Just one question SF, what evil man made technology caused the earth to warm up and the ice age to receed? :D

Skipuno Wrote:Just one question SF, what evil man made technology caused the earth to warm up and the ice age to receed? :D

No idea, but I'm sure Cheney is still profiting from it.

Dogger Wrote:How am I ignoring it? I put up the numbers. It's right up there on the screen. How did I ignore it? You know it's coming so clear to me now. Even when something is smack right in front of you if you don't agree with it you say I ignore it. Your coalition of the willing in MY VIEW ignores the fact that our soldiers are plowing the lion's share of the work. In my view we did go at it by ourselves. A far far cry from Gulf 1.

Debunking Wilson's claim. Are you now saying Iraq did try to acquire yellow cake from Niger. You are completely amazing. Hey you could be a weapon's inspector!!!!!!! Niner could find yellow cake wooo hooo!!!!!!!!!!

Well, you know what they say...........every little bit helps.

I do not care if there was NO ONE on our side in this matter......if we are right. And we are right.

With respect to Niger, Uranium and truth telling, WSJ, July 20-

"Joe Wilson didn't tell the truth about how he supposedly came to realize that it was "highly doubtful" there was anything to the story he'd been sent to Niger to investigate. He told everyone that he'd recognized as obvious forgeries the documents purporting to show an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. But the forged documents to which he referred didn't reach U.S. intelligence until eight months after his trip. Mr. Wilson has said that he "misspoke" -- multiple times, apparently -- on this issue.

Joe Wilson was also not telling the truth when he said that his final report to the CIA had "debunked" the Niger story. The Senate Intelligence report -- again, the bipartisan portion of it -- says Mr. Wilson's debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. That's because Niger's former Prime Minister had told Mr. Wilson he interpreted a 1999 visit from an Iraqi trade delegation as showing an interest in uranium."

The facts were there, the contacts were made, we interupted the plan by taking preemptive action. I am proud of our nation's leadership on this.

Hey Schadenfreude, I don't question that there was probably a big a s s flood that inundated the entire world as the folks writing the myth in Genesis knew it several thousand years ago. Let's think about this.

If you lived 5,000 years or so ago, what was your world? Well, it was where you lived and, if you were like most people, you never saw, in your entire life, anything more than what was contained in about a 50 mile radius. Now, you knew the world consisted of more than this 50 mile radius but, in all likelihood, you had no idea if the world even existed outside of maybe a 500 mile radius. With that in mind, let's look at floods.

It's pretty easy to look at alluvial deposits and figure out what are 100 year floods, what are 500 year floods, what are 1, 000 year floods and what are 10,000 year floods. Assuming that all you've got are oral histories, something on the magnitude of a 5,000 or 10,000 year flood would certainly inundate everything you ever considered as "the world."

Thus, I have no doubt that a monstrous flood occurred at some point during Jewish oral history. Unfortunately for biblical literalists, pretty much every culture on the face of the earth has its own flood mythology. Again, that's not teribly surprising considering that the written language had just been developed and, somewhere in the oral history of that culture, a massive flood had happened. My only point was that a flood that inundated alll of the land masses on the entire earth is inconsistent with the available data.

MAKO Wrote:Creationism is the theory that an omnipotent being created the entire universe in six 24 hour periods a little over 6,000 years ago.  Unfortunately for creationists, there is one big, huge, enormous problem.  If the universe does happen to be billions of years old rather than just over 6,000 years old, all of the tenets of creationism fall apart.

Indeed, if that theory was correct, we could not see beyond 6,000 or so light years.  The fact that our telescopes can see for billions of light years means that the universe must be at least that old.  (If you really want a detailed explanation of how astronomical distances are estimated, I'll give it to you in another post).  But, we don't even have to look up to find evidence of the universe being more than 6,000 years old.  We know that certain minerals are produced in pure form in volcanic activity.  Then, they start to decay at a certain specific rate.  We can then measure the ratio of compounds in those minerals and come up with a date. 

Creationism also has, as one of its basic tenets, the inundation of the entire world by rainfall sufficient to cover all land.  OK.  Let's see what evidence would be required to fit that theory.

