Creation versus Evolution
Offline Some friend of mine, who is a Christian, posted a blog on myspace with the same subject. She gave the link to a creation website that tries to prove that evolution is wrong. Here is the link and tell me what you guys think. And go easy on the link ;)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
Oh, and there's a part the tries to prove that Noah's flood did happen. Here's a quote:
"...Before we go on, we would like to answer some questions that always seem to come up. One involves how pairs of all the animals could have been collected by one family. Remember, if God is really God, he could have caused the flood, a supernatural event, to occur. Does it not also make sense that God could cause pairs of animals to migrate to the location of the ark? Notice the phrase in Genesis chapter 6, verse 20: "two of every kind will come to you." Also, Genesis chapter 7, verse 9 states the animals "went into the ark to Noah." The answer is simple, Noah did not go and get the animals, God did..."
Ugghhh, creationists annoy me it's surprisingly impossible to argue with them because they just dont listen to reason, they refuse to accept evidence, and simply close their ears when you corner them with scientific data.
I am a creationist with no doubts, but I am totally open to listening to your opinions and reasonings.
~Living 4 Him with No Regrets
Two sides constantly deabting.
Both claim to be open minded. No one accepts contrary beliefs.
I just summed up any future postings on this thread.
I'm an atheist, just to clarify.
Anyway, Darwin created the theory of evolution, yes?
Right. Well, he was also a minister.
So really, it's pointless to say that "I'm a Christian - religious people believe in the creation theory." How much more religious can you get, than by being a minister?
Darwin obviously somewhat disagreed with the creation theory...
No offense, but that's kind of illogical. Darwin obviously wasn't a true Christian let alone a Christian minister in the sense you mean if he tossed the Biblical account out the window because Christians believe the Bible to be the true Word of God. And the creation account is included in that Word.
John 1:1- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Well... no. I dont think if Darwin was a minister or not. But he did attend a religious school and wanted studied divinity for some time, I think. And then on the Beagle trip he was a creationist, in fact the trip made him more creationist than anything. But then seeing how the world was impersonal and collecting the notes taken by other ship mates on board the Beagle he came up with the theory of evolution to explain the process. I believe that's how it went. Wikipedia it to clarify.
Simply put, I believe if Darwin had been a Christian, he obviously turned away from Christianity at a point in time before he came up with the theory of evolution because a true Christian cannot believe in evolution.
~Psalm 31:14
But I trust in you, O LORD; I say, "You are my God."
I have to say, the other previous summation of future event was brief. But it was not yet been in haiku form, so I will try and aid this effort.
Supreme Confidence.
Powerful being never
Allows questioning.
Sorry, it is a little retarded. But you must know that this debate will very easily become about stubborn individuals and not the issue. But I suspect that no actual debate will occur. People know what their stance is, and no one will change sides. As a nice little addendum, I will leave you with this Bertrand Russel Quote:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Think about this.
I hate it when you guys do this. Talk about the link or do not post anything. Don't pollute the forum.
The webpage disregards facts and has a sloppy scientific method generated to come to the conclusion they predetermined. It claims there is no evidence for evolution aside from what Darwin said. Am I the only one to take evidence of life forms starting at bacteria, getting more complicated, then when the average life form changed, without losing complexity, and let that imply AT LEAST that life was made through non- organic things and changed gradually? I just thought we addressed that and moved onto the real issue behind the link: People treating religion as fact, and manipulating the word 'fact' to suit their needs, while having no real proof or evidence, no peer review, no logic at all. Wasn't this the big deal behind that link, or am I a blithering idiot?
I can assume no one browsed around in that link, then. I expected to see some people debunk some of the stuff that is written on that page.
[quote=Live2Love333]Simply put, I believe if Darwin had been a Christian, he obviously turned away from Christianity at a point in time before he came up with the theory of evolution because a true Christian cannot believe in evolution.
[/quote]
Would the same thing apply to catholics if you said that a catholic who has gotten divorced is [i]obviously[/i] not a "true" catholic?
