PDA

View Full Version : Kinks in Evolution



BlindPlayer
04-06-2005, 11:46 AM
This post should generate some heat! Hopefully thot' provoking....

I often think of Evolution and there are more questions than answers. Here's a couple of those questions:

THE IMMUNE SYSTEM - How could an organism survive until the "Immune System" evolved? Without it an organism is vulnerable to a toxic environment that is mercyless.

Consider what happens when it is weakened in AIDS patients.

Our immune system even works at the cellular level and even there it is amazingly complex (and that's an understatement). Armies of little "guys" go to battle in a phenominally coordinated effort to attack invaders. The larger picture of glands that secrete roaming armies is yet another intricate story of amazing proportions.

When I my heart was invaded by a virius in 1.14.04 this army came to my aid. Boy am I thankful this system exists!

THE INVOLUNTARY SYSTEM - Our Involuntary System is an "auto pilot" system also amazingly complex that runs all aspects of the factory while the boss is away. By that I mean, while we are consciously thinking and doing there's an entire organizational chart of systems working behind the scenes to make sure the factory doesn't shut down.

In addition, our Involuntary System goes into "hyper-drive" while we are asleep to run more aspects of the factory while we are on vacation sleeping. It slows every down to a sleep level of 3 or 4 (for some a 5 - the ones REAL groggy in the a.m.)to give our internal organs the rest they deserve and yet keep the factory profitable.

Without this sytem our minds would have to consciously control EVERYTHING from heart rate, blood vessel contractions, digestion, brain activity, spinal chord management, gland activity, and much much more. If we fell asleep we would die.

There's a lot more that has crossed my mind but these alone should spark interesting reading on this thread!

GreenLion
04-06-2005, 03:30 PM
Good observation!The world that we live in is far to complex for a Big bang or any random events to have taken place.I mean when we observe animals we see that each is special in its own right.I mean Cows produce Cows and Dogs produce Dogs.We may have differant types of Cows and Dogs but they are still Cows and Dogs.So a Frog turning into a Prince can by no means happen if you know what i mean.I want to cover this further becuase i have a vedio from (Answers in Genesis)that covers this in great detail.

JPB
04-06-2005, 09:19 PM
No matter what science says, believers can just say one god or another made it that way. Pointless discussion and it grows tiresome. Why start this?

BlindPlayer
04-06-2005, 10:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> No matter what science says, believers can just say one god or another made it that way. Pointless discussion and it grows tiresome. Why start this? <hr /></blockquote>

JPB - I mean no disrepect, but if this subject grows tiresome for you then you are on the wrong thread. Why start this? because it makes people think.

The only way an organism can survive is to have these sytems in place from the beginning and that is spelled c-r-e-a-t-i-o-n.

What major organ in the body could you live without? The lungs? Heart? Nervous System? Immune System? Involuntary System? Circulatory System? Digestive System? The list goes one. A host of vital system must be funtioning at the same time for life to sustain.

God Created. The myth of evolution has kept millions away from God and salvation in Jesus Christ our Messiah. That's why I bring it up.

Evolution by definition has never ever graduated from a hypothesis to a theory. Men have ignored the definitions of these terms to satisfy their passion to caste God out of the Universe in their hearts. Man has this passion for being his own god and won't make room for the life giving Christ.

That's why I bring it up so that pool players, like me, can understand that we can get to heaven the same way golfers do.

"What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and loose his own soul"....Jesus

BlindPlayer
04-06-2005, 10:10 PM
Oops! Spell-check failed to apply the changes. Sorry.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-07-2005, 05:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote GreenLion:</font><hr> ...Cows produce Cows and Dogs produce Dogs.... <hr /></blockquote>

I like dogs.

The evolution will not be televised.

highsea
04-07-2005, 06:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>What major organ in the body could you live without? The lungs? Heart? Nervous System? Immune System? Involuntary System? Circulatory System? Digestive System? The list goes one. A host of vital system must be funtioning at the same time for life to sustain.<hr /></blockquote>This is a logical fallacy known as the Anthropic Principle. You offer nothing but our existence as the proof of your assertion. This is not an argument.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>Evolution by definition has never ever graduated from a hypothesis to a theory. <hr /></blockquote>The term "theory", when used in the scientific context, does not imply uncertainty. You might just as well deny gravity or the heliocentric solar system because they do not agree with your worldview.

There are certain things that are outside the realm of scientific investigation, such as what came before the big bang, or was it the creation of a deity. Science doesn't really attempt to explore these questions, because they aren't testable.

It's not really about labeling something as the "The Truth", or convincing anyone of it. The objective of scientific inquiry is to prove or disprove existing theory through experiment. In all areas of science, theories make predictions. If they don't, they're not really any good as theories. A theory must be falsifiable. By designing experiments to test the predictions, we either support the theories, or force ourselves to modify or discard them. If you wish to convince yourself of something, you can study the experiments and come to your own conclusion. I'm more interested in convincing myself than convincing someone else. Curiosity and scepticism are traits that vary from person to person.

Some theories, like General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, are so good making accurate predictions that they are considered extremely reliable. From these theories, we derive laws and principles, like the "Law of Gravity" or the Pauli "Exclusionary Principle". Without these theories, we wouldn't be able to do things like build atomic reactors, or fly spaceships on long trips. Euclidian Geometry and classsical physics are very good at predicting things like planetary motions, but there is slight error between the predictions and experiment. GR removes that error, so it supercedes Newtonian Physics as our best (most accurate) theory of gravity. In the same manner, QM superceded NP in describing sub-atomic reactions, and the Copernican Solar System superceded Ptolemaic one.

In the biological sciences, Evolution holds such a position. Evolution is simply the best scientific explanation that we have of the life process on Earth. As such, it doesn't attempt to address the question of a creator- that's the job of religion.

Humans have a natural desire or instinct to understand the universe around us. Physics has a "holy grail", The theory of everything, the "Grand Unified Theory". For some people, Religion serves the purpose of a theory of everything, and that person is happy because he has a theory of the universe that he can accept.

But most forms of "creation science" are static- the theory is invented, and the facts are either made to fit, or are discarded. This means that Science has no place for it, since there's nothing to test except those things that support the theory- it's not permitted to discard the theory if it disagrees with experiment.

There are many forms of creationism besides the Christian version. There is the Vedic version, the Islamic version, American Indian creationism (hundreds of versions), the list goes on. Every culture has one form or another. Here's one of my favorites, from the Quiche Maya (spoken creationism):
[ QUOTE ]
At first there was only sky above and water below. The gods Sovereign Plumed Serpent and Heart of Sky spoke together, joined their thoughts, and conceived of creation. Simply by their word, they brought it forth. First they created and formed earth and vegetation; then they created animals and gave them homes. They told the animals to speak and gave them different cries, but the animals didn't speak like people. So the animals were appointed to serve by their flesh being eaten. The gods tried making a human body out of earth and mud, but it could not turn its head, and it crumbled in water, so they gave up on it. Next they created manikins out of carved wood. These people talked like men, and they multiplied and populated the earth, but there was nothing in their hearts, and they did not remember their creators. Heart of Sky devised a flood for them. A rain of resin came from the sky; animals attacked them, and even their cooking pots and grinding stones turned on them. The manikins were destroyed, but some of their descendants are today's monkeys. Finally, just before the first dawn, before the sun and stars appeared, four men were made from corn meal and water. These people saw everywhere and understood everything, and they gave thanks for being made. The creators thought the people would become like gods themselves, so they clouded the men's vision to its present state. Four women were made next, and these eight people became the parents of the Quiche people.

(Tedlock, Dennis (transl.), 1985. Popol Vuh. Simon &amp; Schuster, New York)<hr /></blockquote>

JPB
04-07-2005, 07:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>


God Created. The myth of evolution has kept millions away from God and salvation in Jesus Christ our Messiah. That's why I bring it up.


That's why I bring it up so that pool players, like me, can understand that we can get to heaven the same way golfers do.

<hr /></blockquote>


Exactly. Thank you for saying it explicitly. You don't want to provoke thought. You don't want to discuss science. You want to get people to accept Christ as their savior because that is your belief. That is what I object to. Creationism is not science and should not be mixed with science. It is a religious belief. You only want to discuss the science to the extent it promotes your belief. People fall for it because the religion is disguised. I am not going to challenge your beliefs because that is impossible. You have every right to have them. And you have every right to try to convert people. But you don't have the right to twist science or hide your proselytizing. And as I said, I don't discuss the merits when this kind of thing is discussed. Because the discussion is not meant to discuss real facts or evidence about evolution, it is meant to promote a religious belief that can never be proven or disproven. It is at best a waste of time. At worst people can be persuaded by an argument that is seemingly logical but is not.

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 09:18 AM
You are right on the money my friend, I agree with you totally. I will never understand why, people who see themselves as obliged to spread the word, can't get it, religeon is a private matter, to each his own, this is why so many wars are fought, over disagreement about whose God is THE God, and Whose dogma is The dogma, why can't they just believe what they want and leave the rest of us alone??????

Gayle in Md, I don't like hidden agendas....

Wally_in_Cincy
04-07-2005, 09:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> ...Whose dogma is The dogma, ...<hr /></blockquote>

my karma ran over my dogma

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 10:20 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Good one...
Gayle in Md.

BlindPlayer
04-07-2005, 10:24 AM
My point about Theory vs. Hypothesis is this:

After much testing of a hypothesis model - there is such a high degree of confirmation through testing that a majority of colleagues come on board and there becomes a general consensus that the model can now graduate to a Theory.

The problem I see with evolutionists is that they historically are so quick to promote their view as a theory that they are willing to stretch the meaning of theory to validate their view.

It's like getting an Honorary Degree for someone that has had term of life experience in a field and made an impact thereof then some institution grants the degree.

The Evolution Hypothesis has NEVER lived up to the definition of a theory. What I find though is the definition changing to fit an agenda.

THE FOSSIL RECORD: Anyone who has seriously studied the fossil record will know that evolutionists have so many questions that many have issued strong statements in journals expressing those questions. Many of the most well known have dropped out over the overwhelming avalanche of questions that have no future of any reasonable answers.

One factor has been the advent of the computer. Statistical analysis evaluated by modern computer systems have done probability studies and found the results of the data (imputed by the advocates) coming up with probability number with so many zeros to the enth power as to be essentially zero. This has startled evolutionists (this is going back several years now) to the point that for the first time in their career are taking a more realistic view of the facts. Some very prominent figures have started to investigate this area of faith and some have come to God and faith in Christ and are now in the camp of creationists.

If only one could find a copy of "Evolution, the Fossils Say No!" by Dr. Dwayne Gish - it is a powerful argument – few can stand up to its clear logic and evidence). There should be Billions of transitional forms if evolution were true - not just a handful of doubtful finds (and I might add some proven fakes).

There are two models for the fossil record...1) fossil remains that show transitional forms throughout recorded history in rock and sediment...or 2) the abrupt appearance of species with no transitional forms (and there should be Trillions) but where are they?

The fossil record proves that there are no transitional forms that one would expect to find if evolution were true. What we find are distinct species in the fossil record. The evidence is overwhelming.

The bottom line in all this: Evolution and Creation both take FAITH. I just find it interesting that dozens of the worlds most renowned and accredited evolutionists have switched sides and are on clear record in their evolutionary journals to have done so.

Why do I generate posts like this? It makes all sides think and I love to read your responses – it’s informative. Who wants to go brain dead at 54?

Respectfully submitted.

JPB
04-07-2005, 10:36 AM
"Evolution and Creation both take FAITH"


Not true and you should know it.

BlindPlayer
04-07-2005, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You are right on the money my friend, I agree with you totally. I will never understand why, people who see themselves as obliged to spread the word, can't get it, religeon is a private matter, to each his own, this is why so many wars are fought, over disagreement about whose God is THE God, and Whose dogma is The dogma, why can't they just believe what they want and leave the rest of us alone??????

Gayle in Md, I don't like hidden agendas.... <hr /></blockquote>

May I add a thought here? Every man has an essence within him/her that defines who they are. It's our 'software' in the core of our 'hardware'. Some call it the soul, some the spirit, some the essence of a man and other's "that's just me".

Regardless of title the essence of a man is not a private matter. Our essence affects those around us. It cannot be hidden. It is a public matter that affects immediate family, friends and the world around us. It's what defines us. To hide it is to untrue to yourself.

In reading threads the essence, or spirit if you will, of each person affects the readers. To make it a private matter (i.e. not respond to a post)would mean that opinions that come from our core would have no voice and then life would be sooooo boring.

"Think Tanks" are a good idea and it stretches us intellectually and spiritually.

BlindPlayer
04-07-2005, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> "Evolution and Creation both take FAITH"


Not true and you should know it. <hr /></blockquote>

If you could find a neutral party that could evaluated the facts of both sides objectively they would doubtless find that since neither side is 100% provable scientifically or biologically that, "Each takes Faith". Would be the logical conclusion.

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 11:17 AM
I think one can touch others in many ways. I also think that you can walk through your life, helping and enhancing the lives of all those around you as you go, creating goodness and a positive influence, and trying to make the world a better place. I just don't think it is necessary to put all that into a religeous context, just like I don't think it matters if there is a God or not. You can be a good person, and do good deeds in your life regardless of what your personal belief about God might be, and since they are so varried, why bring God into the discussions in the first place, except to try to make them think the way that you think.

We're all agnostics, literally, because no one knows if there is a God. To devote your life to goodness and compassion for others is available to each of us without bringing any particular organized religeous philosophy into the discussion, IMO.

I agree with HighSea, mixing science with religeon in order to try to prove a point doesn't make sense to me. Religeon is based on faith, but faith in oneself as just as valuable as faith in a creator, and science, by its very nature, is incompatible with religeon.

Just my humble opinion, for what it's worth,,,,debate is always interesting, I just don't think these things, such as ones essence, soul or spirit, necessarily have to be discussed from the context of ones religeous organization.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-07-2005, 11:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
why can't they just believe what they want and leave the rest of us alone??????
<hr /></blockquote> They can't because their religion tells them not to. The Great Commission cuts across all Christian doctrines/denominations. I am sure other non-Christian religions have something similar in their literature.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 11:42 AM
Really?!! Then they need a lesson in marketing, LOL.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-07-2005, 11:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We're all agnostics, literally, because no one knows if there is a God. <hr /></blockquote> I disagree because, literally, that is not the definition. The definition of an agnostic is "One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God". I simply don't believe this. I would be considered "one who believes it is possible to know whether there is a God." Therefore the all ecompassing statement you make is untrue. As far as my belief is concerned, I really do know there is a God and choose to have a relationship with him on a very regular basis. This is one of the purposes of worship.

Where do morals and such come from, if there is no religion? When did they come about and under what circumstances?

eg8r

highsea
04-07-2005, 11:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr> ...If only one could find a copy of "Evolution, the Fossils Say No!" by Dr. Dwayne Gish - it is a powerful argument – few can stand up to its clear logic and evidence). There should be Billions of transitional forms if evolution were true - not just a handful of doubtful finds (and I might add some proven fakes).

There are two models for the fossil record...1) fossil remains that show transitional forms throughout recorded history in rock and sediment...or 2) the abrupt appearance of species with no transitional forms (and there should be Trillions) but where are they?<hr /></blockquote>Gish has been corrected in his misstatements time and again. He's a poor spokesman, but probably one of the best that the creationists can get. His examples of the ear and jaw bones are so far off base that they have become something of a joke.

In any case, transitional forms have to follow the phlyogenetic tree, e.g,

Reptile-birds
Reptile-mammals
Ape-humans
Legged whales
Legged seacows

As such, we have a quite complete set of intermediates between dinosaurs and birds, but we would not expect to find the same thing between birds and mammals (such as mammalian fossils with feathers, or bird-like fossils with mammalian-style middle ear bones). Similarly, we have a very complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, fossil homonids, land mammal to fossil whale intermediates, and legged Sea Cows (manatees). So any discovery of say, a half mammal-half bird would be inconsistent with common descent.

There are countless examples of transitional forms:

from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
from primitive fish to bony fish
from fishes to first amphibians
transitions among amphibians
from amphibians to first reptiles
transitions among reptiles
from reptiles to first mammals
from reptiles to first birds

Similarly there are many examples of transitional forms among phyla, but I don't really want to make a long list here. And I am only talking about vertabrates. The same rules apply to invertabrates, and there are countless examples of transitional forms to be found among invertabrates as well.

When we study the geological order of fossils, we understand that once a transitional species appears there is no reason why it must become extinct and be replaced. For instance, some organisms have undergone little change in as much as 100 to 200 million years. Some species of sharks and alligators, for example. Then you have the "living fossils", such as the coelacanth, which has been around for approximately 80 million years; the bat, which has not changed much in the past 50 million years; and even the modern tree squirrel, which has not changed in 35 million years.

When we are dealing with the fossil record, there must always be gaps, if for no other reason than for stratigraphic reasons. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. Creationists tend to think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.

The important thing is that an understanding of the subject should be attempted before it is discounted. Gish never did this- he only looked for gaps or morphologies that he didn't understand, and attempted to use these to attack the science. BTW, under critical scrutiny, it doesn't work- his arguments are easily deconstructed.

edit to add: Your second statement regarding spontaneous generation of species is not suggested by evolutionary biology or the fossil record- just thought I would make that clear- there's no evidence for that hypothesis.

Voodoo Daddy
04-07-2005, 12:04 PM
I love the Kinks. Ray Davies was a great frontman and he had a love child with Chrissie Hines from the Pretenders. Ohhhhhhhhh...wrong subject, oops.

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 12:15 PM
Oh, here he is, the post police, LOL. Just kidding. Well, let's see now, you're right of course, I want to make that perfectly clear, Agnostic does mean that you don't think one can know, if there is a God. I'm using the term literally, as in, NOBODY knows, and nobody does. To say you know, does not mean that you literally know. It has never been proven, therefore people should say, they Think there is a God. Or they beleive in God. You are turning your faith, that there is a God, into an absolute. For you, it may feel like an absolute, but you don't know it, because you can't prove it. You may feel that there is a God, or think that there is a God. My feeling is that it doesn't matter. There is something, what it is, I don't know.

I am a spiritual person, who beleives in goodness, and that there is among us, goodness, and evil, and I have seen them both, therefore I know they exist. I have never seen a God. Have you?

My point is that the act of spreading kindness and goodness does not require a connection to any religeous doctrine.

On your last point, may I ask, have you ever seen a mean child? Have you ever seen a loving child? These traits exist long before children can speak or understand.

There is something in me that is good, and when I follow that something, I feel good, and when I do what is not right, I feel bad. That is conscience, which I beleive is something that some people are born with, and some are not.

Gayle in Md.

JPB
04-07-2005, 12:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>

If you could find a neutral party that could evaluated the facts of both sides objectively they would doubtless find that since neither side is 100% provable scientifically or biologically that, "Each takes Faith". Would be the logical conclusion. <hr /></blockquote>


Your side has no facts. Your side is 0% provable scientifically. So you cannot set this up; it is a false comparison. Your side has faith and beliefs derived from some facts, that's all. But you cannot do what you propose, nor should anyone try. Believe to your heart's content, but don't pretend it is based on reason. It isn't. Deciding on logic and evidence your side cannot win. Faith and belief are what the creationist side need to prevail.

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 12:17 PM
Ah ha ha ha, Voodoo, you're a scream...
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Gayle in Md.,

Troy
04-07-2005, 01:33 PM
I believe what I believe.
I refuse to get into ridiculous discussions/arguments over it.
It's like preaching to the choir.

Troy

BlindPlayer
04-07-2005, 04:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>....why bring God into the discussions in the first place, except to try to make them think the way that you think. <font color="blue"> </font color> I'm not trying to get people to think the way I do - just think and draw their own conclusions. This is not a monologue but a dialogue.

We're all agnostics, literally, because no one knows if there is a God. To devote your life to goodness and compassion for others is available to each of us without bringing any particular organized religeous philosophy into the discussion, IMO. <font color="blue"> </font color> You are so right -we don't need to promote an organized religious philosophy. My positions I take are from 42 years of reading and coming to MY OWN conclusions. Sorry if my statements conveyed that - I re-read them and didn't see where that took place.


Just my humble opinion, for what it's worth,,,,debate is always interesting, I just don't think these things, such as ones essence, soul or spirit, necessarily have to be discussed from the context of ones religeous organization. <font color="blue"> </font color> Again, they were not associated with any organized religeous organization. What you read is me thinking out loud. I NEVER take what I hear and eat it hook line and sinker. I take notes go home and read read read everything I can and come to my own conclusions. I don't even belong to an organized religion.

I did rent a theater once downtown Modesto in CA for the homeless. The location was perfect because the back door opened up to the Greyhound Bus depot so going 2 hours early was perfect for inviting them in. Not so much to "preach" to them but we gave each a $5 gift certificate for food and then connected them with services alread in place in the commmunity to meet their other needs. The team would pray with them over their needs and gave them great comfort. It was a very rewarding experience. Many people (donors and workers) came together to make this happen.

Gayle in MD
04-07-2005, 11:19 PM
Sorry if I misunderstood. I think that maybe much of what I see happening in our government these days has somewhat shortened my patience fuse for any discussions which even hint at organized religeon. I don't have a probelm with everyone thinking what they wish, but when there is a war being fought, to some degree, over religeous clashes, and government, and our constitution being affected by one particular religeous doctrine or group, I guess, as I said, I get a bit weary of the whole scene.

The Bus station experience must have been great. Kudos!

To each his own...

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-08-2005, 02:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm using the term literally, as in, NOBODY knows, and nobody does. <hr /></blockquote> While it is not worth mentioning, you are using the term incorrectly. It states an agnostic is someone who "believes" that it is impossible. The believes portion is the very important part you are bypassing.

[ QUOTE ]
For you, it may feel like an absolute, but you don't know it, because you can't prove it. <hr /></blockquote> This is a debate that cannot end. Whether I can prove this does not mean I don't know it, it just means I will have a much harder time convincing you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a God. Have you?
<hr /></blockquote> Nope, I have just seen the fruits of his actions. This doesn't mean he was never there.

[ QUOTE ]
On your last point, may I ask, have you ever seen a mean child? Have you ever seen a loving child? These traits exist long before children can speak or understand.
<hr /></blockquote> I have seen both many different times, and I would venture to guess a very large percentage of their actions had to do with their upbringing. Being able to speak has little to do with this, and it is quite amazing how much little kids pick up. I am confident they begin "understanding" long before we give them credit.

[ QUOTE ]
There is something in me that is good, and when I follow that something, I feel good, and when I do what is not right, I feel bad. That is conscience, which I beleive is something that some people are born with, and some are not. <hr /></blockquote> I personally think everyone is born with a conscience, some live by it others don't. Doing good deeds and being a good person is all well and good. But those good deeds are deemed good based on some moral standard, and I was interested to see if you knew how that moral standard came about. My bet is that morals and such are patterned after religion.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-08-2005, 08:53 AM
He Ed, all that is really important is that your faith brings you comfort, and you feel that it makes you a better person. I have all the respecdt in the world for anything that is a plus in amyone's life.

Be Love,
Love,
Gayle

JPB
04-08-2005, 09:26 AM
"and I was interested to see if you knew how that moral standard came about. My bet is that morals and such are patterned after religion."


It is quite possible to construct a moral system with traditional values etc.... that does not depend on the belief in a supernatural being. It has been done. You will also find many atheists who lead very moral lives and many believers who lead extremely immoral ones. So yes, many people have derived moral systems from a belief in a supernatural being, but other people have devised moral philosophies that do not rely on the existence of such a being. On the more mundane level, non believers often live lives based on moral values. Some believers don't. It just depends.

GreenLion
04-08-2005, 10:10 AM
Ill had something here.Um if a Person says there a christian but does not strive to follow Gods ways or moral values set forth by God then there lying becuase they are not a christian.They may believe in Jesus,God and the holy sprit but to be a christian it takes more then Faith alone.I believe the bible says that" Faith without works is dead"and it also goes the other way"Works without Faith is Dead"We are saved by the free gift of the cross and not by works.Thats not to say that we can believe In Jesus and live immorally by Gods standerds.Part of believing in Jesus is Loving him.When you love someone you do your best to make them happy.Faith and works must be there.If you have Faith but dont strive to do what God considers a good work then your saying I believe in God but i dont really love him
If you Have good works but dont really believe in Jesus/God then your stealing from God.Lets say You teach me how to play Pool really really well and then I go out and say to others look what"I can do"and I dont even bring you up.If I did that I would be stealing the credit YOU rightly deseserve.Now If i live according to Gods standards on how to treat other people but dont acknowledge God as the one who set up the moral standards then im stealing God credit.This is pretty much the point i wanted to make here.You cant be a christian and live immorally becuase then you dont love God and if I were God I would not want anyone living with me for eternity that did not love me.

JPB
04-08-2005, 10:23 AM
"I were God I would not want anyone living with me for eternity that did not love me."


I have never understood this. Since you believe in God why do you presume to define Him, limit Him, or ascribe human emotions to Him? Don't you cheapen God and bring God down to your level by doing this?

GreenLion
04-08-2005, 07:26 PM
Im not trying to cheapen God at all,Im just trying to make a point.Before i got saved thats what my Dad said too me.Well God created us in his own image.I believe that God has emotions just like we do.I believe God has all the emotions that we have.I mean Jesus who was God in Human form cried over Lazererus's death before he rose him from the dead.Jesus was very angry with the pharisees for expecting others to live by Gods laws,while they made themselves look perfect and better then everyone else since they were hiding their own fualts or sins.Jesus showed incredible compassion on people.Jesus Got tired like we do.Jesus had all the emotions that we do.When i say him and assign human emotion to him it makes me think of Jesus who like i said above was God in Human form.Thats the best reason i can come up with for your question.Its a good question and it made me think for a few minutes.I have to be careful in what i say so if im wrong in asigning human emotions to God then plz forgive me for doing so.

silverbullet
04-09-2005, 12:19 PM
It amazes me that people fight over this. 'Truth is truth, whether you believe it or not'. The problem is that 'we know in part,understand in part', science has discovered some fabulous things, but it is far from perfect.I very much believe in God and Christ, of course, but I have also seen science give 'credibility' to events in the Bible, for those who wanted documentation. Science has done great things to 'prove' the Bible, along with historical evidence which includes archaeology. I just love watching the History channel when they are talking about the things related to cultures mentioned in the Bible, and interviewing archaeologists.

