Scientists Question Darwinism

[Dartman]

I believe God literally exists.

I believe God has the ability to prove His existence ANY time He would like to do so.

He doesn't.

Why?

 

[ok doser]

I believe God literally exists.

of course He does

I believe God has the ability to prove His existence ANY time He would like to do so.

He doesn't.

sure He does, every day, all day

 

[Stripe]

Do you?

:rotfl:

Are you still pushing the insane notion that the Earth's rotational rate could increase?

 

[Kit the Coyote]

:rotfl:

Are you still pushing the insane notion that the Earth's rotational rate could increase?

I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours. And that the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane. A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it but if you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.

 

[Stripe]

I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours.

:rotfl:

That the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane.

Physics, bro. :thumb:

A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it.

Seismicity does it. However, these things work slowly. They could never achieve today's ituation from a million-year day. You keep up this argument; it just shows how little you understand about such ideas.

If you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.

Nope. Directionality is important. The flood did affect the Earth's rotation, but not in the way you imagine or to the extent that you need.

Simple physics dictates that if the Earth is about 6,000 years old, the days at the start were pretty much the same length as days today. Saying otherwise is science fiction.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I was never pushing that, I was asking how you know the days of creation were 24 hours.

Because of the context in which the word "day" is used in scripture to describe the creation week.

And that the rotation of a planet could increase is not insane.

You'd have to find a way for that to fit into whatever model you use for solar system formation.

Our model expects that God made everything good, including the rotation and orbit of the celestial bodies, that the earth had a 24 hour day, and a 360 day year, but when the fountains of the great deep broke forth, because of the physics involved, the earth slowed by a few minutes, its orbit was pushed out by a little more than five days, and the moon was bombarded (moreso on the near side) by the debris ejected from the earth.

A reverse of the situation with the moon that is currently slowing the Earth would do it but if you looking for something to would cause a drastic change well something like the Hydroplate idea that is being tossed about could certainly have that effect depending on the angle of the fountains which were after all huge water jets with enough force to throw massive amounts of the crust into solar orbit.

I recommend you watch the playlist I gave you. It'll answer that challenge far better than I can.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

:rotfl:

Physics, bro. :thumb:

Seismicity does it. However, these things work slowly. They could never achieve today's ituation from a million-year day. You keep up this argument; it just shows how little you understand about such ideas.



Nope. Directionality is important. The flood did affect the Earth's rotation, but not in the way you imagine or to the extent that you need.

Simple physics dictates that if the Earth is about 6,000 years old, the days at the start were pretty much the same length as days today. Saying otherwise is science fiction.

And here is where you have a problem, you are anticipating where you think I was heading with my question and are arguing against that. I can understand the confusion. But now you have at least partially answered the question.

 

[Stripe]

You are anticipating where you think I was heading with my question and are arguing against that.

:AMR:

It is entirely possible to have a planetary day that lasts millions of years.

This is what I'm responding to. Physics dictates that the rotational speed of the Earth was never this slow. Unless you have a miracle in mind.

I can understand the confusion.

:darwinsm:

But now you have at least partially answered the question.

:idunno:

 

[genuineoriginal]

How does that work exactly? I know how Answers in Genesis thinks it works but all that shows us is that AIG didn't give more than five seconds of thought and no amount of actual testing and evaluation to their hypothesis.

I could say the same about evolutionary geologists.
Why is there no evidence of millions of years of erosion between the strata in the Grand Canyon?
Why are there polystrate fossils in Yellowstone that show no sign of erosion from one stratum to another?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Most Christians aren't hardcore, fundamentalist zealots where they would wish to enact laws that would reduce freedom and liberty to nothing but they exist.

Yes, most Christians are not like the Lunatic Leftist Liberals who wish to enact laws that would reduce freedom and liberty to nothing.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'll add the videos to my queue but I have seen the hydroplate theory before and the issue you raised in response to Stripe's discussion applies to it as well. The physics involved simply don't add up, particularly in the amount of energy released in such an event if you try to squeeze it all into 40 days or a year. Noah and his ark would have been steam broiled.

