Evolution



:wave:

I'm not saying Ben Franklin worshipped the God of the Bible. Perhaps Benjamin Franklin along with Thomas Jefferson tendency toward deism was a result of the "Freedom of religion", No? From a christian perspective we should see no problem there as it is a God given right to choose what and or whom we will worship.


IMO (after careful judgment) where ever the so called trend toward "enlightened rational humanism" during the period of America's founding or this period takes us it will be allowed by God for His Glory.


:)
 
Upvote 0

elephanticity

This appears beneath your name.
Mar 30, 2002
449
3
61
Visit site
✟8,527.00
Originally posted by redguard333
go to www.creationevidence.org and check out the 10 brief reasons why the earth is young!!! thanks

They're still flogging "polystrate fossils" and the Paluxy River tracks? That's right up there with believing that disease is caused by demonic possession and/or imbalance of humours. They've both been critically refuted time and again. Time marches on. Science advances. You'd be better off just waving the bible and saying 'I believe.'

I keep seeing references to how bad C14 readings are because of the readings they get from living clams or baseball caps or whatever.

When Radar guns first came out, they were on the news a lot. And when they were taken to court, that made the news, too. I remember one lawyer having a cop test the speed of a rotary telephone in the courthouse, and it was doing 300 mph. When it rang, the number changed drastically, but i can't remember if it was up or down. Anyway, it seemed ridiculous, and they wanted it and every other speeding ticket using radar technology thrown out.

Strangely enough, when the actual experts testified, they said they weren't surprised by the phone result (and many other such odd results), but it didn't matter. They had ample evidence that when [loud]properly used [/loud], the readings were valid. This was proven time and again in the labs before the guns were made, and proven to trooper after trooper before the guns were sold to anyone. The tech works, under the expected conditions for its use, and tickets written off of them are pretty much accepted. (Now, the trick is to know the laws concerning calibration and citizen rights to see the gun and so on. But the tech is no longer subject to trial....)

Maybe if people would actually examine the evidence for C14 and other techniques, rather than just celebrate the loopholes, they would at least not look so asinine in their arguments.....
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by redguard333
go to www.creationevidence.org and check out the 10 brief reasons why the earth is young!!! thanks

*sigh* not again.



3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.

Go here for the physics and chemistry behind the flood... and why a global flood is and was quite impossible.



EDIT:
by RedGuard333:
This is for all the people that believe in evolution. You whine about how we creationists don't use the scientific method, so what we have is just theory, and incorrect theory at that. Well then, since our scientific method is flawed, where is yours? Huh?

You don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis that has yet to be considered valid enough to qualify as theory.

Evolutionists will check and recheck their facts, and allow others to do so as well. Creation scientists only allow other creation scientists to check their facts. Additionally, no self-respecting evolutionist would deny valid evidence of creation... if such evidence were ever presented to them. Real science never automatically disqualifies ANYTHING.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

You've denied God His creation as it took place.

And you've denied Him the option of doing anything in a way that couldn't easily be explained to people who barely had agriculture, let alone physics... And you've basically asserted that He is lying to us by creating a world full of carefully constructed and internally consistent evidence for a thing which never happened.

God made us thinking beings; I don't think He was mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by messenjah
But if it goes against scripture than obviously God couldn't have made it then.

So, for instance, if I make a thing 10 feet in diameter, and it's not exactly 30 feet around, that's contrary to God's teachings? 1 Kings 7:23. Perhaps this is a magical quality of "cubits", even though it's never been true of any other unit of measure?

I'm pretty sure the Bible is a very good source for information on, say, how you can be saved, and enter the kingdom of heaven.

I'm not familiar with its credentials as a text on cosmology, biology, physics, chemistry, botany, mathematics, or anything else of the sort.
 
Upvote 0

unworthyone

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?
Mar 25, 2002
5,229
1
45
Visit site
✟9,398.00

Yes it is impossible to understand and observe physically.

But...

There are plenty of other things in life totally undeciferable that we still accept happened and never will understand 100%.

(and btw - his comment on "Faith" is in total ignorance of what biblical "Faith" is. Nice story though. Taking a debate from a potty mouthed "fundy" doesn't help his cause much.)
 
Upvote 0

messenjah

Veteran
Jan 18, 2002
949
13
37
Snohomish, WA
✟8,860.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That article is so faulty. So some atheist got cheeky and decided to write totally wacko article without checking with the theories about Creation that are out there.

Here's the article in it's entirety

Dr. Marty Leipzig looks at the mathematics of 'Noah's Flood.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09-02-99 10:11
From: Marty Leipzig

Hey, Georgie. The cretinists at the ICR, AIG, CRC and a half-dozen other fundy-run shill organizations absolutely insist on the Flood of Noah" being global (meaning ALL the world, to your limited deference). To them, your claim that it was local makes you the infidel.

Shocking. When you're obviously nothing more than a nescient schmuck.

Hell, I'm just taking what they claim and agreeing it to death.