Theologically-I would be considered a 'conservative Christian', but there are many Christians who like me, question the creational account as being a literal six days (as we know days) event, who are in the evangelical, not liberal end of Christianity. But, in questioning it being literal does not mean my ideas are right, they are questions, ideas,only. But, if one believes that God created all things, then He also created, space, time, and scientific laws; another way of saying that He created science. If one has that premise, held by many, then why would God contradict Himself? He would not, leaving me logically to believe that there are no contradictions, but 'apparent contradictions',resulting from our limited knowlege of 'all' things.

I do not fret about whether the earth was created in 6 days, or how long a 'day' was, I believe 'God created'. Also, if scientists are right that the sun has increased in mass, then that could make our current year longer than it once was,since the earth would have revolved around it quicker, perhaps solving the puzzle about those guys in the Bible reported to live 900 years. Calenders used by various civilazions over time have also varied. Also, if you go by the creation account,read this: "And God made two great lights; the greater light (sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night, and He made the stars also" Next two verses explain that one, then, "And the evening and the morning were the forth day". Now, 'I know in part, understand in part', but my puny brain understands that our sun and moon give us time in days, months and years, which even if taken literally, leaves the previous 3 days in the Biblical account wide open, in pertaining to time. Also 'in the beginning' the earth was 'without form and void', so it was not livable, and could have been a chaotic mass of just about anything. On a world which has been covered by flood, tearing up and moving mountain ranges, and has been hit by comets, asteroids, etc, even many scientists admit that this makes 'dating' of its age difficult. Of course, it is obvious that the big dinasaurs had to have been extinct before the flood, since they would not have fit in the ark. LOL

Here is another puzzle about 'day'. Christ predicted He would be dead and arise on the third day, yet historically, died about 3pm on Friday (the sabbath was from 6pm friday til 6pm saturday), then rose up sunday morning. For years this did did not make sense to me, sounded like a day and a half, not three. But, apparently to the Jews,being dead for 12 hours made it one day, so however they calculated this with the 12 hours being a day, we had Christ arising on the 3rd day, as prophesied. So, here we have 12 hours qualifying as a day, with still in my mind a bit of unclarity about how the Jews used this calculation. Then the apostle Peter said,'a day to the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day'. So, how can a person be so dogmatic about what constitutes a 'day'? This is beyond me.

But if one wishes to take the book of Revelation (the end of things as we know them) essentially Literally,but with an understanding that the Apostle John ( who most think had the vision),described what 'things looked like', but without scientific knowlege, and therefore a limited ability to understand what he saw; then before Christ's return, we have what is probably a huge comet going into the ocean, cosmic events which crush mountains, sink islands, a huge event such as a huge quake with volcanic activity, which could be set into motion by asteroid or comets or even a severe axis shift, which seems to 'split' open the earth. Then we have these huge nasty 'beings' emerging, which the writter of Revelation described what they looked like, but could be genetically engineered 'nano' beings, since their 'torturing' activity is terminated after five months, like a 'computer program' that self-terminates. We have the sun going Nova and supernova at the end (part from Matthew chapter 24 and 2 peter chapter 3). If God created science, this leaves open the possibility that many events in Revelation will be scientific and cosmic events. We have two beings in the middle who are quite evil,serve 'Satan',with hold necessary food etc, martyr those who will not 'worship them', 'take the mark of the beast'(whatever that is)-a nano chip given as a shot, perhaps? One beast heals the other, causing 'worship'. Well, it is well known that there is already a 'nano' cure for cancer, but the scientists are afraid of using these things, that they might 'get out of hand', but the military already has and is developing similar technology for biological warfare (yes by impeccable sources, I know this). So, while most christians have been looking for this one world religion, fearing 'ecumentalism', perhaps the 'false religion is science being used promising peace, but for diabolical purposes'. Seeing scientific possibilites does not diminish the presence of evil beings serving Christ's enemy called Satan or Lucifer, for Hitler also used science to torture many and he was certainly quite evil. There are so many theories about that 'end time' stuff among evangelicals, it is not even funny. The much acclaimed 'pre tribulation rapture event', now popular, is almost devoid of biblical evidence; a nice idea, but perhaps wishful thinking. For, who would want to endure the horrible events to follow where the earth will be torn asunder and 'christians and jews martyred', etc.?

But, the way I see it is this. In logic, you have to have a premise. So, I propose the premise that the Bible is true, but that we do not understand it perfectly. Also, the audience it was written to, especially the Old Testament, were fairly 'primitive', nomadic, had no technology, could not even cure ham, nor make ice to keeps things cold,did not know what a virus, bacteria or a vitamin was even, so it was written in a form that they could understand, not from a scientific perspective. From that premise,and 'truth being truth', then if we had perfect scientific knowlege, they would line up perfectly, and no debate would be needed.

But 'we see in part, know in part', which refers to not only things of God, the Bible, but also scientific disciplines. I believe the Bible, but also in science(which He created along with our minds and the ability to discover new things), and do believe that if the world stays on its axis long enough for science to learn , and that knowlege is not use by man to destroy man, then all things will come together, and all things will be clear. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Laura

GreenLion
04-09-2005, 10:08 PM
I agree that science has and is continuing to support the bible as being true.Thats actually what started this discussion in a way.Um 1 of the things that comes to my mind is God Law about not marrying within the family like a brother marrying a sister.We now have knowledge of our Genes and from what people have found out the...well it better if i use another example:Say a Brother has the Genes which make him easily angered and the sister had that same Gene.Now if the 2 marry then the child Gets a double Dose of the bad gene.To keep our Genes from getting out control per say God said dont marry within the family or something like that.Im not sure where thats mentioned in the bible,but ive heard that it does.Im sorry if i sound like im fighting.I will not post on this issue much cuase i feel it bothers people,but since there is a thread on this i felt like there was a few things i wanted to say.I will start 1 thread on Evolution vs Creation in a few days or so but that will probably be 1 of the few threads start on this topic or any Religous based topic.I feel that that what im about to post will let people see what the experts say regarding Creation and Evolution.Im always open to questions people have about my Faith so feel free to private message me if you want to discuss why i believe that way i do.

BlindPlayer
04-09-2005, 10:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr> It amazes me that people fight over this. 'Truth is truth, whether you believe it or not'. The problem is that 'we know in part,understand in part', science has discovered some fabulous things, but it is far from perfect. <font color="blue"> YOU ARE SO RIGHT! </font color> I very much believe in God and Christ, of course, but I have also seen science give 'credibility' to events in the Bible, for those who wanted documentation. Science has done great things to 'prove' the Bible, along with historical evidence which includes archaeology. I just love watching the History channel when they are talking about the things related to cultures mentioned in the Bible, and interviewing archaeologists. <font color="blue">AS MORE RESEARCH AND ARCHEOLOGICAL DIGS ARE DONE THERE ARE MORE AND MORE THINGS SUBSTANTIATING THE BIBLICAL ACCURACY OF HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS AND FORGOT CITIES </font color>

Theologically-I would be considered a 'conservative Christian', but there are many Christians who like me, question the creational account as being a literal six days (as we know days) event, <font color="blue">YOU MIGHT FIND THIS INTERESTING - THE HEBREW WORD FOR 'DAY' IN THE CREATION ACCOUNT IS 'YOM'. 'YOM' CAN MEAN A LITERAL DAY, A DAY IN THE FUTURE (like the 'DAY OF THE LORD') OR A PERIOD OF TIME. HOWEVER, WHENEVER THE WORD 'YOM' IS USED WITH A NUMERICAL ADJECTIVE IT always MEANS A 24 PERIOD. e.g. "THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WAS THE FIRST YOM". THERE IS NOT ONE HEBREW SCHOLAR THAT WILL DISSAGREE WITH THIS RULE OF THEIR OWN LANGUAGE. IN ADDITION: GOD PLACED IN THE 'ORDER' OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT SOME SAFEGUARDS TO THE TRUTH...e.g. HE CREATED THE SUN, MOON, STARS THE DAY after HE CREATED PLANT LIFE. HE COULD MIRACULOUSLY 'SUSTAIN' PLANT LIFE FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS UNTIL HE CREATED THE SUN BUT WHY? HE ALSO CREATED THE SUN ON THE 4TH 'YOM' SO THAT MAN WOULD KNOW THAT THE SUN IS NOT A god - IT WAS CREATED AND NOT TO BE WORSHIPED (as was done in Ezekiel chapters 8-11). NOW THAT THERE IS VEGETATION AND SUNLIGHT FOR GROWTH HE NOW PROVIDES FOOD FOR ANIMALS, BIRDS, SEA LIFE CREATED ON THE 5TH 'YOM'...and...MAN CREATED ON THE 6TH 'YOM'. </font color>
once was,since the earth would have revolved around it quicker, perhaps solving the puzzle about those guys in the Bible reported to live 900 years. <font color="blue">THE MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED ANSWER FOR LONGER LIFE SPANS WAS THE EXISTENCE OF THE WATER CANOPY THAT WAS SUSPENDED OVER THE EARTH (this is the water canopy that collapsed during the 40 Yoms of Noah's flood). THIS WATER CANOPY BLOCKED OUT MOST OF THE HARMFUL RAYS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SHORTENING LIFE. </font color> "And God made two great lights; the greater light (sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night, and He made the stars also" Next two verses explain that one, then, "And the evening and the morning were the forth day". Now, 'I know in part, understand in part', but my puny brain understands that our sun and moon give us time in days, months and years, which even if taken literally, leaves the previous 3 days in the Biblical account wide open, in pertaining to time. <font color="blue"> PERSONALLY I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS GOD BEING CONSISTENT - ALL THE DAYS WERE "THE EVENING AND THE MORNING" - HE MUST HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR WHAT CONSTITUTED SUNDOWN AND SUNSET BEFORE THE SUN WAS CREATED - THE USE OF THE NUMBERICAL ADJECTIVE WITH 'YOM' REMAINS CONSISTENT FOR EACH DAY </font color> Of course, it is obvious that the big dinasaurs had to have been extinct before the flood, since they would not have fit in the ark. <font color="blue"> BABY DINOSAURS COULD FIT IN - SEE SIGHTINGS OF THESE ANIMIALS 'LEVIATHAN' AND 'BEHOMOTH' IN JOB chapter 40 (some think Behomoth was an elephant but look closely at the description of his tail 'IT WAS LIKE A CEDAR TREE' - ELEPHANTS TAILS ARE TINY ITTY BITTY THINGS </font color>

Here is another puzzle about 'day'. Christ predicted He would be dead and arise on the third day, yet historically, died about 3pm on Friday (the sabbath was from 6pm friday til 6pm saturday), then rose up sunday morning. <font color="blue"> THE MOST RECENT RESEARCH INDICATES THAT CHRIST DIED ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON NOT FRIDAY but, and I mean but, MOST MINISTERS WILL NOT TEACH THIS BECAUSE THE PARADYM SHIFT WOULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR CHRISTIANS TO ACCEPT IN LIGHT OF THE WIDELY ACCEPTED TRADITIONAL VIEW. </font color>

highsea
04-10-2005, 01:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr><font color="blue">THE MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED ANSWER FOR LONGER LIFE SPANS WAS THE EXISTENCE OF THE WATER CANOPY THAT WAS SUSPENDED OVER THE EARTH (this is the water canopy that collapsed during the 40 Yoms of Noah's flood). THIS WATER CANOPY BLOCKED OUT MOST OF THE HARMFUL RAYS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SHORTENING LIFE.</font color><hr /></blockquote> Lol, widely accepted by whom? Never mind, I know the answer to that.

Let's consider this vapor canopy for a second. The flood is supposed to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). Assuming we are going to include Mt. Everest, we would need a depth of water of about 9km above sea level.

The vapor canopy hypothesis states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor, and condensed and fell as rain. We have no explanation for where all that water went, but let's just ignore that.

Let's consider how all this water in the atmosphere would affect the atmospheric pressure and the temperature of the earth. The earth's atmospheric pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic. This means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a column above that point. At sea level, air pressure is about 14.7 pounds/sq inch (because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs ~14.7 pounds).

This "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, since it's a body of gas gravitationally held to the earth. (In fact, it would have to be almost all of the pre-flood atmosphere). There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid when condensed, and therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. So the pressure at the earth's surface would be equal to one atmosphere plus the weight of a 9km column of water. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure at sea level would be 900 atmospheres, or 13,270 psi.

To prevent this atmosphere from condensing, the temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. We know that water boils at 212 deg. F at one atmosphere, and so in a pre-flood world where it didn't rain, the temperature would have to be something around 191,300 deg. F. (Ref. Boyle's Law, Natural Gas Equations, P1V1/T1=P2V2/T2).

It all comes down to this; the vapor canopy hypothesis doesn't hold water, and all efforts by creationists to create a viable model have failed.

As far as extending lifespans, filtering out radiation from space has no appreciable effect. Life spans are determined mostly by programmed cell death, not by mutations. People who live at high altitudes (and have significantly less atmospheric shielding from cosmic radiation), do not live noticeably shorter lives than anyone else.

Now I don't care if you choose to suspend the laws of physics to support your personal beliefs. It makes no difference to me. However, I do object to creationism being taught in our schools disguised as science. We have enough problems with our education system as it is, without introducing patently absurd theories into the curriculum.

BlindPlayer
04-10-2005, 10:57 PM
In response to HighSea:

LIFE SPANS AND THE VAPOR CANOPY:

Obviously we read different journals. My information about the evidence of potential longer life spans due to the vapor canopy was not derived from Christian resources but by agnostic scientists which makes it more relevant to me.

WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER GO?:

Scientists have calculated the amount of water in the earth's atmosphere, on the earth, in the earth, in the lakes, ponds, rivers and seas and came up with a not so surprising answer, "There is not enough water to cover all the mountain peaks of the world to validate a 'global flood'...hence local flood hypothesis gained more attention.

But the assumption that the mountains were as high and the huge storage basins of the major seas were the same at the time of the flood is flawed (according to the Biblical account).

As recording in Psalm 104:6-9. <font color="blue"> Psalm 104:6 - "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains" </font color>This is the part recorded in Genesis that tells us that the water rose 15 cubits above the highest peak. Why 15 cubits? Because the heigth of Noah's Ark was 30 cubits (Genesis 6) which means it could sit in the water at almost (but not quite) half of it's heigth and still clear the highest peak. <font color="blue">Psalm 104:7,8 - "At Your rebuke they (the waters) fled, at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them." </font color>This is the Biblical evidence that the mountains were not as high (did not have the displacement they do today) and the water basins of the world were not as vast as there are today. You ask where the water went? Consider a flood on a global scale where all the mountains were covered. If this was your puzzle to solve (and you had the power to make it happen) how would you handle the challenge? God's way was to push up the mountains and push down the valleys creating huge water basins for storage. He then let gravity do the work. That's whey God could then say in <font color="blue">Psalm 104:9 - "You set a boundary that they may not pass over, so that they will not return to cover the earth." </font color> After the flood God made a promise not to flood the earth again and by restructoring the topography of the globe He has insured that it CANNOT happen again because.....there is now NOT ENOUGH WATER to cover the globe with its present topographical profile. He then gave the sign of that He would not repeat this again. And Christians know what that sign was. Supporting verse would be <font color="blue">Psalm 33:7 - He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses." </font color> Because we focus so much on the 40 days of rain in the flood account many miss one of the most important events going on at the same time... <font color="blue"> Genesis 7:11,12 - In the sixth hundreth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floogates of the sky were opened." </font color> What does it mean, "the fountains of the great deep burst open"? We surmise that there was great underwater earthquakes, under water pseunomis (sp?), and possible under water vulcanic activity when God pushed down the valleys creating the great storage basins to handle the water storage. Some believe that the great continental shifts took place during the year or so the earth was under water (but impossible to prove).

It's late and I'm brain dead but this is also interesting:

One side believes the Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years.

The other side believes it was formed when the sediment was water soaked and the water's receeded.

The layers of sediment in this canyon are parallel over a vaste area. Actual laboratory experiments have shown (using huge tanks)that the only way these layers could be so uniform and level is the effect underwater tidal waves lay down 'sheets' of sediment. When another tidal wave comes it lays down another layer. This is repeated again and again until the depth of sediment layers we now see was reached. The Grand Canyon may well have been carved when the sediment was water soaked and the waters of Noah's flood receeded.

How many of use were at the beach building castles and the like in the sand. It took us so long that the tide came in and the first wave washed over then receeded just to carve little canyons in the sand? Remember?

highsea
04-11-2005, 01:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>Obviously we read different journals. My information about the evidence of potential longer life spans due to the vapor canopy was not derived from Christian resources but by agnostic scientists which makes it more relevant to me.<hr /></blockquote>Obviously. It's irrelevant where you read this, there is no scientific evidence to support it. If you would like to cite your references, or provide some supporting arguments, I will be happy to debate the point.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER GO?:

Scientists have calculated the amount of water in the earth's atmosphere, on the earth, in the earth, in the lakes, ponds, rivers and seas and came up with a not so surprising answer, "There is not enough water to cover all the mountain peaks of the world to validate a 'global flood'...hence local flood hypothesis gained more attention.

But the assumption that the mountains were as high and the huge storage basins of the major seas were the same at the time of the flood is flawed (according to the Biblical account).

&lt;snip Biblical references&gt; <hr /></blockquote>As I already said, and you confirm, there is no scientific model that supports a vapor canopy. Even if we assume the earth was as smooth as a bowling ball with a perfect albedo, a vapor canopy with enough water to flood only 12 inches deep would have raised the temperature to over the boiling point. The pressure would have raised the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to toxic levels.

You are forced to make radical changes in the pre-flood geography, and the method you choose to rationalize this (Biblical interpretations) is meaningless in a scientific context. You simply discard those branches of science that refute your hypothesis, i.e thermodynamics, geology, oceanography, etc. This is not a rigorous argument, and it doesn't square with any of the evidence we see today.

You believe that God raised the mountains and deepened the oceans so that the water had somewhere to go. The catastrophic formation of mountains and subsequent return of the sea into its basin would have released tremendous amounts of heat and mechanical energy, enough to boil the oceans and metamorphose the minerals in the mountains. No trace of such a catastrophe exists.
Formation of mountains during the Flood does not explain why different mountains are different ages. The Appalachians are much older than the Rockies, for example, as one can immediately see just from how the two ranges are differently eroded.

We have a perfectly reasonable explanation for mountain building. Plate tectonics. It accounts for the relatively gradual processes we see working (and still building mountains) today. All the major mountain ranges have been studied in detail, the plate movements that caused them have been mapped, and their histories have been worked out for millions of years in the past. The problem of mountain formation has been solved, and a flood had no part in the solution.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>...The Grand Canyon may well have been carved when the sediment was water soaked and the waters of Noah's flood receeded.<hr /></blockquote>Okay, let's explore the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was caused by receding flood waters.

1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:

a. a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
b. a braided river system, not a single, well-developed channel.
c. coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
d. streamlined relict islands.

The Grand Canyon exhibits none of these features.

2.The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved.

A single flood cannot do both.

3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies.

There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.

4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.

The canyon walls show no slumping.

5. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon.

A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.

6. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons.

Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?

There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded through natural geological processes. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments.

Orthodox theory is that the Colorado carved it's path through headward erosion- this is a well known process in which a river erodes headward from its original course, and cuts through the high ground controlling a second river's flow. The second river's water is then diverted into the first river, and the lower course of the second river dries up. This explains the unconventional (laterally from the Kaibab Uplift) flow that we see in the Colorado.

This is a scientifically consistent explanation that is supported by the evidence. It requires no supernatural intervention, and is in line with all we know about geology, erosion, sedimentation, hydrology, radiometric dating, etc.

There is no way to support creationist claims with scientifically consistent evidence. Humans can be deceptive, but the rocks don't lie. Nature is often complex, but never dishonest. The geologic record shows what actually happened, and there's no way around that.
------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES:

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 127-128.

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 124-125,210-211.

Austin, Steve, 1995. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: Inst. for Creation Research.

Woolf, Jon, 1999. Young-earth creationism and the geology of the Grand Canyon.

McPhee, John, 1998. Annals of the Former World. New York: Farrar Straus &amp; Giroux.

Usenet: talk.origins
------------------------------------------------------------

eg8r
04-11-2005, 04:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It is quite possible to construct a moral system with traditional values etc.... that does not depend on the belief in a supernatural being. It has been done. You will also find many atheists who lead very moral lives and many believers who lead extremely immoral ones. <hr /></blockquote> You are missing the point. The very moral lives you are speaking on based on your views of morality, or societies views of morality. These were defined long before these athiests decided that is how they would live their lives.

The last sentence I quoted of yours has nothing to do with the discussion. No one is stating whether religious people are more moral or not, so no reason to bring up the argument.

[ QUOTE ]
On the more mundane level, non believers often live lives based on moral values. Some believers don't. It just depends.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, this is not believers versus unbelievers.

eg8r

eg8r
04-11-2005, 04:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I have never understood this. Since you believe in God why do you presume to define Him, limit Him, or ascribe human emotions to Him? Don't you cheapen God and bring God down to your level by doing this? <hr /></blockquote> Once again, you missed his point, he said if HE was God. Just so it is clear, he, referring to Green Lion, is a human which makes complete sense for him to think in human terms.

eg8r

eg8r
04-11-2005, 05:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider this vapor canopy for a second. The flood is supposed to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). Assuming we are going to include Mt. Everest, we would need a depth of water of about 9km above sea level.
<hr /></blockquote> In the arguments of some Creationists, they believe most mountain ranges "rose" up after the flood and the sudden "emptying" of the waters. This, for them, would help describe the reason there never had to be as much water as evolutionists try to explain was needed.

[ QUOTE ]
The vapor canopy hypothesis states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor, and condensed and fell as rain. We have no explanation for where all that water went, but let's just ignore that.
<hr /></blockquote> There are quite a bit of things in which there is no explanation, including evolution. However, stating, there is no explanation, is not a good argument for proving it did not happen.

[ QUOTE ]
This "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, since it's a body of gas gravitationally held to the earth. (In fact, it would have to be almost all of the pre-flood atmosphere). There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid when condensed, and therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. So the pressure at the earth's surface would be equal to one atmosphere plus the weight of a 9km column of water. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure at sea level would be 900 atmospheres, or 13,270 psi. <hr /></blockquote> Here is the response by talkorigins, I really don't know what the psi is of Earth right now, but they are suggesting only an increase of 15 to 970 psi. These numbers seem miles away from your suggested 13k. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote talkorigins:</font><hr> 1. A vapor canopy with more than twelve inches of precipitable water would raise the temperature of the earth above boiling (Morton 1979). A vapor canopy of only four inches of water would raise the temperature of the earth to 144 degrees F. It is worth noting that several prominent creationists agree with this conclusion, yet their close colleagues continue to teach that there was a vapor canopy (Morton 2000).


2. A vapor canopy capable of producing the global flood would have increased earth's atmospheric pressure from 15 PSI to 970 PSI.


3. Some creationists try to solve the vapor canopy problems by moving the canopy out of the earth's atmosphere and into orbit. A canopy of orbiting ice would have been unstable (it could only exist in a ring much like Saturn's). It would have cooled the climate (probably just slightly) until it somehow collapsed to cause the flood. Then the release of its gravitational potential energy would have converted all the ice into superheated steam, not into a flood.
<hr /></blockquote> Kent Hovind has an explanation of the mountain issue that you brought up. I know you will attack this man for things he says that even other Creationists cringe at, but this point is not one of them, and certainly no one will argue that everything coming out of his mouth is a lie.
Anyways, read what he says and judge those things alone not every other fault the man has ever had. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kent Hovind):</font><hr> This question also assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Today's mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).

All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.
<hr /></blockquote> There are many things that neither side can explain. Evolutionists defend their own by saying, it has not been proven YET, and they will attack a Creationist if his theory has some unproven arguments. At the same time, Creationists are attacking evolutionists because their arugments are not proven. I think the difference here is that evolutionists have put themselves in the tougher position of requiring proof.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as extending lifespans, filtering out radiation from space has no appreciable effect. Life spans are determined mostly by programmed cell death, not by mutations. People who live at high altitudes (and have significantly less atmospheric shielding from cosmic radiation), do not live noticeably shorter lives than anyone else.
<hr /></blockquote> Not sure the argument about altitude matters. The differences in altitude between people today, may not be as drastic as the difference of a time pre-vapor canopy and post-canopy.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I don't care if you choose to suspend the laws of physics to support your personal beliefs. <hr /></blockquote> This is quite an unfair statement because you are stating that only you are correctly using these laws. However, up above in the comment about earth's psi with a vapor canopy, it is seems clear your physics and the smart bunch at talk origins might even be different.

I am surely not going to argue whether or not there was a vapor canopy, but I will at least post what the Creationists believe so as to avoid allowing the evolutionists to reinterpret. To be fair, it is safe to say, in the end we will all find out who was right, but we only get to find out for ourselves. Meaning, the real truth comes out when you die. Did you (meaning your spirit) rot away in the ground, or did you go to heaven or hell.

eg8r

BlindPlayer
04-11-2005, 06:20 AM
highsea - Honestly, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. The material we read is obviously and unavoidably different. What I find though is there is an element of bias in the material on both sides of the issue.

When I originally started this post I was hoping for some intellectual stimulation and it has sparked a renewed passion to read more on material YOU have brought to the forefront.

I want to thank everyone who has participated in this thread. I'm sure it will continue to grow.

I'm still a creationist and always will be because of my undying faith in God.

I'm a flower nut and take gazillions of pictures. I marvel at God's creative activity in nature. Once I get my scuba license I will take another gazillion pictures of all the amazing marine life. I think God had a blast expression His incredible and matchless creative abilities and lucky us....we get to enjoy it's beauty with our eyes, ears, nose and sense of touch.

Thanks God....what a treat we enjoy EVERY day!

eg8r
04-11-2005, 06:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When I originally started this post I was hoping for some intellectual stimulation and it has sparked a renewed passion to read more on material YOU have brought to the forefront. <hr /></blockquote> If you want some material to read through, go to Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org) and True Origins (http://www.trueorigin.org/) . Both sites have a lot of information, and most tends to get more technical than I care. They should both keep you busy for quite a while. Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) is also a good site with a bunch of information.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-11-2005, 07:26 AM
Is it possible that the flood only encompassed the known world of the time, such as the region surrounding the Black Sea?

