Welcome to the board MrMysterious. Yes, I left out a lot of details and interjected a lot of sarcastic humour. I also embellished a lot of ridiculous
points on purpose. They are funny if you understand the sciences, mostly geology and biology. There is plenty more to what I have presented. I was not
trying to teach the sciences with my statements only make though provoking references to things that make the whole flood story just that, a story. If
all I did was put out boring facts you might not have joined the board, no? Since you chimed in I will fill in a few details without trying to open
this up to a much bigger topic. Keep in mind I was making significant generalizations about evolution and abiogenesis while poking fun at some common
creationist claims. Yes, there was a global flood some time ago, but that was during the formation of the habitable environment on this planet
billions of years ago. At a time when life on this planet was minimal at best. Note: I have not attempted to present any of my own theories, just
As much as I don’t believe in the actual story it doesn’t detract from the idea (notice that I said idea and not fact) that there was a flood.
There’s piles of geologic evidence that shows mass global flooding, hundreds of stories from civilizations that were “not in contact with each
other”(a whole separate issue of mine), etc. But take a step back from the religious aspect of it, look at the geological evidence and factor in
things like Hapgood’s earth crust displacement theory and there’s a very good chance that a flood just may have occurred.
About Hapgood; www.talkorigins.org...
First, Where is any evidence of a global flood as opposed to numerous floods at different places and times? There is no evidence whatsoever, just
hearsay. The polar ice caps would float away if there were such a flood. There would be land-based debris globally scattered across the oceans. A
yearlong flood would leave a very thick sedimentary layer everywhere. There is no way we could miss such a layer if it existed. If such a layer
existed it would contain fossil remains from every single animal claimed to perish in the flood. This would include the dinosaurs commonly referenced
& John Woodmorrape.
Why did you implicate the numerous food stories as evidence that it happened? Stories migrate across lands and get modified on the way. (Sort of an
evolution of a story) There are stories in every land and every culture about monsters. These stories are not evidence of monsters. They are simply
stories as you said, “meant to teach us something”. In most cases I feel that such stories are misinterpretations and embellishments of certain
events. People simply want to believe that there is something behind the myths. Almost justifies why they do the things they do.
Second, if there was a sudden global flood, where did the water come from? If it were in a vapor canopy above us it would have some significant
effects. One of which would be a significantly high barometric pressure, which would have a detrimental effects on the living (the currently living
not historic). Also, if it were above us it would inhibit the suns heat from reaching the surface. If it came from below it would be hot water. Even a
mile below the surface the earth is pretty hot. Don’t go off on this there are a lot more details to each point. (Please study geography and
meteorology for this information)
On to the argument:
What argument? You have not learned your science. Specifically Geography, Chemistry, Biology, & Meteorology.
Here’s why there could not have been any global flood;
1) Half of the oxygen comes from living vegetation.
2) If you submerge all of the vegetation then half of your oxygen will be cut off.
3) The other half the worlds oxygen comes from phytoplankton (algae and such)
4) We (mammals) suffocate at 15% oxygen
Before we go on do you not understand these first 4 statements? Let me clarify a bit.
1) O2; a gaseous element that constitutes 21 percent of the atmosphere. It is essential for plant and animal respiration, and is required for nearly
all combustion that is capable of combining with all elements except the inert gases, that is active in physiological processes, and that is involved
especially in combustion processes. The presence of atmospheric molecular oxygen is unstable due to oxygen's propensity to react with (oxidize) all
manor of elements as well as various more or less reduced molecules and compounds. For example, carbon dioxide is the fully oxidized form of
2) The main driving factor of the oxygen cycle is photosynthesis, which is responsible for the modern Earth's atmosphere and life as we know it. If
all photosynthesis were to cease, the Earth's atmosphere would be devoid all but trace amounts of oxygen within 5000 years. The oxygen cycle would no
I’m not saying that the oxygen would be gone from the earth as the result of a flood just that atmospheric O2 would stop being produced and that the
other ongoing activities would reduce the percentage of that O2 quickly. Considering the massive world wide death and volcanic activity. If it
weren’t for the constant photosythesis cycle we would not have just 21% in the air, we would be increasing the amount of O2 to toxic levels. So if
you stop the global production cycle the global percentage will fall due to a number of O2 consuming effects (namely oxidation and bacterialogical
decomposition) in addition to the CO2 adding effects.
3) Please study hypoxia and how it relates to Phytoplancton blooms and subsuqunet oxygen depletion as the result of an uncontroled boom. Also study
the effects casued by the less dense fresh water entering the sea causing dead zones like in the Gulf of Mexico. If there was a global flood I think I
am safe in saying that it would be fresh water and not salt water.
I’ve read the National Geographic article your facts are coming from and you overlooked one thing.
"The oxygen released to the atmosphere when this buried carbon was photosynthesized hundreds of millions of years ago is why we have so much oxygen
in the atmosphere today," Sarmiento said.
The only fact I was getting from the article is the current source of our oxygen. What the article meant was level of oxygen was lower 2+ billions of
years ago (this we know www.windows.ucar.edu...
=/earth/past/oxygen_buildup.html). He was talking about an ongoing process; the process
by which the oxygen level increased slowly over billions of years primarily started from this phytoplankton. (There was no oxygen before this, mostly
carbon dioxide and other gases.) Allowing more vegetation to grow and provide more oxygen as it takes in CO2, an ongoing cycle.
You don’t think you are breathing 100-million-year old oxygen do you? Oxygen is unstable. I am bit concerned how you misunderstood that part of the
article. Keep in mind the article edited by a publisher as the result of an interview. It is not meant to teach you all of the facts, just to present
the basic story. (Note that O2 levels before the K/T boundary were about 30%.)
As the next statement from the article
“Today phytoplankton and terrestrial green plants maintain a steady balance in the amount of the Earth's atmospheric oxygen, which comprises about
20 percent of the mix of gasses, according to Frouin.”
It is a balance that a global flood would stop.
“If you submerge all of the vegetation then half of your oxygen will be cut off.”
Not exactly, half of the world’s oxygen production of that time would be cut off, you’d still have plenty of oxygen to breath in/from the
Not exactly correct. The oxygen level is not stable from millions of years ago. It is constantly being cycled through the living breathing plants and
Decomposition of dead animals and plants require oxygen. It is the composing and decomposition that will decrease the available oxygen in the air and
in the waters of the world once the regeneration process (photosynthesis) has stopped. But, the point I am making is that if the percentage of oxygen
were to drop to just 15% as a result of quite a few O2 consuming processes, everyone suffocates. Keep in mind the relative weight of all of the gases.
Also, an abundance of CO2 would fall to sea level and rest on the surface for quite a long time before it got absorbed. But this would depend on water
temperature and air currents and quite a few other things, but the percentage of CO2 would not be falling (dissolving in the oceans) within the year
of the supposed flood.
Additionally, from the same article:
A mature forest, for example, takes in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and converts it to oxygen to support new growth. But
that same forest gives off comparable levels of carbon dioxide when old trees die.
"On average, then, this mature forest has no net flux of carbon dioxide or oxygen to or from the atmosphere, unless we cut it all down for logging,"
Sarmiento said. "The ocean works the same way. Most of the photosynthesis is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite amount of respiration."
Since there was much more untouched land thousands of years ago, one can conclude that impact of submerged lands would have very little impact on
Yes, just like it says “give off comparable carbon dioxide”, which since the trees and vegetation would be under water would stop producing new
oxygen and they would give off the CO2 because they would die and decompose by bacteria in the presence of oxygen and use it up to produce CO2 under
water, no counter balance. This is my point. The levels of carbon dioxide would rise thus lowering the percentage of oxygen. And the available oxygen
would be reduced up by bacterial decay of the dead animals globally. This would create a deadly cycle to kill the fish as it used up their oxygen.