I think a much simpler and more believable theory is that the global flood was caused by the impacts of a meteor shower and that most of the flood consisted of huge tsunamis that washed back and forth across Pangaea.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think a much simpler and more believable theory is that the global flood was caused by the impacts of a meteor shower and that most of the flood consisted of huge tsunamis that washed back and forth across Pangaea.

Maybe you should just stick to what the Bible says, and not try to add to it:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. - Genesis 7:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:11-12&version=NKJV

Fountains of the Great Deep sounds nothing like meteorites.

The Hydroplate theory DOES sound like FotGD.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Maybe you should just stick to what the Bible says, and not try to add to it:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights. - Genesis 7:11-12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:11-12&version=NKJV

Fountains of the Great Deep sounds nothing like meteorites.

The "great deep" is referring to a huge ocean (that is the literal translation).
Tsunamis do sound like the fountains of the great deep being broken up.
A meteor striking in the ocean will cause the water to fountain up.

The Hydroplate theory DOES sound like FotGD.

The Hydroplate theory is an attempt to imagine a completely unknown underground source of superheated water as being the "great deep" instead of accepting the plain and simple reading of the "great deep" being the huge ocean that surrounds the land (Pangaea).
Maybe you should just stick to what the Bible says, and not try to add to it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, most Christians are not like the Lunatic Leftist Liberals who wish to enact laws that would reduce freedom and liberty to nothing.

Hmm, those who would support homosexuality, adultery being death penalty offences: Hardcore fundamentalist zealots.

Those who would make out of wedlock sex and cohabitation crimes: Hardcore fundamentalist zealots.

Those that would force people caught having sex outside of marriage into one with no possibility of divorce: Hardcore fundamentalist zealots.

That ain't "liberal" but it would sure impact on the freedom, liberty and personal lives of others. Thankfully it's a small albeit vocal percentage of "Christianity" that advocates such.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The "great deep" is referring to a huge ocean (that is the literal translation).

Except that's not the literal translation.

"Fountains of the Great Deep":

Fountains

Strong's h4599 - Lexical: מַעְיָן - Transliteration: mayan - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: mah-yawn' - Definition: springs. - Origin: Or ma ynow (Psa. 114:8) {mah-yen-o'}; or (feminine) ma yanah {mah-yaw-naw'}; from ayin (as a denominative in the sense of a spring); a fountain (also collectively), figuratively, a source (of satisfaction). - Usage: fountain, spring, well. - Translated as (count): a fountain (3), fountains (3), the fountain (2), the fountains (2), and a fountain (1), fountain (1), from the fountains (1), From the springs (1), his fountain (1), into a fountain (1), it a well (1), Let your fountains (1), my springs (1), the spring (1), the springs (1), the wells (1), wells (1).

Deep

Strong's h8415 - Lexical: תְּהוֹם - Transliteration: tehom - Part of Speech: Noun - Phonetic Spelling: teh-home' - Definition: deep. - Origin: Or thom {teh-home'}; (usually feminine) from huwm; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply). - Usage: deep (place), depth. - Translated as (count): of the deep (5), the deep (5), deep (4), The depths (4), The depth (3), depths (2), of the depth (2), a deep (1), again to the depths (1), and from the depths (1), deep places (1), deeps (1), for the deep (1), it with the deep (1), that depths (1), the deep him (1), through the deep (1), through the depths (1).

Tsunamis do sound like the fountains of the great deep being broken up.

Except they don't, not in the context of the Bible.

Plus, there's not enough water on the surface of the earth for a tsunami to cover the mountains 15 cubits up for 150 days straight.

A meteor striking in the ocean will cause the water to fountain up.

I agree, but it won't cause the devastation described in the Bible.

