independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
Create new topic 
Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)| Author | Message |
Common sense for Creationists I applaud all of your valiant and well-researched attempts to "scientifically" prove Creationism and disprove evolution.
If Prince.Org shuts down, I'm writing SLAVE on my left buttcheek! | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
hell if i know. i was late for the party. i didn't see what happened. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Creationism | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lilgish said: Creationism
Those people should study the folklore of the bible and its authors instead of quoting direct scripture; especially from modern English translations. the bible is confounding prose and illuminating poetry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
God is a lot more complicated than what you find in the Bible, IMO.
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mrdespues said: God is a lot more complicated than what you find in the Bible, IMO.
Carl Jung once said: "The purpose of religion is to protect people from a direct experience of God." People who KNOW they have experienced a force greater than themselves will understand that quote. I am an evolutionist btw, but not necessarily a rationalist. I really like Jung, but don't quite agree with that quote... I think you can have the direct experience, and the communal one with other like-minded souls. It just backs up the strong faith one already has on one's own. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: mrdespues said: God is a lot more complicated than what you find in the Bible, IMO.
Carl Jung once said: "The purpose of religion is to protect people from a direct experience of God." People who KNOW they have experienced a force greater than themselves will understand that quote. I am an evolutionist btw, but not necessarily a rationalist. I really like Jung, but don't quite agree with that quote... I think you can have the direct experience, and the communal one with other like-minded souls. It just backs up the strong faith one already has on one's own. sure. my experience of the church has been frustrating though. i went to an all-boys school for a time in high school and had religion pretty much shoved down my throat on a daily basis. i think religion is perhaps man's greatest delusion, yet i do see the good it brings to peoples' lives. pity that it has brought so much destruction, too....so I think to know God (at least, for me) there is a lot more out there in the world than just what the Bible has to offer on the subject. I kind of get the feeling sometimes that God might look down on the world and think of the Bible like Prince once thought of the Black Album: "don't buy the Black Album (or Bible), I'm sorry". Sure, I believe it has a lot to offer, but I'm not convinced it is The Truth. I value my ability to THINK a little more than take it as the ultimate truth about life. Truth, so far as I have surmised (in my opinion of course) is the knowledge that no one is like you and yet somehow everyone is, to a degree. I do not think the Bible is bad at all though (though it is probably quite inaccurate) - anything that encourages a love of humanity is a very good thing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mrdespues said: Heiress said: I really like Jung, but don't quite agree with that quote... I think you can have the direct experience, and the communal one with other like-minded souls. It just backs up the strong faith one already has on one's own. sure. my experience of the church has been frustrating though. i went to an all-boys school for a time in high school and had religion pretty much shoved down my throat on a daily basis. i think religion is perhaps man's greatest delusion, yet i do see the good it brings to peoples' lives. pity that it has brought so much destruction, too....so I think to know God (at least, for me) there is a lot more out there in the world than just what the Bible has to offer on the subject. I kind of get the feeling sometimes that God might look down on the world and think of the Bible like Prince once thought of the Black Album: "don't buy the Black Album (or Bible), I'm sorry". Sure, I believe it has a lot to offer, but I'm not convinced it is The Truth. I value my ability to THINK a little more than take it as the ultimate truth about life. Truth, so far as I have surmised (in my opinion of course) is the knowledge that no one is like you and yet somehow everyone is, to a degree. I do not think the Bible is bad at all though (though it is probably quite inaccurate) - anything that encourages a love of humanity is a very good thing. We're all different, but we're all the same. That is sure. You know that people who want to power trip will use anything they can to get ahead and wield authority over others. The Bible has historically been an authority. I'm just grateful to know the difference between what the Bible REALLY says and how it's misrepresented by those who care more about getting ahead in this world than any possible, Biblically-promised world to come... know what I'm saying? "They are having their glory in full" (Jesus's words) and don't really need God. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I already asked the "lack of water argument" to the most prominent creationist supporter on the ORG in several threads. But he didn't even TRY tro answer this yet. Same goes for questions about the size of the Ark: the biggest ship today couldn't even hold 1 percent of all species living today. Also consider that there are much more species already extinct than currently exist, so since God does not create new species, at the time of Noah there must have been even much much more. Again no answer from creationists.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: As for different species on continents, I can only think of one explanation: since certain species ARE currently and (as the fossil record proofs) always WERE located in certain continents, areas, islands, regions etc., Noah must have picked ALL of them up before the flood from places over the world, put them on the Ark, and after the flood deliver them back to their origins (how, if the Ark was already broke?!?) The logistics needed for that would blow FedEx up through the roof  and it would take several millions of years to accomplish this (mind, there was only Noah and his family then).I simply could not follow that (those) entire discussion(s)... didn't you guys get into continental drift theories? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: Dancelot said: As for different species on continents, I can only think of one explanation: since certain species ARE currently and (as the fossil record proofs) always WERE located in certain continents, areas, islands, regions etc., Noah must have picked ALL of them up before the flood from places over the world, put them on the Ark, and after the flood deliver them back to their origins (how, if the Ark was already broke?!?) The logistics needed for that would blow FedEx up through the roof and it would take several millions of years to accomplish this (mind, there was only Noah and his family then).I simply could not follow that (those) entire discussion(s)... didn't you guys get into continental drift theories? according to the bible Noah was about 6000 years ago (correct me if I'm wrong) and at that time the continents were practically the same like nowadays (just a few meters won't matter in that case) actually the continental drift is yet ANOTHER thing that strongly speaks against a young earth creation, it simply does not fit into the same time scale. it takes millions of years for them to drift apart, but we have enough evidence to proof, that they were togehter a long time ago (fossil record, geology etc.) “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: Heiress said: I simply could not follow that (those) entire discussion(s)... didn't you guys get into continental drift theories? according to the bible Noah was about 6000 years ago (correct me if I'm wrong) and at that time the continents were practically the same like nowadays (just a few meters won't matter in that case) actually the continental drift is yet ANOTHER thing that strongly speaks against a young earth creation, it simply does not fit into the same time scale. it takes millions of years for them to drift apart, but we have enough evidence to proof, that they were togehter a long time ago (fossil record, geology etc.) Just thought of another thing... theories on a possible canopy? Did you get into this? For a world-wide flood to have happened, I think there would have had to have been a canopy of water droplets covering the earth... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleJedi said: A worldwide flood resulting from 40-days' worth of rain is just not possible. The poles would have to melt completely and extra H2O from Venus would need to be shipped in so as to cover the entire EARTH.
The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water
By Paul Farrar In this short and, I hope, simple note I will discuss the physical implications of the often proposed "vapor canopy" explanation for the source of water for Noah's Flood as recorded in "Genesis". Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed. The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went. First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point. Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most 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. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today. How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? 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. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible? http://www.talkorigins.or...anopy.html “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said:[quote]
The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water
http://www.talkorigins.or...anopy.html Thanks! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said:[quote] Dancelot said: you're welcome  “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Another question for creationists concerning the use of "common sense":
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
because it couldnt happen according to mans standards is what your saying, shows that is was from F'ING GOD man. why cant you accept this. Like the parting of the red sea, we thought it was impossible until recently. well looky there. who are you friends? I dont like 'em! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PHI said: because it couldnt happen according to mans standards is what your saying, shows that is was from F'ING GOD man. why cant you accept this. Like the parting of the red sea, we thought it was impossible until recently. well looky there.
That same all-powerful God...who needed a simple man to build a wodden ship so that his millions of complex land-dwelling creatures wouldn't perish...? If Prince.Org shuts down, I'm writing SLAVE on my left buttcheek! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Heiress said: mrdespues said: sure. my experience of the church has been frustrating though. i went to an all-boys school for a time in high school and had religion pretty much shoved down my throat on a daily basis. i think religion is perhaps man's greatest delusion, yet i do see the good it brings to peoples' lives. pity that it has brought so much destruction, too....so I think to know God (at least, for me) there is a lot more out there in the world than just what the Bible has to offer on the subject. I kind of get the feeling sometimes that God might look down on the world and think of the Bible like Prince once thought of the Black Album: "don't buy the Black Album (or Bible), I'm sorry". Sure, I believe it has a lot to offer, but I'm not convinced it is The Truth. I value my ability to THINK a little more than take it as the ultimate truth about life. Truth, so far as I have surmised (in my opinion of course) is the knowledge that no one is like you and yet somehow everyone is, to a degree. I do not think the Bible is bad at all though (though it is probably quite inaccurate) - anything that encourages a love of humanity is a very good thing. We're all different, but we're all the same. That is sure. You know that people who want to power trip will use anything they can to get ahead and wield authority over others. The Bible has historically been an authority. I'm just grateful to know the difference between what the Bible REALLY says and how it's misrepresented by those who care more about getting ahead in this world than any possible, Biblically-promised world to come... know what I'm saying? "They are having their glory in full" (Jesus's words) and don't really need God. yes, I agree with that. A great many people abuse their own true nature to get ahead in life. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: Another question for creationists concerning the use of "common sense":
if the universe is only around 10,000 years old, due to the limitiations of the speed of light, we would only be able to see stars up to a distance of 10,000 light years maximum. that's not even enough to see all parts of our OWN galaxy yet, and nowhere even close to know about other galaxies. Any explanations? this is so abusrd, it almost hurts
. [Edited 4/6/05 4:07am] It would be possible for distant star light if when God created the Earth, that in effect it created a black hole or reverse black hole and the Earth was at the point of the event horizon. The reverse black hole affect would have slowed things on Earth but as the stars and galaxies moved away, they would have aged faster and faster, so that when Adam looked up he saw the stars. It's a completely plausible theory according to physics. See Starlight and Time by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. Using Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, he has shown how time can vary depending on your position in space—it affects your viewpoint. Time is slowed by gravitational forces. A clock at sea level has been shown to run more slowly than one on top of a mountain, because the one at sea level is affected by more gravity. This is an effect known as time dilation, and has been experimentally demonstrated. For a non-Christian site article on a black hole running in reverse and the idea that the big bang isn't a good theory go here: Smoller, J. and Temple, B, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(20):11216–11218, 30 September 2003. The standard assumption upon which big bang thinking is built (an assumption is a belief for which there is no proof either way) is that the universe does not have a center or an edge. Smoller and Temple’s paper assumes the opposite, just as does Humphreys in Starlight and Time. And just as Humphreys’ model has the universe expanding out of a white hole (a black hole running in reverse) so too does their paper! (In their model, the event horizon (the hypothetical boundary around a black or white hole at which time slows down dramatically) is still ‘out there’, whereas Humphreys has it touching the earth during Creation Week. So the Smoller-Temple paper is not concerned with time dilation.)   "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
... we are in and around all sorts of belief structures, whether right or wrong, they don't work unless you believe in them, probably best to stick with what you know and actually is and try and figure out how we're all going to get along ... and what about Punkie's Essay of the 7th Day of creation? the mysterious Giant Squid ... oh, and I was wondering, are there more people alive now than have ever lived? or have more people died? ------------------------------------------------
if the music's good... all else will follow ------------------------------------------------ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: I already asked the "lack of water argument" to the most prominent creationist supporter on the ORG in several threads. But he didn't even TRY tro answer this yet. Same goes for questions about the size of the Ark: the biggest ship today couldn't even hold 1 percent of all species living today. Also consider that there are much more species already extinct than currently exist, so since God does not create new species, at the time of Noah there must have been even much much more. Again no answer from creationists.
So scientists believe a flood happened on Mars but not on Earth? Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001. Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a "breaking up" of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences. (Genesis tells us there was no rain on the Earth yet but a mist came up from the Earth to water it.) There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during Noah's Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam. In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood (continental drift), have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated. This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep." 70% percent of the Earth's surface NOW is covered with water. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins. As for different species on continents, I can only think of one explanation:
since certain species ARE currently and (as the fossil record proofs) always WERE located in certain continents, areas, islands, regions etc., Noah must have picked ALL of them up before the flood from places over the world, put them on the Ark, and after the flood deliver them back to their origins (how, if the Ark was already broke?!?) The logistics needed for that would blow FedEx up through the roof and it would take several millions of years to accomplish this (mind, there was only Noah and his family then).
