Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary

On 18 Dec 2007 04:35:40 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartographical@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:19:15 -0500, Zoe wrote:

<snip lots>

you snipped the stuff I would have liked to see your personal position
on.

I am talking about macroevolution, in which it is claimed that a lab the
size of the universe would be needed, and time in the millions of years
is necessary, in order to observe macroevolution. With those kinds of
requirements, macroevolution is unobservable, untestable, and
unpredictable, I'm sure you would agree.

<snip lots>


Zoe, do you know how to weigh a mountain?

Seriously.

Given a calculator, a book on solid geometry, a hammer and chisel, a
kitchen scale, and a detailed topographic map, would you be able to
predict the weight of the mountain underneath your feet? Can you think
of how to test that prediction? Can you think of how your prediction
might be falsified or improved?

Pretty trivial, right?

So after two hundred years of increasingly accurate measurements, core
samples, and advances in mathematics and computer modeling, someone comes
along and tells you that it's not possible to weigh mountains because
they can't fit onto a scale. Thus, no one had ever observed the weight
of a mountain, any suggested weights cannot be tested, and the change of
the weight over time cannot not be predicted.

Of course, this person isn't so silly as to say that small rocks can't be
weighed -- that's obvious. But mountains -- that's just not possible.

"this person" is really evolutionist posters to this forum who claimed
that we'd need a lab the size of the universe to test macroevolution.
I was merely quoting them.


And why? Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are
measureless, and that this is to be taken literally.

that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup.

The relevant mathematical, geological, hydrological, and seismological
literature is dismissed with nothing more than "I've made up my mind."

What do you do?

about what?

-----

If you're here to learn, I'm ready and eager to learn along side you.

I'm more interested in discussion right now, about what I've already
learned about what evolutionists believe.
I
respect you for reading von Rad and Dodd. Since that time I've read the
relevant sections of five other critical works on Genesis and perhaps a
dozen papers. You've indicated that you're not interested in further
reading.

I'm not interested in further reading until I get some answers on what
I've already read -- and I've read more than just von Rad or Dodd, by
the way. I didn't just start reading when you came along, you know,
Garamond. I've been at this for the last seven years. I was hoping
that you had some good answers to the questions that have arisen
during my studies here, and that we could have a discussion based on
our knowledge acquired thus far, but maybe not. Too bad.

I have no problem with you being skeptical. I have no problem with you
remaining a creationist. But if you're not curious, then I need to
allocate this time to other things.

oh, please, don't let me waste your time. If your intent was to
convert me, then you just might be wasting your time. Just as I'm
sure I'd be wasting mine if I were trying to convert you.

As to curiosity, I'm always curious, but I know when to stop going
down a path that does not appeal to reason.


I hope you'll reconsider, and I'll be happy to continue the conversation
when you have the time and interest to commit to reading.

oh, I wasn't trying to wrap things up by saying I didn't want to read
more stuff. I was simply saying that I've read enough so far that
I've already concluded (before meeting you) that macroevolutionary
theory is not scientific. As to the discussion on Genesis, I have not
stopped the conversation.

My hope was that a stimulating discussion with a polite evolutionist
like yourself would actually open some new windows of insight for both
of us. But now that you have stopped interacting and instead are
trying to direct me to go read some more....well, seems like the
discussion is over.

snip>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... <snip lots> ... do you know how to weigh a mountain? ... Their reading of the Bible states that mountains are ... that particular response came from evolutionists in this newsgroup. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Botanical questions
    ... [snip a bunch to get to 'Eco quotes'. ... Western world the chicken is considered one of the edible animals while ... mountain, we go to look in the wild directory of mountains (and if they ... Don Cates ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Botanical questions
    ... [snip a bunch to get to 'Eco quotes'. ... Western world the chicken is considered one of the edible animals while ... Note: spiders *are* ARTHROPODS. ... mountain, we go to look in the wild directory of mountains (and if they ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: We keep lowering insulin dosage but BG readings stay low
    ... We took a BG reading in the evening and she registered a 296 reading ... Her insulin, whether she produces her own or she ... if he can convince the endo to agree with him. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Free State Security - part 2
    ... [another big snip] ... Each time you devolve into using terms like "whining" ... You've failed to illustrate how my proposed reading is ... that the earth orbits the sun, Mr Galileo Galilei? ...
    (talk.politics.guns)