Creation vs. Evolution

[Swift]

code you keep askign the same question, they obviously dont have the answers for it.

Actually, they were both answered a LONG time ago. But I guess the answers were not seen.

There were plenty of extra animals on the Ark to eat. 14 of each of the "unclean" beasts. I don't have the exact numbers on that but even if were only talking about 100 different types, that's a lot of food.

 

[code_kev]

Yeah, but to be fair, there's alot of carnivores, and those things eat stuff faster then they would be able to reproduce.

 

[sicbeing]

I honestly didn't see them swift, I just was basing that off the fact that he keeps asking those questions =p

 

[code_kev]

I must have missed the answers, rather then answer them, could someone show me where they were answered before?

 

[Danoff]

Hmm...well. you say the planet pretty much created itself from natural causes.

So, there was no thought behind it. Just the existance of physics(from somewhere) that caused these things to come about? That's why I call it an accident. Ivory soap was created by accident, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. How about penecillin(even though I'm allergic to it ) So when I say "accident" I don't mean it was wrong. I'm simply saying that it was completely unintentional but worked out. I still find that train of thought driving me towards who wrote the laws of physics....

Gravity created the planet Swift. That's what I'm saying, the same reason a ball comes back down when you throw it up, is the reason that the planet formed. That's not an accident it's a natural process.

I know you don't mean "wrong" when you say accident, but I'm trying to explain why evolutionists and planetary geologists don't think that the human species or the planet formed by "accident". They think it formed via natural processes.

If you want to ask who wrote the laws of physics, that's fine. But it's a different discussion. Completely different than the question of how the Earth formed or the human species came to be. If you want to say that we think that the laws of physics came about by accident though you'd be wrong there as well. Scientists will tell you they don't know how the laws of physics came about - not that they think it occured accidently.


So can we agree? That none of us are claiming that any of this stuff occured by accident. That physicists think GRAVITY (not accidents) formed the Earth, the evolutionists think NATURAL SELECTION (not accidents) created human beings.

If you want to argue about where gravity or natural selection came from it's going to be a short one. Here's the answer... "I don't know."

 

[Pako]

Understood. *SNIP*

1. Where is the evidence of the flood. A flood of this size would have massive a massive impact for many many years.
2. If a flood took place, and animals were some how collected, how did they survive afterwards? The carnivores would have run out of food VERY VERY fast.

1.) Haven't they found fossils on mountain tops of water indigenous creatures? One could argue that the fossils were there before the mountain ranges were formed. Maybe, maybe not. No way to tell for sure. They have also found water indigenous fossils in deserts as well. There are a number of theories that could explain this. Also, no real Biblical backing for this claim, but it is possible that the flood was contained within a certain area like all of Noah's known world. Again, just a open discussion thought.

2.)Mark 8:1-10 With seven loafs of bread and a few fish, 4,000 people were fed. I would assume a similar miracle took place although there is no Biblical backing for how all those animals survived other than what Swift already pointed out.

 

[PS]

You expect us to believe that 7 loaves of bread and a fish fed 4000 people?

 

[Grand Prix]

Must have been a big fish.

 

[PS]

If the sea raised that high, that fast, wouldn't there be water contamination from a lot of leftover crap? Many volcanoes could be covered up too, and most of hawaii would be below sea-level, along with 90% of australasia. Heck, since half the Earth is covered, the seas would be really deep, right? So what about those fish at the bottom of the sea? Wouldn't they be killed from the sudden increase in pressure?

 

[Pako]

You expect us to believe that 7 loaves of bread and a fish fed 4000 people?

From past experience, NO I don't. Then again, I wasn't trying to give an answer that you would believe, I was just giving an answer. Your beliefs would not change or influence my answer.

In regards to increased water pressure, the pressure would be gradual enough for creatures to adjust right? It was rain, not the snap of a finger that caused the flood, 40 days and nights.

 

[sicbeing]

wouldnt addapting to that kind of pressure take more then 40 days?