Totally laughable. I can not understand how a healthy human mind could believe those admittedly nice and fascinating little fairy tales to be historic, honestly... what's going on in their minds? Do you know the dimensions of Noah's ark? Do you know how many animals, exactly, were loaded on the ark? If you do, please let us know. If not, your assumtions are baseless. For animals each “kind” would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus” (plural genera), meaning that only about 8,000 animal genera (including some extinct animals), and when multiplying by two, meant that over 16,000 animals had to be aboard. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like ‘kind’, it should be clear that Noah did not have to carry 2 sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine ‘kind’, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed. There are perhaps only 55 different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably ‘teenagers’ and much smaller than the adults. Note that even the biggest dinosaurs came from eggs no larger than footballs. Also, many modern reptiles keep growing till they die, unlike mammals, and since dinosaurs were reptiles, even many evolutionists believe that the very big specimens were very old ones. According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, which is about 460x75x44 feet, with a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep. Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space). "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: A clock at sea level has been shown to run more slowly than one on top of a mountain, because the one at sea level is affected by more gravity. This is an effect known as time dilation, and has been experimentally demonstrated. Clocks run on gears. and gravity would effect the gears therefore making one run faster than the other. it has nothing to do with rate time moves. Jesus still loves you if you get divorce just not as much as before
You said til death do us part and you aren't dead yet http://rescuemarriage.org/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ehuffnsd said: Eternaldragon said: A clock at sea level has been shown to run more slowly than one on top of a mountain, because the one at sea level is affected by more gravity. This is an effect known as time dilation, and has been experimentally demonstrated. Clocks run on gears. and gravity would effect the gears therefore making one run faster than the other. it has nothing to do with rate time moves. Sorry, they were refering to an Atomic clock. The big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it. What Are The Types of Atomic Clocks? Today, though there are different types of atomic clocks, the principle behind all of them remains the same. The major difference is associated with the element used and the means of detecting when the energy level changes. The various types of atomic clocks include: * Cesium atomic clocks employ a beam of cesium atoms. The clock separates cesium atoms of different energy levels by magnetic field. * Hydrogen atomic clocks maintain hydrogen atoms at the required energy level in a container with walls of a special material so that the atoms don't lose their higher energy state too quickly. * Rubidium atomic clocks, the simplest and most compact of all, use a glass cell of rubidium gas that changes its absorption of light at the optical rubidium frequency when the surrounding microwave frequency is just right. The most accurate atomic clocks available today use the cesium atom and the normal magnetic fields and detectors. In addition, the cesium atoms are stopped from zipping back and forth by laser beams, reducing small changes in frequency due to the Doppler effect. www.howstuffworks.com So, yes gravity affects gears as well as atoms, which make up all living and non-living matter, which would affect "time". "I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the father, but by me." - Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: ehuffnsd said: Clocks run on gears. and gravity would effect the gears therefore making one run faster than the other. it has nothing to do with rate time moves. Sorry, they were refering to an Atomic clock. The big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it. What Are The Types of Atomic Clocks? Today, though there are different types of atomic clocks, the principle behind all of them remains the same. The major difference is associated with the element used and the means of detecting when the energy level changes. The various types of atomic clocks include: * Cesium atomic clocks employ a beam of cesium atoms. The clock separates cesium atoms of different energy levels by magnetic field. * Hydrogen atomic clocks maintain hydrogen atoms at the required energy level in a container with walls of a special material so that the atoms don't lose their higher energy state too quickly. * Rubidium atomic clocks, the simplest and most compact of all, use a glass cell of rubidium gas that changes its absorption of light at the optical rubidium frequency when the surrounding microwave frequency is just right. The most accurate atomic clocks available today use the cesium atom and the normal magnetic fields and detectors. In addition, the cesium atoms are stopped from zipping back and forth by laser beams, reducing small changes in frequency due to the Doppler effect. www.howstuffworks.com So, yes gravity affects gears as well as atoms, which make up all living and non-living matter, which would affect "time". I am a Chemistry Major... i understand atoms and actully gravity has little to do with the nucleus of an atom. i'd suggest looking up "Strong" and "weak" atomic forces that hold the nucleus together. gravity only works the way we understand on large bodies. also there is anti-gravity which some physicts think is keeping the universe expanding instead of falling back on itself. [Edited 4/6/05 23:28pm] Jesus still loves you if you get divorce just not as much as before
