PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Genesis 9:13
       A probelm for biblical creationism?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did I read this right or am I on Ecstacy?

"Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."

Ha Ha Ha, you think Evolution is a plot to overthrow the Christian belief... how shallow are you. And for future reference I don't give a damn about what the ugly Frank Zindler said because he made no contributions to the evolutionary theory (that I know of; but niether do you)

Also this proves that you are being defeated because you are trying to falsify something that appeals to more people (actually, I'd like to think that there was someone who lovingly made us but that is highly improbable) because it seems to be correct. This also shows that you falter in your faith because you act like it isn't true and that this theory will unmask this rancid lie.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 11:56 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:41 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Quote from Peter87 at 3:18 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Ok you ignoured the major point of my post. How demon explained the existance of all the elements of the earth, IS CORRECT! and you shrug it off as a fairy tale, you are mis informed. Learn some basic science then come back.
Long ago and far far away is not science. He presented no rational explanation for why the elements appeared. There is none.

Oh, and learn some asturology history, what I described is how people used to think the stars were.
Your beliefs started with a seance in the 1600's . Read about Emmanuel Swedenborg. These are all scenarios not facts.

Evolution goes against the BIBLE! It does NOT go against GOD!
It was designed to destroy Christianity. The belief in the God of the Bible.
The belief in a creator God.
Just because you can create a god that agrees with evolution does not mean he exist.
Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’

Oh and I agee with demon, it is no one that agree's with you.
Then your all agreeing that Say So is all you have. Tell me what existed before reality or you are as brainless as he is.


Also why is it called the big bang? for god sake, learn a theory before you try to disprove it. It was a phrased used by the discredited Fred Hoyle, the one you like the quote. The big bang infact didn't go bang and it wasn't that big.

Discredited ? Do you even know what that word means? Because talk/origins said so?

Tell me how reality started or I will conclude you are just a mindless follower.







Ok nuclear reactions in stars are not long agao and far far away. They are happening right now at this very moment, in all stars, even the sun. But if you blindly ignour this fact then please tell me what a star is? Or you are brainless.

Oh please tell me oh psychic one, what are my beliefs? But your beliefs are based around, a skyman, a talking snake, an impossible flood, someone that could walk on water... Now which one sounds absurd?

It was designed to destroy Christianity? Realy? So why did Darwin want to destroy his own religion? And why did he not publish the idea for 20 years becuase it went against Christianity?

Also it doesn't go against a creator God, only the current creation stories. There is nothing to surgest that God didn't work through natural methods, such as god guided evolution.

Just because your god doesn't agrees with evolution does not mean he exist.

Why do you continue to ask questions that no one can have a definate answer too. Tell me how reality started or I will conclude you are just a mindless follower. I don't know, I'm not a research physicist. I don't know if it did "start" there is nothing to surgest that the Universe isn't eternal. Human knowledge is not complete, we do not know everything, yet we choose not to acept the only current alternative of "god did it" becuase there is no evidence for this, so eventualy we will find an answer to this, or we will acept that it is impossible to know.

But let give you a similair question, what was before God? And how did he come into existance?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:40 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 11:55 PM on May 27, 2005 :
Name one Major University that was not started by Christians. Just one in the History of the World.+


How about two?  Caltech and Carnegie-Mellon.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:58 AM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"It was designed to destroy Christianity. The belief in the God of the Bible.
The belief in a creator God."

What the eff is wrong with you!? "Designed" to destroy Christianity?!! It was "designed" so that people could know the truth! Creationism can easily be compared with the Viking, or the Native American creation myths. None of them hold any scientific or at least significant weight, and though I will admit they are beautiful stories, what makes your version of creationism any different?

