"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Kenny]

You are completely wrong.

• A geologist, Bretz, suggested the Scablands were formed by a massive flood.
• At the time other geologists rejected the theory because Bretz could not identify the source or cause of the massive flood.
• Further research confirmed and enhanced Bretz's theory.

It's a beautiful example of how science is supposed to work.
It's a beautiful example of how science DOES work.

But are we sure they got it right? And are we forgetting that they heckled Bretz and said "You are out of your mind--this is psuedo science" (praphrased)? What would have happened if he yielded to the pressure?

 

[Kenny]

You stated god was omnipotent. Therefore , you are the one who has to reconcile things like that. Just denying it doesn't work.

This is a double step answer. It's your comment that doesn't work.

I could give the house to one of two people:

• I know Randell will maintain the house in good condition.
• I know Arthur will cause the house to fall

I give the house to Arthur

I intentionally gave the house to a man I knew would cause it to fall down. Worse yet, I blame Arthur and Arthur's wife, Evelyn. As punishment, I make all of Evelyn's female descendants suffer every time they give birth.

So... as you so well interpret, you think that God punished A & E? Funny, I read it differently. I read that God saved A & E.

And when you Baker Act someone, it is because you are punishing them? Or when you restrict mobility because you are drunk, you are punishing them?

Hmmm... we do have different perspectives, apparently.

Then, after some years, I drown all but a few of Arthur and Evelyn's living offspring.

That makes me, at best, a cruel sadist.

I get it... if the whole of the planet it detroying itself, saving those who won't is wrong. GOT IT! And if the Japaneese are proliferating Nanking type of attitudes all over the world... we should just let them do it.

Where are you from, again?

Continuing my analogy ... after being responsible for causing untold suffering, I rape and impregnate a woman, Marsha. My "intention" being that people will listen to her offspring, JayCee, and make things better. I know it isn't going to work, but I do it anyway.

What planet did you say you were from? I had to stop answering here... we are having a language difficulty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So let me see if I got this straight.

First they said it took millions of years to make the canyon.

Then they said, "No, it actually was a massive flood from a glacier" after they heckled the people that said it was a glacier flood.

And now they said it was multiple floods.

Now... which one is right? And we know they are right this time... because?

HahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHA

Wow!! You go out of your way to get things wrong.

How the scablands were formed was not known. The idea of massive floods was unsupported by other evidence at that time. They did not say "it took millions of years". They simply said "I don't believe your explanation because it is not properly supported by evidence". Guess what happened when more evidence was found? They changed their minds.

The Wiki article on the Channeled Scablands tells you why his interpretations were not accepted at first:

" His theories of how they were formed required short but immense floods – 500 cubic miles (2,100 km3) – for which Bretz had no explanation."

Bretz himself had no explanation where the water came from. That will get you laughed at when you make almost any claim of the sort that he did.

Meanwhile you follow people like Ken Ham who lost the debate with Bill Nye when he said that no amount of evidence would change his mind. And in fact he makes his employees swear not to rely on what the evidence says.

Your bad behavior indicates fear on your part. Why are you so afraid of reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But are we sure they got it right? And are we forgetting that they heckled Bretz and said "You are out of your mind--this is psuedo science" (praphrased)? What would have happened if he yielded to the pressure?

Bretz was "heckled" because he could not explain where the water came from. Sort of like how the Flood believers can't explain where the water came from or where it went to or why it did not leave a mark.

 

[Audie]

Wow!! You go out of your way to get things wrong.

How the scablands were formed was not known. The idea of massive floods was unsupported by other evidence at that time. They did not say "it took millions of years". They simply said "I don't believe your explanation because it is not properly supported by evidence". Guess what happened when more evidence was found? They changed their minds.

The Wiki article on the Channeled Scablands tells you why his interpretations were not accepted at first:

" His theories of how they were formed required short but immense floods – 500 cubic miles (2,100 km3) – for which Bretz had no explanation."

