Let's Read the Bible Once

[timtofly]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

I would assume that the majority of humans will never see the need to go back to the Bible as a reference for most concepts.

I think that scientist may find things interesting if they would consider the earth as expanding instead of trying to jostle the continents around on the same size earth.

Even from your links, one cannot convince me that continents have changed size via subduction. If anything land area has been added as "new" material being forced upward. I admit, I may not be grasping it all as others see it. I liked the page that compared the planet at different time frames, but even those seem to keep the continents with the same shape.

I am not trying to out argue you and perhaps there is a global flood hypothesis. Those who read the Bible really have nothing to go on except for what is written and perhaps stories (from that era) around the world that may have something in common with todays linguistics other than explaining things in metaphors. It seems to me that some are trying to declare an ancient text wrong, while some are just trying to figure how it fits into the puzzle we call life.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The speculation is that there was a flood on Mars, but you have to explain how there was water on a planet that has none, whereas we have a planet that is 70% water. Don't you see the contradiction there? The speculation of a flood on a planet with no water compared to the absolute knowledge that there wasn't one on a planet with more than enough water to cover the whole planet. You can also include water that is underground, since the bible says that "the fountains of the great deep were opened".

Just because Mars has no surface water now doesn't mean it couldn't have had surface water billions of years ago. That's one of the questions the probes are trying to answer.

The old world was completely destroyed and the world world as we know it is vastly different.

Within the last 6000 years?

All you have given is assumptions. None of what you have said has been observed.

I'm going by many years of observations and lab work. You're going by an old book that has been altered so many times that nobody knows what its original text said.

What is an educated guess?

An extrapolation based on observed evidence.

When was the last time North America was recycled?

It happens every time there's an earthquake or volcanic activity. Granted, those are not as spectacular as when whole islands appear in the Pacific, but it's a small example.

The planet is in a constant state of recycling itself. The water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, photosynthesis, plate tectonics, the whole "circle of life"... it's all recycling. And some day this part of the Solar System will be recycled back into material for new stars.

Or because there may have been a disruption in the earths angle of rotation, the water turned into glaciers perhaps rapidly and after a while melted or receded northward.

Has Earth's angle of rotation changed during the past 6000 years?

IMO, the seasons did start after the flood and that there was a drastic change in the way the earth maneuvered it's way through space. I don't think that the flood was the cause, but was just something that happened naturally at a given time.

Even Mars has seasons. Are you seriously suggesting that Earth had no seasons prior to 6000 years ago?

And how did Earth drastically change its way of maneuvering through space? Did it decide to skateboard around the Sun? Go by horseback? Take a tour through the Solar System like Velikovsky says some of the other planets did?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

I would assume that the majority of humans will never see the need to go back to the Bible as a reference for most concepts.

I think that scientist may find things interesting if they would consider the earth as expanding instead of trying to jostle the continents around on the same size earth.

I can see it now: Earth asks Moon, "Does this new volcano make me look fat?"

Even from your links, one cannot convince me that continents have changed size via subduction. If anything land area has been added as "new" material being forced upward. I admit, I may not be grasping it all as others see it. I liked the page that compared the planet at different time frames, but even those seem to keep the continents with the same shape.

It's good that you admit you're not grasping it, because that's quite obvious. And keep in mind that a lot of maps and graphics that explain this stuff keep the outline of the present continents so we can have a frame of reference and relate it to places we're familiar with.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess, keep in mind that a crust can recycle without changing size.

 

[timtofly]

I guess, keep in mind that a crust can recycle without changing size.

Would that be the table cloth trick?

In other words nothing changes, it just does so under the surface?

 

[peter grimes]

I think that scientist may find things interesting if they would consider the earth as expanding instead of trying to jostle the continents around on the same size earth.

That's a hypothesis that's been refuted. There are two ways the earth could expand.
1. Accretion of new mass, density remains constant, thus increasing volume
2. increase in volume, no change in mass, therefore reduction in density

Neither of these mechanisms is consistent with observations. If new mass were accumulating on earth to any appreciable degree, there would be traces of this change in angular momentum in our orbital characteristics. Instead, we find the Earth in a very stable orbit. If earth's volume were increasing sans an increase in mass, then the resulting change in distribution of mass would have a similar effect on our angular momentum, and our orbital distance from the sun would likewise increase. This isn't happening. We can confidently rule out these two hypotheses.

