Early earth question

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gina B, May 7, 2003.

  1. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't know much of this stuff, so this should be an easy question for you smart people to answer for me. ;)
    What was it like before the flood? [​IMG]
    Some people say the glaciers and ice and all that were the result of a comet, and that it would also explain the magnetic fields and blah blah blah.
    Couldn't all that have been caused by the sudden loss of the water surrounding the earth when God opened up the heavens and it flooded the earth? That couldn't have been without drastic and immediate consequences, so what were they and how does it change how we should figure out the ages of things? Wouldn't millions of fossils have been created immediately during the flood from the pressure of the flood, the sudden chemical changes that had to have happened with everything the whole deal had to involve?
    Also, is it possible that fossils from then didn't form like we think of them forming, but the pressure of the flood have been enough to imbed the forms/skeletons of things into already existing rock?
    I'm kinda embarassed asking this stuff, I know I think of the weirdest things sometimes so don't laugh at me ON the forum, ok? E-mail it if you MUST. ;)
    Gina
     
  2. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gina, very little is really known about what it was like before the Flood, except a few things the Bible tells us. We know from Genesis 1:29-30 that there was no predation on land or among birds and no meat-eating among people before the Flood. We know from Genesis 4 that there were cities and music and metalwork. We know from Genesis 5 that very long ages were the norm. We know from Genesis 6 that evil had ended up dominating the human race. There is very little else we know. There are stories that have come down through various cultures of ideal living conditions a very long time ago; and we are left to imagine a lot from there.

    There is also a strong indication in the original Hebrew in Genesis 8:22 (which does not come across well in the English) that seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter are all new. The actual Hebrew indicates that, as with day and night, these will now never cease. This indicates a possible axis tilt during the Flood which would have produced seasons, with the accompanying cold and heat, seedtime and harvest.

    We know for sure there was glaciation at the time of Job, for the description of it is quite definite in Job 38:30. This was after the Flood, and after Babel and the time of Peleg, too.

    We also have clear impact craters here on earth as well as on the moon and other bodies in our solar system which show that there have been numerous asteroid and comet hits. These must have come after the Flood or they would have been erased by the sediments from the Flood.

    Also, if you look at Genesis 7:11, you will see that the rain came second. The great fountains of the deep exploded first. These were waters under incredible pressure from internal heating and so they would have burst out as boiling geysers, as well as carrying vast amounts of pulverized debris up with them. This would account for the immediate pouring rains not just because what goes up must come down, but also because the heated waters would vaporize quickly and then, as they rose and cooled, condense and come back down as rain. The idea of a vapor canopy supplying all the rain is probably not feasible. It does seem that most people who read Genesis sort of skip over the import of that little mention of all the great fountains of the deep bursting forth at once.

    Unlike the standard creation models, a number of us are pretty sure that boiling muds and waters would not fossilize anything. They would just be destroyed en masse. This would create the very carbon-rich layer of sediment, and in fact that is something we do see under the Cambrian strata. It is about 2 miles thick. That's a LOT of sediment! The carbon may well be from a LOT of dead and rotted plant and animal life.

    There are several different types of fossils: imprints, carbon films, and actual mineralized remains are the most commonly considered (there is also mineralized dung, called 'coprolites'). Imprints cannot be made by moving, swirling masses of water and mud. Neither can carbon films. Mineralization requires something the Flood couldn't do -- both rapid covering and then rapid drainage, leaving the remains in a mineral-impregnated environment, sealed off from the air. The Flood had mineralized waters, that is for sure, but the churning and the fact that the waters stayed on the earth for so long both indicate that fossilization by mineralization would have been very difficult to accomplish.

    For these reasons, it makes sense to consider the option that the fossilizations we are digging up now are from more regional catastrophes, such as mud and landslides, which would have been occuring rather frequently around the geologically active zones where the fountains of the deep had all exploded at the start of the Flood.

    Please don't be embarrassed about any of this. I know my response will probably start a lot of evolutionist-types disagreeing with just about everything I have said. What I have said, however, is the result of quite a bit of research on the part of my husband and a number of other folk who are determined to see where the actual evidence leads.

