The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

Part 1 of The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy is available here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566

Thanks,
Plowman

...........................................

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A few questions spring to mind: why are these - the biggest land animals ever to live - never mentioned in the Bible? Did nobody notice them?

Here is a description of a Brontosaurus-like creature called 'behemoth' in Job 40:15-22



15 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;The willows by the brook surround him.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And why did god bother saving them from the flood and then make them go extinct anyway? And why did vegetarian dinosaurs have teeth that are clearly only useful for eating meat?

Sharp teeth are just as useful in shearing tough vegetation as they are in eating meat!!!!
Many creatures as well as the large Dinosaurs have gone extinct ... but we still have Crocodile 'Dinosurs' ... and Rhino ones!!!:)

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And - referring to the ridiculous video above - how did Noah go about gathering a pair of over 1 million species of insect? How did he catalogue and store them? (of course the number is far more than a million species, but I'm being gentle)

He didn't need to do anything about the insects ... some may have came on board themselves ... while others survived on floating vegetation, etc. It was only the 'higher' land animals that were specifically saved on the Ark .... and not the insects.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So many questions, so few plausible answers...

So few questions ... and all answered plausibly.:)

Monty Burnz

J C wrote: »

So few questions ... and all answered plausibly.:)

Plausibly? You believe that nonsense was plausible?

Well if you ignore every single thing we know about biology (the teeth bit was hilarious), logistics and indeed basic common sense, yeah I guess it is plausible. I mean, small children find Santa Claus plausible.

Could everyone else who believes that explanation is plausible please speak up?

J C

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Plausibly? You believe that nonsense was plausible?

Well if you ignore every single thing we know about biology (the teeth bit was hilarious), logistics and indeed basic common sense, yeah I guess it is plausible. I mean, small children find Santa Claus plausible.

Could everyone else who believes that explanation is plausible please speak up?

I forgot that Evolutionists find the idea that frogs turned into princes over millions of years to be plausible ... so perhaps I should have said ... so few Evolutionist questions ... and every one answered comprehensively!!!:)

Temptamperu

So if you believe the creationist myth that would mean you believe the world and universe to be 6000 years old, and was created in a puff of smoke.
If this is so, how has the light from the stars reached us considering the distance to us?
Perhaps Alpha Centuri which is about 4.21 light years away may of reached us but just about.
Also if we are all related to each other how come there arent so many more deformations due to incest and how can you explain the different races of men?

J C

Temptamperu wrote: »

So if you believe the creationist myth that would mean you believe the world and universe to be 6000 years old, and was created in a puff of smoke.
If this is so, how has the light from the stars reached us considering the distance to us?
Perhaps Alpha Centuri which is about 4.21 light years away may of reached us but just about.
Also if we are all related to each other how come there arent so many more deformations due to incest and how can you explain the different races of men?

... and we're off again for the nth time!!!

... you seriously do need to do a crash course in Creation Science.

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion Evolutionist years, but the diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years).
Creation Scientists believe that the initial expansion of the Universe (which happened instantaneously) was even greater than the Evolutionist Big Bang initial expansion, that supposedly produced a Universe with a Diameter of 93 billion light years in 13.75 billion years.
Instantantaneous expansion also 'stretched' the light from the stars and the speed of light therefore wasn't a constraint at the moment of Creation.

Humans were originally created perfect, so marriage between close relatives didn't create difficulties at that time. This is no longer the case, due to our ever increasing mutation load ... but equally, genetic masking rapidly eliminates the expression risk of deleterious mutations above background levels, with consanguinity beyond the fourth degree.

There is only one race of Mankind ... the Human Race ... but what are popularly called 'races' are due to genetic isolation and local selection effects after the Babel Dispersal.

Temptamperu

J C wrote: »

... and we're off again for the nth time!!!

... you seriously do need to do a crash course in Creation Science.

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion Evolutionist years, but the diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years).
Creation Scientists believe that the initial expansion of the Universe (which happened instantaneously) was even greater than the Evolutionist Big Bang initial expansion, that supposedly produced a Universe with a Diameter of 93 billion light years in 13.75 billion years.
Instantantaneous expansion also 'stretched' the light from the stars and the speed of light therefore wasn't a constraint at the moment of Creation.

