Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

CabVet · Dec 29, 2011

cupid dave said:
Well Gen 1:1 does admit that the Universe had a beginning which is what Hubble established in 1940 based on his idea of the Big Bang, starting Time, 13.5 billion years ago.

Many of the other religious texts say that the universe had a beginning. Why are they all wrong and the Bible right?

cupid dave · Dec 29, 2011

CabVet said:
Many of the other religious texts say that the universe had a beginning. Why are they all wrong and the Bible right?

?

All books of any king that say the Unuverse had a beginning were right.

Genesis is theonly book that says "all the waters under heaven were collected together into one place," hence revealing to us that the Pangea type single continent did actually exist early one.

Science now agrees.

Huram Abi · Dec 29, 2011

You know very well that "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" is not even close to a correct description of Pangea.

"Science" distinctly would disagree with your assessment.

The first "dry land" appeared 4 billion years ago, while Pangea happened only 250 million years ago. That's 3.75 Billion years after what you say. So, no, science does not agree with you.

AV1611VET · Dec 29, 2011

Huram Abi said:
So, no, science does not agree with you.

Good -- and I don't agree with science; and if science doesn't like it, it can take a hike.

Huram Abi · Dec 29, 2011

Says the guy on the pc.

cupid dave · Dec 30, 2011

Huram Abi said:
You know very well that "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" is not even close to a correct description of Pangea.

"Science" distinctly would disagree with your assessment.

The first "dry land" appeared 4 billion years ago, while Pangea happened only 250 million years ago. That's 3.75 Billion years after what you say. So, no, science does not agree with you.

Yes, of course Rodinia was the actual event referenced in Gen 1:9, but people know Pangea, whuch was essentially the same kind of event.

Gen 1:10 is actually telling us about the movement of tectonic plates which come together and separate again and again.

Nevertheless, the point of Gen 1:10 is to describe a Pangea/Rodinia situation that occurred between the third and fourth "day" or the evening of the Archean Erea and the morning of the Proterozoic Era.

Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, almighty Reality), God, said, Let, (Panthalassa), the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let (Pangea), the dry land appear:

(composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates:

1. North American Plate,
2. Pacific Plate,
3. South American Plate,
4. African Plate,
5. Eurasian Plate,
6. Antartic Plate,
7. Australian Plate),...

...and it was so.

http://https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=rodinia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

cupid dave · Dec 30, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Good -- and I don't agree with science; and if science doesn't like it, it can take a hike.

But you do agree that when "all the water under heaven be gathered tigether in one place and the dry land appears" we have a Pangea-like situation don't you?

Huram Abi · Dec 30, 2011

Rodinia happened only 1 billion years ago, so you are still about 3 billion years off.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2011

Huram Abi said:
Says the guy on the pc.

My PC didn't come about by science disagreeing with me.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2011

cupid dave said:
But you do agree that when "all the water under heaven be gathered tigether in one place and the dry land appears" we have a Pangea-like situation don't you?

Absolutely.

Huram Abi · Dec 30, 2011

AV1611VET said:
My PC didn't come about by science disagreeing with me.

But if you had disagreed with the science necessary to make a functioning pc, then the existence of a functioning pc couldn't change your mind? It, too, would have to take a hike?

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2011

Huram Abi said:
But if you had disagreed with the science necessary to make a functioning pc, then the existence of a functioning pc couldn't change your mind? It, too, would have to take a hike?

I have Boolean standards I use, before I tell science to take a hike.

Huram Abi · Dec 30, 2011

Can you elaborate?

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2011

Huram Abi said:
Can you elaborate?

My Boolean Standards:

1. Whatever the Bible supports: support.
2. Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
3. If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
4. If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.

My Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is anything ever to contradict the Bible.

Huram Abi · Dec 30, 2011

Between using science to substantiate the bible or using the bible to substantiate science, of which would you be more skeptical?

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2011

Huram Abi said:
Between using science to substantiate the bible or using the bible to substantiate science, of which would you be more skeptical?

Using science to substantiate the Bible.

cupid dave · Dec 30, 2011

Huram Abi said:
Rodinia happened only 1 billion years ago, so you are still about 3 billion years off.

"Rodinia existed between 1.1 billion and 750 million years ago, in the Neoproterozoicera."

WIKI link: Rodinia existed between 1.1 billion and 750 million years ago, in the Neoproterozoic era.

Rodinia occurred on the Third "Day," between the Neo-archean evening of the Archean Era and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era:

This is a confirmation of the hypothesis day = era.

Hypothesis #1: the seven days = the seven eras:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Divisions of the Archean Era[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Gen. 1:13 And the (Neo-archean) evening (of the Archean Era) and the (Paleo-proterozoic) morning (of the Proterozoic Era) were the third "day," (time, period [general]).

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]([/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]

cupid dave · Dec 30, 2011

AV1611VET said:
My Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is anything ever to contradict the Bible.

Does that include your own interpretations of Genesis?

For instance, you say that the first seven days were Earth days, or solar days.

Yet the solar day is not even around until God's 3rd "day."

There is no Solar Clock until life appears on God's 3rd day.Then, on days 3, God makes the Sun the authority over time on Earth.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2011

cupid dave said:
Does that include your own interpretations of Genesis?

For instance, you say that the first seven days were Earth days, or solar days.

Yet the solar day is not even around until God's 3rd "day."

There is no Solar Clock until life appears on God's 3rd day.Then, on days 3, God makes the Sun the authority over time on Earth.

You don't need the sun:

Revelation 21:23a And the city had no need of the sun,

A day is one rotation of the earth upon its axis.

Genesis 1:5b And the evening and the morning were the first day.

CabVet · Dec 30, 2011

AV1611VET said:
A day is one rotation of the earth upon its axis.

Wrong, a day is earth's rotation period relative to the sun.

Another poor response to ERV evidence for common ancestry by a creationist.

Question everything

cupid dave

Guest

Huram Abi

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Huram Abi

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

Huram Abi

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Huram Abi

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Huram Abi

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Huram Abi

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

cupid dave

Guest

cupid dave

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Question everything

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency