TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:The earth is older than the sun and the moon. Genesis 1:16-18.
Maybe scientists are following God's truths after all.
There you go again, lad...
Making a statement and a supporting quote that is as totally disconnected from the topic you yourself wished to discuss, as they are from each other.
Are you ready to deal with this now?d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:This never gave me an insight into the underlying themes of Avatar.
'Christian' themes, such as: Good vs. Evil, with Evil getting the thrashing it deserves; the human experience of having to choose between Good and Evil; the most wonderful human experience that comes the closest to the act of Creation - the act of love between a male and female creature; the emotional turmoil of a human caught between two life-changing choices...?
But, like anything else in life, there are lessons to be learned.
What about looking to see the good in all? Everything that is of this Creation has some good in it, no matter how twisted it might become. Learn to think for yourself, you frightened, paranoid, little man! If you believe we were placed here for a reason, how then can we have been placed among things that we must shun completely? You mean all this was created, then left to disintegrate when the original plan went belly-up? Are you placing your god on the same level as a poor loser? ("Allyuh out mih? Nah, I eh taking dat! I taking my bat an' ball, an' going home!")
Though we aren't of this world, aren't we supposed to be part of it? You believe your god created a beautiful world and holds it in existence, just for you to shun?
While I regret seeing the movie
Why? What did you find wrong with the movie? (and I am not referring to that heap of quenk crap that you got off the net... insulting to Hindus, my red seam...) I mean you, personally...
it reinforced the point to me that deep below the surface, Hollywood is about really trying to destroy God's credibility
No, it isn't, my paranoid friend. Hollywood makes movies to make money. A materialistic world. Yes, it's not very polite and rather obtuse, so what? Just like owning a cow, focus on the good it can produce rather than the crap it leaves behind. (Idiots who get rid off the dog because it craps on the lawn get burgled.) Imperfection means not yet perfect, not a total waste of time.d spike wrote:Come to think of it, this thread's title does make sense...
...in this materialistic age, the Avatar movie is quite possibly (for many people) "your best encounter with God"...
So, you go and lock yourself up in your sealed capsule where the residue of a dirty world won't contaminate you... but ask yourself if that is what you were sent here for. Remember the servant who kept his master's coin (the talent) safe and sound in the ground, until his master's return? He fell from grace because he didn't use it...
TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
sMASH wrote:finally saw avatar ..... 3d winzzzzzzzzzzzzz
movie nice. graphics dammmmmmmmmmmm
too much nakedness to carry meh lil bro and sis.
storyline eh all dat, but de message is well portrayed and brutally blunt
we are greedy, careless, and destructive. in our attempts to express our conceptions of superiority we have lost the consciousness of our connections to the world which sustains us physically.
one of the early scenes summarized it pretty well; when the seeds thingies were landing on the dude and re-actively he wanted to kill the things, not because of fear nor threat, just plain proximity. he need to be lambasted in order to stop killing the things.
wrt evil connotations, i see as much in that as i see practiced in any other popular religion (what i believe to be evil and what u believe to be evil may be two different things, as the tasting of blood is less evil than the belief that god has progeny; that the preservation of the environment is more gud than the establishment of our uncompromising dominion). i just take it with a pinch of salt and let live as they let live.
from god we come and to god is our eventual return, so we all are connected.
we should be very economical with the taking of life as we cannot even grant it far less for sustaining it, so we thank god for providing the food and acknowledge that he is the supreme creator and sustain-er. sustenance is a blessing, not an obligation. killing is a serious matter, and should be performed correctly with humility for a worthy cause, as the transgressors risk sin
d spike wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
How... remarkable. I see you can write about it, and use the past tense... so that means you have since moved on in your life without getting killed. Thank goodness for plush couches, eh?
The only slugs I know, graze on the sweet-pepper plants and don't make much noise... apart from a muted belch every now and then.
Could someone explain to me what this is here for?
Jonathan wrote:Producing the Geological Record
Most people who believe in a global flood also believe that the flood was responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. (The alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time sequence of several generations at least, would prove that some kind of evolutionary process occurred.) However, there is a great deal of contrary evidence.
Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868].)
Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:
* Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
* River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
* Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
* Beaches.
* Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
* Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
* In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
* Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
* Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
* Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
* Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
* Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
* Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]
How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?
How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.
How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.
When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]
How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]
How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.
How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil--appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires. [Ferguson, 1988. For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990; Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.
Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.
* Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
* Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
* Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
* Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.
5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 1027 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.
Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.
As shown in section 5, all the mechanisms proposed for causing the Flood already provide more than enough energy to vaporize it as well. These additional factors only make the heat problem worse.
How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.
How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.
How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt? Such layers are sometimes meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
(2) the salt is a later intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils. [Jackson et al, 1990]
How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the short time since the Flood? The stretched pebble conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15 mi. south of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their original length. Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs [Jackson et al, 1990].
How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they were laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible.
How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.
* Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
* Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization.
* Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
* Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.
How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?
How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. [Rosenberg & Runcorn, 1975; Scrutton, 1965; Wells, 1963]
Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive? Schadewald [1982] writes:
"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.
"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."
A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."
Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed.
Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16 x 1013 metric tons of coal reserves, and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth, would supply only 1.9 x 1013 metric tons. [Ricklefs, 1993, p. 149]
How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.
References
Andrews, J. E., 1988. Soil-zone microfabrics in calcrete and in desiccation cracks from the Upper Jurassic Purbeck Formation of Dorset. Geological Journal 23(3): 261-270.
Bignot, G., 1985. Micropaleontology Boston: IHRDC, p. 75.
Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983. Aeolian stratification in desert sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland. Sedimentology 30: 311-339.
Crimes, Peter, and Mary L Droser, 1992. Trace fossils and bioturbation: the other fossil record. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 339-360.
Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp.
Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.
Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989. Geological Highway Map of Nova Scotia, 2nd edition. Atlantic Geoscience Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia. AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000.
Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies. IN: Walker, R.G., Facies Models, 2nd edition. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1: 15-38.
Ferguson, Laing, 1988. The fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Fezer, Karl D., 1993. "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science" Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49.
Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York.
Gastaldo, R. A., 1990, Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama. in R. A. Gastaldo et. al., Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. pp. 41-54.
Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp.
Gore, Rick, 1993. Dinosaurs. National Geographic, 183(1) (Jan. 1993): 2-54.
Grieve, R. A. F., 1997. Extraterrestrial impact events: the record in the rocks and the stratigraphic record. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 132: 5-23.
Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984. Eolian sandstones in Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54: 798-810.
Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990. Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, Central Iran. Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp.
James, N. P. & P. W. Choquette (eds.), 1988. Paleokarst, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981. Distinctions and uses of stratification types in the interpretation of eolian sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51(2): 579-595.
Miall, A. D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Moore, James R., 1973. "Charles Lyell and the Noachian Deluge", in Dundes, 1988, The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Newell, N., 1982. Creation and Evolution, Colombia U. Press, p. 62.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and weathering through geologic time: principles and applications. Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp.
Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature, W. H. Freeman, New York.
Robb, A. J. III, 1992. Rain-impact microtopography (RIM); an experimental analogue for fossil examples from the Maroon Formation, Colorado. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(3): 530-535.
Rosenberg, G. D. & Runcorn, S. K. (Eds), 1975. Growth rhythms and the history of the earth's rotation. Willey Interscience, New York.
Schadewald, Robert, 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.
Schmitz, B., B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, M. Lindstrom, & M. Tassinari, 1997. Accretion rates of meteorites and cosmic dust in the Early Ordovician. Science 278: 88-90.
Scrutton, C. T., ( 1964 ) 1965. Periodicity in Devonian coral growth. Palaeontology, 7(4): 552-558, Plates 86-87.
Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North, 1991. Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography. Quaternary Research. 35, 157-173. (Re an independent method of dating the Green River formation)
Stewart, W.N., 1983. Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 405pp.