Humans were originally created perfect, so marriage between close relatives didn't create difficulties at that time. This is no longer the case, due to our ever increasing mutation load ... but equally, genetic masking rapidly eliminates the expression risk of deleterious mutations above background levels, with consanguinity beyond the fourth degree.

There is only one race of Mankind ... the Human Race ... but what are popularly called 'races' are due to genetic isolation and local selection effects after the Babel Dispersal.

So is that not Evolution?

J C

Temptamperu wrote: »

So is that not Evolution?

No ... its isolation and selection of the genetic CFSI diversity originally infused at Creation.

Temptamperu

You can dress it up as much a you want there JC but its evolution that made the races and evolution that made man.
The Bible is a book of storys made by man too serve man and is nothing but legend and myth.

J C

Temptamperu wrote: »

You can dress it up as much a you want there JC but its evolution that made the races and evolution that made man.
The Bible is a book of storys made by man too serve man and is nothing but legend and myth.

As Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Law of Biogenesis ... ye need to do some more 'head-scratching' and research if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!:)

Ironically, it has turned out that Abiogenesis/Spontaneous Evolution has the same scientific validity as a belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden ... and it is ID and Creation that are consistent with the Laws of Science.:)

Morbert

Whether its a theory or hypotheses used to test the theory is a moot point.
The theory and it hypotheses must be repeatably testable in the here and now, if they are part of operative science.

'Bits' of 'evolution' ... like Natural Selection are testable in the 'here and now' ... and often when they are tested they show circular or opposite results to what is expected if 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution is occurring.
The Grey Moth ... black Moth ... Grey Moth phenomena shows that NS is merely a tool of population adaptation using pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity ... that has gone 'full circle' ... with the clean up of buildings in the 80's and 90's resulting in a resurgence of the grey / white moth varieties.

... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance is the result of a loss of CFSI ... which is consistent with a declining creation from perfection in a fallen world ... and is inconsistent with the idea of an information increasing Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.
...

There is only one criteria for a field to be scientific. It must spawn repeatable, testable predictions. Darwinian evolution makes repeatable hypotheses. For example, it predicts a nested hierarchy of genetic differences that is independent of any specific gene one chooses to analyse. This is repeatable. It also predicts that any comparison between genetic relations, geographical relations, or temporal fossil relations will reflect the same tree of life. This is repeatable.

ID and Creationism are not scientific.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

There is only one criteria for a field to be scientific. It must spawn repeatable, testable predictions. Darwinian evolution makes repeatable hypotheses. For example, it predicts a nested hierarchy of genetic differences that is independent of any specific gene one chooses to analyse. This is repeatable. It also predicts that any comparison between genetic relations, geographical relations, or temporal fossil relations will reflect the same tree of life. This is repeatable.

You are correct that 'Bits' of 'evolution' ... like Natural Selection are testable in the 'here and now' ... and when they are tested they show circular or opposite results to what is expected if 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution is occurring.
The Grey Moth ... black Moth ... Grey Moth phenomena shows that NS is merely a tool of population adaptation using pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity ... that has gone 'full circle' ... with the clean up of buildings in the 80's and 90's resulting in a resurgence of the grey / white moth varieties ... and the decline of the darker varients.

... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance is the result of a loss of CFSI ... which is consistent with a declining creation from perfection in a fallen world ... and is inconsistent with the idea of an information increasing Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.

None of this is any surprise, as 'Pondkind to Mankind' Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Biological Law of Biogenesis ...
... so ye need to do much more 'head-scratching' if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

You are correct that 'Bits' of 'evolution' ... like Natural Selection are testable in the 'here and now' ... and when they are tested they show circular or opposite results to what is expected if 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution is occurring.
The Grey Moth ... black Moth ... Grey Moth phenomena shows that NS is merely a tool of population adaptation using pre-existing genetic CFSI diversity ... that has gone 'full circle' ... with the clean up of buildings in the 80's and 90's resulting in a resurgence of the grey / white moth varieties ... and the decline of the darker varients.

... and the Atlantic Tomcod PCB resistance is the result of a loss of CFSI ... which is consistent with a declining creation from perfection in a fallen world ... and is inconsistent with the idea of an information increasing Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind'.

