...

 

Holy ****. How stupid can people be.


I don't even know how to repsond to that.

 

It's not stupidity, it's logic. No, really.

See, for those who base their faith on the Gospel, they must maintain the integrity of the statements and content therein. Because their faith in God depends on the validity of whichever holy book they choose, to invalidate any part of that Book is to invalidate God as they understand Him.

The stupidity comes in when people choose to ignore truth from the scientific community because it doesn't reconcile with Truth from the religious community, when (here's the editorialization for this post) discrediting the Bible does not discredit God. It only invalidates a few thousand years of man's understanding of God, which is a very different thing.

 

Turn out its a bit wrong- the whole story;

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/4631




...And now, that statement from the NPS:

Age of Grand Canyon

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order # 6 and requires that the interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. Our commitment to scientific accuracy is also driven by Director’s Order #11B, which requires us to ensure the objectivity of the information we disseminate.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon. If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer.

The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the canyon’s origin).

The park’s bookstore contains scores of texts that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternative beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom.

It is not our role to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternative views exist, but we teach the scientific explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC
Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina #129)

 

...

 

I have strong faith, but I don't think things in the Bible should always be taken literally. Do you think 7 days in gods time is 24 hours in ours? Luckily salvation is not based on those details.

If y'all are saying the great flood didn't occur, well then y'all are nuts.

 

It doesn't take a miracle to have a huge and distastrous flood, but if you think Noah built a boat that held one male and one female of every species on the planet and all other creatures perished...

 

According to Al Gore, only man can have that power .

You realize that faith in Jesus (not faith in noah) is what matters, right? I think you'd be amazed by how science has increasingly proven Bible accuracy, and don't be surprised when they find Noah's boat.

 

...

 

Please, show us one miraculous event from the bible proven to be true through scientific means.

 

Oh OK, so can you tell us what "salvation" IS based on?

 

Faith that Jesus Christ is your savior, that's it. Easy, huh?

The Bible and historic record proves Jesus existed, so much that every time you celebrate new years you're basing it on Jesus's existence, ya' know that 'old 2007 A.D.(after death) thing folks love to ignore.

Now all you have to do it take a leap of faith, or not.

 

The Bible does not prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, although there is archaeological evidence that does indicate he existed, and few ancient scholars would posit that he did not exist. However, there is no physical evidence whatsoever that any of the events that occured in either Testament or specifically in the life of Jesus of Nazareth happened.

The Christian calendar was made by people who believed in Christ. Since we have continued to use it in our predominantly Christain societies this somehow offers proof of the divinity of Christ? No.

Faith is all well and good, but don't make the mistake of thinking there is anything- ANYTHING- which can be proven by human scientific means that supports the events depicted in the bible.

 

isn't anos domini (after death) messed up anyway since before christ was supposed to be before his death, and after death is supposed to be after him, and he supposedly lived to the age of what 35, so is there 35 years where they had no suffix, or did jesus live for <1 second??

 

...