 |
| |
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Wouldn't such fast plate movements result in catastrophic side effects for the rest of the planet? Like the tsunami disaster x100000? |
Yes it would, but the tsunami did not affect ships at sea, and with all human and animal life cocooned in the ark, they were safe. Later the boat landed somewhere in the mountains of ararat and again they would have been safe from tsanamis because of their high altitude. It would have taken many years for the human race to multiply and recolonise coastal areas, and by then the tectonic activity would have subsided. It is interesting that there were periods in earths ancient history where many people resided in caves etc, this could equate to the early turbulent years after the flood when buildings would not remain standing due to frequent severe earthquakes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
whaleboy, dont you realize that most people from australia and new zealand are generally ignorant about everything other than dingos?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
I have, God is my helper, do you have a helper?
quote:
Shallow such that tsnuamis would have been insanely powerful? |
Shallower for sure, but if it was 20% shallower than present (A figure that would allow the flood waters that covered a relatively flat world to change the oceans to its current depth), majority of the oceans would be deep enough to allow the tsanami to travel unobstructed through the water as it did this time through the great expanse of the Indian Ocean.
quote:
how then can you account for the non-fatal levels of carbonic acid in the ocean |
The fossil evidence of major fish burials suggest that it was indeed fatal to much of marine life, but a renmant of marine life survived, and this is indeed normal in instances of poisoning,(a few germs always survive a course of antibiotics for example)
quote:
Also, what of the varying magnetic field of the Earth, preserving itself in the rocks of the mid Atlantic ridge in a series of bands of alternating North-South inclination each representing (by radioactive decay and the current rate of formation) tens of thousands of years of deposition. |
I disagree that the current rate of formation is consistent with past rates as is well known by my earlier posts, and in the turbulence of tectonics that affected the whole globe at the time of Noahs flood, there would have been major, frequent changes in magnetic fields, including eddies in the magnetic fields that would be localised in effect, ie the swings in the N Atlantic ridge would not necessarily mean a full global change in magnetic fields.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
@trev: I'll take your failure to address the point about the water rasing above the mountains as indicative of you being an unbelieving heathen bound for hell. |
I have addressed that point by stating that the world was relatively flat prior to Noahs flood, and mountains of todays scale did not exist, in fact if the biblical climate record is correct they could not have existed, mountain ranges would not have allowed a climate of the type described in the bible. The low hills/mountains of preflood time were covered by the flood waters. As it is prophesied that in Revelations near the end that the earth will be flattened by an earthquake at the end of time, so that no hills/mountains will exist after that time, I believe if God can flatten the world by an earthquake, he can also have created the mountains by an earthquake at the completion of the flood
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
You're seriously telling me that the "high mountains" refered to in Gen. 7:20 were perhaps 100m high? |
Yes, the region were I lived had a series of 'mountains', ie highest hills for 50 miles or more, they have names Mt Burr, Mt Benson etc and range from less than 100m to maybe for the highest 150m (probably less). The term high is always relative to nearby surroundings and therefore can be used on mountains others would consider a rock pile, if nothing else is higher.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
Good grief, trev... could you possibly be this naive? Again, you throw our explanations without even thinking of the scientific plausibility of them. Your explanations cause worse problems than the flood!
If you won't address all the above cited contradictions to the Flood, I don't see how this discussion can be productive. So far you've not provided a lick of proof for any of your suggestions, and have had no response for the portions of your explanations that have been shown to be patently impossible, which makes your entire "theory" as it were fall apart.
The "mountains made by the flood" suggestion is absurd. Nothing in Genesis suggests the earth was flat and there were no mountains. Nothing suggests there was no rain fall. This is just apologetics taken to the ludicrous extreme.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH570.html
quote:
This claim originated before the theory of plate tectonics existed as an explanation for mountain-building. Plate tectonics, however, solved the problem in terms of relatively gradual processes we see working (and still building mountains) today. All the major mountain ranges have been studied in detail, the plate movements which caused them have been mapped, their histories have been worked out for millions of years in the past. The problem of mountain formation has been solved, and a Flood had no part the solution.
The catastrophic formation of mountains and subsequent return of the sea into its basin would have released tremendous amounts of heat and mechanical energy, enough to boil the oceans and metamorphose the minerals in the mountains. No trace of such a catastrophe exists.
