| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ugly Anna" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2006 08:39:00 PM |
| Object: |
"Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific
facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate
Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still
one of the world's leading religions, but it has spawned the most
insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the
inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All
the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy
what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events
that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before
light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and
flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the
true order of events was just the opposite.
2) "And God said, Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) and ". . .And the
evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1 :5), versus
"And God said, 'Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night....' "And God made two lights; the
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also And the evening and morning were the fourth
day" (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light
cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be
distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians
try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering
the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is
the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying
to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure,
which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from
the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been
quite an obstacle to our space program.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
5) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind 'And the
evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:11-13), versus
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
(Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land
as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological
science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life
long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
6) "And God said, 'Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from
water.
7) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so. And God made every thing that creepth upon the
earth after his kind " (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that
reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While
reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear
until the close of the Reptilian Age.
8) "So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he
them" (Genesis 1:27), and "the evening and the morning were the sixth
day" (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately
6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher's calculations), then nobody lived
before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the
genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of
Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had
lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than
9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus' ancestors had lived
to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the
earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according
to creationists.
9) "And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for meat: and it was so" (Genesis 1:30).
Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all
animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire
bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.
10) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at
the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as
they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe
(including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions
of years.
11) In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and
breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from
simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution
CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.
12) God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam
to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it
takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them
all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy
for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven't
even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of
every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would
have killed many animals due to climatic changes.
13) God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust
(Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on
his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they?
14) "There were giants in the earth in those days." Genesis 6:4 But
there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants.
Also there is a reference to the "Nephilim" being on the earth. Which
is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no
archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?
15) Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis
6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300
feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so,
they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to
believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding
tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was
longer than any that has been built since?
16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female
representatives from each species of "every thing that creepeth upon
the earth" (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along
with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and
anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the
New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely
unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back
to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female
beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know
how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the
space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds
of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of
plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the
animals wouldn't last long if the plants died in the flood.) No,
wait, don't tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.
17) All of the animals boarded the ark "in the selfsame day" (Genesis
7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they
must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor
Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species
entered through the door and then get them all settled into their
proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies
could do as well!
18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with
fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come
from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a
massive flood in the geological record?
19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have
eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been
submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten?
Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New
World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after
the flood subsided?
20) Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God
(Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the
extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken
onto the ark. So why is it that we still have "clean" animals?
21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the
flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the
animals see it they will remember God's promise not to do it again
(Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the
refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were
rainbows billions of years before humans existed.
22) "The whole earth was of one language" (Genesis 11:1). But this
could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were
already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.
23) (Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many
human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9)
But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods
of time.
24) (Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive
relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan
did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that
Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?
25) Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having
goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked
baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed
that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what
the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable
belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
26) Camels don't divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is
completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a "camel toe" and how
it used to describe a specific split.
27) The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they
"chew the cud" but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares
and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud."
28) Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 &
Deuteronomy 14:11-18).
29) Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).
30) If there is a God, there is one thing we know for sure about him:
He really likes insects (particularly beetles). There are more
species of insects, by far, than all other species of life on earth.
As JBS Haldane said, "he has an inordinate fondness for beetles." Yet
insects are said to have four legs in Leviticus 11:22-23.
31) Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy
33:17.
32) Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do
and TO THIS DAY STILL inhabit certain cities.
.
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 12:39:38 PM |
|
|
Hi, Anna
Again, I will give you my personal opinion,...in this lonng post.;);
although, I agree with you that some things don't seem to match with what
the evolution theory teaches; however, a great part does seems to be in
accordance with the scientific data we have.There is also the position of
the evolution theory as such, not being without any problems of it's own in
understanding their data as well.
"Ugly Anna" <Tbone415@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m7ffe2p0kskv4dl936tpcqprgd152j8v87@4ax.com...
The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific
facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate
Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still
one of the world's leading religions, but it has spawned the most
insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the
inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All
the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy
what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events
that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before
light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and
flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the
true order of events was just the opposite.
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth. The mentioning
of heavens cannot be the atmosphere as this comes only later, on the second
Day.Therefore, It must be speaking of the heavenly bodies such as the sun
and stars. Also,since the earth is the focal point, to identify the heavens
"before" the earth could at least suggests that they were created before the
earth.
2) "And God said, Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) and ". . .And the
evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1 :5), versus
"And God said, 'Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night....' "And God made two lights; the
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also And the evening and morning were the fourth
day" (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light
cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be
distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians
try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering
the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is
the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying
to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
I agree, the light comes from the sun, however, I speculate it to mean not
the visual spectrum of light, but the high energy (frequency) part of the
spectrum,
responsible for the begetting of life. If we continue "And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Water, the
Spirit of God and light are all associated with life in scriptures.Light and
water and some other unknown element responsible for the informational
characteristic within the DNA(or RNA for the first lifeforms) molecule are
also idenitifed as being the
bedrock source of life according to science.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure,
which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from
the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been
quite an obstacle to our space program.
The earth in the beginning was saturated with water vapors, the reason being
as to why the visible spectrum of sunlight is unable to reach the earth. As
the earth
started to cool down, the water condensed, and, as scriptures said, "Let the
waters under the heaven was gathered together unto one place, and the dry
land appearred". So,now we have a separation of liquid water from the vapor
water(clouds).
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
I believe the Light mentioned on the first day was responsible for the
begetting of
the first lifeforms, which through photosynthesis was responsible for the
slow formation of a transparent atmosphere. Now, while the evolution theory
identify plant life as having been
observed to exist around 475 million years ago, about the same time period
as the fishes, being not in accordance with scriptures, I personally
question if this could be. The reasons being that first, the whole pre-life
young earth must have been saturated with water. If sea-life could have
evolved, why not those on land?Evolution speaks of bacterial plants 1.5
billions years ago as existing in oceans, lakes and "moist soil".So, why
couldn't life evolve on land at the same time as the lifeforms in the sea?
The lack of information could, in my opinion, be due to rock erosion due to
hostile climate. Also, the atmosphere 3 billion years ago became saturated
with O2 due to the process of photosynthesis. Now, if this has been created
only by sea lifeforms, for the atmosphere to become saturated with O2, the
oceans must first become oversaturated, and therefore releasing it's O2 to
the atmosphere. At the same time iron within the oceans also was being
oxidize by the free oxygen in the water creating iron ore. Some scientists
are questionning whether this could indeed be the case.For if lifeforms in
the oceans were not responsible for the O2 in the atmosphere 3 billion years
ago, then it must have been due to some "land" lifeforms,while the sea was
being saturated by the sea lifeforms. My third objection would be that
footprints of some type of creatures (550 years ago) on land have been
found, close to 1 million years before any evidence of land plant existance.