Bretz himself had no explanation where the water came from. That will get you laughed at when you make almost any claim of the sort that he did.

Meanwhile you follow people like Ken Ham who lost the debate with Bill Nye when he said that no amount of evidence would change his mind. And in fact he makes his employees swear not to rely on what the evidence says.

Your bad behavior indicates fear on your part. Why are you so afraid of reality?

Why are you so willing to accept such abuse? You dont, ah, you know,
do black leather and stiletto heel boots...right, you wouldnt, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you so willing to accept such abuse? You dont, ah, you know,
do black leather and stiletto heel boots...right, you wouldnt, right?

What time will you be over?

 

[Audie]

Wow!! You go out of your way to get things wrong.

How the scablands were formed was not known. The idea of massive floods was unsupported by other evidence at that time. They did not say "it took millions of years". They simply said "I don't believe your explanation because it is not properly supported by evidence". Guess what happened when more evidence was found? They changed their minds.

The Wiki article on the Channeled Scablands tells you why his interpretations were not accepted at first:

" His theories of how they were formed required short but immense floods – 500 cubic miles (2,100 km3) – for which Bretz had no explanation."

Bretz himself had no explanation where the water came from. That will get you laughed at when you make almost any claim of the sort that he did.

Meanwhile you follow people like Ken Ham who lost the debate with Bill Nye when he said that no amount of evidence would change his mind. And in fact he makes his employees swear not to rely on what the evidence says.

Your bad behavior indicates fear on your part. Why are you so afraid of reality?

What time will you be over?

So, it is just as I feared. I will have to
put both of you in igcity for the duration.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, it is just as I feared. I will have to
put both of you in igcity for the duration.

What?? Your offer was not serious?

 

[ecco]

So let me see if I got this straight.

First they said it took millions of years to make the canyon.

Then they said, "No, it actually was a massive flood from a glacier" after they heckled the people that said it was a glacier flood.

And now they said it was multiple floods.

Now... which one is right? And we know they are right this time... because?

HahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHA

If you cannot follow a simple thread that's talking about different events, then you should be crying, not laughing.

 

[ecco]

But are we sure they got it right? And are we forgetting that they heckled Bretz and said "You are out of your mind--this is psuedo science" (praphrased)? What would have happened if he yielded to the pressure?

Perhaps Pardee would have published. Perhaps some other scientist would have gotten curious.

You really don't know much about how science works.

• Do you really believe Darwin was the only person coming to the idea of evolution?
• Do you really believe Hubble was the only person coming to the idea of an expanding universe.
• Do you really believe Crick and Watson were the only people working on the structure of DNA?

You really don't know much about how science works.

 

[ecco]

So... as you so well interpret, you think that God punished A & E? Funny, I read it differently. I read that God saved A & E.

You are an extremely curious person with a passion for learning. You and your wife are living in a beautiful country mansion. The owner, knowing you are an extremely curious person with a passion for learning tells you not to read the books in his library. You sneak a peek at one of the books. The owner kicks you out and makes you live with the pigs. When your wife gets pregnant, he makes sure her childbirth is very painful.

But, he's not punishing you, he's saving you. Uh huh.

And when you Baker Act someone, it is because you are punishing them?

If you Backer Act someone after intentionally causing them to act badly, you are a sadist.

...And if the Japaneese are proliferating Nanking type of attitudes all over the world... we should just let them do it.

You keep blissfully ignoring the fact that your omniscient god knew A&E were going to fail.
You keep blissfully ignoring the fact that your omnipotent god caused A&E to fail.
Then you insist he did it so he could save them.

That's like throwing a two year old off the boat so you can be a hero and save him. Except that you intentionally leave him in the water long enough where he has brain damage.

 

[gnostic]

That is wonderful. The geneaology seems simple enough to me. It is always amazing (to me) how we can call it a "myth" and give names of the people all the way to Jesus Christ.

Except that the two gospels give two conflicting genealogies, both on Joseph's side. They both give different fathers to Joseph.

And names on genealogy don't necessarily say these ancestors are real.

 

[ecco]

What planet did you say you were from? I had to stop answering here... we are having a language difficulty.

No, you are having a problem comprehending your own religious views.

 

[exchemist]

So let me see if I got this straight.

First they said it took millions of years to make the canyon.

Then they said, "No, it actually was a massive flood from a glacier" after they heckled the people that said it was a glacier flood.

And now they said it was multiple floods.

Now... which one is right? And we know they are right this time... because?

HahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHA

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but would make a general observation.

Unlike scripture, science does not claim to be final truth.

Science makes predictive models of aspects of the physical world, that can be tested by observation. It is quite common for theories to be modified or overturned in science. It is part of what makes it interesting.

You can laugh when this happens, because no doubt some scientist somewhere has a red face, so you can enjoy a bit of schadenfreude at his or her expense. But science is strengthened, not weakened, by such events.

 

[ecco]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case

Regarding observed geological formations in what is now know as the scablands.

Following extensive investigation of the area, a geologist named Bretz postulated that the cause was massive, sudden flooding.

J Harlen Bretz - Wikipedia

Bretz published a paper in 1923, arguing that the channeled scablands in Eastern Washington were caused by massive flooding in the distant past. This was seen as arguing for a catastrophic explanation of the geology, against the prevailing view of uniformitarianism, and Bretz's views were initially discredited. However, as the nature of the Ice Age was better understood, Bretz's original research was vindicated, and by the 1950s his conclusions were also vindicated.​

Unlike scripture, science does not claim to be final truth.
You can laugh when this happens... But science is strengthened, not weakened, by such events.

Creos, in their ignorance of and disdain for science do laugh at things like this. As you said, "science is strengthened, not weakened, by such events."

 

[Kenny]

You are an extremely curious person with a passion for learning. You and your wife are living in a beautiful country mansion. The owner, knowing you are an extremely curious person with a passion for learning tells you not to read the books in his library. You sneak a peek at one of the books. The owner kicks you out and makes you live with the pigs. When your wife gets pregnant, he makes sure her childbirth is very painful.

But, he's not punishing you, he's saving you. Uh huh.


If you Backer Act someone after intentionally causing them to act badly, you are a sadist.



You keep blissfully ignoring the fact that your omniscient god knew A&E were going to fail.
You keep blissfully ignoring the fact that your omnipotent god caused A&E to fail.
Then you insist he did it so he could save them.

That's like throwing a two year old off the boat so you can be a hero and save him. Except that you intentionally leave him in the water long enough where he has brain damage.

I just need to know which Bible you are reading from, because billions of people just see it your way.

I guess that is what makes the world go around.

 

[Kenny]

Except that the two gospels give two conflicting genealogies, both on Joseph's side. They both give different fathers to Joseph.

And names on genealogy don't necessarily say these ancestors are real.

No... One is from Joseph's side and one from Mary's.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No... One is from Joseph's side and one from Mary's.

That is the weak excuse given for the obvious error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just need to know which Bible you are reading from, because billions of people just see it your way.

I guess that is what makes the world go around.

Are you sure? Why do you think that many Christians cannot understand a rather obvious bit of text?

 

[Kenny]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, but would make a general observation.

Unlike scripture, science does not claim to be final truth.

Science makes predictive models of aspects of the physical world, that can be tested by observation. It is quite common for theories to be modified or overturned in science. It is part of what makes it interesting.

You can laugh when this happens, because no doubt some scientist somewhere has a red face, so you can enjoy a bit of schadenfreude at his or her expense. But science is strengthened, not weakened, by such events.

That is true.

I really do approve of science. It is just that sometimes people make it sound like they are infallible and never have to recant what at one time they said was true.

It is like the science of nutrition (as a very simple example). First they said eggs were good for you, then they said it wasn't and now they say it is again. I never agreed with nutritionists when they said it wasn't good for you.