Warning: This post contains many words. Many Many Words. Many Many Many Many Many Many Many Many Words.
If you have a fear of many words, turn away, TURN AWAY I SAY!
7Knight-Wolf wrote:Razor One, I agree with you that animals are very intelligent and have their own ways of talking to each other and to us.
You're telling me! I had a budgie (Parakeet for you yanks
) who once swooped me non-stop the one time I forgot to refill her feed bowl. She only stopped when she saw me reaching for the feed container and gave the most... EVIL look. I'll post a picture after I make this post and close all the tabs I have open.
I believe the Grand Canyon was formed by the flood. And I believe the flood was worldwide, too. The only reason anything survived was thanks to Noah who saved the animals and insects, which carried some seeds in their bodies.
Let's briefly tackle Noah's Ark here.
God commanded Noah to build an Ark
300 Cubits Long
50 Cubits Wide
30 Cubits Tall
Let's assume that a Cubit is 20 inches.
Since I prefer the Metric system (the one I was raised with, more scientific too =P) this translates as
1 Cubit = 50.8 Cm
300 x 50.8 = 15240 Cm
50 x 50.8 = 2540 Cm
30 x 50.8 = 1524 Cm
Divide by 100 to get all values in meters
152.4 Meters Long
25.4 Meters Wide
15.24 Meters Tall
Giving a Volume of
152.4 x 25.4 x 15.24 = 58994 Cubic Meters
I've rounded up by one cubic meter there.
This translates to 64516 Cubic Yards or so.
Now, according to
This website, there are 1.5 million species of animals, plants and algae.
For now, let's ignore all the plants and sea creatures and focus on the creatures that live on land as well as birds.
This will thusly include
Mammals: 5416
Birds: 9956
Reptiles: 8240
Amphibians: 6199
Insects: 950,000 (!)
Total: 1009811
Volume of Ark (In Meters): 58994
Number of Species: 1009811
This would mean am average of 17.1 species per cubic meter of ark space, not including space for the food required, nor for that matter room to breathe.
I'll grant the bulk of that is insect species, but since most insects dont deal too well with water, they HAD to be in the Ark, or else your following statement:
Evolution through mutations is impossible.
Would make taking a few insect species and having them evolve out would be nonsense.
I ran that calculation again excluding insects entirely, it works out to ~1 species per cubic meter which is more reasonable but still begs the question of how they kept the animals from killing each other, keeping them alive that long, which entails room enough for food stocks which in turn compresses them further, etc.
My Point: There is nowhere near enough room on Noahs ark to have ever contained every species of every animal on earth. The only way to explain it would be that he built a VERY large ark, there were multiple arks (which got conveniently left out), the event was local (and therefore not global), or that Noah took on some kinds of animals and neglected others, and that these others then diversified through some form of rapidly accelerated evolution over the past few thousand years to form the MILLIONS of species we observe today.
But evolution requires mutation and... oh wait!
When there is a mutation, the animal usually dies. Comapre mutations with house blueprints. Somebody comes by and tears the blueprint, so that when the house is assembled there are mistakes in the structure.
Now how in the universe do you justify that random force ruins the genetics of an animal and somehow hits the perfect note to let the animal live. It makes no sense! My common sense suggests that it is more likely for animals to have been what they were in the first place, than to rely entirely on chance mutations.
Ah, likening the genetic code to a house blueprint. You seem to forget in your analogy that any deleterious effect is self effacing, that is, if it sabotages the chances for survival for an organism, it destroys itself before it gets to propagate.
If the houses in your analogy are subject to the selective pressure of "Able to be lived in" or "Will Pass Structural Safety Tests", then houses that do not meet those requirements are discarded. If a house has a nicer verandah, thereby increasing sales of that particular design of house, then more get built.
Of course the entire analogy is flawed because of one minor detail.
Houses are not alive.
You also assume that mutation "Ruins" the genetics of an organism. Mutation is the correct term but it possesses a certain negative connotation that must be put out of ones mind when considering it.
