lindagarrette Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 If string theeorists and quantum theorists are right in their models then earth is spinning on more than one axis. Sting theory and QM have noting to do with the earth or it's spin.:note:
Biochemist Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 You're kidding, of course. About the Biblical story being credible, that is.:note:I was just noting divergence of discussion in the thread.
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 the Black Sea flood was a huge flood, but it was not Noah's flood...try to explain to me how marine animals are found petrified on the tops of mountains all over the globe?
eMTee Posted May 20, 2005 Author Report Posted May 20, 2005 The whales on mountain tops example is a classic Creationist argument, despite the explanation being so simple... It has to do with the formation of the particular mountains. In the case of the Himalayan Mountains, home of Mount Everest, sedimentary rocks, some of which contains marine fossils over 50 million years old, was gradually thrusted upward. This is due to the colliding of the Indian and Eurasian plates, the rocks on top behaving like rug being pushed against a wall, or a blanket being pushed to the foot of your bed, compressing and wrinkling upwards. Creation's claims that this supports the Bible don't hold water (please excuse the pun), because layers are not at the same elevations worldwide. They correspond to the geological processes which formed them, over VAST time scales. Sounds of inteligence...but will it stand up to evidence compared to the Bible's global flood claims? The Bible is full of dependable historical documents even the "mericals" have geological suport in the stories the Bible claims to be facts..out of all the religouse books in the world, the Bible is the one with the Most detailed historical claims, and the most geological and other evidence to suport them. Would you desire to consider the Bible, or rather get rid of it?
TeleMad Posted May 21, 2005 Report Posted May 21, 2005 Sounds of inteligence...but will it stand up to evidence compared to the Bible's global flood claims? Yes, the scientific/geological explanation fits all of the data quite nicely; but the YEC's global flood does not... “Flood Geology” not supported by geological observationsHere is what one former-YEC had to say about how geology not only didn’t support “the flood” model, but actually counters it. ***********************************************“Why I left Young-earth Creationism by Glenn R. Morton Copyright 2000 by Glenn R. Morton. This may be freely distributed so long as no changes are made to the text and no charges are made to the reader. For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield. This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired. In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things. By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data! …” (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) ********************************
lindagarrette Posted May 21, 2005 Report Posted May 21, 2005 The Bible is full of dependable historical documents even the "mericals" have geological suport in the stories the Bible claims to be facts.. If it's a physical fact, it isn't a miracle. Miracles are things that can't possibly happen naturally. If it happens naturally, then what's the point of having a god around to do stuff? If it's a miracle then why try to find a physical explanation?
C1ay Posted May 21, 2005 Report Posted May 21, 2005 the Black Sea flood was a huge flood, but it was not Noah's flood...try to explain to me how marine animals are found petrified on the tops of mountains all over the globe?The tops of many mountains are the edges of tectonic plates that were once ocean floors. They are not previously flooded mountain ranges. Have you studied geology yet?
eMTee Posted May 21, 2005 Author Report Posted May 21, 2005 If "Noah's ark" was definatly found on top of MT. Ararat one day just as the Bible claims..what would your reaction be? there has already been found geoligical suport for the 8 people..and other small things...these findings are found around that region...and they are also among the most ancient of writings ever found. I see many of your explanations being also possible with a world wide flood such as the mountains being once a seabed that where forced up by continentle plates colliding and rapid covering of corpses in order to preserve them..and also making the petrifying process speed up to an anormous speed...such with the explination you gave me to the question about Mt. St. Helen. and the question about how anything can last even for 100 years in the environment without curoding before being petrifyed
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 eMTee: If "Noah's ark" was definatly found on top of MT. Ararat one day just as the Bible claims..what would your reaction be? I see that as equivalent to, "If Santa's sleigh was definitely found at the North Pole one day just as "The Night Before Christmas" claims .. what would your reaction be?" It's a basically useless question, and not worth any serious consideration. eMTee: there has already been found geoligical suport for the 8 people..and other small things... You know, the other day while in line at the grocery store, I saw a newpaper that said some of our Senators were aliens. They had the president's name correct, and were accurate on where the capital was - Washington DC - and other facts about the Senate and House of Representatives. Therefore, surely, some of our senators are aliens!
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Author Report Posted May 22, 2005 I see that as equivalent to, "If Santa's sleigh was definitely found at the North Pole one day just as "The Night Before Christmas" claims .. what would your reaction be?" It's a basically useless question, and not worth any serious consideration.that is like saying that all the rest of the stories in the bible which have been found true acording to geoligical findings are rather rediculous stories and not worth any consideration or investigation? Does the "night night before christmas" proclaim itself to be true, and does any of it's content have any proof of it's stories? At this moment you are tossing around somthing possible threw eyewitness account, and I mean real life....but as you say, it does not have any evidence besides eyewitnesses..and they all might be lying and coppied their sketchings of it from one of their pictures...but even that is highly wrong...funny thing, all the other photos always seemed to be lost. and the witnesses die, I hear that a piece of it might be in a museum. Sad thing tossing a fire, and burning your hand off...whose doin the tossing? might be me, and again it might be you.
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 eMTee: that is like saying that all the rest of the stories in the bible which have been found true acording to geoligical findings ... WRONG! The STORIES have NOT been confirmed by any science, just the names of PEOPLE and PLACES. Again, one can find in the grocery checkout line newspapers that give accurate names of people and places, but the rest of the story is complete crud! None of our Senators are alien beings!
eMTee Posted May 22, 2005 Author Report Posted May 22, 2005 IS GEOLIGY A SCIENCE? can it have any say in any matter? I notise that there is no evidence for what the Bible clamis the people sayed... that has everything to do with faith...but as long as there is goeligy found going along with what the Bible talks about..it makes it possable...even the mericals. or does it not?
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 IS GEOLIGY A SCIENCE? :note: To my knowledge 'geoligy' is not even a real word, nor is goeligy or mericals....
Queso Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 i get sick of people sometimes, but this icecream's good.
TeleMad Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 eMTee: IS GEOLIGY A SCIENCE? Yes (although I think I like C1ay's answer better!) eMTee: can it have any say in any matter? Yes. If the Bible says X, but geology says !X, the geology has a say in the matter. And the LOGICAL, RATIONAL, REASONABLE people will conclude that geology is correct and the Bible (or at least the literal interpretation of it) is wrong. eMTee: .but as long as there is goeligy found going along with what the Bible talks about..it makes it possable...even the mericals. or does it not? Geology is not going help you with miracles. No science is. Science says miracles CAN'T happen. If you want to believe in miracles, you are going to have to believe in miracles because of blind faith. You won't be able to find a single shred of actual evidence, or logic, or rationale, to confirm the miracle: the closest you will have is thousands-of-years-old hearsay.
Biochemist Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 :note: To my knowledge 'geoligy' is not even a real word, nor is goeligy or mericals....I think we ought to be gentle here. Clearly, Emtee is not a science sort.
C1ay Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 I think we ought to be gentle here. Clearly, Emtee is not a science sort.Obviously he's not a spelling champ either. I'm beginning to wonder if he's made it to puberty yet.
Recommended Posts