Asteroid Strike

[ViaCrucis]

Personaly I see no link to them actually eating the body of Christ.

Even though Jesus said it? So you just deny that it's Jesus' flesh and blood because you can't see how it could be? But you accuse your fellow Christians of denying Scripture because they don't think a story of a global flood and a giant boat carrying two of every living thing should be taken literally?

And that doesn't even strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It really has nothing to do with telling the difference and classifying something based upon observation.

I'm thinking you might want to spend at least 15 on google.

How about instead of sending me out on a wild goose chase, you just present your argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[USincognito]

Has this thread stopped being about the asteroid strike?

 

[Astrophile]

Does the Bible say anything about cats at all? To my knowledge, which I stand ready to have corrected, the Bible does not specify that there is a "kind" called cats. That means the existence of more than two dozen species is not in conflict with the Bible.

The Bible mentions lions in many places, for example 2 Kings 17:25-26. It mentions 'a beast like a leopard' in Daniel 7:6. So far as I know, there are no other feline species mentioned anywhere in the canonical books of the Bible.

 

[Ophiolite]

Has this thread stopped being about the asteroid strike?

One of the consequences of an asteroid strike is that it creates panic and confusion among entities that experience it. I think that is what is happening here.

 

[Strathos]

Even though Jesus said it? So you just deny that it's Jesus' flesh and blood because you can't see how it could be? But you accuse your fellow Christians of denying Scripture because they don't think a story of a global flood and a giant boat carrying two of every living thing should be taken literally?

And that doesn't even strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

-CryptoLutheran

What's even more hypocritical is that people like this say we have to take a global flood and a 6-day creation literally, but the passages that suggest the earth never moves and the sun revolves around it? Obviously not literal. And then there are the geocentrists who say those passages are literal, but the ones implying a flat earth? Some kind of atheist conspiracy. Then the flat earthers say that the Bible insists the earth is flat, so it is...

 

[-57]

It didn’t need to, apparently. The meteor would’ve done the same thing.

Along with Noah, most likely.

But again, you’re kind of missing the point. If the meteor hit during the flood, why wasn’t it recorded? It would’ve had a longer, more devastating effect on life than the flood itself. Not to mention, how do you account for the dozens of other, even bigger meteor impacts the Earth has suffered if the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

If the meteor hit during the flood, why wasn’t it recorded?


Who would have seen it?

 

[-57]

Where are you getting this from, and what do you mean by "pure"?

I'm not going to explain every little detail on this topic as the topic its large.

You can visit sites like this and receive answers.

 

[-57]

What's even more hypocritical is that people like this say we have to take a global flood and a 6-day creation literally, but the passages that suggest the earth never moves and the sun revolves around it? Obviously not literal. And then there are the geocentrists who say those passages are literal, but the ones implying a flat earth? Some kind of atheist conspiracy. Then the flat earthers say that the Bible insists the earth is flat, so it is...

What do you do with the portions of the Bible that present Genesis and the flood as literal?

 

[-57]

Even though Jesus said it? So you just deny that it's Jesus' flesh and blood because you can't see how it could be? But you accuse your fellow Christians of denying Scripture because they don't think a story of a global flood and a giant boat carrying two of every living thing should be taken literally?

And that doesn't even strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

-CryptoLutheran

No. When Jesus held up the bread and said "this is my body" it was still bread.

 

[-57]

How about instead of sending me out on a wild goose chase, you just present your argument.

-CryptoLutheran

For someone who feels they are so good at arguing against it...I would think you would know what a biblical kinds is.

 

[lasthero]

If the meteor hit during the flood, why wasn’t it recorded?


Who would have seen it?

You’re saying the Flood account in the Bible is an accurate representation of history.

If the meteor craters we observe on the Earth were created all at once during the Flood, they would have caused events worldwide. They would have been more detrimental to life than the Flood itself, and the effects would have lasted for decades.

That seems like the sort of thing that would be mentioned in the Flood account. It’s not. Why is that?

And on top of that, why would they hit the Earth at that one specific time, anyway? It couldn’t be coincidence, so I’m guessing the implication would be that God did it, but what would be the point? Was the Flood not sufficient? That’s not the impression one gets from the text.

 

[ViaCrucis]

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

For someone who feels they are so good at arguing against it...I would think you would know what a biblical kinds is.

How about you just tell me.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[-57]

You’re saying the Flood account in the Bible is an accurate representation of history.

If the meteor craters we observe on the Earth were created all at once during the Flood, they would have caused events worldwide. They would have been more detrimental to life than the Flood itself, and the effects would have lasted for decades.

That seems like the sort of thing that would be mentioned in the Flood account. It’s not. Why is that?

And on top of that, why would they hit the Earth at that one specific time, anyway? It couldn’t be coincidence, so I’m guessing the implication would be that God did it, but what would be the point? Was the Flood not sufficient? That’s not the impression one gets from the text.

