The order of fossils in the geological column

[PsychoSarah]

I have read many scientific articles describing significant changes in many of the conclusions of science. I have never read of a significant change in the biblical record of past events, only new discoveries that support those accounts. Science purports to always being about the business of falsifying it's own conclusions; they are just not in any big hurry to do so.

If I were a betting person I would bet that the science that attempts to debunk the bible will change in the face of new discoveries (that were there all the time) sometime in the future. Of this I have great faith.

The reason why is that the bible claims that it is the answer to everything without evidence to back those claims, so people seek out and emphasize information which supports the bible, at the exclusion of information that doesn't. Science on the other hand starts out with no answers, and seeks them out through observation, experimentation, etc., thus all new information has something to support it. That science changes is how we make progress towards the truth, to assume the truth without evidence is an easy way to stop progress and accept things that aren't true.

 

[Queller]

The post was 147..


" The mass of the originating body can be computed from the angular momentum of the moon. Finally, the tidal interaction between the Earth and the moon means that the are moving apart from each other. Turn the clock backwards and in the past they must have been much closer. I once did a back of the envelope calculation where I assumed a constant rate of angular momentum transfer between the two, and the answer that came out is that the moon would have been very close to Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Add the fact that for some time now, computer simulations with these parameters do produce moons like the one we have, I think he evidence is pretty strong that that's what happened."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7818967-15/

And yet I see nothing about the moon "crashing into" the earth.

False. Of course they do.

False. Of course they DON'T.

Another example of how present rates are used to travel through time...

"
The biological and geological future of the Earth can be extrapolated based upon the estimated effects of several long-term influences. These include the chemistry at the Earth's surface, the rate of cooling of the planet's interior, the gravitational interactions with other objects in the Solar System, and a steady increase in the Sun's luminosity. .......
Over time intervals of hundreds of millions of years, random celestial events pose a global risk to the biosphere, which can result in mass extinctions. These include impacts by comets or asteroids with diameters of 5–10 km (3.1–6.2 mi) or more, and the possibility of a massive stellar explosion, called a supernova, within a 100-light-year radius from the Sun, called a Near-Earth supernova. Other large-scale geological events are more predictable. If the long-term effects of global warming are disregarded, Milankovitch theory predicts that the planet will continue to undergo glacial periods at least until the quaternary glaciation comes to an end. These periods are caused by eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit.[10] As part of the ongoing supercontinent cycle, plate tectonics will probably result in a supercontinent in 250–350 million years. Some time in the next 1.5–4.5 billion years, the axial tilt of the Earth may begin to undergo chaotic variations, with changes in the axial tilt of up to 90°.
During the next four billion years, the luminosity of the Sun will steadily increase, resulting in a rise in the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will cause a higher rate of weathering of silicate minerals, which will cause a decrease in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In about 600 million years, the level of CO

2​

will fall below the level needed to sustain C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis used by trees. Some plants use the C4 carbon fixation method, allowing them to persist at CO

2​

concentrations as low as 10 parts per million. However, the long-term trend is for plant life to die off altogether. The extinction of plants will be the demise of almost all animal life, since plants are the base of the food chain on Earth."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

On and on it goes.

Those aren't based on guesses. They are the results of experiments and testing. Do you really not get that?

So the laws were not the same, you claim? Try to be clear...not that anyone cares, because the issue is what science CLAIMS!!

That is not what I said, is it? Please read for comprehension. Either that or stop lying about what I say. I said that scientists didn't simply BELIEVE that the rates are the same. They have run tests and experiments that would show if the rates were different and there is NO EVIDENCE that the laws of physics operated differently in the time frame we are talking about.

That's not acceptance based on BELIEF but acceptance based on EVIDENCE.

Lying about God's creation is poison, which makes the bald faced religious prophesies of so called science foul waters also. Deadly.

Well, I don't see anyone here lying about God's creation. I see some people who are extremely misguided in their attempts to reconcile God's Word and science (proposing "different state pasts" or proposing that Adam was "made" 13.5 billion years ago and just sat around for the next several billion years) but I don't see anyone actually lying.