I read about this theory somewhere not too long ago but can't remember specifics.

eg8r
04-11-2005, 10:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the flood only encompassed the known world of the time, such as the region surrounding the Black Sea?
<hr /></blockquote> There are some Chritians/Creationists that believe this, however to believe this would discredit many other versus in the Bible. The Bible is very explicit in stating the entire world and "all flesh".

eg8r

highsea
04-11-2005, 12:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> In the arguments of some Creationists, they believe most mountain ranges "rose" up after the flood and the sudden "emptying" of the waters. This, for them, would help describe the reason there never had to be as much water as evolutionists try to explain was needed.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think we should mix up evolutionary biologists with geologists or physicists. Evolution has nothing to say about the flood from the viewpoint of mountains raising up. This is a geologicical issue (for which we have no physical evidence).
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>There are quite a bit of things in which there is no explanation, including evolution. However, stating, there is no explanation, is not a good argument for proving it did not happen.<hr /></blockquote>Remember, evolution does not attempt to speak to the origins of life, it is only the science of the process. There are scientific theories about the origin, but they are not part of evolutionary science, though they are consistent with (i.e. they do not contradict) an evolutionary model.

If creationists wish to postulate a flood theory, especially one as recent as a literal interpretation of the Bible suggests, then it is a perfectly valid question to ask where that water went. Science is explanatory- it's task is to explain why or why not things are as they are. If creationists wish to be scientific, they are obligated to offer explanatory arguments for both the why and why nots of their theories. This is a fundamental and critical difference between creationism and science. Creationism is not explanatory, and science is.

I will give you an example of this in evolution theory. We know of transitional species between reptiles and birds, but never one between birds and mammals. Evolution theory has to account for why there are not such organisms in the fossil record, as well as why there are transitional species of the other variety. The phylogenetic tree explains both- the evidence of one, and the lack of evidence of the other.

This is why it is a valid question to ask "Where did all that water go?", and why creationists expend so much energy trying to explain it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Here is the response by talkorigins, I really don't know what the psi is of Earth right now, but they are suggesting only an increase of 15 to 970 psi.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure if that's a typo or they were postulating a different depth of flood than I was. The atmospheric pressure today is 14.7 psi at sea level. This is known as one atmosphere. My numbers were based on a pressure of 900 atmospheres, the equivalent of 9km of water (enough to cover Mt. Everest). 970 psi works out to ~66.6 atmospheres, or just over 2000 feet of water. Obviously this would require a much smoother earth than we have today if it were to cover all the continents.

In any case, it's a rather minor point, as neither condition (900 atmposheres or 900 psi) would support surface life as we know it.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Kent Hovind has an explanation of the mountain issue that you brought up. I know you will attack this man for things he says that even other Creationists cringe at, but this point is not one of them, and certainly no one will argue that everything coming out of his mouth is a lie.

Anyways, read what he says and judge those things alone not every other fault the man has ever had.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kent Hovind):</font><hr> This question also assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Today's mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).

All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>Well, I have already addressed the issue of altering the geology, and the problems inherent in that hypothesis, in my previous post. As we have already seen, there is no model of a vapor canopy that is scientifically viable. Even the 4" flood mentioned in the talk.origins quote would have raised the surface temperatures to unacceptable levels, and there is no evidence of any catastrophic geological upheavals. There are also some serious issues wrt the age of mountains that the catastrophic upheaval theory cannot account for.

The fossil argument Hovind puts forth has some serious problems also- first, the evidence actually supports gradual uplift, not flood deposition. The fossils are not scattered around as if they were deposited by a flood, but are in the same positions they would be if they were living. Fossilized tracks and burrows suggest that the region was once under the sea, which is consistent with Plate Techtonics as the mechanism of mountain building.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>There are many things that neither side can explain. Evolutionists defend their own by saying, it has not been proven YET, and they will attack a Creationist if his theory has some unproven arguments. At the same time, Creationists are attacking evolutionists because their arugments are not proven. I think the difference here is that evolutionists have put themselves in the tougher position of requiring proof.<hr /></blockquote>I would say that scientists are critical of creationism because it actually contradicts the evidence, not because there is lack of evidence. Creationists attack scientists because science discredits their theories with physical evidence.

I agree, it is a tougher position to be in to require proof. This is why science is not easy. It is the fundamental difference between science and creationism.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Not sure the argument about altitude matters. The differences in altitude between people today, may not be as drastic as the difference of a time pre-vapor canopy and post-canopy.<hr /></blockquote>The argument matters, because creationists claim the vapor canopy extended human life by blocking out cosmic radiations. The argument is not speaking to the geological issues, but the biological ones of human longevity. The evidence we have today refutes that, as shown by the comparative lifespans of people living at high altitudes vs. people living at sea level. Remember, the creationists are talking about 900 year lifespans! Even if the differences were much lower, there would still have to be some measurable effect, and there just isn't.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>This is quite an unfair statement because you are stating that only you are correctly using these laws. However, up above in the comment about earth's psi with a vapor canopy, it is seems clear your physics and the smart bunch at talk origins might even be different.<hr /></blockquote>I do not claim exclusive ownership of the laws of physics. They apply equally to all. My problem with the vapor canopy is that it violates these laws. Wrt the pressure question, the math is the same, no matter who does it; the talk.origins example is either:

a. a typo or,
b. a smaller flood
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>I am surely not going to argue whether or not there was a vapor canopy, but I will at least post what the Creationists believe so as to avoid allowing the evolutionists to reinterpret.<hr /></blockquote>That's fine, Ed. Neither side of the argument should have to rely on mis-stating the other. For those who want to argue a vapor canopy, I say "show me the money!" /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Did you (meaning your spirit) rot away in the ground, or did you go to heaven or hell.<hr /></blockquote>I can honestly say I have no idea. A "spirit" is a nebulous concept- very hard to define. It is commonly considered immaterial in the physical sense, so I doubt if it could rot in the ground.

I would like to make one thing clear: I am not attacking creationism; I am attacking creationism as science. Creationism itself is a very interesting topic, and I believe it should be studied, but in the context of sociology/anthropology- i.e, the Humanities, not the Sciences.

I will close with another interesting form of creationism, from the Apache Indians (Emergence, courtesy of talk.origins):
[ QUOTE ]
In the beginning, all people lived in darkness in the lower world. They held a council and decided to send someone above to find whether there was another world. First they sent wind. Water had covered the earth originally, but the wind rolled it back, and land appeared. The people next sent up Crow, but Crow stayed to eat the dead fish that had been exposed and didn't report back. They sent Beaver next, but he stayed to build dams in the streams and didn't report back, either. Next they sent Badger, who reported back that there was dry land up there. The people next sent four men to prepare the world above, which was flat and empty. These four men chose one named Mirage from whom to make things as we know them now. They formed Mirage into the shape of a ball, and of that ball made all things of this earth. Those people went around making hills and mountains, lightning and springs, etc. Then the people of the lower world ascended. First the animal and plant people came out. They moved around the edge of the earth clockwise, and different tribes stopped at different places. The real humans came out after them and likewise migrated to different places. Sun and Moon were originally with the people, but they later went ahead and separated.<hr /></blockquote>

nAz
04-11-2005, 02:20 PM
Dichotomy /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif think i'll just follow Julian Huxley's new religion.

I think i could learn to live with both science and religion... just don't try to ram it down my Fu@king throat or mix religion in my politics along with my Billiards.

Maybe you should all watch this... http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/lecture.html (needs quicktime)

BlindPlayer
04-11-2005, 02:49 PM
This is not the only place I've raised the questions in the original post. I find it interesting that everytime the questions raised are never addressed but circumvented.

Are the questions that compelling? However.....

The thread has been enlightening, fun and thought provoking.

highsea
04-11-2005, 05:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr> This is not the only place I've raised the questions in the original post. I find it interesting that everytime the questions raised are never addressed but circumvented.<hr /></blockquote>Well, let me address them directly. There are two implied arguments in your OP. I will address them in order.

1. The immune system evolved at some later date than the organism itself, since as you put it, <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>"How could an organism survive until the "Immune System" evolved? Without it an organism is vulnerable to a toxic environment that is mercyless." <hr /></blockquote>You offer no reason for us to believe that the immune system did not evolve in parallel with the organism, and there is no evidence that it did, so what use is your assertion? You need to show that the organism actually survived, before it's own defenses evolved, for this statement to have any value. I don't think you can do this.

2. Since the all parts of the immune system and the autonomous nervous system have to work together for the entire system to survive, and there are no redundant organs, this argues for a designed system. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr>What major organ in the body could you live without? The lungs? Heart? Nervous System? Immune System? Involuntary System? Circulatory System? Digestive System? The list goes one. A host of vital system must be funtioning at the same time for life to sustain.<hr /></blockquote>This is Behe's argument of Irreducible Complexity. The assertion is that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. According to Behe, Irreducible Complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, therefore it must be designed.

All this argument really says is that that the system did not evolve by the addition of individual parts. However, there are still many mechanisms that allow for evolution of the system. For example:

a. deletion of parts
b. addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system
c. change of function
d. addition of a second function to a part
e. gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in organisms. Common mechanisms, such as gene duplication and co-option of molecules with other roles, allow the immune system to evolve naturally. Irreducible Complexity is not an obstacle to evolution.

The conclusion that Irreducible Complexity argues for design is flawed. It is an argument of ignorance. To say that it is inconceivable that something could have originated naturally, therefore it must have been created, only says what you can conceive. It is not reasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. There are many things that we understand today that were once attributed to Gods- lightning, disease, the motions of the sun and moon, storms, the seasons of the year, mental illness, etc. There is still much we don't understand, but the list gets shorter every year. Even so, we are not at risk of running out of mysteries, as each new answer raises new questions.

Another problem with the conclusion that Irreducible Complexity is evidence for design, is the very fact that these systems do not have built in redundancy. Take away any of your organs, and you cease to function. When critical systems are designed, they are desiged to be robust. If an airplane loses a rivet on it's wing, or even an engine (assuming it has more than one), it doesn't crash. Irreducible complexity suggests a lack of design. For critical applications, such as keeping an organism alive, you do not want systems that will fail if any one part fails.

crawdaddio
04-11-2005, 10:23 PM
I haven't been reading here in awhile. It's good to see you're back highsea.

~DC

nhp
04-11-2005, 11:15 PM
Whats wrong with thinking that God created evolution? Whats wrong with believing that God created the Big Bang? I believe in God, and I also believe in evolution, but only to a certain extent. It is silly for people to take sides on this issue.

eg8r
04-12-2005, 05:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we should mix up evolutionary biologists with geologists or physicists. Evolution has nothing to say about the flood from the viewpoint of mountains raising up. This is a geologicical issue (for which we have no physical evidence). <hr /></blockquote> I was not mixing it up, you mentioned Mt. Everest so I posted a response. This is one of the uphill battles Creationist deal with. The Creationist does not have the opportunity to side step questions, by deferring to another part of the science world.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why it is a valid question to ask "Where did all that water go?", and why creationists expend so much energy trying to explain it. <hr /></blockquote> I believe the Answers in Genesis site talks about where the water went. I don't remember their response exactly, and I don't know enough about it to give a guess. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that scientists are critical of creationism because it actually contradicts the evidence, not because there is lack of evidence. Creationists attack scientists because science discredits their theories with physical evidence. <hr /></blockquote> There might be some, but not all. Anyways, as far as evolution in the same species I completely agree. When God told Noah to take 2 of each kind, he did not mean 2 poodles, 2 dobermans, 2 wolves, etc. He just meant 2 dogs, and there has been plenty of time for those to evolve into what we have today. There is plenty about evolution that is not argued. The problem is that the evolutionary process needs to depend on the physical chance that life came from something with no life. No one has ever proven this, or been able to reproduce it, so this is a belief also. The difference is that scientists require "hard factual proof" from Creationists when they themselves do not put such requirements on their own acceptance. The non-Christian science world speaks almost matter of factly about some sort of Big Bang theory, and that is the "truth" to them till it gets beat down again and proven wrong. The Big Bang theory has changed so many times, yet each time it was shoved down our throats as fact. Evolutionists are part of this same group of people and handle themselves in the same manner, however, if a Creationists dare follow suit, he gets a fight.

[ QUOTE ]
There are also some serious issues wrt the age of mountains that the catastrophic upheaval theory cannot account for. <hr /></blockquote> This is going much further than I wanted to partake, but this sentence is interesting to me. The age is interesting. Scientists have a million different ways to age things, and they all become circular. One example is the scientists using carbon dating to date something a million years old. cabon dating is only "close" to many thousand years. Another issue with the dating, is that my guess is the scientists are monitoring the movement of the Earth's plates and hypothesizing they have always moved the same. The water runoff of a great flood could have had some impact on the movement of these plates.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, it is a tougher position to be in to require proof. This is why science is not easy. It is the fundamental difference between science and creationism. <hr /></blockquote> Exactly, I don't know why Creationists do what they do, other than the love of science. As a Christian you are bound by the truths of the Bible with no direction whatsoever to try to explain it. The only reason I can think they are working so hard is because there is plenty in the science community that is just a guess that is being forced on students to be facts.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument matters, because creationists claim the vapor canopy extended human life by blocking out cosmic radiations. The argument is not speaking to the geological issues, but the biological ones of human longevity. The evidence we have today refutes that, as shown by the comparative lifespans of people living at high altitudes vs. people living at sea level. Remember, the creationists are talking about 900 year lifespans! Even if the differences were much lower, there would still have to be some measurable effect, and there just isn't. <hr /></blockquote> I still don't see the arugment (surely caused by not understanding what you are trying to point out). I am saying the difference of a pre-canopy and post-canopy can quite possibly be greater than living in Denver and living in Florida.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not claim exclusive ownership of the laws of physics. They apply equally to all. My problem with the vapor canopy is that it violates these laws. <hr /></blockquote> Just as evolution violates the 2nd law of thermo.