There are no arguments on there eeven worth rebutting. It's embarrassing how little knowledge some people have... if you want specific ones, you can post them here and I'm sure we can get goood rebuttals.
Well, I already posted a quote on how they try to convince us think that Noah's flood DID happen. But I'll look around in that link and I'll see what I can find.
This is the funniest one I found.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/pets.shtml
I read some of it, but I am reading the bible right now and there is just so much outrageous assumption I can take. Taking it slow anyhow. I really want to read it to distill some good points. Like when someone heard me laugh when reading the bible, I explained that it was sincerely funny that the bible says that the punishment for Eve in the whole tree of Knowledge deal was Birth Pains, and, oh ya, they are to be ruled over by men. She responded that the suppression applied only to Eve, but I explained that obviously God didn't mean for Birth Pains to be only for Eve. Didn't know where to put that little nugget, so there it is. I am reading the Bible wrong?
There's no wrong way to read a Bible.
I meant to ask if I misinterpreted it. I am sure Christians will say I did, so I would also like an Atheist's perspective.
If you're reading it and treating it differently from the Native American creation stories, then yes, you're misinterpeting it.
OIG! I looked some of those up, and they are even MORE funny! I think it is because they don't deal with death as much though...
You must admit this is funny:
[url=http://]www.indians.org/welker/moccasin.htm[/url]
Hmm, that was interesting, I guess.
I just want to say right off the bat that I am a hardcore Christian. I totally believe in God & so I am definitely for Creation. Many people think that it is intellectual suicide to believe in a God & that he created everything. That could not be farther from thre truth. Let me demonstrate. If we evolved from apes to ape men to modern men where did our languuage start? The first written language was made by the Sumerians (I Think!) Now, if we evolved & our thoughts, languages & morals evolved which came first? I mean, what are our thoughts ? Just us speaking in our heads. But, how could we speak in our heads if we had no language? But, how could we have a language to think if we could not think up the vowels & sounds of each letter because we had no way to interpret our thoughts? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
God(no pun intended), do your own goddamn research. You do know that the lower animals are capable of thought through past experience? For example, when you look at your watch, the thought of looking at your watch comes SLIGHTLY afterwards. So your thought is merely a byproduct of your action. For example, if you think 'dang, I really want water because I'm thirsty', your thought for water does not cause your thirst, your thirst causes your thought. The animals that have these brain reactions which are post-synaptic are: man, chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants. Thus, all those animals are capable of thought(to an extent), even though not al of them have languages. Thoughts are not speaking in your head, thoughts are simply a representation of ones current feelings, and words are not necessary to represent them. Pain in the belly might not be associated with the symbols 'c-o-n-s-t-i-p-a-t-i-o-n', but were I a pre-language homonid, I would know that it is time for me to sit on my proverbial toilet, grunt for a little, and possibly wipe my ass with some leaves. Some people associate certain things with color. I think it's caled synesthesia. My friend, for example, associates each number with a specific color. She literally, does math in colors. This is due to the misinterpretation of data in the brain, but when retranslated, it does not lead to erors. Animals could thus, think in the same way, very general thoughts. One does not need to know a word for hungry to realize that one is HUNGRY! Eventually, a pattern, such as moaning and holding ones stomache, will emerge for hunger. It is not long from there until that becomes a specific language.
You misunderstand what I am saying. I agree that animals can associate feelings or actions with a certain object, but, I was not talking about a language in the mind. I mean a language on paper. How did languages come into existence? Also, the early man (Ape Man) may have associated objects with actions but how did those thoughts become spoken inside of his head in a language as ours is today. This is a classic example of "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Language & Thought had to co-exist for man to have become what he is today. Obviously it didn't evolve. It couldn't have. An [b]intelligent designer[/b] must have made it. [b]And that designer is the God of the Bible.[/b]
Now that we have come upon the subject of early man I will tell you what I know.
Nebraska Man:
The Illustrated London News published an artist's impression of a whole family of 'ape-men', based on the finding of a single tooth! A few years later the tooth was found to be that of a peccary, a type of pig, but that did not make headlines like Nebraska man's 'discovery'. (This excerpt was taken from www.answersingenesis.com's article "Not another Ape Man!")
So much for the "MISSING LINK"!
Neanderthal Man:
There is a long list of defunct 'ape-men'. Neanderthal man heads the list. Evolutionists hailed remains found in 1856 as man's ancestor, but now it is admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease, and Neanderthal is really just a variant of the human kind. (This excerpt was taken from www.answersingenesis.com's article "Not another Ape Man!") As I said before, so much for the "MISSING LINK"!
Piltdown Man:
Of course we must remember the most infamous: the Piltdown man fraud. Evolutionists used Piltdown man to 'educate' students about the 'fact' of human evolution for 40 years before the deceit was finally exposed. (This excerpt was taken from www.answersingenesis.com's article "Not another Ape Man!") For the Piltdown man story go to this link: [url=http://] www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1124piltdown.asp[/url]
And while you're there go to the Get Answers section & look around. Now, in reference to Piltdown Man, SO MUCH FOR THE "MISSING LINK"!
Now, these are just three of the many "MISSING LINKS" scientists have found for more go to this link:
[url=http://]hhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/apeman.asp[/url]
Now, where is the "Early Man" who connected us with Apes?
:-)
(Everything that has been said in this post is not meant to be offensive or arrogant in anyway. If any point is so please tell me & I will correct it.)
Go With God,
GWG
All people know the importance of unbiased sources. The very basis of gathering knowledge is to look at the information, and find a theory that explains it. The very basis, the motto of this website shows that it runs counter to the very nature of gathering knowledge: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse. Does that sound unbiased to you? Do you expect to find information which has not been preselected and filtered?
But on to the data. Yes, Archaeoraptor, I will assume was a hoax. I don't know if it is, but I'll give the site the benefit of the doubt. This says nothing ot Pteronadon's or Ptaerodactyll's, or velociraptors. Velociraptors are very birdlike, despite the fact that they do not fly. On the other hand, Pteronadon's and Ptaerodactyll's, while reptilian, share many bird-features, including wings.
This website does not even BOTHER to show how the falseness of the Piltdown man helps anything except to show that the ENglish perpetrators wanted to be the first. This does not reflect on science as a whole. Furthermore, the Lucy fossils were not adddressed. They were discredited with a broad brush stroke. Since this one was a lie, so too must Lucy have been false. Thirdly, you creationists insist on making the stupidest statements. People have not evolved from apes. We ought not expect to find ape-men, although we ought to find some sort of posible ancestor to both. Interestingly enough, by monitoring the gene differences, we can find approximately how long ago the species split.
Now to make my own point that is not a rebuttal. Over 85% of our DNA is junk DNA, that is, it does nothing. Around 10% of that junk DNA is the result of HERV's. HERV's are viruses which 'hijack' the DNA mechanism, replicating themselves INTO the DNA, as junk DNA. The odds of the exact same HERV being present in 2 animals is astronomical. And yet, we share, of our approximately 8.5% of HERV DNA, about 8.2% with chimpanzees. We share about 7.8% with orangutangs, and about 6.5% with dogs. We only share about 4%, on the other hand, with garden snakes.
When a scientific theory makes predictions which turn out to be correct, that helps their validity. For example, Newton predicted that Uranus' orbit was off, and must be being affected by something. That something, Pluto, was later found. This strengthened the theory greatly.
The predictions of shared DNA insertion, concurrent with the predictions of evolution, interestingly enough, give about the same timeline for the split of species. This prediction being fulfilled only increases the validity of evolution.
If God is an intelligent designer, why bother with the junk DNA? Why randomly make creatures share inserted DNA?
On another note, why on earth would life be so darn inefficient? Our Aorta, instead of simply connecting straight, goes down through our lungs, back up, and back down. This efficiency is most noticable in the giraffe, where the aorta is more than 3 times the length it needs to be. This goes back to the original, imperfect evolution of life. Had evlution been guided, or a perfect creation effected, why would recessive genes that cause Down's Syndrome exxist? There are so many facts of life incompatible with an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolent God that I must be forced to discount Intelligent Design as no more scientific, no less fanciful, no more intelligent, and no less superstitious than the belief in little invisible, immaterial leprechauns running my computer from the inside.
There is nothing wrong with arrogance. What is wrong is when your arrogance turns out to be false.
Easy. You ever played the game Code? You are not allowed to use English(or any established language) at all, you must develop a code wholly anew, whether by pointing and naming, or group assent. 6 year olds play it, I'm damn sure modern man coulda goten it too. The languages start simplistic, with only nouns, but soon grow. My friend and I in 9th grade started our own language called Zhaveeth, using a combination of the Greek and Arabic alphabets(but one could easily make new, arbitrary symbols(which we did, technicaly, as the letters had different sounds than they now do). We did this in 30 minute periods, once weekly, for which we were not allowed to speak in English(or any established language), and finished it in a little under 40 school weeks. Granted, it was simplistic, and contained only words we happened to need, grammar which was necessary, and limited adverbs and adjectives, but creating written language from no foundations is not at all difficult.
On the other hand, you seem to think that co-evolution is not possible. It is. For example, simple photosynthesis requires co-evolution. It requires receptor cells and converter cells. That does NOT mean that one could not have been there first. Simple receptor cells have other purposes, just as thought has other purposes, and simple grunts have other purposes. Then, both being present, they evolve together in complexity.
Oh, by the way, the supposed 'faith in the dating method?' Moronic. Absolutely, moronic, to doubt. Carbon dating is not even a scientific theory. It's a mathematic truism. You ought know that if you have taken any College level Calculus. Half-lifes are great predictors, both in dating and in populations.
But how did you first start to think up the language? You can point at something and associate it with a action or noise sure but it would not make words form in you mind. Let's take the word "The", have you ever seen a "The"? No, of course not. You never will either. Our language today could not have come together with all the articles & adjectives it has. Also, how do you explain the words we have like thought? They never saw it, how would they know? You could not put the words or "grunts" together to form a language because all that you said would sound like this "Tree Branch Mouth Punch" (if they would have thought up Punch.) Now, it takes longer to say that sentence & it doesn't make real sense to a person not used to that system. It's easier to point because that explains quickly. Also, co-evolution means two things happening at the same time such as a tree evolving (not that it is) from a seed into a trunk while growing branches but, thought & language have to be fully formed at the same instant to succeed. I mean, think about it. How could you respond to me in this forum if you had no language to interpret your thoughts or even the words on this page? If you had no thoughts because you had no language how could you even, as I said before, interpret your thoughts? You would be just like one of the monkeys used in a mathmatical equation scientists have used (the law of probability) to demonstrate the chances of random proccesses creating a system as complex as a single cell (which we supposedly evolved from). The chances would be the same as one million monkeys with typewriters have a chance at typing Hamlet in one million years. The mathmatical equation is something like 1 to the 17 power (100,000,000,000,000,000). You could not, according to the law of probability, generate a response to me in one million years if you had no thoughts or language to use. They could not evolve together, they had to be fully formed at the exact same time to function correctly.
Go With God,
GWG
Now, in reference to down syndrome it is easily explained. After God had made the first man & the first woman he gave them a command. They disobeyed & because of it God caused them to have to die in the future & they will have to work to survive. The pain & suffering in this world happens not because God made it or he doesn't even exist, it hjappened because Man sinned & because of sin pain entered. Down syndrome could be because God is trying to get someones attention or he is allowing them to feel pain so they will appreciate what he has given them. Finally, Are you God? I mean, even if you believe he is fictitious are you him? If there is a God, who are we to question him? He is eternal & we are temporary (our flesh). The answer to your question is more philosophical & teological than the topic we are in.