Formation of mountains during the Flood does not explain why different mountains are different ages. The Appalachians are much older than the Rockies, for example, as one can immediately see just from how the two ranges are differently eroded. |
There is abundant evidence in geology for an old earth with mountains that are millions of years old. Also, plate tectonics has been so thoroughly established as fact that it is beyond refute. Your suggestions are laughable in that they contain not a clue about true geology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Nothing suggests there was no rain fall. |
The rainbow was given after the flood as a sign that the world would never be flooded again. As rain showers on occasion will produce rainbows, the implied non-existence of the rainbow prior to the flood strongly suggests that there was no rain prior to the flood. As Genesis states that a mist/dew watered the earth at this time, lack of rain is not an issue as far as moisture requirements for vegetation growth etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
Hm. Given the water requirements of some tropical plants, I might want to see the numbers on that one. |
My posts postulate that the climate was a high humidity climate, probably never below 95% humidity and presumably daytime temps of about 25 - 30C and night temperature about 1C less, this being a sufficient lowering of temp in a very high humidity climate to allow the formation of mists and dews. In this circumstance, moisture requirements for all plant is relatively low
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
molly bloom
quote:
Really. So no one can 'argue' with Darwinism, because Darwin's theories are akin to the doctrine of the immaculate conception, or transsubstantiation, or predestination, or the trinity?
Care to show us how? |
shawnmmcc
quote:
What's utterly ridiculous is that it's not in Biology we find evidence of Divine intervention, but in Physics. Some physicists determined that if certain basic forces were different by 0.1 percent - as in .001 - an earth where life could evolve would never have existed. |
chegitz guevara
quote:
That's still a ridiculous argument. Just cuz we won the lottery doesnt mean devine intervention was involved. If things had been different, we wouldn't be here to appreciate the difference. |
Here is the internal contradiction in athiesm.
1 - Creationist theory is flawed because they base their entire argument of the existence of God on the miraculous and supernatural. There is absolutley no proof that miraculous events have happened.
Ergo - no miracles = no God.
2- Just because it is a miracle that we exist in no way means there is divine intelligence or intervention.
Ergo - miracles = no God.
DarkCloud
quote:
And it's even more ridiculous when one considers that there could very possibly be an infinite number of universes and that thus, there are an infinite number of chances for an universe such as our own to have possibly arisen, even WITHOUT aid from a Divine Source. |
An "infinite" hmm - sounds close to the definition of God. Infinite concepts are reserved for the supernatural by its very definition.
quote:
Just becasue something is very unlikely to have happened doesn't mean that God needs to have created it as such. |
You mean like the resurrection of Jesus is just as unlikely as you existing as a cogent human?
shawnmmcc
quote:
I find the Divine setting the proper constants idea plausible, not definitive. The trillion universe lottery theory is also plausible. I'm never going to know, and the existance of an eternal soul/caring god is something that is moot - if that is not the case, then in dying I won't find out, I'll cease to exist or I will find out, and will discover if He is a merciful God - if he's an angry God, well I'm pwnd anyway. |
Honesty is very refreshing to hear. A few quick questions.
1- Where do your thoughts come from? You are a biology expert yes? You can think of a monkey at anytime you want. Certainly your brain processed this thought but where did the thought originate?
2- If you lose a finger in an accident are you less aware of yourself as a person? Or if you lose 5 pounds are you less of a person in your awareness of self- existence?
3- Are you real? do you exist? Do you actually have experience, dreams and emotions?
You have emotions but you are the one experiencing these emotions. You have experience but you are the one having these. What and who exactly is experiencing this reality?
Urban Ranger
quote:
About what you are talking?
Atheism is simply rejection of bald assertions. |
Athiesm asserts there is no God. That would require to know everything in the universe that can be known and experienced.
quote:
Quantum physics does not lead credence to Creationism. |
Did you check the link I provided? Or have you checked into some of the latest theories?
quote:
That cannot be further from the truth. A hypothesis is subjected to testing, your faith does not. |
I have faith that when I turn on the lightswitch - there will be light. I justed tested my faith in electricity.
SpencerH
quote:
Whats the point of discussing the logic/merits of creationism as if it is a scientific hypothesis? One can discuss the evidence supporting evolution, and there can be disagreement as to the merits of any data, but how does one discuss the "evidence" of a belief? |
I cannot see, smell, hear, measure, or experiment in any measurable way your thoughts. Is there any proof that you experience your own thought other than you saying so?
Now my hypothesis is that you do have thoughts because the one proof I have is you posting here. I know that may be kind of weak proof but it is really all I have at this point to support my scientific hypothesis.
quote:
BTW Boris I dont agree that most scientists are willing to accept new theories. Based on my nearly 20 years of biological research, I find other scientists to be extremely skeptical of new ideas. |
Totally my experience as well as most of the human race.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
2- Just because it is a miracle that we exist in no way means there is divine intelligence or intervention.
Ergo - miracles = no God. |
In what sense that our existence is a miracle?
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
Athiesm asserts there is no God. That would require to know everything in the universe that can be known and experienced. |
That's not what Atheism is. Atheism is "a-" + "theism," with the Greek prefix "a" standing for "without."