None of this is any surprise, as 'Pondkind to Mankind' Spontaneous Evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics and is a Mathematical Impossibility ... and Abiogenesis breaks the Biological Law of Biogenesis ...
... so ye need to do some more 'head-scratching' and research if ye are to be taken seriously by anybody except yourselves!!!!

The "bit of evolution" I referred to was the tree of relations between all life, including common ancestry. What you incorrectly call Macro-evolution.

Also, thermodynamics is not violated. The suns photons have fewer degrees of freedom, and hence more "order" than the low-energy infra-red photons emitted by life. Hence the evolution of life does not violate thermodynamics.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

The "bit of evolution" I referred to was the tree of relations between all life, including common ancestry. What you incorrectly call Macro-evolution.

Also, thermodynamics is not violated. The suns photons have fewer degrees of freedom, and hence more "order" than the low-energy infra-red photons emitted by life. Hence the evolution of life does not violate thermodynamics.

How does a reduction in order within the energy reaching us from the Sun result in a vast increase in order (in living creatures) on Earth (which Spontaneous Evolution claims)?

If this were true then heating a radiator in one room should result in a new computer being created in an adjoining room (or something equally miraculous)!!!!

Morbert

J C wrote: »

How does a reduction in order within the energy reaching us from the Sun result in a vast increase in order (in living creatures) on Earth (which Spontaneous Evolution claims)?

The 2nd law is not violated, since the entropy of the system (life + sun) has increased.

If this were true then heating a radiator in one room should result in a new computer being created in an adjoining room (or something equally miraculous)!!!!

It seems you still don't understand evolution or thermodynamics. So I am happy to leave you here in the pit, and will instead focus my efforts on your attempts to escape into other threads.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

The 2nd law is not violated, since the entropy of the system (life + sun) has increased.

The only situations where even localised entropy can decrease is where both an external energy source is available and it is harnessed by an intelligently designed system ... like a machine ... like photosynthesis.

In the absence of such a mechanism, no matter how much external energy is available, entropy increases both in the Sun ... and locally, on Earth, where the energy is dissipated.

Morbert wrote: »

It seems you still don't understand evolution or thermodynamics. So I am happy to leave you here in the pit, and will instead focus my efforts on your attempts to escape into other threads.

... so you don't want me to disturb the other Skeptics ... in all of their innocence, God bless them!!!!

... they must have pretty poor worldview, if it cannot survive a dose of reality and physical evidence!!!!

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Noah's Ark did survive the Biblical Flood ... and you and I wouldn't be here ... if it didn't!!!:)

But I thought that we agreed; the existence of a fossil record proves that no biblical flood could have taken place and shows that the argument for Creationists is fatally flawed.

If Creationists are correct then we should find some human remains that pre-date some dinosaur remains.

But we don't, do we?

How long does it take for a coal-seam or an oil-field to develop?

Nothing destroyed in a flood of biblical proportions would have the opportunity to become fossilised or to turn into coal or oil.

However, earthquakes and tsunamis could give rise to mass burials but again; why don't we find dinosaurs and humans buried together... at the same time?

No, there cannot have been a biblical flood and so contrary to what you say, humans must exist through some other means.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

But I thought that we agreed; the existence of a fossil record proves that no biblical flood could have taken place and shows that the argument for Creationists is fatally flawed.

The fossil record is largely a record of the Flood Burial ... with billions of dead things (instantly) buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth. I'd say the fossil record is amongst the best evidence that we have for Noah's Worldwide Flood.

himnextdoor wrote: »

If Creationists are correct then we should find some human remains that pre-date some dinosaur remains.

Although Humans lived contemporaneously with Dinosuars ... they didn't live amongst them ... just like today we don't live amongst Elephants or Lions ... due to the risk to life and limb that this would cause!!!

Human footprints have been found alongside Dinosaur ones in various places in America and Russia ... so they walked together ... or more likely ran ahead of the engulfing flood together!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n4/footprints-in-turkmenistan

himnextdoor wrote: »

How long does it take for a coal-seam or an oil-field to develop?

... probably a few months as peat and buried vegetation coalified rapidly under the pressures and heat that was generated by the massive tectonic and volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood ... and oil welled up from deep inside the Earth along tectonic fissures ... just like it does today
http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm
Some oilfields are filling up from underneath as the oil is being extracted from them ... so oilfields could have similarly filled up in a matter of years after Noah's Flood.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Nothing destroyed in a flood of biblical proportions would have the opportunity to become fossilised or to turn into coal or oil.

It would be instantaously entombed in sedimetary materials that formed the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks that we now observed all over the Earth.

himnextdoor wrote: »

However, earthquakes and tsunamis could give rise to mass burials but again; why don't we find dinosaurs and humans buried together... at the same time?

... for the same reason that modern Tsunami don't bury Elephants and Lions and people together ... because these animals live seperately from Humans ... and Humans live separtely from them !!!:)

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The fossil record is largely a record of the Flood Burial ... with billions of dead things (instantly) buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth. I'd say the fossil record is amongst the best evidence that we have for Noah's Worldwide Flood.

But dead things would be 'instantaneously floated', not buried. As the flood receded, the organic material would have been deposited after rock sediment had settled.

Rocks sink faster than dead bodies.

Flood victims are highly unlikely to feature in the fossil-record at all.

J C wrote: »

Although Humans lived contemporaneously with Dinosuars ... they didn't live amongst them ... just like today we don't live amongst Elephants or Lions ... due to the risk to life and limb that this would cause!!!

So where are the 150-million year-old human fossils? I mean, presumably, being human does't exempt you from fossilisation, does it?

J C wrote: »

Human footprints have been found alongside Dinosaur ones in various places in America and Russia ... so they walked together ... or more likely ran ahead of the engulfing flood together!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n4/footprints-in-turkmenistan

This article finishes by saying that there is actually no evidence to support this claim.

J C wrote: »

... probably a few months as peat and buried vegetation coalified rapidly under the pressures and heat that was generated by the massive tectonic and volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood ... and oil welled up from deep inside the Earth along tectonic fissures ... just like it does today
http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm
Some oilfields are filling up from underneath as the oil is being extracted from them ... so oilfields could have similarly filled up in a matter of years after Noah's Flood.

Are you for real?

That is not what that article says. Has the possibility that the floor of the oil-field might be rising been rulled out? Could water be leaking in?

Or perhaps you are saying that organic fuel is spontaneously created at the centre of the earth.

J C wrote: »

It would be instantaously entombed in sedimetary materials that formed the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks that we now observed all over the Earth.

A flood would not entomb as much as liberate.

Do you realise how tumultuous a flood of biblical proportion would be?

The trees and dead bodies would have been atop the sediment; sorted into order of buoyancy.

J C wrote: »

... for the same reason that modern Tsunami don't bury Elephants and Lions and people together ... because these animals live seperately from Humans ... and Humans live separtely from them !!!:)

What?

Elephants, lions and people can be affected by the same tsunami.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

But dead things would be 'instantaneously floated', not buried. As the flood receded, the organic material would have been deposited after rock sediment had settled.

... that is why the Fossil Flood Burial Record is dominated by water dwelling creatures (mostly bottom feeders) who were most likely to be inundated and entombed first with the trillions of tonnes of mud, silt and sand released by the worldwide tectonic breakup of the Earth's crust and the release of trillions of tonnes of sub-terranean waters that was Noah's Flood.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Rocks sink faster than dead bodies.

True ... but we're not talking about rocks here ... we're talking about their formation by rapid cementation of sand and silt together with any creatures that have accidentally been entombed (and fossilised) in it

himnextdoor wrote: »

Flood victims are highly unlikely to feature in the fossil-record at all.

This is exactly what we find ... the fossil record is dominated by marine creatures ... followed by smaller land animals ... then large land animals ... and finally Humans. You're correct that people would have gone to the highest ground ahead of the Flood processes and they would therefore largely escape inundation by sediment ... and fossilisation.

himnextdoor wrote: »

So where are the 150-million year-old human fossils? I mean, presumably, being human does't exempt you from fossilisation, does it?