Go With God,
GWG
You are pretty much like my Dad, in that you try very hard to combine vivid intellectualism with religious dogma. Take this as a complement.
I wish I had some good sources here, but it is Finals time, so I am kinda crunched. Anyone help if you can.
OK, lets get started! First, you are making a logical error in presuming that even if there is a divine creator, it is your favorite invisible man. This is called an argument from ignorance. You DON'T KNOW, but you insist upon a particular answer. If you think the bible is true for another reason, present it. PLEASE present it. Because I have been look for a good punchline for the 'Bible is the funniest book in literary history' thread. And if the bible is really the inspired word of God, I am doomed to Hell anyway (see, God won't ever forgive you if you don't accept him).
Aside from that, you lack the understanding of human brain. We adapt SO QUICKLY that if you were just speaking gibberish, and that was the only way to communicate, you could teach anyone. I have been exposed to PHD level psych work, and heard this from too many people for me personally to accept a stupid rebuttal without support. But everyone else should get some good sources. Feral Children are a good example, yet npt for the faint of heart.
[quote=GWG]Now, in reference to down syndrome it is easily explained. After God had made the first man & the first woman he gave them a command. They disobeyed & because of it God caused them to have to die in the future & they will have to work to survive. The pain & suffering in this world happens not because God made it or he doesn't even exist, it hjappened because Man sinned & because of sin pain entered. [/quote]
You ASSUME god created the world; where did that come from? And don't quote the bible. Quoting it is like saying the Greek gods exist because the Illiad and Odyssey say it.
You say suffering is because man fell. Before your all-knowing god created everything, he knew in advance that man would fall. He knew man would be doomed, yet he created man?
[quote]Down syndrome could be because God is trying to get someones attention or he is allowing them to feel pain so they will appreciate what he has given them. [/quote]
You say god allows us to feel pain because he wants us to appreciate things; isn't that creating a problem only to solve it? God is all-powerful; he could even make us born with this appreciative feelings for him.
[quote]Finally, Are you God? I mean, even if you believe he is fictitious are you him? If there is a God, who are we to question him? He is eternal & we are temporary (our flesh). The answer to your question is more philosophical & teological than the topic we are in. [/quote]
I could also say "Are you the tooth fairy? She exists, but we can't know much about her. Who are we to question her and her plans for our milk teeth that haven't fallen out yet?"
You're quite right, articles are very complex. So complex so, that the first three written languages, early chinese, attic greek, and sumerian, have no articles. Thank you for confirming the predictions of evolution. I'm not saying our CURRENT language came from early homonids, I'm saying the BEGINNINGS of language did. Basic things, like sun, sky, tree, animal, cave, rock, etc.... from there, language could(here's the punchline) Evolve!
I'm sorry, did you just relate a tree growing from a seed into a trunk and growing branches to evolution? Thoughts and languages would not have to be fully formed. For example,say you had a basic violin and a basic reed. You need both to play violin, but you can start w/ a very basic one of each, and they co-evolve over time. Thought and language, even when not fully-formed, are better than no thought and language at all! Which is better, being able to convey basic things through language, or none at all?
I fail to see how the monkey thing relates. We are over the internet. However, if we were having a basic discussion about something BASIC language would cover, such as hunting, I could punt. I could point to me, and say Blargh(pointing to self) and say purk(that's what i say, as I make a stabbing motion), and then I say fwit(pointing at a dead rabbit). You then think oooooh, You're Blargh, purk means stabbing, and fwit means the rabbit. Over the internet, obviously we could not generate a language well because there are no reference points. In purpose, whole different thing. Like I said, I HAVE formulated a language, using no prior language. It was basic, correct, but so too would early language have been. It would only be tribal, would have no global meaning, but it's better than no language at all. That is the basic theory behind evolution by gradual addition, that a slightly decent something is better than none of it at all.