My "personal" impression is that land plant life must have been in existance
by then; my reasoning is due to limbs and organs (eyes ears) evolving for a
puposefull role. If the land was nothing by but a poisonous and harsh
environment, why would the animals venture to explore it? My answer would be
for food...the most powerful stimulie.
http://shrimp.anu.edu.au/people/jjb/news_frame.html
"These oceans existed 1.6 billion years ago, at a time when very little is
known today about the structure of the planet's seas - scientists debate
whether at this time the oceans became more oxygenated, in parallel with the
Earth's atmosphere, or whether they remained oxygen-starved, as isotopic
evidence suggests before 1.8 billion years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
This new oxygen enriched atmosphere would have created a transparent
atmosphere, (4th Day) and could have given rise to an explosion of new
lifeforms called the Cambrian period.
5) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind 'And the
evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:11-13), versus
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
(Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land
as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological
science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life
long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
Just because they have no evidence for land lifeforms to having been in
existance before life in the ocean does not imply that they must be right in
their deduction. It simply states that they have no evidence to claim
otherwise.
6) "And God said, 'Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from
water.
7) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so. And God made every thing that creepth upon the
earth after his kind " (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that
reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While
reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear
until the close of the Reptilian Age.
Again, very good point; but ,"every creatures that moves" along with birds,
"could" signify a movement from sea lifeforms to earth (and air) as
being identified, which, to me, would be remarkable. You are correct that,
once again, paleonthologist identify the birds as evolving from the
dinosaures (reptilian lifeform) and not fishes.I personally ask whether
there might not be an independant line from the fish directly responsible
for some bird evolution, though;
as we find within the flying fishes remarkable similarities with the birds
as well.If so, only time (and fossils) will tell.
As for the beginning of the sixth day "Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so. Let the "earth bring forth" , in my opinion
could
imply this: Once the water brought forth living creatures of which some
adapted to land, then,
such animals evolved into what scriptures would call "land animal", among
which are beasts cattles and "creeping things". These are not in a good
evolution order; however, I question whether the order truly matters in this
case? For the author mixes the order for what God says from what God does
when creating them.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it
was so." And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. " If we put it in order of "creeping
things first, then beasts, and then cattle",then, while I'm certain it's
still might not be "perfect" in the eyes of the current evolution theory,
who could honestly say to be capable of "knowing for certain" the true
order? The evolution theory base their theory with only the
data fossils they have at hand.
8) "So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he
them" (Genesis 1:27), and "the evening and the morning were the sixth
day" (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately
6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher's calculations), then nobody lived
before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the
genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of
Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had
lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than
9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus' ancestors had lived
to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the
earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according
to creationists.
Unless man in this case does not speak of Adam but a different type of
humanity. I will not get into this particular hypotheses, but will state
that scriptures seem to be claiming that Adam was created before there were
any plants or trees on earth.
Since the post is already too long, I will cut here, and say that I do agree
that there are many, many unanswered questions.My understanding is for us to
read the second story of Genesis in a spiritual light, since we speak of
Heaven(Paradise). The serpent is actually an angel, and so must be all of
the beasts which come to Adam. I am also cautious as to how I interpret the
writings concerning the anti-diluvian people, or the Adamic race up until
the great flood.. The Sumerian writings speak of similar characters as
having come from Heaven and living thousands of years. If they truly
existed,they certainly would have been regarded as gods among the earthly
humans(created on the 6th Day). If the Adamic race was different from the
human race, then they could have been the ones refered to as "sons of God
falling in love with the daughters of men, giving birth to a Giant race. As
for such a race to having been in existance, I personally don't see this as
an impossibility.Here is a link of such a belief .
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0a.htm.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernon there@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 12:19:39 PM |
|
|
"Scientific" facts which Anna is unaware of.
1. Light existed before any matter.
2. The earth was enveloped in a moisture "canopy" (All existing land masses
including both arcticas were dense foliage)
3. There was a time when no land mass existed above "sea level" (Tectonic
plates still moving).
4. The "earth" is not the world.
5. Quantum physics / mechanics explains a lot including "heavens" which is
not "up".
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:12eu20qmin9o6cb@corp.supernews.com...
Hi, Anna
Again, I will give you my personal opinion,...in this lonng post.;);
although, I agree with you that some things don't seem to match with what
the evolution theory teaches; however, a great part does seems to be in
accordance with the scientific data we have.There is also the position of
the evolution theory as such, not being without any problems of it's own
in
understanding their data as well.
"Ugly Anna" <Tbone415@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m7ffe2p0kskv4dl936tpcqprgd152j8v87@4ax.com...
The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific
facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate
Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still
one of the world's leading religions, but it has spawned the most
insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the
inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All
the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy
what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events
that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before
light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and
flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the
true order of events was just the opposite.
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth. The
mentioning
of heavens cannot be the atmosphere as this comes only later, on the
second
Day.Therefore, It must be speaking of the heavenly bodies such as the sun
and stars. Also,since the earth is the focal point, to identify the
heavens
"before" the earth could at least suggests that they were created before
the
earth.
2) "And God said, Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) and ". . .And the
evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1 :5), versus
"And God said, 'Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night....' "And God made two lights; the
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also And the evening and morning were the fourth
day" (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light
cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be
distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians
try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering
the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is
the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying
to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
I agree, the light comes from the sun, however, I speculate it to mean
not
the visual spectrum of light, but the high energy (frequency) part of the
spectrum,
responsible for the begetting of life. If we continue "And the Spirit of
God
moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Water, the
Spirit of God and light are all associated with life in scriptures.Light
and
water and some other unknown element responsible for the informational
characteristic within the DNA(or RNA for the first lifeforms) molecule are
also idenitifed as being the
bedrock source of life according to science.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure,
which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from
the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been
quite an obstacle to our space program.
The earth in the beginning was saturated with water vapors, the reason
being
as to why the visible spectrum of sunlight is unable to reach the earth.
As
the earth
started to cool down, the water condensed, and, as scriptures said, "Let
the
waters under the heaven was gathered together unto one place, and the dry
land appearred". So,now we have a separation of liquid water from the
vapor
water(clouds).
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
I believe the Light mentioned on the first day was responsible for the
begetting of
the first lifeforms, which through photosynthesis was responsible for the
slow formation of a transparent atmosphere. Now, while the evolution
theory
identify plant life as having been
observed to exist around 475 million years ago, about the same time period
as the fishes, being not in accordance with scriptures, I personally
question if this could be. The reasons being that first, the whole
pre-life
young earth must have been saturated with water. If sea-life could have
evolved, why not those on land?Evolution speaks of bacterial plants 1.5
billions years ago as existing in oceans, lakes and "moist soil".So, why
couldn't life evolve on land at the same time as the lifeforms in the sea?
The lack of information could, in my opinion, be due to rock erosion due
to
hostile climate. Also, the atmosphere 3 billion years ago became saturated
with O2 due to the process of photosynthesis. Now, if this has been
created
only by sea lifeforms, for the atmosphere to become saturated with O2, the
oceans must first become oversaturated, and therefore releasing it's O2 to
the atmosphere. At the same time iron within the oceans also was being
oxidize by the free oxygen in the water creating iron ore. Some scientists
are questionning whether this could indeed be the case.For if lifeforms in
the oceans were not responsible for the O2 in the atmosphere 3 billion
years
ago, then it must have been due to some "land" lifeforms,while the sea was
being saturated by the sea lifeforms. My third objection would be that
footprints of some type of creatures (550 years ago) on land have been
found, close to 1 million years before any evidence of land plant
existance.
My "personal" impression is that land plant life must have been in
existance
by then; my reasoning is due to limbs and organs (eyes ears) evolving for
a
puposefull role. If the land was nothing by but a poisonous and harsh
environment, why would the animals venture to explore it? My answer would
be
for food...the most powerful stimulie.
http://shrimp.anu.edu.au/people/jjb/news_frame.html
"These oceans existed 1.6 billion years ago, at a time when very little is
known today about the structure of the planet's seas - scientists debate
whether at this time the oceans became more oxygenated, in parallel with
the
Earth's atmosphere, or whether they remained oxygen-starved, as isotopic
evidence suggests before 1.8 billion years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
This new oxygen enriched atmosphere would have created a transparent
atmosphere, (4th Day) and could have given rise to an explosion of new
lifeforms called the Cambrian period.
5) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind 'And the
evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:11-13), versus
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
(Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land
as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological
science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life
long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
Just because they have no evidence for land lifeforms to having been in
existance before life in the ocean does not imply that they must be right
in
their deduction. It simply states that they have no evidence to claim
otherwise.
6) "And God said, 'Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from
water.
7) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so. And God made every thing that creepth upon the
earth after his kind " (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that
reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While
reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear
until the close of the Reptilian Age.
Again, very good point; but ,"every creatures that moves" along with
birds,
"could" signify a movement from sea lifeforms to earth (and air) as
being identified, which, to me, would be remarkable. You are correct that,
once again, paleonthologist identify the birds as evolving from the
dinosaures (reptilian lifeform) and not fishes.I personally ask whether
there might not be an independant line from the fish directly responsible
for some bird evolution, though;
as we find within the flying fishes remarkable similarities with the birds
as well.If so, only time (and fossils) will tell.
As for the beginning of the sixth day "Let the earth bring forth the
living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth
after his kind: and it was so. Let the "earth bring forth" , in my opinion
could
imply this: Once the water brought forth living creatures of which some
adapted to land, then,
such animals evolved into what scriptures would call "land animal", among
which are beasts cattles and "creeping things". These are not in a good
evolution order; however, I question whether the order truly matters in
this
case? For the author mixes the order for what God says from what God does
when creating them.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it
was so." And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. " If we put it in order of "creeping
things first, then beasts, and then cattle",then, while I'm certain it's
still might not be "perfect" in the eyes of the current evolution theory,
who could honestly say to be capable of "knowing for certain" the true
order? The evolution theory base their theory with only the
data fossils they have at hand.
8) "So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he
them" (Genesis 1:27), and "the evening and the morning were the sixth
day" (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately
6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher's calculations), then nobody lived
before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the
genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of
Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had
lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than
9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus' ancestors had lived
to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the
earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according
to creationists.
Unless man in this case does not speak of Adam but a different type of
humanity. I will not get into this particular hypotheses, but will state
that scriptures seem to be claiming that Adam was created before there
were
any plants or trees on earth.
Since the post is already too long, I will cut here, and say that I do
agree
that there are many, many unanswered questions.My understanding is for us
to
read the second story of Genesis in a spiritual light, since we speak of
Heaven(Paradise). The serpent is actually an angel, and so must be all of
the beasts which come to Adam. I am also cautious as to how I interpret
the
writings concerning the anti-diluvian people, or the Adamic race up until
the great flood.. The Sumerian writings speak of similar characters as
having come from Heaven and living thousands of years. If they truly
existed,they certainly would have been regarded as gods among the earthly
humans(created on the 6th Day). If the Adamic race was different from the
human race, then they could have been the ones refered to as "sons of God
falling in love with the daughters of men, giving birth to a Giant race.
As
for such a race to having been in existance, I personally don't see this
as
an impossibility.Here is a link of such a belief .
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0a.htm.
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 01:10:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:39 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Vernon"
<there@athere> in <44ef311f$0$23853$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>
wrote:
"Scientific" facts which Anna is unaware of.
1. Light existed before any matter.
2. The earth was enveloped in a moisture "canopy" (All existing land masses
including both arcticas were dense foliage)
You must have a meaning of "fact" that I am unaware of. Other than
Scientific Creationist nonsense I have not seen this "fact" supported.
3. There was a time when no land mass existed above "sea level" (Tectonic
plates still moving).
Huh? As long as the Earth has been cool enough for liquid water there
has been oceans. The plates were moving 3 billion years ago and are
moving today.
4. The "earth" is not the world.
Huh?
5. Quantum physics / mechanics explains a lot including "heavens" which is
not "up".
Please then explain this to me because I don't know of any way to
connect QM with Shamayim.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
27 Aug 2006 05:55:28 PM |
|
|
Vernon wrote:
"Scientific" facts which Anna is unaware of.
1. Light existed before any matter.
2. The earth was enveloped in a moisture "canopy" (All existing land
masses including both arcticas were dense foliage)
No moisture canopy.
3. There was a time when no land mass existed above "sea level" (Tectonic
plates still moving).
They did so from earliest known times.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Stoll" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 10:09:21 AM |
|
|
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
news:12eu20qmin9o6cb@corp.supernews.com...
Hi, Anna
Again, I will give you my personal opinion,...in this lonng post.;);
although, I agree with you that some things don't seem to match with what
the evolution theory teaches; however, a great part does seems to be in
accordance with the scientific data we have.There is also the position of
the evolution theory as such, not being without any problems of it's own
in
understanding their data as well.
"Ugly Anna" <Tbone415@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m7ffe2p0kskv4dl936tpcqprgd152j8v87@4ax.com...
The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific
facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate
Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still
one of the world's leading religions, but it has spawned the most
insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the
inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All
the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy
what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events
that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before
light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and
flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the
true order of events was just the opposite.
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth. The
mentioning
of heavens cannot be the atmosphere as this comes only later, on the
second
Day.Therefore, It must be speaking of the heavenly bodies such as the sun
and stars. Also,since the earth is the focal point, to identify the
heavens
"before" the earth could at least suggests that they were created before
the
earth.
2) "And God said, Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) and ". . .And the
evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1 :5), versus
"And God said, 'Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night....' "And God made two lights; the
greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:
he made the stars also And the evening and morning were the fourth
day" (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light
cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be
distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians
try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering
the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is
the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying
to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
I agree, the light comes from the sun, however, I speculate it to mean
not
the visual spectrum of light, but the high energy (frequency) part of the
spectrum,
responsible for the begetting of life. If we continue "And the Spirit of
God
moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Water, the
Spirit of God and light are all associated with life in scriptures.Light
and
water and some other unknown element responsible for the informational
characteristic within the DNA(or RNA for the first lifeforms) molecule are
also idenitifed as being the
bedrock source of life according to science.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day)
working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure,
which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from
the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been
quite an obstacle to our space program.
The earth in the beginning was saturated with water vapors, the reason
being
as to why the visible spectrum of sunlight is unable to reach the earth.
As
the earth
started to cool down, the water condensed, and, as scriptures said, "Let
the
waters under the heaven was gathered together unto one place, and the dry
land appearred". So,now we have a separation of liquid water from the
vapor
water(clouds).
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
I believe the Light mentioned on the first day was responsible for the
begetting of
the first lifeforms, which through photosynthesis was responsible for the
slow formation of a transparent atmosphere. Now, while the evolution
theory
identify plant life as having been
observed to exist around 475 million years ago, about the same time period
as the fishes, being not in accordance with scriptures, I personally
question if this could be. The reasons being that first, the whole
pre-life
young earth must have been saturated with water. If sea-life could have
evolved, why not those on land?Evolution speaks of bacterial plants 1.5
billions years ago as existing in oceans, lakes and "moist soil".So, why
couldn't life evolve on land at the same time as the lifeforms in the sea?
The lack of information could, in my opinion, be due to rock erosion due
to
hostile climate. Also, the atmosphere 3 billion years ago became saturated
with O2 due to the process of photosynthesis. Now, if this has been
created
only by sea lifeforms, for the atmosphere to become saturated with O2, the
oceans must first become oversaturated, and therefore releasing it's O2 to
the atmosphere. At the same time iron within the oceans also was being
oxidize by the free oxygen in the water creating iron ore. Some scientists
are questionning whether this could indeed be the case.For if lifeforms in
the oceans were not responsible for the O2 in the atmosphere 3 billion
years
ago, then it must have been due to some "land" lifeforms,while the sea was
being saturated by the sea lifeforms. My third objection would be that
footprints of some type of creatures (550 years ago) on land have been
found, close to 1 million years before any evidence of land plant
existance.
My "personal" impression is that land plant life must have been in
existance
by then; my reasoning is due to limbs and organs (eyes ears) evolving for
a
puposefull role. If the land was nothing by but a poisonous and harsh
environment, why would the animals venture to explore it? My answer would
be
for food...the most powerful stimulie.
http://shrimp.anu.edu.au/people/jjb/news_frame.html
"These oceans existed 1.6 billion years ago, at a time when very little is
known today about the structure of the planet's seas - scientists debate
whether at this time the oceans became more oxygenated, in parallel with
the
Earth's atmosphere, or whether they remained oxygen-starved, as isotopic
evidence suggests before 1.8 billion years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
This new oxygen enriched atmosphere would have created a transparent
atmosphere, (4th Day) and could have given rise to an explosion of new
lifeforms called the Cambrian period.
5) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind 'And the
evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:11-13), versus
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
(Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land
as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological
science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life
long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
Just because they have no evidence for land lifeforms to having been in
existance before life in the ocean does not imply that they must be right
in
their deduction. It simply states that they have no evidence to claim
otherwise.
6) "And God said, 'Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from
water.
7) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so. And God made every thing that creepth upon the
earth after his kind " (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that
reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While
reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear
until the close of the Reptilian Age.
Again, very good point; but ,"every creatures that moves" along with
birds,
"could" signify a movement from sea lifeforms to earth (and air) as
being identified, which, to me, would be remarkable. You are correct that,
once again, paleonthologist identify the birds as evolving from the
dinosaures (reptilian lifeform) and not fishes.I personally ask whether
there might not be an independant line from the fish directly responsible
for some bird evolution, though;
as we find within the flying fishes remarkable similarities with the birds
as well.If so, only time (and fossils) will tell.
As for the beginning of the sixth day "Let the earth bring forth the
living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth
after his kind: and it was so. Let the "earth bring forth" , in my opinion
could
imply this: Once the water brought forth living creatures of which some
adapted to land, then,
such animals evolved into what scriptures would call "land animal", among
which are beasts cattles and "creeping things". These are not in a good
evolution order; however, I question whether the order truly matters in
this
case? For the author mixes the order for what God says from what God does
when creating them.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it
was so." And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. " If we put it in order of "creeping
things first, then beasts, and then cattle",then, while I'm certain it's
still might not be "perfect" in the eyes of the current evolution theory,
who could honestly say to be capable of "knowing for certain" the true
order? The evolution theory base their theory with only the
data fossils they have at hand.
8) "So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he
them" (Genesis 1:27), and "the evening and the morning were the sixth
day" (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately
6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher's calculations), then nobody lived
before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the
genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of
Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had
lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than
9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus' ancestors had lived
to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the
earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according
to creationists.
Unless man in this case does not speak of Adam but a different type of
humanity. I will not get into this particular hypotheses, but will state
that scriptures seem to be claiming that Adam was created before there
were
any plants or trees on earth.
Since the post is already too long, I will cut here, and say that I do
agree
that there are many, many unanswered questions.My understanding is for us
to
read the second story of Genesis in a spiritual light, since we speak of
Heaven(Paradise). The serpent is actually an angel, and so must be all of
the beasts which come to Adam. I am also cautious as to how I interpret
the
writings concerning the anti-diluvian people, or the Adamic race up until
the great flood.. The Sumerian writings speak of similar characters as
having come from Heaven and living thousands of years. If they truly
existed,they certainly would have been regarded as gods among the earthly
humans(created on the 6th Day). If the Adamic race was different from the
human race, then they could have been the ones refered to as "sons of God
falling in love with the daughters of men, giving birth to a Giant race.
As
for such a race to having been in existance, I personally don't see this
as
an impossibility.Here is a link of such a belief .
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0a.htm.
Andre
It is truly amazing to what absurd degrees some people will go to
rationalize their mythology as real truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernon there@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 12:21:44 PM |
|
|
"Jon Stoll" <jstoll1@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BoEHg.70263$zg.32072@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
It is truly amazing to what absurd degrees some people will go to
rationalize their mythology as real truth.
It's not very amazing that someone with zero science knowledge makes a
comment, such as yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Stoll" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 04:16:09 PM |
|
|
"Vernon" <there@athere> wrote in message
news:44ef319b$0$23932$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"Jon Stoll" <jstoll1@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BoEHg.70263$zg.32072@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
It is truly amazing to what absurd degrees some people will go to
rationalize their mythology as real truth.
It's not very amazing that someone with zero science knowledge makes a
comment, such as yourself.
Since when do you get scientific knowledge out of a book of mythology?
Moron!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vernon there@athere" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 07:22:37 PM |
|
|
"Jon Stoll" <jstoll1@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tMJHg.33851$eL2.3818@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Vernon" <there@athere> wrote in message
news:44ef319b$0$23932$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"Jon Stoll" <jstoll1@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BoEHg.70263$zg.32072@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
It is truly amazing to what absurd degrees some people will go to
rationalize their mythology as real truth.
It's not very amazing that someone with zero science knowledge makes a
comment, such as yourself.
Since when do you get scientific knowledge out of a book of mythology?
Moron!
Hey idiot.
What is your primary language?
I referred to scientific comments.
Both of you are retarded.
I made no reference to any book.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 01:27:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:39:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "mich"
<mich@efni.com> in <12eu20qmin9o6cb@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
Hi, Anna
Again, I will give you my personal opinion,...in this lonng post.;);
although, I agree with you that some things don't seem to match with what
the evolution theory teaches;
If you see Genesis as a literal description then it does not match
what modern cosmology, astronomy, geology, or biology teaches. There
is far more to modern science than evolution theory.
however, a great part does seems to be in
accordance with the scientific data we have.
"In accordance with" sounds like a way to avoid detail. The literal
story conflicts with what science has shown us.
There is also the position of
the evolution theory as such, not being without any problems of it's own in
understanding their data as well.
A nice way of implying something without saying anything. Sure there
are "problems", all active areas of science has problems. The people
working on those problems are call biologists. They publish lots and
lots of stuff solving those problems and coming up with new ones. That
is how science works. Did you mean to imply something else?
[snip]
I agree, the light comes from the sun, however, I speculate it to mean not
the visual spectrum of light, but the high energy (frequency) part of the
spectrum,
Well light and high energy radiation existed before the Earth and
before the Sun. Our sun is a second generation star and is about 10
billion years younger than the Universe.
responsible for the begetting of life. If we continue "And the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Water, the
Spirit of God and light are all associated with life in scriptures.
Actually light is not particularly associated with life. With God,
sure, but not with life.
Light and
water and some other unknown element responsible for the informational
characteristic within the DNA(or RNA for the first lifeforms) molecule are
also idenitifed as being the
bedrock source of life according to science.
We know of lots of elements including all of the ones used by living
beings (and so all of the ones that are part of DNA).
[snip]
The earth in the beginning was saturated with water vapors, the reason being
as to why the visible spectrum of sunlight is unable to reach the earth.
The only people who say this are creationists who try to make Genesis
work as a scientific account. There is no evidence at all for such a
canopy and lots of evidence it could not exist. Here is one bit: the
water has the same weight whether it is vapor or liquid. Suspend the
water in the air and it still pushed down on the surface. It would be
like having several feet of water on you.
As
the earth
started to cool down, the water condensed, and, as scriptures said, "Let the
waters under the heaven was gathered together unto one place, and the dry
land appearred". So,now we have a separation of liquid water from the vapor
water(clouds).
This is not what science says.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
I believe the Light mentioned on the first day was responsible for the
begetting of
the first lifeforms,
You may well believe that, but it is not in the Bible.
which through photosynthesis was responsible for the
slow formation of a transparent atmosphere. Now, while the evolution theory
identify plant life as having been
observed to exist around 475 million years ago, about the same time period
as the fishes,
Land plants, all land life, comes after ocean life.
being not in accordance with scriptures, I personally
question if this could be. The reasons being that first, the whole pre-life
young earth must have been saturated with water.
What do you mean "saturated"? That has a scientific meaning that does
not work here.
If sea-life could have
evolved, why not those on land?
Two things. First, there is no evidence for land life for a very long
time after the evidence for ocean life. Second, most ocean life *dies*
out of the ocean.
Evolution speaks of bacterial plants 1.5
billions years ago as existing in oceans, lakes and "moist soil".So, why
couldn't life evolve on land at the same time as the lifeforms in the sea?
Because it has not gotten there then.
The lack of information could, in my opinion, be due to rock erosion due to
hostile climate. Also, the atmosphere 3 billion years ago became saturated
with O2 due to the process of photosynthesis. Now, if this has been created
only by sea lifeforms, for the atmosphere to become saturated with O2, the
oceans must first become oversaturated, and therefore releasing it's O2 to
the atmosphere. At the same time iron within the oceans also was being
oxidize by the free oxygen in the water creating iron ore. Some scientists
are questionning whether this could indeed be the case.
Which scientists?
For if lifeforms in
the oceans were not responsible for the O2 in the atmosphere 3 billion years
ago, then it must have been due to some "land" lifeforms,while the sea was
being saturated by the sea lifeforms. My third objection would be that
footprints of some type of creatures (550 years ago) on land have been
found, close to 1 million years before any evidence of land plant existance.
That there was land animals before land plants does not mean that
there was land life before ocean life.
My "personal" impression is that land plant life must have been in existance
by then; my reasoning is due to limbs and organs (eyes ears) evolving for a
puposefull role.
Which has little to do with there being plants there.
If the land was nothing by but a poisonous and harsh
environment, why would the animals venture to explore it? My answer would be
for food...the most powerful stimulie.
A nice *idea*, but ideas require evidence. They could also have gone
as a refuge from predators, also a powerful incentive.
[snip]
5) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind 'And the
evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:11-13), versus
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
(Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land
as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological
science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life
long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
Just because they have no evidence for land lifeforms to having been in
existance before life in the ocean does not imply that they must be right in
their deduction. It simply states that they have no evidence to claim
otherwise.
We do know that *flowers* evolved long after other land plants and
long after land animals.
[snip]
Again, very good point; but ,"every creatures that moves" along with birds,
"could" signify a movement from sea lifeforms to earth (and air) as
being identified, which, to me, would be remarkable. You are correct that,
once again, paleonthologist identify the birds as evolving from the
dinosaures (reptilian lifeform) and not fishes.I personally ask whether
there might not be an independant line from the fish directly responsible
for some bird evolution, though;
There is no evidence for it and lots and lots for bird evolving from
dinosaurs. That you want something to be true does not make it true.
as we find within the flying fishes remarkable similarities with the birds
as well.
Only superficially. Bats are far more like birds than flying fish are.
(Flying fish, for example, do not flap their wings. Or lay hard
shelled eggs.)
[snip]
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it
was so." And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. " If we put it in order of "creeping
things first, then beasts, and then cattle",then, while I'm certain it's
still might not be "perfect" in the eyes of the current evolution theory,
who could honestly say to be capable of "knowing for certain" the true
order? The evolution theory base their theory with only the
data fossils they have at hand.
Whereas you have absolutely no evidence. On the one hand we have
millions of pieces of evidence, on the other nothing. Which is the way
to bet? I have no evidence that you are a purple hippopotamus, but
should I let that stop me? (In case you are uncertain, my answer is
yes, I should let that stop me.)
[snip]
Since the post is already too long, I will cut here, and say that I do agree
that there are many, many unanswered questions.My understanding is for us to
read the second story of Genesis in a spiritual light, since we speak of
Heaven(Paradise).
And the first as well. Genesis 1 explains that about God. God is not
the ocean, is not the Earth, etc. It distinguished the God of the Jews
from the Babylonian Gods.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "mich" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 11:38:03 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:29fue2pur0k3ho56hi0j36m9rfb6t22n5h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:39:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "mich"
<mich@efni.com> in <12eu20qmin9o6cb@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
If you see Genesis as a literal description then it does not match
what modern cosmology, astronomy, geology, or biology teaches. There
is far more to modern science than evolution theory.
You might very well be correct. However, I find it hard to think the first
creation story was meant to be written in order to
give us spiritual image of the earth....it might very well be, but I just
don't see it. The second creation story is a different matter. Paradise, for
example, according to Enoch, Jesus and St-Paul is said to still exist and is
clearly identified as being a spiritual place.
however, a great part does seems to be in
accordance with the scientific data we have.
"In accordance with" sounds like a way to avoid detail. The literal
story conflicts with what science has shown us.
Well, there are no "details" to talk of in the creation story. :)
There is also the position of
the evolution theory as such, not being without any problems of it's own
in
understanding their data as well.
A nice way of implying something without saying anything. Sure there
are "problems", all active areas of science has problems. The people
working on those problems are call biologists. They publish lots and
lots of stuff solving those problems and coming up with new ones. That
is how science works. Did you mean to imply something else?
I am just implying that even if the creation story isn't in accord with the
evolution theory, it doesn't mean that the creation story "must" be
erronious. The evolution theory is still very much a theory and can
certainly have errors in it's interpretation of the data at hand...that's
all I'm saying.
[snip]
I agree, the light comes from the sun, however, I speculate it to mean
not
the visual spectrum of light, but the high energy (frequency) part of the
spectrum,
Well light and high energy radiation existed before the Earth and
before the Sun. Our sun is a second generation star and is about 10
billion years younger than the Universe.
However, the statement "let there be light" comes after the creation of the
earth and the heavens(sun stars..) The light would, in my opinion be the
sun's light, which I believe the latter to be responsible for the genesis of
life.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article492.html
Many scientists say that life's origin most likely occurred in places
sheltered from UV light, such as the hydrothermal vents deep under the sea.
But a new study, published in BioMed Central journal Evolutionary Biology,
says rather than hinder the origin of life, UV rays helped and may even have
been a necessary ingredient for life's formation.
Armen Mulkidjanian, with his colleagues from Osnabrück University, Germany
and the National Institutes of Health, USA, used computer models to test
RNA's ability to form from sugar, phosphates, and nitrogenous bases in the
presence of high levels of UV light.
----------------------------------------------------
responsible for the begetting of life. If we continue "And the Spirit of
God
moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Water,
the
Spirit of God and light are all associated with life in scriptures.
Actually light is not particularly associated with life. With God,
sure, but not with life.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 3:1-5 "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Light and
water and some other unknown element responsible for the informational
characteristic within the DNA(or RNA for the first lifeforms) molecule
are
also idenitifed as being the
bedrock source of life according to science.
We know of lots of elements including all of the ones used by living
beings (and so all of the ones that are part of DNA).
True, however, the element for the dynamics behind the informational genetic
code is a mystery, that of which I personally identify as what the
scriptures would call the Spirit of God.
http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/Ch3E4.htm
The genetic code is not randomly assigned. If an amino acid is coded by
several codons, they often share the same sequence in the first two
positions and differ in the third position. Such assignment is accomplished
by the design of wobble position, but
....."the evolutionary dynamic that shaped the code remains a mystery".
---------------------------------------------------
The earth in the beginning was saturated with water vapors, the reason
being
as to why the visible spectrum of sunlight is unable to reach the earth.
The only people who say this are creationists who try to make Genesis
work as a scientific account. There is no evidence at all for such a
canopy and lots of evidence it could not exist. Here is one bit: the
water has the same weight whether it is vapor or liquid. Suspend the
water in the air and it still pushed down on the surface. It would be
like having several feet of water on you.
http://www.ozh2o.com/h2origin3.html
Primitive Atmosphere - Soon after the Planet formed
4.5 Billion Years ago
The first atmosphere on the hot molten sphere contained hydrogen,
helium, methane and water.
The Hydrogen and Helium molecules were too light to be retained and were
lost into space.
The surface was hot and unstable. There were none of the modern features
on earth such as
the crust, oceans or atmosphere.
Second Atmosphere formed out gassing of volcanoes once the crust
stabilized
4.0 - 3.5 Billion Years ago
This was a period of intense volcanic activity after the crust
stabilized and the primitive
oceans began to form. Presumably the atmosphere at this time mirrors the
composition of
gases released from modern volcanoes.
Water, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen were dominant, with sulphur dioxide,
carbon monoxide,
ammonia, methane and hydrochloric acid also present. As the earth cooled
the water vapour
condensed to form the first oceans, which may have formed in episodes
due to the
bombardment from meteorites, comets, etc.
-------------------------------------------
This does not come from creationist literature.
As
the earth
started to cool down, the water condensed, and, as scriptures said, "Let
the
waters under the heaven was gathered together unto one place, and the dry
land appearred". So,now we have a separation of liquid water from the
vapor
water(clouds).
This is not what science says.
see above link.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
I believe the Light mentioned on the first day was responsible for the
begetting of
the first lifeforms,
You may well believe that, but it is not in the Bible.
I respect your belief, but for myself, there is enough emphasis on the
elements of water and Spirit of God, as being sources of life and light as
being synonymous to life.
which through photosynthesis was responsible for the
slow formation of a transparent atmosphere. Now, while the evolution
theory
identify plant life as having been
observed to exist around 475 million years ago, about the same time
period
as the fishes,
Land plants, all land life, comes after ocean life.
yes, according to the evolution theory, I agree. and the creation story does
seem to be in disagreement in this case.But it doesn't necessarily mean that
scriptures "must" be the one in error.
being not in accordance with scriptures, I personally
question if this could be. The reasons being that first, the whole
pre-life
young earth must have been saturated with water.
What do you mean "saturated"? That has a scientific meaning that does
not work here.
I don't know...maybe saturated isn't a proper word I should use; I meant to
say that water vapor existed everywhere on earth to the point that no
atmosphere existed.
If sea-life could have
evolved, why not those on land?
Two things. First, there is no evidence for land life for a very long
time after the evidence for ocean life. Second, most ocean life *dies*
out of the ocean.
Your first comment, I agree with; but only in the fact that "no data" "yet"
exists to support land life existing side by side (timewise)with the sea
lifeforms.As for the second comment,I just would simply imply an adaptation
was made to a different environment. In other words it doesn't have to be
oceanlife if it didn't start in the ocean.:) My point was simply that it
could have started at the same time.
Evolution speaks of bacterial plants 1.5
billions years ago as existing in oceans, lakes and "moist soil".So, why
couldn't life evolve on land at the same time as the lifeforms in the
sea?
Because it has not gotten there then.
Yes, it was indeed found in "moist soil". So if bacterial plants was found
from soil sample of 1.5 billion years old,which it was, I find it hard to
believe, personally, that it didn't continue to evolve. I find it hard to
believe that no land lifeforms is believed to have existed until 475 million
years ago, that is 1 billion years after bacterial plants can be said to
have existed.
The lack of information could, in my opinion, be due to rock erosion due
to
hostile climate. Also, the atmosphere 3 billion years ago became
saturated
with O2 due to the process of photosynthesis. Now, if this has been
created
only by sea lifeforms, for the atmosphere to become saturated with O2,
the
oceans must first become oversaturated, and therefore releasing it's O2
to
the atmosphere. At the same time iron within the oceans also was being
oxidize by the free oxygen in the water creating iron ore. Some
scientists
are questionning whether this could indeed be the case.
Which scientists?
http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Hedges8-2001.htm
The researchers found that land plants had evolved on Earth by about 700
million years ago and land fungi by about 1,300 million years ago--much
earlier than previous estimates of around 480 million years ago, which were
based on the earliest fossils of those organisms. Prior to this study, it
was believed that Earth's landscape at that time was covered with barren
rocks harboring nothing more than some bacteria and possibly some algae. No
undisputed fossils of the earliest land plants and fungi have been found in
rocks formed during the Precambrian period, says Hedges, possibly because
their primitive bodies were too soft to turn into fossils.
------------------------------------
For if lifeforms in
the oceans were not responsible for the O2 in the atmosphere 3 billion
years
ago, then it must have been due to some "land" lifeforms,while the sea
was
being saturated by the sea lifeforms. My third objection would be that
footprints of some type of creatures (550 years ago) on land have been
found, close to 1 million years before any evidence of land plant
existance.
That there was land animals before land plants does not mean that
there was land life before ocean life.
My "personal" impression is that land plant life must have been in
existance
by then; my reasoning is due to limbs and organs (eyes ears) evolving for
a
puposefull role.
Which has little to do with there being plants there.
If the land was nothing by but a poisonous and harsh
environment, why would the animals venture to explore it? My answer would
be
for food...the most powerful stimulie.
A nice *idea*, but ideas require evidence. They could also have gone
as a refuge from predators, also a powerful incentive.
True.
[snip]
5) "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind 'And the
evening and the morning were the third day" (Genesis 1:11-13), versus
"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life And God created - great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly And the evening and the morning were the fifth day"
(Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land
as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological
science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life
long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
Just because they have no evidence for land lifeforms to having been in
existance before life in the ocean does not imply that they must be right
in
their deduction. It simply states that they have no evidence to claim
otherwise.
We do know that *flowers* evolved long after other land plants and
long after land animals.
[snip]
Again, very good point; but ,"every creatures that moves" along with
birds,
"could" signify a movement from sea lifeforms to earth (and air) as
being identified, which, to me, would be remarkable. You are correct
that,
once again, paleonthologist identify the birds as evolving from the
dinosaures (reptilian lifeform) and not fishes.I personally ask whether
there might not be an independant line from the fish directly responsible
for some bird evolution, though;
There is no evidence for it and lots and lots for bird evolving from
dinosaurs. That you want something to be true does not make it true.
I agree; and I'm properbly grasping at straws here; it's just a thought; but
bird evolution is still not understood very well.
As for some birds evolving from dinosaures, such as the archaopteryx,I have
no problems with. I was just thinking of a type of bird wich might have
evolved more directly from the fish, and have existed during the reptilian
age.
http://www.creationists.org/chapter4.html
Feduccia and Martin reject the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs, with
good reason. But they are unwilling to abandon evolution, so instead they
believe that birds evolved from reptiles called crocodilomorphs. They
propose these small, crocodile-like reptiles lived in trees, and "initially
leapt, then glided from perch to perch." (18)
------------------------------------------------
as we find within the flying fishes remarkable similarities with the
birds
as well.
Only superficially. Bats are far more like birds than flying fish are.
(Flying fish, for example, do not flap their wings. Or lay hard
shelled eggs.)
[snip]
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind,
cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it
was so." And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. " If we put it in order of "creeping
things first, then beasts, and then cattle",then, while I'm certain it's
still might not be "perfect" in the eyes of the current evolution theory,
who could honestly say to be capable of "knowing for certain" the true
order? The evolution theory base their theory with only the
data fossils they have at hand.
Whereas you have absolutely no evidence. On the one hand we have
millions of pieces of evidence, on the other nothing. Which is the way
to bet? I have no evidence that you are a purple hippopotamus, but
should I let that stop me? (In case you are uncertain, my answer is
yes, I should let that stop me.)
[snip]
Since the post is already too long, I will cut here, and say that I do
agree
that there are many, many unanswered questions.My understanding is for us
to
read the second story of Genesis in a spiritual light, since we speak of
Heaven(Paradise).
And the first as well. Genesis 1 explains that about God. God is not
the ocean, is not the Earth, etc. It distinguished the God of the Jews
from the Babylonian Gods.
But God in the process of creating the earth. How do you interpret the
creation as such? I understand that you read it to be
full of symbolism; but, in what way?For the whole story to mean that God is
not the ocean, nor the earth, is grasping at straws as much as what I'm
doing, don't you think,Matt? Do you believe in Paradise as being real in
essence? I do; however, this, is consider spiritual in essence.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Andre
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Absurd Science" - (Repost) |
25 Aug 2006 09:53:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , "mich"
<mich@efni.com> in <12ev8j87lld3hcb@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:29fue2pur0k3ho56hi0j36m9rfb6t22n5h@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:39:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "mich"
<mich@efni.com> in <12eu20qmin9o6cb@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
If you see Genesis as a literal description then it does not match
what modern cosmology, astronomy, geology, or biology teaches. There
is far more to modern science than evolution theory.
You might very well be correct. However, I find it hard to think the first
creation story was meant to be written in order to
give us spiritual image of the earth....it might very well be, but I just
don't see it. The second creation story is a different matter. Paradise, for
example, according to Enoch, Jesus and St-Paul is said to still exist and is
clearly identified as being a spiritual place.
I wonder if this comment is in the wrong place. Anyway, I will repeat:
Geneis 1, read as a literal description of events, contradicts what we
have learned from several areas of science, not simply evolution. As
for you point, ISTM that Genesis 1 is laying out has YHVH differs from
the Bablyonian gods. It asserts that he created the Sky, Water, etc.,
he is not any of those things.
however, a great part does seems to be in
accordance with the scientific data we have.
"In accordance with" sounds like a way to avoid detail. The literal
story conflicts with what science has shown us.
Well, there are no "details" to talk of in the creation story. :)
There is also the position of
the evolution theory as such, not being without any problems of it's own
in
understanding their data as well.
A nice way of implying something without saying anything. Sure there
are "problems", all active areas of science has problems. The people
working on those problems are call biologists. They publish lots and
lots of stuff solving those problems and coming up with new ones. That
is how science works. Did you mean to imply something else?
I am just implying that even if the creation story isn't in accord with the
evolution theory, it doesn't mean that the creation story "must" be
erronious. The evolution theory is still very much a theory and can
certainly have errors in it's interpretation of the data at hand...that's
all I'm saying.