Even from your links, one cannot convince me that continents have changed size via subduction. If anything land area has been added as "new" material being forced upward. I admit, I may not be grasping it all as others see it. I liked the page that compared the planet at different time frames, but even those seem to keep the continents with the same shape.

This is, necessarily, an estimate of the rough shape. It's important to remember that not every square inch of the earth has been scoured for its geological history - and tectonics is only ~50 years old! Most subduction happens underwater, since most new crust is formed at the mid-oceanic ridges where's there's crustal spreading. It's not surprising, then, that the oceanic plates are also the ones that tend to subduct under the continental plates. That's not to say that subduction isn't going on today - as I pointed out with the Indian plate diving under the Tibetan plateau. This is a stark example of how subduction is changing the shape of a continent as we watch.

Here are some other links that probably do a better job at explaining things than I am:
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/continental-drift/?ar_a=1

http://io9.com/5744636/a-geological-history-of-supercontinents-on-planet-earth


Link to video.

 

[classical_hero]

You do realise that it was Creationists who first proposed that the earth was once together in one piece.

Is Kaitzilla going to continue this?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I liked the page that compared the planet at different time frames, but even those seem to keep the continents with the same shape.

There have been times throughout geologic history when the above-water parts of the continents looked nothing at all like the present-day ones, and they weren't anywhere close to the location where they are now. Many of these maps have outlines of present-day continents purely as a convenient frame of reference.

 

[Arakhor]

You do realise that it was Creationists who first proposed that the earth was once together in one piece.

As I recall, it was a Catholic priest who devised the idea of the Big Bang. What's your point?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Didn't a Jew invent Christianity?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Didnt the Absolute invent the limited?

 

[caketastydelish]

I've tried reading it. The creation myth was just ridiculous. The story of Noah's ark was simply stupid. Then I got to a part where it was telling about a man who lived for over 900 years. I stopped there. Poor storytelling and ridiculous stories. Bunch of rubbish that book is.

Considering you joined the site literally the same month the OP was created, your post is a total troll, you have less than 200 posts (even now), and your username is 'Praise_Satan', I'm inclined to believe you're a double-login.

Anyway, go to heaven. (at least I hope you do... you'll have to change your ways, of course).

 

[Ajidica]

As I recall, it was a Catholic priest who devised the idea of the Big Bang. What's your point?

Doesn't the Catholic Church actually endorse the Big Bang and an Augustinian form of evolution?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Anyway, go to heaven. (at least I hope you do... you'll have to change your ways, of course).

You go to heaven with the soul not with the mind so he doesnt have to change that much for that. But to make the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth one has to change great deal...

But he has a point though. Unless you take most of Genesis as a myth or methaphore its quite unappealing to modern mind. But as a myth it is good as any other: exaggerated or simplified story with some psychological/physical truths behind it.

 

[Berzerker]

the fountains of the deep refers to the ocean, not underground water - The Flood was caused by the ocean rising up before the rain fell

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are you saying the ocean existed before the rainwater created it?

 

[Berzerker]

no, the Flood was followed by the Deluge - the fountains of the deep (ocean) rose up and then it rained for 40 days and nights.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But how did all the water get there in the first place?

 

[classical_hero]

the fountains of the deep refers to the ocean, not underground water - The Flood was caused by the ocean rising up before the rain fell

The bible does have a term for the bodies of water on the earth, it was called the seas, so if they were referring to that, then why didn't they use that term for it and instead used a specific term that no where else is used to describe the seas.

 

[Arakhor]

Doesn't the Catholic Church actually endorse the Big Bang and an Augustinian form of evolution?

I believe so, yes.

 

[Kaitzilla]

You do realise that it was Creationists who first proposed that the earth was once together in one piece.

Is Kaitzilla going to continue this?

I will try.


I got really distracted by Civ 4 two months ago


Egyptian Christians are currently facing the worst attacks in 700 years and here I am slacking again.

Increasingly, Christians are facing huge persecution everywhere:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/07/mass-exodus-christians-from-muslim-world/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ath_for_sip_of_water_7zwT2vBrUGqhDzasfQxkKK/0

Let's see, where to restart...