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine, Ed. Neither side of the argument should have to rely on mis-stating the other. For those who want to argue a vapor canopy, I say "show me the money!" <hr /></blockquote> I would say too many are trying to do just that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I can honestly say I have no idea. <hr /></blockquote> That was my point. No one knows until it happens, and at that point they are no longer able to relay this information to the living. Everyone gets to find out for themselves.

eg8r

eg8r
04-12-2005, 07:01 AM
Here is a link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp) in which the author has written his thoughts in a manner most of us non-scientists can read. He mentions the problems with the canopy theory and also discusses where the water went (at the end he lists his sources so if you would like to argue anything specifically go to the original source and read the entire context). He suggests the water did not necessarily have to have gone anywhere but that we are looking at most of it still today.

[ QUOTE ]
The fossil argument Hovind puts forth has some serious problems also- first, the evidence actually supports gradual uplift, not flood deposition. The fossils are not scattered around as if they were deposited by a flood, but are in the same positions they would be if they were living. Fossilized tracks and burrows suggest that the region was once under the sea, which is consistent with Plate Techtonics as the mechanism of mountain building. <hr /></blockquote> Not sure if I missed this in my first response, but the idea that the fossils are in the same position is a strong indication to a flood and NOT millions of years. The reason being is that the flood would represent a very fast instance in time which would not give these animals a chance to retreat. Thus you find them where they are, appearing as if living. If everything was as gradual as science would want you to believe, then these animals would not have appeared to be buried alive (closed positions). More than likely they would be opened up, showing that they were trying to keep up with the slow-receding waterline. One very plausible explanation is that as the land was rising there had to be some sort of vibration on the land, and this could possible have "scared" the animals into their closed position. While the land was rising, there was no longer any water covering them and they died (for whatever reason, lack of water, water-breathing, etc) just as they sat there curled up.

I am not trying to prove Hovind is right, but his theories (developed from those before him) along with a lot of other Creationist theories offer very good explanations.

eg8r

highsea
04-12-2005, 08:24 AM
Thanks, Dave. Lol, I let myself get sucked into this thread.

How's that new cue working for you?

-CM

crawdaddio
04-12-2005, 08:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Thanks, Dave. Lol, I let myself get sucked into this thread.

How's that new cue working for you?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>


Workin' great. I even managed to win myself a liitle cash last night /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

~DC

highsea
04-12-2005, 11:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>I was not mixing it up, you mentioned Mt. Everest so I posted a response.<hr /></blockquote>I was referring to your statement: "This, for them, would help describe the reason there never had to be as much water as evolutionists try to explain was needed."

The water issue isn't an issue for biology, it's an issue of geology and meteorology/physics- something evolutionists aren't particularly interested in. That's what I meant by mixing it up. The problems with the vapor canopy hypothesis are thermodynamic ones and geological ones. It touches on biology, only because a vapor canopy creates conditions that would not support life.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>The Creationist does not have the opportunity to side step questions, by deferring to another part of the science world.<hr /></blockquote>This is true. Creationism spans many branches of science, and so they are stuck with the problem of making their claims consistent across a wide spectrum of scientific disciplines.

This is an obstacle for creationists who want to be given equal billing with science in the classroom. What good is it to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution in the biology classroom, if it contradicts what we are taught in geology and physics? The only advantage I can think of is that it would save us a great deal of money, since we could replace all of our science texts with a single book. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>The problem is that the evolutionary process needs to depend on the physical chance that life came from something with no life. No one has ever proven this, or been able to reproduce it, so this is a belief also. <hr /></blockquote>Evolution does not deal with the origin question. While this problem is addressed in biology and chemistry, it is independent of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not dependent on any single theory of origin.

There have been several hypotheses advanced wrt the origin question, some more promising than others. From the experiments of Stanley Miller to comets, to volcanic vents, and a lot of in-between. It's an unknown, and 100% certainty will never possible. The only thing that science needs to show is that it's possible, i.e., that there are one or more possible mechanisms that will result in life arising on the early earth.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>The Big Bang theory has changed so many times, yet each time it was shoved down our throats as fact. <hr /></blockquote>The Big Bang theory arose from Edwin Hubble's discovery of red shifts in measuring distant objects. It hasn't undergone any major changes that I am aware of in the basic concept, but many minor revisions (such as inflation) as we learn more about high energy physics and the cosmology of an early universe. It was never "shoved down my throat", I studied it as a part of studying Astronomy and Cosmology.

No theory in science is inviolable, not even General Relativity. They are all subject to revision as we learn more about our universe. Creationists don't permit themselves this flexibility, so they are continually putting themselves in a position to explain away obvious contradictions. Science is a process, as new evidence is uncovered, we either discard or modify our theories. Creationism is static. This is the reason it has so much difficulty trying to define itself as a science.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>This is going much further than I wanted to partake, but this sentence is interesting to me. The age is interesting. Scientists have a million different ways to age things, and they all become circular. One example is the scientists using carbon dating to date something a million years old. cabon dating is only "close" to many thousand years.<hr /></blockquote>Radiometric dating involves much more than carbon isotopes- any radioactive isotope can be used, and isotopes with longer half-lifes, like uranium, are used when the age is outside the useful range of carbon. Radiometric dating is very accurate as long as we don't try to exceed the inherent limits of the particular isotope we are measuring. There is inherent error in every method. When you are measuring something millions of years old, an error of several thousand years is not considered unacceptable- it's a very small percentage. If I ask you how old you are, should I expect your answer to be accurate within one or two seconds?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Another issue with the dating, is that my guess is the scientists are monitoring the movement of the Earth's plates and hypothesizing they have always moved the same. The water runoff of a great flood could have had some impact on the movement of these plates.<hr /></blockquote>I know of no dating system that uses plate movement as a yardstick. Certainly nothing that would be considered independently useful. We do use stratographic mapping, but this is supported and verified by other methods. We never rely on a single method for our estimates. An example is the ice cores in Antarctica- we use a combination of stratographic and radiometric dating, as well as quantitative and qualitative analysis of the chemical content of the trapped gases. We are always looking for the most complete picture, we never rely on a single piece of evidence.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>I still don't see the arugment (surely caused by not understanding what you are trying to point out). I am saying the difference of a pre-canopy and post-canopy can quite possibly be greater than living in Denver and living in Florida.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not comparing Denver and Florida, even though there should be measurable variation in that sample. But for someone living in LaPaz, or Lhasa, Nepal, there would be a noticable difference, considering that they are living above about 40% of the earth's atmosphere.

What I am saying, is that the hypothesis that a vapor canopy permitted extremely long lives, by filtering out cosmic radiations, is not supported by the evidence. People living at very high altitudes do not have measurably shorter lifespans than someone living at sea level.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Just as evolution violates the 2nd law of thermo.<hr /></blockquote>Evolution has no problems with 2LOT. You are either misinterpreting 2LOT or evolution. 2LOT describes a closed system, which earth is not. All 2LOT really says is that heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot one. e.g., a closed system will not decrease in total entropy. Earth recieves energy from the sun on a continual basis, so you are going to have a great deal of difficulty calling it a closed system.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>... the idea that the fossils are in the same position is a strong indication to a flood and NOT millions of years. The reason being is that the flood would represent a very fast instance in time which would not give these animals a chance to retreat.<hr /></blockquote>How could they "retreat", if they don't even live there to start with (on a mountain top)? If they were deposited by a flood, they would not be in the positions they are found, which are positions that they occupied when they were living. They would be scattered randomly. The only logical conclusion for the existence of marine fossils on mountain tops is that at some time in the past, those areas were submerged, and there was a fully developed marine ecosystem in place. They lived and died, as all creatures do, were covered by sediments, and later on the mountains were pushed up. They could not retreat, because they were already dead and buried when the mountain was formed.

If they were deposited by a flood, we would expect to find much higher concentrations in the valleys than the mountaintops, as erosion of the mountaintop by the flood would displace them. This is not the case. The sediments where they are found are not sorted hydrologically- i.e, heavier ones lower, lighter ones higher up. Coarse sediments are found above fine ones, and large fossils are found in fine sediments. This argues for a long period of time for formation, a flood would not deposit sediments and organisms in this manner. There's just no hydrological model that explains the distribution of the fossils, or the tracks and burrows that are found in the same strata.

In keeping with my policy of offering a creation story as reward for those who suffer through my long posts, here is the story from New Hebrides (Separation of Earth and Sky): [ QUOTE ]
Naareau the Elder created the earth, but the sky and the earth clove together with darkeness between them. Naareau the Younger, with a spell, created a slight cleft between earth and sky. He created a bat and told it to look around. The Bat reported finding a Company of Fools and Deaf Mutes. Naareau crawled in the cleft and, with the Bat as his guide, went to the people. Naareau told them to push up, and the sky was lifted a little, but they could lift it only so high. Naareau summoned Riiki, the conger eel, and told it to push up on the sky against the land. While Riiki pushed and Naareau sang, Great Ray, Turtle, and Octopus tore at the roots of the sky. The sky was pushed high and the land sank. The Company of Fools and Deaf Mutes were left swimming in the sea; they became the sea creatures.<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
04-12-2005, 11:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not deal with the origin question. While this problem is addressed in biology and chemistry, it is independent of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not dependent on any single theory of origin. <hr /></blockquote> We will have to agree to disagree. Whether evolution deals with origin is not the issue that I am trying to point out. I am merely saying in order for evolution to even be thought of, we had to start somewhere. The Bible gives one example and science is trying to prove another. In order for the levels of evolution to get where they are, evolutionists should be able to logically state where they came from, meaning the beginning. No one in science has been able to scientifically come up with the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that science needs to show is that it's possible, i.e., that there are one or more possible mechanisms that will result in life arising on the early earth. <hr /></blockquote> Has anyone ever shown life arising from something with no life?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea, referring to Big Bang comment:</font><hr> It was never "shoved down my throat", I studied it as a part of studying Astronomy and Cosmology.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, I can only speak from my own experience, but ever since the beginning of my studies in science in middle school we were taught the Big Bang theory. Since the teachers had no other option to teach this was taught as fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Creationists don't permit themselves this flexibility, so they are continually putting themselves in a position to explain away obvious contradictions. Science is a process, as new evidence is uncovered, we either discard or modify our theories. Creationism is static. This is the reason it has so much difficulty trying to define itself as a science.
<hr /></blockquote> I disagree. One of the sites I have linked in this thread shows many examples of how creationists have changed their theories. This may have arisen from many different reasons not excluding, being completely wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Radiometric dating is very accurate as long as we don't try to exceed the inherent limits of the particular isotope we are measuring.
<hr /></blockquote> Here is a link about Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp) . This is a biased website, so if there is anything that is inconsistent with the non-Creationist science world, then I would not be opposed to read it.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution has no problems with 2LOT. You are either misinterpreting 2LOT or evolution. 2LOT describes a closed system, which earth is not. All 2LOT really says is that heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold body to a hot one. e.g., a closed system will not decrease in total entropy. Earth recieves energy from the sun on a continual basis, so you are going to have a great deal of difficulty calling it a closed system. <hr /></blockquote> Earth is only one of an infinite number of systems that can be discussed. In evolution, what is the added energy that gets the human brain to increase from an ape to a human? As evolution continues, you would not expect to see greater things further along the cycle.

[ QUOTE ]
How could they "retreat", if they don't even live there to start with (on a mountain top)? <hr /></blockquote> Well, if they are in the flood and find themselves on top of the mountain and then all of a sudden the water starts lowering back down the mountain, if this lowering was as slow and gradual as something you might suggest, they would be able to retreat. Where they "live" is irrelevant because they have been moved. It is where they end up and how they react that is the issue. They ended up on top of the mountain. The waters rush away and they are left. Still in the closed position showing it must have been quick.

[ QUOTE ]
If they were deposited by a flood, we would expect to find much higher concentrations in the valleys than the mountaintops, as erosion of the mountaintop by the flood would displace them. This is not the case. <hr /></blockquote> Point well taken. However, this would be a good spot for the Creationists to mimic the evolutionists (when they are forced to explain the gaps in their evolution fossil record)...Just say, "Since we cannot find them, does not mean they are not there". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The sediments where they are found are not sorted hydrologically- i.e, heavier ones lower, lighter ones higher up. Coarse sediments are found above fine ones, and large fossils are found in fine sediments. This argues for a long period of time for formation, a flood would not deposit sediments and organisms in this manner. <hr /></blockquote> Not sure why? If the flood happens quite rapidly and the fall out is equally rapid, why would anyone suggest anything would be uniform. Seeing everything all jumbled up makes more sense for a flood.

eg8r

SnakebyteXX
04-12-2005, 12:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Dave. Lol, I let myself get sucked into this thread.
<hr /></blockquote>

highsea -

You may well have gotten 'sucked in to this thread' but I've found your contributions to this 'debate' - if you can call it that - to be fascinating and exceptionally well written. From where I'm sitting you've been winning this point counter-point exchange hands down. You've obviously done your homework and it shows.