Fossilised Humans and their artefacts have been discovered. However, Evolutionists discount such finds by interpreting them as recent (in Evolutionist time).
Here is an account of fossilised human footprints found on a rock surface in Africa ... as well as tools and other artefacts in underlying rock layers
Quote:
"A trail of fossilized footprints
left more than 100,000 years ago by an anatomically modern
human has been found on the shore of a South African
lagoon. The fossils, found in a sand-dune-turned-rock dated
at 117,000 years ago, are the oldest known footprints of an
anatomically modern human ....

... Since discovering them last year, Roberts also has
discovered in underlying rock of the same age a group of
Stone Age tools thought to have been crafted by the people
who left the prints. They include scraping and cutting
blades, a spear point and a large stone core from which
flakes were struck. The implements probably were used by
the early people to kill and butcher prey."

... and you can read all about it at the following link
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/97/footprints/release.html

Could I also remind you that fossils can only come about as a result of major catastrophes. The prerequisite for the formation of fossils is the rapid burial of the dead creatures in clay, sand and other sediments, so that air is eliminated and they cannot decompose or be eaten by other creatures. Equally, the fact that many fossils are perfectly preserved and fossilised trees are found running up through millions of Evolutionist years of layers of supposed rock sedimntation means that the sedimetation time only took a few years at most!!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

That is not what that article says. Has the possibility that the floor of the oil-field might be rising been rulled out? Could water be leaking in?

Or perhaps you are saying that organic fuel is spontaneously created at the centre of the earth.

Most Mineral Oil reserves do seem to have an abiotic Hydrocarbon origin.

himnextdoor wrote: »

A flood would not entomb as much as liberate.

Do you realise how tumultuous a flood of biblical proportion would be?

The trees and dead bodies would have been atop the sediment; sorted into order of buoyancy.

... anything on top would simply rot ... and wouldn't be fossilised ... and polystrate fossil trees are found sticking up through 'millions of Evolutionist years' of rock layers ... which indicates that they were entombed and fossilised very rapidly indeed ... and the 'millions of years' are just wishful thinking!!!

himnextdoor wrote: »

Elephants, lions and people can be affected by the same tsunami.

They could ... but they would be found separately ... and this gives Evolutionists the 'wriggle room' to interpret these finds as having been fossilised millions of years apart ... as distinct from a few miles apart and at the same time!!!!

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... that is why the Fossil Flood Burial Record is dominated by water dwelling creatures (mostly bottom feeders) who were most likely to be inundated and entombed first with the trillions of tonnes of mud, silt and sand released by the worldwide tectonic breakup of the Earth's crust and the release of trillions of tonnes of sub-terranean waters that was Noah's Flood.

It's a matter of numbers; marine life dominates the fossil record because it has existed for longer and in far greater numbers than land-dwelling lifeforms.

At any rate, I think that you have messed this up.

The flood entirely covered all land, that is to a depth of over eight-kilometres, and then all that water simply seeped back into the subterranean caverns.

Now, think of the physics involved; why and how would the water come forth? Rapid heating, perhaps? But not by magma breaking through; that would cause the caverns to be filled with cooling rock cutting off the exit of the water.

Maybe it was superheated gas? And under extremely high pressure. It would have to be, wouldn't it? I mean, there would have to be enough pressure to lift and hold a column of water at a height of eight-kilometres above sea-level.

Also, the water-level rose for forty-days. That means that on the fortieth day, the vent-pressure was more than eight-thousand tonnes per square metre; what must the pressure have been on day one?

Then after forty days the pressure fell and so did the water.

Is this about right so far?

Are you proposing that the flood was the result of such a process?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

It's a matter of numbers; marine life dominates the fossil record because it has existed for longer and in far greater numbers than land-dwelling lifeforms.

At any rate, I think that you have messed this up.

Marine creatures dominate the fossil record of Noah's Flood because they were closest to the release of the 'fountains of the great deep' that were broken up (and burst forth) with silt and Calcium Carbonate laiden water, and were inundated by it, as the Flood processes proceeded.

Genesis 7:10-12
New King James Version (NKJV)

10 And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

himnextdoor wrote: »

The flood entirely covered all land, that is to a depth of over eight-kilometres, and then all that water simply seeped back into the subterranean caverns.