A mutation in my family genetic code means that I am taller then my parents or any of my ancestors. Arguably this is an improvement.
Down my particular line of the family, there is an additional mutation which gives young male Razor relatives blonde hair whilst young, that slowly turns brown as they grow older. My nephew exhibits this, as did I when I was younger. This was not previously observed as far as the family can recall. This mutation is neutral, as it confers no beneficial nor deleterious modifications and is likely to be preserved in future Razor Descendant/Relatives.
My father has the gene for bowel cancer. It is the first time it has been observed in the family and came as quite a shock. The condition is genetically heritable down the male line, thus putting me and my brother and my nephew at risk in later years of life. Since my father and my brother have lived long enough to pass the gene on, it is a negative mutation that is not outright deleterious.
And now, to continue disproving evolution. Evolutionists want to find a missing link to prove that humans are descended from apes. Not once have they been able to find that missing link. In the magnazine "Creation," Russel Grigg writes:
"The most well known autralopithecine is 'Lucy', a 40% complete skeleton found by Donald Johanson in Ethopia in 1974 and called Australpithecus afarensis. Casts of Lucy's bones have been imaginitively restored in museums worldwide to look like an ape-woman, e.g. with an apelike face and head but human-like body, hands, and feet. However, the orginal Lucy fossil did not include include the upper jaw, nor most of the skull, nor the hand and foot bones! Several other species of A. afarensis do have the long curved fingers and toes of tree-dwellers, as well as the restricted wrist anatomy of knuckle-walking chimpanzees and gorillas."
Most evolutions now admit that Lucy's kind are actually apes, and not a missing link at all.
Straw Man.
Lucy's fossil is 3.2 million years old, and I addressed why she wasnt the missing link you describe. Kindly read my post at the top of page 5.
Furthermore, your expert testimonial flatly ignored the important areas of Lucy's skeleton such as the length ratio of humerus to femur, which sits at 84.6%. The Chimp Ratio is 97.8% whilst the human ratio is 71.8%.
The only thing Lucy is proof of is upright apes, not a missing link between man and ape.
All of the following fossil fragments were presumed to be ape-men, but were actually distinctly ape or destinctly human: Homo Hobilas, Homo Erectus, and the Neandertal man.
Neanderthal man was actually very human-like, not only making sophisticated tools but actually burying their dead as well.
Consider that momentarily. They buried their dead. This implies religion, or at the very least spiritual belief. They had to care about the body, the "Person" they once were enough to bury them, sometimes even with accoutrements to go to the effort of burial.
Homo Habilis is another case of "Too old to be missing link".
Homo Erectus likewise, however the observation of this species is important in witnessing increasing brain size over time as it is in fact one of the longer lived distinct hominid species.
Here's another interesting thing that evolution has wrong: the planet of Neptune, by their theory, should be cold and extremely old. However, the Voyager II spacecraft revealed that the planet actually gives off heat and looks way, way too young to fit the evolutionist model of long-age. According to evolutists, planets like Neptune are not even supposed to exist that far away from the sun.
o_O
First off, Neptune IS cold, really cold!
I think you're getting Neptune and Jupiter confused. Jupiter was found to be emitting heat, as was saturn, creating turbulence in their atmospheres causing massive storms.
Neptune on the other hand is frigid. It has very little energy in it's atmosphere, this in turn reduces turbulence and in turn allows incredibly high wind speeds. Think nuclear blast, that's how fast. Asteroid impacts on neptune create the winds and due to the low friction low turbulence environment, they just keep going, round and round and round they go.
While there is some amount of internal heating and reason for this is unknown, possible theories include radiogenic heating from the core (which may also occur on Earth) or chemical reactions within the atmosphere.
Futhermore, you're confusing Evolutionists with Cosmologists.
Even furthermore, I find it strange how a planet with no real surface (Neptune is essentially a big ball of gas) to "Look Old".
