split from Global Warming)

[Brewtus]

how small? are talking bug size here, or small animals like rabbits and chickens?

Yes, all of the above. Why aren't animals like Trilobites, Placoderms, Ammonites, Plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs found with similiar sized animals that are alive today? (This encompasses a wide variety of "shapes, sizes and densities" so I've given you a lot of room to work with)

 

[buckeyegrad]

No true "Christian" could.. because Christ wouldn't. A true christian would turn the other cheek and wish love upon his enemies. There aren't too many of these people around today - see the indigo & crystal children who are now entering this realm and represent the next step in human evolution and in general, consitent with the end of times, where this world is going..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children

This whole relgion thing is quite simple, its all about love. Regaurdless of what God did, who are we (man) to judge God?

I'm not going to discuss the issues of Iraq as that is politics and outside of Christ's message. However, to say true Christians can't support the killing of Hussien or the death penalty is way off base. In fact, it is those Christians who are against the death penalty who are warping the Word of God.

Taking his statement about turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies as evidence that he was repealing God's (and therefore, his own) commands in the Old Testament is taking those statements completely out of context. Jesus was teaching against using God's commands as justification for personal revenge; he was not changing the Law.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, you've established that Nietzschke didn't understand people.

Please explain. It seems to me that Neitzsche was dead on regarding what morality is when God does not exist.

This sounds nice in theory. When believers actually start to behave substantially better than non-believers in this world let me know.

What measures are you using to determine what "better" is?

My problem with most religions has always been their insistence that human beings are shit.

Where does Christianity say human beings are "shit"? After all, we still acknowledge that we are made in the image of God, which kind of qualifies us as not being such. What Christianity claims is that we are in rebellion against God; but considering God didn't simply erase humanity or even decide not to create us, then we must have some value even from the divine perspective. The problem is rebellion, not our value as beings.

 

[Bleed S & G]

I'm not going to discuss the issues of Iraq as that is politics and outside of Christ's message. However, to say true Christians can't support the killing of Hussien or the death penalty is way off base. In fact, it is those Christians who are against the death penalty who are warping the Word of God.

Taking his statement about turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies as evidence that he was repealing God's (and therefore, his own) commands in the Old Testament is taking those statements completely out of context. Jesus was teaching against using God's commands as justification for personal revenge; he was not changing the Law.

Is it not the place of man to forgive, and God to judge.. even in the OT? Who are we to kill anything with divinity within it? I used to feel the way you are talking about.. something inside changed not to long ago and i can't find one good reason for killing anyone. While others certainly will, and i dont think they are damned because of doing so, i know i could never condone any form of killing at this point. and a christian, one who lives like Christ, would not kill. No?

 

[lvbuckeye]

It's Ice. And so... the clouds... they're not made of water, they're just clouds, right?

Anyway.....

they are made of water vapor and other small particles, and when the conditions are right, condense as water.

I'm going to lunch, so this answer won't be as long as it should be.... Yes, I've read the bible. Critically. (Obviously) How desireable do you think it is to argue with someone who thinks when liquid water freezes it becomes something else that isn't water. What was that you were saying about one thing can't become another thing over on the Evolution thread?

it is still dihydrogen monoxide, but is in a different state. is liquid magma the same as the solid granite rock that your house sits on? no, they are in different states, and have different properties, and act differently.

when was the last time you took a nice drink of ice? how about the time you saw a fish swimming in a glacier?

 

[buckeyegrad]

This has been nagging at me. Why does being the creator give him the right? If my wife and I create a child, do we have the right to kill it (post-birth, let's save the abortion debate for another time) or otherwise do with it as we please without limitation?

Your example does not work because you and your wife did not create the child. All you did was supply the DNA and organic materials for the physical child to develop and grow, that is not creation.

The only way a human creates (sub-creates would be the better word) is when he uses his imagination in a work of art--in all its forms. Therefore, let's say you write a story about a fictional world filled with characters. Do you not have the right to destroy any of those characters within it? Of course you do, because you are the creator. Now, do those imaginary creations have the right to challenge your decision on which characters remain in a story and which do not. Well, in reality, they don't even have the ability to challenge you as the creator. The same goes for us in relation to God.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Is it not the place of man to forgive, and God to judge.. even in the OT? Who are we to kill anything with divinity within it? I used to feel the way you are talking about.. something inside changed not to long ago and i can't find one good reason for killing anyone. While others certainly will, and i dont think they are damned because of doing so, i know i could never condone any form of killing at this point. and a christian, one who lives like Christ, would not kill. No?

One who lives like Christ would not murder. They would kill if God's commands require it (e.g. when one spills the blood of another through murder). There is a huge difference between the two concepts from the biblical perspective.

 

[Jagdaddy]

Please explain. It seems to me that Neitzsche was dead on regarding what morality is when God does not exist.

Well, since you assume God does exist, I'm not sure we can establish this, but the ability of millions human beings who don't believe in God to nonetheless be constrained in their behavior and/or altruistic/self-sacrificing seems to make Nietzsche's thesis silly.



What measures are you using to determine what "better" is?

The Ten Commandments will do I suppose, if you accept scott's view that they are moral laws. Do believers obey them more than non-believers? Well, maybe a little, or maybe not, but I'd argue not so much more as to qualify as "better." Plenty of Christian (and atheist, Jewish, Buddhist . . .) liars, coveters, adulterers . . . to go around.