... it covered the entire Earth due to the tectonic collapse of the Earths surface resulting in the release of vast oceans of sub-surface waters ... which ultimately formed todays oceans when it ran off the rising land masses that formed todays continents, later on in the Flood Event.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Now, think of the physics involved; why and how would the water come forth? Rapid heating, perhaps? But not by magma breaking through; that would cause the caverns to be filled with cooling rock cutting off the exit of the water.

... the super-heated and super-saturated waters deposited their sediment over vast areas to form todays sedimentary rocks.
Many of todays caves are the last surviving remnants of the exit points for these sub-terranean waters. The water temperature varied, depending in how close it was to volcanic activity

himnextdoor wrote: »

Maybe it was superheated gas? And under extremely high pressure. It would have to be, wouldn't it? I mean, there would have to be enough pressure to lift and hold a column of water at a height of eight-kilometres above sea-level.

... not if it was primarily released by the collapse of the Earths surface into the subterranean waters underneath.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Also, the water-level rose for forty-days. That means that on the fortieth day, the vent-pressure was more than eight-thousand tonnes per square metre; what must the pressure have been on day one?

it rose gradually over forty days due to the collapse of the surface layers which squeezed out the sub-terranean waters. We see latter day (puny by comparison) examples of this squeezing action or liquefaction driving up groundwater onto the surface during earthquakes today. If you mutiply these events a bllion fold you will get some idea of the scale of the 'fountains of the great deep' that initiated Noah's flood.

... here is a smaller scale liquefaction event from the recent Christchurch earthquake

himnextdoor wrote: »

Then after forty days the pressure fell and so did the water.

after forty days the ocean floors sank down further ... and the continental land masses rose up further, thereby draining off the waters, to create dry land eventually.

Have a look at this video between 0:50 - 0:55 to see an example of a car partially buried in the silt that was released by tectonic liquefaction activity that is now drying out and could form new sedimentary rock if it has cementing agents like Calcium Silicates and Calcium Carbonate.

the_monkey

@J C


- edit sorry, thought this was the A+A forum ...

J C

the_monkey wrote: »

@J C


- edit sorry, thought this was the A+A forum ...

An easy mistake to make!!!:):D

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

it rose gradually over forty days due to the collapse of the surface layers which squeezed out the sub-terranean waters. We see latter day (puny by comparison) examples of this squeezing action or liquefaction driving up groundwater onto the surface during earthquakes today. If you mutiply these events a bllion fold you will get some idea of the scale of the 'fountains of the great deep' that initiated Noah's flood.

So the Ark 'fell' into the water?

What stopped the elephants going through the floor?

And if the land falling 'squeezed' out the water, where could the water have receded to?

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

So the Ark 'fell' into the water?

The waters arose around the Ark ... and it floated.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What stopped the elephants going through the floor?

The timbers in the floor stropped the Elephants (and all of the other animals) going through the floor ... and the Elephants were probably juveniles

himnextdoor wrote: »

And if the land falling 'squeezed' out the water, where could the water have receded to?

... there were two distict phases ... the inundation (when the 'squeezing' occurred) ... and the recession.
... and the water receded into the sinking areas that became todays oceans ... and ran off the rising areas that became todays continents.

On the widely accepted basis that matter cannot be created or destroyed ... the rising continents were balanced by the sinking ocean floors.

Flood Geology rocks!!!:):D:eek:

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The waters arose around the Ark ... and it floated.

That is not what you said; you said that land collapsing 'squeezed' out the water which means that the Ark was either launched from a port that was sinking, in which case the waters would have been chaotic and broken the Ark to bits, or that the Ark was floated on the back of a massive, the greatest ever, tsunami which would have broken the Ark to bits.

Neither scenarios for the launching of the Ark, an Ark that survives the initial onslaught of an inundation, has credibility.

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

That is not what you said; you said that land collapsing 'squeezed' out the water which means that the Ark was either launched from a port that was sinking, in which case the waters would have been chaotic and broken the Ark to bits, or that the Ark was floated on the back of a massive, the greatest ever, tsunami which would have broken the Ark to bits.

Neither scenarios for the launching of the Ark, an Ark that survives the initial onslaught of an inundation, has credibility.

The water tumult was localised at the points where the waters burst forth and the land subsidance was greatest ... other areas were gently inundated over a number of days by gradually rising waters ... and this allowed the Ark to launch on a gently rising tide of water.