And Even Furthermore, planetary formation in the original accretion disk that created the sun and planets was not a calm process. The current favored theory for how Neptune and Uranus (if anyone cracks a joke I swear they're banned for a day
) is that they migrated out from the "Inner" solar system. Given the general hectic nature of the time, this is plausible, considering Jupiter's gravitational influence threw a lot of material back at the sun or straight on out of the solar system (if not absorbing the material itself, that is).
NEXT!
Nurann wrote:
Razor, have you seen any of the work on auras? I.E. things like kirlian photography (physical, researchable material and therefore can fall under science). If you're interested, I can try scouring my college's database for some research. I think I may even have some of my old kirlian photos from my case studies last year...
After a little research into the matter, it turns out that Kirlian Photography is nothing more then the well understood and well known phenomena of an electric spark taking it's own picture through a photographic emulsion. It was spotted at the dawn of the photographic age.
It occurs as a result of electrical interaction between high frequency electricity and grounded objects.
In fact, a variety of things can alter these photographs, such as the type of film being used, voltage, skin resistance, how well you're electrically grounded, the type of shoes you wear, humidity, exposure time and so on.
With liberal application of Occams Razor, which explanation do we presume?
1. That there is an invisible "Aura" that has hitherto not been observed and can do all these amazing things, of which there has been no empirical scientific test of.
Or
2. That the cause of "Kirlian" photography was a misinterpreted natural phenomenon.
Consider also that inert objects, such as coins, flowers and so on also produce these auras in kirlian photography and is therefore not proof of a quantifiable, measurable existence of a soul.
For that matter, if a soul was quantifiable and measurable, would it be a soul?
Where I'm going with this one is that I've done work with things like kirlian photography and chakras and have had some suprising results. Results which I've been able to replicate. I'll have my pendulum with me next Botcon, so I can do an energy reading on you if you'd like. There's a good reason why the concept of a soul exists when you can see something like an energy reading being done. You might be suprised.
While the concept of a soul certainly exists, it is not a physical or measurable effect that can be quantified (as stated above).
We'll see how that pendulum thing works out if I can make it to botcon, if it goes like that mood ring, I'll be amused... it turned black, and stayed black, and remains so till this day
NEXT!
7Knight-Wolf wrote:
This is an excerpt from another article from Creation magazine, written by David Allen.
"Interestingly, the grand canyon strata extends over 400 km (250 miles) into the eastern part of Arizona. There they are at least 1600 m (1 mile) lower in elevation. Supposedly, the uplift of the Grand Canyon occurred about 70 million years ago--hundreds of millions of years after that the sediments were deposited. One would expect that hundreds of millions of years would have been plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock.
Yet, the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard because none of the grains are elongated. Neither has the mineral cementing in the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead the evidence points to the whole 1,200-m (4,000-ft) thickness of strata being still "plastic" when it was uplifted. In other words, the millions of years of geological time are imaginary. This 'plastic' deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah's day."
The process of the grand canyon uplift is little understood. Given this evidence, however, geologists theorise that the colorado plateaus shifted clockwise as they uplifted, thus preserving their stability.
As it stands, the process is poorly understood. One instance of uncertainty does not disprove all of geological science and vindicate creationism in one fell swoop. Further analysis of the data would be required before anything meaningful can be drawn from it.
Next!
artemis-lady-warrior wrote:
Your new point is also refuted. Scientists have taught apes to read and recognise symbols and how to communicate via lexigrams. Lexigrams are symbols that represent words, the language used is an artificial one called Yerkish and was developed in the mid 70's.
Source: Source PDF
so monkeys learn to recognize and remember what symbols looks like. It doesn't mean they can read real words.
sorry. I just had to comment on it because it really doesn't help. They don't know what the word means, do they? Can they actually find some way to tell you what these words mean?
I just looked up Lexigram. It's "a symbol that represents a word but is not necessarily indicative of the object referenced by the word".
XD That should tell ya something right there.
So, the %, &, #, and @ symbols arent real?