Thackray, G. D., 1994. Fossil nest of sweat bees (Halictinae) from a Miocene paleosol, Rusinga Island, western Kenya. Journal of Paleontology 68(4): 795-800.
Twenhofel, William H., 1961. Treatise on Sedimentation, Dover, p. 50-52.
Weast, Robert C., 1974. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th edition, CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.
Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Wilson, J. L., 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Wright, V. P. (ed.), 1986. Paleosols: Their Recognition and Interpretation, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine sequences. Earth-Science Reviews, 37: 367-395. See also pp. 135-137.
Yun, Zhang, 1989. Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China. Lethaia 22: 113-132.
Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place, Geology 12, 159-162. See also Fritz, W.J. & Yuretich, R.F., Comment and reply, Geology 20, 638-639.
Zimmer, Carl, 1992. Peeling the big blue banana. Discover 13(1): 46-47.
[/quote]d spike wrote:Here is some (regurgitated) food for thought for ol' Bluefete:d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:The earth is older than the sun and the moon. Genesis 1:16-18.
Maybe scientists are following God's truths after all.
There you go again, lad...
Making a statement and a supporting quote that is as totally disconnected from the topic you yourself wished to discuss, as they are from each other.
Are you ready to deal with this now?d spike wrote:bluefete"]
This never gave me an insight into the underlying themes of Avatar.
'Christian' themes, such as: Good vs. Evil, with Evil getting the thrashing it deserves; the human experience of having to choose between Good and Evil; the most wonderful human experience that comes the closest to the act of Creation - the act of love between a male and female creature; the emotional turmoil of a human caught between two life-changing choices...?
But, like anything else in life, there are lessons to be learned.
What about looking to see the good in all? Everything that is of this Creation has some good in it, no matter how twisted it might become. Learn to think for yourself, you frightened, paranoid, little man! If you believe we were placed here for a reason, how then can we have been placed among things that we must shun completely? You mean all this was created, then left to disintegrate when the original plan went belly-up? Are you placing your god on the same level as a poor loser? ("Allyuh out mih? Nah, I eh taking dat! I taking my bat an' ball, an' going home!")
Though we aren't of this world, aren't we supposed to be part of it? You believe your god created a beautiful world and holds it in existence, just for you to shun?
While I regret seeing the movie
Why? What did you find wrong with the movie? (and I am not referring to that heap of quenk crap that you got off the net... insulting to Hindus, my red seam...) I mean you, personally...
it reinforced the point to me that deep below the surface, Hollywood is about really trying to destroy God's credibility
No, it isn't, my paranoid friend. Hollywood makes movies to make money. A materialistic world. Yes, it's not very polite and rather obtuse, so what? Just like owning a cow, focus on the good it can produce rather than the crap it leaves behind. (Idiots who get rid off the dog because it craps on the lawn get burgled.) Imperfection means not yet perfect, not a total waste of time.
[quote="d spike wrote:Come to think of it, this thread's title does make sense...
...in this materialistic age, the Avatar movie is quite possibly (for many people) "your best encounter with God"...
So, you go and lock yourself up in your sealed capsule where the residue of a dirty world won't contaminate you... but ask yourself if that is what you were sent here for. Remember the servant who kept his master's coin (the talent) safe and sound in the ground, until his master's return? He fell from grace because he didn't use it...
d spike wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
How... remarkable. I see you can write about it, and use the past tense... so that means you have since moved on in your life without getting killed. Thank goodness for plush couches, eh?
The only slugs I know, graze on the sweet-pepper plants and don't make much noise... apart from a muted belch every now and then.
Could someone explain to me what this is here for?
TRAE wrote:d spike wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
How... remarkable. I see you can write about it, and use the past tense... so that means you have since moved on in your life without getting killed. Thank goodness for plush couches, eh?
The only slugs I know, graze on the sweet-pepper plants and don't make much noise... apart from a muted belch every now and then.
