Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GenesisNemesis · 11-13-2007, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Snowball earth might do!

Isn't snow ice?

youngalexander · 11-13-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

initial light

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Explanation?

The biggy bang, perhaps, was what I meant...

No, after the BB, about 3s later, in the photon epoch

You must do this correctly in accordance with the understood sequence of events.

lee_merrill · 11-13-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the context found in Gen 1:12 ['esev - tho Lee knows he is not being scholarly] must be seen as terrestrial, as it is with grass [D$(], and trees and it produces seed.

But most every plant produces seed in a broader sense, which I hold may be the Hebrew sense, seed here certainly is not a technical term like the biologist meaning of seed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Well, flax can be "trees":

Joshua 2:6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hid them with the stalks ['ets] of flax that she had laid in order on the roof.

The best you can say is that "flax trees" is an opaque term. It doesn't help you because one doesn't really know what is being referred to.

It refers to stalks of flax, rather clearly, I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis Nemesis

Isn't snow ice?

And water, especially when it melts!

lee_merrill · 11-13-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

initial light
The biggy bang, perhaps, was what I meant...

No, after the BB, about 3s later, in the photon epoch

You must do this correctly in accordance with the understood sequence of events.

Alrighty, the biggy echo of said bang!

GenesisNemesis · 11-13-2007, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

And water, especially when it melts!

Is there a reason why people call water filled with ice "ice water"?

lee_merrill · 11-13-2007, 09:32 PM

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

GenesisNemesis · 11-13-2007, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

Because that's how you fit it to your liking when it's not actually how reality works.

spin · 11-13-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the context found in Gen 1:12 ['esev - tho Lee knows he is not being scholarly] must be seen as terrestrial, as it is with grass [D$(], and trees and it produces seed.

But most every plant produces seed in a broader sense, which I hold may be the Hebrew sense, seed here certainly is not a technical term like the biologist meaning of seed.

Certainly algae do not have seeds. Algae lack everything you would need to fit it into the category you are cheating with. No roots, no leaves, no seeds, no flowers, no plant organs. In short you cannot make them into something they are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

It refers to stalks of flax, rather clearly, I think.

Rubbish, lee_merrill. You have no criteria to make the call, ie "rather clearly", besides your own desire.

spin

youngalexander · 11-14-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

No, after the BB, about 3s later, in the photon epoch

You must do this correctly in accordance with the understood sequence of events.

Alrighty, the biggy echo of said bang!

Unfortunately for the Creator, or is it you, the photon epoch was opaque!

I would have liked to continue the fun chaps, by further exploring the evolution of our universe. Regrettably I must 'jet out' on the morrow for the Oz Skeptics Conference in Hobart.

Keep the rational work up!

Johnny Skeptic · 11-14-2007, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Please state a comparison between what Genesis says about a separation of the land and the appearance of seas and what skeptic scientists claim happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Merrill

Well, I think it corresponds rather well, for example, the breaking apart of a supercontinent would form seas, plural.

I still do not know what you are trying to prove. Please quote the Scriptures that you are talking about, and state why the Scriptures reasonably prove that the God of the Bible created the earth as opposed to naturalism, some other God, or an advanced alien.

Why would God have cause a continent to break apart when he could have instantly created the finished product?

Is it your position that God instantly created Adam and Eve as finished products? If so, how does that complement Behe's claim that God used part instantaneous creationism and part evolution?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2007, 09:32 PM	#26
lee_merrill Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,074	But again, we are skipping over the correspondences, where every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as light first and inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.