You said til death do us part and you aren't dead yet http://rescuemarriage.org/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: Dancelot said: Another question for creationists concerning the use of "common sense":
if the universe is only around 10,000 years old, due to the limitiations of the speed of light, we would only be able to see stars up to a distance of 10,000 light years maximum. that's not even enough to see all parts of our OWN galaxy yet, and nowhere even close to know about other galaxies. Any explanations? this is so abusrd, it almost hurts
It would be possible for distant star light if when God created the Earth, that in effect it created a black hole or reverse black hole and the Earth was at the point of the event horizon. The reverse black hole affect would have slowed things on Earth but as the stars and galaxies moved away, they would have aged faster and faster, so that when Adam looked up he saw the stars. It's a completely plausible theory according to physics. See Starlight and Time by Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. Using Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, he has shown how time can vary depending on your position in space—it affects your viewpoint. Time is slowed by gravitational forces. A clock at sea level has been shown to run more slowly than one on top of a mountain, because the one at sea level is affected by more gravity. This is an effect known as time dilation, and has been experimentally demonstrated. For a non-Christian site article on a black hole running in reverse and the idea that the big bang isn't a good theory go here: Smoller, J. and Temple, B, Shock-wave cosmology inside a black hole, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(20):11216–11218, 30 September 2003. The standard assumption upon which big bang thinking is built (an assumption is a belief for which there is no proof either way) is that the universe does not have a center or an edge. Smoller and Temple’s paper assumes the opposite, just as does Humphreys in Starlight and Time. And just as Humphreys’ model has the universe expanding out of a white hole (a black hole running in reverse) so too does their paper! (In their model, the event horizon (the hypothetical boundary around a black or white hole at which time slows down dramatically) is still ‘out there’, whereas Humphreys has it touching the earth during Creation Week. So the Smoller-Temple paper is not concerned with time dilation.) ohhh.. geeez, thanx so much  ... but I'm familiar with Einstein, black holes, time dilation and your "mountain clock"... all of that is supposed to be common knowledge by now. However, practically everythig in astronomy etc. currently indicates the age of the universe as beeing approximately 14 billion years old. And those scientists THOUGHT about Einstein, time delays and black holes when doing their calculations, believe me. Of course this timescale can still change a bit up or down due to new scientific discoveries, but nowhere you'll come near the 10,000.
and again the question... why on earth do you trust selected "sources" that fit your agenda but neglect thousands of other indications that DO overwhelmingly suggest that big bang really happend. Answer: hypocrisy. 
In a way... by using relativity of time as an argument here.. you shoot down another one of your arguments...suddenly it's totally absurd to talk about six 24 hour days... and since black holes are also stars, they were only created on day 4 according to Genesis... AFTER earth... so the time delay starts only in the middle of creation week?!?! I think I'm going nuts 
. [Edited 4/7/05 6:18am] “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Eternaldragon said: So scientists believe a flood happened on Mars but not on Earth?
Reuters, Mars Calamity May have Created Conditions for Life. New York Times, 16 March, 2001. Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a "breaking up" of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences. (Genesis tells us there was no rain on the Earth yet but a mist came up from the Earth to water it.) There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during Noah's Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam. In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood (continental drift), have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated. This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep." 70% percent of the Earth's surface NOW is covered with water. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles). Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah’s Flood are in today’s ocean basins. the ocean floor rapidly lifting up 6500 feet?? smoothed out earth's surface?? what kinda nonsense is that now?? Did Mount Everest grew to his current height within only 6,000 years? and if all the water came out from under earth's surface with volcanos, the ocean floor would have to SINK down actually, to fill the "vacuum"... anyway, no geologic evidence for all of this garbagae whatsoever, quite the opposite
dang, do you even read what crap you cut&paste in here? Again it seems creationists aren't reallly so sure about that subject either. I came across quite a few "explanations" on the "missing water" issue. No consistency whatsoever. Creationists can't even agree with themselves within their OWN pseudo world. Dude, just make it easy on yourself: just say God made the waters by MIRACLE, and also made it disappear again. Don't pretend "scientific" arguments where there are none. Do you know the dimensions of Noah's ark? Do you know how many animals, exactly, were loaded on the ark? If you do, please let us know. If not, your assumtions are baseless.