Could someone explain to me what this is here for?
yeah now i just got my son so, that is a part of me that wont be coming back...thank god
bluefete wrote:d spike wrote:d spike wrote:So, you go and lock yourself up in your sealed capsule where the residue of a dirty world won't contaminate you... but ask yourself if that is what you were sent here for. Remember the servant who kept his master's coin (the talent) safe and sound in the ground, until his master's return? He fell from grace because he didn't use it...
So who are you to say that I am not using the Master's coin well? All of us are given different coins and when we understand what we are given we must use it to for the glory of the Master.
Some people are given the gift/talent of discernment. Their duty is to inform those who do not have that talent. That is my job. And I have taken 70 plus pages of licks for doing it. I don't mind (not that I am a masochist, eh!)
Whether or not you have the gift of discernment is a very moot point. However, discernment is not required for what is being discussed here - all it can do is act as a personal guide. What is needed here is wisdom, and the ability to state why discernment has guided you in a particular direction. Your personal guidance system is of no interest to many readers, who think you operate on whim. Apologetics, the art of defending one's beliefs, clearly teaches you to rely on logic and clear speech, not paroxysms of "It's true! I'm right!" and (as in another thread) "Praise God! He lives!". Please remember your audience. You want them to understand your point. Don't preach in Swahili - we don't speak the lingo.
By my analogy of the hidden coin, I was clearly referring to getting to grips with the reality that we are set in, and the fact that we are sent here, as part of all this, and the tools we need to use, we must make from what lies around us. Forgive me for not being this clear. Can you now respond to that point?
Hollywood makes movies to make money. BUT that is not all. There is a much larger agenda at work there. It is clear to me that a major part of the Hollywood agenda is to drag God's name in the mud.
Your concern regarding the flouting of that commandment has been noted before, including your own argument as to the precise meaning of that commandment
"it reinforced the point to me that deep below the surface, Hollywood is about really trying to destroy God's credibility"
No, it isn't, my paranoid friend. Hollywood makes movies to make money. A materialistic world. Yes, it's not very polite and rather obtuse, so what? Just like owning a cow, focus on the good it can produce rather than the crap it leaves behind. (Idiots who get rid off the dog because it craps on the lawn get burgled.) Imperfection means not yet perfect, not a total waste of time.
AGAIN, notwithstanding its themes of good V evil, AVATAR is an evil movie.
Saying it, is not proving it. In view of you performing the former, you were asked to do the latter.
So far, you have focused on my final paragraph (which was not about the movie, but about your approach to dealing with how you approach this movie and other worldly things) and you misunderstood my point, so that doesn't count. Apart from that, your voicing your fear that Hollywood is out to besmirch God, and your opinion that the movie is evil... there is nothing else here. Where is your argument? This empty Trojan horse is not proof... This is why I stayed in town, instead of going up home? To read more hollow words? Oh come on man, this is all you can produce?
My problem with AVATAR is not the gunk I got off the net. It is my OWN beliefs and observations. I posted them just after seeing the movie.
And very good responses and rebuttals were made, to which you were silent. Make good the opportunity to show that wisdom and intellect are gifts from above, and that right shines more brightly than wrong... unless, of course, you happen to be wrong.
Creation has much good in it. However, God gave us a choice between good and evil. Both exist alongside each other. It is our choice. With the attendant consequences.
...And? ...The connection here is...?
If there were no bandits, there would be no work for sharks (sorry, lawyers), judges, police officers, parole boards and so on. That is one twisted piece of logic. But it is as a result of choices that people make.
d spike wrote:What about looking to see the good in all? Everything that is of this Creation has some good in it, no matter how twisted it might become. Learn to think for yourself, you frightened, paranoid, little man! If you believe we were placed here for a reason, how then can we have been placed among things that we must shun completely? You mean all this was created, then left to disintegrate when the original plan went belly-up? Are you placing your god on the same level as a poor loser? ("Allyuh out mih? Nah, I eh taking dat! I taking my bat an' ball, an' going home!")
Though we aren't of this world, aren't we supposed to be part of it? You believe your god created a beautiful world and holds it in existence, just for you to shun?
d spike wrote:Come to think of it, this thread's title does make sense...
