PDA

View Full Version : Evolution



VwV
11-11-01, 08:35 PM
I go to many many web sites just to ask atheist for one proof of Macroevolution. I have yet to find one. So, this is just another board to ask on... So, atheist of the world unite, and tell me why Evolution is right, and why the earth is not only 6,000 years old?!

:D VwV :D

smugg
11-11-01, 09:52 PM
I imagine the problem is that you are going to websites and asking atheists for proof of evolution. I suggest going to schools and asking biologists for proof of evolution since they are the ones who study that phenomenon.

See, being an atheist doesn't magically give someone a degree in Biology. I suggest you take some courses, examine the evidence, and decide for yourself (except that you seem to have already decided -- I'm not sure why you're asking anyway...).

But, since you asked, I'll try to accommodate:

Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

Some More Observed Speciation Events (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html)

By the way, evolution is not the only evidence that the universe is old -- that's a related but separate issue. One simple, observable data is the amount of time required for light to reach us from distant objects in space. To date, we have been able to peer almost 12 million years into the past.

VwV
11-12-01, 12:10 PM
Fine Fine... I'll go with that. We can ignore evolution, and focus on the earth's age. Since Evolution will fall in a pile of ignorance if the earth is not billions of years old. So I can focus on the fact that the earth is younger than 10,000 years old.

Stars light. A common theme brought up, of course people usually don't understand how it works, which makes another branch of science where evolutionist or old-earthers can persuade and convince the laymen that they have evidence for an old earth when they really don't.

They tell the distance to the stars using Trig, rather simply trig. However, there are some basic problems with it. They use the earths rotatation to determine the base of the triangle. If look at the distance to a star in June, and then wait for the earth to rotate six months, and then in December (or whenever) look at the star again, you can make an approx angel. The problem is that these numbers vary so much that they can't even remotely be considered accurate. The experts will tell you the same thing, and I can bring in some more evidence and quotes if you prefer.

But when the Huble constant varies so much that you can't get an accurate reading, that is the bottom line. I would consider it inlikely if they can even see 100 light years away, let alone the 12 million you claim. Which, many scientist claim that we can see billion of light years away, which is a complete falsy.

That is the first line of evidence against that. The second line of evidence against it is...

You are assuming that light has always been a constant speed. Which has actually been disproven by science. Light is closely decreasing in speed. It probably goes back to the 2nd law of themodynamics. If we assume that the light was infinitely fast at the time of creation (6000-10000 years ago) then it would have reached Adam and Eve instantly, even if we assume the stars are billions of light years away.

The third argument agains that line of reasoning goes to the Mature Creation concept. God made the earth and everything around it mature. Therefor, even if light was constant (which it isn't), and even if we could see stars light years away, then God could have simply made the light from the stars half way to earth. This one is as probable as the others, however, the others we have scientific evidence for, where as this one we would have to take primarily on faith.

To Recap:
1) - We can't know, and certainly can't prove at this point that the stars are billions of light years away, let alone millions, or even thousands. It is simply to complicated for the math concepts we are using in attempting to figure this out.
2) - Light is not a constant, and if it was infinite, it would have reached earth instantaniously from billions of light years away.
3) - God made a mature creation, and could have put the light half way between the stars and earth.


Right. Next argument against a young earth? Or would you like me to explain in more detail any of the points?

smugg
11-13-01, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by VwV
Fine Fine... I'll go with that. We can ignore evolution, and focus on the earth's age. Since Evolution will fall in a pile of ignorance if the earth is not billions of years old. So I can focus on the fact that the earth is younger than 10,000 years old.

Stars light. A common theme brought up, of course people usually don't understand how it works, which makes another branch of science where evolutionist or old-earthers can persuade and convince the laymen that they have evidence for an old earth when they really don't.

They tell the distance to the stars using Trig, rather simply trig. However, there are some basic problems with it. They use the earths rotatation to determine the base of the triangle. If look at the distance to a star in June, and then wait for the earth to rotate six months, and then in December (or whenever) look at the star again, you can make an approx angel. The problem is that these numbers vary so much that they can't even remotely be considered accurate. The experts will tell you the same thing, and I can bring in some more evidence and quotes if you prefer.

But when the Huble constant varies so much that you can't get an accurate reading, that is the bottom line. I would consider it inlikely if they can even see 100 light years away, let alone the 12 million you claim. Which, many scientist claim that we can see billion of light years away, which is a complete falsy.

Whatever a falsy is, the distance to far-away objects is not measured by our relative motion in our (relatively) tiny orbit. Stars are dated and the distance to them is measured primarily by their composition and their red-shift. Composition gives a good idea of age because heavier elements don't appear in older stars, and red-shift tells us about the star's relative motion to our star.

Have you ever hear of a straw-man argument? What you do is build a weak or simply false version of your opponent's position and then tear it down. It happens all the time when people debate religion and science. One reason it happens is honest ignorance. For example, I may hear (or read on the Internet, a vast resource of misinformation) someone who claims to be a Christian speculate about Sephiroth in the Bible being men from Mars. Later, I might come to this board and make some huge post about how dumb Christians are for believing this. My post would be totally unfair because not every Christian believes this and it all just stems from my misunderstanding in the first place.

Sometimes, though, the misrepresentation of opposing views is done intentionally as a kind of underhanded tactic to 'win' a debate no matter what the cost. While this tactic doesn't hold up to close scrutiny, it many times goes by without people recognizing it for what it is. In this sense it's entirely unethical and cheap.

So the question is: why are you misrepresenting the methods and findings of scientists? Is it an honest case of ignorance or are you willfully distorting facts to suit your argument?


That is the first line of evidence against that. The second line of evidence against it is...

You are assuming that light has always been a constant speed. Which has actually been disproven by science. Light is closely decreasing in speed. It probably goes back to the 2nd law of themodynamics. If we assume that the light was infinitely fast at the time of creation (6000-10000 years ago) then it would have reached Adam and Eve instantly, even if we assume the stars are billions of light years away.

First, the idea of a constant decay in the speed of light from an infinite value raises some nightmares in math and logic. But this is magical thinking about the storm god of the ancient Hebrews, so let's let that slide. Rather, I'd like to point out that nothing has been proven or dis-proven about this, it's still in the early stages of review and testing. But it's true that there are findings which suggest a certain amount of 'c-decay,' just nowhere near that drastic. It still fits into the old universe model. Of course, current thinking is that this may not be a universal slowing, just local effects on light passing through (or close to) interstellar objects (which undoubtedly hold mysteries of their own).

Here are a couple of links to info on this subject:

Speed of Light, Other Constants May Change - space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html)

Speed of light may not have been constant after all - USAToday.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/astro/2001-08-15-speed-of-light.htm)

Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of Light Might Change - ScienceDaily.com (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm)

Note that none of these reports make the claim that the universe is anything but billions of years old.


The third argument agains that line of reasoning goes to the Mature Creation concept. God made the earth and everything around it mature. Therefor, even if light was constant (which it isn't), and even if we could see stars light years away, then God could have simply made the light from the stars half way to earth. This one is as probable as the others, however, the others we have scientific evidence for, where as this one we would have to take primarily on faith.

And this is why creationism will never be science. Speculating about God's methods is totally untestable and nothing but speculation. It's the last bastion of magical thinking: God did it, it was magic.

It's a good thing the real scientist have a better understanding of useful techniques -- we no longer need to shudder in fear at solar eclipses.


To Recap:
1) - We can't know, and certainly can't prove at this point that the stars are billions of light years away, let alone millions, or even thousands. It is simply to complicated for the math concepts we are using in attempting to figure this out.

Except that this statement is true of your math concepts, it can be disregarded as intellectually dishonest.


2) - Light is not a constant, and if it was infinite, it would have reached earth instantaniously from billions of light years away.

Pure speculation which runs in the face of all kinds of evidence. Please give me some figures on some kind of constant decay from a value of infinity.


3) - God made a mature creation, and could have put the light half way between the stars and earth.

Or maybe it was Rama, or Allah, or Odin. Maybe it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.


Right. Next argument against a young earth? Or would you like me to explain in more detail any of the points?

You certainly may go into more detail in any of your points. I would particularly like to hear more wild speculation about how God might have created this or that. How, for example, did God create syphilis? Did he create the bug inside Adam, or did Adam have to, ahem, misbehave first? Man, now that I think of it, Noah and his family must have been host to all kinds of bacteria and fungi for those critters to survive the flood. I bet that ark smelled to high heaven -- no wonder the first thing Noah does after disembarking is get drunk.

VwV
11-13-01, 11:53 PM
Whatever a falsy is, the distance to far-away objects is not measured by our relative motion in our (relatively) tiny orbit. Stars are dated and the distance to them is measured primarily by their composition and their red-shift. Composition gives a good idea of age because heavier elements don't appear in older stars, and red-shift tells us about the star's relative motion to our star.
Red Shift huh? You understand the Red Shift right? The idea behind the Red Shift is that light can be compressed and resonate like sound waves. You probably don't realize this, but that helps out my arguement. I'll explain it in a while, because I don't have to much time for this post.

But, to touch on the speed of light argument. For years... and I don't have the numbers with me right now, but I'll get them for you. They observed that the speed of light was decreasing at a rather large rate. This has always been observed, UNTIL, they started to use the speed of light to measure time. Now, it shouldn't take a rocket science to figure out that if your using light to calculate time, then time is going to decrease with the speed of light. So now, I think from like... ah... err... the past ten years maybe? That light hasn't decreased in speed, because of the mechanism we are using to calculate what times is. I'll get more information on this also. Also, science now, as been able to stop light, hold if for a while, and then release it. I have also heard, that scientist have been able to accelerate light to 300% its "normal" speed. I think it would be utter ignorance to argue, in light of the facts (which I will give you in full detail) that light has always remained a constant.


And this is why creationism will never be science. Speculating about God's methods is totally untestable and nothing but speculation. It's the last bastion of magical thinking: God did it, it was magic.
The spontaneous generation, which Evolutionists ultimately have to believe in is just as much a faith as Christianity. Don't tell me that Evolution is science and Christianity is a religion. They are both religions. Not to mention, spontaneous generation was proven wrong 150 years ago. Keep your faith strong, becuase that is all you are relying on.


It's a good thing the real scientist have a better understanding of useful techniques -- we no longer need to shudder in fear at solar eclipses.
I don't see ANY prejudice in that statement... at all...


Except that this statement is true of your math concepts, it can be disregarded as intellectually dishonest. (refering to mathimatical computations of Star Distance)
You should really look into this so you can know what you are talking about. I give you some quotes of the leading experts in this field, saying that the Trig calculations people use is simply not accurate, and can't be accurate because we don't have a big enough base on the triangle (earth, from its position in Jan. to June [or equivilant months]).


Pure speculation which runs in the face of all kinds of evidence. Please give me some figures on some kind of constant decay from a value of infinity. (refering to the FACT that light is not a constant)
"all kinds of evidence" - please, i'd like to know some of them. I challenge you, because their isn't "all kinds of evidence" and if there is, you should have no problem bringing it up. I expect to see it to, I think it will be likely that you will ignore this, because there isn't "all kinds of evidence". I will have to wait in see.

smugg
11-14-01, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by VwV

Red Shift huh? You understand the Red Shift right? The idea behind the Red Shift is that light can be compressed and resonate like sound waves. You probably don't realize this, but that helps out my arguement. I'll explain it in a while, because I don't have to much time for this post.

I guess I'll have to wait and see, huh? It seems you neglected to visit the sites I posted so I'll link to some more for you:

Hubble's Law and the Age of the Universe - California State University Long Beach (http://www.physics.csulb.edu/hubble.html)

How Old is the Universe? - nasa.gov (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_age.html)

International Team of Astronomers Finds Most Distant Object - from the Science Journal of Penn State's Eberly College of Science (http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Sum2000/DistObj.htm)


But, to touch on the speed of light argument. For years... and I don't have the numbers with me right now, but I'll get them for you. They observed that the speed of light was decreasing at a rather large rate.

False. The phenomenon hasn't been directly observed until quite recently, and it is at such a low rate, it is very difficult to measure. Please visit the links in my previous post for a bit of the history.


This has always been observed, UNTIL, they started to use the speed of light to measure time.

Again I ask, is this a willing lie or just ignorance? The measure of time we (the U.S. at least) have relied on for the past fifty years is from atomic clocks whose radioactive isotopes decay at a very regular rate.


Now, it shouldn't take a rocket science to figure out that if your using light to calculate time, then time is going to decrease with the speed of light. So now, I think from like... ah... err... the past ten years maybe? That light hasn't decreased in speed, because of the mechanism we are using to calculate what times is. I'll get more information on this also. Also, science now, as been able to stop light, hold if for a while, and then release it. I have also heard, that scientist have been able to accelerate light to 300% its "normal" speed. I think it would be utter ignorance to argue, in light of the facts (which I will give you in full detail) that light has always remained a constant.

Some amazing claims. You realize, don't you, that if you can back these up the entire world of science will be thrown on its ear -- you should have no problem getting published in major scientific journals and you could even get a Nobel Prize -- if your data can withstand peer review and the rigorous testing that the ideas you'll disprove have gone through.

OR -- you've just been misled by bad science and misinformation.


The spontaneous generation, which Evolutionists ultimately have to believe in is just as much a faith as Christianity. Don't tell me that Evolution is science and Christianity is a religion. They are both religions. Not to mention, spontaneous generation was proven wrong 150 years ago. Keep your faith strong, becuase that is all you are relying on.

Never heard of any good spontaneous generation theories. Could this be another straw-man?


I don't see ANY prejudice in that statement... at all...

You should really look into this so you can know what you are talking about. I give you some quotes of the leading experts in this field, saying that the Trig calculations people use is simply not accurate, and can't be accurate because we don't have a big enough base on the triangle (earth, from its position in Jan. to June [or equivilant months]).

You may have missed it, but I have looked into it. It would be a shame if scientists were as ignorant as you seem to think. Please believe me when I say that I'll be the first in line to decry our scientists' ignorance if you can back this up.

But I've posted links from NASA, scientific journals and colleges addressing your misrepresentation -- are you sure I'm the only one who needs to look into it? I'm the first to admit I'm no expert -- are you?


"all kinds of evidence" - please, i'd like to know some of them. I challenge you, because their isn't "all kinds of evidence" and if there is, you should have no problem bringing it up. I expect to see it to, I think it will be likely that you will ignore this, because there isn't "all kinds of evidence". I will have to wait in see.

In the face of a complete lack of quid pro quo, I accept your challenge.

The evidence against the existence of light of infinite speed:

If light had an infinite speed at any point in the past, it would have an infinite speed today. There would be no numerical value to which it could slow since it would have to slow infinitely to do so.
light of infinite speed wouldn't actually be light since its wavelengths would necessarily be of infinite length. Human eyes weren't developed to interpret that particular data.
Light of infinite speed would also have infinite energy and would therefore completely obliterate any human (or other animal), plant, asteroid, planet, or even star which it hit.


It's staggering to think about -- that ought to be enough. So are you willing to take me up on any of my challenges?

And now an editorial comment. What a frightful world it must seem when 90% of the world's scientists (of many different religions) are conspiring to spread lies about the nature of -- well -- nature. Their crimes against human knowledge are unfathomable when they hide the talking donkeys, launch countless satellites without hitting a water canopy, invent seeds smaller than the mustard seed, lie about the existence of fresh-water fish (who couldn't possibly have survived a world-wide flood), and countless other Biblical 'truths' they attempt to 'disprove.'

It begs the question: Why do you think they are doing it?

smugg
11-14-01, 10:27 AM
I just ran across this article and wanted to share it:

HAS THE SPEED OF LIGHT DECAYED? - ICR.org (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm)

Surely, VwV, you won't mind reading a critique on the Institute for Creation Research's site even if you don't want to visit NASA or Science Daily. Apparently, even the ICR are skeptical about c-decay.

GRANTM
11-15-01, 01:18 PM
People: I believe that this discourse is barking up th wrong tree
it is not the speed of light that should be at issue here but time.
Time is affected by speed. Is not part of Einsteins theory the big variable is time. time grows slower the faster the speed?

In my mind the problem I have is this. regardless of what age you believe our earth to be, both assumptions include that
we must be a least as old of what we see, and observe
I feel that there must be limiting factor as yet unknown to me.

an example ( hyperbalistic I agree) We construct a telescope
that is so powerful that it can look back at the stars to the point
where in terms of the speed of light that can view the time
of when the big bang is supposed to have occured.

If this is so then the Earth could not have been part of the big bang otherwise we could not see it. This would be the same as walking into a house turning on the lights then going outside
and watching come on we would have to pass ourselves to do it not being able to be in two places at the same time.

Even with our new telescope that in theory can look back to the time line of the supposed age of the universe
we could not see the big bang. Therefore I say that there is a limiting factor and that is the understanding of time which acoording to most is the true Variable/

What say you??

VwV
11-15-01, 06:46 PM
Righto. Let me start this out again. When I started explaining this, I said that they
measure the distance from Stars to the Earth by using simply Trig. I suppose I will need
to explain this more in-depth since you don't seem to be getting.

First off, I have to point out that there has never been any evidence of any stars forming in
the entire universe. We see stars blowing up all the time, but we have never seen any
form. Some people have approximated that there is enough stars in space that everyone
on earth could personally own two trillion. Now, do the math... If the universe formed
out of the Big Bang (which I would love to talk about) and all the stars had to be formed
at some point in time via Cosmic Evolution, how come we have never been able to
confirm one star forming? Now there has been recent speculation about stars forming in
the Crab Nebulae (spelt wrong), but I have heard some people believe that a meteor
shower (or dust) just moved and now we are able to see stars that have been there for
"billions of years". Keep in mind, no new stars are being formed, and we have thousands
blowing up. You don't have to be a genus to figure out that we aren't getting ahead. You
would think, for 4 billion years, that we would be running out of 'em by now. And, of
course, the destruction of stars via super novas goes back to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.

The Hubble Telescope was asked to focus in on one dot in space. I think they focused in
on it for like ten days, or something like that. The dot was just above the big dipper.
They thought this spot was black, and that there was nothing there. After the time, they
found more stars then they could count. So they thought nothing was there, but they
found more then they could comprehend, after like ten days. Just to give a fullness of the
intelligent design, and the mass size of it all.

Stephen Hawking, a Cambridge professor and author of the best-selling book A Brief
History of Time said:

"Stars are so far away that they appear to us to be just pinpoints of light. We
cannot see their size or shape. So how can we tell different types of stars apart? For the
vast majority of stars, there is only once characteristic feature that we can observe -- the
color of their light." (Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time. 1988. pg.
37.)
Keep in mind, that Stephen Hawkings is considered, by some, to be the smartest person
alive (even though he rejects Christianity). Stars are so far away, that all we can see is
their light, basically is what he said.

If you want to tell the distance to an object you can't really see, their is only a few ways to
do it. One of the ways, which is most common used for estimating the distance between
stars is using Trigonometry. Sine, Cosine, and Tangent. Simple math.

Now, the earth is only 8,000 miles in diameter. So if two people are on the opposite sides
of the earth looking at a star, which is many many miles away, you form a really small
triangle for your Right Triangle Math (Trig). So, 8,000 miles is nothing compared to star
distances. So they will look at a Star in January, and then they will look at it again in
June. This puts a huge base on the triangle. The distance between the earth and the sun is
93 million miles or 8 light minutes... also called 1 A.U. (astronomical unit). The diameter
of our orbit then, as we circle around the sun, would be 16 light minutes. If you measure
that in miles, its a gigantic number... but if you measure it in AU its not to big... only 16.
One Light Year = 525,948 Minutes. Now, to put this in an analogue people can
understand... :

Put two guys with survey equipment on top of some building, put them 16 inches apart.
Then have them focus in on something 525,948 inches away. That many inches is about
8.26 miles. So, two surveyors will have to focus in on something 8.26 miles away, when
they are standing 16 inches apart. Now, I think you have to agree, that this would form a
very narrow triangle. Wouldn't it? Now, that is for One Light Year... None of the stars
are remotely that close to us. Say we wanted to measure for one light year? We would
have to keep them 16 inches apart, and we would have to focus in on a dot 826 miles
away. In order to do this, you have to measure an angle of .00017 degrees. Now, that is
only 100 light years away. What if you take that to 1,000? What if you take that to
100,000? You can clearly see, that measure the distance of stars millions of light years
away is impossible, let alone billions. So, you can hardly claim that this has anything to do
with science, when someone says that "we can see light from stars billions of years away."
This isn't science. We can't do it with any accurate at all.

Say a star was 1 billion light years away. Take those surveyors and keep them 16 inches
apart. They have to focus in on a spot 8,260,000,000 MILES away, from 16 inches apart.
Which means they would have to measure an angle of .000 000 000 017 degrees. This
can't be done, and I don't care how much of a skeptic you are, you can't do that with any
accuracy whatsoever. Being completely honest, it is really not possible to measure 100
light years.

You also have to consider, that it is virtually impossible to determine your exact position
of where you were six months ago on the other side of earth's rotation around the sun.
And if you think about it, if your measuring angles like .017 (for one light year) then that
kind of information is vitally important. The slightest degree of being off well skew every
piece of information. Those angels vital for accuracy, that if their off even the slightest bit
you have no accuracy. So, between those two pieces of evidence against this, we can
really know that we can't know the distance to the stars. Oh, but it gets worse...

However, some say that you can use Parallax Trigonometry to measure out thousands, or
millions, or billions of light years. But for Parallax Trig to even work, you have to make
the basic assumption that light has remained a constant.

Back in Feb. 18, of 1999, Houston Chronicle ran an article explaining how people
working at Harvard University had slowed down the speed of light to 38 miles per hour.
Dr. Hau, a Danish Physicist, was able to slow down light by cooling it. They cooled it
fifty-billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-459.67).

An article was published in the Dallas Morning News, 2-28-2000, that said they had
slowed it up to one mile per hour.

Then, in January of 2001 they totally stopped light. They held it there for a while, and
then they sent it on its way. Totally stopping it. Totally stopping it. Hard to argue light
is a constant when we can stop it.

Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, wrote in the June 4, 2000, that:

Scientists claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light.
In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses
can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per
second.
This was done by Dr. Wang, the NIC research institute of Princeton, who transmitted a
pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated gas.

Now consider. If we can speed light up and we can slow light down, isn't it rather
ignorant to argue that it is or has been a constant?

During the past 300 years, there has been at least 162 separate measurements of the speed
of light, those of which have been published. I think, there is around 16 different
techniques of measurement which have been used. According to Barry Setterfield, an
astronomer :

The speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error
cannot explain it! No physical law prevents anything from exceeding the speed of light.
In two published experiments, the speed of light was apparently exceeded by as much as a
factor of 100!
Setterfield came up with a graph, of all the general trend over the past 300 years. And the
decreasing numbers are astounding... it has been decreasing considerable all through time,
until around 1960s.

In the 1960s, we started using the atomic clock, which measures time based on the speed
of light. It measures time based on the wave length of a Sysium-133 atom. So if your
using light to measure light, it shouldn't to be hard to figure out that the times have leveled
off since the 60s for a reason. If the speed of light is declining, and the clock is telling
time by the declining light and therefor you are never going to pick up on it, obviously.
So! We can't say that light has always been a constant!

According to Dr. V.S. Troitskii, a Cosmologist at the Radio-physical Research Institute in
Gorky, ...

The speed of light was ten billion times faster at time zero! (Strophysics and
Space Science, Vol. 139. No. 2. December 1987, pp 389-411)

VwV
11-15-01, 06:47 PM
To argue that the speed of light has always been a constant is simply not a valid argument.

Dr. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College London, in the Sunday Times (uk) in 12-24-2000
said:

A shocking possibility is that the speed of light might change in time during the
life of the universe.


Things To Remember:
1) - We can't measure accurately anything over or around 100-1000 light years, you just
get crazy numbers after that.
2) - Nobody knows what light is.
3) - We certainly don't know that light has always traveled the same speed, and more and
more evidence supports that light is slowing down.
3) - The entire theory behind the black hole, is that light can be attracted by gravity. Now
if light can be attracted by gravity, then we know its not a constant. So, if black holes
exist, then light is not a constant.
4) - God made a mature creation. Stars already showing with their light.



NOW, RED SHIFT.

When light goes through a prism, it will be bent, into eight colors. Roy G Biv. Red,
Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet. Because light is bent different amounts
going through different mediums. If you look at star through a spectroscope (probably
spelt wrong, a prism like thingy that separates the light). And it puts black lines on the
color. Now, if the black lines are shifted over to the right, toward the red, they would
assume that this means the star is moving away from us.

This is a common misconception. Just because the lines are shifted to the right (red) that
doesn't prove the star is moving away. It could be moving away, but we can't know this.

The Red Shift Theory: The Doppler effect. If a train is coming towards you, it has a
higher pitch because the sound waves are being compressed. If a train passes you the
sound waves are lower because they have been refracted instead of compressed. So the
theory is that maybe light does the same thing. So when a star is coming towards us, the
light might be compressed, and when it is going away it might be stretched. So, when it
comes towards us, we should get a blue shift, when it is moving away we should get a red
shift.

I don't think you can prove it, but I do think it is an interesting theory. It isn't provable,
either way though.

This was an early sign that redshifts reliably indicate the distance of galaxies.
For QSQs however, the diagram shows a wide scatter in apparent brightness at every
redshift. In fact, there was little correlation of brightness to redshift at all! Either QSQs
come in an extremely wide range of intrinsic luminosity-s, as most people believe, or their
redshifts do not indicate distance... Thus for us the only conclusion that can be drawn is
that at least some QSQs are relatively nearby, and that a large fraction of their redshift is
due to something other than the expansion of the universe.
A Quasar (QSQs) is a 'Quasi-stellar Object'.


...another set of observations indicates that the universe... appears to be... 8.4 to
10.6 billion years... The new work relied on the Hubble Space Telescope to obtain the
distance to far away galaxies. (Science News, Sept 9, 1995, pg. 166)

First off, notice that if you go from 8.4 to 10.6 that is a 25% error. I don't know if I
would consider that accurate at all, right off the bat. This is a far cry from an exact
science.


A team led by Nail R. Tanvir of the University of Cambridge in England used a
two step method to estimate the [Hubble] *constant*. First they observed a type of
"standard candle"-stars known as Cephied variables- to find the distance to the spiral
galaxy of M96... (Science News, 1995. - * are mine)

I also like to point out, that if you have to estimate the constant, you can hardly consider it
a constant. If you change that number in the slightest degree, any calculations you do will
be incredibly effected. How can you estimate the constant? If this number is one of the
multipliers in your equation, this will effect your number incredibly. They went on to say,
"You have to be very careful about [drawing conclusions] because all of the [Hubble
constant] measurements have huge systematic errors" (Science News, 1995). A far from
an exact science.

You don't know the distance to the stars, and it doesn't prove that the earth is billions of
years. God certainly could have made it just the way he told us he did in the Bible.

According to James Jeans:

Pg 50s:
Even the nearest Cepheids are so remote that it is difficult to determine their absolute
distances with any great accuracy... All large distances... in astronomical literature... [is]
subject to an error of perhaps 10 per cent, from this cause alone.

Pg. 60s:
We now know that faintness arises from two causes [distance and absorbing matter in
space], and it is not generally possible to apportion it accurately between the two (The
Universe Around Us, New York, Cambridge University Press)


The Bible actually says that God stretched out the heavens. So maybe the Red Shift is
actually in the Bible. In Isaiah 40:22, it says that the earth is a sphere, and that God
"stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain". In Isaiah 43:5, it says, "Thus saith God the
Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out". In Jeremiah 10:12, it says that
"He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and
hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion". So it could be that God is stretching out
the heavens, and the Red Shift is the result. It could be the doppler effect. I am not
saying that the stars going away, I'm just saying we can't know it. And I am also saying
that it doesn't conflict with the Biblical interpretation of the Bible, that the creation took
six literal days, about 6,000 years ago.

GRANTM
11-15-01, 07:16 PM
Very interesting will do my own investigation as to context
please ponder this, while it may be that the speed of light is a variable over time
This doubly re-inforces that time is now a double variable
and thus could have a negative value if speeds are in excess
of current norm as relative to a fixed position or any other context . To establish a forumla that renders any scientific or numerical value there has to be a constant as has been
demonstrated again and again time is a variable of speed
when speed is also a variable , time , without another frame of reference is now irrelevant. as the formula becomes infinite.

Jep
11-15-01, 07:48 PM
“demonstrated again and again time is a variable of speed
when speed is also a variable , time , without another frame of reference is now irrelevant. as the formula becomes infinite.”

ME: I can take water and observe solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Yet I’m still seeing water, just in its different physical states. You can attempt to pull time out of its relative state, but you will have no success. Matter depends on space, the three dimensions of height width and depth. Space depends on time, because without time nothing can exist. And time depends on both matter and space because time is the movement of matter through space. Capice? :)

VwV
11-15-01, 11:33 PM
Jep - "because without time nothing can exist."

I would just like to point out, that God made time, before the creation of the universe there wasn't any time. God is not bound by time, although, God is beyond existance.

GRANTM
11-16-01, 11:13 AM
VWV

Quote:
{I would just like to point out, that God made time, before the creation of the universe there wasn't any time. God is not bound by time, although, God is beyond existance.}

I disagree. time was created by man. as a convenience of explanation for the very reason you point out God is not bound by time also see below.

Jep:
{ Matter depends on space, the three dimensions of height width and depth}

Matter does not depend on space but can occupy same space at same time if their sub atomic vibrations are different.

I am glad that you recognize the forth state of matter plasma
it wasnt to long ago that there were only three do I here rumblings that there is a fourth dimension ?

Quote:

{Space depends on time, because without time nothing can exist. And time depends on both matter and space because time is the movement of matter through space. Capice?}

This presuposes that there is no such thing as non-motion
and that space is infinite, Time is only a unit of measurement
established by man for convenience. Much like a ruler. or any other scale.

Twonky
11-16-01, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by smugg
Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)

This is great reading! I've quoted a little section here...


Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

IMHO, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely.

Well, can't argue with that I guess. The scientific method at it's best! Just believe what you read! That's enough for me!


Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. The literature has many more examples where a speciation event has been inferred from evidence than it has examples where the event is seen. This is what we would expect if speciation takes a long time.

Hmmm... we expect not to find anything; that's consistent with speciation? Speciation must be occuring, the lack of evidence helps prove it! If there were more evidence, it would blow our case? Inferring?!


Third, the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur.

What's with all this inferring? Number and quality of inferences is enough to convine most workers? I hope these workers aren't scientists. I would hate to say something is a fact because we have a lot of quality inferences.

Jep
11-16-01, 01:12 PM
HI VwV:

“I would just like to point out, that God made time, before the creation of the universe there wasn't any time.”

ME: I agree. Time was one of the four dimensions created in the big bang. God spoke, and BANG.”

“God is not bound by time, although, God is beyond existance.”

ME: Yep. We have no legitimate reason to believe that our fourth dimension applies to any other entity than our own universe. In fact, eternity, as taught in the Bible is time-less. We may all be familiar with Peter’s statement that a day is a thousand years to God and a thousand years as a day. All to God is “now.”

Jep
11-16-01, 01:26 PM
Hi GrantM:

“I disagree. time was created by man. as a convenience of explanation for the very reason you point out God is not bound by time also see below.”

ME: *BUZZER* Wrong--sorry. :) Time is the movement of matter in relationship to other matter. this would exist whether man did or not. For example the rotation of the earth around the sun is time. Can we measure this time progression? Yes, of course. With nothing more complicated than a sun dial.

“Matter does not depend on space but can occupy same space at same time if their sub atomic vibrations are different.”

ME: Matter is very dependent on space and could not exist without it. How could something exist if you had no height, width, or depth in which to place it? Nothing can exist without somewhere to exist.

“it wasnt to long ago that there were only three do I here rumblings that there is a fourth dimension?”

ME: Man’s four dimensions are height, width, depth and time. There are others, but not applicable to man in his environment.


“This presuposes that there is no such thing as non-motion and that space is infinite,”

ME: Space is finite and there is no such thing as non-motion. Can you think of any examples in our real universe of non-motion? (other than us placing matter at 0 degrees Kelvin, of course).

GRANTM
11-16-01, 03:07 PM
Hi Jep: Have a Great Thanksging day Nothing I love more than a good theoretical debate, Save for.. but thats for a completely different Forum.

{ME: *BUZZER* Wrong--sorry. Time is the movement of matter in relationship to other matter. this would exist whether man did or not. For example the rotation of the earth around the sun is time. Can we measure this time progression? Yes, of course. With nothing more complicated than a sun dial.}

Ergo Time connot be a constant. Iit is mankinds wants to measure this. it is irrelevant to god. Mankinds desire to finite
the universe and categorize everything that time measure exists . Mankinds desire for more order and complacency in life
developed the wants for more refined measurement.


But the major problem with time still exists how can you measure something that is a Variable

How accurate would our watches be say on mars they would all have to be recalibrated to martian standards,

you might counter that a second is still a second but as atomic clocks have shown, you can say precisely what time it is the US mid- west and what time it is precisely In London Eng.
But why then if you calibrate a precise instrument according to an atomic clock Take off and land in London there is a time loss.

Quote

{ ME: Matter is very dependent on space and could not exist without it. How could something exist if you had no height, width, or depth in which to place it? Nothing can exist without somewhere to exist.}

Only because our terms of reference deem it to be so, But lets assune that our terms of reference are absolute and correct.
The fact that matter can occupy the same space at the same time
at that point of junture the three dimensional universe within that microcosm is severly distorted.

Quote

{ME: Man’s four dimensions are height, width, depth and time. There are others, but not applicable to man in his environment.}


I definately agree with you about the possiblity of other dimensions but Disagree with you on the nomenclature of time being the fourth( please correct me if i have misinterpreted
your meaning.) we can manipulate all the other dimensions to fit our needs, we can theoretically send a person into the future limited only by our technology, but no teccnology can bring them back from it. Time is our calibration of events and therfore cannot be a dimension. as for the others not being applicable
it is only so if we let it be so.

Quote:
ME: Space is finite and there is no such thing as non-motion. Can you think of any examples in our real universe of non-motion? (other than us placing matter at 0 degrees Kelvin, of course).

Strongly disagree: space cannot be finite, space is not avoid
or emptyness but is full of particles seen, unseen , etc. If space was finite the three dimensional effect of compression of these
Particles would cause the universe to contract,


With your acknowledgemnt of 0d K you acknowledge non-motion therefore non-motion can exist.

Looking forward to your rebuttles

VwV
11-16-01, 05:32 PM
Right Right. We can argue about Time in another thread and how it effects God or how God effects it. This thread is about evolution. And Since Smugg brought up some points, I really should dispute them, even though they are some of the most over used "evidences" against the Biblical Creation Account, which, obviously, have no bearing on science.


And now an editorial comment. What a frightful world it must seem when 90% of the world's scientists (of many different religions) are conspiring to spread lies about the nature of -- well -- nature. Their crimes against human knowledge are unfathomable when they hide the talking donkeys, launch countless satellites without hitting a water canopy, invent seeds smaller than the mustard seed, lie about the existence of fresh-water fish (who couldn't possibly have survived a world-wide flood), and countless other Biblical 'truths' they attempt to 'disprove.'

Water Canopy -
Rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Water Canopy goes bye bye.
Fresh Water Fish -
Why do you assume the oceans were salt water?

VwV
11-16-01, 05:37 PM
Since I have pointed out the vast evidence against the "Seeing Light Billions of Years Away". And since I have pointed out that even if the Stars are billions of light years away that is in no confliction with the Bible. I am ready to move on to another topic about the literal six day creation. Some atheist out there, feel free to either ask more questions about the Star Light argument, or bring up a point about how the earth is billions of years old, so I can refute it. Happiness. Joy Joy. I await some evidence saying the earth is old.

Jep
11-16-01, 05:57 PM
“Ergo Time connot be a constant. Iit is mankinds wants to measure this. it is irrelevant to god.”

ME: I agree that time is irrelevant to God. The spirit world is not restrained by petty man’s fourth dimension. And yes, it is only organisms who wish to measure it. But not just man. My cat’s know fully well when the alarm is supposed to go off. My dog will go to meet the schools bus at the time it’s due. Animals seem to have a clock placed within them by the creator.


“Mankinds desire to finite the universe and categorize everything that time measure exists . Mankinds desire for more order and complacency in life developed the wants for more refined measurement.”

ME: Well, I’m afraid that the universe finited itself--Actually I guess God did, since He created it. Eternity is time measurement, and infinity is distance measurement. Our universe has a finite distance. In fact, the universe has boundaries that, through euclidian geometry, we can show is expanding into itself. Strange, but true. Therefore, if you could start at one edge of our universe and walk to the opposite side, you would have traversed it, yet you would be right back where you started from. In my humble opinion only God could have created something this weird. :)

“But the major problem with time still exists how can you measure something that is a Variable. How accurate would our watches be say on mars they would all have to be recalibrated to martian standards,”

ME: You bring up a very valid point. We would have to embrace Einstein’s theory of relativity to understand this. All things are relative depending on one’s perspective. Indeed, time would be different to a Martian than it would be to an Earthling.

“But why then if you calibrate a precise instrument according to an atomic clock Take off and land in London there is a time loss.”

ME: But in reality there is no time loss. It’s just man’s perspective of time changing, and when he travels he must change that perspective. Since time is the movement of matter, and we are in a different position on one of the entities moving, then yes, we would view time differently in London. Yet, when I call my wife at home, time is still the same there.

“I definately agree with you about the possiblity of other dimensions but Disagree with you on the nomenclature of time being the fourth( please correct me if i have misinterpreted your meaning.)”

ME: No, I don’t think you misunderstand my position. Let me see if I can show you how time works in reality concerning dimensions. I’m going to construct for you a three dimensional map of our solar system using planets tied together with wire as many middle school students use in their science fair projects. I’m going to then enclose this structure in a cage of Plexiglas from which you can make measurements from boundary to boundary. I bring this to your home and leave it with you. Then I call you at 8:00 the next morning and ask you to plot the position of the sun on your map so I can see where it’s at in relation to the other planets. I then arrive at 4:00 that afternoon to see where the sun is at.

ME: But this is not accuracy. Because the sun is in a different position at 4:00 than where it was when you plotted it at 8:00 that morning. Wow....You are going to have to use four calculations to show me this. These might be: 10” of height, 12” of depth, 16” of width at 8:00 EST. Now I can find the sun and we encounter all four dimensions.

“If space was finite the three dimensional effect of compression of these
Particles would cause the universe to contract,”

ME: No, that would only be caused by a change in density of the universe. Infinity is a measure of distance. Not density. And I see you gave me no examples of non-motion.

Jep
11-16-01, 06:05 PM
Hi VwV:

“since I have pointed out that even if the Stars are billions of light years away that is in no confliction with the Bible. I am ready to move on to another topic about the literal six day creation.”

ME: Interesting. I seem to have missed this. How is that you figure that stars are billions of light years away, matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light (according to relativity), yet it took less than billions of years for them to travel there? Simple arithmetic should show you are wrong.

VwV
11-16-01, 06:09 PM
Yes Jep. You seemed to have missed it, since I don't believe that the stars are billions of light years away. :) Of course, I also believe that we can't know if they are or if they aren't.

Anyway... On To Evidence Against the Six Literal Day Interpretation of Genesis.

GRANTM
11-16-01, 06:17 PM
VwV
Quote
{Since I have pointed out the vast evidence against the "Seeing Light Billions of Years Away". And since I have pointed out that even if the Stars are billions of light years away that is in no confliction with the Bible. I am ready to move on to another topic about the literal six day creation. Some atheist out there, feel free to either ask more questions about the Star Light argument, or bring up a point about how the earth is billions of years old, so I can refute it. Happiness. Joy Joy. I await some evidence saying the earth is old.}

Interesting.. Visit a museum of natural history lately

Interesting... you can take a few critiques of scientic Papers
turn it into vast information by choosing the exerpts
your vast amounts of evidence under srutiny does not amount to much as 500 people citing three rebuttal submissions 1 Discounted as not being up to date in Techno-terms is still only three dissentions. secondly the rebuttals you cite are opinions not evidence.

Quote:
{Right Right. We can argue about Time in another thread and how it effects God or how God effects it. This thread is about evolution.}


Interesting... You propose that we take the issue of time to another thread and then go back to evolution and come back to evolution which by inference is time. ah well chaqu'un son goute

VwV
11-16-01, 07:53 PM
I don't suppose I can really argue with you about my points being "generic" for the lack of a better term. However, I would like you to point out the flaw in them. I don't see how Time is relivant to this current discussion, if I am wrong, feel free to point out its importance, and its association with the young earth. Avoiding the obvious (time is the whole discussion after all, 6 thou v 20 bill), if you please...

GRANTM
11-16-01, 08:48 PM
Jep, VwV

Have opened up a new thread for the time discussion if Interested

GRANTM
11-16-01, 10:05 PM
To; VwV


No problems; Lets just chalk this uo to I know what I said and meant what I don't know is what you heard and how you took it.


Back tp evolution:

I agree somewhat with Darwin but only up to a point.
His theory "origin of the species " is based on observations on the Galapogos Islands where in his time was a micro eco-system.
therefore, scientifically to draw conclusions based on micro eco system and then by conjecture apply to the macro world is opinion not scientific theory. But i'm not going to trow the baby out with the wash water. he does make some very valid points to consider.

we must generally agree on the differentiation between what is evolution and what is adaption

examples of this might be, why do leopards have spots and tigers stripes when they share they same environment and are of the same species? In my opinion is an adaption not an evolution.


The platypus now thats evolution.

If as science proposes all life form is derived from the basic molecular structure it then makes more sense that the Gorilla is a 97% match to Humans, (because of all the bio-diversity on this earth now and in the past), by the law of probability. not as an evolutionary derivative theory.

True science has a major problem on its hands, it is now impossible to truly have an scientific observation and study of evolution and adaption because of forced changes due to mankind not acting as a caretaker of the earth as mandated by the bible, but as a devourer of it.

pollution radiation deforestation etc. has seen to that.

I mean how can science truly look at a study of either when by force or accident the manipulation of a species evolution or adaption is artificially caused and extinctions occur that would have had a causal affect on that specie.

VwV
11-17-01, 04:49 AM
"he does make some very valid points to consider."
Such As?

So, you are simply defining micro and macro evolution. Okay. Bust out a dictionary here in case anyone is actually wondering what you are taking about...

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion (mkr-v-lshn, -v-) - n.
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion (mkr-v-lshn, -v-) - n.
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


In English: Microevolution is small genetic changes (variations/adaptations) which don't change the "kind".
In English: Macroevoluton is big genetic changes which will change the "kind".

Jep
11-17-01, 08:48 AM
VwV,

Some of your points are interesting. But, even though I’m a fairly conservative Christian, I could never leave my mind at the church door when I walked into one, or stop the reasoning process every time I pick up my Bible.

When I see stars a billion light years away, and know that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light and remain in existence according to Einstein’s calculations, I have no other choice but to conclude that this star has been traveling for at least a billion years. The universe HAS to be billions of years old, and in fact it is, around 15 billion.

Nor can I ignore that the earth is much older than what young earth creationists state is an age of about 6000 years. Do they not believe in dinosaurs even with fossil specimens in half the major museums of the world? Well, we know there were no dinosaurs post-Adam, and in fact these fossils date back to 50 million years before Adam and longer.

I am one that believes the young earthers hurt the greater body of believers because they make us look foolish to the world when most of us do not share these beliefs. Yet, the non-believers seem to think that we do all share them.

The major difference between me, the free-thinking Christian, and the young earthers is that if we were to read in our Bibles that there is not a tree in my front yard--yet I know that there is a tree there and it has been there ever since I moved to the place--the young earther’s motivation seems to be to hurry and chop that tree down so it will no longer conflict with the Bible and hope no one noticed in the first place.

Many of us, on the other hand, choose to reread our Bible to see how we misinterpreted it to start with. When I do this, I find that it is only Adam who is 6000 years old not the earth or the universe. In fact, there are many scriptures which suggest there was a pre-Adamic race. And this race could have gone back hundreds of thousands of years. Science, and the Bible do not conflict if we really understand both.

Scientifically, microevolution is small genetic change that occurs within a species, yet the organism still remains the same species. Macroevolution is change so dramatic that speciation results. In other words, the first species is changed into a brand new species. The former happens all the time, the latter is impossible when we consider that man is supposed to have evolved from a single celled critter. This complex evolution becomes impossible due to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. When we examine science, there is only one way man could have gotten here--divine creation.

Twonky
11-17-01, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Jep
In fact, there are many scriptures which suggest there was a pre-Adamic race. And this race could have gone back hundreds of thousands of years. Science, and the Bible do not conflict if we really understand both.

Could you show me these scriptures? I'm interested in seeing how you get that.

Also, before 'sin' entered the world, there was no death.How would you explain people (and animals) dying before that?

Jep
11-17-01, 02:11 PM
Hi Twonky:

“Could you show me these scriptures? I'm interested in seeing how you get that.”

ME: Yes, there are certain ones that truly suggest this and I will walk you through some of them to show you how many of us interpret the Bible to arrive at this.

ME: But first let me ask you a couple of questions. First was Adam and Eve, Cain was born and then Able. So Cain kills Able then goes into the land of Nod and takes a wife. So what did he marry? A monkey? No, there must have been some other people here. And where are all these dinosaur and “cave-man” fossil findings coming from? They certainly are not post-Adamic.

ME: But sola scriptura--I love the name of this forum--and no one screams at me either--yet. :) Peter makes a comment that really doesn’t make sense: 2 Peter 3-5 “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.” But the world was never destroyed in the time of Noah, look: it’s still here. Was this poor wording by Peter or could he be referring to an earlier event than the Noahaic flood. I believe the latter and here’s why:

ME: Let’s examine some scripture in Ezekiel: Ezekiel 28-11 “The word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.”

So who is this referring to? What anointed cherub was thrown out of heaven because he sinned and was also in the garden of Eden? Lucifer, of course. Yet he is also referred to here as the earthly king of Tyre, an ancient city that still exists in Lebanon today. There are also other scriptures that refer to this earthly king. But Satan was never an earthly king since Adam was created. This could only have been pre-Adamic.