Roger Hassenforder

how long were they in the ark?

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

how long were they in the ark?

... 1 year and 10 days days in total.


Gen 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 8:13-16
13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

15And God spake unto Noah, saying,

16Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee

Roger Hassenforder

J C wrote: »

... 1 year and 10 days days in total.


Gen 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 8:13-16
13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

15And God spake unto Noah, saying,

16Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee

cheers.
it must have been big?

Onesimus

Do you think these Dinosaurs were made extinct due to this flood? and thats how that came to be?

Onesimus

soterpisc

Onesimus wrote: »

Do you think these Dinosaurs were made extinct due to this flood? and thats how that came to be?

Onesimus

The flood took place sometimes in the last 50,000 years. It would have been local, not universal ( i think a giant tsunami) but no its long long after dinosaurs, they were extinct before man.

Zombrex

Onesimus wrote: »

Do you think these Dinosaurs were made extinct due to this flood? and thats how that came to be?

Onesimus

There is a Creationism thread some where for questions to those who take Genesis literally. It is pretty big, but that question and others were covered in it.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

J C

Newsflash ... animal life has been around for 450 million evolutionist years less than thought up to now!!!
http://communications.nuim.ie/press/251120112.shtml
Quote: "Their research tackled the puzzling question of why the fossil record – which dates back only to the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of 500 million years ago when multitudes of complex life forms began to emerge did not tally with the emerging science of molecular biology, which based on studying DNA mutations suggested that animals should have been around 740 million years earlier than that."

... if you take the 'timetree of life' website (www.timetree.org), this presents as the “expert opinion” that the last common animal ancestor was around 1,237 million years ago ... which is 737 million evolutionist years more that is now thought to be the case!!!
... the Evolutionists are moving in the right direction, as they rapidly revise their dates downwards!!!:):D

The reason that there is such a massive 'dating' divergence is because it all happened very recently indeed!!!

Of course, the reality is that all life was actually created within the last 10,000 years by a loving and just God ... who will Save of Judge us when we die ... and the choice of which you want is entirely up to you!!!.:D

J C

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

cheers.
it must have been big?

It was!!!:)

Waestrel

look like this thread is dying. No harm either, this discussion never goes anywhere.

JC, your faith has taught me a lot about religion!

J C

Waestrel wrote: »

look like this thread is dying. No harm either, this discussion never goes anywhere.

JC, your faith has taught me a lot about religion!

I have yet to see any thread that 'goes anywhere' in the sense that everybody agrees on the topic!!!
... but the truth is usually obvious to everybody ... except those in complete denial.


We all have Faith ... for some it's well-founded (e.g. Direct Creation) ... and for others it's completely unfounded (e.g. Spontaneous Evolution).

Waestrel wrote: »

JC, your faith has taught me a lot about religion!

... and the Atheist Humanist religion has taught me a lot about their faith!!!:D

J C

soterpisc wrote: »

The flood took place sometimes in the last 50,000 years. It would have been local, not universal ( i think a giant tsunami) but no its long long after dinosaurs, they were extinct before man.

It was universal ... and that is proven by the worldwide distribution of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks.
... and it was only about 8,000 years ago ... and that is why modern recorded Human history begins about 8,000 years ago!!!

facemelter

Hello there im looking for some links or some unbiased views of creationism , what it is , what it's about etc , the reason that im posting here is that every time i try and search for some unbiased link or descriptions i either get something along the lines of . there was a big bang and then god did some stuff . or the opposite of " its a ll bollucks "! , not saying i believe in it or i object to it i just want facts , also feel free to tell me below what you think of it , if you believe , or if you object ! thanks very much !

Festus

Unbiased? Good luck with that. Everything will be biased according ones Faith in God or faith in there being no God.
Best bet for an unbiased view would be to ask God.

For what it's worth this would be the Catholic view.

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

From: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Creationism is basically an ideological position; the only reason why anybody professes creationist views is because of a faith-based conviction that the Book of Genesis, read as a historical account, is factually true.

Scientific critiques of creationism aim to be factual, and I think probably many of them are. Your confidence in the impartiality of a scientific critique may be enhanced if it comes from a believer rather than an unbeliever, but basically you should be looking for a critique from someone with good scientific credentials.

