The Bible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam?

In response to the bolded text, I'm going to go crazy and point out that day and night can't exist without the sun, and yet according to Genesis, God created them before the sun. It also seems a bit wierd that creating the Earth took six days, but he managed to create the entire rest of the universe, complete with a number of other planets beyond human comprehension, in a single day.

I would then go on to ask you how snails made if from Mount Ararat to Australia after the flood. And why all the sloths, a species that spends most of its time doing nothing, decided to travel all the way to Central and Southern America, no doubt passing up suitable habitats on the way. Not to mention all the koalas that decided to go to Australia, somehow knowing that, once they made their way across the ocean, they'd find the only place in the world that produces their necessary diet of gumtree leaves. And what did all the pandas eat while passing through bamboo free areas on their pilgrimage to China?
I'm not even going to ask you what the herbivors ate immediately after the flood, given that it would have killed all plant life on Earth. Or how Noah managed to simulate cold environments for the cold dwelling animals on his ark and hot environments for the reptiles etc. Or what he did with all the dung.
Actually, you know what, I think I will ask you all those questions. I don't mean to be rude, but I'd really like to know how you'd explain all this from a literalist perspective.

---

The sun is our preception of night and day. Don't put a being like God down to human standards. From space the rotation of the earth is what makes a day.

Did you ever think that the animals today and what were created might just be two different things due to Evolution, that is adapting to a new environment? The Bible calls it "Dry Land". We would call it "Pangaea". The Super Continent broke up in the flood.

Whifflingpin: Any genealogy, father to son, is mythological, at least in the pre-DNA testing era, since no-one can be sure who his father is.

Aarondisney: You can believe that way if you want, even though that's a really big stretch, but you are really missing my point if not evading it.

I was evading it, not missing it, and making a point of my own. And it is not "a really big stretch." Any male-line genealogy is based on a mixture of courtesy and wishful thinking. It only takes one errant wife to make a nonsense of the whole thing. To suppose that there were no errant wives in a genealogy stretching supposedly over 6000 years - now that is a big stretch.

If I'd been feeling a little less frivolous, I'd have gone for something like Drkshadow03's conclusion, while maintaining considerable scepticism of the whole genealogy. The lifespans in the Genesis genealogy don't appear to relate to historical people of the same species as their supposed descendants.

Quote:

---

The lifespans in the Genesis genealogy don't appear to relate to historical people of the same species as their supposed descendants.

---

First of all you are assuming an atmosphere similar to our own. Bad assumption. I'll even give you a link from an evolutionary old earth thinking article....here.....
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A961948260

Imagine a world with 50% more oxygen in the air. It would be exciting just to breathe. And the atmospheric pressure was likely greater. It was a worldwide hyperbaric chamber.

It is absolutely plausible that life spans exceeded 900 years. There were not the genetic defects that there are now there was (theoretically) a crystaline canopy above the earth as a 7th atmospheric layer. This is according to some interpretation of the origin of part of the flood and Jewish tradition. If it is so, which I think is likely though admittedly I can't prove, there would be no UV rays damaging skin and organs. Life was much better pre-flood.

Now the article with the link discusses dinosaurs and says that the amber bubbles are from millions of years ago when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. That's baloney. The dinosaurs roamed the earth much more recently than that.

God made the land animals on day 6 and they lived among humans. There are all kinds of pictograph drawings of dinosaurs from civilizations dating only a couple thousand years old.

There is much literature speaking of dragons, and not as though they were mythical, but real.

The Chinese calender has 11 real animals and 1 fake one??? Could it be when they made that up the 12th one was real?

If you want to see some of these things go here....
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

The Bible talks about dinosaurs...it just doesn't call them dinosaurs because the word dinosaur has only been around for a couple hundred years. They were called dragons and sometimes more specifically "Behemoth" - read this and tell me what it was if not a dinosaur.


15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Excellent questions, Sam? In fact, I'm not sure I can answer them all but I'll try.

first off.....


This is actually not true. Morning and Evening can exist without the sun. A day is one rotation of the earth, it is not the sun coming up and the sun going down. One rotation of the earth, irrespective of anything, is a 24 hour day.

He doesn't say and the daylight and the darkness was the first day. He says and the morning (the beginning point of the rotation) and the evening (the ending of the rotation) were the first day.

Not a problem.