...in this materialistic age, the Avatar movie is quite possibly (for many people) "your best encounter with God"...
bluefete wrote:d spike wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
How... remarkable. I see you can write about it, and use the past tense... so that means you have since moved on in your life without getting killed. Thank goodness for plush couches, eh?
The only slugs I know, graze on the sweet-pepper plants and don't make much noise... apart from a muted belch every now and then.
Could someone explain to me what this is here for?
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_dyPiIcLK90&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_dyPiIcLK90&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
A TESTIMONY TO GOD'S AMAZING GRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bluefete wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
A TESTIMONY TO GOD'S AMAZING GRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the_DFC wrote:wha d ass really goin on here.
God strikes again.
2000yrs ago he molested Mary n get she pregnant..and Joseph hadda take he horn n stay quiet.
in 2010 in Moruga a young woman is pregnant..and she claims it was God. God came inside her..literally. So we have ah new son of god..and most likely his name would be Rampaul, Or Ragoobarsingh.
She is due on august...lol..so lets wait and see what happens.
d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
A TESTIMONY TO GOD'S AMAZING GRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait a minute...
Are you saying that it was God's grace that saved him? Sooo... what about all those that fall victim to gangsters' bullets? God didn't wish to dish out some grace there, then. Undeserving little buggers, eh?
They didn't have any little ones to take care of, huh? Sooo... God physically saves the deserving... and pulls the chain on the nasty sodders... okaay then...
Using this concept then, we obviously have no need for all this judicial nonsense, lawyers, magistrates, hearings... waste of time and money.
Put them up against a wall, fire some shots... if God's grace saves them, then they are deserving/innocent... if not, well, let's just say we saved the country the time and money of incarceration and hearings.
Why not just tie a brick onto one foot, and toss them into the river? If they float... Hallelujah! God saves the innocent... the fish benefit from the guilty...
Or just let them duel? God will give victory to the righteous...
Or tie 'em to a stake and light the fires? God will send rain, not so?
playerskrew wrote:Explain the 10 plagues of egypt then......
TRAE wrote:d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:TRAE wrote:i was in a gang in California...bullets flying past my head, heard a slug pass by centimetres from my ear, another grazed my shoulder...none hit even though i was just behind a plush couch...
A TESTIMONY TO GOD'S AMAZING GRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait a minute...
Are you saying that it was God's grace that saved him? Sooo... what about all those that fall victim to gangsters' bullets? God didn't wish to dish out some grace there, then. Undeserving little buggers, eh?
They didn't have any little ones to take care of, huh? Sooo... God physically saves the deserving... and pulls the chain on the nasty sodders... okaay then...
God's wisdom is higher than ours. We cannot understand His ways. In times of calamity BOTH the good and bad are taken. Others are spared simply becasue their work is not done.
Using this concept then, we obviously have no need for all this judicial nonsense, lawyers, magistrates, hearings... waste of time and money.
Put them up against a wall, fire some shots... if God's grace saves them, then they are deserving/innocent... if not, well, let's just say we saved the country the time and money of incarceration and hearings.
Why not just tie a brick onto one foot, and toss them into the river? If they float... Hallelujah! God saves the innocent... the fish benefit from the guilty...
Or just let them duel? God will give victory to the righteous...
Or tie 'em to a stake and light the fires? God will send rain, not so?
Rhetoric
not only gangstaz kill people
d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:d spike wrote:d spike"]
So, you go and lock yourself up in your sealed capsule where the residue of a dirty world won't contaminate you... but ask yourself if that is what you were sent here for. Remember the servant who kept his master's coin (the talent) safe and sound in the ground, until his master's return? He fell from grace because he didn't use it...
So who are you to say that I am not using the Master's coin well? All of us are given different coins and when we understand what we are given we must use it to for the glory of the Master.
Some people are given the gift/talent of discernment. Their duty is to inform those who do not have that talent. That is my job. And I have taken 70 plus pages of licks for doing it. I don't mind (not that I am a masochist, eh!)