Where does Christianity say human beings are "shit"? After all, we still acknowledge that we are made in the image of God, which kind of qualifies us as not being such. What Christianity claims is that we are in rebellion against God; but considering God didn't simply erase humanity or even decide not to create us, then we must have some value even from the divine perspective. The problem is rebellion, not our value as beings.

Read the posts on this thread, including your Nietzsche quote. If sans God we inevitably revert to might makes right or inherently sin, apparently without even having choice in the matter, that makes us shit in my book. As for redeemability, even shit has some value, as organic farmers will attest.


P.S. Sorry to have screwed up and put responses in what looks like your quote. I think you can fairly easily figure where my comments are despite the screw-up.

 

[Bleed S & G]

One who lives like Christ would not murder. They would kill if God's commands require it (e.g. when one spills the blood of another through murder). There is a huge difference between the two concepts from the biblical perspective.

I guess thats where my gut differs.. and i'll trust my gut over a book bound by corrupt men. I'm not slamming the bible, but at some point you have to look at the teachings of Christ and recognize that unconditional love is the way to enter the kingdom. The bible and how it was composed is another debate. But i hear you, and as i said used to subscribe to this view until something clicked and in my eyes, killing is not right. We forgive. What a world it would be if we all lived with love.. it would be, well eden.

 

[Bleed S & G]

The only way a human creates (sub-creates would be the better word) is when he uses his imagination in a work of art--in all its forms.

I disagree, I think we limit ourselves to this. Humans definalty can manifest things, situations, etc. While we cant make someone elses reality, we do create our own and influence others. The law of attraction, every great mind understood it.. from Einstein to Ben Franklin.. they all knew how to manifest their futures.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Yes, all of the above. Why aren't animals like Trilobites, Placoderms, Ammonites, Plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs found with similiar sized animals that are alive today? (This encompasses a wide variety of "shapes, sizes and densities" so I've given you a lot of room to work with)

i suppose you are asking why we don't find "modern" creatures in the fossil record. we do. turtles, coelacanths, modern rabbits are found in the LeBrea tar pits alongside the sabertooths (saberteeth?). what you should be asking is why are the different layers filled with fully developed 'more recent' specimens rather than partially developed transitional forms. punctuated equilibia is the term i think is applied here.

allow me to ask you a question. what facilitated the Cambrian explosion?

 

[Thump]

what facilitated the Cambrian explosion?

Dinosaur farts

 

[lvbuckeye]

wow...

 

[Brewtus]

i suppose you are asking why we don't find "modern" creatures in the fossil record. we do. turtles, coelacanths, modern rabbits are found in the LeBrea tar pits alongside the sabertooths (saberteeth?). what you should be asking is why are the different layers filled with fully developed 'more recent' specimens rather than partially developed transitional forms. punctuated equilibia is the term i think is applied here.

allow me to ask you a question. what facilitated the Cambrian explosion?

Turtles first appeared in the Triassic (250 mya) but looked much different back then than modern turtles. While the coelacanth order of fish have been around since the Cretaceous (145 mya), living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. Sabertooths only appeared in the fossil record about 33 million years ago and died out about 9,000 years ago when modern rabbits were certainly around. So you still haven't answered why Trilobites, Placoderms, Ammonites, Plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs fossils aren't found with modern species.

Where did you get the idea that there are no transitional fossils? Read through this link that lists just some of the vertebrate transitional fossils that have been found:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And as a quick and simple answer, current thought is that the Cambrian Explosion was a result of environmental and ecological changes and the development of complex genomes. But instead of continuously lobbing out new questions to change the topic, why don't you answer what I've previously asked?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

they are made of water vapor and other small particles, and when the conditions are right, condense as water.




it is still dihydrogen monoxide, but is in a different state. is liquid magma the same as the solid granite rock that your house sits on? no, they are in different states, and have different properties, and act differently.

when was the last time you took a nice drink of ice? how about the time you saw a fish swimming in a glacier?

I see. So frozen water isn't water at all because fish can't swim in it. Since I can't drink Ice, it's not water.

What you mean to say is, it's not liquid. Its being a LIQUID makes me able to drink it.... not its being water or not. Clorox bleach is also liquid.. I could drink it.... that doesn't make it water.

This should help:

Water's Physical Properties

• Water is unique in that it is the only natural substance that is found in all three states -- liquid, solid (ice), and gas (steam) -- at the temperatures normally found on Earth. Earth's water is constantly interacting, changing, and in movement.
• Water freezes at 32o Fahrenheit (F) and boils at 212o F (at sea level, but 186.4? at 14,000 feet). In fact, water's freezing and boiling points are the baseline with which temperature is measured: 0o on the Celsius scale is water's freezing point, and 100o is water's boiling point. Water is unusual in that the solid form, ice, is less dense than the liquid form, which is why ice floats.
• Water has a high specific heat index. This means that water can absorb a lot of heat before it begins to get hot. This is why water is valuable to industries and in your car's radiator as a coolant. The high specific heat index of water also helps regulate the rate at which air changes temperature, which is why the temperature change between seasons is gradual rather than sudden, especially near the oceans.
• Water has a very high surface tension. In other words, water is sticky and elastic, and tends to clump together in drops rather than spread out in a thin film. Surface tension is responsible for capillary action, which allows water (and its dissolved substances) to move through the roots of plants and through the tiny blood vessels in our bodies.

It makes more sense to me now why you're willing to buy the fossils by density theory, I'll say that much.