---

'God said, 'let there be light', and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God devided light from darkness. God called light 'day', and darkness he called 'night'. Evening came and morning came: the first day.'

Light comes from the sun, for starters. Where did the light come from before the sun? As to morning and evening, it's always morning and evening somewhere on the Earth. It's morning and evening somewhere as you read this, it'll still be morning and evening somewhere if you come back and read it again in a few hours. Morning and evening are defined by the Earth's relative position to the sun, they're not globally universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

It is equal work for God to create entire galaxies as to create a little planet called earth. He spoke them into existence. He gave a special day of creation (in my opinion) to the center of the universe, then as the Bible says he "stretched out the heavens". By the way - the scientists say that the earth is pretty much in the middle of the known universe, interesting huh? God knew that and told us so a long time ago.

Jeremiah 51:15 He has made the earth by his power, he has established the world by his wisdom, and has stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

---

If it's equal work, then why did it take God six days to create Earth?
Could you please give a source to your claim about scientists saying we're the centre of the universe? Because I've never once come across that once. And I'd think, since we have no way of knowing how big the universe is or even if it ever ends, there's no possible way to know where the centre is, or even if there is a centre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

I truthfully don't know for sure. I told you I wouldn't have all the answers. But if I were to speculate about this I would say that as the flood waters were lowering there was a lot of stuff floating around. This flood would have destroyed many homes, forests, etc.

It wouldn't be too much for me to believe that some of these types of creatures could have floated around on all this stuff that was probably everywhere until the waters dropped to where Australia is today.

Just speculation. Like I say I am not an expert on these things, I am only trying to answer your questions. Which I might point out you did not answer my objections to an old earth.

---

Tell you what, how about you try floating on a piece of wood just from New Zealand to Australia without anything to eat or drink. What do you think will happen? And that's nothing compared to the distance from Mount Ararat.
And if the only two snails floated to Australia before the flood had even fully subsided, how did they then manage to cross again and populate the rest of the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Again - I can only speculate that the answer would be similar to the above. I'll have to look up the answers to these questions. They are good questions, but it seems to me that it's far from disproving the flood.

If just two of any of these creatures were able to float there, then that would be sufficient to re-snail and re-sloth all these areas.

---

Again, what did they eat and drink while floating around? And how long did it take for the waters to subside, because I imagine it'd take some time to float all the way to the other side of the world even if you didn't die on the way. It also seems a bit coincidental that the koalas just happened to float to their natural habitat, and arrived just as the flood subsided, allowing them to touch land and avoid floating away again.
But those aren't the only problems. Are you honestly telling me two elephants floated all the way to Africa on a piece of driftwood? Did they both happen to get on the same piece, or was it just wild coincidence that both pieces went the same way?
And this still doesn't explain animals like the snail that can be found all over the world.
And I'm pretty sure, since they were all floating along from the same place, they would have followed the same currents and ended up far less evenly distributed.
You cannot deny the world today, and as it is it quite clearly contradicts the flood myth, at least until you come up with some answers to these questions. Until you can, the flood is simply incompatible with the world as it is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Now - this is something I am certain you will disagree with, but my understanding is that the pre-flood world was far far far different than our world today.

What I believe to have probably happened to the earth is too much to put down in detail. So I'll try to abbreviate it as much as possible.

There's no question there was an ice age. But the question remains as to what caused it and how long did it last. Quite possibly a large disturbance broke up in our solar system causing the earth's axis to be adjusted and causing cold and hot - cold and hot.

You see craters on the moon. What could have caused there to be craters there, possibly this theoretic asteroid, piece of a comet, whatever it was breaking up and slamming the moon.

I believe this to have happened during the flood, causing massive icy areas until the earth could get back into a steadier spin. But it's still off some.

The Bible seems to indicate a canopy of water above the earth before the flood. The Jewish traditions state that there was a crystaline canopy. Probably ice (don't know). But whatever it was kept air pressure heavy, made the planet oxygen rich (ancient air bubbles from ancient sap when popped are found to be very rich in oxygen contrary to scientific theory).

---

How did the sunlight necessary for things to grow make it through this canopy? Why didn't the ice melt? And where is all the flood water now? There's not enough water on the planet to cover all land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

So the earth's vegetation and length and quality of life were immensely superior to ours. The Bible said the whole world was covered in vegetation.
When the flood subsided and God allowed the seeds to regrow, I have no doubt that for some time afterward, the vegetation was such that koalas and pandas could survive on their necessary diets.