The flood account is an accurate representation of history. I don't really care if you believe that or not.

All at once....does that mean on the sam day? with in several years? or several hundred years?

We know some strikes happened after the flood as you can go to Arizona and look at one.

 

[lasthero]

The flood account is an accurate representation of history. I don't really care if you believe that or not.

I never assumed you did. I’m just disputing the claim.

All at once....does that mean on the sam day? with in several years? or several hundred years?

It wouldn’t have mattered that much, really. It’s like asking what’s better, getting shot 40 times all at once, or once every hour? I guess the former, but both methods will kill you.

And why would God bombard the Earth after the flood? Doesn’t he want life to restart? Hitting the Earth with deadly meteors that blot out the sun, set forests on fire, and toxify the air seems counterproductive.

We know some strikes happened after the flood as you can go to Arizona and look at one.

First off, what do you mean? How do you know that one was made after the flood, and not before or during? How did you determine that?

You’re not really addressing what I’m posting. You’re claiming the Bible is an accurate representation of history, and these meteor strikes would’ve been the single most devastating events the Earth ever suffered. They would’ve been more devastating to life than the flood, and yet they’re not mentioned. At all.

 

[-57]

How about you just tell me.

-CryptoLutheran

I've already explained it to you. I'll give you some more details.
Kinds are animals that can interbreed. Horses and Zebras as well as Lions and tigers are but two of many.
If you wind the clock back to the Ark there were two lets say of the cat kind. Whether they were two of the same "species" or not is not known.
If you used todays classification ranks kinds may have been similar to genus or family. Remember only similar.
It is believed their DNA variation and heterozygous was much higher when the came off of the ark.
Because they were of the same kind they could interbreed. After the ark the tempo of the environment was changing rapidly as the earth was reestablishing. Natural selection was then differentiating the original kinds into new species. Similar to mixing a poodle and a lab and getting a labradoodle.
As the years go on the variation in the DNA and heterozygous of the animals has become less and less. Currently when you mix two of the same kind the offspring may be sterile or only a male or female may be able to reproduce.

 

[Ophiolite]

Meanwhile, back at ground zero of the impact point, here are some related research papers:

Here is an early suggestion that the end Cretaceous extinction event may have been a consequence of bolide impact:
de Laubenfels Dinosaur Extinction: One more hypothesis Journal of Palaeontology Vol.30 Jan. 1956

And here, the first page of a 1 1/2 page, 1973 Letter in Nature, the inimitable Harold Urey repeats his suspicion that geological periods may be terminated by impacts.

Those are examples of the recognition that external events could have a major impact on Earth history, well before Alvarez and Alvarez highlighted the significance of the iridium anomaly at the K-Pg boundary.

 

[-57]

I never assumed you did. I’m just disputing the claim.

Your disputes seem to be somewhat petty.

It wouldn’t have mattered that much, really. It’s like asking what’s better, getting shot 40 times all at once, or once every hour? I guess the former, but both methods will kill you.

Once again pettiness sets in. You didn't answer the question.
It has only been suggested that an asteroid may have struck the earth and cracked it so the fountains of the deep could be released. If you would like to research it further, click here.

And why would God bombard the Earth after the flood? Doesn’t he want life to restart? Hitting the Earth with deadly meteors that blot out the sun, set forests on fire, and toxify the air seems counterproductive.

I didn't know there were forest right after the flood. Many of the forest sunk and were buried during the flood creating coal and other fossil fuels.

First off, what do you mean? How do you know that one was made after the flood, and not before or during? How did you determine that?

Before the flood all the remains of it would have been lost. Depends on when during the flood as to how much of the remains would have survived. Arizona would have been post flood. We know this because Arizona is flood deposit.

You’re not really addressing what I’m posting. You’re claiming the Bible is an accurate representation of history, and these meteor strikes would’ve been the single most devastating events the Earth ever suffered. They would’ve been more devastating to life than the flood, and yet they’re not mentioned. At all.

So what?

 

[-57]

Meanwhile, back at ground zero of the impact point, here are some related research papers:

Here is an early suggestion that the end Cretaceous extinction event may have been a consequence of bolide impact:
de Laubenfels Dinosaur Extinction: One more hypothesis Journal of Palaeontology Vol.30 Jan. 1956

And here, the first page of a 1 1/2 page, 1973 Letter in Nature, the inimitable Harold Urey repeats his suspicion that geological periods may be terminated by impacts.

Those are examples of the recognition that external events could have a major impact on Earth history, well before Alvarez and Alvarez highlighted the significance of the iridium anomaly at the K-Pg boundary.

Thanks for the information. Uniformitarian history need some major corrections.
I've pointed out biomaterial found in dinosaur fossils as well as C14 found in coal and diamonds that shouldn't bee there.