 

[Pako]

wouldnt addapting to that kind of pressure take more then 40 days?

Not sure what kind of pressure we would be talking about. Not sure how many feet above sea level the water was to cover the land. Not sure when this took place. There are too many variables to know that information.

Maybe all the creatures that were down that far either adapted to they moved from their environment to where the pressures compatible.

Just guessing here, I really have no idea.

 

[Swift]

wouldnt addapting to that kind of pressure take more then 40 days?

Nope, and why would there be more pressure? Yes at the bottom but not at the depth that the animals are used to.

It's like filling up an aquarium. If you don't just dump it all in, then they would be fine, correct?

 

[sicbeing]

the further you go down the more water is above you pushing down on you, so u dont have to be at the bottom floor to feel the pressure.

The ocean is very very very deep at some points, im not sure how much water was added myself, but it couldnt hurt too much for something thts used to being at the bottom

 

[Swift]

Gravity created the planet Swift. That's what I'm saying, the same reason a ball comes back down when you throw it up, is the reason that the planet formed. That's not an accident it's a natural process.

I know you don't mean "wrong" when you say accident, but I'm trying to explain why evolutionists and planetary geologists don't think that the human species or the planet formed by "accident". They think it formed via natural processes.

If you want to ask who wrote the laws of physics, that's fine. But it's a different discussion. Completely different than the question of how the Earth formed or the human species came to be. If you want to say that we think that the laws of physics came about by accident though you'd be wrong there as well. Scientists will tell you they don't know how the laws of physics came about - not that they think it occured accidently.


So can we agree? That none of us are claiming that any of this stuff occured by accident. That physicists think GRAVITY (not accidents) formed the Earth, the evolutionists think NATURAL SELECTION (not accidents) created human beings.

If you want to argue about where gravity or natural selection came from it's going to be a short one. Here's the answer... "I don't know."

So, you have faith that gravity of some mass that didn't exist caused the earth and other planets to form?

 

[Pako]

So, you have faith that gravity of some mass that didn't exist caused the earth and other planets to form?

I think he was just using 'gravity' as an example of physical laws that just "are" that are not accidents.

 

[Swift]

I think he was just using 'gravity' as an example of physical laws that just "are" that are not accidents.

Right, but gravity has a direct relation to mass as far as I know(or a black hole) so gravity doesn't just exist.

 

[Famine]

Not sure what kind of pressure we would be talking about. Not sure how many feet above sea level the water was to cover the land. Not sure when this took place. There are too many variables to know that information.

Maybe all the creatures that were down that far either adapted to they moved from their environment to where the pressures compatible.

Just guessing here, I really have no idea.

Earth says the Earth was perfectly smooth and the water lay upon the top to a depth of 2 miles. This, of course, would kill many ocean floor dwellers (too LITTLE pressure).

I say that for Mount Ararat to be nearly covered, it would require a depth of 5km additional water. I also say that if one were to free up all of the water on Earth and dump it into the oceans you'd get a rise of 800 metres only.

 

[Pako]

Earth says the Earth was perfectly smooth and the water lay upon the top to a depth of 2 miles. This, of course, would kill many ocean floor dwellers (too LITTLE pressure).

I say that for Mount Ararat to be nearly covered, it would require a depth of 5km additional water. I also say that if one were to free up all of the water on Earth and dump it into the oceans you'd get a rise of 800 metres only.

There are some things that I question just because of the lack of additional information that leaves too many questions unanswered to be able to calculate certain things. I was just thinking about how much water is stored in vegetation on the land. I'm sure when you calculate how much water is available, plant moisture was not part of that calculation. Maybe there was more, maybe there was less vegetation. Maybe there was less land mass, I really don't know.

 

[PS]

Or in soil. But that would require a huge drought to dry it all up first, and then when it all pours down about 2%* of it would end up in the soil anyway.



*Guesstimation, not an actual number.