All of these symbols represent words to be spoken but are not necessarily indicative of the object referenced by the word.
Considering the Bonobo brain is ~1/3rd the size of a human brain, it's hardly fair to ask them to communicate with us on the same level.
This still leaves the question of the flood however. If as the bible states the world was flooded so that even the highest of all mountains on earth were covered with water, where then did this water go?
I'm not sure where all that water went. Some of it probably went back under the ground. I mean when you dig a well you find water, even in deserts. and some of it evaporated.
You know what. I'm currently reading an article in
Answers magazine about this. When I'm done reading this I'll be able to answer this question better.
Ah, back to that damn boat again.
Lets consider that water had to cover 8848 meters of land. If it soaked back into the land, the earth would STILL be covered with water.
If some of it evaporated, the earth would be a hothouse. Atmospheric H2O is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas then CO2. It would have triggered a runaway greenhouse effect that would end up with the entire planet ending up as a hellhole as hot (if not hotter) then venus.
Even if you could somehow saturate the atmosphere with water and still have breathable and not trigger a runaway greenhouse, there would STILL be too much water to be rid of.
Explain to me how creationism is logical. There is no way to logically prove that god exists, just as there is no way to logically prove that god does NOT exist.
Since god can neither be proven to exist or not exist, it falls to faith (or lack thereof) to fill this uncertain void with certainty.
Logic, as defined by the dictionary has no bearing on faith. Logic comprises science, reason, methodology, but not faith.
Faith is illogical, just as humans are illogical, just as You or I am illogical.
There is a science to evolution. There is a method to evolution. There is reason behind evolution.
Creationism is none of these things, because Creationism requires faith.
No offense but
I know there is no way to prove he does or does not exist but saying there is no reason behind creation and that it is illogical is going a bit too far. There are plenty of scientists who study creation and are very logical in their arguments. I would seriously suggest getting a copy of
Answers magazine or something so you can read things from the other point of view. I've read plenty of things about evolution and now I'm reading stuff about Creation.
There are a lot perfectly rational and logical arguments about it. Plus they're not biased about their answers and just like any other science magazine they use quotes from other sources (Faithbased and not faith based) and give the original writer the credit. XD
and no I'm not trying to force you to read the magazine. I'm just making a suggestion.
The arguments are perhaps logical. The basis is not.
NEXT!
7Knight-Wolf wrote:Evolution is also faith-based. You cannot prove evolution. Evolution is a religion of itself, the religion that worships chance and mutations, without being able to prove they exist. Public schools say that they have eliminated religion, but they are actually teaching one. Both creationism and evolution are religions, and both recquire some ammount of faith.
Definition: Religion
Definition: Science
Definition: Evolution
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a set of beliefs. It does not cover the the nature and purpose of the universe (Cosmology and Philosophy/Theology respectively) and it does not avow or disavow the presence of a superhuman agency by which to facilitate this. It has no devotional or ritual observances and promulgates no moral code whatsoever.
As for attempting to define Evolution as a religion, that is an oft used argument by creationists in an attempt to undermine Evolution and science in general by simply branding it "Just another religion" so that it can be set aside and conveniently ignored or dismissed.
A. The only things that are true can be proved scientifically.
B. If things like love and joy are real but can't be proved, then why can't there by a God who can't be proved?
A. The stories in the Bible just happened to spread over all cultures, and the Bible just happened to be protected for centuries.
B. The events in the Bible are true and that is why so many cultures have similar tales. The Bible is protected by God and that's how it has managed to survive so long.
A. Organisms, even down past the subatomic particles, are uncontrolled and completely held together by chance.
B. An intelligent mind lives in all things, controlling everything, down to subatomic partcuiles and onto infinity.
I think the real reason behind evolution is that, whether or not we're aware of it, all humans are rebellious. We don't want there to be a Creator, because if there is, then he must be greater than us.
Your first dichotomy is flawed. Love and joy are measurable testable and quantifiable, as they are chemical reactions that occur within the brain.
Your second dichotomy is also flawed.