Snake &lt;-- thinks Creationism is a wonderful myth that way too many folks tend to take way too seriously.

highsea
04-12-2005, 12:44 PM
Well, thanks Snake. I do think I have the easier side to argue, I think next time I might take the creationist side just to see how well I do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Point-Counterpoint; Lol, reminds me of the SNL sketch. Well, I have to prepare my response to Ed, since he has taken up the mantle for BlindPlayer...

"Ed, you ignorant slut..." /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

highsea
04-12-2005, 04:58 PM
Haha, just kidding Ed... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>...In order for the levels of evolution to get where they are, evolutionists should be able to logically state where they came from, meaning the beginning. No one in science has been able to scientifically come up with the answer.<hr /></blockquote>Why must evolution prove the origin right now? The Theory of Evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. To say that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that birds cannot fly without a theory of aerodynamics, or trees could not grow until we understood photosynthesis.

Regardless of how it happened, it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. There is a great deal about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is what science is for. Speculation is part of the process. As long as the speculations can be tested, they are scientific.

All evolution shows is common descent. All life on earth shares common DNA. Just beacuse we cannot show how life began in no way invalidates what we already understand about evolution.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Has anyone ever shown life arising from something with no life?<hr /></blockquote>Not life, but the building blocks of life- the early Earth was a place where volcanoes, a lifeless gray ocean, and a turbulent atmosphere dominated the landscape. The atmosphere was fed by volcanoes and penetrated by lightning discharges and solar radiation. The ocean received organic matter from the land and the atmosphere, as well as from infalling meteorites and comets. We believe that substances such as water, carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide combined to form key molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. These are the building blocks of proteins and nucleic acids, compounds which are common to all living organisms.

The first laboratory experiments that were successful in creating these building blocks were done by Stanley Miller in the 50's, and have been repeated many times. Miller made a sample of the early atmosphere, and ran an electrical current through it, simulating lightning. After a couple of weeks of bombardment, he noticed that the chamber had become clouded, and amino acids had been created. Miller's results were duplicated by many different labs, and the conditions have been modified and updated as our understanding of the early earth has improved.

We have also found organic materials in meteors and cometary fragments. It was these organic materials that we believe combined to the first RNA molecules in the first billion years of earth's existence. The process is not well understood, and unfortunately we are not able to duplicate a billion years of evolution in the laboratory due to time constraints. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

But again, we are only interested in showing the possibility, not making any definite conclusions. Evolutionists don't really care where the first RNA molecules came from, they address the process by which these evolved into single celled organisms and further on to multi-celled organisms, and so on.

Perhaps God placed these RNA molecules on earth, or guided the organic materials to combine in the manner they did. We will never know. But just because we don't know, it doesn't mean we should discard what we do know. And if , sometime in the future, we discover a mechanism by which these organic molecules combine into RNA and DNA chains, then we will have one more piece of the puzzle.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Well, I can only speak from my own experience, but ever since the beginning of my studies in science in middle school we were taught the Big Bang theory. Since the teachers had no other option to teach this was taught as fact.<hr /></blockquote>Well, I suppose it is a subjective thing, but no teacher of science should promote a theory as nebulous (no pun intended) as the Big Bang as inviolate fact. They really should know better. In any case, middle school teachers are not cosmologists, and it's likely that they didn't have that great of an understanding of the subject themselves, since they usually follow a curriculum that is written by someone else.

The Big Bang is only the best model we have today, nothing more, nothing less. It's a logical conclusion of an expanding universe. In simple terms, Hubble discovered that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. There are minor anomalies caused by gravitational influences, such as our own local group, but on the big scale, the universe is an expanding thing.

I will use a loaf of raisin bread as an analogy; when you put the bread in the oven, all the raisins are pretty close to each other. As it bakes, and the bread expands, all the raisins (galaxies) move away from each other, because the bread (space) is expanding in every direction (you have to use your imagination and ignore the walls of the pan). Raisins that are farther away from each other move apart faster, because there is more bread between them.

I know it sounds simplistic, but basically, the universe is a loaf of raisin bread. The galaxies are the raisins, space is the dough, and the Big Bang was the element that heated the oven. The oven is turned off now, but it hasn't completely cooled. Today we measure a cosmic background radiation of 3 degrees Kelvin. That radiation is all that's left of the Big Bang, the rest has been converted into kinetic energy (the motions of the galaxies).

It doesn't take an overactive imagination to understand that if the universe is larger today than it was yesterday, then the day before yesterday it was smaller than it was yesterday, and tomorrow it will be bigger than it is today. The Big Bang Theory simply extrapolates back further, to the point where all the matter in the universe was in a highly condensed and energetic state. I can go into great detail about this, but it is somewhat outside the scope of this discussion.

I will say this, if someone can show that the universe is not expanding, the Big Bang theory will go straight to the trash heap, along with the Ptolemaic Solar System and the theory of a Flat Earth. History shows us that science is very good at discarding it's theories in light of new evidence.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>One of the sites I have linked in this thread shows many examples of how creationists have changed their theories. This may have arisen from many different reasons not excluding, being completely wrong.<hr /></blockquote>I confess I didn't read the link you are referring to, but rather than having me guess at it, maybe you could post the part you want show in this thread.

There are many different flavors of creationism of course, but the one I am basically addressing is the Young Earth Christian variety. I suspect thay have not discarded much in the way of their arguments unless absolutely forced to, and I can cite many examples where they use very old and discredited data even to this day. They tend to be waaaaay more reluctant to discard their theories than mainstream scientists, and I have never seen them back down from their basic premise.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Here is a link about Radiometric Dating (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp) . This is a biased website, so if there is anything that is inconsistent with the non-Creationist science world, then I would not be opposed to read it.<hr /></blockquote>Ed, almost all of mainstream science is inconsistent with the creationist version. There are literally thousands of places to get information on radiometric dating. I did scan that site briefly, the part about carbon dating, and some of what they say is correct, and some of it is just plain wrong wrt to how mainstream scientists apply the testing methods.

What stands out is their useage of examples of flawed methodology to claim that radiometric dating is unreliable, and that they are ignoring the thousands of examples where it is used correctly.

Every method has the potential of being misused, and every isotope has limits. This is why we don't use C-14 for objects over 50,000 years old. But within it's limits it has been proven accurate time and time again when correctly applied. It has been calibrated against annular rings in trees back to about 11,000 years, back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals, and to 45,000 years by using U-Th dates of glacial lake sediments. The point is that no one single method is used without verification, and if creationists want to discredit radiometric dating, they have a very daunting task ahead of them.

Creationists like to point out the things that can introduce errors in radiometric dating, but they ignore the fact that the scientists that use these methods are aware of these issues and know how to deal with them. In fact, I would bet that you cannot find a single example where radiometric dating has been wrong, that mainstream scientists did not point out the error first.

Woodmorappe is the creationist's poster boy for attacking radiometric dating, but if he is so confident in what he writes, why doesn't he publish in peer reviewed journals instead of creationist literature? The reason is that he writes for propaganda, and not for geologists. It sounds good, but it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Earth is only one of an infinite number of systems that can be discussed. In evolution, what is the added energy that gets the human brain to increase from an ape to a human? <hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here- the main engine for life on earth is the sun. Plants photosynthesize sunlight, and animals eat the plants and metabolize the material for energy. Other animals eat those animals, and metabolize their materials, and so on. Naturally, without the sun, there would be no life, and therefore no evolution.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>As evolution continues, you would not expect to see greater things further along the cycle.<hr /></blockquote>Here again, you are trying to apply 2LOT to an open system. It just doesn't work that way. In a very narrow sense, entropy could be argued to play a part, as organisms evolve to fill biological niches, similar to the way the molecules in a gas will expand to fill voids in a vacuum, moving from high pressure to low. But using 2LOT as an argument for or against evolution is fundamentally flawed, for the reason I already stated- it only describes a closed system. You would need to isolate the earth from all cosmic interference before you could even attempt to apply 2LOT.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Well, if they are in the flood and find themselves on top of the mountain and then all of a sudden the water starts lowering back down the mountain, if this lowering was as slow and gradual as something you might suggest, they would be able to retreat.<hr /></blockquote>I never suggested any slow and gradual receding of a flood. In fact, I said the organisms were long dead when the mountains raised up. How can a dead creature follow receding waters?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Where they "live" is irrelevant because they have been moved. It is where they end up and how they react that is the issue. They ended up on top of the mountain. The waters rush away and they are left. Still in the closed position showing it must have been quick.<hr /></blockquote>In which case they would be mixed homogenously, not stratified. Besides, if the flood waters rushed away, it would have washed away everything with it.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>...If the flood happens quite rapidly and the fall out is equally rapid, why would anyone suggest anything would be uniform. Seeing everything all jumbled up makes more sense for a flood.<hr /></blockquote>That's the point- they are not all jumbled up. They are well stratified. It is the creationists that try to claim that the fossils are sorted hydrologically, not the geologists.

Also, fossils are not sorted according to their ability to escape rising floodwaters. If they were, we would expect to see slow-moving species and low-elevation plants at the bottom of the fossil record, while fast-moving species, would be at the top. But this is nothing like what we actually observe; in many cases we find just the opposite. For example, in undisturbed strata there has not been a single sloth fossil found below even the highest velociraptor remains, and flowering plants do not appear in the fossil record until after winged insects and reptiles.

The violence of a flood that could cover the entire earth in forty days would be bound to trap many individuals from even fast-moving species, especially those that were old or crippled, or trapped in low-lying areas. Therefore, we would expect to find the occasional member of fast-moving species near the bottom of the fossil record. However, the vast majority of fossilized species are only found within certain relatively narrow ranges within the fossil record. For example, human fossils are only found at the very top of the fossil record, and tyrannosaurs are only found at the end of the Cretaceous period.

The fossil record preserves entire ecosystems, not just individual species. Fossils of one species are found in association with fossils of other species common to their ecosystem. If fossil distribution were dependent on the ability to escape rising floodwaters, then all the species within an ecosystem would have to be equally capable of escape for them to be preserved together. Since these species include both animals and completely nonmotile plants, clearly this is not the case.

The bottom line is that the fossil record simply does not support a flood theory, and fossils on mountaintops can easily be accounted for by mainstream geology.

And now for our creation story. This one comes from Norse Mythology (Creation from a Primordial Being). I hope you like it: [ QUOTE ]
The heat from Muspell, the firey area to the south, met with the cold from icy Ginnungagap in the north and created the frost giant Ymir. A man and woman were born from his armpits, and one of his legs mated with the other to make a son; these began a race of frost ogres. Some melting ice became the cow Audhumla, whose teats gave rivers of milk. The man Buri appeared from a block of ice which Audhumla licked. His descendents included the gods Odin, Vili, and Ve. They slew Ymir, and his blood flooded and killed all people except the giant Bergelmir and his family. The three gods turned Ymir's body into the earth and his blood into the surrounding seas. His bones and teeth became mountains and rocks, his skull became the sky, his brains became clouds, etc. They made the sun, moon, and stars out of sparks from Muspell. The three gods made a man and woman (Ask and Embla) from two fallen trees. Odin gave them life, Vili gave them intelligence, and Ve gave them speech, sight, and hearing. They made a stronghold, Midgard, out of Ymir's eyebrows to protect them from the giants outside.<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
04-12-2005, 05:24 PM
We got somewhat short-changed in our evolution. somewhere along the line, we males lost our "nuptial pads", while our frog cousins ( I don't mean the French) managed to keep theirs.
Very useful during amplexus, as sometimes the female of the species can be very slippery. I've had more then a few go slip-sliding away, when I was attempting something similiar.
Just think how "kinky" it would be to have them...

eg8r
04-13-2005, 04:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how it happened, it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. <hr /></blockquote> You are right, the Bible tells us so. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I confess I didn't read the link you are referring to, but rather than having me guess at it, maybe you could post the part you want show in this thread. <hr /></blockquote> Here is an example of Creationists changing their mind... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote AIG:</font><hr> A water vapor canopy?
Dr Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapor surrounding the earth before the Flood.9 In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the ‘waters above’ could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around the earth similar to those around Venus.10

The Genesis 7:11 reference to the windows of heaven being opened has been interpreted as the collapse of such a water vapor canopy, which somehow became unstable and fell as rain. Volcanic eruptions associated with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep could have thrown dust into the water vapor canopy, causing the water vapor to nucleate on the dust particles and make rain.

Dillow, Vardiman and others have suggested that the vapor canopy caused a greenhouse effect before the Flood with a pleasant subtropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles where today there is ice. This would have caused the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, was taken as support for these ideas.11

A vapor canopy would also affect the global wind systems. Also, the mountains were almost certainly not as high before the Flood as they are today, as we shall see. In today's world, the major winds and high mountain ranges are a very important part of the water cycle that brings rain to the continents. Before the flood, however, these factors would have caused the weather systems to be different.

Those interested in studying this further should consult Dillow's and Vardiman's works.

A major problem with the canopy theory
Vardiman12 recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. <font color="red">The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the earth.</font color>

Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,13 but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapor in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 40 feet (12 meters) to only 20 inches (.5 meters). Further modeling suggested that a maximum of 2 meters (6.5 feet) of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored.14 Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood.

A vapor canopy holding more than 7 feet (two meters) of rain would cause the earth's surface to be intolerably hot, so a vapor canopy could not have been a significant source of the floodwaters.
Many creation scientists are now either abandoning the water vapor canopy model15 or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain.16 In the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood,17 volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.

Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.