Whether or not you have the gift of discernment is a very moot point. However, discernment is not required for what is being discussed here - all it can do is act as a personal guide. [b]What is needed here is wisdom, and the ability to state why discernment has guided you in a particular direction. Your personal guidance system is of no interest to many readers, who think you operate on whim. Apologetics, the art of defending one's beliefs, clearly teaches you to rely on logic and clear speech, not paroxysms of "It's true! I'm right!" and (as in another thread) "Praise God! He lives!". Please remember your audience. You want them to understand your point. Don't preach in Swahili - we don't speak the lingo.
By my analogy of the hidden coin, I was clearly referring to getting to grips with the reality that we are set in, and the fact that we are sent here, as part of all this, and the tools we need to use, we must make from what lies around us. Forgive me for not being this clear. Can you now respond to that point?[/b]
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)
Hollywood makes movies to make money. BUT that is not all. There is a much larger agenda at work there. It is clear to me that a major part of the Hollywood agenda is to drag God's name in the mud.
Your concern regarding the flouting of that commandment has been noted before, including your own argument as to the precise meaning of that commandment
I stand by my statement.
"it reinforced the point to me that deep below the surface, Hollywood is about really trying to destroy God's credibility"
No, it isn't, my paranoid friend. Hollywood makes movies to make money. A materialistic world. Yes, it's not very polite and rather obtuse, so what? Just like owning a cow, focus on the good it can produce rather than the crap it leaves behind. (Idiots who get rid off the dog because it craps on the lawn get burgled.) Imperfection means not yet perfect, not a total waste of time.
The Hollywood agenda is clear. Consider the plethora of current Vampire movies/tv shows.
AGAIN, notwithstanding its themes of good V evil, AVATAR is an evil movie.
Saying it, is not proving it. In view of you performing the former, you were asked to do the latter.
So far, you have focused on my final paragraph (which was not about the movie, but about your approach to dealing with how you approach this movie and other worldly things) and you misunderstood my point, so that doesn't count. Apart from that, your voicing your fear that Hollywood is out to besmirch God, and your opinion that the movie is evil... there is nothing else here. Where is your argument? This empty Trojan horse is not proof... This is why I stayed in town, instead of going up home? To read more hollow words? Oh come on man, this is all you can produce?
So sorry to delay your exit from the urban landscape. I have provided a rationale. See last comment above.
My problem with AVATAR is not the gunk I got off the net. It is my OWN beliefs and observations. I posted them just after seeing the movie.
And very good responses and rebuttals were made, to which you were silent. Make good the opportunity to show that wisdom and intellect are gifts from above, and that right shines more brightly than wrong... unless, of course, you happen to be wrong.[/b
[b]Like I wrote before - You can cover it with kuchela & pepper, it is still an abomination unto the Lord.
Creation has much good in it. However, God gave us a choice between good and evil. Both exist alongside each other. It is our choice. With the attendant consequences.
...And? ...The connection here is...?
Refer to today's Calvin & Hobbes in the Express comics. It is about Choices. Sorry, I cannot get it to reproduce here. Maybe, this might do in exchange. See way below.
If there were no bandits, there would be no work for sharks (sorry, lawyers), judges, police officers, parole boards and so on. That is one twisted piece of logic. But it is as a result of choices that people make.
That's it? That is not an argument.
See above.
[quote="d spike wrote:What about looking to see the good in all? Everything that is of this Creation has some good in it, no matter how twisted it might become. Learn to think for yourself, you frightened, paranoid, little man! If you believe we were placed here for a reason, how then can we have been placed among things that we must shun completely? You mean all this was created, then left to disintegrate when the original plan went belly-up? Are you placing your god on the same level as a poor loser? ("Allyuh out mih? Nah, I eh taking dat! I taking my bat an' ball, an' going home!")
Though we aren't of this world, aren't we supposed to be part of it? You believe your god created a beautiful world and holds it in existence, just for you to shun?
[/quote]d spike wrote:Come to think of it, this thread's title does make sense...