Even if that is true, your assertion still does not wash. Do unicorns exist? Did you check every single corner of this universe?
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
Did you check the link I provided? Or have you checked into some of the latest theories? |
What links?
Simply, Quantum Physics is not about how species arise. There are a few physcists on Poly, ask them if you want.
quote:
Originally posted by beingofone
I have faith that when I turn on the lightswitch - there will be light. I justed tested my faith in electricity. |
You are better than me. I don't have faith in electricity. Yet my lights come on anyway.
You are confusing two meanings of "faith." The previous usage is about "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," here you are just using it interchangably with "confidence."
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 24-01-2005 at 12:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I think you posted all of the problems, most scientists have with christian fundamentalists (who take the bible literal).
As you already stated it is very difficult to translate the bible and therefore it could be that some things have other meanings than those you can find within the translated versions of the bible.
Well, for a fundamentalist these problems don´t seem to exist. It is written in their translation and therefore true and all other translations are false.
(btw. the literal translation from the aramaic sounds really good, are there any sources where you can find more of them [maybe even the whole bible translated this way?])
As you already said, the account of Noahs flood could also mean that it was "just" an enormous local flood, which was interpreted as global because for the early human tribes their surroundings were the "world" (and maybe it is the same flood all myths of the different cultures point to [because humankind was small enough at this time and not spread all around the earth, so that stories of the flood could reach all humans]).
I think a local flood would be much more acceptable to scientists [and wouldn´t lead to the problems you get if you try to explain a global flood  ])
Well, as I think that all religions point to some eternal truth [but no single religions can claim that it is the sole possessor of the whole eternal truth, although many do it nevertheless] I can only agree with you there.
Both, religion as well as science could be (and was, as history shows) misused by humans to destroy other humans, instead of trying to makle this world a better place for all of them.
Maybe one day all people will recognize, that it doesn´t matter what religion someone adheres to or what colour his skin has, as we are all humans.
Sadly I think this day is far far away, as Religion is still used by all kinds of fundamentalists (of all kinds of religions, be it christians, muslims, jews od hinduists) to claim that their side is the good one and the others are the bad ones.
And science is still used to develop measures to more efficiently kill other people. |
Thank you - I can appreciate your honest open approach to truth.
You can buy an Aramaic translation at Amazon and here is a link that is inteesting for translations.
http://www.aramaicbible.org/default.shtm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
Science I have found tends to ignore questions it cannot answer. Some examples of unanswered questions are
What is memory? (I know they say it resides in human brains but how does the brain know a certain arrangement of chemicals/molecules is a memory of a waterful seen years earlier for example, an image that can be recalled in detail)
How can migratory birds travel most of the length of the globe with the young travelling at a separate time to the adults as happens with some species?
How can 'out of body' experiences be explained? ( in particular when the patient views the operation from above the operating table as has happened many times)
How can twins feel the pain of the other twin when hundreds of miles apart and unaware of the event causing the pain?
It is because science cannot answer many questions sastisfactorily that it is necessary to turn to the book that has shown itself to have the answer through the ages, the BIBLE
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In what sense that our existence is a miracle? |
Well - when you consider the other option, I would say life is abounding of the miraculous.
But if it is no miracle perhaps you could explain life to me.
quote:
That's not what Atheism is. Atheism is "a-" + "theism," with the Greek prefix "a" standing for "without." |
I see your point. Atheism means to believe there is no God.
quote:
Even if that is true, your assertion still does not wash. Do unicorns exist? Did you check every single corner of this universe? |
You know I have not, but I will keep my eyes open.
But to assert that God does not exist - well its like this - you would have to be God, because you would have to know and experience everything, to know with absolute knowledge God does not exist.
quote:
What links?
Simply, Quantum Physics is not about how species arise. There are a few physcists on Poly, ask them if you want. |
doubleslit
You are correct. Quantum physics deals with the construction or fabric of the reality of the universe.
Or how we perceive reality - its being debated.
I would say matter but that is becoming dated.
quote:
You are better than me. I don't have faith in electricity. Yet my lights come on anyway.
You are confusing two meanings of "faith." The previous usage is about "firm belief in something for which there is no proof," here you are just using it interchangably with "confidence." |
I know what you mean, when the power goes down there is no reason to believe the lights will go on though. Have you considered that?
molly bloom
quote:
As I would yours, if you had bothered to show us in detail how scientific theories (and evolution/natural selection were not latched upon or discovered solely by Darwin, but were being thought about by several different scientists) resemble articles of faith or religious dogma. |
Dogma
something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
Religion
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
You have not yet shown how the scripture written in not one generation but over 1500 years with 40 different authors is not worthy of scientific merit.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2005 03:37
. If so, seek help.
|