 

[Swift]

Or in soil. But that would require a huge drought to dry it all up first, and then when it all pours down about 2%* of it would end up in the soil anyway.



*Guesstimation, not an actual number.

Didn't you recently receive a PM about something?

 

[Zardoz]

Did I post this link already? Seems like I did, but I can't find it:

http://www.skepticreport.com/print/sillyflood-p.htm

He does a good job of pointing up the long list of problems with the Noah's flood story.

 

[PS]

Didn't you recently receive a PM about something?

I'm waiting for a response. I don't mean to be dense, or stubborne or uncompliant or anything, I just think it's a misunderstanding.

 

[Danoff]

So, you have faith that gravity of some mass that didn't exist caused the earth and other planets to form?

No.

Mass existed (ask me how and I'll give you the same answer as to why the laws of physics exist - I don't know). The mass that existed was attracted to other mass due to gravity and formed planets.

Let me break it down one step further.

In the early stages of of the solar system it was composed of gasses and other light matter. That matter was attracted to other matter due to gravity and eventually formed into small clumps. Those clumps attracted other matter and continued to snowball until it became a planet attracting anything that came near it.

Gravity (a natural process) formed the planet.

Ask me why gravity exists or why matter exists in any form and I'll tell you I don't know.

 

[PS]

Magnetism, I think.


Anything can be moved with a magnet.

 

[Swift]

No.

Mass existed (ask me how and I'll give you the same answer as to why the laws of physics exist - I don't know). The mass that existed was attracted to other mass due to gravity and formed planets.

Let me break it down one step further.

In the early stages of of the solar system it was composed of gasses and other light matter. That matter was attracted to other matter due to gravity and eventually formed into small clumps. Those clumps attracted other matter and continued to snowball until it became a planet attracting anything that came near it.

Gravity (a natural process) formed the planet.

Ask me why gravity exists or why matter exists in any form and I'll tell you I don't know.

Ok, so you're basically saying that you don't know how the planets were formed since you don't know where the gravity or mass came from. Would that be a correct assesment?

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so you're basically saying that you don't know how the planets were formed since you don't know where the gravity or mass came from. Would that be a correct assesment?

No. I know exactly how the planets formed. I know how gravity and mass act and that it was the natural process of gravity that formed the planets.

I know (almost certainly) how the planets were formed. What I don't know is where the natural process that formed them came from.

 

[Zardoz]

Swift, I certainly hope you're not leading up to the conclusion that because we do not yet have the study of astrophysics completely figured out, there can only be one answer: "God made it".

I hope you're not going to say that. You're talking about the most difficult scientific discipline there is. The greatest minds our species has ever produced work in that field, and they lay awake at night trying to make sense of it all. No, all the answers aren't laid out neatly for us, and none of us alive today will see the mysteries of the universe solved. Future generations may, or they may not.

We may never "get it", completely. It may be beyond us. Nevertheless, that does not lead to the conclusion that some infinite being simply willed it all into existence. It only means that its more than we primitive, ornery, perverse creatures can comprehend.

 

[Swift]

Swift, I certainly hope you're not leading up to the conclusion that because we do not yet have the study of astrophysics completely figured out, there can only be one answer: "God made it".

I hope you're not going to say that. You're talking about the most difficult scientific discipline there is. The greatest minds our species has ever produced work in that field, and they lay awake at night trying to make sense of it all. No, all the answers aren't laid out neatly for us, and none of us alive today will see the mysteries of the universe solved. Future generations may, or they may not.

We may never "get it", completely. It may be beyond us. Nevertheless, that does not lead to the conclusion that some infinite being simply willed it all into existence. It only means that its more than we primitive, ornery, perverse creatures can comprehend.

No, I'm just saying that you guys have a lot of faith to believe that science will some how prove what the theory says when you have NO REASON to believe it.

 

[luftrofl]

Right, but gravity has a direct relation to mass as far as I know(or a black hole) so gravity doesn't just exist.

Gravity has a direct relation to weight, not mass which is independent.