The Sun Stood Still

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b

Yes, but the difference was that Darwin expected that the gaps would be filled in given more time and digging.

So what? If this statement of what Darwin expected is true but the gaps have not been totally filled in, who cares? Does it invalidate evolutioin??

Or is the game plan to pick an evolutionist and hold him to the same inerrant standard that you proclaim for Genesis? Is that why you now qoute Mayr???

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Jukia

So what? If this statement of what Darwin expected is true but the gaps have not been totally filled in, who cares? Does it invalidate evolutioin??

Or is the game plan to pick an evolutionist and hold him to the same inerrant standard that you proclaim for Genesis? Is that why you now qoute Mayr???

I use an authoritative source like Mayr as an indication of what evolutionists generally believe.

I then point out some key errors in what evolutionists generally believe.

Note that much of what evolutionists say is correct, but then key errors are key errors, and I have found no equivalent key errors in scripture, even though when I first started a detailed research on this some 22 years ago I had expected to find many.

 

[Stratnerd]

I then point out some key errors in what evolutionists generally believe.

no, you don't.

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b



I have found no equivalent key errors in scripture, even though when I first started a detailed research on this some 22 years ago I had expected to find many.

YOU have found no key errors but you hold to a 6000 year old earth which most people with a smattering of technical knowledge and everyone (well, almost everyone) with more than a smattering consider absurd.

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Really, so you think that a worldwide flood would leave sedimentary layers in some high places and leave them absent in lower places?

It is difficult to say what a worldwide flood would or would not do in detail since we have no current experience with such a phenomenon. I do know that the idea of slow accumulation is a poor substitute for a watery catastrophe. Many are moving in the direction of at least local catastrophies to explain at least some geological features.

so you think we'd find terrestrial animal tracks between sedimentary layers?

Absolutely. The flood event took over a year and oibviously consisted of many cycles of deposition, otherwise one would not be able to distinguish between the various distinct layers. This characteristic is what supports the Flood hypothesis and casts doubt on the slow accumulation hypothesis.

so you think a worldwide flood would somehow get alternating layers with heavier sediment on top of lighter sediment?

Yes. This merely indicates different cycles of deposition, and does not rule out intermediate cycles of erosion.

your world view is that of a Biblical literalist so all the world must confirm your view - now you just need to ingore, spin, and pound square pegs through round holes, and, oh yea, invite stuff like super-tectonics, super light speed, super speciation, yadda yadda yadda.

I didn't start out believing in the Bible, but I was forced to believe it by the weight of the evidence.

I tend to go with the evidence, which in my view is overwhelmingly in support of the Flood hypothesis as far as distinct layers is concerned. My view here is influenced by my experience in Operations Research, a field which tends to focus on the big picture.

 

[Stratnerd]

It is difficult to say what a worldwide flood would or would not do in detail since we have no current experience with such a phenomenon.

don't need it. we know how water particles work in suspension and this holds regardless of the volume.

Many are moving in the direction of at least local catastrophies to explain at least some geological features.

some geological features - when appropriate. It would be silly to extrapolate catastrophes to explain all geologic features all over the globe - which, if your right, would be the right thing to do. At least, that's what the major geological features should be indicative of - I guess we've all missed it though.

Absolutely. The flood event took over a year and oibviously consisted of many cycles of deposition, otherwise one would not be able to distinguish between the various distinct layers

like I said.. you make up stuff..

This characteristic is what supports the Flood hypothesis and casts doubt on the slow accumulation hypothesis.

this is completely circular... you haven't given any mechanism to support the deposition cycle

nor did you explain how terrestrial organisms were walking between layers.

Yes. This merely indicates indicates different cycles of deposition.

I hope you feel better now that you pulled that out of your backside.

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by bob b






Yes. This merely indicates different cycles of deposition, and does not rule out intermediate cycles of erosion.

But these are cycles of erosion under water correct?

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Jukia

But these are cycles of erosion under water correct?

Yes. There are undersea landslides known today.

But I think you are forgetting that the water rose for 6 months and took another 6 months to retreat. This was from Noah's perspective at essentially one point, or at least a small region, on the Earth's surface.

We do not know the physical cause of the Flood. If we did it might be easier to guess what some of the effects would have been, of the Flood waters themselves and possibly the tectonic events that led up to it.

 

[Stratnerd]

Yes. There are undersea landslides known today.

so a dinosaur swam to the bottom.. walked... there was an undersea landslide that covered it up?

possibly the tectonic events that led up to it.

apparently you have a never-ending supply of ad hoc explanations.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Free-Agent Smith

I guess I was hoping to see something 'transitonal" like a cockroach with mantis arms on it, as an example.

I really need a better picture than this, but you can't get much more cockroachy than this and still be a mantid! In case it isn't obvious from these small pictures, these mantids are very flat, very fast, and have a number of anatomical features that are more like cockroaches than typical mantids.

 

[Stratnerd]

WOW that's cool! [and they don't have feathers, right?]

 

[billwald]

Why does anyone think that a human is "uphill" from a chimp?

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by billwald

Why does anyone think that a human is "uphill" from a chimp?

May just be the best question asked here in a while. I expect the answer is "Because we are the ones doing the thinking" Which would be the same answer if the chimps, cockroachs or jelly fish were doing the thinking.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Stratnerd--your post # 71--considering the source, it is nothing that should surprise anyone. How true to form!!

 

[Stratnerd]

:yawn: huh? what? somebody say something?

I thought maybe you actually had something of substance to say.

I can't even figure out what your issue is..

why don't you take the time to explain it instead of wasting TOL space? :troll:

 

[bob b]

Why have people highjacked this thread?

 

[Stratnerd]

this thread?? all the threads in Origins eventually runs amok.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Sorry bob.

 

[Stratnerd]

F-A.S.

Start a new thread if you wish. I enjoy talking about evidence for evolution - good for self-reflecting, right?

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Re: The Sun Stood Stll

Re: The Sun Stood Stll

Originally posted by bob b

In another thread I listed the four passages in scripture that were used by some priests to claim that the Bible agreed with Aristotle's idea that the heavens rotated around a stationary Earth. Perhaps the most powerful of these verses (the others were from the poetry of Psalms and Ecclesiastes ) was the story of the Sun and Moon standing still for Joshua.

Interestingly there is more to this story.

I can understand that people who are not well acquainted with physics might think that the Joshua story is an obvious fairytale.

Actually, it is only today that some are beginning to understand that the story may have recorded an eyewitness account of an amazing phenomenon in the heavens: a near miss of the Earth by a large heavenly body.

Any disturbance of a gyroscope, and that is what the constantly spinning Earth is, would cause a precession of the axis, a wobble if you will. This could have the temporary effect of delaying the setting of the Sun, or else delaying its rise, depending upon where the observer was on the surface of the Earth. (Incidentally, this would not affect the constant speed of rotation of either a gyroscope or the spinning Earth.)

It is interesting that the Joshua story records that the movement of the Moon was also affected, which is just what one would expect to happen if the spinning Earth had been disturbed during a “near miss”. How did the “mythmakers” know to throw in that detail?

Finally, there is another “myth”, this one from the Far East, that records a phenomenon known as a double sunrise, an event where the sun rose slightly in the morning, went back down, and then rose again. Could this have been the same event as Joshua’s, except viewed from a different earthly vantage point?

I never realised this. I'll look it up

Wouldn't that have some type of effect on the weaterh or something? Water tides maybe?