What you miss and the article does not explain (because that is not the intent) is the fact that there are plenty of oxygen producing plants that live
under the canopy of the forest. Without the forest this subsystem wouldn’t exist. This is one of the benefits of forest fires, they allow for new
growth, which produces large amounts of oxygen. Funny, some seeds need a fire to start germination to start a new forest. Anyway, there is a lot more
land vegetation around the world to give off oxygen unless it is dead and under water. Are you indicating that you believe that the world was one big
5) A great flood would cause sudden cooling of the earths surface causing it to contract and squeeze out some of the molten lava (volcanoes). They
would give off deadly gasses.
Proof?? Where on earth did you ever hear of this? If you theory is correct why is there no correlation between ice ages and volcanic activity?
Not my theory.
If you cover land with water it gets cold. Ever been under the ocean? It is cold.
I wasn’t talking about ice ages; the earth and the dynamics have changed since then. The surface of the earth is heated up by the sun. This heat is
held in by the CO2. There shouldn’t be any correlation between the ice ages and volcanic activity. Part of the cause of the ice ages is a decrease
in CO2, volcanos increase the CO2. Two more causes of the ice ages; Plate tectonics and variations in the earth orbit. Anyway, that is a different
time, place, and set of events. Not relevant to my point.
Actually, this was from the answersingenisis web site. (“cataclysmic geologic events involving extreme volcanism (Genesis 7:11), flooding, and the
destruction of life “ also, “magma flowing from volcanic eruptions” and “The only large volcanic and water catastrophe the world has
experienced was Noah’s Flood, some 4,300 or so years ago.” www.answersingenesis.org...
) They said that the flood was
associated with extreme volcanic activity. Which we know gives off significant amounts of; carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes
also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen
fluoride (HF), and helium (He).
All of these gases would displace and reduce the percentage of oxygen since there would be nothing producing more O2. Again, simply reducing the
current level O2 bellow 15% and everyone dies.
6) The ocean temperature would rise. Carbon dioxide (most of the earths CO2 is in the oceans) would be liberated out into the atmosphere. The water
would heat up (from the volcanoes and green house effect) and kill the phytoplankton.
Again, couldn’t find anything to support or debunk this idea however I found this on Wikipdeia:
Carbon dioxide is an end product in organisms that obtain energy from breaking down sugars or fats with oxygen as part of their metabolism, in a
process known as cellular respiration. This includes all plants, animals, many fungi and some bacteria. In higher animals, the carbon dioxide travels
in the blood from the body's tissues to the lungs where it is exhaled.
Can’t find anything to support this? Why? Where are you looking? Please study volcanoes.
Here is something interesting as well
Yes, very nice from wikipedia, but, the CO2 producing organisms would be dead and then be subject to the bacteria which produces CO2 from the
available O2, until they also die off. Unless there is no O2 to start the decomposition in the first place. There would be no respiration under the
From the same Wikipdeia;
“Carbon can be released back into the atmosphere in many different ways;
Through the decay of animal and plant matter. Fungi and bacteria break down the carbon compounds in dead animals and plants and convert the carbon to
carbon dioxide if oxygen is present, or methane if not.”
There would be methane production if there weren’t enough carbon dioxide, again note I am talking about not enough Oxygen left to breathe.
From the same Wikipdeia;
“Through reactions of limestone. Limestone, marble and chalk are composed mainly of calcium carbonate. As deposits of these rocks are eroded by
water, the calcium carbonate is broken down to eventually form, among other things, carbon dioxide and carbonic acid. Production of cement and lime is
done by heating limestone, which produces a substantial amount of carbon dioxide.”
Should be lots of erosion to release the CO2 if there was a global flood.
From the same Wikipdeia;
At the surface of the oceans where the water becomes warmer, dissolved carbon dioxide is released back into the atmosphere.
