Y
You
Guest
When Pangea broke up it started to sink, (Noahs flood), accompanied by global earthquakes and huge volcanoes and mass extinctions…
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
Precisely what I was talking about. Noah’s flood, as described, lasted for one year. The breakup of Pangea lasted a great deal longer. You are picking odd pieces, that don’t fit together, and trying to assemble a whole. It isn’t working, and just looks incoherent.
Treat the flood story as an abstraction, not as factual, and you are likely to get a lot more from it. The meat of the myth is not about the flood, it is about the relationship between God and mankind. That meat has been attached to a story of (probably) a large local flood. The flood itself is not the important part.
rossum
Y
You
Guest
I didn’t say Pangea sank, it broke up drifted apart and the various bits sank and were uplifted again, sometimes several times. There is no way of dating fossils. They are presumed to be hundreds of millions of years old because they say the fossils are now stone, i.e. the original animals remains have decomposed long ago and were replaced by rock-forming minerals, making a stone replica of the creature fossilized. However, that is not in fact true. Fossil scorpions several hundreds of millions of years old have not decomposed away to be replaced by rock-forming minerals; the scorpions original protein carapace remains intact, neither decomposed away nor replaced by stone minerals. Thus there is not even that bit of certainty that the fossil is old, it only tells you it is not old enough to have decomposed away totally.
B
buffalo
Guest
Chiastic Structure of the Flood Story
A violence in creation (6:9-12)
B God resolves to destroy (6:13-22)
C God commands Noah to enter (7:1-10)
D flood begins (7:11-16)
E flood waters rise (7:17-24)
X God remembers Noah (8:1)
E’ flood waters recede (8:2-5)
D’ the earth dries (8:6-14)
C’ God commands Noah to leave (8:15-19)
B’ God resolves to preserve order (8:20-22)
A’ covenant with creation (9:1-17)
A violence in creation (6:9-12)
B God resolves to destroy (6:13-22)
C God commands Noah to enter (7:1-10)
D flood begins (7:11-16)
E flood waters rise (7:17-24)
X God remembers Noah (8:1)
E’ flood waters recede (8:2-5)
D’ the earth dries (8:6-14)
C’ God commands Noah to leave (8:15-19)
B’ God resolves to preserve order (8:20-22)
A’ covenant with creation (9:1-17)
Y
You
Guest
Genesis tells the story of the creation of the world, the sun, stars and moon. In geologic terms it tells a story billions of years old compressed into 7 days of creation.
Is there any concrete reason to believe Noahs story is a local flood or a global extinction; as Genesis deals with the beginnings of everything a human history could conceivably be overlain on a more general story or history of the creation of the world.
Scriptures speaks of all creatures on earth perishing save a few; not a local event. So the balance, if there has to be one lies in favour of the actual global extinction events which we know actually happened instead of believing that real people could really confuse a local flood with a global flood. The balance of probabilities of the former increases in its favour when we wonder at how bronze-age man could have known that there was global extinction events or thought of a story concerning a global extinction event.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Science is unsuccessful where scientists refuse to do or accept research into areas that they have rejected at a personal level, and indeed ban from their midst other scientists working in those areas.I mean in terms of her work. Whatever she believes about an ultimate meaning may motivate her personally but is irrelevant to her findings. We wouldn’t be able to tell whether she’s a Buddhist or a Catholic from her work or results - science is successful in part because it avoids getting entangled in metaphysics (which may or may not say something about the usefulness of metaphysics).
There is no absolute objectivity in science because it is made up of the findings of human beings, none of whom are perfectly objective. The presumed objectivity, holds back research into areas people think, both atheist and theist, should be reserved to “faith.”
Communication between people in Time and people in what we call “afterlife” is one of those areas. The ability of a person to affect matter solely by intent is another. I’ve seen scientists, top scientists, skew their own data purposely because they could not explain their results without resorting to the influence on their instruments coming from a non-local source. Not extraterrestrial, but outside of Time/space.
In the Denver Museum of Science and Nature or whatever they have now named it, in the three story entranceway, there hang two casts of a creature that never existed. Mostly it did, as the casts were taken from a very complete specimen of plesiosaur. You can see a pic of it here: answersincreation.org/curriculum/dinosaur/dinosaur_plesiosaurs.htm
The chief preparator, had a poor grasp of evolutionary theory and his own idea how the creature should have lived. But the original cast, made from the specimen, didn’t fit with his ideas so one day he walked into the lab with a sawzall and simply cut off about a third of the ribcage of both of the casts being mounted. Both of those altered casts are still hanging in the museum as far as I know.
GIGO. Science is only as good as the scientists who practice it. There is nothing magical about God or Heaven or the afterlife or any reason not to pursue knowledge of these as assiduously as we do anything else.
B
buffalo
Guest
Here is an interesting article on the Higgs boson. Scientists who claim no faith actually do have it as shown below. I thought this a fascinating article.