The dimensions of the Ark are in the bible, in case you didn't know. As for the number of animals... well, read on 
For animals each “kind” would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus” (plural genera), meaning that only about 8,000 animal genera (including some extinct animals), and when multiplying by two, meant that over 16,000 animals had to be aboard. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like ‘kind’, it should be clear that Noah did not have to carry 2 sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine ‘kind’, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.
There are perhaps only 55 different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably ‘teenagers’ and much smaller than the adults. Note that even the biggest dinosaurs came from eggs no larger than footballs. Also, many modern reptiles keep growing till they die, unlike mammals, and since dinosaurs were reptiles, even many evolutionists believe that the very big specimens were very old ones. According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits, which is about 460x75x44 feet, with a volume of 1.54 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep. Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).  this is to good to be true! Wherever you copied this one from, it's total and utter bullshit undermining your credibility more and more (wait.. nothing left to undermine really)
First: just 8000 species/genus whatever?!?! Hahaha! the only thing this article proves is the authors total lack of education on bilogy. There are over hundred thousand separate and distinct species of birds and land animals TODAY (most of them unable to crossbreed), and not even counting the much bigger number of already extinct species, not counting dinsoaurs, insects etc. Before, you were always insisting on the species (NOT the genus) and new ones can not come from macro-evolution. So what now? Following creation AND bilogy it's impossible for all of them to come from just 8000. "perhaps only 55 different ‘kinds’ of dinosaurs"... again this is absolutely laughable. seems the guy backed this "information" on his kindergarten book on dinsoaurs, that "perhaps" (how scientific and trustworthy his words sound) had 55 types in it. and in the bible there is also no talk of "eggs" taken onto the ark, eggs also can't walk two by two as far as I know. What you will come up next? Perhaps Noah just put DNA inside tubes and cloned all of the species afterwards? those are hilarious fantasies and not backed up by even one quote from the bible. so once again someone is trying to re-write the "word of God" to fit the agenda. Second: whoever wrote all of that bollox doesn't even know the content of the bible (NOT a vey good starting point I must say  ) 8000 x 2 = 16,000 yep, that is correct. But remember what you said on the other thread?? It was NOT only two of a kind, but 7.. 9.. clean.. unclean... whatever!! How quick we forget, huh? Oh dear, you're shooting down your OWN arguments, leaving me without a job in here
some more thoughts.. the "male female pair" description of thh bible also fails when talking about insects. you can not take just one pair of bees or ants, you HAVE to take the whole bunch. Just the queen and one male, even without females to take care of the brood, will die soon. or what about deadly bacteria.. how were they transported without killing humans and animals? but then again probably insects and bacteria were not on the ark according to Genesis... only birds and land animals, am I right? then how did they survive? Genesis says quite clearly that ALL life outside the ark was killed even if you totally forget about the animals. you never explained how the plants survived. where they also on the ark? Space is really getting tight there... The walls of your dream castle are tumbling down on every corner, poor guy  Take a look:
Constructing a wooden ship the size of the ark in times of antiquity would require an enormous expenditure of labor and materials. Where did Noah, by all accounts an ordinary man, obtain the resources?