    But your questions are good, and real questions. When I was teaching, one of the things I said to my kids (of any age) was "Don't be afraid to ask any question, no matter how 'stupid' it seems. If you have that question, then so do others. It just happens that you are the only one brave enough to ask it." I would tell you that, too. There are lots of people with these questions, but you were the one brave enough to ask.

    One last thing -- as far as the dating goes. The genealogies are generally considered to be accurate and so we can go back to Adam that way. There is a difference in years between the oldest texts, such as the Alexandrian Septuagint and the 'newer' ones which most of our Bibles today are translated from. It was the Alexandrian Septuagint which was the Scripture quoted by Jesus, the writers of the New Testament, and Josephus, the historian. This version gives us longer ages for some of the patriarchs, and, I think, adds one or two that the Masoretic leaves out. For this reason, the age of the earth dates a little older using the Septuagint version than the Masoretic.

    There is a pretty good chart of who thought what in the early church about this here:

    http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Contents.htm

    Check the charts in the first three chapters for some interesting information. (The text is also good! But the charts will tell you a lot all by themselves.)

    I hope that helps. Brace yourself now for everyone who thinks I am a little wacko! However, if you have any questions about what I posted, feel free to ask... [​IMG]
     
  3. Peter101

    Peter101
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    518
    Likes Received:
    0
    &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Some people say the glaciers and ice and all that were the result of a comet, and that it would also explain the magnetic fields and blah blah blah.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    There is no particular mystery about the cause of glaciers. They are caused by snow. In glaciers of today, they can be found to grow and increase in depth by the addition of snow, at least some of them can, that are not as much affected by global warming.
     
  4. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok, another question. [​IMG]
    Would rocks have been softer before the flood?
    Are there scientific explanations of how Moses could have brought water out of rock (not that that would make it less of God, but that God works often through natural means).
    It was common to build/carve rock from the beginning, so it just made me think maybe it was. :D
    Gina
     
  5. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a question: Where did all the water go after the flood?
     
  6. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
  7. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see, Goddidit. Is there any scientific support for that?
     
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Gina! My opinion about Noah's flood is, when the Bible speaks of the flood covering "all the earth", it means all the earth known. Sort of like when the Bible says Ceasar decreed that all the world should be taxed. Believe me, he missed the Mayans in Mexico!

    This means that "all the animals" was also only all the animals of that known area, which to those experiencing the phenomenon, was all the earth as they knew it.
     
  9. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul of Eugene I agree with you, it seems to make more since to me that way-at least with the evidence that I've seen.
     
  10. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gina: no, rocks were not softer before the Flood. We find some very, very hard stuff (think granites and the like) in the Precambrian strata, which was definitely before the Flood.

    Moses, by the way, was after the Flood. As for water coming from the rock -- that happened twice. I know of no natural explanation. However, the minute I read those above sentences to Barry, he said, "Wait a minute!" and pulled out a book entitled The Bible as History, by Werner Keller, Hodder and Stoughton, 1969. On pp 137-138 the following is recorded:

    Major C.S. Jarvis, who was British Governor of Sinai in the thirties, has seen it happen himself. "Moses striking the rock at Rephidim and the water gushing out sounds like a genuine miracle, but the writer has actually seen this happen. Several men of the Sinai Camel Corps had halted in a dry wadi and were in the process of digging about in the rough snd that had accumulated at the foot of a rock-face. They were trying to get at the water that was trickling slowly out of the limestone rock. The men were taking their time about it and Bash Shawish, the coloured sergeant, said: 'Here, give it to me!' He took he spade of one of the men and began digging furiously in the manner of N.C.O.'s the world over who want to show their men how to do things but have no intention of keeping it up for more than a couple of minutes. One of his violent blows hit the rock by mistake. The smooth hard crust which always forms on weathered limestone split open and fell away. The soft stone underneath was thereby exposed and out of its apertures shot a powerful stream of water. The Sudanese who are will up in the activities of the prophets but do not treat them with a vast amount of respect overwhelmed their sergeant with cries of: 'Look at him! The prophet Moses!' This is a very illuminating explanation of what happened when Moses struck the rock at Rephidim."

    C.S. Jarvis had witnesses a pure coincidence. For the men of the Camel Corps were Sudanese and not in any sense natives of Sinai, who might be expected to be familiar with the technique of producing water in this way.


    So we both learned something from your question, Gina!

    Meatros: the water drained into the sea basins, which had been quite enlarged by the downwarping resulting from the explosions of the fountains of the deep. You also asked why I felt a little antagonistic towards you in another thread here. You can find one reason in your flip response: "I see, Goddidit. Is there any scientific support for that?" You wouldn't mind showing a little respect for the Bible and those who believe in it, would you?

    Paul and Meatros -- a local flood would not produce

    1. two miles thick of carbon-rich sediment all over the world

    2. stories in EVERY ancient culture about a world-wide flood

    3. the need to build an ark to save kinds of animals -- which is what the Ark was for! A local flood's disaster could easily have been averted by God warning Noah to move himself, his livestock, and his family in the same way God told Abraham to move to a new area!
     
  11. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I made that response after I asked you. Yes, it was a flippant response, for which I now apologize.
     
  12. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sources please.

    Sources please.

    EVERY? I need some sources on this one as well. That's got to be hard to assertain.

    God could have also created a bubble that encapsulated Noah and all the animals in a force field. God didn't, he told Noah to make an Ark. Also, the bible isn't very clear on this issue either; how many of each animal did Noah take? Personally, I don't believe that Noah took *every* type of animal, that would be impossible.
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    What, fruit without seed time? I think this interpretation bears reexamination.

    There has never been a time in all the history of mankind when there weren't glaciers somewhere.

    Impact craters on the airless bodies of the solar system greatly outnumber the impact craters left on earth which means that they have been erased by erosion over time. The number of impact craters we see on the moon and mercury, if they occurred in the span of a mere 8000 years or less, would wipe out life on earth and would qualify as globe killing disaster. No animal larger than a large dog survived the event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, considered to be a single asteroid, smaller than the one that created the great tycho crator on the moon.

    Note there is a lot of conjecture in this passage.

    Are you talking about carbon as in coal or are you just saying there is a slight enrichment of the carbon in the rocks that are there? Are you truly saying this is found in every location where a drill rig drills deep enough? I suspect you're taking a lot of leaps of assumption here. What is the source of your data?

    This means, of course, using words to magically enchant away evidence such as the hundred thousand annual layers of ice actually counted in Greenland and Antartica, the 20 thousand years of annual tree rings actually counted in extensive tree ring chronology studies, the starlight that has arrived from galaxies millions and millions of light years distant from us, the radioactive dating methods showing the earth to be 4+ billion years old, the scars of continental drifting thousands of miles at inches per year (Check out the Hawaiian Island chain!), the correlation of multitudes of dating methods converging on a common scenario showing ice ages and other climate changes coming over periods of hundreds of thousands of years, and the counting of over 20,000 annual layers of sediment in lake bottoms at various locations.

    Well, I'm sure that if we all knew all about each other, we'd all secretly think the other was a little wacko about some things . . . its the human condition. The scientific method has the advantage of working for anyone, wacko or not, if they'll just use evidence and logic together in a consistent method, reproducible by others.

    [ May 08, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sources please.</font>[/QUOTE]Logic, primarily. If water exploded from within the earth, it left a void. Gravity would cause sections around that void to sink into it. What more do you want?

    Or, if you want simple Bible, please note Psalm 104:
    Gut at your rebuke the waters fled,
    at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
    they flowed over the mountains
    they went down into the valleys,
    to the place you assigned for them.
    You set a boundary they cannot cross;
    never again will they cover the earth.


    This also indicates, by the way, that the Flood was a one-time catastrophic event which will never be repeated. One cannot say that about local floods.

    Sources please.</font>[/QUOTE]multitudinous! Basic geology texts should have this fact.

    Introduction to Geology, vol.2, part 2 H.H. Read and Janet Watson

    New Scientist, 1 Feb. 1992, "Secrets of a Tropical Ice Age"

    http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/8_29_98/bob1.htm

    The Adelaide Geosyncline by Wolfgang Preiss, Mines and Energy Dept. of South Australia, 1987

    http://www-eps.harvard.edu/people/faculty/hoffman/snowball_paper.html

    http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html
    Check "Flood Layer in Geology" about a third of the way down. You will find the material there referenced as well.

    http://www.glg.ed.ac.uk/home/Sue.Rigby/GEP/Academic%20precis/Snowball%20earth.pdf -- good illustration about half way down.

    EVERY? I need some sources on this one as well. That's got to be hard to assertain.</font>[/QUOTE]It's spelled ascertain.

    The statement is from my own research of the past couple of decades. I was interested in this and have an extensive collection of books on legends, mythologies, etc. here. In addition, this might help:

    James A. Strickling, "A Statistical Analysis of Flood Legends," CRSQ, vol. 9, no. 3 (Dec. 1972), pp. 152-155

    Anthropologists have collected at least 59 Flood legends from the aborigines of North America, 46 from Central and South America, 31 from Europe, 17 from the Middle East, 23 from Asia, and 37 from the South Sea Islands and Australia. They all agree on at least things:

    * A worldwide flood destroyed both man and animals
    * There was a vessel of safety provided
    * An extremely small remnant of people thus survived

    See also:

    William H. Shea

    Origins, vol 11, no. 1 (Geoscience Research Institute, 1984) pp. 2-3, 9-29 "A Comparison of Narrative Elements in Ancient Mesopotamia Creation-Flood Stories with Genesis 1-9"

    Origins, vol. 6, no. 1 (Geoscience Research Institute, 1979) pp. 3-4, 8-29 "The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications"

    http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood20.htm

    http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2001/bb-01-54.htm

    etc. etc.

    God could have also created a bubble that encapsulated Noah and all the animals in a force field. God didn't, he told Noah to make an Ark. Also, the bible isn't very clear on this issue either; how many of each animal did Noah take? Personally, I don't believe that Noah took *every* type of animal, that would be impossible. </font>[/QUOTE]What you personally believe or don't believe has no bearing on what is actually true at all, I'm afraid. Your bubble bit is ridiculous, and you know it. And the Bible is quite clear on which animals and how many were taken. Read it.

    [ May 08, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]
     
  15. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    If the climate is even all year long, then there is no specific seed time, as in harvest. It is not seasonal; it is continuous. This is the indication that this condition was different after the Flood.

    Prove it.

    Please see the following:

    http://www.setterfield.org/stellarhist.html (part II, about a third of the way down)

    http://www.setterfield.org/earlyhist.html

    http://www.trueorigin.org/dfonmoon.asp

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/impact2000/pdf/3022.pdf

    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc101497.html


    Note there is a lot of conjecture in this passage.</font>[/QUOTE]Don't mistake logic with conjecture, please.

    1. The waters BURST forth. This would bring up incredible amounts of pulverized debris.

    2. The waters were hot; ref. Gen. 2:5-6 -- the pressure was there from the beginning and built up over time. In addition, a number of the flood legends from other cultures indicate the waters were scalding and destroyed everything they touched.

    3. As hot waters vaporize, they steam. They go up. They condense. They come back down again. The more water, the more rain.

    Where's the conjecture?

    As for the carbonate layer, see the above response. Also see your local geology text...

    In regard to your mocking response to the next part you quoted from me, what is there to respond to? You are mocking us. OK, fine. Not the first time and won't be the last. In the meantime, we are still interested in the data. Data which also indicates that there have been some extremely rapid changes in the earth in the past.
     
  16. Meatros

    Meatros
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Logic? But you are begging the question! Who says 'water exploded from within the earth'?