Is it your "faith?" I know that is half of your reason, but you will never, ever provide any concrete evidence to support the Genesis story, only "evidence" to condemn and discredit evolution. Nice try. This is why scientists will never take you seriously-- you are in far more of a "denial" than we are.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 1:59 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

okay, this evolution forum is an embarrasing debate on both parties sides, why does everybody in here seem to resort to petty name calling and disrespect... this is in no way an intelligent debate, its a big mud-flinging competition that reminds me of canadian politics.

like i've said before, how's about both sides representatives make an attempt to understand WHY the other side believes what they do. geeez
this isn't a science forum, we aren't limited to discussing the scientific proof's for creation, so if somebody believes the bible and it says it was created, how is that not evidence? it obviously convinced them?
and if somebody believes in an old earth, because they agree with the geologic dating of strata found on the earth, then how is that not evidence?
its ridiculous how all of you are behaving (apologies to those who are doing their best not to)

it's absurd to ask for scientific evidence of a non-scientific external (from our universe) force creating earth, similarly to how absurd it is to ask a person who thinks there is nothing beyond death for scientific evidence.... its like both parties are too scared to ask questions to which an answer could exist so bothe evolutionists and creationists alike always ask eachother questions which can't be satisfactorily answered.

again, this is not strictly a scientific forum, so stop attempting to ban logical, philosophical, moral, ethical, and even religious reasoning




-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:17 PM on June 1, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 09:41 AM on May 31, 2005 :
 

(Edited by Peter87 5/31/2005 at 09:43 AM).


This is the most intelligent thing you have ever posted.
Good job!



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:33 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 10:17 PM on June 1, 2005 :
okay, this evolution forum is an embarrasing debate on both parties sides, why does everybody in here seem to resort to petty name calling and disrespect... this is in no way an intelligent debate, its a big mud-flinging competition that reminds me of canadian politics.
This is true and I am as guilty as anyone.
After being called a liar for disagreeing with evolution I have lowered myself to responding with insults. It would be more adult of everyone to discuss the subject instead of trading insults.

like i've said before, how's about both sides representatives make an attempt to understand WHY the other side believes what they do. geeez
this isn't a science forum, we aren't limited to discussing the scientific proof's for creation, so if somebody believes the bible and it says it was created, how is that not evidence? it obviously convinced them?
and if somebody believes in an old earth, because they agree with the geologic dating of strata found on the earth, then how is that not evidence?
its ridiculous how all of you are behaving (apologies to those who are doing their best not to)

it's absurd to ask for scientific evidence of a non-scientific external (from our universe) force creating earth, similarly to how absurd it is to ask a person who thinks there is nothing beyond death for scientific evidence.... its like both parties are too scared to ask questions to which an answer could exist so bothe evolutionists and creationists alike always ask eachother questions which can't be satisfactorily answered.
I don't agre with that statement as it applies to me . There is no question I refuse to answer. Many times I am asked questions that any answer I give will mean I agree with evolution. That is Soviet style indoctrination , not a discussion.

again, this is not strictly a scientific forum, so stop attempting to ban logical, philosophical, moral, ethical, and even religious reasoning

This forum is overwhelmingly evolutionist. Therefore many of them feel they are in charge. Lord's recent post bragging how they wore down unworthy servant is a prime example of what you said about banning logical, philosophical, moral, ethical, and even religious reasoning.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:45 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Arguably
Quote from Lord Iorek at 11:56 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Did I read this right or am I on Ecstacy?

"Atheist Frank Zindler said,

‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."

Ha Ha Ha, you think Evolution is a plot to overthrow the Christian belief... how shallow are you. And for future reference I don't give a damn about what the ugly Frank Zindler said because he made no contributions to the evolutionary theory (that I know of; but niether do you)

Also this proves that you are being defeated because you are trying to falsify something that appeals to more people (actually, I'd like to think that there was someone who lovingly made us but that is highly improbable) because it seems to be correct. This also shows that you falter in your faith because you act like it isn't true and that this theory will unmask this rancid lie.

If you are not sure if you are on ecstasy see a doctor.

But atheist/naturalism is the basis of evolution so he is well qualifies to speak of it’s religious implications.
read the introduction to Origins. It rules out a creator God and therefore Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the Creator. He created life while on this earth. Remember Lazarus? He also created matter; remember the bread for the 4k and the 5k?  Did Jesus bring him to life or just tell everyone in a million years he would evolve into to flying zebra? Did He feed the bread to the multitude or tell them to be patient  in a few hundred million years or so bread would evolve from dirt?
Evolution is not compatible with Christianity-it is diametrically opposed to it.
It is the anti-thesis.
Before you make these broad statements try reading the Bible. And be sure you’re not on ecstasy at the time.

