The Flood Legend

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I stand corrected. I submit and yield to yours and Dr Emitrius par Excellance Hovind's razor sharp analysis of the details. I will turn in my EAC badge shortly and have already sent the check out for a collection of videos





external image




posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
As insects dont breath air, as they err, live under water or something, Noah didn't need to get them on the Ark.


For your own education.. they breathe though the joins in their outerskeletons.
I scrolled down and was astonished by your willingness to embrace this bs... Was your post satire?

Mods.. could we PLEASE have a sticky thread devoted to DrDino's stupidity? Every thread ends up as a "science for dummies'' lesson because we have to keep refuting the same cut n paste propaganda repetitively.. it'd be better to quarentine them in one place.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
We won't have a thread dedicated to any alleged 'stupidy' of the brilliant geo-biotheologist Dr Mr Kent Hovind, as it is clear to me know that he is infact, not stupid, but in reality, a super genius. We will not, for example, participate in the evil and jealously of these people
www.talkorigins.org...

Nor will we concern ourselves with this
home.austarnet.com.au...

Dr Mr Kent Hovind tells us that he is a Doctor, and really that should be good enough.

This anti-hovind tract is obviously inspired by demons.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
As insects dont breath air, as they err, live under water or something, Noah didn't need to get them on the Ark.


For your own education.. they breathe though the joins in their outerskeletons.
I scrolled down and was astonished by your willingness to embrace this bs... Was your post satire?


Satire? What's that? I can't find any reference to it in my Bible.

Anyway, just to correct you: insects do not breathe. This is a lie propogated by evolutionaryaryaryists and Darwinians. Insects have Intelligent Respiration (IR, coming to a school near you), that is God provides all of their metabolic reactions. For which the insects praise the Lord daily, as you should.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Satire? What's that? I can't find any reference to it in my Bible.

Now I'm convinced.

that is God provides all of their metabolic reactions. For which the insects praise the Lord daily, as you should.

Yes. I have seen praying mantises pray.. especially the males ones.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
We won't have a thread dedicated to any alleged 'stupidy' of the brilliant geo-biotheologist Dr Mr Kent Hovind, as it is clear to me know that he is infact, not stupid, but in reality, a super genius.

Seems he has something going for him.. not sure whether he just abuses poeple till they cave in or just persists like some members here with the same rhetoric. It's clear he has a knack for propaganda.. though disconcerting it is still interesting to watch how these politics work.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Lets take a look at the author of this threads ridiculouos idea. Just because several cultures of people on earth mention great floods....it is assumed that there must have been a global flood of the magnitude described in the bible.

I guess logic and common sense are disregarded with this type of people. I have responded to these threads before, but as of late I have been ignoring them. Circumstances bring me back again.

Lets think. Could the people of the old testament have communicated with others around the world while there flood was occuring? So could they have known it was global?

WEll, who cares about that. Floods happen all the time...take a look at Indonesia and New Orleans. Don't you think that a disaster like those could have spurred a story? Not to mention that there was no science then. Who could have known that an earthquake that occured a thousand miles away could have caused such a flood? Even if they did, how are they supposed to explain the earthquake in the first place. These people still believed the world was flat and at the center of the universe.

A hurricane, typhoon? How do they explain such an occurance? The flooding of the nile river basin, or any river basin that caused hardship.

The logic is there. You just have to reorginaize your brain.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Land and Water falls and rises.

This is fact!

Ice ages occur....

This is fact!

Land that was once exposed to sunlight is now underwater

This is fact!

Land that was once exposed to sunlight is now under ice

This is fact!

Ice Caps shift

This is fact!


Dismiss the Christian idea of creation and just wonder for a minute what civilisations once dwelled on these lost lands.

What where they capable of?

Who were they?

And what happened to them?

Maybe flood stories are based on rivers flooding or changes in the environment in certain geographical areas.

But then again maybe not...

What happened when Gibralter broke away from Africa and let the formed the Mediterranean sea for example?

Lets hope common sense prevails



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobDylan
Lets hope common sense prevails


Don't we all Bob, don't we all.

I'm not sure quite what point you were making, though it must be said I lost all respect for you when you sold-out and went electric. Traitor!




EDIT: shpelling

[edit on 11/10/05 by FatherLukeDuke]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
www.theosophy-nw.org...

May this be of interest to your original query..


[edit on 11-10-2005 by siriuslyone]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The only thing that is amazing is the ignorance of creationists. Sorry but I find them lacking the fundamental ability to think on their own. They are guided by god, or at least that it what they foolishly believe. Constantly lying about the facts and claiming that they have cornered the market on the myth. Since there are so many stories and so many (blind believers) it must be true.