Higgs boson: the particle of faith
Code:
** There are parallels between the search for the ‘God particle’ and the search for God Himself, writes Alister McGrath. **
…There’s an obvious and important parallel with the way religious believers think about God. While some demand proof that God exists, most see this as unrealistic. Believers argue that the existence of God gives the best framework for making sense of the world. God is like a lens, which brings things into clearer focus. As the Harvard psychologist William James pointed out years ago, religious faith is about inferring “the existence of an unseen order” in which the “riddles of the natural order” can be explained.
There’s more to God than making sense of things. But for religious believers, it’s a great start.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8956938/Higgs-boson-the-particle-of-faith.html
more…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
This is plagiarized from a creationist website!
P
petrel
Guest
Notice how you offer no explanation as to how a mosaic in Egypt in 100BC depicts a dinosaur. You try ridicule by putting up pictures of a dinosaur dressed up as santa, then you try to disparage me by claiming that I have plagiarised. Then you try to slur me associating me with “creationism” with all the connotations you imagine that holds for your audience.
If I had wanted to obscure where I got my picture from I would have hosted it on tumbler.
I am not here to please anyone. I admit that I am a creationist. I admit that the picture came from a creationist site and I was hardly copying an entire article without giving credit to the author. I copied the description of the picture that is all. Your claim that I have plagiarised is nothing more than an ad-hominem. You seek to divert the reader from investigating the amazing depiction of men attacking a dinosaur in 100BC. The fact is clear to all free thinkers that you have avoided the question because you know that you cannot answer it.
For those who are interested here is the website that I obtained the image from genesispark.com/
From that same site here is a remarkable depiction of triceratops on an Ica burial stone dating back to 200-700 AD. http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ancient46.jpg
Evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs and that they did not die out 65 million years ago
I
inocente
Guest
When you see something too good to be true, it’s worth a few minutes research to see if it’s a con. Doing that, I found out this is what’s called an Ica stone, made by locals in Peru to part tourists from their money.
*The cave where the stones were allegedly discovered has never been identified, much less examined by scientists. Skeptics consider the stones to be a pathetic hoax, created for a gullible tourist trade. …- skepdic.com/icastones.html
…] and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying “Making these stones is easier than farming the land.” He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets. The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones*
I
inocente
Guest
I guess there must be at least one person behind every whacky theory, but I meant anyone famous we could throw rocks at.
For some, yes. When a neuroscientist feels hungry, it would probably occur to her to investigate how the feeling arises (and interesting enough that for all I know it’s now fully explained).
I
inocente
Guest
Agreed, none of us is perfect.
I’ve never seen any systematically gathered non-anecdotal evidence for these supposed phenomena. Not once. The scientific method is available to everyone, everyone can learn and investigate, so it seems either that this field only attracts exceptionally incompetent investigators, or the phenomena don’t exist.
Treating the afterlife scientifically would require empirical evidence, but if you can find it then go for it.
I
inocente
Guest
It’s all Greek to me but the text is said to read “crocodile-leopard”. It is supposed to be part of the Nile mosaic of Palestrina but I couldn’t spot it in photos of the mosaic.
Yet assuming it is real, seeing it as a dinosaur involves the same denial as reading scripture literally. For while we modern humans are allowed to make up fictions like Godzilla and War Of The Worlds, ancient peoples are somehow prohibited from using their imagination in the pictures and stories they made.
For those reading this post a thousand years in the future, the following scene actually happened, it did, it did, honest guv.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51S6430X2TL.SS500.jpg
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Inocente, are you tell me War of the Worlds is fiction? That is slanderous lie. I saw on TV once, so it’s true. Martians landed in New Jersey and killed many peoples. Earth was saved only because Martians were killed by bacteria or virus.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It’s fake.
I
inocente
Guest
If it was on TV then it must be true, TV never lies, and nor does the Internet, or so I was told by a man in a bar in the big city yonder, and he wore a suit and tie and spectacles so he must have known what he was talking about.
Y
You
Guest
Lets take a look at one random period in the geologic column. A public access description on wiki -
"The Coniacian is an age or stage in the geologic timescale. It is a subdivision of the Late Cretaceous epoch or Upper Cretaceous series and spans the time between 89.3 ± 1 Ma and 85.8 ± 0.7 Ma (million years ago). The Coniacian is preceded by the Turonian and followed by the Santonian.[1]
Sequence stratigraphy and geochemistry
After a maximum of the global sea level during the early Turonian, the Coniacian was characterized by a gradual fall of the sea level. This cycle is in sequence stratigraphy seen as a first order cycle. During the middle Coniacian a shorter, second order cycle, caused a temporary rise of the sea level (and global transgressions) on top of the longer first order trend. The following regression (Co1, at 87,0 Ma) separates the Middle from the Upper Coniacian substage. An even shorter third order cycle caused a new transgression during the Late Coniacian.
Beginning in the Middle Coniacian, an anoxic event (OAE-3) occurred in the Atlantic Ocean, causing large scale deposition of black shales in the Atlantic domain. The anoxic event lasted till the Middle Santonian (from 87.3 to 84.6 Ma) and is the longest and last such event during the Cretaceous period.[2] "
You can see that from the early Turonian to the end of the Coniacian the globe was flooded three times by the sea. At the time of the second flood the Atlantic ocean bed was covered by a layer of black shale, a common clay sediment on floodplains etc.
So I speculate that when Pangea broke up the continents spread out quite rapidly. When they had been joined together in one landmass their combined weight was spread out over the underlying mantle rock, so Pangea ‘rode high’ relatively speaking on long-compressed mantle rock.
When that super-continent broke apart continents drifted in all compass directions across the globe on top of fresh mantle rocks. As the continents slowed and found a positional equilibrium on the globe their weight on the new mantle beneath them was no longer shared and spread out over a great area, so the continents began to show greater weight on a lesser area of mantle, fracturing and compressing this new area of mantle rock. So down the continent sank into the mantle below its negative buoyancy level and we have the first global transgression, or the first global flooding of the continents by the sea.
As the continental rock is lighter than the mantle the continent rose again and the sea level on the continent regressed. The continents ‘bounced’ back up. They sank again as the bounce reached its lowest point and the sea flooded the continents again. The continents again bounced back up and down one more time causing a third flooding and regression.
As the continents around the equator were bouncing down and being flooded the continents which had moved to the polar regions bounced upwards and experienced a regression of the sea-levels in their area. This reciprocal bouncing between the equatorial and polar continents happened on each occasion.
On the second bounce the sea pulled clay from the continents into the Atlantic, this formed the unusual black shale deposits in the Atlantic from this period.
This explanation seems to me at least as good, better and more logical and reasonable, than unexplainable global transgressions and regressions over a tiny period of time. Gone is the need to create ice-ages to account for global regression and the difficulty of explaining why the ice melted and flooded the equatorial continents but regressed on the northern continents, as well as explaining why the ice formed at all and then explaining why it melted at all and then explaining why the ice formed again and the explaining why it melted again and the explaining why the ice formed again and then explaining why it melted once again…
"The Coniacian is an age or stage in the geologic timescale. It is a subdivision of the Late Cretaceous epoch or Upper Cretaceous series and spans the time between 89.3 ± 1 Ma and 85.8 ± 0.7 Ma (million years ago). The Coniacian is preceded by the Turonian and followed by the Santonian.[1]
Sequence stratigraphy and geochemistry
After a maximum of the global sea level during the early Turonian, the Coniacian was characterized by a gradual fall of the sea level. This cycle is in sequence stratigraphy seen as a first order cycle. During the middle Coniacian a shorter, second order cycle, caused a temporary rise of the sea level (and global transgressions) on top of the longer first order trend. The following regression (Co1, at 87,0 Ma) separates the Middle from the Upper Coniacian substage. An even shorter third order cycle caused a new transgression during the Late Coniacian.
Beginning in the Middle Coniacian, an anoxic event (OAE-3) occurred in the Atlantic Ocean, causing large scale deposition of black shales in the Atlantic domain. The anoxic event lasted till the Middle Santonian (from 87.3 to 84.6 Ma) and is the longest and last such event during the Cretaceous period.[2] "
You can see that from the early Turonian to the end of the Coniacian the globe was flooded three times by the sea. At the time of the second flood the Atlantic ocean bed was covered by a layer of black shale, a common clay sediment on floodplains etc.
So I speculate that when Pangea broke up the continents spread out quite rapidly. When they had been joined together in one landmass their combined weight was spread out over the underlying mantle rock, so Pangea ‘rode high’ relatively speaking on long-compressed mantle rock.
When that super-continent broke apart continents drifted in all compass directions across the globe on top of fresh mantle rocks. As the continents slowed and found a positional equilibrium on the globe their weight on the new mantle beneath them was no longer shared and spread out over a great area, so the continents began to show greater weight on a lesser area of mantle, fracturing and compressing this new area of mantle rock. So down the continent sank into the mantle below its negative buoyancy level and we have the first global transgression, or the first global flooding of the continents by the sea.
As the continental rock is lighter than the mantle the continent rose again and the sea level on the continent regressed. The continents ‘bounced’ back up. They sank again as the bounce reached its lowest point and the sea flooded the continents again. The continents again bounced back up and down one more time causing a third flooding and regression.
As the continents around the equator were bouncing down and being flooded the continents which had moved to the polar regions bounced upwards and experienced a regression of the sea-levels in their area. This reciprocal bouncing between the equatorial and polar continents happened on each occasion.
On the second bounce the sea pulled clay from the continents into the Atlantic, this formed the unusual black shale deposits in the Atlantic from this period.
This explanation seems to me at least as good, better and more logical and reasonable, than unexplainable global transgressions and regressions over a tiny period of time. Gone is the need to create ice-ages to account for global regression and the difficulty of explaining why the ice melted and flooded the equatorial continents but regressed on the northern continents, as well as explaining why the ice formed at all and then explaining why it melted at all and then explaining why the ice formed again and the explaining why it melted again and the explaining why the ice formed again and then explaining why it melted once again…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Inocente, are you suggesting that not everything at appears on TV is true? In the United States, FOx News is often held to be on a parallel to sacred scripture for veracity of content.
- Status