---

Are you saying those animals lived on dead leaves soaked in salt water for months (since the water took long enough to subside for them to float halfway across the world)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

It wasn't until after this flood that so much of the earth became bare of vegetation. The oldest desert in the world is also the biggest - the Sahara. Desertification claims a little more real estate each year, so it is estimated that the Sahara is around 4 to 5 thousand years old. So if the earth is billions of years old, why isn't there a larger, older desert somewhere???

---

The flood itself would have killed all plant life. As to the desert, it's irrelevant, and only applicable if one assumes the Earth has been constant since it formed. You've admitted to at least one ice age already, and from a global time scale, there's been near constant geological shift all over the world since it formed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

All kinds of seeds can survive long periods of soaking in concentrations of salt water. In a lot of plants, the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water.

What about plants floating vegetation clumps, or on pumice from the volcanoes. Pieces of many plants are still capable of asexual sprouting.

Possibly, some plants could have survived not being used on the ark of what was brought (Genesis 6:21).

Many seeds can attach themselves to animals. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.

There's a lot of explanations for seeds surviving. So there was not really any pressing need for plantlife to be on the ark for its survival.

---

For some seeds to survive is possible. But all the plants would have died, and even if there was some way for the surviving seeds to cover the world, plant themselves and grow, most if not all living creatures would have starved to death before they'd sprouted anything edible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Cold dwelling and warm dwelling animals became that through adaptation within the kind. The whole earth was warm to tropical pre-flood (in my theory). That's why you find remains of vegetation from the North Pole.

---

Reptiles are cold blooded, they need external heat to survive, adaptation has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

I'll have to look up the answer to that...I don't think it would be that huge of a problem. It's likely that small animals were sent on board (again, just speculation) since they would live longer, take up less space and cause less problems and make less dung - then Noah would have less to dispose of (whichever way he had to do it). I would suppose there would be a chute to release it into the flooding.

The Bible doesn't go into great detail of the intricacies of the ark. Just the size of it.

---

Do you have any idea how many species of animal there are in the world? There are thousands of different species of beetles alone, and for you to say that the lady beetle and the rhinocerus beetle adapted from the same creature is tantamount to admitting evolution. The amount of dung produced by so many animals would fill and sink the ark faster than Noah and his family could discard of it. Not to mention the disease it would spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

I may not have answered to your satisfaction. I have only begun to look into any of the things on this subject for the past 2 or 3 months. I am currently learning that the questions I had always thought were really tough do have legitimate answers.

Some of the questions I have for the old earth and evolution crowd also have answers. I just find the young earth, creation answers more plausible. Plus - I know the Creator of it all personally.

---

You know the Creator personally? There are people all around the world from other religions who feel exactly the same way about their gods. I'll address your objections to an old Earth next time, as I've spent too long on this reply already.

Sam,
It's late and I have to work tomorrow. I may not get to your post for a couple of days, if at all, it kind of seems like futile back and forthing to me.

The problem is, you are expecting me to speculate enough to make a plausible argument to your tastes. For all I know - the sloths, snails, etc. jumped a boat several years later and got there.

It's really not that difficult for me to work out.

It's just odd that its so hard for you to figure how animals got from one place to another and yet you have no problems with the theory that they came from goo.


You really seem to have the problem though. You have to plausibly explain to me how a slimy rock can become thinking, rational, beings.

Also I want to point out your strawman. You said that the Ark could not hold that many species of animals. True. But the Bible says that 2 or 7 of each KIND got on the ark. And I think you knew that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Sam,
It's late and I have to work tomorrow. I may not get to your post for a couple of days, if at all, it kind of seems like futile back and forthing to me.

The problem is, you are expecting me to speculate enough to make a plausible argument to your tastes. For all I know - the sloths, snails, etc. jumped a boat several years later and got there.

It's really not that difficult for me to work out.

It's just odd that its so hard for you to figure how animals got from one place to another and yet you have no problems with the theory that they came from goo.

---

I don't believe they came from goo, see below. According to evolution, it makes perfect sense that, when life first left the oceans, it touched base on every continent. From there it evolved to suit the environments it found. That perfectly explains why you only find pandas in china, sloths in Central and Southern America, and koalas in Australia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

You really seem to have the problem though. You have to plausibly explain to me how a slimy rock can become thinking, rational, beings.