Volcanic eruptions release gases into the atmosphere. These gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide.
Like I said it would be getting warmer (as a result of many things in addition to the CO2) from the CO2 trapping heat causing more CO2 to be released
from the surface of the oceans. Also, to my point the volcanoes would release significant amounts of CO2 as well as may other gases. Sulfur dioxide
and the water would produce sulfuric acid; this would lower the ph of the oceans to deadly levels. All you have to do is lower the oxygen level down
to 15% and the mammals will suffocate.
The Earth's oceans contain a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the form of bicarbonate and carbonate ions--much more than the amount in the
atmosphere. The bicarbonate is produced in reactions between rock, water, and carbon dioxide. One example is the dissolution of calcium carbonate:
CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O ←→ Ca2+ + 2 HCO3-
Reactions like this tend to buffer changes in atmospheric CO2. Reactions between carbon dioxide and non-carbonate rocks also add bicarbonate to the
seas, which can later undergo the reverse of the above reaction to form carbonate rocks, releasing half of the bicarbonate as CO2. Over hundreds of
millions of years this has produced huge quantities of carbonate rocks. If all the carbonate rocks in the earth's crust were to be converted back
into carbon dioxide, the resulting carbon dioxide would weigh 40 times as much as the rest of the atmosphere.
The vast majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere will eventually be absorbed by the oceans and become bicarbonate ion, but the process takes on the
order of a hundred years because most seawater rarely comes near the surface.
So you argument falls short again. If a flood did in deed happen, it would have killed thousands/millions of animals and humans. Therefore it killed
the CO2 producors while the now larger ocean could absoreb more CO2.
7) Without the phytoplankton the oxygen level in the oceans would drop and all of the sea life would die
Again your argument implies that the ocean temp would rise to a level where phytoplankton could not sustain itself. Please provide reference.
What? This supports what I’m saying. You just said, “If a flood did in deed happen, it would have killed thousands/millions of animals and
I’m not sure what your point is here. What CO2 producer would be killed? Rocks?
Those rocks you brought up, calcium carbonate, is where the volcanoes get the CO2 that they liberate from beneath the plates. If it weren’t for
plate tectonics the CO2 would stay under the water and the earth would freeze without the CO2 to hold in the heat of the sun
Phytoplankton die and sink to the bottom, where they decompose. This process depletes the bottom waters of dissolved oxygen, which is necessary for
the survival of other organisms, including fish.
Phytoplankton kill temperatures typically 25 degree C but it depends on which type, Jellyfish are actually phytoplankton.
One of the historical mass extinctions was the result of carbon dioxide sequestered from the oceans by severe volcanic eruptions. This sudden release
would directly kill marine life, as well as cause a sudden global rise in temperature.
Please get this book; www.forum2.org...
It will answer most of what you say as problems with my points.
Most of the godly thoughts are from www.answersingenesis.org...
if you want to be given misleading information read their site.
Actually, this only part of the story again. The highly active waves would be churning the water so that the phytoplankton would be not on the surface
where it needs to be in order for the photosynthesis to happen. This is why you don’t see the stuff along the tidal coast or in active rivers. It
requires relatively still water and sunlight, lots of sunlight. If the water came from rain there would be little sunlight. If the sky were filled
with volcanic dust there would be little sunlight for photosynthesis.
8) Without any oxygen producing plant forms, the CO2 that was being liberated out of the oceans along with the CO2 and other asphyxiating gases coming
from the volcanoes the atmosphere would be filled up with greenhouse gases.
I believe my statement above show this to be untrue.
Nope, your statement does not. I only mentioned one thing. The phytoplankton would die from lack of sunlight among other things such as acid rain,
turbidity, murky waters, steam (from the volcanoes), tephra, etc.