Well, first off, we're not certain what would happen to the fish when you mixed all that fresh water with all that salt water.  While a few fish can tolerate both, most can only tolerate one or the other and some have extremely limited tolerances.  The ark was less than 1/3 of the size of a modern aircraft carrier.  How did Noah fit two of every single species of animal in a space that small when they certainly would not fit on an aircraft carrier.  Remember, scientists estimate that there are something like 10 million species in existence.  And since all animals are the same today as they were then according to creationist theory, don't forget to include two of every species of dinosaur.  Oh yeah.  Almost forgot.  Wouldn't you need food for those animals as well?  For that matter, how did plants survive since Noah didn't take any plants other than crops onto the ark?  Last but most importantly, ALL fossils should be randomly distributed throughout ALL strata if a flood indeed killed every single living animal on the earth.  While the occasional out of place fossil is indeed found on occasion, finding a 1 in a million example does not support that theory.

Evolution is based on the simplest of tenets.  Offspring are different from their parents.  A particular difference may confer a survival advantage or, more likely, a survival disadvantage.  Traits that confer a survival advantage are more likely to be passed on to the offspring's offspring.  It takes about 40,000 years, on average, for a speciation event to occur.  That's it.  That's the entire theory of evolution in a nutshell.  It fits with physical evidence because it predicts that it would take a long time for species to diversify in the manner we see today.  It fits with the fossil evidence because we don't find mammalian fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils (well, except for the few small mammals that did exist around the end of the dinosaur reign).

Something "created" (not born) would have the characteristics of something older than than its chronological age. If I was just created, just as I am, I would appear to be 42 years old, not just minutes old.

With respect to the flood, some believe (as I do) that water not only came from the sky but also from underground reservoirs (hence mountains, valleys, volcanoes, etc.). How fish survive in both salt and fresh water is explained by natural evolution where the species changed in variety over time to where we are now (not the crossing and skipping of species as taught in Darwinian evolution). This is compatible with the evolution of man regarding skin color, bone structure, size, weight, etc. It is also seen in the evolution of canines from the wolf to my Labrador Retriever.

This also explains how so many species of animals were taken upon the ark. There just weren't as many varieties of species in those days. Dinosaurs included. There are many examples of terminated species in comparatively recent history (1000 years or so).

The dating process you mention is a very flawed method of dating dynamic material. And food for the ark is simple. They only needed about a years worth. My family use to set aside that much for over 600 cows every year.

It takes more faith to conclude that there is not a creator than to believe that there is. The objective facts of natural science, the creation itself, and the natural yearning of man to know his God all point to a creator. The odds of chance are too random and astronomical.

Randy, I refuse to believe your post came from a college educated person.

MAKO Wrote:Hey Schadenfreude, I don't question that there was probably a big a s s flood that inundated the entire world as the folks writing the myth in Genesis knew it several thousand years ago. Let's think about this.

I wasn't arguing with you.

I was just sharing what I think is a cool hypothesis.

To think that there are tiny shards of human history -- however distorted -- that may actually survive from an event 7,400 years ago just blows my mind.

Are you aware of flood stories that seem to have sprung up with no discernable connection to the Middle East?

I think the authors of this book -- William Ryan and Walter Pitman -- would prefer to argue that all the flood stories can be connected back to the Black Sea flood of 5,600 B.C. They suggest that the event sent cultures scattering in all directions -- along with their tales of this remarkable flood.

One thing that has not been done is a systematic search of the Black Sea floor for archelogical evidence. Technology still may not permit it. Most of the evidence of the flood is based on core samples of the Black Sea floor -- which, obviously, is a long way from systematically digging in places in search of archeological remains.

MAKO Wrote:Randy, I refuse to believe your post came from a college educated person.

I respond to you substantively and you take that kind of shot at me and you expect me to TAKE YOU SERIOUS? Yes, I am college educated and have a couple of post graduate degrees (albeit not in science related subjects). You can disagree if you wish but Nobel prize winning scientists agree with my understanding of creationism.

Just like those that want to believe such tripe as The Davinci Code and similar theories, it is harder to believe the truth than a lie.