---

I don't claim life came from goo on a rock. Nobody who knows anything about abiogenesis does. Life most likely, given out current understanding, came from the ocean (at the time containing all the necessary ingredients), massive electrical storms (to give said ingredients that first jolt of life), and billions of years (of the ocean constantly being hit with electricity until finally that one strike landed in just the right place at just the right time). It may seem unlikely at first, but if you consider the sheer number of planets we know of, and the amount of time involved, it's actually more than likely, mathematically, that it's happened on other planets as well. Nevertheless, nobody who knows what they're talking about will claim to know for sure just yet, we're still working on it. But whether abiogenesis is accurate or not lends no weight at all to your claims if you can't support them with repeatedly testable evidence.
From abiogenisis we move onto evolution, a completely different and unrelated area of science. Life spread out, and adapted to its environments through genetic mutation and natural selection. Different environments meant different kinds of mutations were beneficial for survival, and those best suited bread, passing on the succesful genes. In time (a long, long, long time) life mutated into the variety we find today. Humans think the way they do because those who did were more succesful at surviving and breeding. Our thought capacity has led to our global dominance. There are still monkeys because we didn't evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with them, which isn't around. Other species can't reason like we can because they haven't needed to. The shark is near perfect at what it does, it has no need to evolve our level of sentience, just as we have no need to breathe underwater.
For evolution, we have mountains of evidence. We can see it in all the different breeds of dog, in the way we have to get new flu vaccinations every year because the virus evolves to overcome the previous vaccination. We can see it in the fossil reccords, which may have a few gaps, but if you understand how fossils come into being, and how rarely, is actually far more robust than we could have hoped for. The reason we haven't seen any species evolve into a completely different species is because of how enormously long that takes. Millions of years at least. For a better explanation of evolution I would suggest reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins. To my knowledge, anti-evolutionists are yet to come up with a single 'flaw' he doesn't cover in that book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Also I want to point out your strawman. You said that the Ark could not hold that many species of animals. True. But the Bible says that 2 or 7 of each KIND got on the ark. And I think you knew that.

---

It's hard to counter that without knowing your definition of 'kind', but if you read through my post, you'll notice I allowed for only one breed of elephant on the ark, when now there are more. It seems to me, however, that to reduce the number in any meaningful way, you'd have to accept evolution as real, not just adaptation.

I'd also point out, that as you've provided no rebuttle, it seems I've proven Genesis to be innacurate, and you said yourself that if even one part of the bible were false, the whole thing might as well be regarded as false.

Again. No time. But all that long list of garbage you just typed is mere speculation. No one has ever seen life created from non-living material. You say it rained on the rocks for billions of years and caused life. I say the animal got to Australia somehow.

These are both speculations. However, I can observe animals moving aboard ships or drifting things. You can't observe life forming from non living material. It's all religious.

"But all that long list of garbage you just typed is mere speculation"

Time to stop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Also I want to point out your strawman. You said that the Ark could not hold that many species of animals. True. But the Bible says that 2 or 7 of each KIND got on the ark. And I think you knew that.

---

Aaron, I like you, and respect your stand. However, this is poor logic and worse argument. This would mean that there were whole species that were wiped out by the flood, and this just isn't a supported fact. I reiterate what I had to say, that the animals today and those of creation are two different things.

This is supported, as everyone knows that animals evolve and even mutate, thus giving more species. A horse today is not an eohippus, for example, but an eohippus is a horse ancestor. No modern horse would exist without an eohippus’ prior existence.

Perhaps there were not that many original species, but they gave rise to many others after the breaking up of Pangaea.

God Bless

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Again. No time. But all that long list of garbage you just typed is mere speculation. No one has ever seen life created from non-living material. You say it rained on the rocks for billions of years and caused life. I say the animal got to Australia somehow.

These are both speculations. However, I can observe animals moving aboard ships or drifting things. You can't observe life forming from non living material. It's all religious.

---

Funny, because however many times I read what I wrote, I fail to see the part where I said anything about rain on rocks. I do, however, notice the part where I specifically mention that, at this point in history, abiogenesis is merely the most likely cause of life on Earth we know of. I specifically said we don't know for sure.
Can you observe all the sloths in the world catching the same boat to the same place that just happenes to be their perfect environment? Can you see two single sloths surviving on Mount Ararat with nothing to eat, no trees to hide in, and surrounded by every carnivorous predator there is?