Not only that, but you would have to explain where they all come from, because God ceased creating on Day 7, and to suggest that He did a miracle to bring about the destruction is called a rescue device.

The Hydroplate theory is an attempt to imagine

Except it's not.

a completely unknown

Not if you read Genesis 1 literally and carefully, which you have clearly failed to do, as did I before I heard of the HPT.

underground source of superheated water as being the "great deep" instead of accepting the plain and simple

Yet, you refuse to read scripture plainly and simply. The Bible does not describe anything like a meteorite.

What you're trying to read into the text is called a "rescue device."

You know what that is, right?

There are no rescue devices in the Hydroplate Theory. The only assumption is that God created the earth exactly like He said He did in Genesis.

reading of the "great deep" being the huge ocean that surrounds the land (Pangaea).

Not what's described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere.

Pay attention:

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. . . . Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus 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.And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:2,6-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:2,6-10&version=NKJV

Heaven is the firmamentum (from the Latin), the raqia.

Both "the deep" and "the waters" are mentioned here, before there was land, and then God put land in the midst of the waters, the crust of the earth.

Maybe you should just stick to what the Bible says, and not try to add to it.

You're one to talk...

I haven't added anything. In fact, if anything, the Hydroplate theory is more consistent with the Bible than any other theory, and it doesn't rely on miracles (except for what God did during the first week of creation) or other rescue devices to work.

You're the one trying to add rocks from outer space into the Bible where there are none mentioned.

For comparison of the HPT against VCT and CPT...

From kgov.com/firmament:

On Day Two God Made the Crust of the Earth: Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory helps to understand the global flood, geology and the relevant scriptures. On Day Two of creation, God formed the crust of the earth, called the firmament (Hebrew: raqia), which extended for miles above a worldwide subterranean ocean, and the crust of course also held waters upon its surface. If this is true, we would expect to read in the Bible that initially, the surface of the earth was covered only with water, and that then God made the earth's crust above the water. And consistent with the Hydroplate Theory (which describes a layer of water at least one-mile thick that was perhaps dozens of miles below the earth's surface), in fact the Bible teaches that God: - "In the beginning God created... the earth. ...and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:1-2). Then God, - "laid out (raqa) the earth above the waters" (Psalm 136:6). And, - "by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth [was] standing out of water and in the water" (2 Peter 3:5). - "Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Gen. 1:7). So, "The earth is the Lord’s... For He has founded it upon the seas,and established it upon the waters" (Ps.24:1-2).

So, who's the one who's beliefs aren't Biblical again?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Except that's not the literal translation.

"Fountains of the Great Deep":

Fountains

Strong's h4599 - Origin: Or ma ynow (Psa. 114:8) {mah-yen-o'}; or (feminine) ma yanah {mah-yaw-naw'}; from ayin (as a denominative in the sense of a spring); a fountain (also collectively), figuratively, a source (of satisfaction).

Deep

Strong's h8415 - Origin: Or thom {teh-home'}; (usually feminine) from huwm; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply).

A fountain is a fountain of water not merely a spring and the "main sea" is the "great deep" (as a surging mass of water), not some imaginary superheated underground water supply.

Plus, there's not enough water on the surface of the earth for a tsunami to cover the mountains 15 cubits up for 150 days straight.

You seem to be trying to make the passage say something it doesn't say.
The passage stated that the waters prevailed (were strong, mighty) upwards 15 cubits during the 40 days and nights (Genesis 7:17-23) and then continued to prevail (were strong, mighty) for 150 days afterwards (Genesis 7:24), but by the end of the 150 days the waters were abated (Genesis 8:3).
It sounds to me as if surges of water kept washing over the tops of the mountains for 150 days, which can be explained by a lengthy meteor shower and the power of the waves that are able to surge that high.

I agree, but it won't cause the devastation described in the Bible.

A meteor shower could most definitely cause the devastation described in the Bible and leave the evidence we have found to prove that the earth was hit with meteor strikes.

Not only that, but you would have to explain where they all come from, because God ceased creating on Day 7, and to suggest that He did a miracle to bring about the destruction is called a rescue device.

All explanations for the flood have God using a miracle to cause the destruction of the cataclysm.
The simplicity of the meteor shower is that it can be easily seen in by evidence of meteor strikes we can find around the world.
From the time Noah was told about the flood until the flood itself took 120 years, which was plenty of time for the meteors in space to travel to the earth.
Revelation shows that there will be further meteor strikes as part of the fulfillment of prophecy.

Yet, you refuse to read scripture plainly and simply.

I read the scripture plainly and simply, but have come to different conclusions about how the words are translated than the Hydroplate Theory does.

The Bible does not describe anything like a meteorite.

It does in Revelation, but I am assuming you are referring to the account of the flood?
I am assuming that the continents formed Pangaea (or a similar super-continent) before the flood, which is also assumed by the Hydroplate Theory.
I am assuming that Noah was somewhere in the middle of that continent.
I am assuming that the meteor shower hit mostly in the middle of the main ocean on the opposite side of the earth from the location of the ark.
Noah gave the account of what he saw, not what he couldn't see.

What you're trying to read into the text is called a "rescue device."

You know what that is, right?

I have no idea what you mean by a "rescue device" and I suspect that makes two of us.

Not what's described in Genesis 1 and elsewhere.

Pay attention:

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. . . . Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus 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.And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:2,6-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:2,6-10&version=NKJV

Heaven is the firmamentum (from the Latin), the raqia.

Both "the deep" and "the waters" are mentioned here, before there was land, and then God put land in the midst of the waters, the crust of the earth.

False.
The crust of the earth is not the firmament described in that passage which explicitly states that the firmament is the sky.
The waters under the firmament (the sky) are gathered together into the main sea so that the dry land (the crust) would be exposed.
If you read Genesis 1 literally and carefully, you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking the firmament is the crust instead of the sky.

You're the one trying to add rocks from outer space into the Bible where there are none mentioned.

For comparison of the HPT against VCT and CPT...

I see there is no comparison to the meteor shower theory.

So, who's the one who's beliefs aren't Biblical again?

So far, it appears to be you.

 

[ok doser]

atie reels off a few of his favorite things:

...homosexuality ... adultery ... out of wedlock sex and cohabitation ... divorce ...

and then clumsily attempts to claim the moral high ground by blathering about "freedom" and "liberty" :darwinsm:

...the freedom, liberty and personal lives of others.

:darwinsm:

 

[genuineoriginal]

That ain't "liberal" but it would sure impact on the freedom, liberty and personal lives of others.

Yes, "liberal" is about ensuring that the government sanctions all kinds of sexual immorality while denying people any protection for their privately owned property and businesses.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

:AMR:

This is what I'm responding to. Physics dictates that the rotational speed of the Earth was never this slow. Unless you have a miracle in mind.

I never implied that it applied to Earth.

Even when I was a Christian and was trying to make the six-day creation make sense, I fairly easily rejected the days were millions of years argument because it didn't solve anything. Most life on the planet would not survive such a thing, much less thrive to form a garden.

The most logical argument I could find was the writer's interpretation. God gave the knowledge of the creation to the first individual creating the account but even most people today with college educations have a hard time wrapping their minds around the time scales involved. And this person had to consider his audience who would want a simple, easy to understand story. Remember these were oral traditions for many years before they were eventually written down.

I figure he divided the events into six easy to relate and describe periods and lacking a better label simply called them days or in the process of the retelling over time it became days.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I could say the same about evolutionary geologists.
Why is there no evidence of millions of years of erosion between the strata in the Grand Canyon?
Why are there polystrate fossils in Yellowstone that show no sign of erosion from one stratum to another?

Which doesn't address the question. The polystrate fossils in Yellowstone particularly would not have been laid down by the flood.