If I was to be paid +$200,000 a year to lie to a group of gullible people you are dam right I would be out lying my ass off just to make such a living. (hello Hovind) Yeah, god exists he is in your head and as long as you call it god (as opposed to calling it your conscience or the voice of Charles Manson) then you are a creationist. Otherwise you will be locked up in the Looney bin. You are one of the many followers of the lord our god. If the majority of people happen to be in a category that fits this belief and you are running for a political position do you think that for one minute that you would win if you stood up and told the truth? No absolutely not. (It is about money) Coercing people to do, as you want depends only on your appeal. If you appeal to god then the many who believe in the word of god will follow you. This is the fundamental way of the masses. Huh, masses that’s funny


Anyway this is how it works as basic as is can be.
1) The very beginning there was god (creationist) but, there is no beginning because he was always there
2) Then he ceased to exist billions of billions of years ago
3) He was dispersed into energy (evolutionist) but, the energy was always there

It this faith? 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? That deifies all known aspects of reality for an undefined infinite infinity. How can you believe in an unseen, unheard (no group of people have ever heard the very same words of god at the same time, just to make you think, no group of people who only knew different languages) deity?


The evolutionist can simply say that energy was always there. Much less faith believing that there was always energy. (you want to call it god, well fine do just that) In fact it is so simple I can’t understand how anyone can even begin to think that there was always a deity that had nothing to do and had no sense of time or space until he/she/it created it. Come on get a clue how it this even remotely more believable then to simply believe that all there was,was energy? (or mass, I am speculating here)


Then there was Abiogenisis. A new topic but it falls in front of evolution and basically can be seen as the prerequisite.


4) The energy was unformed and randomly dispersed at the speed of light. No god here, no deity.

5) Millions or billions of billions of years past. (Evolutionist). But for the creationist since they believe that god always existed how can this be a difficult thing to grasp? (Oh yeah, your mind is closed because I already claimed that god ceased to exist if there ever was one)

6) Then all the energy (evolutionist) or the particles of god (creationist) were free to bombard themselves repeatedly. All the leptons and quarks bounced around to form the protons and neutrons and electrons. (Sort of like the gaseous moisture condensing into liquid water.) These trillions of trillions of trillions of electrons, protons and neutrons were alone to bounce around in the area that holds all of the possible universes that have, can, or will exist.

7) Slowly (over billions of years) these simple particles bounced into each other to form hydrogen. (one neutron, one proton and one electron) A miracle. Oh my god a miracle. No one or nothing was there to see this. But hey since we know what things are made of and that all it takes is the little pieces and lots of energy it seams quite plausible. Certainly testable!

8) After billions of years many of the well-known basic elements were formed in an area we call the universe. 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)

9) Billions of years energy, magnetism, gravity, electromagnetic waves or repulsion and attraction. Radio, light, heat microwaves, etc. all in a vacuum with minimal heat. There were sparks and strange electromechanical reactions that would have been spectacular to see. (or was it god? No, no such thing he is what gave us the stuff we have that makes up the universe or universes.

10) This thermonuclear chain reaction must have lasted for infinity since there was no time. Time began when the first hydrogen atom was formed from this catastrophic event. Ten billion years ago one of these electro-mechanical reactions started to cause the basic elements to combine and form basic gasses. This is also possible within our current understanding of physics and the basic laws of thermodynamics as the energy slowed to a simple vibration matter was formed. The matter as simple atoms began to combine. Into molecules. Identifiable gases and particles each with their own specific traits.

11) Within this void of space, time, matter, and electricity formed the building blocks of life. From the same things that life is made up of now.

12) AbioticSynthesis was the result. I’ll skip the details (note: this is not faith, this is just a very big topic to expand on)

13) Microbes were scattered about this shapeless void. Particles were colliding into matter, solid and liquids. Gravity became a strong force and stars were formed. Energy combined in massive locations collapsing and creating the things we see to call the planets and stars and such that make up the universe.

14) Gravity slowly pulled it all in. it became a massive chunk of energy and matter. Pressures that can’t be reproduced by humans. Temperatures that can’t be imagined. The big expansion.

15) 6 billion years of expansion. 6 billion years of collisions. 6 billion years of microbe scatter across the universes, or at least this universe. Enough collisions and gravitational events to clear things out and make galaxies.

16) Skipping ahead. The Milky Way galaxy and our solar system. For the last 4 billion years the planets (there may have been more) took shape. The earth was a molten lump that unusually had lot of heavy metals. Maybe because of it centripetal position from the sun/star. But it was hot enough to be moltenly round like a falling lead shot.