(I'm not saying that an unbeliever can't offer an impartial critique of creationism; of course he can. The question is, can somebody know that the critique is impartial, and not motivated by animus towards religious belief? With a critique from a believer, at least one possible bias is rendered less likely.)

Gurgle

Evolution, big bang, creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Its relatively easy to incorporate them all into the same world view.

What you may be referring to OP is literal 7-day creationism, where the sun, sky, ground, fish etc were actually called into being on successive days six thousand years ago by a voice inthe sky.

That would be the exclusive preserve of hardline fundamentalists.

tommy2bad

Gurgle wrote: »

Evolution, big bang, creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Its relatively easy to incorporate them all into the same world view.
Good luck with that !
What you may be referring to OP is literal 7-day creationism, where the sun, sky, ground, fish etc were actually called into being on successive days six thousand years ago by a voice inthe sky.

That would be the exclusive preserve of hardline fundamentalists.

Anyone promoting creationism over evolution is either a liar or fool, have nothing to do with any of them.
Having said that, some people dont care which it is and adopt creationism because it gives them a world view that their comfortable with. They believe in 7 day creation literally because it works as a metaphor for how they feel.

Zombrex

facemelter wrote: »

Hello there im looking for some links or some unbiased views of creationism , what it is , what it's about etc , the reason that im posting here is that every time i try and search for some unbiased link or descriptions i either get something along the lines of . there was a big bang and then god did some stuff . or the opposite of " its a ll bollucks "! , not saying i believe in it or i object to it i just want facts , also feel free to tell me below what you think of it , if you believe , or if you object ! thanks very much !

Depends on what you mean by "unbiased".

If you simply want to know what Creationists believe, irrespective of whether it is true or not (it isn't, but by the sounds of it you already realize that) then these sites can help you out.

http://www.answersingenesis.com
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/

dvae

Given that the bible is the inspired word of god , i guess i have to take the Genesis account as fact. there was a time when i would of questioned Genesis and creation but, whats the point, if you put your faith in god all questions will be eventually answered.
personally i don't believe that the world and all its wonders were made in 6 24 hour days. i believe that maybe god made the world in perhaps 6 different stages, with each stage been maybe thousands or millions of years apart. sort of like when building a house. the first day i cleared the site, this took several days. then on the second day i layed a foundation, this took 3 day to dig and lay. on the third day i started the block work, this took several weeks and, so forth.
another point that is often over looked, the first sin was created by Adam in Genesis. if Genesis was to be taken figuratively and not literally then there would of been no need for Jesus to come down to the earth to die as a ransom for Adams sin.

token56

dvae wrote: »

Given that the bible is the inspired word of god , i guess i have to take the Genesis account as fact.

Without trying to derail this thread I just have to question this as it seems to be a massive contradiction (discussing of the rest of your post is probably best suited to one of the mega threads).

Had you said, given that the bible is the word of god, I have to take Genesis as fact, that could be taken as consistent. But if you accept the bible was inspired by the word of god, then presumably you can see that not everything should be taken as fact, given that it is men's interpretation of gods words and they are not literally gods words?

tommy2bad

dvae;

sort of like when building a house. the first day i cleared the site, this took several days. then on the second day i layed a foundation, this took 3 day to dig and lay. on the third day i started the block work, this took several weeks and, so forth.

Tradesmans time, like ' be with you monday' but wont say which monday.

if Genesis was to be taken figuratively and not literally then there would of been no need for Jesus to come down to the earth to die as a ransom for Adams sin.

No, their would still be a reason it just wouldn't be about a Granny Smith.
I'm sorry but if you insist on taking Genesis literally and then qualify that with 1 day = a period in time how do you not see the sin part as allegorical too?

facemelter

Gurgle wrote: »

Evolution, big bang, creationism and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Its relatively easy to incorporate them all into the same world view.

What you may be referring to OP is literal 7-day creationism, where the sun, sky, ground, fish etc were actually called into being on successive days six thousand years ago by a voice inthe sky.

That would be the exclusive preserve of hardline fundamentalists.

thats would be more or less what i meant !! :P yeah i was just curious !