I refer to the Epic of Gilgamesh, dated Circa 2750 BC.
The Noachian Flood apparently occurred 2350 BC.
There are 20 points of similarity between the epic of gilgamesh and the noachian flood.
Furthermore, if the flood did occur in 2350 BC, why then did the ancient Chinese and Egyptian cultures not jot down in their heiroglyphs and texts that they were being wiped out? Why then did these cultures show no interruption whatsoever from a disaster that calamitous?
Your third dichotomy is flawed again. At the smallest levels they are controlled by the laws of physics. At higher levels, we eventually get into the laws of chemistry.
The laws of physics determine that we dont fly apart at random intervals.
And if said creator controls everything, does that not undermine free will?
As to your final point, While I have been rebellious to authority figures in the past (who hasnt?), the real reason behind evolution is as an explanation to the origin of species. It does not outright preclude a god. It never says in evolution "There is no god!". If you can find that statement in a scientific evolutionary study, I'd love to see it.
Next!
7Knight-Wolf wrote:
We talked about that somewhere in page 2, I think, about NOT having a religious debate. Then Razor One demanded that the Bible was fake and I demanded otherwise, and things went on from there. This is such an interesting topic I'd be sad if it were locked.
Actually, I never said the bible was fake, I just said the stories therein should be taken allegorically. And I stated that on page one also.
NEXT!
And before the next monstrosity of text assaults you, allow me to say:
Oi Vey!
Sinead wrote:
Prelude: Atheism doesn’t believe in God, and Agnostic believes quite a few things about God, but not that he was resurrected. If I’m wrong on that, please correct me, because that’s my understanding of Agnostic beliefs.
True enough about Atheism, Agnostics as I recall aren't sure.
To start off, there was the comment that someone saw that portion of scripture I used to prove the bible’s authenticity as being noted that it wasn’t part of the original scriptures. There are two main texts that the New Testament is taken from. The Textus Receptus and then texts from Alexandria. Until the 1800s, the New Testament text that had been exclusively used was the Textus Receptus and in 1525, Erasmus compiled the first Greek text using the Textus Receptus, which was from Byzantium. That later became translated into Latin, or the Latin Vulgate, but when the King James version of the Bible was translated (and yes, Shakespeare was one of the translators of Psalms), they used the Textus Receptus of the New Testament.
However, there were other texts found in 1853 in Alexandrian libraries that had been unearthed. Scholars Wescott and Hort compiled them starting in that date, ended 28 years later. The texts they used were the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus. They not only took from early Gnostic teaching, which denied that Jesus Christ actually died, or that he did die and had a physical, real resurrection. Not only did they take from there, but at the same time, they made over 8,000 changes to the traditional Greek. I find that more than a little scary, don’t you?
The bibles that use the Wescott and Hort translation of the New Testament claim that portions of the Bible aren’t in the “oldest and best” texts are usually the newest Bibles, such as the NIV, NASB, et cetera. And something else: These two were atheists. They didn’t believe in God, but they were translating and compiling the Bible. As an individual who loves authenticity, not even speaking as a Christian, that really makes my blood run cold. I’m not asking you to believe me on this. If you want to see this for yourself, open up a King James Version, or a New King James Version, open it up and compare it with the NIV or any new Bible. They deleted and/or changed the following scriptures: Mathew 6:9-13, 18:11, 25:13; Mark 1:1, 2:17, 9:4, 11:26; Colossians 1:16-17; Acts 8:37; 1 Peter 4:1; Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 11:17; Luke 2:33, 4:4; John 3:15.
Not entirely sure what the precise thrust of your argument here is, but I do agree that having biased editors can be detrimental to the integrity of a valued work. I'll take your word for it at this point, and I'm unable to lookup the verses you cite as the bible I was referring to seems to have disappeared o_O
Just one thing to consider, though.
As it is possible for Atheistic editors to remove and alter portions of the original text, is it not equally possible that theists with a certain bias (hey! that rhymes!) or a fundamentalist might not also add to the work or creatively translate certain portions of text?