Many people believe that demons are the fallen angels that were cast out of heaven with Lucifer. Wrong. Angels already have spiritual bodies and would have no need to possess the bodies of men. These demons are quite obviously something else. If there were a pre-Adamic race of evil men ruled by Satan, and destroyed by God, this would explain where these spirits came from.

Another clue is given when God orders Adam and Eve to: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28 [KJV]” Why not go out and populate the earth rather than to replenish, or repopulate it? Although this word can be translated as “fill” it is not. The Jewish dictionaries translate it as replenish and this is the exact same Hebrew word used when Noah is ordered to replenish the earth. Both Noah and Adam were instructed to repopulate, not populate.

Genesis 1:2 “Now the earth became formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

I’ll bet you thought this scripture read “Now the earth ‘was’ formless and empty.” It does. This is how it is translated in most cases, but this word is but a translation from the Hebrew verb "hayeth" which indicates a previous existence and a change having taken place. Note also that this same verb is translated "became" in Genesis 2:7, etc. Can you see what a big difference this makes when we translate it correctly? The earth was not previously formless, but it became so after God cleaned it out. He then recreated it.

Ever notice that there are really two creation stories in Genesis? The first creation story in Genesis 1 completely contradicts the second one in Genesis 2. Atheists often use this in argument to show that (in their opinion) the creation story is just silly. But what if there were really two separate creations? I believe there were.

Jeremiah 4:23 “I looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty; and at the heavens, and their light 24 I looked at the mountains, and they were quaking; all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people; every bird in the sky had flown away.
26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert; all its towns lay in ruins before the LORD, before his fierce anger.”

When did Jeremiah’s prophecy ever occur? It certainly wasn’t post Adam. And the scriptures we have concerning the last days show us this never will. But it did happen. This occurred when God cleansed the former world and recreated man.

Finally, one more: Job 9:2 “I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? 3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. 4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? 5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. 6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. 7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.”

ME: When did this ever occur post-Adam? It didn’t. This occurred when God recreated man in the form of Adam. At no time since Adam has God removed and overturned mountains and shook the earth out of its place. He was mad at someone and I know who. :)

VwV
11-17-01, 02:49 PM
11-17-2001 03:49 AM - JEP -


Some of your points are interesting. But, even though I’m a fairly conservative Christian, I could never leave my mind at the church door when I walked into one, or stop the reasoning process every time I pick up my Bible.
No offense intended in this... but it seems that is exactly what you are doing...

When I see stars a billion light years away, and know that matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light and remain in existence according to Einstein’s calculations, I have no other choice but to conclude that this star has been traveling for at least a billion years. The universe HAS to be billions of years old, and in fact it is, around 15 billion.

Only 15 billion years old? Interesting, most scienctists are saying around 20 billion years old. I think it is very intersting that you think it is only 15. But, in fact, I have seen people say that it is anywhere from 10-20, to 15. I would just like to point out the huge error rations in there. Next. Your entire assumption here, YOUR ENTIRE ASSUMPTION, is that the Big Bang happened. Think about it now, your believing that at one point all matter on earth was squeezed into a space approx. to one atom, and then it blew up. Yet, many physists believe now, that everything came from nothing. So... There was nothing, and then it exploded. There are many things wrong with the Big Bang theory.

Let's Address Some of the Problems with the Big Bang:

First, I need to define the Big Bang, incase people here haven't heard about it. Eighteen to Twenty Billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense and very hot region, which may have been smaller than the period on this page. That is a lot of matter! This occurs around 80 to 100 billion years. We go through what is called the Big Bang and then the Big Crunch. As I said before, some physicist now theorize that there was nothing before the Big Bang. So nothing exploded. Not only matter and energy would disappear but also space and time. For a more complex definition:
"In the beginning, a tiny bubble of spacetime, a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter across, popped spontaneously into existence out of nothing as the result of a random quantum fluctuation. It was seized by an intense anti-gravitational force which caused it to expand with explosive rapidity. In scarcely more than a billion-trillion-trillionth of a second the universe swelled to about 10 to the negative 33rd cm, the size of a grapefruit. The anti-gravitational force then disappeared, and the inflationary phase of accelerating expansion came to an abrupt halt amid a burst of heat. The heat energy and gravitational energy of expanding space then produced matter and, as the universe cooled, more and more structure began to 'freeze out' -- first nuclei, then atoms, and finally galaxies, stars, and planets."

Problems:

1) - The Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the universe actually. It just explains in theory how the universe developed. So, we still don't know how the universe came into being. By the By - the word "universe" is composed of two words. You can accurately translate it as a "single spoken sentence", which you won't understand unless you know your Bible. "God said, 'Let there be...'". Interesting side note.

2) - The Big Bang can't explain where matter comes from, and it can't explain where time came from.

3) - The Big Bang also doesn't explain where the natural laws come from. Newton's Laws can't be answered by the Big Bang. We don't know where the laws came from.

3) - The Big Bang also doesn't explain where the energy came from, or comes from (First Law of Thermodynamics).

4) - "The Conservation of Angular Momentum". If a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment will send all the pieces off spinning the same direction because the outer part is moving faster than the inner part. Simple physics. It is further around the outside than it is the inside of the circle and so it maintains the same direction of spin. Grantm mentions this in the thread "time and its relationships to god and bible" when he says, "Please consider this, remember the old 331/3 rpm records the outside edge of the record travels much further than than that the spot at the spindle hole but arrives back at its point of origion at the same time as the outsde edge time is the same but the reality is the ouside edges speed is x times faster reletive time hasn't changed...". It is a worded a little wierd. So, this means, that since everything would have been spinning one direction when it was released out of the Big Bang, everything should be spinning the same direction today. If this is not the case, then we can conclude that something is wrong with the Big Bang Theory. And WoW! Not everything is spinning the same direction. At least two planets spin backwards (Venus and Uranus) and possibly a third (Pluto), and six moons spin backwards. Some have theorized that something hit the planets to change their rotation, however this is lunacy because their isn't a dent on the planets. Something hitting them with that kind of magnetude would either destroy the planet or leave a crator through half of it. We also know that six of the 63 moons rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. This is a scienctific impossiblity if we consider the Big Bang true. Well, one could speculate that the planets grabbed the backwards rotating moons while they drifted past them, however, they should have never been rotating backwards in the first place if the Big Bang were true.

The Scientific evidence mounting against the Big Bang is increasing, many scientists are rejecting it now.



Nor can I ignore that the earth is much older than what young earth creationists state is an age of about 6000 years. Do they not believe in dinosaurs even with fossil specimens in half the major museums of the world? Well, we know there were no dinosaurs post-Adam, and in fact these fossils date back to 50 million years before Adam and longer.

Dinosaurs lived with man, of course. God made everything in six days, including the dinosaurs and dinosaurs are living with man even in some parts of the world today. Yes, dinosaurs have always lived with man.

Dating. Ah yes, Dating. The dating of dinosaur bones is done by the geological column which was invented with no scientific evidence to back it up in the 1800s, around 1880 I think. I can get the exact date. I could go off on the geological column for hours, but I don't want to waste time on it right now, I will come back to it if you want me to. But, I will say that the entire method of dating is circular reasoning.


I am one that believes the young earthers hurt the greater body of believers because they make us look foolish to the world when most of us do not share these beliefs. Yet, the non-believers seem to think that we do all share them.

VwV
11-17-01, 02:51 PM
What Do American's Believe?
According to a poll taken in 1991 by Gallup Polls:
47% - Believe the earth is 10 thousand years old or less.
40% - Believe that God used evolution to created the universe.
9% - Believe that it was pure evolution, with no God.
4% - Didn't know or didn't answer.

According to a poll taken in 1995 by Gallup Polls:
61% - Believe the earth is 10 thousand years old or less.
30% - Believe that God used evolution to created the universe.
4% - Believe that it was pure evolution, with no God.
6% - Didn't know or didn't answer.

According to the Washington Times, on August 31, 1998: Only 55% of the united States scientist believe in Darwinian evolution.

Get your numbers right before you make statements that "most" of the Christians don't believe the Bible.


The major difference between me, the free-thinking Christian, and the young earthers is that if we were to read in our Bibles that there is not a tree in my front yard--yet I know that there is a tree there and it has been there ever since I moved to the place--the young earther’s motivation seems to be to hurry and chop that tree down so it will no longer conflict with the Bible and hope no one noticed in the first place.

This is plain ignorance and prejudice, I have no need to respond.


Many of us, on the other hand, choose to reread our Bible to see how we misinterpreted it to start with. When I do this, I find that it is only Adam who is 6000 years old not the earth or the universe. In fact, there are many scriptures which suggest there was a pre-Adamic race. And this race could have gone back hundreds of thousands of years. Science, and the Bible do not conflict if we really understand both.

Oh please, I would like to see the scriptures you use to justify this, I will enjoy shooting down everyone of them. The day-age-theory and the Gap Theory are two of the most anti-scriptural theories that we have in existance today. They destroy the basic principle foundations of the Bible. Your right about one thing though, science and the Bible don't conflict, the Bible and an old earth do conflict however, because an old earth is not scientific. Evolution is not scientific.


Scientifically, microevolution is small genetic change that occurs within a species, yet the organism still remains the same species. Macroevolution is change so dramatic that speciation results. In other words, the first species is changed into a brand new species. The former happens all the time, the latter is impossible when we consider that man is supposed to have evolved from a single celled critter. This complex evolution becomes impossible due to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. When we examine science, there is only one way man could have gotten here--divine creation.

I have covered the First Law of Thermodynamics, many times called the conservation of energy/matter, and now you have covered the second. I do agree with you on this point however. Macroevolution doesn't occur and their is no scientific evidence for it.



11-17-2001 07:48 AM - TWONKY



Could you show me these scriptures? I'm interested in seeing how you get that.

Also, before 'sin' entered the world, there was no death.How would you explain people (and animals) dying before that?


I also can't wait for him to bring up his verses in support of this. It should be rather enjoyable.

VwV
11-17-01, 03:02 PM
But first let me ask you a couple of questions. First was Adam and Eve, Cain was born and then Able. So Cain kills Able then goes into the land of Nod and takes a wife. So what did he marry? A monkey? No, there must have been some other people here. And where are all these dinosaur and “cave-man” fossil findings coming from? They certainly are not post-Adamic.

CAIN'S WIFE: This is one of my previous explainatoins of where cain gets his wife from a different forum... so I am just pasting it in here...



blue_bird
Where did Cain get his wife?" If there were only Adam and Eve, where did his wife came from? Do you anyhting about this one?


VwV
Sure thing man. Well, if we believe the Bible, which we all should then we have to find an answer, if we want to be serious about it.

Genesis 4:1 - Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."

Note the keyword in there. "manchild". You see, before Adam and Eve had Cain, they had daughters. Right, so... Cain married his sister. First off, there is no other choice. Second off, who are you going to turn them in to? Think about it.


blue_bird
VwV, my bible says: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Nowhere it says, manchild and that they had daughters. I think it's dangerous assumption. I don't know the answer, I am searching for it. Why the land of Nod was the land where Cain was sure they would slay him? Were there ather peiole who built the city with him? And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


VwV
Were edging near the debate over what version here is the best... avoiding that argument... The Bible is clear that Adam was the first man, now I know we can get into the Hebrew here and say that "adam" means mankind, which it does, but within the context and within the light of New Testament scriptures it is quite obvious that Adam was the first man. And it is also denoted that Eve is the mother of ALL living (Genesis 3:20).
Adam was the first man, and there was no other humans on earth that weren't born from the womb of Eve. Thus, Cain had to marry his sister, there is no way of getting around it. Adam lived 930 years, I would assume that he might have had many children before Cain and Abel, and he might have had many children after Cain and Abel, the text doesn't say and it is likely to assume the only reason it mentions Cain and Abel is because it was the first murder. There are two primary conclusions about the verse I previously posted... Some say it means that Cain was just a "man" (your interpretation), others say it means that it was the first son, but clarifies that their were daughters before it (the interpretation I said in the last post). I think there is a few others, but I don't recall them at this time. I believe, however, that it is probable that there might have been as many as ten kids before Cain and Abel, we simply don't know how many there were and it makes complete logical sense that there could have been many after there births. Or even, there could have been a three sets of twins right after Abel before Seth.

The Bible however is clear about a few things, a literal six day creation, and that Adam was the first man, and Eve was the first wife, and all living humans came from them. So, one way or another, Cain had to marry his sister.


blue_bird
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
But:

Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Was there one Eve?


VwV
Genesis 5 is the geneologies, they are often in the Bible. Gen 5 and 10 for instance. So, they are recapping what has happened up to that point. So the geneologies are just giving you the background what has already been stated. God created man, then God created Eve out of the Rib of man. Keep in mind that this was not a genetic change, but that it would have only effected Adam. Thus, women don't have one rib less then men, however the rib is one of the few bones in the body which will grow back. So no, there was only one Eve, and one Adam.


I will continue the rebuttle of Jep's thoughts on the next slide...

VwV
11-17-01, 04:02 PM
But first let me ask you a couple of questions. First was Adam and Eve, Cain was born and then Able. So Cain kills Able then goes into the land of Nod and takes a wife. So what did he marry? A monkey? No, there must have been some other people here. And where are all these dinosaur and “cave-man” fossil findings coming from? They certainly are not post-Adamic.
What cave-men fossils? BE VERY SPECIFIC! They are post-Adam, as all mankind and animals are post-Adam. When you specify what cave-men you want to talk about, BE VERY SPECIFIC.

Peter makes a comment that really doesn’t make sense: 2 Peter 3-5 “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.”

But the world was never destroyed in the time of Noah, look: it’s still here. Was this poor wording by Peter or could he be referring to an earlier event than the Noahaic flood.
This is one of the best verses against evolution actually. It says that people are willingly ignorant of the creation and the flood. This verse is actually a prediction of evolution. The world was destroyed in the days of Noah, because it was a world wide flood that was very destructive, and the only reason anyone survived was by the Grace of God. I wish you would explain the part of the verse which is says, "formed out of water and by water." What this is talking about is the Canopy of water that was above the atmosphere, also mentioned in Genesis 1:6. And I also suggest that you don't just read one verse in that passage, but read some of the verses around that, if you take it in context it is clear that he is talking about Noah.

Ezekiel 28-11 “The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: `This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "`You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings.”
This passage is obviously refering to Satan ("Lucifer" - if he is Satan). Keep in mind though, that it was that Satan was in the Garden of Eden UNTIL he sinned. Thus at one point in time, when he was in the Garden, he was sinless. You have to consider then, that the Garden wasn't made tell the sixth day. And if the Garden wasn't made until the sixth day, and Satan was sinless initially in the Garden... Basically, Satan was sinless on day six. So their couldn't be anything before Adam because Adam was made on day six. Thus, Satan didn't fall inbetween Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Thanks for pointing out the verses that actually hurt your point.

But Satan was never an earthly king since Adam was created.
Satan is the King of this world right now, what are you talking about?

Many people believe that demons are the fallen angels that were cast out of heaven with Lucifer. Wrong. Angels already have spiritual bodies and would have no need to possess the bodies of men. These demons are quite obviously something else. If there were a pre-Adamic race of evil men ruled by Satan, and destroyed by God, this would explain where these spirits came from.
Wrong. Demons are Nephilim. I thought I covered that already? Maybe not. The Nephilim were half mortal and half immortal, their half immortal side became demons because they have no ressurection. Demons are not pre-Adamonites. Demons are Nephilim.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28 [KJV]” Why not go out and populate the earth rather than to replenish, or repopulate it?
That is an easy one. The word "replenish" in the King James Version means "fill", you know why? Becuase back in 1611 the word "replenish" meant fill. It didn't start meaning refill until around the 1650s. So... God was telling Adam and Eve to fill the earth, not refill.

Although this word can be translated as “fill” it is not. The Jewish dictionaries translate it as replenish and this is the exact same Hebrew word used when Noah is ordered to replenish the earth. Both Noah and Adam were instructed to repopulate, not populate.
Your partially right. The Hebrew word which means Fill is "male" and it is used in both times (assuming your right, I don't know if it is used for Noah, but I'll take your word on it). The Hebrew word for Refill is "Shana", and it is not used. So they are instructed to populate, not repopulate. Today the word replenish means to fill again, but in 1611 it meant fill. 1650 it started meaning fill again.

Genesis 1:2 “Now the earth became formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

I’ll bet you thought this scripture read “Now the earth ‘was’ formless and empty.” It does. This is how it is translated in most cases, but this word is but a translation from the Hebrew verb "hayeth" which indicates a previous existence and a change having taken place. Note also that this same verb is translated "became" in Genesis 2:7, etc. Can you see what a big difference this makes when we translate it correctly? The earth was not previously formless, but it became so after God cleaned it out. He then recreated it.
When did Lucifer fall from heaven? Genesis 1:2 - Tohu waw bohu, which means unformed and unfilled ("without form, and void" - KJV), it does not mean destroyed, but in some cases it could. It just means that God wasn't finished with the creation yet. There is a great book out about the Gap Theory which is called Unformed and Unfilled.



Ever notice that there are really two creation stories in Genesis? The first creation story in Genesis 1 completely contradicts the second one in Genesis 2. Atheists often use this in argument to show that (in their opinion) the creation story is just silly. But what if there were really two separate creations? I believe there were.
I'll address this later...



PROBLEMS WITH THE GAP THEORY

1) - At the end of chapter 1 in Genesis, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Now if Satan had fallen between verses 1 and 2, how could everything be very good?

2) - Was invinted until 1814, as a reaction to people saying the earth was millions of years old. It is not a historical position of the church.

3) - Puts death before Adam's sin (violates scriptures of Romans 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21)

4) - Has Satan fall before day 7 (violates scriptures of Gen 1:31, 2:8; Ezek 28:11-15)

5) - Teaches that Satan already was the "god of this world" when God gave Adam dominion over all of the earth.

6) - Thousands of species of living animals are found as fossils. God must have recreated these for Adam to name, after the pre-Adamite rebellion.

7) - When God said everything was "very good", Satan must have been evil, and Adam and Eve would have been standing on thousands of dead plants and animals.

8) - Noah's flood would have had to be a tranquil flood leaving no evidence. So it must have been tranquil or local. Not global, like the clear teaching of the Bible.

9) - God doesn't mean he did it in six days, like he says with his own hand in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. This must be metaphorical.

10) - We are suppose to work for 12.5 billion years, and then have 3.2 billion years of rest. In accordance with the ten commandments.

VwV
11-17-01, 04:13 PM
Right. We have a lot of loose ends here. We need to focus on something and finish that before we move onto anything else here.

Jep
11-17-01, 05:33 PM
VwV:

“Only 15 billion years old? Interesting, most scienctists are saying around 20 billion years old. I think it is very intersting that you think it is only 15.”

ME: Please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. I said “around” 15 billion years old and that is completely in harmony with main-stream science on the issue.

“But, in fact, I have seen people say that it is anywhere from 10-20, to 15. I would just like to point out the huge error rations in there. Next. Your entire assumption here, YOUR ENTIRE ASSUMPTION, is that the Big Bang happened.”

ME: The big bang DID happen. We can see the universe expanding from any observatory. Care to come with me some Saturday night and allow me to show these red shifts to you? I would like to see you find a reputable scientist who will come out and say that the big bang never happened.

“Think about it now, your believing that at one point all matter on earth was squeezed into a space approx. to one atom, and then it blew up.”

ME: I don’t believe this and have shown why I do not in the thread concerning time that we started.

“Yet, many physists believe now, that everything came from nothing. So... There was nothing, and then it exploded. There are many things wrong with the Big Bang theory.”

ME: Yet not one of these scientists can posit how something could spring from nothing. And you’re right. There are several problems with big bang and I think I have pointed them out.

“The heat energy and gravitational energy of expanding space then produced matter and, as the universe cooled, more and more structure began to 'freeze out' -- first nuclei, then atoms, and finally galaxies, stars, and planets.”

ME: Aren’t you cutting and pasting? Hmmmm.... Yes I believe the page is here: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-bng.htm Please also note that this physicist claims the universe to be about 15 billion years old.

“1) - The Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the universe actually.”

ME: Actually, that’s entirely what the big bang does and the only reason for existence of this theory.

“2) - The Big Bang can't explain where matter comes from, and it can't explain where time came from.”

ME: Yes it does. Matter was produced from the energy implosion of space into itself in a process called the big bang. That’s why this theory was introduced. Space-time is co-dependent upon matter to exist. With all due respect, I don’t believe you know as much about this area of science as you’ve convinced yourself you do.

“3) - The Big Bang also doesn't explain where the natural laws come from. Newton's Laws can't be answered by the Big Bang. We don't know where the laws came from.”

ME: The laws explain the physics of matter and space-time interacting. Newton didn’t invent any laws, he discovered them by observing our universe at work.

“3) - The Big Bang also doesn't explain where the energy came from, or comes from (First Law of Thermodynamics).”

ME: Of course not. It doesn’t attempt to. This is a little vague, but I assume you are talking about the energy that caused the big bang.

“The Scientific evidence mounting against the Big Bang is increasing, many scientists are rejecting it now.”

ME: Again, please prove this. Although Alan Guth has retracted his original inflationary theory there are 50 others now being tested to replace it. I know of no credible scientist who believes that this explosion never occurred. If you do then I would ask you to point me to their sites.

“Dinosaurs lived with man, of course. God made everything in six days, including the dinosaurs and dinosaurs are living with man even in some parts of the world today. Yes, dinosaurs have always lived with man.”

ME: And when was this? I would think that the horrendous T-Rex would be in every history book ever written. And may I inform you that the Hebrew word used for day in the Genesis creation story doesn’t even mean a 24 hour period in many cases? There is no historian that will agree with you that dinosaurs existed post-Adam. If so, then please quote them.

“Dating. Ah yes, Dating. The dating of dinosaur bones is done by the geological column which was invented with no scientific evidence to back it up in the 1800s, around 1880 I think. I can get the exact date. I could go off on the geological column for hours, but I don't want to waste time on it right now,”

ME: Thank you. I believe your post was long enough and four of them? Whew....But I’m surprised that you think the geologic column is used to date specimens. In fact, modern scientists use radioisotopic methods. Here is a page to show you how this works:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/scienceshack/backcat/adamexp/wsdinosaurdating.shtml

And here is a page to show you some dinosaur bones that date back over 200 million years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991022005700.htm

Jep
11-17-01, 05:52 PM
VwV:

“According to the Washington Times, on August 31, 1998: Only 55% of the united States scientist believe in Darwinian evolution.”

ME: Great. I don’t believe in it either. And I could really care less what most Americans believe. I do my own thinking and come to my own conclusions. But do you know why your polls are irrelevant? Because they only concern Americans. Christianity is world-wide, my friend. Now give me some polls from other countries. You may even surprise yourself.

“This is plain ignorance and prejudice, I have no need to respond.”

ME: I resent being called ignorant and prejudiced. I believe you should read Jesus’ teachings in Matthew on how to treat your neighbors. Just because we disagree with one another doesn’t mean we need attack one another personally. Now please address the statement you felt no need to respond to and I will counter.