Wooden ships do not withstand violent wind and wave forces very well, and this is particularly true for large wooden ships. The longest modern wooden ships are about 300 feet long, and require steel reinforcing to prevent breaking up. The contention that a wooden ship 450 feet long could withstand the catastrophic forces postulated in the creationist scenario has to be met with considerable skepticism. There are over a hundred thousand separate and distinct species of present day birds and land animals. It would be physically impossible for eight persons (Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives) to provide for the care and feeding of all the flies, termites, worms, snails, fleas, bats, frogs, spiders, bark beetles, intestinal parasites, etc, etc. Then of course we have several hundred species of larger animals that require 50 to 100 pounds of fodder per day: hippos, rhinos, buffalo, elephants, horses, cattle, giraffes, elk. moose, etc, etc. (Not to mention the enormous grazing dinosaurs that some creationists believe were sequestered in the ark.) Many, if not most, plants and/or their seeds will not survive a year under water. Did Noah transplant trees from all over the world into tubs to store in the ark, and if so, how did he manage to acquire them? Don't forget the meat eating animals. How did Noah acquire the tons of meat required for the diet of all those lions, tigers, hyenas, wolves, etc? (Not to mention Tyranosaurus Rex, Allosaurus, and all the rest!) In order for predatory animals like lions, wolves, etc. to survive, they must be outnumbered by their prey by at least a hundred to one. If each grazing animal and each predatory animal were represented by a single pair, then either all the grazing animals would be immediately eaten, or the predatory animals would starve to death, or both. The only other alternative would be for Noah and his descendants to have enough fresh meat stored to feed generations of lions, tigers, wolves, hyenas, foxes, eagles, hawks, etc. This scenario is totally preposterous! Many animals require special diets. Koalas eat only eucalyptus leaves. Aphids require fresh plants. How would Noah know about these dietary requirements, and how would he obtain food meeting these requirements? The logistics of stocking the food and feeding the animals is clearly a complete impossibility for eight persons! Just shoveling out the manure would a total impossibility; tons of food per day necessarily creates tons of manure per day! Unless all those animals happened to be living in the immediate neighborhood (very unlikely, considering the different habitats of rain forest tree frogs, desert geckos, and polar bears), most of them would have to travel over large distances to get to the ark, a physical impossibility. Besides, what could possibly motivate all those frogs, lizards, snakes, salamanders, dragon flies, spiders, ants, etc to leave their natural habitats and attempt to travel thousands of miles to the ark? How could they possibly make the journey? How would they know how to get there? The Bible states in Gen 7:4 that the ark was loaded in 7 days. The nine million species of animals extant would would have to board at a rate of 30 animals per second! The creationist claim that diversification has resulted in present-day species being far more numerous than the number of species in the ark contradicts their claim that evolution of species could not, and did not, ever take place. Keeping in mind that hibernation is not merely sleep, but rather a state of suspended animation, just keeping an animal in the dark will not cause it to hibernate. Most animals do not hibernate under any conditions, least of all in a ship violently tossed about under catastrophic storm conditions. How did all the present-day parasites and diseases survive the flood without decimating the host population? In spite of all the reported sightings of the ark on Mount Ararat, there hasn't been a single set of clear photographs showing the exact location and appearance of the ark. The alleged sightings have never been verified by any reputable organization, such as the National Geographic Society. here's even much more evidence on how ridiculous those ideas are http://www.talkorigins.or...s-ark.html . [Edited 4/7/05 7:13am] “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PurpleJedi said However, I implore you to put that Bible down and just use some common sense.
never gonna happen  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
PHI said: because it couldnt happen according to mans standards is what your saying, shows that is was from F'ING GOD man.
wrong assumption to begin with. Me or evolutionists or whoever do not have to accept or to proof ANYTHING about the bible. Only the few people, who for unknown reasons, take Genesis literal, THEY have the burdon of providing evidence. When I see Spiderman and my small human mind and "mans standards" can't explain how one could climb up walls, does that make him God? No. Because I perfectly know it's a story, written by humans. As long as someone quite simply negelects science and just relies on his faith, no problem at all. I respect that position completetly. But the moment that creationists wants to prove their story by using scientific methods, they have to accept scientific counter arguments, and their horrendous fantasies beeing shot down by REAL scientists. Simple thing really. . [Edited 4/7/05 4:59am] “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dancelot said: PHI said: because it couldnt happen according to mans standards is what your saying, shows that is was from F'ING GOD man.
wrong assumption to begin with. Me or evolutionists or whoever do not have to accept or to proof ANYTHING about the bible. Only the few people, who for unknown reasons, take Genesis literal, THEY have the burdon of providing evidence. When I see Spiderman and my small human mind and "mans standards" can't explain how one could climb up walls, does that make him God? No. Because I perfectly know it's a story, written by humans. As long as someone quite simply negelects science and just relies on his faith, no problem at all. I respect that position completetly. But the moment that creationists wants to prove their story by using scientific methods, they have to accept scientific counter arguments, and their horrendous fantasies beeing shot down by REAL scientists. Simple thing really. . [Edited 4/7/05 4:59am] yeah thanks for your honesty, and you are to be comended for you position and your intelligence. who are you friends? I dont like 'em! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Create new topic Printable version (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