As for the flood:
Water exists in three forms, as we all know. After the flood, it did three things: It froze at the poles, evaporated into the air to become the atmosphere that we now are living under, and it went back underground. I say “back,” because the Bible says in Genesis 7:11 “. . . the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” That’s another part of the Creation story: The atmosphere itself had been different, and it supported giants, and animals of great size and shape . . . aka, Dinosaurs, which means that man and dinosaurs co-existed. There’s fossil evidence at the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose in Texas. I can’t get into details about this because I honestly can’t recall everything my teacher said. It’s required that we take the Creation Science class for first year at my school. It’s a great class, explains a lot of myth away. (Heck, my school bookstore even sells books that the professor wrote.)
Anyway, the waters receded back to where they came from. That means under the ground and back into the atmosphere, for the main part. (ref: Genesis 8:3)
Also, every single culture, without one exception, has record of a “great flood.” Bar none. Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese, West Indian, Native American, many of the African tribes and nations, and so on. Shouldn’t that tell you something? And whoever claimed that it had only been a “localized” flood, could you please find me a civilization that doesn’t have a Great Flood story, backed up with evidence?
Oi! That flood keeps coming back to haunt me! It's also quite poetic, as I'm currently drowning in text! D:
Refer back to the part of my post about the water for noahs flood.
Consider also what you're saying about the atmosphere. How can evaporating water create a massive change in atmosphere?
Consider that the modern atmosphere is (approximately) 78% Nitrogen, 18% Oxygen, 1.8% CO2, 0.2% H2O and the rest is trace gasses of argon and so forth.
How could evaporating H2O, barring a runaway greenhouse effect, alter the atmosphere significantly enough for large life forms to be precluded?
Furthermore, if Dinosaurs and Man had lived side by side, we would find that the fossil record would have a random assortment of human, dinosaur and other fossils at random stratification layers.
Furthermore, genesis states:
Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
If this is true, why then do dinosaurs not live alongside us today?
Genesis 8:3, if I'm reading this right, says that the waters "returned from off the earth". How I read it, it seems to be an account of waters receding back from the land, as opposed to draining back into the earth.
Consider this: If the entire earth had been covered by flood waters...
Why are there fresh water lakes?
With fish that cannot tolerate salt water?
Why are there any fish at all, for that matter. Freshwater fish would die in the rising salinity. Salt water fish would die in the dropping salinity of the rising seas.
Why are there any coral reefs left alive in the entire world at all? Coral reefs require that they are only a few meters from the surface of the water to be alive. Any deeper and they die. Rising flood waters of that magnitude would annihilate them totally.
How do animals such as the Koala, Platypus, and Kangaroo make it to the ark? The Koala requires a specialised diet of Eucalyptus leaves found only in Australia and is a marsupial, found only in Australia (and to a limited extent in surrounding land once adjoined). The Kangaroo is also a marsupial. If it made the trek back to Australia, why do we find no Kangaroo bones in Asia, nor for that matter Kangaroo herds as I dont think the asian continent would provide any major troubles for colonising kangaroo herds.
As for Paluxy, that was a proven hoax. I can provide a link if you so desire.
Hey, Razor! My turn!
NEXT! (lol)
**Jaw Drops**
YOU STOELED MY PRECIOUSSSSSSS!
**incoherent gibbering**
Next . . .
Razor:
Why do I believe that I didn’t evolve from an ape?
Because I have more respect for my Creator to have formed us in His image. This also ties into the “whole mind” partial-debate that went on in the forums. If we have evolved from apes, then why do we only have thick hair on certain areas of our bodies, unlike apes who have thick hair on the majority of their bodies? We can’t evolve out of that, can we? Furthermore, I don’t even hesitate to stick with my view that when Adam and Eve were chased out of the Garden of Eden, sin caused their bodies and minds to decay. People who are prodigies, and those with autism and some of the other mental “afflictions” are truly gifted with insight that the “normal” humans don’t have. Have you ever noticed a child with Down’s Syndrome see the bright side of a situation, something good that will happen that we, ourselves, aren’t able to see because of grief or turmoil? God works with and through those people who don’t, can’t, or won’t shut Him out of their minds.
