Evolution?

[ViaCrucis]

1.)Dinosaurs are simply the first lizards.

Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChrisJ83]

Dinosaurs aren't lizards. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs.

-CryptoLutheran

Apparently you need to look up the etymology of 'dinosaur.'

 

[ViaCrucis]

Apparently you need to look up the etymology of 'dinosaur.'

I'm aware of what the etymology is, that doesn't change the fact that dinosaurs aren't lizards.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just so we're clear, prairie dogs also aren't dogs, and groundhogs aren't hogs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChrisJ83]

I'm aware of what the etymology is, that doesn't change the fact that dinosaurs aren't lizards.

-CryptoLutheran

Dinosaurs are simply extinct kinds of lizards which lived for centuries and grew very large. Lizards never stop growing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dinosaurs are simply extinct kinds of lizards which lived for centuries and grew very large. Lizards never stop growing.

No. No that's not the case.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackRT]

Before the Flood, a different environment existed which allowed animals to get bigger and people and animals to live longer. A canopy of water surrounded the planet which blocked harmful cosmic rays and created an oxygen rich atmosphere. Go research effects of oxygen chambers on the human body.

Now ^^^ THAT ^^^ is pure unfounded speculation if I ever heard any.

 

[dqhall]

Dinosaurs are simply extinct kinds of lizards which lived for centuries and grew very large. Lizards never stop growing.

Biologists theorized that 56 species of birds were descended from a single pair of rose finches that found their way to Hawaii and produced offspring that produced offspring, etc. The birds developed different beak shapes and coloration due to mutations. Of these 56 species more than half are extinct due to encroachment on their habitat, invasive species, etc.

I know God can do miracles and create, but I also know some children are not born exactly like their parents. People near the equator survived by producing more skin pigment to shield them from harmful solar radiation. People close to the poles had whiter, clear skin to allow radiation in for production of vitamin D. White people can see blue veins through their skin while black skinned people can not. Black people are less at risk for skin cancer than White people. Europeans living on the Mediterranean Coast may tan more easily than Europeans living in Siberia.

God may guide people in marriage; to select the best mates. God may also engineer DNA. God is a good creator.

 

[ChrisJ83]

Now ^^^ THAT ^^^ is pure unfounded speculation if I ever heard any.

it's in the Bible:

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."


Genesis 7:11: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


A canopy of water around the Earth would explain how life lived so long, and how lizards grew so large.

 

[majj27]

A canopy of water around the Earth would explain how life lived so long, and how lizards grew so large.

A canopy of water would have a) not explained anything of the sort, because Physics. And Also Biology. and b) if it fell like suggested would have been hot enough to scour the planet down to the bedrock, sterilizing it. Including anyone on a wooden boat.

This is the kind of thing Hovind used to peddle.

 

[ChrisJ83]

A canopy of water would have a) not explained anything of the sort, because Physics. And Also Biology. and b) if it fell like suggested would have been hot enough to scour the planet down to the bedrock, sterilizing it. Including anyone on a wooden boat.

This is the kind of thing Hovind used to peddle.

Not if it fell during the Flood. Not if it was a vapor to begin with. And 'because physics or biology,' is not an answer or rebuttal. If you don't understand the natural benefits which would have provided by a canopy of water around the earth then you don't understand physics or biology. A much more oxygen rich environment would allow various life-forms to grow bigger, as we see in the fossil record, not just with lizards, but with dragonfly's and fruit. And Hovind is one of the most educated minds on this subject by FAR. You would do well to study his teachings.

 

[JackRT]

A canopy of water would have a) not explained anything of the sort, because Physics. And Also Biology. and b) if it fell like suggested would have been hot enough to scour the planet down to the bedrock, sterilizing it. Including anyone on a wooden boat.

This is the kind of thing Hovind used to peddle.

The biblical global flood supposedly covered the planet. Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall and 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^3

= 4/3 * pi * (6387.248 km)^3

= 1.09151 x 10^12 cubic kilometres


Now, the Earth at sea level


V = 4/3 * pi * r^3

= 4/3 * pi * (6378.4 km)^3

= 1.08698 x 10^12 cubic kilometres

The difference between these two figures, 4.525 x 10^9 cubic kilometres is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth. Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000 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 so:

4.252x10^9 km^3 of water,

x 10^6 (= cubic meters),

x 10^6 (= cubic centimetres),

x 1 g/cm^3 (= grams),

x 1o^-3 (= kilograms),

= 4.525X 10^21 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 Wisconsonian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 km^2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in the zones of accumulation and much thinner elsewhere at the ablating edges. Now, 1.00x10^7 km^2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00x10^7 km^3 of ice. Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x10^9 km^3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222 percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 BP as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 BP flood event. Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations some 21,000 years preceding the supposed biblical flood, the mass of the ice had 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 terrains, 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, 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.


Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding. Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (5 m) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 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 10^9 km^3 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 10^9 km^3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 10^9 km^3 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.


Someone has 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, is 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 10^9 km^3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 10^21 kg. When this amount of water is floating above 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 10^21 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 10^20 kilograms daily. Using H as 16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 10^25 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m^2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 10^25/(4*3.14159* ((6386)^2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m^2/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 4th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T^4 (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 well above melting temperature of lead). 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 ft deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.


It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible.


By Dr. Marty Leipzig at:


*http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm

 

[Marvin Knox]

If your faith in God is so fragile that a little bit of science is that threatening.............

If your faith is so fragile that a half baked theory presented to you by the ruler of this world causes you to worship another God than the one presented in the scriptures - go ahead on.

The earth being about 4.5 billion years old rules out the earth being only 6,000 years old.

Yes - it would - if it were fact. It is not fact - no matter what the ruler of this world tells you.

 

[NBB]

If you agree with evolutionists you are with no doubt agreeing that there is no need for God for life, otherwise you are out of touch with what they say.

 

[NBB]

Modern evolutionary theory has no information on souls and spirits, because such things are not quantifiable by modern science. We can't weigh a soul or measure a spirit. There is no picture of a soul. We can't define what spirit's temperature is. If you had a human being in front of you and I said "point to the soul", where would you point?

If modern science can't measure, locate, identify or define a soul, why would they take it into account in their observations? HOW would they take it into account?

But they affirm we are a brain only, try talk to an evolutionist about souls. So i don't know why we are discussing.

 

[JackRT]

If you agree with evolutionists you are with no doubt agreeing that there is no need for God for life, otherwise you are out of touch with what they say.

That does not follow.

 

[NBB]

That does not follow.

It does, have you seen a leading evolutionist affirming God? Dawkins, Hawkings, Harris etc all preach against God and that there is no need for Him. You just cant deny that.

 

[PaulCyp1]

It is really sad when people feel obliged to deny objective reality in order to support their church's misinterpretations of the Bible. Anyone who reads the Bible must surely know that Jesus Christ founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church, and no other, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "WHATSOEVER you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". As a result of those promises, that ONE Church remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding after 2,000 years. And since its teaching is guaranteed true by God Himself, that teaching never conflicts with natural truths revealed by science. Truth cannot conflict with truth. Meanwhile each of the 6,000+ denominations of Protestantism continue to claim that they are teaching the truth, "right from the Bible", even though their teaching conflicts with the teaching of the other denominations who are making the same claim. Doctrinal chaos is not the will of Jesus Christ for His followers. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

 

[majj27]

Not if it fell during the Flood. Not if it was a vapor to begin with. And 'because physics or biology,' is not an answer or rebuttal. If you don't understand the natural benefits which would have provided by a canopy of water around the earth then you don't understand physics or biology. A much more oxygen rich environment would allow various life-forms to grow bigger, as we see in the fossil record, not just with lizards, but with dragonfly's and fruit. And Hovind is one of the most educated minds on this subject by FAR. You would do well to study his teachings.

Kent Hovind thinks that you can spread a single drop of water over the entire surface of the planet. That alone means he doesn't have a clue about anything resembling science. And that doesn't get into his completely incorrect ideas on this vapor shroud (or an ice shield, or a water canopy, whichever) which would basically wreck the entire biosphere if it existed. It would either have evaporated, melted, or blocke dout all light and heat from the sun and left the planet a dark deep freeze. And the atmospheric pressure increase of having all that water up there would have been enough to squash cars flat.

And then there's his little idea about the Ice Comet freezing mammoths on their feet when it impacted and formed the north and south ice sheets, completely ignoring the basic fact that an ice chunk big enough to carry that much water mass would have struck the surface of the planet with enough energy to VAPORIZE the mammoths in question, not freeze them. Seriously, it would be like a massive thermonuclear explosion.

Hovind is completely unreliable as regards to science.

 

[RageOfAngels]

"The biblical global flood supposedly covered the planet. Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall..."

If there are seashells and sedmentary rocks on the top of Mt Everest I think that's pretty conclusive that part of it was underwater at some point. What the height of Mt Everest was at the time is a completely different question...