In any case, since you again fail to counter my disproving of Genesis, all this is irrelevant, because, by your own previously stated standpoint, you can't believe in the bible anymore anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I reiterate what I had to say, that the animals today and those of creation are two different things.

This is supported, as everyone knows that animals evolve and even mutate, thus giving more species. A horse today is not an eohippus, for example, but an eohippus is a horse ancestor. No modern horse would exist without an eohippus’ prior existence.

Perhaps there were not that many original species, but they gave rise to many others after the breaking up of Pangaea.

God Bless

Pen

---

Hi Dale,

I've said it before and I mean it, you are a classy, intelligent, gentle Christian. If there were more like you.....

Almost daily we hear of new planets being discovered in our galaxy. Lately, astronomers are finding smaller and smaller earth size planets orbiting stars that are many light years from out solar system. The growing consensus seems to be that there are lots and lots of planetary bodies out there. So I'm wondering what effect the discovery of both simple and intelligent life on another world would have on our belief that we earthly humans are special amongst all the billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets?

Does there seem to you to be a deep desire for humans to want to be special? To hope that the creator of this amazingly huge universe would choose our little chunk of rock to generate life and to send its only messenger to bring the good news that while life is short-- that there is an afterlife of eternal happiness.

Because I respect your ideas and thoughts, I was wondering how you felt about this.

Thanks,
Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Hi Dale,

I've said it before and I mean it, you are a classy, intelligent, gentle Christian. If there were more like you.....

Almost daily we hear of new planets being discovered in our galaxy. Lately, astronomers are finding smaller and smaller earth size planets orbiting stars that are many light years from out solar system. The growing consensus seems to be that there are lots and lots of planetary bodies out there. So I'm wondering what effect the discovery of both simple and intelligent life on another world would have on our belief that we earthly humans are special amongst all the billions of galaxies and trillions of stars and planets?

Does there seem to you to be a deep desire for humans to want to be special? To hope that the creator of this amazingly huge universe would choose our little chunk of rock to generate life and to send its only messenger to bring the good news that while life is short-- that there is an afterlife of eternal happiness.

Because I respect your ideas and thoughts, I was wondering how you felt about this.

Thanks,
Doug

---

Hi Doug.

Yes, I think that man is desperate to prove that he is of value, instead of simply accepting the fact that we are here, we exist, therefore we must have some purpose. That there many be more planets with intelligent life is pretty much a given, both scientifically and Biblically. What makes people think that this world alone would be all that a being as powerful as we call God would create? God is a God of variety, witness how many different types of say, beetles, there are. But all of His creation might not exist so well together. Witness how man destroys species, not to mention his own kind. What would happen if entire worlds were allowed to meet? I think H.G. Wells had the right idea there.

God Bless

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam?

Funny, because however many times I read what I wrote, I fail to see the part where I said anything about rain on rocks. I do, however, notice the part where I specifically mention that, at this point in history, abiogenesis is merely the most likely cause of life on Earth we know of. I specifically said we don't know for sure.
Can you observe all the sloths in the world catching the same boat to the same place that just happenes to be their perfect environment? Can you see two single sloths surviving on Mount Ararat with nothing to eat, no trees to hide in, and surrounded by every carnivorous predator there is?

In any case, since you again fail to counter my disproving of Genesis, all this is irrelevant, because, by your own previously stated standpoint, you can't believe in the bible anymore anyway.

---

I think I'm gonna get out of this discussion after this post. The only point I've wanted to make during this whole discussion would be to point out that these are 2 religious views. Not one scientific one and one of faith. They are both of faith because, as you've stated,

Quote:

---

But whether abiogenesis is accurate or not lends no weight at all to your claims if you can't support them with repeatedly testable evidence.

---

You can't support your claims with testable evidence and neither can I. You made some points that I tried to explain as best as I could. It isn't hard for me to believe that animals got to where they needed to be. Pendragon mentioned Pangaea - I have a little trouble with the idea of continental drift since all the continents are connected anyway even now (there's land under those oceans ya know), but I could be wrong.

The thing is, I've presented some arguments to you that you've completely ignored. I'll copy and paste them once again and if you want you can respond, you don't have to but you can. I doubt you'll be able to scientifically answer them but you'll tell me what you imagine would have happened according to your preconceptions, just like I do with your arguments.