You said:

"I'd like to think that there was someone who lovingly made us but that is highly improbable) because it seems to be correct."

So would something that seems highly probable be therefore incorrect?
Or is that your reason for believing in evolution? Because it is incredibly improbable it must be true?
Or are you on ecstasy?

I think the ecstasy has done permanent damage. First you say this:

“Ha Ha Ha, you think Evolution is a plot to overthrow the Christian belief... how shallow are you”

Then you say this:

“This also shows that you falter in your faith because you act like it isn't true and that this theory will unmask this rancid lie.

Even for an evolutionist it is bad form to completely contradict yourself in the same post

Seek medical help before it is too late. Drugs are not the answer. Without spiritual help you cannot conquer your drug abuse.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:10 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:58 AM on June 1, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 11:55 PM on May 27, 2005 :
Name one Major University that was not started by Christians. Just one in the History of the World.+


How about two?  Caltech and Carnegie-Mellon.




Yoy got me on Carnagie. Not sure about Cal-tech. Do you know who started it?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:13 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 09:13 AM on June 2, 2005 :
Yoy got me on Carnagie. Not sure about Cal-tech. Do you know who started it?


Amos Throop.

How about another two?

BYU and University of Virginia.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:38 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 09:40 AM on June 1, 2005 :[/b


Ok nuclear reactions in stars are not long agao and far far away. They are happening right now at this very moment, in all stars, even the sun. But if you blindly ignour this fact then please tell me what a star is? Or you are brainless.
I have answered that before. It is a celectial body that can be seen from the energy it emits. It is believed to be nuclear energy but even that is theoretical.

Oh please tell me oh psychic one, what are my beliefs? But your beliefs are based around, a skyman, a talking snake, an impossible flood, someone that could walk on water... Now which one sounds absurd?
That depends on your worldview.
A language that carries the instructions to create life coming together by blind chance from mutations is much more absurd to me than to believe there is a being more intelligent than man.

It was designed to destroy Christianity? Realy? So why did Darwin want to destroy his own religion? And why did he not publish the idea for 20 years becuase it went against Christianity?

Your knowledge of Darwin is lacking. He was a failed preacher that became an atheist when he formed his theory.
"I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine,"

In 1880, in reply to a correspondent, Charles wrote, "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God."

Read his books. You won't get past the introduction of origins before he denies a creator God.


Also it doesn't go against a creator God, only the current creation stories. There is nothing to surgest that God didn't work through natural methods, such as god guided evolution.

Gen 2:7  The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Your knowledge of the Bible is on par with your knowledge of Darwin. Maybe your god is so lame and stupid he had to wait milions of years for chance mutations to create life.

Just because your god doesn't agrees with evolution does not mean he exist.
Just because you believe the atheist fairy tale of evolution does not mean anything.
You are contradicting yourself. You suggest that evolution does not go against Christianity and then you suddest it might.
You are either dishonest or delusional.

Why do you continue to ask questions that no one can have a definate answer too. [b]Tell me how reality started or I will conclude you are just a mindless follower. I don't know, I'm not a research physicist. I don't know if it did "start" there is nothing to surgest that the Universe isn't eternal. Human knowledge is not complete, we do not know everything, yet we choose not to acept the only current alternative of "god did it" becuase there is no evidence for this, so eventualy we will find an answer to this, or we will acept that it is impossible to know.
First of all Demon asked the question . Everybody agrees with him but won't explain why.
This is illogical. You refuse to accept the existence of a Creator God because you don't want to. You accept the absurd notion that life created itself because you want to.

If your theory falls apart you will just look at the world and stare and say some day science will tell me what to believe. What a sad way to live.

But let give you a similair question, what was before God? And how did he come into existance?

That is not a similar question at all. You never answered the first one. How could unreality exist and who is silly enough to fund a study to find out.
I think the question you ask is who created god?
That's easy. The over god. You see god had just enough information to create us and the overgod had just enough information to create the god. Now of course the over over god had just enough information to create the over god. And so on.
Plain enough?