Viz:

First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest

V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)

Now, the Earth at sea level

V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)

The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres

This is one helluva lot of water.

For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary.

Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by definition)...so,

4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimetres),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525E+21 kg.

Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice.
Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.

Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

E (normal) = 215
E (increase) = 391,935.0958
T (normal) = 280.

Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.

The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.
Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.

------

In fact, I had a similar discussion with some ExPat fundy over here a while back.

It went something like this (I think you'll be amused by the logic...):

Fundy: "What? You don't believe the Bible?"

Me: "Nope. It's full of contradictions, nonsense, lies and logical physical impossibilities."

Fundy: "Like what?"

Me: "Well, for starters, how about all that flood business?"

Fundy: "Well, the flood did happen."

Me: "And the evidence for this claim is...hmmm?"

Fundy: "Well...ack...urk...it's there."

Me: "Look, buckwheat. I'm a geologist and I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no evidence for the flood and it is quite physically impossible for it to have occurred (show him the above...having to explain, in great detail, every step of the way)."

Fundy: "Well, it's quite obvious. God performed it. It was a miracle. He caused the flood and later removed the evidence."

Me: "So, chuckles, the total lack of evidence for the flood is evidence that it did happen and moreover, God did it. Am I getting what you're saying correct?"

Fundy: (sensing imminent victory...oh, silly fundy) "Yes. That's it. That's it exactly!"

Me: "So, this lack of evidence of a flood is evidence of your supernatural God...so, with evidence like that, you do not need faith, right? Because with evidence, one doesn't need faith? Correct?"

Fundy: "Yeah. That's right. It's proof of God. Right there..."

Me: "(mutterning...proof is for math and booze...) But, your Bible notes that God doesn't want/need/have to provide evidence of His existence for He said 'Without faith, I am nothing.', correct?"

Fundy: "Ulp...erk...ahhh..."

Me: "So, if the flood did not occur, as I maintain; the Bible is wrong, false, errant and faulty; ergo, as it is claimed to be the word of your God, so is your God."

Fundy: "Ulp...erk...ahhh..."

Me: " Therefore, in case one, your God is non-omniscient, non- omnipotent and therefore, by your very cult's definition, not God."

Fundy: "Ulp...erk...ahhh...but it did happen!"

Me: "Or, in case two, where you claimed the flood actually occurred, but was done by your God and later covered up (i.e., removed); this indicates that (a.) your God is deceitful (hiding evidence), which again is counter to your cult's teaching and theref

Fundy: "Ulp...erk...ahhh...you've twisted my words! You chapped *******!"

Me: "Always the ad hominem, you silly fundy. I've twisted nothing. In fact, I've just agreed your beliefs to death..."

Fundy: "You (*%**(%*$%& godless atheist...!"

I even agreed here.

#####################

So, Georgie, it's time to pay the piper, as it were. Show where my calculations are in error or recant your malicious and specious assertions.

Put up or shut up, George. The gauntlet down has been thrown.

Please where did this guy get his doctorate, clown college. I'll be back for my rebuttal of this lunatics article after I get some sleep. Tootles
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

joey444

Active Member
Aug 11, 2006
311
8
✟7,995.00
Faith
Agnostic
Nooj, my computer seems to be having a few problems with large posts, but here's the short version.

1. Over 1 million years, the moon would only move 95 miles, assuming it was moving 6 inches a year. It's around 250,000 miles away so 95 miles is nothing. It's actually moving 3.8 centimeters, anyway.

2. Jupiter's actually losing about 1 millionth of a kelvin every year.

3. He assumes that the continents wouldn't grow, which means that Hawaii wouldn't exist. Ever.

4. At one point, the delta is 7 miles thick. A worldwide flood would spread the debri out and not clump it like that.

5. No understanding of the chemical residency time of salt.

6. Assuming every generation was 25 years, at the population increase between the year 1000-1800, it would take 16,660 year for the flood survivors to reach the population we have today.

Sorry for being blunt there.
 
Upvote 0

Nooj

Senior Veteran
Jan 9, 2005
3,229
156
Sydney
✟19,215.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
AU-Greens
joey444 said:
Nooj, my computer seems to be having a few problems with large posts, but here's the short version.

1. Over 1 million years, the moon would only move 95 miles, assuming it was moving 6 inches a year. It's around 250,000 miles away so 95 miles is nothing. It's actually moving 3.8 centimeters, anyway.

2. Jupiter's actually losing about 1 millionth of a kelvin every year.

3. He assumes that the continents wouldn't grow, which means that Hawaii wouldn't exist. Ever.

4. At one point, the delta is 7 miles thick. A worldwide flood would spread the debri out and not clump it like that.

5. No understanding of the chemical residency time of salt.

6. Assuming every generation was 25 years, at the population increase between the year 1000-1800, it would take 16,660 year for the flood survivors to reach the population we have today.

Sorry for being blunt there.
Thanks. I wanted a proper rebuttal, not just a statement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums