6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

Indeed to say no fossils could form more slowly over time due to predators is quite a claim. Fossils are found part complete of course and I wouldn't be surprised if we'd found evidence of scavaging on fossils. Decay yes of dead animals... skin and organs etc wouldn't survive a great deal of time sure that's why we don't readily find much beyond bone..rarely feather and scale and a few other clues.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[Enoch2021]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

It is true that most areas of science rely on experimentation to derive conclusions,

ALL areas of "Science" rely on Experimentation; No Experiment = No Science. 

 

Quote

but would you agree that field biologists are also scientists? Or would those fall into the realm of "pseudo-science" for you?

That would depend on each case and it's merit.  Generally, they're just people with initials behind there names making observations.

 

Quote

What I'd really like you to address before I talk more detailed science is some theology.

The "Science" part of the discussion is quite over...dont'cha think?

 

Quote

Your level of hostility

What hostility?  I'm admonished to "Expose" Pretenders...

(Ephesians 5:11) "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."

(2 Corithians 10:5) "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ...")

 

Quote

...seems a little inconsistent with theme of love that pervades Christianity.

Somethings 'seem' but are not.

 

Quote

Do you believe in Jesus's teachings and "the golden rule"?

I believe...

(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

Quote

Do you believe that commitment to Jesus Christ and His incarnation, sacrificial death, and victorious resurrection is all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation?

Romans 10:9 is Necessary.

 

regards

[SavedOnebyGrace]

2 hours ago, Zoltan777 said:

Everything is just speculation at some point. I am not scientist just a dreamer.

Yes and no.  Some things can be determined by the geological record, paleontology, flood geology, et al.

Quote

I didn't know the 'gap theory' goes back so far. That interesting.

This is an inconvenient fact that Young Earth Creationists "conveniently" ignore or outright lie about.

Quote

Actually, I had an arguments with many people about Genesis 6:1-4. I am wondering what is your point of view.  

My point of view believes all angels are male.  They have spirit bodies that can be changed into physical bodies to have sex.  This is forbidden by God.  Some of Satan's fallen angels found the daughters of man quite delightful and had sexual relations with them.  Their offspring became known as the Nephilim.  The Nephilim were the stuff of mythical legends that every culture had. 

Note: I find it interesting that males have both male and female chromosomes, but females are all female.  Think of the story how Eve was created from Adam.  How did the writer of Genesis know this?

So Noah was told by God he would not tolerate this behavior forever.  God had planned for man's rescue from sin by sending a perfect man to redeem His people.  This Redeemer could not be tainted by Nephilim DNA.  So a flood was foretold to Noah and he as his family were to prepare for it.  Whether this flood was local, i.e. Mediterranean, Caspian and Black Seas, or global has been the subject of much debate.  I am on the fence on this one, leaning slightly to a large local flood as the geological records indicate.  And also, it fits the Biblical timeline. 

So eight humans were saved, the angels who started this were put in chains (see 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6), but at least a portion of the Nephilim survived.  The Nephilim are known as great warriors and Biblical giants (see Ezekiel 32:27 and Numbers 13:33).  And the Bible states that the Nephilim existed before and after the flood.  Whether or not the Nephilim could reproduce seems to be true.  Also, as their DNA is further mixed with human DNA, they lose their special nature.  They are also mortal, as David determined with a slingshot.

Quote

You've mentioned evolution in your previous comment. I will like to express my thoughts:

There was an old earth with dinosaurs and all kind of living creatures that we don't know much about. One thing sure that was a different life and different world. God didn't tell us what happened, how they were created or how they died out. So everything is just speculation here.

In a way, it is not important for our salvation.

Quote

I believe that world was destroyed which was related to lucifer rebellion. Then later on God decided to make everything new which was about 6000 years ago. As I said that life was different back then and I could possibly accept the theory of evolution in the old world among the dinosaurs. So it MAYBE the scientists are right how the dinosaurs evolved blah blah blah. But wrongly they think humans and this life are originated from the old world.

