So, God told them? You have this grand belief in a series of non-coincidences (the Poetic and Prose Eddas disagree about the exact number and nature of the Norse worlds and, anyway, there haven’t been nine planets for a decade now), yet you can’t even explain why ancient man somehow knew this “accurate” information. Creationists are so much “better” at this than you.
What is creation science?
- Thread starter Agent327
- Start date
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The formless matter that would be the sun did exist. It had no light interaction yet. I still do not see the Genesis narrative fitting into the current evolutionary model, as you portray it.
If you take Genesis as a whole, the "LHB" happened during Noah's Flood and humans recorded the event in their "writings". There was no tilt giving us seasons until the event of the Flood.
In the evolutionary model, the earth cooled and was entirely covered in water. It took billions of years for the continents to finally become dominant "ontop" of the waters. According to Genesis that was day one.
On day four God "sourced" the light to all the formless matter through the universe, and Hebrew scholars may agree that it is still an ongoing process. That is the point of the ongoing creation in verse one. Creation began in verse one, and is still going, until it stops and the universe will cease upon the Word of God at some point in the future.
The question would be why did God give the earth a core with a 3 to 4 billion year old time stamp?
That is an excellent question, indeed.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Haven't read all of it, but so far so funny 
it gets better. I'm at the part where he talks about Jupiter's harmonics 
EDIT: Please read to the bottom. It's worth it:
Why it's "evidence" for whatever you want it to be, clearly.
EDIT: Please read to the bottom. It's worth it:
Why it's "evidence" for whatever you want it to be, clearly.
Harv
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,054
I clicked another link and was reading about the dinosaur gravity problem too. They were applying the square-cube law to extrapolate a power-lifter to megasaurus size.
They said he could squat with 1000 pounds at 340 pounds bodyweight, a combined weight of 1340 pounds. [I use 28*w^(2/3)] Applying the square-cube law would mean that at 70000 pounds, he would only be able to lift 47600 pounds - not even his bodyweight. Therefore he would not even be able to stand.
The same logic applied to an elephant weighing 15000 pounds results in 17000, or the elephant size power-lifter barely being able to stand. I understand elephants are very strong creatures.
One flaw in this logic is that elephants are not the same shape as humans. Large sauropods are not human-shaped, either. A human doing a squat has two feet on the ground, not four. The extrapolation is not valid.
They said he could squat with 1000 pounds at 340 pounds bodyweight, a combined weight of 1340 pounds. [I use 28*w^(2/3)] Applying the square-cube law would mean that at 70000 pounds, he would only be able to lift 47600 pounds - not even his bodyweight. Therefore he would not even be able to stand.
The same logic applied to an elephant weighing 15000 pounds results in 17000, or the elephant size power-lifter barely being able to stand. I understand elephants are very strong creatures.
One flaw in this logic is that elephants are not the same shape as humans. Large sauropods are not human-shaped, either. A human doing a squat has two feet on the ground, not four. The extrapolation is not valid.
Paleontology is a notoriously competitive field with egos the size of femurs. If the muscle attachment points didn't support the possibility that the animal was capable of the forces required to stand up, I'm sure we'd have heard about "the Great Bone Schism" by now.
Just recall how the warm-blooded hypothesis spread into pop culture. This is would a far more fundamental controversy.
Just recall how the warm-blooded hypothesis spread into pop culture. This is would a far more fundamental controversy.
Berzerker
Deity
I never said light was dark
I just gave you evidence, our water is at the asteroid belt. Its at the freeze line where a trail of debris orbits the sun.
You did not get it from scientists, the world had surface water long before 2.5 bya. The world had surface water before 4 bya. The world had surface water up to 4.3-4 bya and I believe the world was always covered by water - it formed at the freeze line. And when they find rock that didn't form in water, then and only then can you argue water didn't cover the surface.
Dont you see the problem with your logic? You say water didn't cover the world because the only rock we have that old formed in water! If you were right we'd find a bunch of rock that didn't form in water.
When it had night and day
I was talking about Genesis and you're running off to Psalms and Daniel's visions and any place but Genesis. Of course you're changing the subject.
What causes it? Spin.
I dont know what they knew, I just read what they wrote. A dark, water covered world was caused to rotate by something else.
Ancient peoples did not care what we thought about Pluto. According to the Enuma Elish Saturn had a companion that was sent to tell the gods Marduk would battle Tiamat, Pluto is a candidate for that companion. Saturn's rings even point to it.
Really? 
Now you are clutching at straws.
As for Saturnian companions, there are 62 of them, one of which (Titan) is larger than Mercury and has its own atmosphere. I'd say that makes for a far better 'candidate' than a dwarf planet millions of light years away.
Now you are clutching at straws.As for Saturnian companions, there are 62 of them, one of which (Titan) is larger than Mercury and has its own atmosphere. I'd say that makes for a far better 'candidate' than a dwarf planet millions of light years away.
@arakhor - please check out my link. I think it completely encompasses Berserker's thesis. One stop shopping!
You are basically 'arguing' against what is known of the origin of the planets. Pray tell, why is there only water on Earth? Also, how did these planets 'travel' to their current orbits and then magically stay there?
Rings don't 'point'. Also, Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930.
See, Jeelen? You're just not paying attention. Ancient astronauts did it all!
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Cause and effect:
Day and night are effect. The cause is spin, but a statement of the effect is not an explanation of the cause.
e.g. "A car drives along the road" is not a treatise on the workings of the internal combustion engine.
So all we have to do is cite the existence of Igneous and Metamorphic rocks?
It's a bit of a stretch to insist we should be surprised that the ancients noticed the day/night cycle, to be honest.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I hereby conclude that wombats realise the Earth is spinning.
Berzerker
Deity
Really?
As for Saturnian companions, there are 62 of them, one of which (Titan) is larger than Mercury and has its own atmosphere. I'd say that makes for a far better 'candidate' than a dwarf planet millions of light years away.
According to the Enuma Elish Saturn's companion was sent on its own way to inform the gods of Marduk's ascendency, Titan still orbits Saturn.
What did I say thats "against" what we know? I never said only Earth has water and once a planet migrates to a new orbit and the cause of the migration ceases or lessens the sun's gravity is the magic.
Yes they do, when Pluto nears perihelion Saturn's rings point to it. There's other mathematical relationships between the two, like their ascending nodes and their distances from the Sun. It dont matter when we found Pluto or that we downgraded it from planet.
The cause was God's "spirit" or wind blowing across a dark, water covered world. The result was a spinning planet close(r) to a star.
You need to cite rock from ~4.3-4 byo that didn't form in water.