<hr /></blockquote> This is a good example of Creationists making changes to their theory. The author quoted above does not completely throw out the possibility of the canopy but understands there is no good proof of one. In another portion of the website, I beleive they even ask Creationists to quit furthering this theory until more can be proven. I really don't think their theories are set in stone and they are always continuing to look for the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
What stands out is their useage of examples of flawed methodology to claim that radiometric dating is unreliable, and that they are ignoring the thousands of examples where it is used correctly.
<hr /></blockquote> I believe there is very good reason to harp on how it is being used wrongly, it forces people to question. If only the good was mentioned it would paint the wrong picture. Much like Iraq, the media only wants to paint a bad picture which incorrectly portrays what is really happening. I am going to check my some of my nieces science books this weekend and see how often they mention dating and see what methods they talk about. 9 times out of 10 they will use the word carbon and reference millions of years.

Since this thread is getting pretty long, maybe we can chit chat about this in August (I am interested to hear both sides of the issue as I am fascinated with what science does, and I am very grounded in my beliefs /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). I believe the dates I will be out there are going to be 7/31/2005 - 8/7/2005.

eg8r

eg8r
04-13-2005, 04:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"Ed, you ignorant slut..." <hr /></blockquote> BlindPlayer, I am sorry for hijacking your thread. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You may now respond to highsea's last reply to your post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

BlindPlayer
04-13-2005, 06:10 AM
Dear "eg8r"........no worries! The 'post' has generated alot of worthy comments. It took awhile for others, like yourself, to get on board on the creation side. We won't have all the answers 'till we meet Christ face to face (can't wait).

I appreciate your input and the brainstorming has been better than I had anticipated. To lighten things up a bit:

In the BIG Inning.......


The first gathering of all the important players in evolution had their first get together billions and billions (why not) ‘trillions’ of years ago. The setting was a pick-nick by the salty sea. ‘Fauth R. Time’ was there with ‘Nat the URL Slectun’, ‘Mue T. Shun’, ‘Randy Chance’ and who can forget ‘Sir Vival O. T. Fitus. They meet every billion years or so.

After the pick-nick they said their goodbyes and set a date for their next reunion. However, when they departed they left a mess (tidiness had not evolved yet) and during high tide the mess was washed out to sea.

And we know the rest of the story.

highsea
04-13-2005, 06:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>...BlindPlayer, I am sorry for hijacking your thread. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You may now respond to highsea's last reply to your post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote>Lol. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

"I am going to check my some of my nieces science books this weekend and see how often they mention dating and see what methods they talk about. 9 times out of 10 they will use the word carbon and reference millions of years."

I will be totally shocked if this is true. Frankly, I expect to hear such claims from creationist literature, but not from a geology text. It would be entirely unacceptable to imply that radiocarbon dating is useful on such ancient objects. Please let me know about this one, because I would be all over the publisher if that's the case.

One of the things that stands out wrt creationist's complaints about C-14 (from the Answers in Genesis site) is that it's not "flood adjusted". This is kind of a cheap shot, imo. One can hardly expect geologists to adjust C-14 values to an event for which they have no evidence. This gives creationists a way out of any radiocarbon result, simply because they know that geologists would never be intentionally skew the results in such a manner.

Wrt the flood article on that same site, I did read it after I wrote my last reply. Good to see they are finally abandoning the vapor canopy theory, even if it took them 30 years to do so. Lol, it really does have serious problems.

Unfortunately they appear to have replaced it with an equally shaky explanation (the water from underground theory). This new theory is almost as bad as the old one (ever been to Yellowstone?), and they are still completely ignoring the fossil record.

Ahh, well. One can't expect miracles from mere mortals, eh, my friend?

First week of August sounds good Ed, weather will be great and the salmon will be running. We're going to have to figure out what my spot is going to be on the pool table though. I'm an 8-ball player, so I was thinking the 8 and the breaks? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

-CM

Oh, yeah. Creation story. Since this was a short reply, I will make it a short story.

Cosmic Egg Creationism (Finnish): [ QUOTE ]
A teal flew over the primeval waters but could find no place to land. The Mother of the Water raised her knee above the water, and the teal made a nest on it. It laid six golden eggs and one iron egg, and then it sat warming them. The heat became so intense that the Mother of the Water twitched her knee. The eggs dislodged and broke. The earth formed from one half of a shell, and the sky from the other half. The sun formed from the top half of one yolk, and the moon from the top half of the white. Stars and clouds also formed from parts of the egg.<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
04-13-2005, 08:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First week of August sounds good Ed, weather will be great and the salmon will be running. We're going to have to figure out what my spot is going to be on the pool table though. I'm an 8-ball player, so I was thinking the 8 and the breaks? <hr /></blockquote> I just hope there is a pool table in the town where I will be staying. As far as a spot, no way mister. Even up. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Everyone on the boat is excited that I am coming out this year. I don't eat fish, so that means extra fish for all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I have never been off-shore fishing, so hopefully I will not be sick the whole time. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-13-2005, 09:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Dear "eg8r"........no worries! The 'post' has generated alot of worthy comments. It took awhile for others, like yourself, to get on board on the creation side. We won't have all the answers 'till we meet Christ face to face (can't wait).

I appreciate your input and the brainstorming has been better than I had anticipated. To lighten things up a bit: <hr /></blockquote> Why the quotes around my screen name? Are you saying eg8r might not actually be my screen name? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Second, this is a great question for evolutionists...Where did the space for the universe come from? LOL, while simple as it sounds, if our universe is continually expanding, what is it expanding into (is the area/space, in which the universe is expanding, getting smaller?)? I guess the idea is that our universe is actually just part of something bigger.

Here is one that I like also... Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Both are questions posed by Hovind. He has others that I don't care to get into. These are just two that I find interesting.

eg8r

BlindPlayer
04-13-2005, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Dear "eg8r"........no worries!.....Why the quotes around my screen name? Are you saying eg8r might not actually be my screen name? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Second, this is a great question for evolutionists...Where did the space for the universe come from? LOL, while simple as it sounds, if our universe is continually expanding, what is it expanding into (is the area/space, in which the universe is expanding, getting smaller?)? I guess the idea is that our universe is actually just part of something bigger.

Here is one that I like also... Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Both are questions posed by Hovind. He has others that I don't care to get into. These are just two that I find interesting.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I really like the points you make here eg8r.

We have so many questions and so few SOLID answers. Yet another: it takes 2.5 pages (on both sides) in 8 font to explain all the various chemical changes that take place between the eye and the brain and back each time light strikes the retina.

I've been looking for this book in vain - it was fascinating reading.

Animals share this process (with indigenous variations)with all other animals.

Not to mention the brilliant design of the spinal column and how the spinal chord is protected and weaves it's way to service the body....awesome just awesome.

BlindPlayer
04-13-2005, 12:34 PM
Dear eg8r;

I dont' why my complete response did not come thru...oh, well.

I actually don't know why I put quotes around your name. Maybe it was impulsive or.....'spontaneous generation' (ha). But there is no hidden meaning behind it.

wolfdancer
04-13-2005, 02:27 PM
At first there was only sky above and water below. The gods Sovereign Plumed Serpent and Heart of Sky spoke together, joined their thoughts, and conceived of creation. Simply by their word, they brought it forth. First they created and formed earth and vegetation; then they created animals and gave them homes. They told the animals to speak and gave them different cries, but the animals didn't speak like people. So the animals were appointed to serve by their flesh being eaten. The gods tried making a human body out of earth and mud, but it could not turn its head, and it crumbled in water, so they gave up on it. Next they created manikins out of carved wood. These people talked like men, and they multiplied and populated the earth, but there was nothing in their hearts, and they did not remember their creators. Heart of Sky devised a flood for them. A rain of resin came from the sky; animals attacked them, and even their cooking pots and grinding stones turned on them. The manikins were destroyed, but some of their descendants are today's monkeys. Finally, just before the first dawn, before the sun and stars appeared, four men were made from corn meal and water. These people saw everywhere and understood everything, and they gave thanks for being made. The creators thought the people would become like gods themselves, so they clouded the men's vision to its present state. Four women were made next, and these eight people became the parents of the Quiche people."

Well, this version of the creation sounds a little corny to me.....and besides real men don't mate quiche

As I remember from the Bible, there was Adam &amp; Eve, then two sons, one of whom killed the other for the inheritence, but instead was sent packing....and then Lordy God, a few pages further on, there's all these peoples, and the twin cities, like Minneapolis &amp; St. Paul, anyway the twin cities
Saddam and Gonorrhea, where folks are getting it on...which helps to explain the sudden rise in population....it gets lit up like Watts in the riot, and we're down to a handful again....and then just when things are looking up again...."raindrops kept falling on people's heads, until...." Noah saved the day though with his frigate....well, it weren't really a frigate, but when he was told to build a ship to hold all the species....he said "friggit" or something like that, and it stuck. They're building another super liner right now, to hold all the "beautiful people", well at least all the super-rich ones, in case there's another flood.
where were I? Oh yeah, we were discussing Quiche......

highsea
04-13-2005, 03:33 PM
Jack, just be glad you're not Ymir- how would you like to have one of your legs mate with the other and make an ogre? And, as if you haven't suffered enough, you get killed and they make a fort out of your eyebrows? Man, that's just mean...

And parents today think they have it bad...

BlindPlayer
04-14-2005, 08:51 AM
wolfdancer........."friggit" (two frogs in the ark vocalizing):

Thanx for the humor - I laughed so hard I could hardly speak when I called my brother (x-submariner) - told him to get on the 'net' and read hit himself. That's all I could get out...

mickeymouse
04-14-2005, 08:55 AM
I've enjoyed reading this thread but first time responding.

Sure glad some humor has been thrown into the mix it was getting pretty serious there for a few days!

Humor has also evolved.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-14-2005, 10:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BlindPlayer:</font><hr> Thanx for the humor - I laughed so hard I could hardly speak when I called my brother (x-submariner) - told him to get on the 'net' and read hit himself. That's all I could get out...
<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer must have started his day with a hearty bowl of primordial soup

Deeman2
04-14-2005, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mickeymouse:</font><hr> I've enjoyed reading this thread but first time responding.

Sure glad some humor has been thrown into the mix it was getting pretty serious there for a few days!

Humor has also evolved. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue">

"Kinks in Evolution" Wasn't Eric Clapton evolved out of the Kinks? </font color>

Deeman
not sure if it's humor or irony....

SpiderMan
04-14-2005, 11:27 AM
Or did she evolve? And how long before she became self-aware, and used her omnipotence to create some souls and a devil to keep her company?

SpiderMan

Chopstick
04-14-2005, 12:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Or did she evolve? And how long before she became self-aware, and used her omnipotence to create some souls and a devil to keep her company?

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

No, that's not how it happened. They've been telling that Genesis story all wrong.

First there was Adam and a Garden of Eden. And God said you can have anything in this garden you want but, see that tree over there. Don't mess with it or you'll be sorry. Well as soon as God wasn't lookin' he went over and messed with it and BAM! Then there was woman.

SpiderMan
04-14-2005, 02:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Or did she evolve? And how long before she became self-aware, and used her omnipotence to create some souls and a devil to keep her company?

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

No, that's not how it happened. They've been telling that Genesis story all wrong.

First there was Adam and a Garden of Eden. And God said you can have anything in this garden you want but, see that tree over there. Don't mess with it or you'll be sorry. Well as soon as God wasn't lookin' he went over and messed with it and BAM! Then there was woman.
<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, it went like this: Adam was lonely, and God offered to provide him a perfect companion; loving, understanding, intelligent, etc .... but said it would cost him an arm and a leg. Adam thought it over, and said "what can I get for a rib?".

SpiderMan

GreenLion
04-14-2005, 07:11 PM
Hehehe good joke /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

catscradle
04-15-2005, 12:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote JPB:</font><hr> "and I was interested to see if you knew how that moral standard came about. My bet is that morals and such are patterned after religion."


It is quite possible to construct a moral system with traditional values etc.... that does not depend on the belief in a supernatural being. It has been done. You will also find many atheists who lead very moral lives and many believers who lead extremely immoral ones. So yes, many people have derived moral systems from a belief in a supernatural being, but other people have devised moral philosophies that do not rely on the existence of such a being. On the more mundane level, non believers often live lives based on moral values. Some believers don't. It just depends.

<hr /></blockquote>

Morals are not dependent upon a god (or a God if you will), the reflect our genetic wiring and the way our society has evolved. It truly is as simple as that, whether or not there is a god who directed that "wiring" truly is a moot point. Who cares? If the originator of this thread chooses to believe let him, myself I choose a neutral path (agnosticism). I do which he had tried to camoflage (sp?) the true nature of his original thread as if he were interested in science.

As to the question of whether or not science takes "faith" I believe it may or it may not depending on the person's definition of science. If a person makes some kind of blanket statement that evolution is "true" then we're talking about "faith". However, I think most scientist take the stand that evolution is one extraordinary successful explanation of how the present state of biological entities came to exists. This does not take "faith", merely acceptance of evolutionary theory as the best working model of how life developed. It may not be "true", but we accept it so that we can move forward until it is proven wrong.

One of my favorite quotes says it best:

"The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,
All things to us, but in the course of time
Through seeking we may learn and know things better.
But as for certain truth, no man has known it,
Nor shall he know it, neither of the gods
Nor yet of all things of which I speak.
For even if by chance he were to utter
The final truth, he would himself not know it:
For all is but a woven web of guesses."
Xenophanes - sometime BC