Fallacy. You assume creationism to prove creationism. Secondly, they disobeyed(so you claim), not us. God is therefore, unjust(according to your beliefs). Creationism, however, is counter to common knowledge. Animals had to die from the beginning of the time, hence ancient dinosaur fossils. Dinosaurs didn't sin. Does this mean if man had never sinned, but he fell out of a tree onto a masive spike, he'd feel no pain? Do you realize how IDIOTIC that is? Thirdly, you're speculating as do DS. Last time I checked, people who beat and rape their children are BAD PEOPLE, regardless of how it gets them to appreciate what they have.
No I'm not god, I don't BELIEVE in him. If he IS fictitious, then the entire question of me questioning him is no more strange than whether I should question Odin, or Thor, or Zeus. IF there is a God, who are we to question him? You're assuming what you're trying to prove. If there IS no God, questioning the idiots who say there is is perfectly logical.
teological?
Teleological?
First off, saying it's more teleological simply means you're avoiding it. Secondly, teleological arguments are entirely speculative, and have no grounding in the minds of any rational person. The idea that we did something in order to fulfill the result is simply stupid. The result is the result of the cause, that's the deifnition of the word RESULT.
if you meant theological? There are no more opposite words than philosophical and theological. One refers to investigating things to find the truth, the othe is starting at a given 'truth'(which is assumed) and gathering select data to fit it, ignoring everyghing else. To argue something from the perspective of theology is to assume the truth of theology in order to prove theology.
Good job, man.
First off, NICE JOB! Haha I love your Haiku!
And I really like the posting going on!
As I see it, the burden of proof seems to be more on the creationist than the evolutionist. The evolutionist just needs to show mini-evolution like crossbreeding dogs or something or some genesplicing and the burden of proof drastically shifts to the creationist (showing a new animal being formed out of thin air would totally change my mind)
I might be wrong here but wouldent occam's razor side with evolution? I mean it makes a litte more sense to say that we all change slightly over a long time than to say that some invisible man in the sky (who subscribes to your edition of scripture) defied the laws of physics and just "poofed" animals and people into existance and then created some elaborate story (involving snakes, ribs, and apples) to show a moral point with it all (Don't piss me off)?
P.S. Im new at this so I might be way off
No, you are right. The burden of proof is on everyone though. It is just that evolutionists have it.
I know that the burden of proof is on everyone, however evolutionists seem to be actively trying to prove that evolution exists (I guess were past this... how about - trying to find out exaclty what happened... not that it did). Meanwhile creationists seem to be sitting on the Bible as self evident truth and poking (nonexistant) holes in the "Theory" (love to use that word) of evolution.
It just seems to me that evolutionists are making an effort to prove their point and creationists are just yelling loudly.
They can use the word theory all they want, doesn't mean it is. It doesn't predict anything.
[quote=Guruite]I know that the burden of proof is on everyone, however evolutionists seem to be actively trying to prove that evolution exists (I guess were past this... how about - trying to find out exaclty what happened... not that it did). Meanwhile creationists seem to be sitting on the Bible as self evident truth and poking (nonexistant) holes in the "Theory" (love to use that word) of evolution.
It just seems to me that evolutionists are making an effort to prove their point and creationists are just yelling loudly.[/quote]evolution has already been proven to happen. the hard part is getting creationists to accept that fact.
I know i said that
[quote] guess were past this... how about - trying to find out exaclty what happened... not that it did[/quote]
I care about what creationists beleve ... but not as much as I care about their actions.
I don't want it taught in schools. Unless it is a private school.
Yeah, I once debated a bit with a Christian classmate (She's the same one who's been sending me those chain mails I posted on the other thread). Well, we were talking about the Big Bang, and she asked me, "So if I take a handful of pens and papers and drop them will they form a small solar system?" She also called Darwin's theory "insanity". Yeah, and she plans on becoming a marine biologist.