    Was my spelling that big a deal? Must be the editor in you ;)
    Look, I know that there are flood mythologies from around the world, but you said every. Which is almost certainly your attempt at hyperbole, but you haven't indicated as such.

    Thanks for the sources on the carbon-rich layer, I'll have to do some research into that area.

    I agree and I thought I was clear about that when I said "God didn't", please finish reading my paragraph before you comment on it.

    As for the bible being clear on how many animals were taken, I don't think it is (7 or 2?).
     
  17. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Bible. Genesis 7:11.

    About the spelling. Mostly I just accept that there is a lot of bad spelling among a lot of people. But you started it with 'ass' and I figured that might embarrass you at some time in the future, so I said something. It was just me caring about someone teasing you unnecessarily later, despite the fact that we are having it out here... [​IMG]

    As far as the ancient cultures, let me put it this way -- after years of reading and research I have not found one which does not have some kind of reference to the world-wide flood. So, as far as I am concerned, I feel comfortable using the word 'all' now. If you would like to keep on searching, let me know what you find; I will be interested.

    You are welcome. It's definitely there. It's definitely extraordinarily thick. Barry is a native of Australia and has done work both professionally and of the unpaid variety in geology in South Australia. He has done extensive work regarding the Adelaide Geosyncline area, a downwarped area of the earth's crust which is all precambrian, and about 10 kilometers thick totally. The debris layer which we feel is the result of the Flood is about 300 meters thick, and the deep water sediments which follow (the carbon-rich materials) are 2.5 kilometers thick. Barry and I have managed to make enemies, or at least 'oppositionals' on both sides of the fence now. We strongly disagree (as do a number of other creationists in science, but that is more a comfort to us than anything to prove to anyone else...) with the idea that the Deluge of Noah's time layed most of the geologic strata or that it created the fossil layers. That Flood, as outlined in the Bible and remembered in so many legends and ancient stories, was scalding hot and absolutely devastating. This is precisely what would lay down a thick sedimentary layer rich in carbon, however. On the other hand we do think that very evidence is evidence of the truth of the Bible Flood being, literally, world-wide.

    Two of all and of the clean, seven. It is quite clear about that: Genesis 7:2-3.
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if the climate is even all year around, as in the tropics, there are no seasonal trees that drop their leaves in the winter. No cherries, no apples . . .
    But for proof that the earth has a stable axis that has not shifted, see Psalm 104:5: "He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever". (NASU)


    The 100,000 + annual layers of glacier ice in Greenland are proof enough.

    Thank you for the link to Barry's work concerning the geological history of the earth. Barry maintains that yes, those craters on the Moon and Mercury represent the inner solar system environment and the impacts did happen on earth and men survived because . . . . well, they were "cometary" rather than stoney or iron meteors.

    This remains an incredible scenario to me. Let the readers judge if life would survive impacts like these that occurred on the moon:

    http://www.pa.msu.edu/people/frenchj/moon/moon-3day-2391-600.jpg


    Here's a little scientific experiment to perform. Get an empty metal can such as a gallon gasoline can, only put about an inch of water in the bottom. Boil the water over a stove or something. The steam will then form and drive out the air. Screw the lid on. Take the can off the heat and pour cold water on it. The atmospherical air pressure will crush the can immediately. A striking demonstration of the reality of air pressure. Also a striking illustration that under your scenario there would be no breathable air at the surface and Noah and the animals would be cooked.

    Actually, conjecturing is perfectly ok. It just needs to be acknowledged for what it is.

    OK thanks for the links. I see the carbonate layers you are referring to are pre-cambrian, meaning they are created by bacteria from the dawn of life. This is not such a great mystery after all.

    Helen, it is not mockery to disagree with you. It is not mockery to acknowledge we all have failings, which is all I did in my final paragraph above. We both have fallen natures. We are both capable of making mistakes. You and Barry have so much invested in your point of view . . . I pray for your faith when you finally realize that science has not been making a huge glaring mistake all this time after all.
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Paul

    Point by point:

    -- no cherries or apples in the tropics? Perhaps the ones we have now are simply those variations which adapted to colder climates. You DO believe in adaptation, don't you? ITM, we have plenty of wonderful fruits from the tropics which do not depend on seasons...