 

[Queller]

So a flood coming in at the speed of an average tide wouldn't pick up and deposit a lot of sediments along the way? This has been one of my points all along; little evidence of erosion/deposition.

I didn't say it wouldn't pick it up, I said it would deposit the way you are claiming.

Science looks for a 'high water mark', but if the flood covered nearly all landforms there is no high water mark.

You seem to be refusing to even consider that a "high water mark" of 16,000 ft above sea level can not happen in a gentle event. Not to mention that there are many mountains higher than that which would have a "high water mark" on them and yet we don't see it.

Science often reinterprets evidence. I fully expect that science will one day admit to the possibility of a global flood; a flood like I have described.

Except that a Flood such as the one you are postulating is impossible due to the physics of water and continental plate movement.

 

[Queller]

Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation. Verse two begins the story of the restoration of the earth from a great cataclysm which included global flooding.

Oh wow. OK, well I'll give you points for originality. Where is dad and Amam777 when you need them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's perfectly rational to believe we are not the only life forms in existence when there are:
Billions and Billions and Billions of planets out there?

That's my point. Rationalism doesn't require proof, only rationalization (deductive reasoning without the need for objective evidence).

 

[bhsmte]

That's my point. Rationalism doesn't require proof, only rationalization (deductive reasoning without the need for objective evidence).

When you take advantage (every day of your life) of what modern science has provided you, do you look at as someone pointing a gun and killing someone?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The reason why is that the bible claims that it is the answer to everything without evidence to back those claims, so people seek out and emphasize information which supports the bible, at the exclusion of information that doesn't. Science on the other hand starts out with no answers, and seeks them out through observation, experimentation, etc., thus all new information has something to support it. That science changes is how we make progress towards the truth, to assume the truth without evidence is an easy way to stop progress and accept things that aren't true.

Here's a challenge for you.

The Jews are persecuted, reviled and scattered, and have been for millennia. The bible reveals a curse on the Jews condemning them to be persecuted, reviled, and scattered. What answer does science have for this phenomenon that has persisted for over two thousand years?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here's a challenge for you.

The Jews are hated, persecuted, scattered, and killed, and have been for millennia. The bible reveals a curse on the Jews condemning them to be hated, persecuted, scattered, and killed. What answer does science have for this phenomenon that has persisted for over two thousand years?

You say that as if there aren't scapegoats other than the Jews. They aren't the only group which has received such treatment.

 

[Riberra]

Well Scientists, don't believe in Extra Terrestrials but they still are trying to find the existence of them.

Scientists believe that if Extra-Terrestrials exist they cannot reach the Earth because of the vast distance .But they don't necessary reject the possibility that intelligent life may exist somewhere else.

We can always believe that Aliens exist, but as of now they clearly don't.

Which imply that Earth is the only place in the vast universe that life and intelligent life can exist.Which in itself makes the Earth very unique.

 

[Queller]

I said a flood that lasted a million years, not a flood a million years ago.

No you didn't. You said

A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.

That is definitely not the same thing as a flood that lasted a million years.

A million year flood could have happened 100 million years ago. The point is that if the land remains in a flooded condition for a million years there would be lots of bottom sedimentation apparent when the flood finally dried up. Not so with a flood that lasted only one year.

Why not?

I drive past a corn field that had been under water for more than five years before finally drying up. There were no accumulated sediments and the cut stalks from the last harvested corn crop were still sticking out of the ground. Also, as the water receded weeds began to grow immediately, covering the bare ground as if nothing had happened. There was no evidence that the field had ever been flooded.

To your eyes maybe. But I bet a trained geologist could come in and tell you when it flooded with little difficulty.

Scientists (apparently) believe that flood waters are in constant motion, churning, eroding, and depositing.

Why would you think that? Scientists are very aware of how floods act.

The truth is that after the initial surge, which can be quite gentle, the water is calm.

Your model has the continental plates moving up and down and water covering mountains more than 16,000 feet high. This cannot be a gentle or calm occurrence due to simple physics.

Check the evening news. There are floods occurring all over the place from heavy rains. Notice that almost none of the flood water is moving. Check the videos taken from the air of the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina. Notice that the only moving water is coming over the breached levies. The calm flood waters from those breaches cover hundreds of square miles, without so much as a ripple in sight.