It is still conjecture that the animals of different ages evolve into different animals of the next age.  The time period is just to short for evolution to occur so Evolution Theorists have had to go back and redefine Evolution to meet their time restriction.  They have never satisfactorily explained the Cambrian Explosion.  The history of evolution is built on lies.

[Enoch2021]

5 hours ago, Zoltan777 said:

Satan rebellion obviously happened before Adam and Eve.

satan's fall has Absolutely Nothing to do with my arguments.

 

Quote

So death and all the effects of that event were existing already.

Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns were not present on the earth until Adam Sinned, Period...End of Story.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

The "Science" part of the discussion is quite over...dont'cha think?

The "Science" part is far from over, but I honestly don't think it is worth my time to engage you in any sort of way. I'll be happy to discuss science with those willing to actually discuss instead of opening a verbal fire hydrant full of spite. I will listen to your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 13, though. Oh, and I will also agree with you on Romans 10:9.

[Enoch2021]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

I chose my words carefully. I didn’t say there were no individuals who have ever believed these things. If you search hard enough throughout church history, you’ll find two obscure monks who independently wrote dissertations in support of a flat earth. Their position was publically rejected by the church.

What "Church" ??

 

Quote

All of the thousands of other documents dealing with this issue are clear regarding the churches position that the earth is a globe.

Again, What "Church"...?

 

Quote

I haven’t seen the quotes you refer to, so can’t ascertain the seriousness or rationality of the claims. I am aware of the recent increase in popularity of the flat earth society.

The Flat Earth "Society"...is nothing but 'Controlled Opposition'.  Their Claims are Tear Jerkin Belly Laughers. 

 

Quote

I have been a Christian approaching three decades and have never met a Christian who thinks the world is flat (or the other things you claim).

1.  You've met one NOW.

2.  And I don't merely "Think" it, I "KNOW" it. 

3.  Just because people don't "Think" something...doesn't offer veracity to the subject either way.

 

ps. There's a whole slew of them on this forum.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

Quote

I have been a Christian approaching three decades and have never met a Christian who thinks the world is flat (or the other things you claim).

1.  You've met one NOW.

2.  And I don't merely "Think" it, I "KNOW" it. 

3.  Just because people don't "Think" something...doesn't offer veracity to the subject either way.

 

ps. There's a whole slew of them on this forum.

Wait, wait, wait... I know I said I wasn't going to engage you with science, but I think it's safe to say this doesn't count! You "KNOW" that the earth is flat? Have you been to the edge and looked over? What other evidence do you have that the earth is flat?

[Enoch2021]

29 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Wait, wait, wait... I know I said I wasn't going to engage you with science,

Yes, because you don't know what "Science" is. (SEE: your previous posts)

 

Quote

but I think it's safe to say this doesn't count!

Correct.  The Shape of something ("What/Is" question) is outside the purview of The Scientific Method, since Hypotheses only adjudicate "How/Why" questions; I'm sure you knew that 

 

Quote

You "KNOW" that the earth is flat?

Affirmative.

 

Quote

Have you been to the edge and looked over?

Nope, don't need to.

Have you been to "Outer-Space" and looked?

 

Quote

What other evidence do you have that the earth is flat?

Biblical or Logical Consistency??  I'll stick with the later, for now...

1.  "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."

Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full

This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.

You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...

"A Geometrical Flat Plane" 

And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*

Please reconcile on a Sphere...?

 

2.  Sea Sparrow (NATO): 

"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf

 

Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ).

The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.

Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).

 

3. Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?  

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotation MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST??

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

Good?

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, Enoch2021 said:

Quote

You "KNOW" that the earth is flat?

Affirmative.

Alright, it is now confirmed. You have now established why no one reading your words should value your input regarding science.

[Enoch2021]

Just now, one.opinion said:

Alright, it is now confirmed. You have now established why no one reading your words should value your input regarding science.

Translation: I have no coherent Argument or Position, so I'll conjure a Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy Declaration out of the blue to somehow 'cloak' my incapacity to refute EVIDENCE that I requested... and was PROVIDED.

 

Thanks