pajarito 0 #176 December 13, 2006 QuoteTrying to use a book on morality to "prove" science is as silly as using a book on science to "prove" morality. I agree. That wasn't my intent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #177 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust because you don't understand something doesn't mean a supernatural being is responsible. I understand NDT and believe God is responsible for what we see today. I understand Non Destructive Testing too, but what is its relevance here?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #178 December 13, 2006 QuoteYou'll just have to ban me if you're not going to allow me to post what I want to within the forum rules. If that's the case then so be it... Quoting something relevant is one thing. Plagiarism is something else all together.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #179 December 13, 2006 >You'll just have to ban me if you're not going to allow me to post >what I want to within the forum rules. If that's the case then so be it... Just to clear this up, there are no forum rules against plagarism. It's generally considered good form to identify sources (or at least point out that they are quotes) but it's not a requirement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,149 #180 December 13, 2006 He's not plagiarizing; with all the correctly-formatted hyperlinks it's clear that pajarito isn't trying to pass stuff off as his own. However, the sheer volume of what's being posted is off-putting to the more short-attention-spanned among us . Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #181 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust because you don't understand something doesn't mean a supernatural being is responsible. I understand NDT and believe God is responsible for what we see today. I understand Non Destructive Testing too, but what is its relevance here? That's brilliant... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #182 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteSo the writer believes that God did not infuse scientific facts into the minds of the OT writers The Bible isn't a science book. That's not its purpose. However, scientific ideas are present in the Bible: you forgot to make the connection between the Apocalypse and 4+7 dimensional string theory. You need to read the scripture very closely and attentively, but it is defnitely hidden in there. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #183 December 13, 2006 QuoteQuoting something relevant is one thing. Plagiarism is something else all together. What has its relevance got to do with supposed plagiarism? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #184 December 13, 2006 QuoteJust to clear this up, there are no forum rules against plagarism. It's generally considered good form to identify sources (or at least point out that they are quotes) but it's not a requirement. There's no need to explain that to me. I wasn't confused about the issue. By the way, I've posted all that stuff before. I'm sure I've linked to the source multiple times. You should buy the book. It looks like a good one. I've purchased and read about 10 of his. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #185 December 13, 2006 Quoteyou forgot to make the connection between the Apocalypse and 4+7 dimensional string theory. You need to read the scripture very closely and attentively, but it is defnitely hidden in there. There's nothing "hidden" in the Bible. Particularly the stuff about where you'll be going when you die. It's spelled out very clearly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #186 December 13, 2006 >There's no need to explain that to me. Sorry, just wanted to make that clear since other people had questions about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #187 December 13, 2006 QuoteHe's not plagiarizing; with all the correctly-formatted hyperlinks it's clear that pajarito isn't trying to pass stuff off as his own. I didn't see the hyperlinks you speak of, but the "correctly formatted" citations are directly from the text Quade linked to, and not Pajarito's own, unless Pajarito wrote the text at the other end of Quade's hyperlink.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #188 December 13, 2006 I really do not understand why people here are trying to use logic and evidence to convince people that evolution is the better theory than creationism. If there is an omnipotent God, then what you see and deduce is controllable by God. You can argue till the cows come home about whether this is the case, but neither party can prove anything. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #189 December 13, 2006 >You can argue till the cows come home about whether this is the >case, but neither party can prove anything. More to the point - You can demonstrate evolution in a lab, and even observe it in the wild. But you can still argue until the cows come home and neither side will change their positions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #190 December 13, 2006 QuoteIt is correct: God created the universe. The Creation story in Genesis came through the Bible writers within a context that they could understand. The Bible writers were inspired by God, they weren't taking dictation from God. The writings in the Bible are divinely inspired, but they were not written in a vacuum. They were written down by human beings who occupied a particular culture. That particular culture had a very primitive level of scientific development. Even if that were true genesis would still be wrong in every single detail about how he did so. Likewise the rest of the bible, even if it were divinely inspired it was written by humans who got stuff wrong. How would you ever know how much of the morality, spirituality etc they got wrong as well?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #191 December 13, 2006 Quote>You can argue till the cows come home about whether this is the >case, but neither party can prove anything. More to the point - You can demonstrate evolution in a lab, and even observe it in the wild. But you can still argue until the cows come home and neither side will change their positions. Why should those that see it in the wild and demonstrate it in the lab change their position to mollify those that choose instead to believe a creation myth written by a neolithic tribe that had no science?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #192 December 13, 2006 QuoteEven if that were true genesis would still be wrong in every single detail about how he did so. The Bible does not go into details about how he did it. Come to think of it, neither do the ID/Creationists. Whenever I try to pin them down on exactly what physical events took place during Creation, I get no response at all. It's like the following conversation: "Hey, can you describe how that building across the street was constructed?" "It was constructed by the Acme Construction Company." "OK, but I mean, where did the bricks come from? How was the plumbing put togethere? How did they erect the timbers supporting the frame?" "I already told you. It was built by the Acme Construction Company!!" "OK I know that!! I'm trying to find out how it was done!" "Dammit, it is clearly written in the records at the State House! It clearly says that that building was built by the Acme Construction Company! Do you think the records are lying?!" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #193 December 13, 2006 QuoteYou can demonstrate evolution in a lab, and even observe it in the wild. But you can still argue until the cows come home and neither side will change their positions. You might have something there if it could be shown in the lab that random chance and natural selection could lead to the type of large scale evolutionary change you're referring to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #194 December 13, 2006 Quote Particularly the stuff about where you'll be going when you die. It's spelled out very clearly. oh, now the dead are "going". Kind of like zombies, Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,149 #195 December 13, 2006 I like your post Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #196 December 13, 2006 QuoteWhy should those that see it in the wild and demonstrate it in the lab change their position to mollify those that choose instead to believe a creation myth written by a neolithic tribe that had no science? Anyone who's actually studied the writings of the authors of the Bible should see that they were very eloquent, articulate, intelligent, and inspired who wrote with a purpose other than trying to convey a fairytale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #197 December 13, 2006 That doesn't make it any more credible. The quality of the writing has nothing to do with the intelectual content. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #198 December 13, 2006 >if it could be shown in the lab that random chance and natural >selection could lead to the type of large scale evolutionary change >you're referring to. In labs, within 20 generations, they have turned wild foxes into domesticated, floppy-eared pets. They've created new species that continue to diverge. They've expressed atavistic remnants, and caused tailless animals to be born with tails. Heck, we see whales with legs, snakes with legs, even humans born with fully functional tails. (The whales and humans were normal atavistic mutations, not lab experiments, before anyone gets upset!) Claiming that all that makes sense, but more change does not, is like watching a road crew build a mile of highway but claiming that such crews could not possibly ever build a highway that goes coast to coast. After all, that's 3000 miles, or 3000 times longer than what you observed. A road crew explains how we can build microroads, but certainly not macroroads! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #199 December 13, 2006 QuoteThat doesn't make it any more credible. That's not what I meant by that. The insinuation above was that they were a bunch of primitive dolts who didn't know any better. The evidence does not show that. I wasn't getting into the issue of credibility. However, their inteligence does add to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #200 December 13, 2006 QuoteIn labs, within 20 generations, they have turned wild foxes into domesticated, floppy-eared pets. I've got to go pick up my wife so I'll get to this later. However, regardless of whether they've got pointed or floppy ears... they're still just foxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