“Oh please, I would like to see the scriptures you use to justify this, I will enjoy shooting down everyone of them. The day-age-theory and the Gap Theory are two of the most anti-scriptural theories that we have in existance today. They destroy the basic principle foundations of the Bible. Your right about one thing though, science and the Bible don't conflict, the Bible and an old earth do conflict however, because an old earth is not scientific.”

ME: Please support your assertions with facts, quotes and links I will do the same for you. Until you do, I will have to view the above statement that an “old earth is not scientific” only as personal opinion or a misstatement.

“I have covered the First Law of Thermodynamics, many times called the conservation of energy/matter, and now you have covered the second. I do agree with you on this point however. Macroevolution doesn't occur and their is no scientific evidence for it.”

ME: Actually, you only mentioned this mathematical law. You certainly did not “cover” it. Nor did I the 2nd. And the first law and the law of conservation of matter are not one and the same.

Jep
11-17-01, 06:31 PM
WvW:

“Note the keyword in there. "manchild". You see, before Adam and Eve had Cain, they had daughters. Right, so... Cain married his sister. First off, there is no other choice. Second off, who are you going to turn them in to? Think about it.”

ME: *BUZZER* Wrong: Genesis 4:1 “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. he said, ‘With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.; 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.” It appears to me that you are trying to twist the scriptures into stating that there were daughters born before Cain. This is not true. Cain was the very first birth on earth and there were none before him in the scriptures: http://www.hobrad.com/andc.htm If you disagree with me, then please quote the scriptures using chapter and verse numbers. That is only fair. Finally, who would I report Cain to if he committed incest with a sister? Let’s start with God: Leviticus 18:6 "`No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD. 7 "`Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. 8 "`Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. 9 "`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.” My, what does this do to your theory?

“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”

ME: This guy is besting you in this debate, I’m afraid. One man and his wife builds and populates an entire city? The guy is right. Please show the board how this could be physically possible.

“The Bible is clear that Adam was the first man, now I know we can get into the Hebrew here and say that "adam" means mankind, which it does,”

ME: Thank you, that saves me from going there.

“The Bible however is clear about a few things, a literal six day creation, and that Adam was the first man”

ME: No, the Bible is not clear on this at all. It will be up to you to support your position scripturally.

Jep
11-17-01, 07:03 PM
VwV:“What cave-men fossils? BE VERY SPECIFIC! They are post-Adam, as all mankind and animals are post-Adam. When you specify what cave-men you want to talk about, BE VERY SPECIFIC.”

ME: LOL...I think this one takes the cake. Hominids have been dated back to 6 million years ago.

http://www.hbcollege.com/anthro/exchange/news/bioanthro/mill_ancest.html

“This is one of the best verses against evolution actually. It says that people are willingly ignorant of the creation and the flood. This verse is actually a prediction of evolution. The world was destroyed in the days of Noah”

ME: Look in the mirror, my man. The earth wasn’t destroyed. It’s still here and beautiful. How could this be the world Peter was talking about. It’s not destroyed, obviously. Peter knew it wasn’t when he said this. He was standing right on it as he wrote. And the evolution nonsense you are on.......do you really think that Peter was commenting on Darwin’s Origin of Species? C’mon.

“Satan is the King of this world right now, what are you talking about?”

ME: Oh stop. This is not biblical. Satan is called the Prince of the air but not the king of the world. I’m afraid that is Christ.

“Wrong. Demons are Nephilim. I thought I covered that already? Maybe not. The Nephilim were half mortal and half immortal, their half immortal side became demons because they have no ressurection. Demons are not pre-Adamonites. Demons are Nephilim.”

ME: LOL....I think demons are donuts. There, I backed up my posit scripturally just as well as you did yours.

“That is an easy one. The word "replenish" in the King James Version means "fill", you know why? Becuase back in 1611 the word "replenish" meant fill. It didn't start meaning refill until around the 1650s.”

ME: What? That’s just asinine. Please prove this.

“When did Lucifer fall from heaven? Genesis 1:2 - Tohu waw bohu, which means unformed and unfilled ("without form, and void" - KJV),”

ME: Ok, stop right there. You need to quit positing things that you are not backing up. Prove this. I’m not interested in hearing things from you that you don’t back up scripturally and/or with other evidence. This is just a waste of time IMHO.

“At the end of chapter 1 in Genesis, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Now if Satan had fallen between verses 1 and 2, how could everything be very good?”

ME:...ER...Ok, I’ll bite. Who stated that Satan falls between verse 1 and 2? I have no idea what you could be referring to here.

ME: The rest of your post is more cutting and pasting. I have no time to address this. I do my own work and hope others would do the same. Thanks for your posts.

VwV
11-17-01, 09:01 PM
--- Jep ---

Please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. I said “around” 15 billion years old and that is completely in harmony with main-stream science on the issue.
Fine Fine. My bad. You win.

The big bang DID happen. We can see the universe expanding from any observatory. Care to come with me some Saturday night and allow me to show these red shifts to you? I would like to see you find a reputable scientist who will come out and say that the big bang never happened.
You sure? I could give a lot of them... you really want me to? O.K.
BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1 William C. Mitchel
(As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)
I don't want to paste the whole article, but I'll give you his references...

Endnotes:
1 - Much of this paper is from The Cult of the Big Bang (Cosmic Sense Books, 1995, ISBN 0-9643188-0-6) by the same author.
________________________________________
References:
1. P. Davies, Superforce (Simon & Schuster, NY, 1984).
2. E. P. Tryon, Nature (14 December 1973).
3. A. H. Guth, and Paul J. Steinhardt, Sci. Am. (May 1984).
4. A. Linde, New Scientist (7 March 1985).
5. M. Rees and J. Silk, Sci. Am. (June 1970).
6. E. McMullin, Am. Philos. Quarterly (July 1881).
7. G. Gamow, Sci. Am. (March 1954).
8. J. V. Narlikar, New Scientist (2 July 1981).
9. F. Flam, Science (November 1991).
10. S. A. Gregory, and L. A. Thompson, Sci. Am. (March 1982).
11. A. Fisher, Popular Science (May 1991).
12. A. Chaikin, Omni (August 1991).
13. P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press, 1993).
14. D. Goldsmith, Discover (October 1992).
15. A. F. Davidsen, Science (15 January 1993).16. R. Jayawardhana, Astronomy (June 1993).
17. W. Freedman, Sci. Am. (November 1992).
18. J. R. Gott III, J. E. Gunn, D. N. Schramm and B. M. Tinsley, Sci. Am. (March 1976).
19. G. Abell, D. Morrison and S. Wolfe, Realm of the Universe (Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 1988).
20. S. Gilkis, P. M. Lubin, S. S. Meyer, and R. F. Silverberg, Sci. Am. (January 1990).
21. D. Hegyi, "Interstellar Medium" in Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd ed. (VCH Publishers, NY, 991).
22. J. Silk, The Big Bang (W. H. Freeman, NY, 1989). (Hardcover)
23. S. van der Bergh anmd J. Hesser, Sci. Am. (January 1993).
24. W. C. Mitchell, The Cult of the Big Bang (Cosmic Sense Books, NV, 1995).
25. J. Boslough, Masters of Time (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992).
26. D. Sciama, "Cosmology Before and After Quasars" in Cosmology +1 (W. H. Freeman, NY,1977).
27. H. Friedman, The Amazing Universe (The National Geographic Society, Washington, DC,1985).
28. S. G. Brush, Sci. Am. (August 1992).
29. S. Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (Basic Books, NY, 1977).
30. R. V. Coleman, "Whiskers" in Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd ed. (VCH Publishers, NY, 1991).
31. J. Kanipe, Astronomy (April 1992).
32. H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, J. V. Narlikar, N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature (30 August 1990).
33. P. Yam, Sci. Am. (October 1990).
34. "Before There Was Earth, There Was Lightning" in Discover (July 1993).
35. J. D. Barrow and J. Silk, Sci. Am. (April 1980).
36. D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Sci. Am. (June 1988).
37. R. Cowen, Science News (19 October 1991).
38. S. Bowyer, Sci. Am. (August 1994).
39. A. Gibbons, Sci. Am. (January 1992).
40. M. Bartusiak, Discover (August 1992).
41. J. A. Frieman, and B.-A. Gradwohl, Science (4 June 1993).
42. M. Schmidt, and F. Bello, "The Evolution of Quasars" in Cosmology + 1 (W. H. Freeman, NY, 1977).
43. C. D. Dermer, and R. Schlickeiser, Science (18 September 1992).
44. H. C. Arp, "Fitting Theory to Observation Ð From Stars to Cosmology" in Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang (Plenum Press, NY, 1993).
45. E. Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, (Oxford University Press, 1937). (see also)
46. G. Reber, "Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe," in University of Tasmania Occasional Paper, (University of Tasmania,1977).
47. P. Marmet and G. Reber, IEEE Trans. on Plasma Sci. (April 1989).
48. P. Marmet, Phys. Essays 1,24, (1988).
49. P. J. E. Peebles, D. N. Schramm, E. L. Turner and R. G. Kron, Nature (29 August 1991).
50. P. Marmet, IEEE Trans. on Plasma Phys. (February 1990).
51. D. E. Osterbrock, J. A. Gwinn and R. S. Brashear, Sci. Am. (July 1993).
52. G. Gale, "Cosmological Fecundity: Theories of Multiple Universes" in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy edited by J. Leslie (Macmillan, NY, 1990)
53. B. J. Carr, Irish Astron. J. (March 1982).
54. J. A. Wheeler, "Beyond the End of Time" in C. W. Misner, K. A. Throne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, NY, 1971). (see also)
55. T. J.-L. Courvoisier, and E. I. Robson, Sci. Am. (June 1991).
56. F. Flam, Science (28 February 1992).
57. S. Flamsteed, Discover (24 June 1992).
58. Jacqueline N. Hewitt, "Gravitational Lenses" in Encyclopedia of Physics , 2nd ed. (VCH Publishers, NY, 1991).
59. A. Webster, "The Cosmic Background Radiation" in Cosmology +1 (W. H. Freeman, NY,1977).
60. A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. of Plasma Sci. (December 1996).
61. E. J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened (Times Books, 1991).
62. H. Bondi , F. Hoyle, and T. Gold, Rival Theories of Cosmology (Oxford University Press,1960). (see also)

Those are the references he used to write his article.


Yet not one of these scientists can posit how something could spring from nothing. And you’re right. There are several problems with big bang and I think I have pointed them out.
Well, they have tried, but none of them can really reach a concensus.

“The heat energy and gravitational energy of expanding space then produced matter and, as the universe cooled, more and more structure began to 'freeze out' -- first nuclei, then atoms, and finally galaxies, stars, and planets.”

Aren’t you cutting and pasting? Hmmmm.... Yes I believe the page is here: http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw...ce/prat-bng.htm Please also note that this physicist claims the universe to be about 15 billion years old.


Of course I was cutting and pasting. Didn't you note the quotes? Why should I explain the Big Bang when I can just paste an explanation that someone else has already explained it? I don't know if that is the right site you have their, because I have had this article copied on my computer forever. But I can give you the source of it. It was called, "Cosmology and the Big Bang" and it was by David Pratt. Reprinted from Sunrise magazine, June/July & August/September 1993. Copyright © 1993 by Theosophical University Press.

Actually, [the explanation of the origin of the universe is the] entirely what the big bang does and the only reason for existence of this theory.
Nope. It is suppose to explain the developement of the universe. If you contend that it explains the origin of the universe, I would like you to please explain to me where the laws come from, where the energy came from, ect. ect. You can't use God because we can't demonstrate him. So you have to explain it scientifically. You can't do it, by the by, so you might was well not even try. Most scientists will agree that the Big Bang is suppose to explain the developement of the universe, not its origin.

Matter was produced from the energy implosion of space into itself in a process called the big bang. That’s why this theory was introduced. Space-time is co-dependent upon matter to exist. With all due respect, I don’t believe you know as much about this area of science as you’ve convinced yourself you do.
Energy? What about the conservation of energy/matter? Which says that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed. Matter was produced from energy? Wow. But the energy was just there? Well, so much for physics, back to the drawing board.

The laws explain the physics of matter and space-time interacting. Newton didn’t invent any laws, he discovered them by observing our universe at work.
Obviously.

Of course not. It doesn’t attempt to. This is a little vague, but I assume you are talking about the energy that caused the big bang.
Exactly my point. The Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the univese, it simply TRIES to explain the developement of the universe. By your own mouth, you claim "matter was produced from the energy implosion space into itself in a process called the big bang", if you can't explain where the energy comes from, you can't explain where the matter comes from.

“The Scientific evidence mounting against the Big Bang is increasing, many scientists are rejecting it now.”

Again, please prove this. Although Alan Guth has retracted his original inflationary theory there are 50 others now being tested to replace it. I know of no credible scientist who believes that this explosion never occurred. If you do then I would ask you to point me to their sites.
Note above.

VwV
11-17-01, 09:02 PM
And when was this [that dinosaurs lived with man]? I would think that the horrendous T-Rex would be in every history book ever written. And may I inform you that the Hebrew word used for day in the Genesis creation story doesn’t even mean a 24 hour period in many cases? There is no historian that will agree with you that dinosaurs existed post-Adam. If so, then please quote them.
They lived pre-flood, post-adam, because everything lived post-adam. I think we should wait before we get to dinosaurs, because we really need to focus on the pre-Adam race which you believe in. Once we finally get that resolved I will defend my position of the dinosaurs, but I really can't get involved with them at this point, since we have to much open at this point.

But I’m surprised that you think the geologic column is used to date specimens. In fact, modern scientists use radioisotopic methods. Here is a page to show you how this works...
I am not getting into dating yet either... we can address that later. I will get around to reading the website you posted, assuming I can. But I will address this later.

Christianity is world-wide, my friend. Now give me some polls from other countries. You may even surprise yourself.
Name a polling that is world wide. I don't know if I can even think of one poll ever that has been done world wide. It, for all practical purposes, is impossible. Well, until we have a one world soceity.

I resent being called ignorant and prejudiced. I believe you should read Jesus’ teachings in Matthew on how to treat your neighbors. Just because we disagree with one another doesn’t mean we need attack one another personally. Now please address the statement you felt no need to respond to and I will counter.
Fine, I'll address it, what you said before was:

The major difference between me, the free-thinking Christian, and the young earthers is that if we were to read in our Bibles that there is not a tree in my front yard--yet I know that there is a tree there and it has been there ever since I moved to the place--the young earther’s motivation seems to be to hurry and chop that tree down so it will no longer conflict with the Bible and hope no one noticed in the first place.
The hidden agenda behind this statement is that you are the intelligent one, and that everyone that doesn't believe like you is the non-"free-think[er]". "All Christians that believe the earth is ten thousand years old is in complete ignorance. The smart Christians, such as myself, know better than to believe the clear teaching of the Bible. Yes, we are the smart ones." Is it even possible for you to concieve that a smart person could reject the theory of evolution, or, since you claim not to beleive in the theory of evolution, is it concievable for you to think of an intelligent person who believes the earth is less than ten thousand years old? Science doesn't conflict with the Bible, an old earth conflicts with the Bible.

Actually, you only mentioned this mathematical law. You certainly did not “cover” it. Nor did I the 2nd. And the first law and the law of conservation of matter are not one and the same.
Granted. True True. We could talk about the Three Laws forever. Your right about this.

*BUZZER* Wrong: Genesis 4:1 “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. he said, ‘With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.; Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.” It appears to me that you are trying to twist the scriptures into stating that there were daughters born before Cain. This is not true. Cain was the very first birth on earth and there were none before him in the scriptures
For the love man... Did it ever occur to you that I might be using a different version of the Bible. Man, for the love... Nowhere in the Bible does it say that persons were born before Cain and Abel. I agree to that fully. However, nowhere in scripture does it say that Cain was the first one born (it does however, say that Adam was the FIRST man). We don't know if daughters were born before Cain, however, we don't know that they weren't. And that was exactly my point. It is a likely possiblity that daughters were born before him though, because women are rarely mentioned in the Bible. And, as I pointed out later, Cain and Abel might have been mentioned specifically because it was the first murder on earth.

Let’s start with God: Leviticus 18...My, what does this do to your theory?
For one, its not a theory. :) This doesn't do anything to hurt my theory. This law was not put in place until 2500 years after the creation, because at that time the genetic diversity would be extended enough to the point were it was harmful to continue such practices. Please note that in Genesis 19, Lot has intercourse with his two daughters, and it is not condemned.

[Cain] is besting you in this debate, I’m afraid. One man and his wife builds and populates an entire city? The guy is right. Please show the board how this could be physically possible.
All depends on how you define the word "city", now doesn't it? Do you think a city is 2000 people, 20 people, 10 people, 1 person? It all depends on how you define the word.

“The Bible however is clear about a few things, a literal six day creation, and that Adam was the first man”

No, the Bible is not clear on this at all. It will be up to you to support your position scripturally.
Sure thing... no problem. Let's start with a broad verse. Luke 3:38 - Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

That verse would led you to assume that Adam was the first man. Easily. Let's get a little more specific: 1 Timothy 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Here it actually says that Adam was the first formed.

I suppose you could take that as a little offbase, and not really relevant. So, I'll do one more. 1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Yep, that makes it pretty clear I would say.


“What cave-men fossils? BE VERY SPECIFIC! They are post-Adam, as all mankind and animals are post-Adam. When you specify what cave-men you want to talk about, BE VERY SPECIFIC.”

LOL...I think this one takes the cake. Hominids have been dated back to 6 million years ago.
I'll address "human evolution" and the like later. Sticking with pre-Adamite civilization.

VwV
11-17-01, 09:07 PM
Look in the mirror, my man. The earth wasn’t destroyed. It’s still here and beautiful. How could this be the world Peter was talking about. It’s not destroyed, obviously. Peter knew it wasn’t when he said this. He was standing right on it as he wrote. And the evolution nonsense you are on.......do you really think that Peter was commenting on Darwin’s Origin of Species? C’mon.
The earth was destroyed. Just not eliminated. We don't live in a beautiful world, we live in a destroyed world. But that is o.k., since God will fix it like he made it in the Garden of Eden.

“Satan is the King of this world right now, what are you talking about?”

Oh stop. This is not biblical. Satan is called the Prince of the air but not the king of the world. I’m afraid that is Christ.
Christ is not the king of the world. God gave dominion to Adam, and when Adam sinned it gave dominion to Satan. I'll have to find the verses...looking...looking...found.

2 Corinthians 4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

I think there are a few similar passages... I think I could find some more... let me go look for some here for a minute... Oh, yeah. Let me ask you something. Since, I hope you believe in the Trinity, you would realize that Jesus is God, right?! O.k. How was Satan able to offer Jesus the kingdom in the wilderness if he didn't have control of it? Or was he just lying? Satan obviously was in control of the world in order to offer it to Christ.

“[Demons are Nephilim. The Nephilim were half mortal and half immortal, their half immortal side became demons because they have no ressurection. Demons are not pre-Adamonites.]”

LOL....I think demons are donuts. There, I backed up my posit scripturally just as well as you did yours.
I think I address this in the Nephilim thread?

“That is an easy one. The word "replenish" in the King James Version means "fill", you know why? Becuase back in 1611 the word "replenish" meant fill. It didn't start meaning refill until around the 1650s.”

What? That’s just asinine. Please prove this.
Yikes. I should have known you would have asked me to prove it too. Well, I will work on finding that information again, but as for now I can just give you evidence that the word "replenish" doesn't mean "fill again" even today in all cases. I will work on getting the information about the change in the meaning.

replenish \Re*plen"ish\ (r?-pl?n"?sh), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Replenished (-?sht); p. pr. & vb. n. Replenishing.] [OE. replenissen, OF. replenir; L. pref. re- re- + plenus full. See Full, -ish, and cf. Replete.]

1. To fill again after having been diminished or emptied; to stock anew; hence, to fill completely; to cause to abound.

2. To finish; to complete; to perfect. [Obs.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Oh, wait... I have it on my computer... I'll paste it in the next slide. Yes, note the keyword... "paste".


Ok, I’ll bite. Who stated that Satan falls between verse 1 and 2? I have no idea what you could be referring to here.

The rest of your post is more cutting and pasting. I have no time to address this. I do my own work and hope others would do the same. Thanks for your posts.
Actually, they aren't cut and paste, they are my own words. Please tell me when "Lucifer" fell from heaven.

-

-

-


GOD’S COMMAND TO “REPLENISH” THE EARTH
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q. - My Bible (KJV, 1611) says in Genesis 1:28 that God told Adam and Eve to “...be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth....” The same wording is used again in Genesis 9:1 after the Flood. Since Adam and Eve were told to replenish the Earth, does this not clearly indicate that the Earth had inhabitants before Adam and Eve?

A. ... The truth of the matter, however, is that defenders of the Gap Theory could have saved themselves much time, effort, and endlessly wild speculation if they simply had examined more carefully the correct meaning of “replenish” in Genesis 1:28. I readily admit that our English word “replenish” derives from the Latin re (again) and plenus (full), and thus can mean “to fill again.” I also readily admit that even Webster’s Dictionary quotes this verse under its definition of “replenish” as to “repeople.” But theological issues are not determined by appeals to Webster’s Dictionary or modern-day usage. Such issues are determined by appeals to the original languages, however. And in this case, such an appeal immediately clears up any questions on the topic. The Hebrew word, which unfortunately is translated “replenish” in the King James Version of 1611, does not mean to “replenish.” That word is male’, and means simply “to fill” (Davidson, 1863, p. 488; cf., Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1962, p. 22; see also, Harris, Archer, and Waltke, 1980, 1:505-506). Interesting is the fact that this very same word is used in Genesis 1:22 where the command is given by God to “fill the waters of the seas.” Later versions of the Bible (ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, et al.) have rendered the verb properly as merely “fill.”

Originally published in Reason and Revelation, April 1987, 7[4]:13-14. Copyright © 1987 Apologetics Press, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

-

-

I'll work on finding the information which clarifies that in 1611 the word replenish meant to "fill", and it turned to mean "refill" in the 1650s... I'll find it... I hope.

VwV
11-17-01, 09:10 PM
You might consider this article, which is "What does ‘replenish the earth’ mean?" it was written by Charles Taylor and first published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 18(2):44–45,
March–May 1996

Q: Genesis 1:28 in the King James Version (KJV) contains the expression ‘replenish the earth’. Some have used this translation to support the ‘gap theory’, also known as the ‘Ruin-Reconstruction theory’, which involves the necessity for God to re-fill the earth after a pre-Adamic race had perished as a result of a so-called ‘Lucifer’s flood’. Is this interpretation correct?

A: No. The word ‘replenish’ occurs seven times in the KJV: here in Genesis 1:28, again in Genesis 9:1 (both times in the imperative), and five times in three major prophets in the passive and causative forms. So does the Hebrew original in these cases really mean 're-fill'? But before getting into the Hebrew, we must ask why the KJV translators used the verb ‘replenish’.

1. An examination of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows that the word was used to mean 'fill' from the 13th to the 17th centuries. In no case quoted in these five centuries does it unambiguously mean 're-fill'. The OED defines 'replenish' as having 10 meanings throughout its history:

A. Replenished (adjective):
a. fully stocked; provided, supplied;
b. filled, pervaded;
c. physically or materially filled;
d. full, made full.