...in this materialistic age, the Avatar movie is quite possibly (for many people) "your best encounter with God"...
d spike wrote:bluefete wrote:Skanky wrote:I eh know who more chupid,bluefete or allyuh for still trying to argue with him.
There is no "argument" here. Just a rational discussion and some people who are frustrated by their inability to disprove God's existence..
Skanky, yuh really can't call it an argument if de fella doh respond. We actually waiting fuh him tuh reply first.
Bluefete, the people who are frustrated are so because you fooled them into thinking that this was an open discussion on the forum, and so they responded to your statements... and are thus frustrated by your lack of straight responses.Razkal wrote:how come..
i say evolution (for eg), you say prove it...(and 'we' mostly have to..)
you say god and i have to prove it isn't??
its 'your' crazy idea meng!
Razkal has a point. If you put the onus on him to back up his statements with evidence, then you must do likewise (...and quoting from a book that is a remarkable study of prose, but not a scientific text, is not evidence.
Sky wrote:bluefete, why do you need your own twisted logic to prove God to people? And why are you claiming God with, by now I would guess, hundreds of things that could easily be stripped of God. Man I gave you so much ammo earlier and you still carrying on this parade. It's mockery now. Give it up nah.
bluefete wrote:Sky wrote:bluefete, why do you need your own twisted logic to prove God to people? And why are you claiming God with, by now I would guess, hundreds of things that could easily be stripped of God. Man I gave you so much ammo earlier and you still carrying on this parade. It's mockery now. Give it up nah.
My logic is not twisted.
Man can easily strip many things of God. That is the logic of the logical world and those whose job it is to desperately try and disprove God. In other words, as was posted so many pages ago by Duane & Co, we live in the natural world and there are natural, scientific explanations for everything.
It is easy to do so because some do not really care that anything exists beyond this life.
Sky wrote:bluefete wrote:Sky wrote:bluefete, why do you need your own twisted logic to prove God to people? And why are you claiming God with, by now I would guess, hundreds of things that could easily be stripped of God. Man I gave you so much ammo earlier and you still carrying on this parade. It's mockery now. Give it up nah.
My logic is not twisted.
Man can easily strip many things of God. That is the logic of the logical world and those whose job it is to desperately try and disprove God. In other words, as was posted so many pages ago by Duane & Co, we live in the natural world and there are natural, scientific explanations for everything.
It is easy to do so because some do not really care that anything exists beyond this life.
Yes it is. The facts that happen to conflict with what the bible says are still facts. You need to stop trying to fight them. The men who fight against you in this thread, me included, have their own faiths. Infact, the only people who actually try to disprove God are those idiot atheists who make these home made face videos talking about the bible. And the sad part is that they know the bible better then most christians.
Here are some facts again, because like you ignored them.
They found Noah's ark
Jerusalem is STILL around
Since Isrealites were deemed ungrateful with that whole Moses drame, they never rested since, they never had peace. To this day they haven't found that. I wonder why.
The books of Judas and Mary Magdalene was found, but of course the RC's weren't happy about that because it clashed with their story.
Many present day Items and sites were mentioned in the bible.
Now anyone can say well duh, men wrote the bible and if that stuff was around they'd mention it. But if one seeks God he will find him. Meaning if you learn all these things you'll realise that there's something behind all of this that is beyond just human nature to feel comfortable. There must be some devine cause. Thinking otherwise is ignorance really.
But you spewing crap about the moon and earthquakes just pushing people further away by looking like an idiot. If you did sociology you'd realise that the bible could have been a powerful weapon to control the masses. Personally I don't take stock in the bible, but believe there's some degree of truth in it. And just like it can be used as a tool to control people. it can be used to encourage people and give them strength. But why try to spread the word to people and not on their level. It doesn't matter how hard you try to do it if you're doing it wrong. And you are.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:bluefete, your usual failure to understand things has you posting Calvin and Hobbes as if it is helping your argument.
Bill Waterman was no religious supporter in his comic strips. But it is typical that you would show only things that support your argument. Scientists on the other hand show everything:
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 108 guests