I neglected to expand on the fact that the sulfur liberated from the volcanoes would be combining with the water to produce sulfuric acid this would
lower the ph of the water enough to kill significant amounts of ocean creatures to decay and use up the oxygen in the water, oxygen, which the fish
need to breathe.
10) The sun would heat up the surface of the earth well beyond a few hundred degrees because of the greenhouse effect. The dust from the volcanoes
would block the sun from reaching the surface, all photosynthesis would stop.
A meteorite impact created conditions similar to the one you’re talking about killed dinosaurs, but still some animals survived! And according to
the accepted Nuclear Winter theory, the increase in dust and debris in the atmosphere would prevent the sun’s rays from reach Earth therefore the
temperature would plummet, not rise. If it were just an increase of greenhouse gases the temp would rise. Your own argument contradicts itself.
Where did I mention nuclear winter or meteorite? Your example is about a very different time and set of conditions. I see where I miss led you. The
sun would get through the upper levels of the atmosphere. The dust from the volcanoes would be in the lower atmosphere allowing the heat in above it.
But the dust (tephra) would cover the plants and the water to stop the photosynthesis. Additionally, there it is heat coming from volcanoes that would
be trapped by the high levels of CO2 throughout the atmosphere. This is where the few hundred degrees comes from. Volcanoes supply supper-heated
gases, pyroclastic flows.
About the meteor you brought up.
Yes, some animals did survive the meteor impact. But this is a very different catastrophic event; for one thing it actually happened. An asteroid 10
miles in diameter hitting the earth at 25,000 miles per hour passing through the atmosphere in 10 seconds would produce an non-nuclear explosive force
about 10,000 times as strong as the blast of all the current world nuclear bombs at once. It would create a creator the size of New Hampshire.
Thousands of tons of rock as well as the entire asteroid would be blasted upward. Some of the debris would go into the earths orbit while some of the
heavier materials fall back through the atmosphere creating a red fiery sky from the resulting meteors. These fiery balls would ignite the earth
vegetation while stratospheric dust circles the globe. The shock of this impact and resulting heat would cause the atmospheric oxygen to combine with
the air born nitrogen and create nitrous oxide, which then changes to nitric acid with the moisture in the air. This acid would dissolve the
calcareous shells, as the top 300 feet of oceans would be concentrated acid. The shock wave would cause huge tidal waves leaving a trail of dead and
bloated carcasses of the dinosaurs. The remaining scavengers would go wild in the decay.
After the initial rise in temperature from the blast and the stratospheric dust blocking the sun the earth goes into a deep winter. Anything tropical
would die. Anything feeding on them dies. The carnivores that prey on the herbivores die. As the dust settles in the following months the high levels
of CO2 would then cause the greenhouse effect to start some intense global warming. These temperature swings is what causes the mass global
extinctions of the earth from a meteor impact.
Clearly not the same effect as that of massive volcanic activity as claimed by the creationists. The volcanic dust and debris did block out the sun in
the lower atmosphere, as well as coat everything. The dust of Mt. St. Helens did not cause temperatures to fall. But, a temperature rise is from the
greenhouse effect as CO2 traps the heat. CO2 is an insulator. Additionally, the oxygen levels 65million years ago was higher (30%), as was the oxygen
requirements of the animals then.
11) All creatures needing oxygen to breath would be dead and poached. In the water or on land all dead.
Not necessarily. Please refer to the dinosaur theory, some animals survived!
Keep in mind I’m not talking about dinosaurs 65 million year ago, that is a whole different show. This is about the oxygen levels 6 thousand years
ago. Did I mention we suffocate below 15% O2?
12) No arc.
Wrong conclusion, the arc was built before the flood. Your own argument proves your illogical thinking. Even if 1-11 were true there would still be an
arc. The store states that God alerted Noah before the rains! Noah build arc then 1-11 happens, therefore yes arc.
Illogical thinking? What do you mean? You haven’t shown that there was an arc? So who’s zooming who?
Actually I do believe there was an arc, just not the one people want to believe in. It was just a merchant ship that traded grains and livestock that
got caught in a tsunami. The tsunami was the result of a huge volcano (just one). Parts of it (ocean born lava rocks, they float as they are filled
with CO2, among other gases) can be found on top of mount Ararat. These volcanic rocks are not indigenous to Mt Ararat as they are of a completely
different composition. (This is from the Discovery channel; I can’t find an online reference)
You have made one of my overall points clear. The lack of understanding is not proof. There is only so much that I can write when I am trying to be
brief. I am making the point that there was no global flood and no Noah’s arc as the papyrus fables would have you believe.
I’m not saying that Gravity’s wrong. I’m just pointing out the obvious mistakes in his argument.
Now to address the first half of his post; Gravity, if I read you post correctly your conclusion is that since everything that has happened in the
universe is completely random. The creation of the universe, the creation of atoms, the coming together of the proper amino acids to form life and on
and on, if that’s all random how and why did it happen?
It seams to be an overwhelming ridiculous position to say that an intelligent major complex deity existed out of nothing from nowhere able to perform
countless acts that defy all of the physical sciences?
Well if God didn’t create us then we too came into existence “out of nothing from nowhere”, and I’d say we too can “perform countless acts
that defy” at least some of the physical sciences. Ridiculous? I think not.
When all’s said and done I don’t see how science can disprove the idea of God; in the same fashion that God can’t disprove science, the two are
You want to know how? Are you kidding? I can only write for so long. You misunderstood the National Geographic article to mean that we are breathing
million year old oxygen. You misinterpreted the results of massive volcanic activity to be the same as a meteor impact. I don’t claim that we came
from nothing I see this as one of the ridiculous arguments of creationists. I am saying that everything is made up of energy E=MC2. :bash:
I’m just going off about the lack of oxygen in addition to the other effects of massive volcanisms for anything to survive the claimed global flood.
You want to know how then there are several science courses you need learn. The Theory of Evolution is made up of thousands and thousands of smaller
theories, which deal with the changes of existing life. Please study Abiogenesis for the start of it. I was just hitting one topic of creation until
you chimed in. www.origins.tv...
This is a new field of study so you won’t find much from the science world. Mostly rants from creationists who don’t want to understand. Pick up a
copy of Scientific American you will learn quite a lot.
I can’t disprove god, science can’t do that either. You can’t prove stories wrong because they are just stories. That is my point. I was
purposely stating it in a ridiculous way. God or not you can’t create matter out of nothing; you need energy or vise versa. You have to decide which
If you believe there is a god, he could have just started the natural processes which science explains. This is just a statement to humor the
creationists. God being dispersed, again another humorous statement which if you follow what I’m saying you certainly know that I am just making up
any part about god. There is no attempt to explain why just how. God is limited to the area of things that we do not know, that area is shrinking.
In the beginning there was energy or matter, E=MC2 they are interchangeable. Personally I feel that there was just energy and that is what many people
interpret as their god. It was always there. All matter is made up of energy reduced to a slow vibration.
You are made up of the same atoms (same electrons, protons, neutrons or leptons & quarks) as everything else that exists.
Sorry about the misuse of effect and affect, I’m lazy with spell checks corrections.
Affect- To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
Effect- A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
I generally will make ridiculous statements, which are the product of what I read on the creationist web sites. I feel that they are transparently
ridiculous because I was talking about both sides at the same time; sorry you took those parts so literally.
Einstein just started the theory. It is a theory because it breaks down under different conditions. (High gravitation and microscopic) This does not
invalidate the theory; it leaves it open for modification. The intension is not to teach but to provoke people to read their science. I understand
your points. Glad you looked into some of what I wrote, as that is the main purpose.
Few other points
The very beginning there was god (creationist) but, there is no beginning because he was always there
What came before the Big Bang? If the Big Bang was the beginning or the universe, according to your argument, what came before it? It’s an
impossible argument on both sides.