B. To replenish:
e. make full, fill, stock with, as in: ‘This man made the Newe Forest, and replenyshed it with wylde bestes’ (AD 1494);
f. inhabit, settle, occupy the whole of;
g. fill with food, satiate;
h. fill (space) with; fill (heart) with (a feeling);
i. fill up again; fill up (a vacant office) (AD1632);
j. become full, attain to fullness.

Note that only ‘i’ includes the idea ‘again’. This use first appears in a poem in 1612. It appears again in Pepys' Diary, where he says: 'buy . . . to replenish the stores'. Only the year 1612 is anywhere near the date of the KJV (1611), and it's a poetic use. The Hebrew original of Genesis 1:28 is not poetic. All other uses range from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, when it tends to die out in normal writing.

2. The English word comes through a lot of changes from Latin pleo or repleo. There's also the adjective plenus, 'filled'. So we must now trace the prefix re- and see what it means.

In very old Latin it did mean ‘again’, but by the time the Bible went into Latin it had lost some of this meaning. We see this in the later French word remplir, which doesn't mean 'refill', but 'fill'. In late Latin it was re-in-plere, and re- had already lost its basic idea of 'again'. In many other words it now meant 'completely' or 'altogether'. Compare 'research', meaning to 'search completely'.

We notice also that two of the meanings in history include ‘making full’. In similar English words we have this meaning: 'refresh' means to make fresh; 'relax' to make lax; 'release' to make loose or free. But when the KJV was translated, 'replenish' was just a scholarly word for 'fill'. They almost certainly came to use it because an old word 'plenish' was dying out.

We have seen that Latin re- originally meant ‘again’ but then developed new overtones. Before the Bible was translated, repleo, the word that gave us 'replenish', normally meant just 'fill'. Here are some examples from Latin authors:

fill up the number of (Livy)
what they lacked in votes they made up for in noise (Ovid)
he filled the battlefield with men (before the battle) (Livy)
fill veins with blood (Livy)
filled the crowd with his speech (Virgil)
civil law full of right knowledge (Cicero)
There’s another English word that comes from repleo. It is ‘replete’. We can say 'I am replete', using a politer word than 'full up' with food. It doesn't mean 'full again'.

So my understanding of the word in the KJV is that ‘replenish’ then just meant 'fill up', though some hundred years later it began to mean 'refill' when some scholars convinced people that re- should really mean 'again'. So in 1611 it's quite clear the translators didn't necessarily convey anything about a second filling of the earth in Genesis 1:28.

3. Now as to the Hebrew word itself: it is male’, the simple verb 'fill'. (Strong's concordance No. 4390.) In its various forms it occurs 306 times in the Old Testament. Only seven times does the KJV translate it as 'replenish', but 195 times 'fill', 'filled' or 'full'.

4. Other times it becomes ‘fulfil’ or has some idiomatic meaning. Quite clearly the idea of refilling is completely absent from the Hebrew. There's no doubt on that score. So the English of the KJV is the only problem. We all know that languages change over the years. So that's the real explanation of the misunderstanding about this verse that tells us that God commanded the first humans to fill up completely the earth He had prepared for them.

Finally, the proof is that the similar phrase in verse 22 has the translation 'fill' in the KJV. Here are the parallel cases:

Verse 22:
peru u - rbu u - mil'u eth hammayim
be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters

Verse 28:
peru u - rbu u - mil'u eth ha'arets
be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Thus it appears that the change to ‘replenish’ was merely a stylish variation.



SUMMARY

The word translated 'replenish' (KJV) simply means 'fill' in the Hebrew.

In the English of King James’ day, ‘replenish’ also usually meant ‘fill’, not ‘refill’.

The word ‘replenish’ therefore cannot be used to support ideas about a previous creation, which was destroyed. In any case, such erroneous theories, invented in response to the ‘millions of years’ idea, must hold to the unbiblical notion that there was death and suffering before Adam’s sin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES V. TAYLOR, MA., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL., Cert. Th.

Dr Taylor has qualifications in languages, music and theology. He was for many years co-ordinator of applied linguistics courses at the University of Sydney, Australia.

VwV
11-17-01, 09:29 PM
This was the most important part of my previous post, and probably took me the longest to compile... why did you skip it?


PROBLEMS WITH THE GAP THEORY

1) - At the end of chapter 1 in Genesis, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Now if Satan had fallen between verses 1 and 2, how could everything be very good?

2) - Was invinted until 1814, as a reaction to people saying the earth was millions of years old. It is not a historical position of the church.

3) - Puts death before Adam's sin (violates scriptures of Romans 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21)

4) - Has Satan fall before day 7 (violates scriptures of Gen 1:31, 2:8; Ezek 28:11-15)

5) - Teaches that Satan already was the "god of this world" when God gave Adam dominion over all of the earth.

6) - Thousands of species of living animals are found as fossils. God must have recreated these for Adam to name, after the pre-Adamite rebellion.

7) - When God said everything was "very good", Satan must have been evil, and Adam and Eve would have been standing on thousands of dead plants and animals.

8) - Noah's flood would have had to be a tranquil flood leaving no evidence. So it must have been tranquil or local. Not global, like the clear teaching of the Bible.

9) - God doesn't mean he did it in six days, like he says with his own hand in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. This must be metaphorical.

10) - We are suppose to work for 12.5 billion years, and then have 3.2 billion years of rest. In accordance with the ten commandments.

VwV
11-17-01, 11:13 PM
Why are Christians usually my strongest opponents?

Jep
11-18-01, 12:37 PM
“You sure? I could give a lot of them... you really want me to? O.K.
BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE”

ME: Now surely you don’t expect me to go out and buy all those publications just to support your argument. What is fair is for you to send me a MO in the amount it will cost me, then I’ll go out and buy them (maybe). But until you either send me the money, or point me to the sites of some credible scientists that agree with you as I first requested, then I must conclude, I’m afraid, that you cannot back this up.

“Of course I was cutting and pasting. Didn't you note the quotes? Why should I explain the Big Bang when I can just paste an explanation that someone else has already explained it?”

ME: Because if I disagree with him he is not here for me to debate the issue? Capice? You are. Please put your arguments into your own words and use the links as references.

“Nope. It is suppose to explain the developement of the universe. If you contend that it explains the origin of the universe, I would like you to please explain to me where the laws come from, where the energy came from, ect. ect.”

ME: The big bang is the origin of the universe. Period. Surely you must agree that NASA should know a little about the universe: “The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.”

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

ME: And the more questions you ask me, the more I can tell you are not nearly enough educated in this subject. That’s not a put-down, we are all uneducated in some areas. But you need to do some reading and I will be glad to point you to some good sites if you wish. You might want to start with my home page where I have began a written series of articles on this very subject: http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/_christian/ (these pages are toward the bottom). As to where the laws came from, laws don’t come from anywhere. We are talking laws of physics, not laws created by Congress. Physical laws were born with matter/space-time in the big bang. Man discovers these laws. He does not write them from scratch. And there was NO energy before the big bang. That is my paramount point. Therefore only the supernatural could have caused this.

“You can't use God because we can't demonstrate him.”

ME: You are perhaps the first fellow creationist I have ever met that claims I can’t use God to explain creation. Science CANNOT explain creation. That leaves only one other option that is credible.


“Energy? What about the conservation of energy/matter? Which says that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed. Matter was produced from energy?”

ME: Matter IS energy and has been ever since Einstein discovered this fact. Have you never studied E=MC squared? “Einstein's discovery of the relativity of space and time led to an equally revolutionary insight. Matter and energy are interrelated, even equivalent. The equivalence of matter and energy is summed up in the famous equation:”

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/SpecialRel.html

“Exactly my point. The Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the univese, it simply TRIES to explain the developement of the universe. By your own mouth, you claim "matter was produced from the energy implosion space into itself in a process called the big bang", if you can't explain where the energy comes from, you can't explain where the matter comes from.”

ME: This is really a nonsensical statement as you are considering energy before the big bang and trying to compare it with matter produced during the big bang. This is apples and oranges. If you will plug “Alan Guth” + “inflationary theory” into Google, you will learn much about this.

Twonky
11-18-01, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Jep
But until you either send me the money, or point me to the sites of some credible scientists that agree with you as I first requested, then I must conclude, I’m afraid, that you cannot back this up.

This is probably the funniest thing I've read on this whole thread. Since you don't want to verify what he's telling you, he can't back it up? That's crazy.


Because if I disagree with him he is not here for me to debate the issue? Capice? You are. Please put your arguments into your own words and use the links as references.

No one here is saying anything original. It's all coming from somewhere else. (Unless of course someone here IS saying something original?) Why should it matter if it's quoted or not? If he believes it, it's his argument as well.


The big bang is the origin of the universe. Period. Surely you must agree that NASA should know a little about the universe: “The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.”

You say two different things here.

1. The big bang is the origin of the universe. Period.

and

2. “The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.” (I assume this is a quote from the site you linked?)

Are you telling me a theory is a fact now?

VwV
11-18-01, 01:44 PM
But until you either send me the money, or point me to the sites of some credible scientists that agree with you as I first requested, then I must conclude, I’m afraid, that you cannot back this up.

Fine! If You Want Me To Do It Your Way!
The Cult of the Big Bang (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0964318806/noname//104-7857082-5663155)
Big Bang Under Fire (http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm)
Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged (http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/) Excerpt: A resource for Big Bang skeptics and critics. Hyper links provided below to more pages of Big Bang cosmology critics and other Big Bang theory doubters who are on non creationist side of the topic.
Big Bang or damp squib - An Alternative Cosmology (http://www.mmsweb.com/eykiw/bb/cosmic.htm)
Alan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/d_1996/sandage_hubble.html)
Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe by Grote Reber (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9335/G_Reber.html)
Big Bang Theory Challenged (http://exosci.com/news/147.html)
Little Giants Create A Big Cosmic Controversy (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=520)
Many Galaxies Existed Earlier Than Previously Thought (http://unisci.com/stories/20003/0817002.htm)
Paul Marmet - List of Papers and Books (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html)
Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html)
Do You Want Me To Continue? I should point out that not all of these people, if any of them, believe the earth is ten thousand years old or younger. But the point is that the Big Bang is under attack by many many people.

“Of course I was cutting and pasting. Didn't you note the quotes?...\"
And the more questions you ask me, the more I can tell you are not nearly enough educated in this subject. That’s not a put-down, we are all uneducated in some areas. But you need to do some reading and I will be glad to point you to some good sites if you wish.
You did it again. "Just because you don't believe like me, then you are obviously not educated on this subject. I mean, all us smart people believe in the Big Bang, you just must not be smart enough to understand what I am talking about."

As to where the laws came from, laws don’t come from anywhere. We are talking laws of physics, not laws created by Congress. Physical laws were born with matter/space-time in the big bang. Man discovers these laws. He does not write them from scratch. And there was NO energy before the big bang. That is my paramount point. Therefore only the supernatural could have caused this.
If you believe the laws came from the Big Bang, which is not a scientific statement, it is a part of your religion, then what is the point of God? I could equally say that the world never began. In fact, we just go from Big Bang to Big Crunch every 100 billion years, and there was no beginning. You can't prove that wrong.

Science CANNOT explain creation. That leaves only one other option that is credible.
You have been saying and defending that it can for the whole time. This would be my paramount point.

“Energy? What about the conservation of energy/matter? Which says that energy and matter can't be created or destroyed. Matter was produced from energy?”

Matter IS energy and has been ever since Einstein discovered this fact. Have you never studied E=MC squared?
Yes, but it goes hand in hand with my next statement. You can't explain scientifically where the energy, matter, or laws came from. God had to create the energy, matter, and laws. And the ONLY line of evidence that actually remotely supports the Big Bang theory is the "Red Shift". And just because the galaxies are going away from each other right now, doesn't mean they have always been going away from each other. Plus, the evidence that the galaxies are going away from each other is limited at best, and I have already stated that Trig is simply not accurate enough to know the distances to those stars. Your scratching for something that just can't be proven. Not to mention, who are you to say that the universe isn't infinitely large? The galaxies may not be moving at all, they may just be zillions of light years away from us, or an infinite range. You simply can't know. This is my entire point! You are hoping science is right, which no evidence to back it up, and science doesn't have anything to back it up, except the hope that the Big Bang is right, and as I have pointed out there is a lot of people that are attacking the Big Bang.

Jep
11-18-01, 01:52 PM
“Name a polling that is world wide. I don't know if I can even think of one poll ever that has been done world wide. It, for all practical purposes, is impossible. Well, until we have a one world soceity.”

ME: I don’t know of any world-wide polling either. But I do know what I’ve learned by debating Christians and Atheists and everything in between from around the world on the Internet over the past few years. America is one of the few (and maybe the only) countries that the majority still believe in a literal Bible creation.

ME IN A PREVIOUS POST: The major difference between me, the free-thinking Christian, and the young earthers is that if we were to read in our Bibles that there is not a tree in my front yard--yet I know that there is a tree there and it has been there ever since I moved to the place--the young earther’s motivation seems to be to hurry and chop that tree down so it will no longer conflict with the Bible and hope no one noticed in the first place.


“The hidden agenda behind this statement is that you are the intelligent one, and that everyone that doesn't believe like you is the non-"free-think[er]". "All Christians that believe the earth is ten thousand years old is in complete ignorance. The smart Christians, such as myself, know better than to believe the clear teaching of the Bible. Yes, we are the smart ones." Is it even possible for you to concieve that a smart person could reject the theory of evolution, or, since you claim not to beleive in the theory of evolution, is it concievable for you to think of an intelligent person who believes the earth is less than ten thousand years old? Science doesn't conflict with the Bible, an old earth conflicts with the Bible.”

ME: You can accurately state that the above statement by me was a little arrogant, but it was by no means ignorant or prejudicial. I don’t know who is smarter or dumber as I don’t think IQ really applies here. But I certainly do agree that one is logical and one is illogical. I--You--cannot deny what I see. There are plants older than what you say is the age of the earth, there are fossils in abundance that can be dated to hundreds of millions of years ago with the accuracy of a couple of million years. And an old earth does not conflict with the Bible if we understand the Bible. I’m glad; because it is indisputable that the earth is much older than 10,000 years.

“For the love man... Did it ever occur to you that I might be using a different version of the Bible. Man, for the love... Nowhere in the Bible does it say that persons were born before Cain and Abel. I agree to that fully.”

ME: You’re not allowed to use a different version of the Bible than me. Read the FAQ. :) But you stated that there were daughters born to Adam before Cain. I’m showing you that this is not biblical.

“It is a likely possiblity that daughters were born before him though, because women are rarely mentioned in the Bible.”

ME: Oh, I don’t know. I can read about many women in my Bible. But exegesis can get dangerous when we start writing things that are not in there.

“For one, its not a theory. This doesn't do anything to hurt my theory. This law was not put in place until 2500 years after the creation, because at that time the genetic diversity would be extended enough to the point were it was harmful to continue such practices. Please note that in Genesis 19, Lot has intercourse with his two daughters, and it is not condemned.”

ME: Nor is it ordained. It simply isn’t commented on by God. And we are not commanded to refrain from sex with our sisters only because of genetics. If this were common practice then or now, sexual disease would run rampant. Unwanted pregnancies would abound. There are many areas that could hurt the family. Besides, you cannot show scripturally that Cain even had a sister to marry.

“Sure thing... no problem. Let's start with a broad verse. Luke 3:38 - Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

That verse would led you to assume that Adam was the first man. Easily.”

ME: Nope. It just states that Adam was created by God and not another man. We already knew this.

“Let's get a little more specific: 1 Timothy 2:13 - For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Here it actually says that Adam was the first formed.”

ME: We already knew this too. It’s irrelevant.

“So, I'll do one more. 1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Yep, that makes it pretty clear I would say.”

ME: Yes, I have not suggested anything else than Adam was the first man on the new earth, and we all descended from him. Besides, we have no way of knowing if a previous population looked exactly like us or not. Were they a mixture of man and spirit? They certainly could have been if Satan was an earthly king. In fact Ezekiel 28:2 calls Lucifer a man. Strange.

ME: Finally I have another scripture for you to consider: Isaiah 24-1 “Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

ME: When did God ever pick up the earth, turn it upside down, scattering us everywhere, since Adam?

Jep
11-18-01, 02:31 PM
“The earth was destroyed. Just not eliminated. We don't live in a beautiful world, we live in a destroyed world. But that is o.k., since God will fix it like he made it in the Garden of Eden.”

[check message length]Options: Automatically parse URLs: automaticaME: No. Now you seem to misunderstand the word destroyed. Here. I’ll look it up for you: “de·stroy (d?-stroi?)
v. de·stroyed, de·stroy·ing, de·stroys
v. tr.
To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at "/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=ruin".
To do away with; put an end to: “In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness” (George Bernard Shaw).
To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.”

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Destroyed

ME: Now you can see that the world you’re riding on right now is still here. It was not destroyed.

“2 Corinthians 4 - In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.”

ME: I fail to see any relevance at all in this scripture concerning our discussion as whether or not Satan is the king of the world. In fact, are you not aware that Lord and King are interchangeable? Paul just called Jesus, King.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Lord

“Oh, yeah. Let me ask you something. Since, I hope you believe in the Trinity, you would realize that Jesus is God, right?!”

ME: Right.

“O.k. How was Satan able to offer Jesus the kingdom in the wilderness if he didn't have control of it? Or was he just lying? Satan obviously was in control of the world in order to offer it to Christ.”

ME: The only thing on the earth that Satan really is in full control of is lies and deceit. There is no telling what the great deceiver had in mind.

“Yikes. I should have known you would have asked me to prove it too. Well, I will work on finding that information again, but as for now I can just give you evidence that the word "replenish" doesn't mean "fill again" even today in all cases.”

1. To fill again after having been diminished or emptied; to stock anew; hence, to fill completely; to cause to abound.”

ME: Funny, that’s what the definition you just gave me says: “To fill again after having been diminished or emptied.”

“Actually, they aren't cut and paste, they are my own words. Please tell me when "Lucifer" fell from heaven.”

ME: Are you wanting dates and time? I would have no idea.

“I readily admit that our English word “replenish” derives from the Latin re (again) and plenus (full), and thus can mean “to fill again.” I also readily admit that even Webster’s Dictionary quotes this verse under its definition of “replenish” as to “repeople.”

ME: Thank you. He agrees with me.

“But theological issues are not determined by appeals to Webster’s Dictionary or modern-day usage. Such issues are determined by appeals to the original languages, however. And in this case, such an appeal immediately clears up any questions on the topic.”

ME: Yes they are. Especially the modern day translations. This guy seems to be saying that words don’t mean what they mean.

“The Hebrew word, which unfortunately is translated “replenish” in the King James Version of 1611, does not mean to “replenish.” That word is male’, and means simply “to fill”

ME: Here he is just fibbing a little. And how would he know this? This is not the case as evidenced that this Hebrew word is also translated “replenish” in the Jewish dictionaries. Replenish means exactly what it says, to fill again.

“Interesting is the fact that this very same word is used in Genesis 1:22 where the command is given by God to “fill the waters of the seas.” Later versions of the Bible (ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, et al.) have rendered the verb properly as merely “fill.”

ME: Great. This tells me God also restored the population of fish that He destroyed.

Jep
11-18-01, 02:50 PM
“In very old Latin it did mean ‘again’, but by the time the Bible went into Latin it had lost some of this meaning. We see this in the later French word remplir, which doesn't mean 'refill', but 'fill'. In late Latin it was re-in-plere, and re- had already lost its basic idea of 'again'. In many other words it now meant 'completely' or 'altogether'. Compare 'research', meaning to 'search completely'.”

ME: Oh stop. This is really reaching. Refill means to fill again. Why didn’t this word change meanings with the other one? Reiterate means to say again. Refresh means to make fresh again. Regroup means to form a group again. The “re” means again. I really don’t care how people twist something to make it look like it doesn’t.

“Furthermore, according to Genesis 1:28, God commanded Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, a further indication that the earth previously was inhabited by a pre-Adamite civilization. Although Strong's Dictionary says that the Hebrew word for "replenish" can mean either "fill" or "refill," it is the same word used by God when He commanded Noah to refill or replenish the earth in Genesis 9:1. On that basis it is very possible that Genesis 1:28 also means "replenish" or "refill.”

http://www.frankcaw.com/pre_adam.html

“Dr Taylor has qualifications in languages, music and theology. He was for many years co-ordinator of applied linguistics courses at the University of Sydney, Australia.”

ME: LOL....Dr. Taylor is also a young earth creationist.

VwV
11-18-01, 02:54 PM
Wow. Alot to read.

Jep
11-18-01, 03:09 PM
“1) - At the end of chapter 1 in Genesis, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Now if Satan had fallen between verses 1 and 2, how could everything be very good?”

ME: I addressed this and informed you that I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

“2) - Was invinted until 1814, as a reaction to people saying the earth was millions of years old. It is not a historical position of the church.”

ME: This is irrelevant. People did not know before that the world WAS more than a few thousand years old. When they discovered this, they began to read their Bible in a different light.

“3) - Puts death before Adam's sin (violates scriptures of Romans 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21)”

ME: This was a previous race that may or may not have had anything to do with the present one. The fact that death in this new creation began with the fall of Adam, as the beginner of this race, is irrelevant to a previous one.

“4) - Has Satan fall before day 7 (violates scriptures of Gen 1:31, 2:8; Ezek 28:11-15)”

ME: We don’t know when Satan fell. And would you mind quoting these scriptures as I try to do for you? I just looked up the three above only to find they are irrelevant to the fall of Satan. This is very time consuming considering the length of your posts.

“5) - Teaches that Satan already was the "god of this world" when God gave Adam dominion over all of the earth.”

ME: It doesn’t that I’m aware of. And now you’re contradicting your earlier posit that Satan IS the king of the world.

“6) - Thousands of species of living animals are found as fossils. God must have recreated these for Adam to name, after the pre-Adamite rebellion.”

ME: God gave Adam the right to name the animals He had just created. He never discusses previous creations.

“7) - When God said everything was "very good", Satan must have been evil, and Adam and Eve would have been standing on thousands of dead plants and animals.”

ME: Totally irrelevant. God was discussing what He had just created. Not Satan.

“8) - Noah's flood would have had to be a tranquil flood leaving no evidence. So it must have been tranquil or local. Not global, like the clear teaching of the Bible.”

ME: It was local and not global.

“9) - God doesn't mean he did it in six days, like he says with his own hand in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. This must be metaphorical.”

ME: It is metaphorical.

“10) - We are suppose to work for 12.5 billion years, and then have 3.2 billion years of rest. In accordance with the ten commandments.”

ME: Doubt I’ll live that long. How about you?

Twonky
11-18-01, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Jep
“Dr Taylor has qualifications in languages, music and theology. He was for many years co-ordinator of applied linguistics courses at the University of Sydney, Australia.”

ME: LOL....Dr. Taylor is also a young earth creationist.

I didn't look at Dr. Taylor's qualifications, so I don't know if they are good or not. Are you saying that no matter the qualifications, if someone is a 'young earth creationist,' his qualifications don't matter?

Jep
11-18-01, 03:22 PM
Hi Twonky:


“This is probably the funniest thing I've read on this whole thread. Since you don't want to verify what he's telling you, he can't back it up? That's crazy.”