Why do we do this?? Because we must respond with what we imagine since NONE of this (evolution or creation) is scientific.

Here's the arguments

THE BIG BANG THEORY VIOLATES THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
When the spinning mass that allegedly contained all the matter in the universe broke apart, why do many moons (8 of 91 known in our solar system) spin backwards. 3 planets in our solar system spin in opposite directions to the others. Some entire galaxies spin in different directions.

Why does this violate this law.

EVOLUTION VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Everything is working toward ruin unless energy is harnessed and directed to oppose this law. And we evolved from bacteria???

The THEORY violates a LAW.

WHY IS THERE NOT 150,000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE FOOT?
Every 10 - 12 years in recent history we observe the Earth population growing by 1 Billion or better. This kind of population curve could not hold up with mankind even being around for 100,000 years - let alone millions of years.

WE ARE LOSING THE MOON SLOWLY.
It is estimated that at the rate the moon is slowly going away from the earth. 1.2 billion years ago it would have been hovering right above the surface of the earth. Even if the moon were half the distance from earth that it is now, the tides would destroy almost any living area on the earth.

THE EARTH IS SPINNING 1/500TH OF A SECOND SLOWER EVERY DAY.
6000 years of history would not be a problem for this, but 4.5 billion years. The earth would be going so fast that any living thing would have been slung off (trying to be humorous here, but you get the point). Wind speeds would have been unbearable.

WHY ARE THERE STILL COMETS IN THE UNIVERSE??
Scientists say that a comet's life could not exceed 10,000 years since it is constantly losing material. So if comets were created by the BIG BANG, why do we still have comets? The best answer they've come up with? The (imaginary) "Oort cloud of comets" a cloud that creates comets thousands of astronomical units away that has never been observed.

As you see, this stuff is a long long long road from scientific. Creation is a long road from scientific. I just get tired of hearing "Christianity vs. Science" - it is a real bad misnomer. It's actually the "Bible vs. Pseudoscience".

I think I'm out of this one, guys. If you want to respond to my questions - GREAT! If not, that's fine too. You can believe in these theories and I'll believe in the Bible. If I'm wrong, no biggie. If you're wrong...that could be a problem and it's not a problem I'd want to see anyone have to face.

Just to answer one question I didn't get to before that you had though, Sam. You said there's not enough water on this earth to completely cover it. I agree. But if you flattened the earth out you could cover it 2 and a half miles deep in the water we have now.

In the Book of Psalms, (can't remember where right off the bat) it talks about the flood pushing the mountains up (paraphrase) and making valleys and ocean basins (which it naturally would have done given that much water).

There are marine fossils found on top of Everest. That's not to say Everest was under water at its present height, but that it was pushed up by the flood. The Grand Canyon was created by the flood and not by that little river. Where the river enters is lower than some of the high points of the canyon walls and rivers don't flow uphill.

So I'll just conclude my part of this thing now and let it continue with Pendragon if he wants to. I think I'm out.

Take care, guys.

ps - Let me just predict something you may think concerning all these things. You may say that since we can't be sure that all these trends that have been listed continuously were working at the same rate then there is ample room for serious doubt of my conclusions. I would say that you would be right.

Yet the basis for macro-evolution is micro-evolution. Small changes within the kinds are thought to be evidence for major changes that would make different kinds of animals and organisms. So if there is any problem with my reasoning, you have to import that problem to your own reasoning.

Thanks again for a lively conversation, you get the last word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

I think I'm gonna get out of this discussion after this post. The only point I've wanted to make during this whole discussion would be to point out that these are 2 religious views. Not one scientific one and one of faith. They are both of faith because, as you've stated,

You can't support your claims with testable evidence and neither can I. You made some points that I tried to explain as best as I could. It isn't hard for me to believe that animals got to where they needed to be. Pendragon mentioned Pangaea - I have a little trouble with the idea of continental drift since all the continents are connected anyway even now (there's land under
those oceans ya know), but I could be wrong.

The thing is, I've presented some arguments to you that you've completely ignored. I'll copy and paste them once again and if you want you can respond, you don't have to but you can. I doubt you'll be able to scientifically answer them but you'll tell me what you imagine would have happened according to your preconceptions, just like I do with your arguments.

Why do we do this?? Because we must respond with what we imagine since NONE of this (evolution or creation) is scientific.

Here's the arguments

THE BIG BANG THEORY VIOLATES THE LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM.
When the spinning mass that allegedly contained all the matter in the universe broke apart, why do many moons (8 of 91 known in our solar system) spin backwards. 3 planets in our solar system spin in opposite directions to the others. Some entire galaxies spin in different directions.

---

Evidently you don't understand the big bang theory. The theory begins with all matter compressed into a miniscule size. Where that matter came from, or what was before it, we don't know, but the big bang theory covers what happened directly afterwards, not before.
For whatever reason, that single dense piece of compressed matter expanded with sudden velocity. The universe as it is now did not pop out ready made. What popped out was space, time, all the laws of physics, and a whole heap of elements. The evidence for this is that the universe is still expanding, though it's slowed down a bit since then. We've also picked up some of the original energy as microwaves bounced back at us from the edge of the universe. They're currently building a particle accelerator that will be able to reproduce the conditions of those first few moments of existence. It should be up and running some time this year.
Now, all mass emits/has gravity. It might not be noticeable until you come across something as big as the Earth, but everything has it. Two particles of dust come together in that empty space, drawn by one another's field of gravity, together they've just doubled their pull, attracting more matter. The more they attract, the greater the pull, and again, in turn, the more they attract. This is how all the planets, moons and stars formed. Directional spin has nothing to do with the 'big bang' itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Why does this violate this law.

EVOLUTION VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Everything is working toward ruin unless energy is harnessed and directed to oppose this law. And we evolved from bacteria???

---

That law applies to matter itself. Decay isn't hereditarily passed on from generation to generation. You might as well ask how they keep making better iPods. Your question only reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both evolution and physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

The THEORY violates a LAW.

WHY IS THERE NOT 150,000 PEOPLE PER SQUARE FOOT?
Every 10 - 12 years in recent history we observe the Earth population growing by 1 Billion or better. This kind of population curve could not hold up with mankind even being around for 100,000 years - let alone millions of years.

---

Note the key words there: recent history. You can't apply present conditions to the past. People died all the time in the past. There was more war, more famine, more pestilence, and they didn't have the medical technology to do anything at all about it. You've also got to consider that in the past most people were lucky to live past thirty. Now the planet's full of old people. It might be worth your while having a look at Japan's current condition. If their birth rate carries on the way it's going, soon there won't be enough young people to run the country.
You cannot treat human birth rates as a constant. I'd also point out that according to your understanding, the growing human population would break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

WE ARE LOSING THE MOON SLOWLY.
It is estimated that at the rate the moon is slowly going away from the earth. 1.2 billion years ago it would have been hovering right above the surface of the earth. Even if the moon were half the distance from earth that it is now, the tides would destroy almost any living area on the earth.

---

Lucky for us then that life has only been around for about four hundred million years. Also, it might be worth your while clicking here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html for a more robust response than I can give you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

THE EARTH IS SPINNING 1/500TH OF A SECOND SLOWER EVERY DAY.
6000 years of history would not be a problem for this, but 4.5 billion years. The earth would be going so fast that any living thing would have been slung off (trying to be humorous here, but you get the point). Wind speeds would have been unbearable.

---

Like I said, even assuming the spin has always been constant, life has only been around for about four hundred million years, so nothing was around to be flung off anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

WHY ARE THERE STILL COMETS IN THE UNIVERSE??
Scientists say that a comet's life could not exceed 10,000 years since it is constantly losing material. So if comets were created by the BIG BANG, why do we still have comets? The best answer they've come up with? The (imaginary) "Oort cloud of comets" a cloud that creates comets thousands of astronomical units away that has never been observed.

---

Nobody says comets were created by the Big Bang, as you'll know from my previous explanation. As to the origins of comets, we don't know for sure. Science doesn't know everything yet. But that doesn't make your magical-man-created-everything theory any more accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

As you see, this stuff is a long long long road from scientific. Creation is a long road from scientific. I just get tired of hearing "Christianity vs. Science" - it is a real bad misnomer. It's actually the "Bible vs. Pseudoscience".