17) The earth perhaps had all of the elements we see here now. There was a heavy steam cloud as the atmosphere. The surface pressures due to the vapor cloud were immense.

18) The earth cooled. The left-handed proteins that have been flying through space living on matter for billions of years have been landing everywhere. Some landed on planets that would allow them to grow and evolve. These planets had very short-lived habitats. Microbes and evolved creatures they didn’t live long enough to evolve into mammals, or did they? Just doesn’t seam likely within this universe. (I’m skipping a lot of details hear) meteor showers repeatedly broke apart other planets that may have supported life. Some of that life may have been landed here, alive.

19) The core of the earth is a living molten mass that turns and churns and shifts and as the surface cooled land mass/rock was formed. This surface rock was broken up by the movement of the lava and magnetic motion of the earths core (still leaving out lots of details here, these aren’t gaps)

20) The left-handed proteins had formed microbes all over the universe. These microbes found the earth habitable. They grew. They formed waste products, new elements, gases, and carbon. They formed organic layers. (Skipping more detail here too)

21) The land mass began to break apart forming continents. Some of the continents weaken to form fissures and molten rock, lava formed volcanoes. The earth cooled down further allow the vapor cloud to form water, to form oceans. The surface pressures were reduced as the cooling of the earth contracted its surface. Some of the continents pushed into each other. Water was scattered everywhere. Weather began to happen. Storms and volcanic activity. Rain and steam and earthquakes. As the earth cooled different layers of rock were laid down. Some cooled at different rate creating different rock formations and different types of crystals (skipping more details here)

22) Multiple layers of rock, crystals, soils and such were hit with huge waves, large amounts of debris. The earth was relatively smooth, without mountains. Millions of years past. Phytoplankton formed and oxygen started to be produced. The UV light from the sun reacted with the oxygen and other gases to form an atmosphere. Weather started some basic cycles. There were scattered earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and volcanic eruptions. Millions of years past.

23) Evolution

24) The building blocks of life began to evolve into microorganisms, into self-replicating organisms, into aquatic life forms. Still a very hostile environment. Simple sea creatures developed. Catastrophic weather and metrological events and meteor hits from space repeatedly caused mass extinctions. Causing fossils to form at the bottom of the primitive oceans of the world.

25) This went on for millions of years. Some of the continents pushed together forming mountains carrying the rock layers up out from beneath the water.

26) The mountains had some fossils as a result of first being under the water. Then carrying the fossils up as the mountains were formed. This is why we have fossils in the mountains. These fossils match those fossils that are still in the oceans because did not get pushed up to become mountains.

It was not caused by any global flood 6000 years ago!:bash:


27) The some of the geological layers were worn away from the brutal weathering of the earth. More creatures were formed under conditions that would be lethal to current life. More mountains were formed. The Earth continued to cool. More oxygen in the water more life in the water. Some creatures ventured out of the water. Plants started to form out of the water. Some creatures died off. New ones were formed. Radiation and UV light was intense. Some creatures evolved. Some were mutated some survived some reproduced. There was very little oxygen

28) Photosynthesis moved to land able forms of life. Pants began. Creatures began feeding on plants. More waste produced more soils and fertile lands for evolution of life. Earthquakes continued, hurricanes continued, volcanoes continued. Some creatures developed some died off.

29) More weather, more evolution, more development of the planet surface. Continents took shape as they were pushed around by plate tectonics. Mammals formed (skipping a lot of detail again).

30) There were regular meteor showers, there were mass extinctions, there was continuous evolution, there were cockroaches and dinosaurs. There were catastrophic events. Periods of darkness, periods of cold, ice formed, the earth was still taking shape. Tilting to one side and spinning creating seasonal weather events. Oceans tides and seas, tsunamis, etc.

31) May layers of sediments were deposited by the years of significant events. Layers were pushed up by plate tectonics. Other areas were pushed under some of the plates. Areas were blown away by meteor impacts one of which created the moon. Creatures died and creatures developed. The earth began to take a more habitatable form. More evolution occurred. More plants creating oxygen. Different and larger mammals were able to form (Skipping more details)


All of these steps are based on observable facts. It has been a long time so I may have skipped a few of the good steps that evolutionists learned in school but this is the basic story of how we came to be. Notice that I didn’t mention any work for god as there is no need for such. Evolution of man took the last 65 million years. It is only the last 2 million that a humanoid type creatures developed.