ME: Glad to know I made you laugh. There’s not enough joy in the world, don’t you agree? You miss the point, my friend. He can and must back up what he says, but this does no good if I don’t have the books to verify what he says, does it? I use sites that he can just click on. Isn’t that easier? Me thinks so.

“No one here is saying anything original. It's all coming from somewhere else. (Unless of course someone here IS saying something original?) Why should it matter if it's quoted or not? If he believes it, it's his argument as well.”

ME: Really. I wasn’t aware that my argument is coming from somewhere else. I’m aware that there are others who agree with me. And he don’t have to back up what he believes, just the facts he uses to support those beliefs. That’s only fair in debate.

“1. The big bang is the origin of the universe. Period.

and

2. “The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.” (I assume this is a quote from the site you linked?)

Are you telling me a theory is a fact now?”

ME: A scientific theory holds until it is either discredited or a better theory replaces it to explain the phenomenon. Gravity is only a theory. But how many balls have you ever thrown to watch them go up rather than down?

VwV
11-18-01, 03:41 PM
I don’t know of any world-wide polling either. But I do know what I’ve learned by debating Christians and Atheists and everything in between from around the world on the Internet over the past few years. America is one of the few (and maybe the only) countries that the majority still believe in a literal Bible creation.
Umm... Maybe. Not worth arguing about it. I suppose that is accurate enough...

You can accurately state that the above statement by me was a little arrogant...
I'll settle for that.

There are plants older than what you say is the age of the earth, there are fossils in abundance that can be dated to hundreds of millions of years ago with the accuracy of a couple of million years. And an old earth does not conflict with the Bible if we understand the Bible. I’m glad; because it is indisputable that the earth is much older than 10,000 years.
Yikes. You did it again. I obviously don't understand the Bible, huh? Poor ignorant me... can't read a book. Pity, Pity, Pity. I want to address the Bible one first though, I can debunk the "evidence" for evolution, since their isn't any. But I don't think I can ever win the argument if you actually believe the Bible tells us that the earth is billions of years.

You’re not allowed to use a different version of the Bible than me. Read the FAQ. But you stated that there were daughters born to Adam before Cain. I’m showing you that this is not biblical.
I browsed the FAQs, I didn't see it say that anywhere, mind giving me the link? I might have just missed it. Or, what Bible do you guys use here? I think not being able to use multiple versions is rather... umm... arrogent. I agree, nowhere in the Bible does it say anyone was born before Cain. Although nowhere in the Bible does it say no-one was born before Cain.

Oh, I don’t know. I can read about many women in my Bible. But exegesis can get dangerous when we start writing things that are not in there.
Most of them in a negative light. Yes, exegesis can be dangerous when you do that.

Nor is it ordained. It simply isn’t commented on by God. And we are not commanded to refrain from sex with our sisters only because of genetics. If this were common practice then or now, sexual disease would run rampant. Unwanted pregnancies would abound. There are many areas that could hurt the family. Besides, you cannot show scripturally that Cain even had a sister to marry.
So what is your view about the flood? You must believe it was local, since there was only 8 of them on board, and incest would have had to be present after that also. Your forced into believing it was local. God doesn't comment on it, you're right. But that is entirely my point. If it was wrong, wouldn't God have reigned fire and brimestone down on them, after all... he just did it for homosexuality. Isn't incest the equivalent sin to homosexuality? Unwanted pregnancies didn't exist pre-abortion. So... uh... yeah. I think that argument is done. No, I can't show scriptural evidence that Cain had a sister. But I can show scriptural evidence that Adam was the first man. So... well, there just isn't any other way for it to work, Cain had to marry his sister.

Yes, I have not suggested anything else than Adam was the first man on the new earth, and we all descended from him. Besides, we have no way of knowing if a previous population looked exactly like us or not. Were they a mixture of man and spirit? They certainly could have been if Satan was an earthly king. In fact Ezekiel 28:2 calls Lucifer a man. Strange.
Wow, you changed your position really fast on that one. The first man on the new earth, huh... Yep, changed your position really quick. I can't argue with this kind of logic. There was only one creation, scripture doesn't support two. Yikes. You have to realize your doing the same thing you warned me about right? But exegesis can get dangerous when we start writing things that are not in there. Right?

Finally I have another scripture for you to consider: Isaiah 24-1 “Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof. ---- When did God ever pick up the earth, turn it upside down, scattering us everywhere, since Adam?
I'll have to read the context of the passage, which I am pretty sure your not doing. But, the flood would completely qualify.

“Actually, they aren't cut and paste, they are my own words. Please tell me when "Lucifer" fell from heaven.”

Are you wanting dates and time? I would have no idea.
In Genesis 1, when did he fall? Between what verses? Or did he fall before Genesis 1?

“The Hebrew word, which unfortunately is translated “replenish” in the King James Version of 1611, does not mean to “replenish.” That word is male’, and means simply “to fill”.

Here he is just fibbing a little. And how would he know this? This is not the case as evidenced that this Hebrew word is also translated “replenish” in the Jewish dictionaries. Replenish means exactly what it says, to fill again.
DUDE! NO IT DOESN'T! I am going to quote about 15 different versions of the Bible, all of which will show you what the word really means. Now, if you say I am wrong, then you must be fully admitting that you are smarter than the hundreds of people who worked on these translations!

VwV
11-18-01, 03:42 PM
-~- * GENESIS 1:22 * -~-
God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (New International Version (NIV))

God blessed them, saying, ""Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.'' (New American Standard Bible (NASB))

Then God blessed them, saying, "Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans. Let the birds increase and fill the earth." (New Living Translation (NLT))

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (King James Version (KJV))

And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." (New King James Version (NKJV))

And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." (Revised Standard Version (RSV))

And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth." (21st Century King James Version (KJ21))

God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." (NIV formatted (NIV-IBS))

And God blesseth them, saying, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and the fowl let multiply in the earth:' (Young's Literal Translation (YLT))

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply on the earth. (Darby Translation (DARBY))


-~- * GENESIS 9:1 * -~-
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. (New International Version (NIV))

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. (New American Standard Bible (NASB))

God blessed Noah and his sons and told them, "Multiply and fill the earth. (New Living Translation (NLT))

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (King James Version (KJV))

So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.(New King James Version (NKJV))

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. (Revised Standard Version (RSV))

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. (21st Century King James Version (KJ21))

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. (NIV formatted (NIV-IBS))

And God blesseth Noah, and his sons, and saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth; (Young's Literal Translation (YLT))

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.(Darby Translation (DARBY))


Now, do you claim to be right, over all the hundreds of scholars that worked on those translations? Man, you are really just neglecting some basic facts here.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
male' (maw-lay'); or mala' (maw-law'); a primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide application (literally and figuratively):

Used In The KJV As - accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) full (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994)
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
male' or mala' (Est 7:5)--

to fill, to be full

a) (Qal)
-- 1) to be full
-- --a) a fullness, an abundance (participle)
-- --b) to be full, to be accomplished, to be ended
-- 2) to consecrate, to fill the hand
b) (Niphal)
-- 1) to be filled, to be armed, to be satisfied
-- 2) to be accomplished, to be ended
c) (Piel)
-- 1) to fill
-- 2) to satisfy
-- 3) to fulfil, to accomplish, to complete
-- 4) to confirm
d) (Pual) to be filled
e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against

(The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993)
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/



What more do you want?!!!!! It is pretty obvious here!!!!

Jep
11-18-01, 04:07 PM
“Fine! If You Want Me To Do It Your Way!”

ME: Yes, that’s much better. Although again you failed to put the arguments in your own words and just sent me to pages where people posit something that I cannot debate with them. They are not here. Besides, I’ve never heard of any of the one’s I took the time to read. The guy positing that the universe began from electromagnetic waves seems so far off from main-stream science that he’s on Venus. I guess I could posit that the universe began by two supernatural midget monkeys wielding test-tubes from a universe called Xenon and post it on the Web. But now remember. The BB is a theory of science that will stand until a better theory comes along to replace it. What is your new theory? This, we can debate.

“You did it again. "Just because you don't believe like me, then you are obviously not educated on this subject. I mean, all us smart people believe in the Big Bang, you just must not be smart enough to understand what I am talking about.”

ME: LOL...I tried to phrase that in a way that would be non-inflammatory. Maybe I didn’t. Look my friend, I hope I can say this without offending you. But you are way off in some of your beliefs concerning main-stream science. Science was my major in college and I’ve taught science at the high school level. Now this really means nothing and might even be construed to be the argument from authority. But the way you view the laws of physics and other details of science as a body tells me that you may have had some courses in this area. But how far off would I be to say that you don’t have many under your belt?

“In fact, we just go from Big Bang to Big Crunch every 100 billion years, and there was no beginning. You can't prove that wrong.”

ME: Sure I can, logically, and very easily, prove that wrong. But, since everything here that we are aware of came about as a result of the BB then, if I’m wrong, please tell me where the laws came from. We’ll go at it from that angle.

“Science CANNOT explain creation. That leaves only one other option that is credible.

You have been saying and defending that it can for the whole time. This would be my paramount point.”

ME: Then I’m curious. Why do you argue with me when I say the same thing?

“Yes, but it goes hand in hand with my next statement. You can't explain scientifically where the energy, matter, or laws came from.”

ME: Yes I can. In fact, I would have no trouble at all with this.

“God had to create the energy, matter, and laws. And the ONLY line of evidence that actually remotely supports the Big Bang theory is the "Red Shift".”

ME: Well the only thing that supports the theory of gravity is that things go down. That’s not enough? We KNOW the universe is expanding that’s a fact of science. Something started this movement. And God did create energy/space-time. He said “Bang” and it happened. But regardless of how you look at it, the BB happened.

“And just because the galaxies are going away from each other right now, doesn't mean they have always been going away from each other.”

ME: You have evidence that they were once speeding toward us? My that would be interesting new information. How would universal density and Hubble’s constant affect this?

“Plus, the evidence that the galaxies are going away from each other is limited at best, and I have already stated that Trig is simply not accurate enough to know the distances to those stars.”

ME: It doesn’t bother you in the least that we can actually sit and watch this happen?

“Not to mention, who are you to say that the universe isn't infinitely large?”

ME: *sigh* I wish I could take credit for that, but I’m afraid Mr. Einstein already beat me to it.

“The galaxies may not be moving at all, they may just be zillions of light years away from us, or an infinite range. You simply can't know.”

ME: Sorry, but we do know. In fact I don’t really ever recall debating anyone on this, because it‘s a given.

“This is my entire point! You are hoping science is right, which no evidence to back it up, and science doesn't have anything to back it up, except the hope that the Big Bang is right, and as I have pointed out there is a lot of people that are attacking the Big Bang.”

ME: I have no doubt that science is right on this. I can see it happening before my very eyes. And I have yet for you to show me the site of one credible scientist, Hawking, Rubenstein, Sagan, Guth, Prigogene, Hoyle, Eddington, Hubble,.....anyone with credentials--who will state that the BB never occurred.

I humbly await your latest challenge.

GRANTM
11-18-01, 04:18 PM
Hi VwV


(As reference Darwins theory" Origin of the species"He does make some good points.}


Such As?

to suggest an ecosystem is an interrelated web.

to discuss the problem of imported plants and animals on native species.

corelates reproduction , food supply, area, etc.

all now proving true.
And these are just some of them. but like I said I don"t agree that portion which pertains to premutations.

So, you are simply defining micro and macro evolution. Okay. Bust out a dictionary here in case anyone is actually wondering what you are taking about...

I am not trying to define anything. I'm just trying to establish common terms of reference. even with dictionaries, common usage of words and meanings varies greatly. I didn't use the word micro-evolution though I used micro eco system, or did you change my word of adaption to micro-evolution.









even though we all have access to dictionaries

Jep
11-18-01, 04:24 PM
Hi Twonky:

“I didn't look at Dr. Taylor's qualifications, so I don't know if they are good or not. Are you saying that no matter the qualifications, if someone is a 'young earth creationist,' his qualifications don't matter?”

ME: It’s not that they don’t matter. But we all are biased toward our religious beliefs which are very real and powerful to us as individuals. I would find it more credible that a scientist without YEC beliefs would research words and draw conclusions relative to those beliefs. That way there would be no bias at all. Now if my doctor is a YEC (and I believe he is) then I would have no problem with that.

Jep
11-18-01, 05:03 PM
“Yikes. You did it again. I obviously don't understand the Bible, huh? Poor ignorant me... can't read a book. Pity, Pity, Pity. I want to address the Bible one first though, I can debunk the "evidence" for evolution, since their isn't any. But I don't think I can ever win the argument if you actually believe the Bible tells us that the earth is billions of years.”

ME: LOL...Now this time, I didn’t do it. You’ve pointed out that sometimes I talk down to you and I think I can see where you may be right and I’m trying hard to fix that flaw in my personality. But I still have to support my argument. I think you know the Bible very well from a young earth perspective. I’m introducing you to a paradigm; another way to view the age of the earth. I’m just telling you that an old earth is not precluded by Bible text. And I don’t believe the Bible tells me the earth is billions of years old. Yet science does, and with one loud, dinning voice. This does not conflict with my Bible.

“I browsed the FAQs, I didn't see it say that anywhere, mind giving me the link? I might have just missed it. Or, what Bible do you guys use here? I think not being able to use multiple versions is rather... umm... arrogent.”

ME: LOL...you didn’t really browse the FAQ, I hope. I was just kidding you a bit. That was the purpose for the smiley face. Use any Bible you want.

“So what is your view about the flood? You must believe it was local, since there was only 8 of them on board, and incest would have had to be present after that also.”

ME: You will find that I mix my religion with heavy doses of both science and philosophy. I see massive evidence for a local flood and none at all for a world-wide one. Therefore I believe that the flood happened to the then known world.

“Wow, you changed your position really fast on that one. The first man on the new earth, huh... Yep, changed your position really quick. I can't argue with this kind of logic.”

ME: I haven’t changed my position at all that I’m aware of. Those are just words. Call it the new creation, or the replenished earth, or the recreated earth if you wish.

“There was only one creation, scripture doesn't support two.”

ME: Then why are their two creation stories in Genesis that totally conflict with one another?

“Yikes. You have to realize your doing the same thing you warned me about right? But exegesis can get dangerous when we start writing things that are not in there. Right?”

ME: Nope. Because I have quoted you the scriptures I have examined to glean meaning, but the theory that Cain married his sister is not in the Bible at all. There’s a big difference.

“In Genesis 1, when did he fall? Between what verses? Or did he fall before Genesis 1?”

ME: Quite honestly I have never tried to pin a time-line to the fall of Satan and am aware of no scriptures that would allow me to do this. I’m at a loss as to how to answer it. Any answer I give you would be pure speculation.

Jep
11-18-01, 05:14 PM
ME: Well, it just shows to go you that if we are to really understand the Bible we can only study it in its native languages. Capice? :)

What more do you want?!!!!! It is pretty obvious here!!!!

ME: Not to me it isn’t. Because anything you can show me in the Bible to “prove” a young earth does not address the fact that there is not a young earth in reality. You can use any method you choose to scripturally show my house is white, but if it’s red, I won’t buy it.

GRANTM
11-18-01, 05:50 PM
The Bible,The Water canopy, & Noahs Flood,

And please I am not casting any aspersions nor belittling
meanings. but mearly suggesting a different version by a person who believes in God but not necessarily Christianity.

The Bible is almost unsurpassed when it comes to actual events and places and is used as a resource guide in anthropology studies, of the Mid-East. Most other religious Scriptures deal in the Philosophy and faith, Which makes the Bible almost Unique.

So when it states that a great flood occured, I have no cause to doubt it.

Noahs Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat ( and the only thing that is stopping science or anyone else for that matter is the unwillingness af the Turkish Governement to allow a full scale archeologicalal dig. Eventhough latest camera surveillance of the area indicates something suspicious, is there.

Two: There are indications the around Noahs time a great Inundation Occured. That might have Covered the world AS NOAH KNEW IT. But not the Whole Earth as we know it, except for the Vikings, right up to 1492, North America was not Known.


Three: Antartica, It is generally known that at some time
Antartica had vegetation on and off through the centuries.
Mt. Erebus is a volcanic mountain In Antartica that has had eruptions but is now considered extinct.

Please cosider that an eruption of Mt. Erebus , would cause
such a super saturation of the air as to cause the air to almost liquify and by the time it would ribbon the earth from a west to east pattern leaving in its wake massive inundation and flooding

The Water-canopy exists with us now and can be seen in the clouds etc.

You see where I have the most problem with Christianity Is that
It focuses entirely on the Mid-east and does accept anyplace else
as a part of the word I can accept the Bible doing this is it is a reasonable record of names dates and times of those in that area. but Christianity does not even consider other areas as
even being relevant, some christian individuals do ,But not as body poitique. It looses credibility

VwV
11-18-01, 06:17 PM
That is a lot of reading... Wow. I'll work on a responce... but don't suspect it for a few hours.

VwV
11-18-01, 06:51 PM
“You have been saying and defending that it can for the whole time. This would be my paramount point.”

ME: Then I’m curious. Why do you argue with me when I say the same thing?
Were not saying the same thing. Your believing in something that has no basis in fact, but has basis in your imagination. Yes, that is a biased statement. The only evidence you have for the Big Bang theory is the Red Shift. That's it.

Well the only thing that supports the theory of gravity is that things go down. That’s not enough? We KNOW the universe is expanding that’s a fact of science. Something started this movement. And God did create energy/space-time. He said “Bang” and it happened. But regardless of how you look at it, the BB happened.
The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. Isn't this just as logical as saying the heavens are expanding. I have already explained the flaws that people assume when assuming the Red Shift. None of which you have even argued with. Why do you assume that since the heavens are expanding now (assuming they are, science doesn't know that they are, science is assuming they are, with a very little bit of evidence), they have always been expanding? Why do you assume that since they are moving now (which they might not be) that they were at one point a small dot in space? Don't you see that your basing the entire theory on some UNKNOWN and UNPROVABLE assumptions. Which you have no science to back up?

“Not to mention, who are you to say that the universe isn't infinitely large?”

I wish I could take credit for that, but I’m afraid Mr. Einstein already beat me to it.
This I gotta hear.

I have no doubt that science is right on this. I can see it happening before my very eyes. And I have yet for you to show me the site of one credible scientist, Hawking, Rubenstein, Sagan, Guth, Prigogene, Hoyle, Eddington, Hubble,.....anyone with credentials--who will state that the BB never occurred.
Uh huh... and we both know their position on it.


to suggest an ecosystem is an interrelated web. to discuss the problem of imported plants and animals on native species. corelates reproduction , food supply, area, etc.
Sure. I'll give him those. Even though most of those were known like, in the 1500s. Actually, I think Aristotle might have known most of those.

I am not trying to define anything. I'm just trying to establish common terms of reference. even with dictionaries, common usage of words and meanings varies greatly. I didn't use the word micro-evolution though I used micro eco system, or did you change my word of adaption to micro-evolution.
Yeah, words change. I'll give you that one. Micro-evolution can be called variations or adaptations. Either one works for me.

It’s not that they don’t matter. But we all are biased toward our religious beliefs which are very real and powerful to us as individuals.
Why don't you apply that same philosophy to Hawking, Rubenstein, Sagan, Guth, Prigogene, Hoyle, Eddington, Hubble...

I would find it more credible that a scientist without YEC beliefs would research words and draw conclusions relative to those beliefs. That way there would be no bias at all. Now if my doctor is a YEC (and I believe he is) then I would have no problem with that.
Yeah, many do and then convert to YEC. Then people like you discount their information.

But I still have to support my argument. I think you know the Bible very well from a young earth perspective. I’m introducing you to a paradigm; another way to view the age of the earth. I’m just telling you that an old earth is not precluded by Bible text. And I don’t believe the Bible tells me the earth is billions of years old. Yet science does, and with one loud, dinning voice. This does not conflict with my Bible.
I'm very familiar with that paradigm. Which has so many Biblical contraditions, it is out of control. All of which you are trying to avoid when I ask you questions.

You will find that I mix my religion with heavy doses of both science and philosophy. I see massive evidence for a local flood and none at all for a world-wide one. Therefore I believe that the flood happened to the then known world.
So when the Bible says it was world wide, and that all the mountains were covered by at least 15 cubits, that is just wrong? Or, when in the New Testament it says that everyone but eight persons survived, and the world was destroyed, that's all inaccurate also?

Then why are their two creation stories in Genesis that totally conflict with one another?
I promised to address this one a while back and I haven't got around to it. So... Well... I better address it now. In the next few posts I do, I'll explain it.

Quite honestly I have never tried to pin a time-line to the fall of Satan and am aware of no scriptures that would allow me to do this. I’m at a loss as to how to answer it. Any answer I give you would be pure speculation.
YOUR ALREADY SPECULATING. Your saying he fell before man. Because he fell pre-Adam. Yet the New Testament clearly says that Adam was the first man! Your plainly ignoring scripture here.

Well, it just shows to go you that if we are to really understand the Bible we can only study it in its native languages. Capice?
No, we just have to understand the context of when it was written. Such as, "replenish" didn't mean fill again in 1611!
I have quoted every major Bible that I know, they all translate the word "replenish" as fill. I have explained by people with Ph.D.s that the word "replenish" didn't mean fill again tell after 1611. I have showed you what the scholars think in the Biblical translations. I have given you hebrew definitions. Isn't it obvious that in Genesis, that God tells Adam and Eve to fill the world, not refill. I have offered huge amounts of evidence in this field. I would like to see some counter evidence for this, if you don't mind.

Noahs Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat (and the only thing that is stopping science or anyone else for that matter is the unwillingness af the Turkish Governement to allow a full scale archeologicalal dig. Even though latest camera surveillance of the area indicates something suspicious, is there.
Mountains of Ararat.

Two: There are indications the around Noahs time a great Inundation Occured. That might have Covered the world AS NOAH KNEW IT. But not the Whole Earth as we know it, except for the Vikings, right up to 1492, North America was not Known.
Nope. Romans did trade back in forth between the oceans. There is evidence that Greeks, in the B.C.s, did trade across the ocean as well.

Three: Antartica, It is generally known that at some time
Antartica had vegetation on and off through the centuries.
Mt. Erebus is a volcanic mountain In Antartica that has had eruptions but is now considered extinct.

Please cosider that an eruption of Mt. Erebus , would cause
such a super saturation of the air as to cause the air to almost liquify and by the time it would ribbon the earth from a west to east pattern leaving in its wake massive inundation and flooding.
Of course... There wouldn't be water over there, since it would have been vegitation.

The Water-canopy exists with us now and can be seen in the clouds etc.
The water canopy doesn't refer to clouds. The water canopy was a layer in the atmosphere of water. A consistant layer that expanded all around the atmosphere, not like clouds at all. It was solid, possibly ice, although it could have been liquid.

You see where I have the most problem with Christianity Is that It focuses entirely on the Mid-east and does accept anyplace else as a part of the word I can accept the Bible doing this is it is a reasonable record of names dates and times of those in that area.
The Global Flood doesn't. It effected, and effects every place on earth.

