Perspectives of a Colorado Curmudgeon on topics ranging from Basketball to Music to Science & Religion to Travel to Memories, touching on a bit of everything.
The fish at bottom right walking like a dog slays me.
The evolution of whales references are interesting reading/viewing. Too bad I don't believe in evolution.
Bizzy - thanks for pointing out the walking fish; forgot to mention that Cousin Steve also pointed that out. See my previous post about mudskippers - look familiar!!S3 - see my previous post about evolution not being a belief system and thus is not something you can "believe in." Evolution [=change] is a fact, i.e. things can change for the better, things can change for the worse or things can remain unchanged. So we know that organisms can change. Evolution is also a theory, and that's probably your quibble - you don't accept the theory of evolution which states that over longer periods of time, some organisms can give rise to slightly different organisms, and given enough time, organisms can diverge from the parental organism. Since I assume that you accept the theory of a young earth and six day creation, I wonder how you explain all of the data that would indicate that that theory is not correct. And don't point us to Ken Ham and AIG - give us some observables that we can test.
I don't accept the theory of evolution in the sense of one species changing into another. I do believe there can be permanent changes over time within a species. I cannot conceive of a godless nature on its own, through a process of chance, going from rocks to primordial soup to DNA. Re: young earth, I can't furnish "observables that we can test." I do believe there is irrefutable evidence that the God of the Bible exists and that He is all powerful and capable of anything. God could have created the earth in six days, or not. I cannot turn my back on that and say it is not conceivable.
So, S3, you are saying that if something is inconceivable to you, it is impossible, and if something is conceivable to you, it is possible.
You guessed her, Chester.
S3 - that's a bit of a problematic pragmatic and philosophical position - parhaps. [just had to get in one more "p"] If you had lived 1000 years ago, just think of all of the things that you would have considered inconceivable that are now reality. I am sure there are things that our grandparents and parents considered inconceivable that are now common. As a young farmer, Ed never thought that it would be possible to get more than 50 or 60 bushels per acre of corn, but now 150-200 is commonplace....and the list goes on and on
Good point. Though at the risk of putting your readers to sleep, some things that are currently impossible can be conceivable, whereas other things that are currently impossible are also inconceivable. 600 bushels an acre are impossible, but conceivable, a trillion bushels an acre are impossible and inconceivable.
So, S3, when does the conceivable become the inconceivable? 2,000 bushels an acre? 20,000? 200,000?
If you guys don't knock it off, you're going to put Dr.S's blog at risk of being labeled a controlled substance (sleeping medication).
snnorrrzzzzzz - oops - dozed off there for a minute; what were you saying? ;-)
You know, Ava, your remark reminds me of why, even though I have no problem attracting girls, they never stay around very long.
Post a Comment