As for the pens and papers thing... Well if they are in a void and if they have enough mass (they would have to be extremly big) and if they were hot enough and if they were composed of hydrogen (i know, my hydrogen pen idea just diddnt work out) then i guess that they would
Darwin's theory is insane! I JUST LOVE THAT INSANE AMOUNT OF THOUGHT HE PUT INTO IT! (Insane = Awsome here)
A marine biologist is a good career for a theist, she will spend her time trying to find evidence for a giant flood. Meanwhile the rational biologists will be getting more evidence for evolution.
However, Even better would be a career in gospel music... if every christian joined a gosple rock band they would be taken less seriously on matters of science (and people would think that their taste in music sucked sooo... it works out for society in two ways, nobody takes bible thumpers seriously in science and we all dismiss the gospel groupes for tooting their own horns (is that the expression or... playing their own drum.... i dunno))
Hey, while we are on the subject, is there any evidence one way or the other on the big flood thing?
I honestly dont know, obviously it is impossiable to have a full world wide flood because of rain (just not enough water...) (where did it go afterwords??? did it just teleport away?)
Anywho I think that there was a rather large flood sometime in and around the mediteranian (The greeks also have a myth of a flook where only a man and woman survived and cast rocks over their shoulders to create animals) and i think that there is some evidence to prove a large flood there (nothing supernatural, just a flood) ) However, as usuall, I am not 100% sure on this
Personally, I like to think of crazy situations that were exagerated to put in the bible. Noah diddnt survive a flood... He just hopped in his freinds boat and took some animals with him... when he landed he walked into a bar and said (and i magically quote) "Whew! Lots of Rain here, YOU wont Beleve what happened to me!" it just happened that there was a hebrew scholar there and he decided to take notes... (all of this story took place with noah getting more and more buzzed, eventually leading to magical rainbows and olive brances)
Well, this is what the website says about the water.
"...If you have flown on a plane, you probably noticed how different mountains look from the air than they do from the ground. They look more “wrinkled” than you would expect, and almost “artificial” in appearance. The canyons and rivers that flow out of them look different also—sort of like the seashore after the tide runs out and you see little “grooves” in the sand. This is especially noticeable if you are flying over a part of the world that does not have much vegetation to hide the shape of the land like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah in the United States. The next time you are in a plane and over such an area, look down and see if it makes sense that this appearance could have been caused about 4,000 years ago if everything had been covered with water for a year and then drained off in a short time. We do not claim this as proof, by the way—but this is one of many such observations that make one wonder."
I heard that one of theories they have is that the earth was encapsulated in a shell of hydrogen, with very high air pressure, and more oxygen in the air. There was little water, but due to the the air pressure and content, people lived longer lives (hence the 'I lived 1000 years' thing). Then, the shell shattered, somehow absorbed the oxygen is a fiery hell (have you seen a hydrogen explosion?) and that made our waters. Sounds like bullshit to me, but you guys should formally debunk that one.
I honestly have littel science to back me up on this. In my opinion that still leaves the matter of the water going someplace after it was flooded. Secondly (or firstly) if there was a way to live for 1000 years because of diffrent gasses or pressure... I think that we would have found it.
I would think that if there was so much hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere then even a fire would set it off (or lightning)
I really think that this is a very implausiable theory... I personally think that if someone beleves in a god, then the would also beleve that he can teleport mass amounts of matter... he just teleported the water to earth and then back to... (i dunno, europa)
So I started reading it...and within the first few paragraphs I already got extremely irritated.
How blind and ignorant can you be to COMPLETELY deny that there is absolutely NO scientific evidence against the bible. I mean, if they want to sit there and say "I see the scientific evidence, I understand this is a great factor, but I still believe it's bullshit" is one thing. But to sit there and say there is absolutely no evidence is just blind.
I think that everyone accepts that there is evidence against the bible scientifically. I mean, They might reject the science itself, but they agree that as far as science goes, it goes against the bible. I mean, science supports evolution - any christian will accept this (i hope). It is their choice as to whether to beleve science... but they accept that current science shows that creationism is a bunch of bull.