12,000 to 11,000 years ago language took form (before that there was music to communicate) Only the intelligent had the language. Only the intelligent gathered wealth, only the wealthy taught the language to the people that needed to be in control. To control the populations of people the intelligent peoples of power told stories of incredible powers that be, that could not be stopped that would kill all those that disobeyed. This is how god started just like a monster from an Alfred Hitchcock movie. You would never see the creature because only you yourself could imagine what was the scariest creature to you. This fear kept the followers in line this is how rulers controlled the people, by the fear of god. Slowly the people began to learn. Slowly they began to communicate with writing. The teachings became worship. The following became religion. And then religions started to write the teachings. To write the lessons of life. To control the people. To retain the power. Books were commissioned to be written as the rulers saw fit. They were carefully crafted. They were similar among different tribes of people. They were edited and modified as time saw fit. They were combined into the papyrus fables. For all those that could not see right from wrong they were to be smited and it was written so it shall be done.

There was no Noah’s Arc as the creationists would like to believe. Why expand on the possibilities when the facts prohibit any global flood in the first place?

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

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.

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.

7) Without the phytoplankton the oxygen level in the oceans would drop and all of the sea life would die

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.

9) Toxic gases from the volcanoes would combine with water to form acid rain and other toxins.

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.

11) All creatures needing oxygen to breath would be dead and poached. In the water or on land all dead.

12) No arc.


A global flood would quite simply be world wide extinction of all creatures needing stable temperatures and oxygen to live. Back to the extreme microbes again. It would take much longer then 65 million years to get to where we are now if there ever was a global flood. So the evolutionist can say for sure there was no global flood and no arc, as you know it.

Noah’s arc was a simple merchant ship that got caught in the tsunami that filled in the basin now called the Black sea. The bible is a bunch of tall tales to say the least. There are more believable stories about Santa Claus.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Gravity;

WOW, get into it..
I love to read the science types, as you will be so shocked and in awe when you get to the 'other side', you will say where was my head?
The Universe is intelligently run and very loving.
Trust me, I have been there thrice and it is beyond words..



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
If you simply agree that was a global flood 6,000 years ago and Noah saved the animals on a big boat I will let you off and we can forget about the whole thing ever happened.


But you haven't explained all the races and how the different peoples got to suddenly look different in 4,000 years and howcome God went to all that trouble to save one pair of each kind of animals (not true... it was seven pairs of the clean and one each of the unclean) and then promptly killed and turned some of them into rock.

Or how you tell an Evil animal from a Good animal if only the evil ones got drowned. Ya gotta wonder what the poor brainless Palaeospondylus gunni did to tick off the divine Jehovah so much that he'd kill it dead and fossilize it in Scotland, of all places.
www.fossilmall.com...

C'mon, now. Ya can't just give up with that! Inquiring minds want EXPLAINATIONS! And EXCLAIMATIONS!



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I have thought for years that those who died in the flood lived in the mediteranian. Then the bearing straight opened up, filling what we know as the mediteranian sea. It pushed noahs arc to mt ararat, then the water leveled out.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Problem with that is that the filling of the med. basin was way too long ago.
Answers.com

The area underwent repeated flooding and desiccation over a 700,000 year span. About 5.4 million years ago at the start of the Pliocene period the barrier at the Strait of Gibraltar broke, permanently reflooding the basin.



Human Evolution Timeline



Meaning at the time of the flooding man was about to do this:
external image



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Ok, I’m new to ATS but not new to this whole area of interest. I’ve been reading about this topic and others for over 10 years, and I’m a research librarian for more then 5 years so I know how to research and what constitutes good research. I normally don’t like to get involved in debates such as this, but felt inclined.

Before you read on let me tell you this. I believe that there was some kind of global flood, not a flood to the extent that it encompassed the entire earth but to the extent that sea level rose and rivers flooded to create many local floods around the globe.

I’m not a religious nut, I know there are hundreds of flood stores, and many come from lands that were believed to not be in contact with each other. However I believe the story of the flood is an allegory, a story meant to teach us something, not convey fact. I enjoy reading about it and I find the picture of the arc in the mountains very exciting but I still don’t believe that it’s Noah’s actual boat.

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.

On to the argument:


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



I’ve read the National Geographic article your facts are coming from and you overlooked one thing. news.nationalgeographic.com...

"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.

“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 atmosphere.


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 oxygen levels.




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?


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.
en.wikipedia.org...

And this:
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.
en.wikipedia.org...



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.


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.


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.


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!


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.

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 inherently intertwined.


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.

He was dispersed into energy (evolutionist) but, the energy was always there
Again show us the proof that God was dispersed.

