This is some thread huh! The longest and most debated one I’ve ever seen on this board.

(I trust everyone had a Happy New Year for the true Millenium.)

And especially want to wish Pamela the best in her continuing pursuits for truth in the next Thousand years.

For rgrunt:

It appears I may have publicly judged you too harshly. And I hereby appologize for anything that came across as a personal attack. Your post above has opened the door to a world of dialog that we may indeed find a way to come together on. You are no longer the faceless, dogmatic spewer of antiquated rhetoric I once thought you to be. (It does seem that this “paradox” issue has taken conversation on this board into directions I never thought possible. But then… God is the ultimate paradox is He/She not?)

Please understand that when you say … “I do admit that the information I recieved came second hand so I trully cannot vouch for the accuracy.” …is something I suspected all along but can’t help myself when it comes to jumping on the particular type of dogma that it represents. No Personal offense was ever intended.

Please also understand that when you say I “…claims that creation is completely proven wrong ” …

… that I DO NOT claim THIS at all. I merely state (without CLAIMING anything at all) that the account of creation as is metaphorically described in the Book Of Genesis in The Bible, first version, is just that. A metaphor. Not a true depiction of actual history in the literal sense.

I’m not disclaiming the existence of God here, or the CONCEPT of Creation per se. Nor am I saying that in so denying, that I am therefore subscriptive to the A-Theistic point of view. On the contrary.

In the true sprit of Paradox, (which this thread’s topic is all about), I merely offer the easily verifiable evidence and duplicatable proof that such an occurance as the so-called Biblically depicted “great flood” is in itself a physically impossibility.

It would be a great leap of faith indeed for anyone to PRESUME from this statement that I in any way dispute the existence of God. But also be aware that while I do not refute His existence, I also do not accept it unconditionally. At least based on the words of one anthology that exists from the ancient days of Western European Mythology. Particularly since this Anthology to which I refer (The Bible) never existed in it’s present form until the late 15th Century when Guttenburg invented the printing press that brought all these previously unconnected “Books” together. And even then, after much language translation from various sources such as Hebrew, Islamic, Christian, etc.

To place scientific credibility in such a document would be folly on the “wishful thinkers” of the world to say the least.

This is not to say that the document does not have value as a representative example of the moralistic values in any society in folklore, (including our own), but it needs to be studied in the true context of what it is. A historical account of the world as THOSE WHO LIVED AT THAT TIME saw it. The moral lessons contained therin may indeed be timeless, but the science is purly from the point of view of the then ignorant. (No offense to them, they simply didn’t know any better.)

So ultimately Mr. Schasteen, please understand that from what I see in your last post, we may indeed not be that far apart on the moralistic or philosophistic level, but at the purely scientific level, well, as Einstein said, “God does not play Dice with the Universe.”

And He (if he truly exists), DID NOT flood the entire Earth 6000 years ago, nor did He “create” the Earth in a matter of what we call “six days”.

“He” MAY very well have “Created” it, and the rest of the Universe for that matter. I take no issue with this nor do I advocate the possibility either way. I’ll leave the possibility of these matters to the likes of Dr. Stephen Hawking and others of his ilk who can present logical arguments that support BOTH points of view far better than my humble ability to elaborate upon.

For specifics though, I’ve already provided links to a number of sites where raidiometric dating processes can be studied and understood (I’ll leave you to chase those down and do the same research I’ve already done), and hopefully leave you with the understanding that I also meant NO insult to you in any personal way.

After all, “rgrunt” and “DaViper” are just handles anyone can use to sign onto a BBS/Message board anywhere on the net and represent themselves to be anyone they wish to present themselves as.

In the end, it’s the words and what one has to say that matter here.

And very little else.