The Flood had to cover mountains at least 16,000 ft high with "calm" water for several months at least. That requires covering the entire earth in a layer of water at least 16,000 feet deep. We're talking about nearly 200 million square miles of earth's surface each square mile of which will need 3 cubic miles of water on top of it at a minimum. There isn't enough water on the planet to accomplish that.

 

[Queller]

No, I said parts of the story are described in poetic language. The phase "open the windows of heaven" is poetic language for rain.

Then why can't the part that describes the Flood as being "upon the whole earth" be taken as poetic language for "everywhere Noah knew of"?

 

[Riberra]

Then why can't the part that describes the Flood as being "upon the whole earth" be taken as poetic language for "everywhere Noah knew of"?

That is not Noah who have told Moses about the Flood but God.
Jesus validated the account of the Flood given to Moses.

 

[dad]

And yet I see nothing about the moon "crashing into" the earth.

Right it was the imaginary mars sized planet they need to get the moon. The moon then started out at the earth in their dream scenario. By extrapolation backwards, then they have the moon all the way on earth starting out.

Those aren't based on guesses. They are the results of experiments and testing. Do you really not get that?

Try and tell us one in your own words and see who gets what!

That is not what I said, is it? Please read for comprehension. Either that or stop lying about what I say. I said that scientists didn't simply BELIEVE that the rates are the same. They have run tests and experiments that would show if the rates were different and there is NO EVIDENCE that the laws of physics operated differently in the time frame we are talking about.

That's not acceptance based on BELIEF but acceptance based on EVIDENCE.

Nope. Name one experiment that shows the rate was not different!? They believe nothing more. Pathetic religion.

Well, I don't see anyone here lying about God's creation.

Any time science claims creation of man or the universe happened another way that God says, they are lying through their teeth, whether they know it or not.

I see some people who are extremely misguided in their attempts to reconcile God's Word and science (proposing "different state pasts"

The bible agrees. God's word doesn't misguide. No one made up fast plant growth, long lives, water and land separating in creation week, spirits marrying humans, or flood waters from heaven.

You cannot compare any of the thing the bible actually says with the billions of years you cite.

 

[dad]

When you put it like that God would seem to be the only answer, where is he? have you seen him around lately?
have you ever seen him around? has anyone?

Yes we saw Him 2000 years ago. We see Him work also since then.

 

[szechuan]

I have read many scientific articles describing significant changes in many of the conclusions of science. I have never read of a significant change in the biblical record of past events, only new discoveries that support those accounts. Science purports to always being about the business of falsifying it's own conclusions; they are just not in any big hurry to do so.

If I were a betting person I would bet that the science that attempts to debunk the bible will change in the face of new discoveries (that were there all the time) sometime in the future. Of this I have great faith.

Falsifying it's own conclusions? Right, the only people who do that in the Science community are the ones who get judged with great scrutiny and a tarnished reputation.

 

[szechuan]

Yes we saw Him 2000 years ago. We see Him work also since then.

You didn't see him 2000 years ago. We in fact don't see him work unless you're one of those end the world doomsayers.

 

[szechuan]

Any time science claims creation of man or the universe happened another way that God says, they are lying through their teeth, whether they know it or not.

Sorry it's just because Science requires Logic, while God requires faith.

 

[szechuan]

Which imply that Earth is the only place in the vast universe that life and intelligent life can exist.Which in itself makes the Earth very unique.

No, that is not true, Scientists have discovered a Planet very similar to ours in Space. It only Imply's that Earth is the only confirmed place where life exists.

Scientists know that the ONLY place we know of so far that is habitable is the earth but it's quite obvious there is evidence that life could potentially live on other earth like planets they have examined.

Because Space is infinite, there is no conclusion that Life does or doesn't exist else where.

 

[szechuan]

Whether or not their ideal of god exists is inconclusive, we can't honestly make any claim as to whether or not it exists.

Actually we can, because it's quite clear as of now there is no Evidence that points toward the existence of god.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh wow. OK, well I'll give you points for originality. Where is dad and Amam777 when you need them?

Not my idea. Ever heard of GAP theory?