    -- Psalm 104:5 has nothing to do with a stable axis. The word used for 'foundations' there is 'makon,' which simply means 'place.' The earth has been set in place, and until the Lord destroys this creation, this is where it will stay. The fact that the axis has tilted during its 'lifetime' is not even a part of that.

    However I do find it somewhere between amusing and ironic that you would use a very questionable translation of a word to try to 'prove' something scientifically when the much, much stronger witness of Genesis 1 regarding creation is completely rejected by you. It does show me that you folks seem to have a 'pick and choose' mentality where using Scripture for support goes!

    -- Prove of the 'eternalness' of glaciation on earth is NOT in the interpretation of layers in snowpacks anywhere being interpreted as 'annual.' That interpretation is highly doubtful. Proof and interpretation are two very different things.

    -- Do you honestly think the earth escaped the series of meteoric impacts that occured everywhere else?

    -- your tin can experiment no way even vaguely approaches what happened on earth at the onset of the Deluge.

    -- your interpretation of the carbonate layers does not hold. Unless, of course, you are saying that there was no change in the earth's ecosystem for whatever millions or billions of years. In addition, please note that this carbonate layer is sedimentary. That means water laid it down. It is in the same position in the strata all over the world. Some people would say that's pretty strong evidence for a world-wide flood that killed just about everything...

    I am curious WHY you prefer humanist explanations rather than what the Bible tells us happened?
     
  20. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Helen! Thanks for continuing to reply.
    Anyway, you posted the following:

    It is a matter of fact that the earth's axis has NOT altered its orientation except for the well known precession of the axis for millions of years. The moving of the continents themselves over millions of years is more variable! Of course cherries and apples have been with us from the beginning and I cite the fact that they are annuals - shedding their leaves with the seasons - as evidence that seasons existed from the time of Adam.

    And if you want to say Psalm 104:5 refers to place, then you seem to be saying that instead of a stable axis we have an unmoving earth. And you know the earth moves!

    My mentality about the nature of the universe is plain and simple. The clues found within the universe itself are uncorrupted by any textual history or theological interpretation and are fresh from the hand of God; therefore they are our most reliable source of information about the universe itself. Interpreters who come up with notions contrary to what the universe itself shows to be true need to correct their interpretations to agree with the facts.

    I didn't say glaciers are eternal, I only said they've been around as long as modern man, homo sapiens.

    Here we have a curious reversal of the point being argued. No, I don't. I've never said the earth escaped the bombardment of which we see the scars on the moon, I've always insisted the earth had to endure the same bombardment. But in the scientific point of view, human beings escaped that bombardment, because it happened during the very formation of the solar system! Of course, there remain a few wayword asteroids that can still give us grief. My point on this issue is that you simply fail to have any adequate provision in YOUR history for the destruction we see happened from the scars on the moon to have also happened on earth, which it certainly did happen, only before multicellular life evolved.

    I'm merely trying to show in a small way what your own words about the waters of the earth being boiling hot imply. If you wish to adjust your theory to make life in the ark possible, its your theory, be my guest!

    Well, I'm not a geologist, this is not my strong point. But of course sedimentary rocks were being laid down before the Cambrian period, when the only life was singled celled. Before you call it evidence for a world wide flood, you have to show it to not be interrupted with layers above and below, you have to show it to be formed under uniformly turgid conditions in a short period of time, etc etc. Its these kinds of details that are necessary to develop and prove a theory. Do isotope studies show the waters involved were warmer than normal?

    Where do you get these labels? I'm not a humanist, I'm a Christian! Geology isn't humanism, it's science! Astronomy isn't humanism, its science! Science is merely the best organization of the facts about reality we can get. The scientific method works for Christians, Bhuddists, Humanists, Athiests, Neurotics, Schizophrenics, whoever. I choose not to blind myself as to the nature of reality, that's all. That's my own perception of what I'm doing.

    [ May 14, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...