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!

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.

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.

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..................
mod edit to add quote code and wiki links provided by thread author



[edit on 18-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
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 hypotheses.




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 by www.answersingenesis.org... & 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 carbon.

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 longer exist.

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. news.nationalgeographic.com...

"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 atmosphere.

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 animals.
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 oxygen levels.

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.
www.conservation.state.mo.us...

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 suffocating forest?

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).
volcanoes.usgs.gov...

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.

www.pbs.org...
volcanoes.usgs.gov...


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
news.bbc.co.uk...

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 water.

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.


And this:
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 humans”
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.
www.fao.org...

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.
www.enchantedlearning.com...
www.sdnhm.org...
www.pibburns.com...

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?
rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu...


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 inherently intertwined.

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...
en.wikipedia.org...

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 came first.

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. en.wikipedia.org... en.wikipedia.org...

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.




posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
MrMysterious
Opps,
Sorry about my responce to this part. I missread what you said.


"
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.


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 humans”
I’m not sure what your point is here. What CO2 producer would be killed? Rocks?
"




The death I'm talking about would be any mammals that could have been on the boat in addition to oxygen dependent sea life.

Yes, the breathing creatures not on the boat would die as a direct cause of the flood. But the decay of the "thousands/millions of animals and humans" would be producing CO2 while using up the unreplenishing O2. In addition to the chemical effects of the super heated lava causing elemental reactions with any available O2. Thus, reducing the overall percentage of oxygen.

The oceans (or flood waters) as I am claiming would be hot and liberating CO2, they would have to cool down to absorb it. The majority of the earths CO2 is already dissolved in the ocean. The breathing of mammals is a minor contributor of CO2 (and minor consumer of O2) in comparison to the natural tectonic process.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by xeroxedprophet
If I'm not mistaken, at the time of the writing of the bible, the "Entire world" consisted of the mesopotamian region of the world. There are documented cases of the tigris and euphrates rivers flooding. If you put two and two together, there WAS a flood, but it only encompassed that area, not the whole world as we know it today.


A very good observation...

This site discusses some early documents discussing the great flood and archeology to support the Tigris and Euphrates theory

mcclungmuseum.utk.edu...


Another is a CNN story about the great flood being centered around the Caspian

archives.cnn.com...

Somewhere I read about a theory that the Mediterranean was a valley and what is now the Straits of Gibralter was blocking the Atlantic. Some undetermined natural disaster 'broke' the seal, flooding the valley and creating a massive flood as the Med valley became a sea.

It is readily apparent that at least one event shifted oceans greatly. Oceanic fossils found in places like Utah are commonplace. Could they be related. If I won that Ebay auction on the time machine, I would've been able to find out....



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

But you haven't explained all the races and how the different peoples got to suddenly look different in 4,000 years and howcome God went to all that trouble to save one pair of each kind of animals (not true... it was seven pairs of the clean and one each of the unclean) and then promptly killed and turned some of them into rock.



Within each "kind" lies the genetic material for a vast variety of species and types. All the races were in the genes of Adam and Eve, hence passed down to Noah, and eventually when the time was right, God brought them out (the races).

This is strictly my personal opinion, [at the risk of being jeered off the board] -- but I believe that God directs and chooses the exact sperm to impregnate the egg (because the Bible says God is the author and finisher of life.) Out of the millions of sperm swimming to meet the egg, only one will make it. I believe God is directing and choosing that one sperm in EVERY INSTANCE.

And that's why I, along with most Christians, don't think any of us are an accident, and that God did indeed have a plan and purpose in mind for us even before we were conceived.


And because these great varieties of species or types lie within the genetic material of any one "kind," if God puts the right sperm together with the right egg, you may well now have a new type or a new species.

For example, my Maine Coon looked like she could have won a prize in a thoroughbred Maine Coon show, but her mother was a calico and who knows what the father was.

This is how breeders come up with new breeds. They wait for an animal to be born that has traits they like, and they try to find another animal that looks like it and breed it. After a couple generations, voila, a new "thoroughbred" breed is born. All it means is the genes of this type or breed or species are isolated out. But the rest of the mishmash of thousands of varieties are still lurking in the genetics of these animals.

Why can some species mate with other species and some not? It's just the way they are, the way they were designed within the gene patterns that came forth from the kind. The kind would need to produce two of the new species, and these two would go on to isolate themselves from the kind.

Likewise, Noah only needed to take "kinds" on board the ark, not every species and variety and type of that kind.






[edit on 18-10-2005 by resistance]





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join