Then he ceased to exist billions of billions of years ago
Proof? Prove to everyone that god ceased to exist billions of years ago, and furthermore if he did how would anyone ever know about him in the first
place? You own argument states that mankind, in one form or another, has only been around for 2 million years. It’s just as impossible to prove he
doesn’t exist as it is to prove he does exist.
Again, more purposely transparent humor.
I love this statement
“It’s just as impossible to prove he doesn’t exist, as it is to prove he does exist. “
I have been saying this for years, thanks.
What do you mean how would anyone know about him? We know about him just like we know about the boogieman and Santa someone made him up to explain
some things and to make a point. That’s why we have the papyrus fables.
Like you said “a story meant to teach us something, not convey fact.”
You are right on the mark here!!
He was dispersed into energy (evolutionist) but, the energy was always there
Again show us the proof that God was dispersed.
More humor because I don’t believe there is or was a god, but I can’t prove that. The evolutionist can stay with the idea that energy or matter
was always there. The evolutionist can also possibly believe that this is the only thing that maybe some indication of a deity because the evidence
indicates that everything else happened without one. But this is an Abiogenesis topic.
Time began when the first hydrogen atom was formed from this catastrophic event.
Time is believed to have started at the moment of the Big Bang, but even M theory is having trouble with that!
Yes, does anyone have a good definitive start for time? Your guess is as good as mine. But I think that since I am claiming that there was only energy
forever then the start of that energy turning into matter is as good a place as any. Perhaps I could have started with quarks but I think that
Hydrogen is easier for people to understand.
The universe took shape as particle began to interact, effect each other. This was gravity, electricity, and magnetism. Fundamental principles that we
can test, and study. One of the things that Einstein was working on was how to put these into on unifying theory. E=MC2 was just a start. It needed to
include more but this was difficult without more study of the universe around us. (or universes around us)
First off it’s affect not effect. Einstein was far behind on the idea of the Unified Theory, look into German mathematician Georg Riemann; Scottish
physicist Sir William Thompson; Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell; and British mathematician Sir William Rowan Hamilton, these were the pioneers
of Unified Theory. Einstein’s theories never even came together until he was made aware of Maxwell’s scalar quaternion.
Thanks for the references. Einstein died working in this direction. I wasn’t trying to discredit anyone. I was just using Einstein because most
everyone can understand what he is about without needing to do research into the unfamiliar names you mentioned.
This thermonuclear chain reaction must have lasted for infinity since there was no time.
Impossible, time is the 4th dimension, and as you clearly stated billions and billions of years have passed.
Again, more humor, my mention of no time is in reference to the creationists who say that god has always existed and time started when he made it so,
you don’t believe this creationist claim? But, you seam to believe time started with the big bang, why? There certainly was activity in the universe
before it all came together for the big bang to happen. I believe energy was around first, for billions of billions of years. Time might just as well
start with the first bit of matter.
I understand the point you are trying to make: random interaction between primordial elements and the like is what led to mankind, and if we have it
backward, man created god not god created man, does that make God is just another creation of evolution? Round and round we go..................
Thanks MrMysterious, I see the flood stories just like the Santa Claus stories. They are everywhere but they prove nothing. “a story meant to teach
us something, not convey fact.”
I see “god” as the collective energy of souls. The simplest example I can give is; when you go to a musical concert (I prefer hard rock) and the
entire audience starts to sing the song. Almost every single soul in the place is singing along with perfect rhythm such that the band stops to listen
to the audience. The feeling you get is so strong, so powerful, and everyone even those that were not singing feel it. That is power. That is a rush
of adrenaline. That power can also be felt at church if all of the followers really get into it. With that power in the church how could anyone say
that they didn’t feel the power (the power that creationists attribute to god)?
What would you like to call that affect?
Thanks for the discussion MrMysterious.
Have a nice day.