Jep
11-18-01, 06:56 PM
“You see where I have the most problem with Christianity Is that
It focuses entirely on the Mid-east and does accept anyplace else
as a part of the word I can accept the Bible doing this is it is a reasonable record of names dates and times of those in that area. but Christianity does not even consider other areas as
even being relevant, some christian individuals do ,But not as body poitique. It looses credibility”

ME: Well, Christianity began in the Mid-East but I don’t think it focuses there unless you wish to consider Bible prophecy and the fact that Christ will rule from there. The entire world is relevant to Christ and He ordered us to evangelize all of it. But, you have me curious. If Christianity is not your bag, then what are your beliefs? I hope that’s not too personal of a question.

VwV
11-18-01, 07:13 PM
Genesis does not have two creation stories. But, for those people reading this right now and don't know the claims of atheists/agnostics/evolutionists I will explain what their arguments are.

Genesis 1:
Tree made on the third day.
Birds made on the fifth day.
Water brought forth the fowl (birds).
Man is made on day six.
Animals are made before man (day six).

Genesis 2:
Man formed of the dust of the ground.
God puts man in the garden.
Man made before trees.
Out of ground, God formed beasts and birds (fowl).
Man made before birds.


Okay. Let's explain what is going on here. In chapter one, it tells us how God created the world. Chapter 2 tells us what God did on day 6. So the correct way of things is:

ORDER:
Chapter 1 - Day 3 - God made plants.
Chapter 1 - Day 5 - God made birds (out of water).
Chapter 1 - Day 6 - God made animals, man, and the garden.
Chapter 2 - Day 6 - Creation of Garden.
Chapter 2 - Day 6 - God makes additional animals for Adam to name.
Chapter 2 - Day 6 - Adam attempts to choose a wife from the animals.
Chapter 1 - Day 7 - God rests.

Jep
11-18-01, 07:55 PM
“Were not saying the same thing. Your believing in something that has no basis in fact, but has basis in your imagination. Yes, that is a biased statement. The only evidence you have for the Big Bang theory is the Red Shift. That's it.”

ME: But we are not saying the same thing in that God created the universe? That was my statement to which you replied that we have to rule out God when we consider the BB. I totally disagree, because I believe this event was caused and caused by God. And you are just wrong if you think red shift is the only evidence we have to support BB. The Big Bang Theory received perhaps its strongest endorsement when radiation, as would be expected from this theory to be bombarding our planet as a result of this explosion, was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

“Later, the COsmic Background Explorer (COBE) took very detailed measurements of the spectrum and spatial distribution of this radiation, confirmed that it is extremely uniform, is of the spectral shape predicted by theory, and corresponds to a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin. This observation provides strong support for the Big Bang theory.”

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970922g.html

“The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens. Isn't this just as logical as saying the heavens are expanding.”

ME: It’s just as logical to me as I believe that’s exactly what happened. Just don’t say they are not expanding which you have posited more than once now. Any minute I’m expecting you to come forward with some new belief that New York doesn’t exist or something.

“I have already explained the flaws that people assume when assuming the Red Shift. None of which you have even argued with.”

ME: You certainly haven’t with me. You’ve claimed that but not backed it up. Perhaps I had no evidence to refute?

“Why do you assume that since the heavens are expanding now (assuming they are, science doesn't know that they are, science is assuming they are, with a very little bit of evidence)”

ME: LOL...Right. You have not produced for me one credible scientist who says they’re not. That’s because you stand alone in your belief and there is no one who agrees with you. Did it ever occur to you that although the universe is expanding into itself spatially, it is expanding into time universally? That’s why time goes forward. What are your other choices scientifically?

“they have always been expanding? Why do you assume that since they are moving now (which they might not be) that they were at one point a small dot in space? “

ME: You keep saying this. Yet, I have never posited it. The universe was never a small dot in space. There WAS no space before the big bang to cause it. Please. Before you attack my position, at least understand it. Here are a couple of articles I have written on the big bang. Big Bang 1: http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/_christian/bigbang.htm Big Bang 2: http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/_christian/bigbang2.htm

ME: And there is no philosophical choice but expansion. The only two other options are stasis and contraction. In stasis, movement stops and so does time. In contraction we morph back into a black hole singularity and all die. So what are your alternative theories here. All you do is bash mine, you never proffer your own.

“Don't you see that your basing the entire theory on some UNKNOWN and UNPROVABLE assumptions. Which you have no science to back up?”

ME: ....Er....no. And what is my theory? You keep crediting me with coming up with all these theories. Just like the finite universe earlier, I can assure that I did not originate the BB theory.

This I gotta hear.

ME: Great. Then go here and educate yourself:

http://www.laidback.org/~daveg/academic/expandinguniverse/index2.html

“Uh huh... and we both know their position on it.”

ME..LOL...I just quoted you some of the greatest scientists that ever lived and you dismiss this with: “Uh huh... and we both know their position on it.” Yes we do. And you cannot come up with one reputable scientist who disagrees with them, can you?

“to suggest an ecosystem is an interrelated web. to discuss the problem of imported plants and animals on native species. corelates reproduction , food supply, area, etc.


Sure. I'll give him those. Even though most of those were known like, in the 1500s. Actually, I think Aristotle might have known most of those.”

ME: What? I have never discussed this with you. Are you getting your posts mixed up? It seems much of this post is to someone else, so I’ll ignore it.

“The Global Flood doesn't. It effected, and effects every place on earth.”

ME: Prove this archeologically.

Twonky
11-18-01, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Jep
I would find it more credible that a scientist without YEC beliefs would research words and draw conclusions relative to those beliefs.

Are there any credible scientists that support YEC? Or are they not credible because they are YEC?


That way there would be no bias at all.

Everybody has a bias. Evolution, creation, aliens. You believe one of these is how the earth started and how the earth got populated right? Everyone does. (Heck, there are probably other options out there too!) You're looking for evidence to support your belief just like everyone else.

I'd rather keep the context of the debate within the debate and not try to change the subject by questioning the debaters credentials. If you disagree with what the debater said, then disagree with it, but don't try and make his credentials part of the debate.

Jep
11-18-01, 08:18 PM
“Genesis does not have two creation stories. But, for those people reading this right now and don't know the claims of atheists/agnostics/evolutionists I will explain what their arguments are.”

ME: Thank you. But please note I am not an atheist/agnostic/evolutionist. I am a Bible believer that sees a problem. Hmmmm....But I just read your explanation and you didn’t explain anything. In fact, you didn’t even address the problems. Here. Let me help you: Gen. chapters 1&2 are the creation story. Chapter 1 gives the order of events, then chap. 2 seems to want to do that again. The problem is that it so contradicts the order of events in chap. 1, as to render the whole creation story meaningless: Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

And please don't think that "God" created this in chap 1. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good". Also note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created.

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Totally contradictory, yet some Christians want to extrapolate these two chapters into a theory and call it young earth creation science. Bah..hum bug. :)

GRANTM
11-18-01, 08:23 PM
To JEP:
But, you have me curious. If Christianity is not your bag, then what are your beliefs? I hope that’s not too personal of a question.

No Not at all , I strongly beleive in GOD . Its Religion, not just Christianity, That I have the problem.

Jep
11-18-01, 08:35 PM
Hi Grant:

“To JEP:
But, you have me curious. If Christianity is not your bag, then what are your beliefs? I hope that’s not too personal of a question.

No Not at all , I strongly beleive in GOD . Its Religion, not just Christianity, That I have the problem.”

ME: Yes. I have a problem with this too. I brush my teeth religiously. I wash my car religiously. But the fact that I do something over and over as ritual doesn’t mean I know God. I agree with you one hundred percent. I hope you understand that some of us Christians feel the same way.

VwV
11-18-01, 08:47 PM
But we are not saying the same thing in that God created the universe? That was my statement to which you replied that we have to rule out God when we consider the BB. I totally disagree, because I believe this event was caused and caused by God. And you are just wrong if you think red shift is the only evidence we have to support BB. The Big Bang Theory received perhaps its strongest endorsement when radiation, as would be expected from this theory to be bombarding our planet as a result of this explosion, was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.
Okay. The Big Bang discussion is getting really old. Tell you what. I'll agree that the Big Bang happened, if you agree that it happened 6,000 years ago :) . Think about it now. What is keeping you from believing that the Big Bang happened, but God said it and it happened instantly. So, yes, everything came from a dot, but God made it come from that dot instanteously and it was stored to our present universe, ang God "stretched out the heavens." I am not convinced that you have any evidence for the big bang except for some very thin wires. Plus, as I covered before, the Big Bang can't get around Conservation of Angular Momentum.

It’s just as logical to me as I believe that’s exactly what happened. Just don’t say they are not expanding which you have posited more than once now.
We don't have any evidence that they are expanding.

“I have already explained the flaws that people assume when assuming the Red Shift. None of which you have even argued with.”

You certainly haven’t with me. You’ve claimed that but not backed it up. Perhaps I had no evidence to refute?
I'll scroll up, find the posts and repost them. Their there.

Right. You have not produced for me one credible scientist who says [the universe isn't expanding]. That’s because you stand alone in your belief and there is no one who agrees with you.
Anyone I would bring up, or HAVE brought up, you dont' consider them "credible". So why should I waste my time bring up new or old scientists, you will disregard them anyway.

“they have always been expanding? Why do you assume that since they are moving now (which they might not be) that they were at one point a small dot in space? “

You keep saying this. Yet, I have never posited it. The universe was never a small dot in space. There WAS no space before the big bang to cause it.
You know what I meant... But let me rephrase. Why do you assume that since they are moving now (which we don't have evidence for) that they were at one point a small virtually non-existant dot.

And there is no philosophical choice but expansion. The only two other options are stasis and contraction. In stasis, movement stops and so does time. In contraction we morph back into a black hole singularity and all die. So what are your alternative theories here. All you do is bash mine, you never proffer your own.
Contraction = Big Crunch. My theory (or the Truth rather) is God made it the way it is today, just like he said he did.

I just quoted you some of the greatest scientists that ever lived and you dismiss this with: “Uh huh... and we both know their position on it.” Yes we do. And you cannot come up with one reputable scientist who disagrees with them, can you?
Not one you would consider "reputable" because any YEC isn't "reputable" to you. So again, what's the point. And you know this is true, so why argue it. Any scientist I bring up that disagrees with it, you will disagree with it. And come on, I gave plenty of websites, and I gave you a book, and I also gave many sources which a guy used to counter it. Sheesh... Use the Book...

“The Global Flood doesn't. It effected, and effects every place on earth.”

Prove this archeologically.
Strata.

Are there any credible scientists that support YEC? Or are they not credible because they are YEC?
My point exactly.

I am a Bible believer that sees a problem.
Then your in more trouble then me. You beleive the Bible and you know it has problems. Umm... I wonder why you have faith in something you believe is wrong, well, actually I guess you don't have faith in it, since you believe it is wrong.

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition...
Come on now. J,E,P,D theories were proven wrong years ago. Your wrong about Elohim being plural... but I'm not getting in to that. Your probably going to bring up the "us", I can see it already.

And please don't think that "God" created this in chap 1. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good". Also note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created.
Your right. Genesis 1 through 1:4 was written by the "gods". Of course, you have to figure out what the "gods" are/were, good luck. Sure their were days, mornings, and nights before the sun was created. They don't denote the rotation of the sun, they denote the time, which would have been about a twenty three hour day, or it coulda been twenty three and a half.


Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

...

The second one (Genesis 2):
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
Let me just post what I said before, since it answers your problem here... "Okay. Let's explain what is going on here. In chapter one, it tells us how God created the world. Chapter 2 tells us what God did on day 6."

GRANTM
11-18-01, 08:58 PM
Hi JEP

"Qoute"
{ME: Yes. I have a problem with this too. I brush my teeth religiously. I wash my car religiously. But the fact that I do something over and over as ritual doesn’t mean I know God. I agree with you one hundred percent. I hope you understand that some of us Christians feel the same way.}

On average I find Christians to be more tolerant of others
although I have faced fanatics (classical sense of the word} in all that I have encountered.

funny though when I encounter an extremist in any given religion. all sense of religion and God goes out the window
except for self-justification. And the need to blame ones lot in life
on something or somebody else.

VwV
11-18-01, 09:12 PM
Righto. Let me start this out again. When I started explaining this, I said that they measure the distance from Stars to the Earth by using simply Trig. I suppose I will need to explain this more in-depth since you don't seem to be getting.

First off, I have to point out that there has never been any evidence of any stars forming in the entire universe. We see stars blowing up all the time, but we have never seen any form. Some people have approximated that there is enough stars in space that everyone on earth could personally own two trillion. Now, do the math... If the universe formed out of the Big Bang (which I would love to talk about) and all the stars had to be formed at some point in time via Cosmic Evolution, how come we have never been able to confirm one star forming? Now there has been recent speculation about stars forming in the Crab Nebulae spelt wrong), but I have heard some people believe that a meteor shower (or dust) just moved and now we are able to see stars that have been there for "billions of years". Keep in mind, no new stars are being formed, and we have thousands blowing up. You don't have to be a genus to figure out that we aren't getting ahead. You would think, for 4 billion years, that we would be running out of 'em by now. And, of course, the destruction of stars via super novas goes back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Hubble Telescope was asked to focus in on one dot in space. I think they focused in on it for like ten days, or something like that. The dot was just above the big dipper. They thought this spot was black, and that there was nothing there. After the time, they found more stars then they could count. So they thought nothing was there, but they found more then they could comprehend, after like ten days. Just to give a fullness of the intelligent design, and the mass size of it all.

Stephen Hawking, a Cambridge professor and author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time said:

"Stars are so far away that they appear to us to be just pinpoints of light. We cannot see their size or shape. So how can we tell different types of stars apart? For the vast majority of stars, there is only once characteristic feature that we can observe -- the color of their light." (Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time. 1988. pg. 37.)
Keep in mind, that Stephen Hawkings is considered, by some, to be the smartest person alive (even though he rejects Christianity). Stars are so far away, that all we can see is their light, basically is what he said.

If you want to tell the distance to an object you can't really see, their is only a few ways to do it. One of the ways, which is most common used for estimating the distance between stars is using Trigonometry. Sine, Cosine, and Tangent. Simple math.

Now, the earth is only 8,000 miles in diameter. So if two people are on the opposite sides of the earth looking at a star, which is many many miles away, you form a really small triangle for your Right Triangle Math (Trig). So, 8,000 miles is nothing compared to star distances. So they will look at a Star in January, and then they will look at it again in June. This puts a huge base on the triangle. The distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles or 8 light minutes... also called 1 A.U. (astronomical unit). The diameter of our orbit then, as we circle around the sun, would be 16 light minutes. If you measure that in miles, its a gigantic number... but if you measure it in AU its not to big... only 16. One Light Year = 525,948 Minutes. Now, to put this in an analogue people can understand... :

Put two guys with survey equipment on top of some building, put them 16 inches apart. Then have them focus in on something 525,948 inches away. That many inches is about 8.26 miles. So, two surveyors will have to focus in on something 8.26 miles away, when they are standing 16 inches apart. Now, I think you have to agree, that this would form a very narrow triangle. Wouldn't it? Now, that is for One Light Year... None of the stars are remotely that close to us. Say we wanted to measure for one light year? We would have to keep them 16 inches apart, and we would have to focus in on a dot 826 miles away. In order to do this, you have to measure an angle of .00017 degrees. Now, that is only 100 light years away. What if you take that to 1,000? What if you take that to 100,000? You can clearly see, that measure the distance of stars millions of light years away is impossible, let alone billions. So, you can hardly claim that this has anything to do with science, when someone says that "we can see light from stars billions of years away." This isn't science. We can't do it with any accurate at all.

Say a star was 1 billion light years away. Take those surveyors and keep them 16 inches apart. They have to focus in on a spot 8,260,000,000 MILES away, from 16 inches apart. Which means they would have to measure an angle of .000 000 000 017 degrees. This can't be done, and I don't care how much of a skeptic you are, you can't do that with any accuracy whatsoever. Being completely honest, it is really not possible to measure 100 light years.

You also have to consider, that it is virtually impossible to determine your exact position of where you were six months ago on the other side of earth's rotation around the sun. And if you think about it, if your measuring angles like .017 (for one light year) then that kind of information is vitally important. The slightest degree of being off well skew every piece of information. Those angels vital for accuracy, that if their off even the slightest bit you have no accuracy. So, between those two pieces of evidence against this, we can really know that we can't know the distance to the stars. Oh, but it gets worse...

However, some say that you can use Parallax Trigonometry to measure out thousands, or millions, or billions of light years. But for Parallax Trig to even work, you have to make the basic assumption that light has remained a constant.

Back in Feb. 18, of 1999, Houston Chronicle ran an article explaining how people working at Harvard University had slowed down the speed of light to 38 miles per hour. Dr. Hau, a Danish Physicist, was able to slow down light by cooling it. They cooled it fifty-billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-459.67).

An article was published in the Dallas Morning News, 2-28-2000, that said they had slowed it up to one mile per hour.

Then, in January of 2001 they totally stopped light. They held it there for a while, and then they sent it on its way. Totally stopping it. Totally stopping it. Hard to argue light is a constant when we can stop it.

Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, wrote in the June 4, 2000, that:
Scientists claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second.
This was done by Dr. Wang, the NIC research institute of Princeton, who transmitted a pulse of light towards a chamber filled with specially treated gas. Now consider. If we can speed light up and we can slow light down, isn't it rather ignorant to argue that it is or has been a constant?

During the past 300 years, there has been at least 162 separate measurements of the speed of light, those of which have been published. I think, there is around 16 different techniques of measurement which have been used. According to Barry Setterfield, an astronomer :
The speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error cannot explain it! No physical law prevents anything from exceeding the speed of light. In two published experiments, the speed of light was apparently exceeded by as much as a factor of 100!

Setterfield came up with a graph, of all the general trend over the past 300 years. And the decreasing numbers are astounding... it has been decreasing considerable all through time, until around 1960s.

In the 1960s, we started using the atomic clock, which measures time based on the speed of light. It measures time based on the wave length of a Sysium-133 atom. So if your using light to measure light, it shouldn't to be hard to figure out that the times have leveled off since the 60s for a reason. If the speed of light is declining, and the clock is telling time by the declining light and therefor you are never going to pick up on it, obviously. So! We can't say that light has always been a constant!

According to Dr. V.S. Troitskii, a Cosmologist at the Radio-physical Research Institute in Gorky, ...
The speed of light was ten billion times faster at time zero! (Strophysics and Space Science, Vol. 139. No. 2. December 1987, pp 389-411)

To argue that the speed of light has always been a constant is simply not a valid argument. Dr. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College London, in the Sunday Times (uk) in 12-24-2000 said:
A shocking possibility is that the speed of light might change in time during the life of the universe.

Things To Remember:
1) - We can't measure accurately anything over or around 100-1000 light years, you just get crazy numbers after that.
2) - Nobody knows what light is.
3) - We certainly don't know that light has always traveled the same speed, and more and more evidence supports that light is slowing down.
3) - The entire theory behind the black hole, is that light can be attracted by gravity. Now if light can be attracted by gravity, then we know its not a constant. So, if black holes exist, then light is not a constant.
4) - God made a mature creation. Stars already showing with their light.

VwV
11-18-01, 09:13 PM
When light goes through a prism, it will be bent, into eight colors. Roy G Biv. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet. Because light is bent different amounts going through different mediums. If you look at star through a spectroscope (probably spelt wrong, a prism like thingy that separates the light). And it puts black lines on the color. Now, if the black lines are shifted over to the right, toward the red, they would assume that this means the star is moving away from us.

This is a common misconception. Just because the lines are shifted to the right (red) that doesn't prove the star is moving away. It could be moving away, but we can't know this.

The Red Shift Theory: The Doppler effect. If a train is coming towards you, it has a higher pitch because the sound waves are being compressed. If a train passes you the sound waves are lower because they have been refracted instead of compressed. So the theory is that maybe light does the same thing. So when a star is coming towards us, the light might be compressed, and when it is going away it might be stretched. So, when it comes towards us, we should get a blue shift, when it is moving away we should get a red shift.

I don't think you can prove it, but I do think it is an interesting theory. It isn't provable, either way though.
This was an early sign that redshifts reliably indicate the distance of galaxies. For QSQs however, the diagram shows a wide scatter in apparent brightness at every redshift. In fact, there was little correlation of brightness to redshift at all! Either QSQs come in an extremely wide range of intrinsic luminosity-s, as most people believe, or their redshifts do not indicate distance... Thus for us the only conclusion that can be drawn is that at least some QSQs are relatively nearby, and that a large fraction of their redshift is due to something other than the expansion of the universe.A Quasar (QSQs) is a 'Quasi-stellar Object'.
...another set of observations indicates that the universe... appears to be... 8.4 to 10.6 billion years... The new work relied on the Hubble Space Telescope to obtain the distance to far away galaxies. (Science News, Sept 9, 1995, pg. 166)
First off, notice that if you go from 8.4 to 10.6 that is a 25% error. I don't know if I would consider that accurate at all, right off the bat. This is a far cry from an exact science.
A team led by Nail R. Tanvir of the University of Cambridge in England used a two step method to estimate the [Hubble] *constant*. First they observed a type of "standard candle"-stars known as Cephied variables- to find the distance to the spiral galaxy of M96... (Science News, 1995. - * are mine)

I also like to point out, that if you have to estimate the constant, you can hardly consider it a constant. If you change that number in the slightest degree, any calculations you do will be incredibly effected. How can you estimate the constant? If this number is one of the multipliers in your equation, this will effect your number incredibly. They went on to say, "You have to be very careful about [drawing conclusions] because all of the [Hubble constant] measurements have huge systematic errors" (Science News, 1995). A far from an exact science.

You don't know the distance to the stars, and it doesn't prove that the earth is billions of years. God certainly could have made it just the way he told us he did in the Bible.

James Jeans:
Pg 50s:
Even the nearest Cepheids are so remote that it is difficult to determine their absolute distances with any great accuracy... All large distances... in astronomical literature... [is] subject to an error of perhaps 10 per cent, from this cause alone.
Pg. 60s:
We now know that faintness arises from two causes [distance and absorbing matter in space], and it is not generally possible to apportion it accurately between the two (The Universe Around Us, New York, Cambridge University Press)

The Bible actually says that God stretched out the heavens. So maybe the Red Shift is actually in the Bible. In Isaiah 40:22, it says that the earth is a sphere, and that God "stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain". In Isaiah 43:5, it says, "Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out". In Jeremiah 10:12, it says that "He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion". So it could be that God is stretching out the heavens, and the Red Shift is the result. It could be the doppler effect. I am not saying that the stars going away, I'm just saying we can't know it. And I am also saying that it doesn't conflict with the Biblical interpretation of the Bible, that the creation took six literal days, about 6,000 years ago.

VwV
11-18-01, 09:17 PM
I think I am done talking about the Big Bang.

GRANTM
11-18-01, 09:42 PM
to JEP VwV:

I believe that this one is mine:

My comments were that While I disgreed with some of Darwins Thesis"Origin of the Species" particularly to that of Evolution.
I dont throw out the baby with the bath Water and suggest ed that he made some very valid points.

VwV asked for some so I gave a few. hence
GrantM
“to suggest an ecosystem is an interrelated web. to discuss the problem of imported plants and animals on native species. corelates reproduction , food supply, area, etc.