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:51 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 09:51 AM on June 2, 2005 :
I have answered that before. It is a celectial body that can be seen from the energy it emits. It is believed to be nuclear energy but even that is theoretical.


We can observe the creation and decay of short-lived isotopes fron nuclear processes in supernova explosions, we can also directly observe the fusion of hydrogen directly on the sun during intense solar flares.  While normally occurs deep in the sun's interior the intense magnetic fields involved in solar flares will occasionally pinch the plasma into fusion conditions.

So, this is much more than "theoretical", it happens.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:12 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 1:59 PM on June 1, 2005 :

What the eff is wrong with you!? "Designed" to destroy Christianity?!! It was "designed" so that people could know the truth! Creationism can easily be compared with the Viking, or the Native American creation myths. None of them hold any scientific or at least significant weight, and though I will admit they are beautiful stories, what makes your version of creationism any different?
The truth! You can't handle the truth!
Sorry but I just had to say it.

You really should think before you speak. You said:

"It was "designed" so that people could know the truth!"
Scientific theories are not designed , they are developed. Evolution was designed and then "evidence" was developed to "prove" it.
So it is was designed you are just claiming it was so people would no the "truth". That is correct. To Darwin the truth is that , as he stated, Jesus Christ was not the son of God. Also that there was no creator.
The "truth" to him id atheism. If you want to make a case that Darwin was a Christian you are sadly mistaken. He was until he formed his theory.
One of the myths about Darwin , at least it sure seems to be a myth, is he recanted atheistic evolution and accepted Christ as his Savior before he died.
I do not believe he did but no one who has ever studied him could possibly use his "Christianity" as a defense of evolution.
He was an atheist , plain and simple. He was at one time a Christian. As was Hitler, Marx , Engles , and Stalin. They all recanted their Christianity when they read Darwin.
You really should learn the history of evolution. I doubt you know what a speechless ape or a morenon is. You should.
The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn't intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene." (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], "Darwin's Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World," [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210). [top]"


"Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. ... But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel's greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler." (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78)."


"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist." Richard Dawkins, Neo-Darwinian spokesman  



Is it your "faith?" I know that is half of your reason, but you will never, ever provide any concrete evidence to support the Genesis story, only "evidence" to condemn and discredit evolution. Nice try. This is why scientists will never take you seriously-- you are in far more of a "denial" than we are.

That is a silly thing to say. With your view such as Darwin's Christiany continued after he developed his theory intelligent evolutionist will not take you seriously.
There are lots of scientist who disbelieve Darwin.

Read the history of your faith. It has to be a faith to you because you zealously believe it and know almost nothing about it.
Using Darwin as a model for Christians to believe in evolution is so absurd it's funny.
Well not real funny.

“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
      “My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”  William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52  Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University



(Edited by peddler8111 6/3/2005 at 12:15 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:51 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Getting back to the original purpose of this post....  I found this a rather fascinating questions.  We are obviously basing this question on the Bible, so let's start by what it has to say on the topic...

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
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.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

I'm sure some of you have heard the water vapor canopy, and yes I know that there would not have been enough water in this canopy to cause a world-wide flood, but the bible doesn't say that the "windows of heaven" were the only source of the water during the flood.  It also mentions the "fountains of the deep" and there is enough water in the core of the earth to flood it if it were released, especially in conjunction with the release of the water surrounding the planet.

The bible also said that the water receded after the flood so the water didn't "go anywhere" but it has returned into the core of the earth.

Now, with a water vapor canopy surrounding the earth (and no clouds) there would not have been any rainbow before the flood.  Also, the planet would've had a more stabilized climate, including the poles.  It would've been a veritable paradise.

Before you dismiss this off hand, remember I'm trying to answer this from the point of view the question was asked, biblically.  Second, ask yourself something.  If the current temperature of the planet is rising (global warming) and the planet has been around for a few billion years (supposedly), why are the polar caps still getting larger?  Shouldn't they be done freezing by now?  Perhaps they haven't been freezing as long as you'd like to think.

Now, all of this is written with the intention of keeping the answer within a naturalistic frame of reference.  Obviously, if two fish and some bread can feed 5000 people with more scraps left over than when you started, then the question of where the water came from and went to is moot.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:06 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I'm sure some of you have heard the water vapor canopy, and yes I know that there would not have been enough water in this canopy to cause a world-wide flood, but the bible doesn't say that the "windows of heaven" were the only source of the water during the flood.  It also mentions the "fountains of the deep" and there is enough water in the core of the earth to flood it if it were released, especially in conjunction with the release of the water surrounding the planet.


Wah?? I'm sure that if that's actually true, I could find all the material I need from Google, but since I'm pressed for time, why don't you spill the links you got that from? We discussed this in calculus, and spent a day figuring out how much water would be needed to fill the earth up to its highest peak, I recall concluding there was about  half as much water in existence as there would be required to reach Everest, if not more (as since its a sphere, with a cubically-widening diameter, the amount of water per additional unit would be exponential). I don't know... it had something to do with trigonometry too, but there weren't in "But's" in our equation.

Basically, you're saying there's enough water in the core of the earth to raise the sea level more than ten thousand feet... Disreguarding that the core is all molten rock, let's assume it's completely filled with water. Do you have idea how large a space that is to cover once to get 11,000 feet above sea level, with more than another 10,000 to go before Everest?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:51 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's see... the measured water in a rock averages .5 to 1 percent of its weight, although from here rocks absorb water lab results we can see that some rocks can absorb up to 12% of their weight.  The earth is estimated to weigh about six sextillion tons (or six billion trillion as most people call it)...earth's weight   Therefore, if .5 percent of the earth is water we get 30 million trillion tons (math, no link).  I'll leave the final answer to you.... how much of the earth's water would need to escape to cover the land?  I'm sure the answer will surprise you.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:06 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's see... the measured water in a rock averages .5 to 1 percent of its weight, although from here rocks absorb water lab results we can see that some rocks can absorb up to 12% of their weight.  The earth is estimated to weigh about six sextillion tons (or six billion trillion as most people call it)...earth's weight   Therefore, if .5 percent of the earth is water we get 30 million trillion tons (math, no link).  I'll leave the final answer to you.... how much of the earth's water would need to escape to cover the land?  I'm sure the answer will surprise you.


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/archives-humidity.htm

This link explains how much water would be added if both the current atmosphere were to condense and all the icecaps to melt completely. Overall, it states a gain of 264 feet (80 meters) from the ice caps, with additional single inch from the atmosphere.

Now you're claiming the water not only came from the core, but from the entire earth.

And the consequences of sucking the planet dry?

We'd live in a very dusty world, with or without the flood waters. The crust would become like that of the moon, and it would quickly absorb the lost water back up again.

But of course, the earth losing its water is as unrealistic as God just magically making enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth. You can't argue it scientifically, nor prove it scientifically. You can, on the other hand, say "Goddidit" for everything. If that's your answer, though, there's no use in debating, because it's 100% impossible to prove.





(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 12/2/2005 at 7:42 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:40 PM on December 2, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but using the calculations I gave you, you wouldn't need to suck the "entire" planet dry.  That was the point.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:07 AM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Be that as it may, there's no way the water is going to rise against gravity and rush to the surface of the crust. Seriously. You might as well just claim God made enough water to cover the earth and dissapeared it at the end of the Flood.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:25 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Biblically, there is no question that God CAUSED it to happen.  As with most things, however, God used what had already been created.  This does, however, answer both the question of where the water come from for the flood AND why there were no rainbows before it happened.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:39 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The rainbows, I would disagree with. With an atmosphere of water, you'd see rainbows left and right. As for the whole "water canopy" idea itself... I really hope no one actually believes that. It makes no sense. God can do whatever he wants. If the water canopy is true, He blatantly defies physics in order to not defy the Law of Conservation.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:50 PM on December 3, 2005 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Considering some of the other claims of the bible, Gen 9:13 doesn't mean squat. = )  
People coming back to life, living in whales, cities turning into salt . . . .

If the Bible is right about the existence of God, then no scientific explanation can say "God couldn't have allowed rainbows to appear". He could have slightly changed the property of clouds to make rainbows appear.

I do like the thread originators final line, suggesting this one passage was wrong and not everything in the bible.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:42 AM on February 19, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.