And it is misleading at best. First, it is not "still very much a
theory", theory is, in many ways, the *top* in science. Theory does
not mean tentative, a scientific theory is a parsimonious predictive
explanatory model. Theories are what you get when you have lots of
evidence you can explain. Newton's theory of physics stood for
hundreds of years and was subsumed by Relativity. Evolution theory is
supported by millions of experiments and data from a wide variety of
sources. It is very unlikely to be refuted. And even more unlikely to
be refuted in favor of some sort of creationism. Creationism was
accepted science 200 years ago, but all of the evidence contradicted
it. If we end up rejecting our current theories it we be because some
even better one comes along, not because we decide to go back to
something already refuted.
[snip]
I agree, the light comes from the sun, however, I speculate it to mean
not
the visual spectrum of light, but the high energy (frequency) part of the
spectrum,
Well light and high energy radiation existed before the Earth and
before the Sun. Our sun is a second generation star and is about 10
billion years younger than the Universe.
However, the statement "let there be light" comes after the creation of the
earth and the heavens(sun stars..) The light would, in my opinion be the
sun's light, which I believe the latter to be responsible for the genesis of
life.
You are having to read ("I believe") lots of stuff into something to
make it a descriptive account. If God wanted to describe a series of
event he could have made it clearer.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article492.html
Many scientists say that life's origin most likely occurred in places
sheltered from UV light, such as the hydrothermal vents deep under the sea.
But a new study, published in BioMed Central journal Evolutionary Biology,
says rather than hinder the origin of life, UV rays helped and may even have
been a necessary ingredient for life's formation.
Armen Mulkidjanian, with his colleagues from Osnabrück University, Germany
and the National Institutes of Health, USA, used computer models to test
RNA's ability to form from sugar, phosphates, and nitrogenous bases in the
presence of high levels of UV light.
What is your point? That light is important? Sure. But to refute you
yet again the Sun gave off light before the Earth was formed.
----------------------------------------------------
responsible for the begetting of life. If we continue "And the Spirit of
God
moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Water,
the
Spirit of God and light are all associated with life in scriptures.
Actually light is not particularly associated with life. With God,
sure, but not with life.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 3:1-5 "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
The first is metaphor. And was written long after the Torah and by
people with a very different view. Life in the Torah is associated
with blood and breath. That which has those has importance, that which
does not has little importance. Animals that breath and bleed can be
clean or unclean (and to eat blood makes one unclean), living things
which do neither are always clean. (Clean/unclean really means
allowed/forbidden.)
Light and
water and some other unknown element responsible for the informational
characteristic within the DNA(or RNA for the first lifeforms) molecule
are
also idenitifed as being the
bedrock source of life according to science.
We know of lots of elements including all of the ones used by living
beings (and so all of the ones that are part of DNA).
True, however, the element for the dynamics behind the informational genetic
code is a mystery, that of which I personally identify as what the
scriptures would call the Spirit of God.
Excepting that there is no such "element" unless you want to change
the meaning of the term "element". And we know lots of how DNA works,
we don't need to assert any "spirit of God".
http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/Ch3E4.htm
The genetic code is not randomly assigned. If an amino acid is coded by
several codons, they often share the same sequence in the first two
positions and differ in the third position. Such assignment is accomplished
by the design of wobble position, but
...."the evolutionary dynamic that shaped the code remains a mystery".
So?
The earth in the beginning was saturated with water vapors, the reason
being
as to why the visible spectrum of sunlight is unable to reach the earth.
The only people who say this are creationists who try to make Genesis
work as a scientific account. There is no evidence at all for such a
canopy and lots of evidence it could not exist. Here is one bit: the
water has the same weight whether it is vapor or liquid. Suspend the
water in the air and it still pushed down on the surface. It would be
like having several feet of water on you.
http://www.ozh2o.com/h2origin3.html
Primitive Atmosphere - Soon after the Planet formed
4.5 Billion Years ago
The first atmosphere on the hot molten sphere contained hydrogen,
helium, methane and water.
The Hydrogen and Helium molecules were too light to be retained and were
lost into space.
The surface was hot and unstable. There were none of the modern features
on earth such as
the crust, oceans or atmosphere.
Yes, when the surface was too *hot* there were no oceans.
Second Atmosphere formed out gassing of volcanoes once the crust
stabilized
4.0 - 3.5 Billion Years ago
This was a period of intense volcanic activity after the crust
stabilized and the primitive
oceans began to form. Presumably the atmosphere at this time mirrors the
composition of
gases released from modern volcanoes.
Yes, when it cooled water pooled. Nothing to do with plate movement.
Water, Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen were dominant, with sulphur dioxide,
carbon monoxide,
ammonia, methane and hydrochloric acid also present. As the earth cooled
the water vapour
condensed to form the first oceans, which may have formed in episodes
due to the
bombardment from meteorites, comets, etc.
-------------------------------------------
This does not come from creationist literature.
And it does not support you claim and it does not fit the Biblical
view.
As
the earth
started to cool down, the water condensed, and, as scriptures said, "Let
the
waters under the heaven was gathered together unto one place, and the dry
land appearred". So,now we have a separation of liquid water from the
vapor
water(clouds).
This is not what science says.
see above link.
I did. I don't see it gathering in one place.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a
sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
I believe the Light mentioned on the first day was responsible for the
begetting of
the first lifeforms,
You may well believe that, but it is not in the Bible.
I respect your belief, but for myself, there is enough emphasis on the
elements of water and Spirit of God, as being sources of life and light as
being synonymous to life.
If you insist on putting the New Testament into Genesis then you can
get almost any meaning you want. A key point is that no one got this
interpretation from the Bible before science had figured it out. It is
easy to make things fit after the fact.
which through photosynthesis was responsible for the
slow formation of a transparent atmosphere. Now, while the evolution
theory
identify plant life as having been
observed to exist around 475 million years ago, about the same time
period
as the fishes,
Land plants, all land life, comes after ocean life.
yes, according to the evolution theory, I agree. and the creation story does
seem to be in disagreement in this case.But it doesn't necessarily mean that
scriptures "must" be the one in error.
Well, it contradicts the evidence. If we are going to use science then
evolution wins because it fits the evidence. It all depends on what
standards you use.
being not in accordance with scriptures, I personally
question if this could be. The reasons being that first, the whole
pre-life
young earth must have been saturated with water.
What do you mean "saturated"? That has a scientific meaning that does
not work here.
I don't know...maybe saturated isn't a proper word I should use; I meant to
say that water vapor existed everywhere on earth to the point that no
atmosphere existed.
Ok.
If sea-life could have
evolved, why not those on land?
Two things. First, there is no evidence for land life for a very long
time after the evidence for ocean life. Second, most ocean life *dies*
out of the ocean.
Your first comment, I agree with; but only in the fact that "no data" "yet"
exists to support land life existing side by side (timewise)with the sea
lifeforms.
We have lots of evidence, just none for land life. Then we have tiny
bit for land life. Then we see more and more. We have enough of a
picture that you have to come up with an explanations for why we lack
the other evidence
As for the second comment,I just would simply imply an adaptation
| | | | |