VwV
Sure. I'll give him those. Even though most of those were known like, in the 1500s. Actually, I think Aristotle might have known
most of those.”


Yes known but Darwin Used Scientific method
to try and prove in his back up graphs and addendums there-in. there is alot more. in it that I agree with but I have allready stated that as to his statements and findings in Chapter 4 The concerns with this forum I disagree with.

Jep
11-18-01, 09:44 PM
“Okay. The Big Bang discussion is getting really old. Tell you what. I'll agree that the Big Bang happened, if you agree that it happened 6,000 years ago”

ME: No dice. The big bang happened around 15 billion years ago. This is where the evidence points us:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_age.html

“So, yes, everything came from a dot, but God made it come from that dot instanteously and it was stored to our present universe, ang God "stretched out the heavens.”

ME: Nothing came from a dot. God caused it all. But not necessarily from a dot. You are lowering your reasoning to that of Stephen Hawking. :) How dare you?

“Anyone I would bring up, or HAVE brought up, you dont' consider them "credible". So why should I waste my time bring up new or old scientists, you will disregard them anyway.”

ME: How about bringing up someone all of us have heard of. Is that a problem? Joe Blow from fifth avenue don’t cut it--scientist/used car salesman--you get the gist.

“Contraction = Big Crunch. My theory (or the Truth rather) is God made it the way it is today, just like he said he did.”

ME: This neither answers my question or makes a lick of sense.

“Not one you would consider "reputable" because any YEC isn't "reputable" to you. So again, what's the point. And you know this is true, so why argue it. Any scientist I bring up that disagrees with it, you will disagree with it. And come on, I gave plenty of websites, and I gave you a book, and I also gave many sources which a guy used to counter it. Sheesh... Use the Book...”

ME: This would be nice if I had the book. I don’t. And you can bring up any scientist you choose. He just has to be credible, published, and recognized by his peers. You have not done this.

“Are there any credible scientists that support YEC? Or are they not credible because they are YEC?”

ME: I wouldn’t know. Introduce me to a credible one and I’ll check his credentials.

“Let me just post what I said before, since it answers your problem here... "Okay. Let's explain what is going on here. In chapter one, it tells us how God created the world. Chapter 2 tells us what God did on day 6.”

ME: Where does it say that this happening on day six? The rest of us seem to have missed that scripture.

Jep
11-18-01, 09:50 PM
"I think I am done talking about the Big Bang."

ME: You're not done talking about it until you learn the science that posits it. Remember that I am a former science teacher that has taken you under his wing. Your misfortune. :)

VwV
11-18-01, 09:51 PM
man was made on day six. genesis two explains how that was done and the creation of the garden.

...o.k. were done with the big bang... to many postings... what part of evolution do you want to talk about now... or evidence for the young earth... ?

VwV
11-18-01, 09:52 PM
Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I don't understand it. Why don't you understand that?

Andrew
11-18-01, 10:51 PM
Wow! So much science. I've no scientific links to give the evolutionist and those Christians who support evolution but only these verses:

1 Tim 6:20,21
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some in professing have erred concerning the faith.

Wisdom of the world (including man's science)
1 Cor 1: 19,20
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

God's creation revealed to those who have his Spirit
1Cor 2: 7,10,14 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
But the natural man [atheists/Bible disputers] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In others words, I don't believe atheists and skeptics and Bible disputers and the like can be convinced by scientific arguments and logical reasoning. They need God Spirit in them!

Jep
11-19-01, 11:33 AM
“In others words, I don't believe atheists and skeptics and Bible disputers and the like can be convinced by scientific arguments and logical reasoning. They need God Spirit in them!”

ME: One cannot be convinced by anything once they have made up their mind on an issue and then close it. Arguing with an unbeliever is usually quite frustrating. The reason I make a habit of doing this is because there are always lurkers, and you never know, one of these lurkers might be borderline on accepting Christ.

“In others words, I don't believe atheists and skeptics and Bible disputers and the like can be convinced by scientific arguments and logical reasoning. They need God Spirit in them!”

ME: But you gots to gets them to believe before they can accept the spirit within them. I keep ramming the gate of the closed mind with facts hoping that I might plant a seed that will grow. Beats borrowing Benny Hinn’s Holy Ghost machine Gun. :)

Jep
11-19-01, 12:08 PM
Grant:

“My comments were that While I disgreed with some of Darwins Thesis"Origin of the Species" particularly to that of Evolution. I dont throw out the baby with the bath Water and suggest ed that he made some very valid points.”

ME: He did make a few valid points. But not many, I’m afraid. Darwin himself became frustrated toward the end of his career because the fossil record didn’t seem to support his ideas of evolutionary gradualism. Today, after 150 years of looking for these fossils, it still doesn’t. I accept microevolution, as that’s just common sense and we see it in the world around us. However, to then extrapolate this to assume that man sprang from a bacterium via complex macroevolution is just silly.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter will tend to disorganize. But the macroevolutionist says just the opposite: through millions and millions of speciations man became more and more ordered until homo sapien was achieved. Bah....hum...bug. There’s no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

GRANTM
11-19-01, 02:28 PM
Greetings:

Just as an aside no I'm not a member of the most nobelist Profession ,Teacher ,as you are, Where you might have drwn that conclusion is that I am a Football Coach and and an official, but not a teacher. Not ecen close. "Maybe a reasonable student
of life though.

Quote
{ME: He did make a few valid points. But not many, I’m afraid. Darwin himself became frustrated toward the end of his career because the fossil record didn’t seem to support his ideas of evolutionary gradualism. Today, after 150 years of looking for these fossils, it still doesn’t. I accept microevolution, as that’s just common sense and we see it in the world around us. However, to then extrapolate this to assume that man sprang from a bacterium via complex macroevolution is just silly.}

Exactly my position, as I pointed out the close DNA structure of the gorilla to Man is with all the Bio-diversity that has, is ,and will be on earth Has to do more with the law of probability than evolution. However his findings in lifes adaptions, (micro-evolution ?( I hate that word )) is extremely interesting . Darwins major fault he thought to big and went overboard with his findings. but stuck to his strength, of the adaptiveness of Nature. he would have the founding scientific blue prints of conservancy because in his time there were still a lot of areas of virgin nature to observe and thus be able to corelate data.

Quote:

{ of Thermodynamics states that matter will tend to disorganize. But the macroevolutionist says just the opposite: through millions and millions of speciations man became more and more ordered until homo sapien was achieved. Bah....hum...bug. There’s no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Also after millions of years if this were true would there not be a sameness to everything ?

Enni
12-04-01, 09:21 PM
i dont know if i remember correctly, but i once read in a devotional in the daily bread and i cant remember the message but i remember a very short story bout Darwin. when he was on his death bed, he told a reverend frienc of his that if he could, he wanted to take back all his words on evolution. and the rev said that it was too late cos the theory has already been widespread.
i just did a paper on evolution and creation for my bio class, and i found that there are alot more evolution evidence than creation, i began to question the creation theory but then i remember what God has done for me. there must be a God who knows every single thing bout me.

Corbin
12-05-01, 05:01 AM
i just did a paper on evolution and creation for my bio class, and i found that there are alot more evolution evidence than creation, i began to question the creation theory but then i remember what God has done for me. there must be a God who knows every single thing bout me.

What exactly has God done for you that leads you to abandon your research suddenly? WHY must their be a god who knows every single thing about you??

Please try and state your reasoning behind what you write, it would be quite helpful.

GRANTM
12-05-01, 12:34 PM
Greetings Enni:

Best of luck and study hard you have chosen what I feel must be a truly exhilerating area ofthe most noble of proffessions and that is of a teacher.


I dont know if i remember correctly, but i once read in a devotional in the daily bread and i cant remember the message but i remember a very short story bout Darwin. when he was on his death bed, he told a reverend frienc of his that if he could, he wanted to take back all his words on evolution. and the rev said that it was too late cos the theory has already been widespread.
i just did a paper on evolution and creation for my bio class, and i found that there are alot more evolution evidence than creation, i began to question the creation theory but then i remember what God has done for me. there must be a God who knows every single thing bout me.

Those, comments on Darwin are referenced elsewhere also, but he never recounted his findings he just regreted publishing his findings because of all the controversy, he never foresaw at the time of publishing the intense controversy that would follow.

One of the problems is that both sides are guilty of trying to
use objective material and apply it to a subjective question.
or use of a subjetive doctrine to controvert objective reasoning.

Ps. welcome to the boards it always nice to meet a fellow traveller on the road sit and chat for a while and when parting to say yes in my travels i have meet the one called Enni

Enni
12-05-01, 02:37 PM
What exactly has God done for you that leads you to abandon your research suddenly? WHY must their be a god who knows every single thing about you??

Please try and state your reasoning behind what you write, it would be quite helpful. [/B]

First, i abandoned my research suddenly because suddenly i have finished my paper and i need to study other things ;)
i was researching only because i needed to do the paper to pass my class. so it was easy to abandon the research.

then about what God has done for me... well i used to be real far from God. i mixed with the wrong crowd, but he still protected me from smoking, drugs and drinking and other stuff. my relationship with my dad suffer cos i dont think i showed him respect. i was really stubborn. then i started going to church again ( i grew up in church, my dad was one of the founders of the first church in my town and he was the head deacon). i asked God to change me, and i told him i didnt want to do the stuff that i used to. it wasnt a miraculous change but rather it was gradual change. i changed n my dad says so too :) ( i love my dad n his approval means alot :) ) i feel that from that time on, i changed in a lot of ways. i used to be mean to almost everybody, but now i have a changed attitude towards ppl :)

Corbin
12-05-01, 05:47 PM
First, i abandoned my research suddenly because suddenly i have finished my paper and i need to study other things

What i meant was, you abandoned what you had found out in research. Like you disregarded completley what your research showed.


then about what God has done for me... well i used to be real far from God. i mixed with the wrong crowd, but he still protected me from smoking, drugs and drinking and other stuff. my relationship with my dad suffer cos i dont think i showed him respect. i was really stubborn. then i started going to church again ( i grew up in church, my dad was one of the founders of the first church in my town and he was the head deacon). i asked God to change me, and i told him i didnt want to do the stuff that i used to. it wasnt a miraculous change but rather it was gradual change. i changed n my dad says so too ( i love my dad n his approval means alot ) i feel that from that time on, i changed in a lot of ways. i used to be mean to almost everybody, but now i have a changed attitude towards ppl

What makes you so sure that GOD has anything to do with all this? Do you perhaps think that your need of approvel from your father, and you suddenly becoming religious again are related? That wouldn't be so unreasonable. Also, do you think that your dad being head deacon has any influence in your decisions about religion?

VwV
12-06-01, 01:09 AM
Mind pasting in your paper about Evolution v Creation, the biology one?

Enni
12-06-01, 11:10 PM
[
What makes you so sure that GOD has anything to do with all this? Do you perhaps think that your need of approvel from your father, and you suddenly becoming religious again are related? That wouldn't be so unreasonable. Also, do you think that your dad being head deacon has any influence in your decisions about religion? [/B][/QUOTE]

I was sure God has to do with all this cos He's the only one i turned to. i know this may sound lame but I just know. it's called faith.
and bout my dad,
he was the head deacon so basically i grew up in church and Christianity is the only religion i know all my life (putting aside the fact that christianity is not a religion but a relationship). i have never experimented with other religions. call me a coward for not trying but i'm glad i didnt try.

smugg
12-11-01, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Twonky:
This is great reading! I've quoted a little section here...

...

Well, can't argue with that I guess. The scientific method at it's best! Just believe what you read! That's enough for me!

...

Hmmm... we expect not to find anything; that's consistent with speciation? Speciation must be occuring, the lack of evidence helps prove it! If there were more evidence, it would blow our case? Inferring?!

...

What's with all this inferring? Number and quality of inferences is enough to convine most workers? I hope these workers aren't scientists. I would hate to say something is a fact because we have a lot of quality inferences.

Please note that the section of the article you are quoting is the author's (Joseph Boxhorn) opinion and I don't have any information about his credentials. Maybe you should take this up with him...

Anyway, I linked to this page not because it was written by a full-fledged genius (and I'm not saying he isn't a genius), but because he has attempted to compile his list.

Also note that he isn't saying they are all inferred, just that there are many predictions of speciation he has run across which were not directly observed. This happens in science all the time, by the way -- nobody had actually seen a black hole up to a few years ago but the math which predicted their existence was still compelling.

smugg
12-11-01, 03:48 AM
[to the board: Sorry about posting all this at once, but I have a lot to catch up on...]

Two of VwV's posts:


Originally posted by VwV
Right Right. We can argue about Time in another thread and how it effects God or how God effects it. This thread is about evolution. And Since Smugg brought up some points, I really should dispute them, even though they are some of the most over used "evidences" against the Biblical Creation Account, which, obviously, have no bearing on science.

And now an editorial comment. What a frightful world it must seem when 90% of the world's scientists (of many different religions) are conspiring to spread lies about the nature of -- well -- nature. Their crimes against human knowledge are unfathomable when they hide the talking donkeys, launch countless satellites without hitting a water canopy, invent seeds smaller than the mustard seed, lie about the existence of fresh-water fish (who couldn't possibly have survived a world-wide flood), and countless other Biblical 'truths' they attempt to 'disprove.'

Water Canopy -
Rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Water Canopy goes bye bye.
Fresh Water Fish -
Why do you assume the oceans were salt water?

Okay, let's assume the water canopy somehow failed to crush everything under its 900 atmospheres of pressure and fell to earth during this flood without vaporizing Noah, his box, or the inhabitants thereof. Whatever. And to answer your question, I think the oceans were salt water because the earth was made up of minerals and the land had rain. Are you saying that all water was fresh and the problem is not how did the fresh-water fish survive but how did all the salt-water species evolve so quickly after the flood?

Actually, this relates to the post below...

But really: two weak rebuttals to the four problems I listed? That's only 50% at best and hardly a passing grade in any classroom. You sounded so enthusiastic to dispute me -- I'm a little disappointed.


Originally posted by VwV
...

In English: Microevolution is small genetic changes (variations/adaptations) which don't change the "kind".
In English: Macroevoluton is big genetic changes which will change the "kind".

You move quickly from the dictionary's use of English to the special Creationist term "kind" which the dictionary doesn't recognize as related to taxonomy. My question for you is: what's a "kind?" Specifically, what differentiates one "kind" from another. I'm familiar with most of the terms of modern taxonomy but I don't see kinds on the list:

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

These taxa are man-made and there are different approaches; some add additional levels like subspecies or superfamily but each has a specific definition. Could you clarify where "kind" would fit into a structure like this?

And as it relates to the earlier post, does this mean all fish are of one "kind?"

smugg
12-12-01, 01:35 AM
I'm trying to get back to the topic at hand and this conversation starts to get into a debate over Christian dogma rather than the science of evolution. I don't have much serious to say when it comes to Nephilim, Lucifer, or Gap Theories, but there is one thing I would like to address:

A couple of times in this thread VwV (sorry to pick on you here, but I don't see anyone else doing it) makes the statement that there is no evidence for evolution. While I have heard it several times in the past, I am still floored by this statement. To me, there is no quicker way to let the people you are talking to know how dishonest you are willing to be in order to cling to your beliefs.

If you want to say that you find the evidence for evolution unconvincing, fine. And then we can talk about that or just go our separate ways or whatever, but to say there is no evidence is tantamount to lying in order to forestall argument. Ethically unbearable.

I am often told that Christians value honesty -- you might be in danger of losing your membership, here, my friend.

--------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by Twonky
...

You say two different things here.

1. The big bang is the origin of the universe. Period.

and

2. "The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe." (I assume this is a quote from the site you linked?)

Are you telling me a theory is a fact now?

There are two kinds of theory here. In the sense that Jep is using the word, a theory is a set of principles that explain observed evidence and facts. This is the kind of theory used in 'Big Bang Theory,' the 'Theory of Gravity,' the 'Theory of General Relativity,' or even (you guessed it -- just couldn't help myself) the 'Theory of Evolution.' This kind of theory can be a fact (at the very least I think we can all agree that the Theory of Gravity is relatively sound...).

In everyday use, the word theory usually means an assumption. Two different things entirely, but often confused.

------------------------------------------------

From page 5 (whew, still a lot to catch up on)...


Originally posted by GRANTM and VwV:
...except for the Vikings, right up to 1492, North America was not Known.

Nope. Romans did trade back in forth between the oceans. There is evidence that Greeks, in the B.C.s, did trade across the ocean as well.

...

History is a passion of mine, so I feel compelled to jump in here:

Explorers of the Americas

Year: somewhere between 70,000 BCE and 12,000 BCE
From: Siberia
To: Alaska
Quality of Evidence: High -- the survivors peopled the continents.

Year: somewhere between 6000 BCE and 1500 BCE
From: Indonesia
To: South America (or vice-versa)
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- similarities in blowguns, papermaking, etc.

Year: around 5000 BCE
From: Japan
To: Ecuador
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- similar pottery, fishing styles.

Year: between 10,000 BCE and 600 BCE
From: Siberia
To: Canada, New Mexico
Quality of Evidence: High -- Navajos and Crees resemble each other culturally, differ from other Indians.

Year: from 9000 BCE to present
From: Siberia
To: Alaska
Quality of Evidence: High -- continuing contact by Inuits across Bering Sea.

Year: 1000 BCE
From: China
To: Central America
Quality of Evidence: Low -- Chinese legend, cultural similarities

Year: between 1000 BCE and CE 300
From: Afro-Phoenicia
To: Central America
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- Negroid and Caucasoid likenesses in sculpture and ceramics, Arab history, etc.

Year: 500 BCE
From: Phoenicia, Celtic Britain
To: New England, perhaps elsewhere
Quality of Evidence: Low -- megaliths, possible similarities in script and language.

Year: CE 600
From: Ireland, via Iceland
To: Newfoundland? West Indies?
Quality of Evidence: Low -- Legends of St. Brendan, written c. CE 850, confirmed by Norse sagas.

Year: 1000 - 1350
From: Greenland, Iceland
To: Labrador, Baffin Land, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, possibly Cape Cod and further south
Quality of Evidence: High -- oral sagas confirmed by archaeology on Newfoundland

Year: 1311? - 1460?
From: West Africa
To: Haiti, Panama, possibly Brazil
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- Portuguese sources in West Africa, Columbus on Haiti, Balboa in Panama

Year: c. 1460
From: Portugal
To: Newfoundland? Brazil?
Quality of Evidence: Low -- inference from Portuguese sources and actions.

Year: 1375? - 1491
From: Basque Spain
To: Newfoundland coast
Quality of Evidence: Low -- cryptic historical sources

Year: 1481-91
From: Bristol, England
To: Newfoundland coast
Quality of Evidence: Low -- cryptic historical sources

Year: 1492
From: Spain
To: Caribbean, including Haiti
Quality of Evidence: High -- historical sources

source: Lies My Teacher Told Me by James w. Lowen

GRANTM
12-12-01, 11:32 AM
Hey Smugg:
I Was hoping someone would bite here, glad it was you. For as I see it the Bible, is a great work of the Middle East and then by the conversion of the roman empire to apply to europe by extension and interpretation only,as evidenced by archeology work.

The troubles arise when you extrapolate that from the Bible and apply it universally. both the objective and subjective. Doesn't make sense, it leaves out anything that does not pertain to the mid east. Remember that after the "fall" of the Roman Empire it was only Europe that had the dark ages, The rest of the world had sciece technology, Great philosophies etc, That are Ignored. , Jesus, and we both have to admit following his ways, is good. of peace and love, but it is not an exclusive to God, the post that-nope there is some indications..-
this of course relates back that epic poem the Ilyian and the great exploits of rome however the word Mare is seas as evidenced by their maps no where does any NA coast occur the word Oceanus Was one of the sea gods that provided for their way.

So to Europeans and then the Mideast previous NA was unknown
But to the rest of the world: At That Time:


Quote
History is a passion of mine, so I feel compelled to jump in here:

Explorers of the Americas

Year: somewhere between 70,000 BCE and 12,000 BCE
From: Siberia
To: Alaska
Quality of Evidence: High -- the survivors peopled the continents.

Year: somewhere between 6000 BCE and 1500 BCE
From: Indonesia
To: South America (or vice-versa)
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- similarities in blowguns, papermaking, etc.

Year: around 5000 BCE
From: Japan
To: Ecuador
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- similar pottery, fishing styles.

Year: between 10,000 BCE and 600 BCE
From: Siberia
To: Canada, New Mexico
Quality of Evidence: High -- Navajos and Crees resemble each other culturally, differ from other Indians.

Year: from 9000 BCE to present
From: Siberia
To: Alaska
Quality of Evidence: High -- continuing contact by Inuits across Bering Sea.

Year: 1000 BCE
From: China
To: Central America
Quality of Evidence: Low -- Chinese legend, cultural similarities

Year: between 1000 BCE and CE 300
From: Afro-Phoenicia
To: Central America
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- Negroid and Caucasoid likenesses in sculpture and ceramics, Arab history, etc.

Year: 500 BCE
From: Phoenicia, Celtic Britain
To: New England, perhaps elsewhere
Quality of Evidence: Low -- megaliths, possible similarities in script and language.

Year: CE 600
From: Ireland, via Iceland
To: Newfoundland? West Indies?
Quality of Evidence: Low -- Legends of St. Brendan, written c. CE 850, confirmed by Norse sagas.

Year: 1000 - 1350
From: Greenland, Iceland
To: Labrador, Baffin Land, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, possibly Cape Cod and further south
Quality of Evidence: High -- oral sagas confirmed by archaeology on Newfoundland

Year: 1311? - 1460?
From: West Africa
To: Haiti, Panama, possibly Brazil
Quality of Evidence: Moderate -- Portuguese sources in West Africa, Columbus on Haiti, Balboa in Panama

Year: c. 1460
From: Portugal
To: Newfoundland? Brazil?
Quality of Evidence: Low -- inference from Portuguese sources and actions.

Year: 1375? - 1491
From: Basque Spain
To: Newfoundland coast
Quality of Evidence: Low -- cryptic historical sources

Year: 1481-91
From: Bristol, England
To: Newfoundland coast
Quality of Evidence: Low -- cryptic historical sources

Year: 1492
From: Spain
To: Caribbean, including Haiti
Quality of Evidence: High -- historical sources

source: Lies My Teacher Told Me by James w. Lowen [/B][/QUOTE]

As you aptly pointed out here the world as the Bible Knew it
was strictly Mid-east, but like european history which pervades our culture as to the absolute truth, almost ignores anything else but them,

Not that it was wrong, why should it, it would have no meaning to the masses. and would have convoluted the message of God
to those masses. The danger is when you apply this message universally, Hey, It snows In Canada ,Therfore It must Snow everywhere on earth, to justify, Look All the northern latitude countries have it, and Souhernmost countries have it. More education ok Litterally we know that it is not Universal. Figuritivly yes it does it falls as rain. But tell that to four old where his country is going through a five year drought, he will look at you with a stunned silence. until he gets better education, say from a perant, or teacher. He Questions The validity, of your first statement, IT SNOWS... here and learns, Providing of course the sources that reply to him, are Knowledgable and trustworthy,

Another of my explantions as to why I believe in God but do not subscribe to any Religion.

Ergo:
you cannot apply the Bible litterally to the world.