---

As I can see, you don't have a very firm understanding of what science is. It is a method of studying observable reality, not the truth. It constantly questions itself and improves its knowledge, but doesn't claim to know everything. What science teaches is, quite openly, simply the most likely truth given our current understanding. The Oort Cloud is a hypothesis, not a theory, and I've explained the difference to you in a previous post.
So this stuff, actually, is not just close to science, it's science by its very definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

I think I'm out of this one, guys. If you want to respond to my questions - GREAT! If not, that's fine too. You can believe in these theories and I'll believe in the Bible. If I'm wrong, no biggie. If you're wrong...that could be a problem and it's not a problem I'd want to see anyone have to face.

Just to answer one question I didn't get to before that you had though, Sam. You said there's not enough water on this earth to completely cover it. I agree. But if you flattened the earth out you could cover it 2 and a half miles deep in the water we have now.

---

Source for this please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

In the Book of Psalms, (can't remember where right off the bat) it talks about the flood pushing the mountains up (paraphrase) and making valleys and ocean basins (which it naturally would have done given that much water).

There are marine fossils found on top of Everest. That's not to say Everest was under water at its present height, but that it was pushed up by the flood. The Grand Canyon was created by the flood and not by that little river. Where the river enters is lower than some of the high points of the canyon walls and rivers don't flow uphill.

---

Name me one recorded occurance of flood waters pushing up a mountain. You can't, because water cannot form mountains, movement beneath the earth forms mountains. And yes, it is quite possible that at some time before it was formed the land that is now Everest was underwater, but that lends no veracity to your flood claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

So I'll just conclude my part of this thing now and let it continue with Pendragon if he wants to. I think I'm out.

Take care, guys.

ps - Let me just predict something you may think concerning all these things. You may say that since we can't be sure that all these trends that have been listed continuously were working at the same rate then there is ample room for serious doubt of my conclusions. I would say that you would be right.

Yet the basis for macro-evolution is micro-evolution. Small changes within the kinds are thought to be evidence for major changes that would make different kinds of animals and organisms. So if there is any problem with my reasoning, you have to import that problem to your own reasoning.

---

Nobody states that evolution follows a constant pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

Thanks again for a lively conversation, you get the last word.

---

Again I'll point out that I've disproved Genesis. I'll also add that the bible incorrectly claims pi is exactly three, and that bats are birds. Which means that, according to your own previously stated standpoint, you can't believe in the bible anymore anyway.

Thanks for your time. If you every get the chance, I recomend reading 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' by Bill Bryson. It's an easy, fun read that lightly covers everything you've brought up without ever preaching against religion of any kind.

Where does it say in the Bible that pi = 3? And that bats are birds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Where does it say in the Bible that pi = 3? And that bats are birds?

---

Leviticus 11

[13] And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
[14] And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
[15] Every raven after his kind;
[16] And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
[17] And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
[18] And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
[19] And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

The word "fowls" hear simply refers to things that fly, but it is easy to see how that would be taken for the word "birds", and the bat is lumped together with birds here. Lots of people thought the bat was a bird because it is the only mammal that truly flies.

God Bless

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AARONDISNEY

You can't support your claims with testable evidence and neither can I. You made some points that I tried to explain as best as I could. It isn't hard for me to believe that animals got to where they needed to be. Pendragon mentioned Pangaea - I have a little trouble with the idea of continental drift since all the continents are connected anyway even now (there's land under those oceans ya know), but I could be wrong.



So I'll just conclude my part of this thing now and let it continue with Pendragon if he wants to. I think I'm out.

Take care, guys.

---

Aaron, the subject of Pangaea isn't disproving the Bible. As I stated, Genesis says "dry land". It also states that "the waters were gathered together in one place, and the dry land appeared." Taking even a slight glace at a world map you can see where the pieces fit together. The rocks on either side match closely enough to prove they were once connected.

There is a bottom to the ocean, this formed between the cracks as the land drifted apart. Don't you think a catostropic thing like the flood would drastically change the world? And you didn't even address the fact that horses descend from an eohippus, and so the animals may be different from creation. See, this doesn't disprove creation at all, it just makes God the source of all life and not chance.

I have no desire to argue, but I would have people be right. Science doesn't have all the answers. Neither do Christian people, or anyone else who claims to serve God. If we knew everything, we would BE God. But we can learn from each other if we are willing to allow the other man's opinion without rancor.

God Bless

Pendragon

Just a short note:

Quote:

---

Most do, I'll admit, but most scientist used to think the earth was flat

---

This is not actually true. Since ancient Greek times (ie since records began, more or less), the majority of scientists have always believed the earth to be round.