I’ll leave you that to think upon.
The hair on my body is evident all over. It only gets thick at the head and armpits, legs arms and... other areas, but there is a fine layer of thin white hair all over and we most certainly can evolve our way out of it.
Off the top of my head, Featherless chickens have been created by selectively breeding them. They're intended for use in warm countries as a way to get around heating problems when used in farms, though I dont think they're quite in commercial use as yet.
And while I do have respect for your beliefs and opinion, I still must ask the question.
Why is Human Chromosome 2 a fusion of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 joined at the telomeres?
Nextie-poo . . .
Artemis!
Everything was always connected in the beginning! The Bible says so! (that’s kinda up there to annoy people . . . totally having fun, please, people . . . I’m just having fun!) BUT. Scripture says in Genesis 10:25 “. . . the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided.” I so would have loved to have been there and seen the reactions on people’s faces when the continents started to run away from each other. *chuckles* seriously, that would have been a Kodak moment.
Also, since the Bible records the continents moving AFTER the flood, don’t you think that Mount Everest could have been slapped up during that shifting? Because if the earth was all one continent, that means that there would only be hills and foothills, nothing absolutely crazily huge like the highest points of the earth. Even geologists and evolutionists will agree that large mountain ranges happen when two tectonic plates slap up against each other with force.
I'd like to contest the interpretation of that reference.
It says the Earth was divided and leaves it at that. In the middle of a long series of X Begat Y Begat Z, A, and M, who in turn Begat... (and so on).
Given that the bible can be quite... wordy... at times, I think the continents shifting and mountains suddenly being thrust up dramatically would warrant a little more then a one line mention.
Furthermore, 8:04 states that the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, prior to the mention of the Earth Dividing. If the continents split
after the flood as you state and the mountains thus formed afterwards as well, how then did the Ark come to rest on a mountain before the mountain could be there?
Next-indeedy!
For Everyone:
Carbon-dating issue: Just a thought, but the material that’s around the former plant material is tested, right? They don’t test the actual material, because of archaeological worth. Sooo, what’s the carbon-dating on the dirt outside on your front lawn? And what’s that saying about being “older than dirt”? Why don’t we date the material itself, and take the first answer that the machine gives us?
The actual material itself can be radio-carbon dated currently with accelerator mass spectrometry, as it only requires a small amount of material to conduct the test.
And why is radio-carbon dating the end-all argument that a lot of people give? Is the thought that a Creator out there just so happens to really make them angry that they’re not in charge of the past, or that the “illogical behavior” of the Creator in question happens to have a very logical answer that you don’t want to hear?
Just food for thought.
This presumes that science, archaeology, and evolution are "Against God". Radio-carbon dating is a reliable method of dating objects containing carbon within the last 40K years.
The thought of a creator does not make me angry, as I can entertain the thought of his existence without accepting it
Okay, that post took me about 7 hours to compile, research and edit. I'll be splitting this topic and moving it to general once I hit submit and then I'll be going to bed.
I'll be extremely busy for the next week or so, I've got assessment due on Monday, it's saturday morning currently and I need to get cracking, after the bucks day/night >_<
Oi Vey what a Schlep!
In any case, play nice while I R Busy, and I'll see how this debate turns out when I get back.
Oh, by the way, while I'm gone, could I ask someone to play "Devils Advocate" for me? I realise that a lot of the time I keep the debate going by providing points and counterpoints as well as evidence and research, so if the debate does slow, could someone step in and take care of that?
Playing devils advocate can be extremely tough at times, especially if you dont buy into the argument you're meant to be defending, can really help keep a debate going
{Edit}
Fixed a broken quote tag.
And Another Broken Quote!
And Another!
I Honestly expected more =\
