The 6000 Year Earth

[StAnastasia]

Well, there isn’t sufficient free-phase water down there. The vast majority of the water is tied up in the crystal lattice of the semi-molten rock. When you are talking about water for the flood, unless the water is free-phase, it isn’t available. I stand by my assertion that there isn’t nearly enough water below to account for the flood.Peace
Tim

Tim you are indefatigable. All this discussion is irrelevant anyway, since the story about Noah’s flood is not interpreted literally by any but Protestant Fundamentalists, and those few who have brought their biblical literalism with them across the Tiber when the became Catholic. The fact that a few literalists on CAF insist on drudging up the Flood periodically is utterly irrelevant to scientists, theologians, and the vast majority of educated people.

The sad thing is, there are some “educated” people who jettison religious belief and practice because of the wooden literalism championed by some Christians. I’ve had acquaintances (who probably never had much religious education anyway) tell me that they abandoned Christianity because they didn’t want to leave their brains on the doormat.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

You literally have no reason to believe the growth rates were constant over the last 50 million years. Do you know how fast two continental plates have to be moving to lift mountains 9 kilometers into the sky? Does this impact have no effect on the speed of the continental plates, i.e., do they not slow down when they crash? If they are moving slower now, because of the impact, how fast *were *they travelling initially?
Because I don’t know…

Yes, I have plenty of reason from historical geology. We know the rate of movement of the Australasian and Asian tectonic plates, and we know the rate of orogeny or montane uplift as a result of their slow-speed collision.

Speaking not as a scientist but as a theologian, I can say that the bottom line is that your attempt to shoehorn geology into the box of scriptural myth is irrelevant both to science and to theology and religious belief. If you honestly think you know enough about geology to argue for a literal global flood, then don’t confine your views to this forum; propose a paper or panel on the subject for the next meeting of the American Geophysical Society. See how far you get with your proposal – that will give you a good indication of just how credible your theory is.

StAnastasia

 

[avflf]

Yes, I have plenty of reason from historical geology. We know the rate of movement of the Australasian and Asian tectonic plates, and we know the rate of orogeny or montane uplift as a result of their slow-speed collision.

Speaking not as a scientist but as a theologian, I can say that the bottom line is that your attempt to shoehorn geology into the box of scriptural myth is irrelevant both to science and to theology and religious belief. If you honestly think you know enough about geology to argue for a literal global flood, then don’t confine your views to this forum; propose a paper or panel on the subject for the next meeting of the American Geophysical Society. See how far you get with your proposal – that will give you a good indication of just how credible your theory is.

StAnastasia

This is rather funny. A theologian that does not believe in the Book that he normally vigorously protests to be the very word of the living God given by inspiration to humankind for their edification. Well, as far as I see it if one part of it is myth lets call it all myth and stop the time wasting exercise of convincing people that they profit from reading the Book, let alone spend years In a seminar studying to become a theologian.

 

[Thing]

Yes, I have plenty of reason from historical geology. We know the rate of movement of the Australasian and Asian tectonic plates, and we know the rate of orogeny or montane uplift as a result of their slow-speed collision.

Speaking not as a scientist but as a theologian, I can say that the bottom line is that your attempt to shoehorn geology into the box of scriptural myth is irrelevant both to science and to theology and religious belief. If you honestly think you know enough about geology to argue for a literal global flood, then don’t confine your views to this forum; propose a paper or panel on the subject for the next meeting of the American Geophysical Society. See how far you get with your proposal – that will give you a good indication of just how credible your theory is.

StAnastasia

Interesting idea… you know, they say all parts of the earth were under water at some stage, perhaps a geologicalesque globalesque floodesque…

 

[simona_gabriela]

In my opinion, bible does not explain a lot of scientifical events, because it’s not its goal to explain “how” things happend (from a rigurous scientifical point of view), but to explain “why”, why we exist, why we were created… Another thing, the bible had been written in a specific time in human history, with certain cultural influences. We should study more that history when discussing about genesis. People few thousand years ago were not thinking like us, needing every detail about an event. They didn’t know untill copernicus that the earth is not flat. So God respects human history and is not interested in making a science book like astronomy and biology. For it is Him who speaks through sacred authors, and what He wants to say is that He loves us and this is the reason why we were created and that we have a meaning in life.
As for the scientifical arguments, I wouldn’t believe any “scientist”, I would read more arguments, especially the common arguments, the things on which most specialists agree. The common sense says that earth and sun and universe are much older. You see, scientists use radioactive decay to find the age of the solar system - uranium and other heavy elements. And carbon 14 is only for small periods of time, like 1500 years at most. It’s a too vast subject, but try the internet on serious well known sources. You may not believe me, but the solar system is aproximately 4.5 billion years and this is a result from a laborous work. Life on earth is also very old. We see galaxies that are 10 billion light-years away from us, so this would mean that the age of the universe is more than 10 billion years (it is estimated at 14). The scientifical method is red shift and magnifying lenses.
You could say that the results are not precise, so this scientifical method is not right. They may not be precise, but it’s safer then describing scientifical events with a non-scientifical book.
There are big big differences between dinos and humans.
Some serious scientists say that we may be growing old because of the reactions when we breathe.
As for the protection from the sun, I agree with rossum, st atanasia etc. Could you tell me the source of these theories, I’m curious. And also this what you call comon sense in water vapors. A too big protection from the sun in any way - ice crystals - would create an ice age, not a longer life. This is an idea to overcome global warming, but the exact quantity should be calculated.

Good luck,
Simona

 

[buffalo]

They didn’t know untill copernicus that the earth is not flat.

Nope -
The Myth of the Flat Earth

 

[Orogeny]

Tim you are indefatigable.

I don’t know. I just got back from lunch and could sure use a nap right now!

All this discussion is irrelevant anyway, since the story about Noah’s flood is not interpreted literally by any but Protestant Fundamentalists, and those few who have brought their biblical literalism with them across the Tiber when the became Catholic. The fact that a few literalists on CAF insist on drudging up the Flood periodically is utterly irrelevant to scientists, theologians, and the vast majority of educated people.

Well, I don’t agree with you totally. I think some chose to believe the Bible literally based on faith alone. I know of at least one CAF member who admits that science doesn’t support the stories but he doesn’t care, he believes what he believes based on faith. I applaud him for that stance even if I disagree with him. I don’t have a problem with people believing these stories to be literal history based on their faith. What I oppose is trying to twist science to make it seem that science supports a literal reading of the scriptures.

The sad thing is, there are some “educated” people who jettison religious belief and practice because of the wooden literalism championed by some Christians. I’ve had acquaintances (who probably never had much religious education anyway) tell me that they abandoned Christianity because they didn’t want to leave their brains on the doormat.

Yeah, I know a couple of people like that as well and I find it sad.

Peace

Tim

 

[avflf]

In my opinion, bible does not explain a lot of scientifical events, because it’s not its goal to explain “how” things happend (from a rigurous scientifical point of view), but to explain “why”, why we exist, why we were created… Another thing, the bible had been written in a specific time in human history, with certain cultural influences. We should study more that history when discussing about genesis. People few thousand years ago were not thinking like us, needing every detail about an event. They didn’t know untill copernicus that the earth is not flat. So God respects human history and is not interested in making a science book like astronomy and biology. For it is Him who speaks through sacred authors, and what He wants to say is that He loves us and this is the reason why we were created and that we have a meaning in life.
As for the scientifical arguments, I wouldn’t believe any “scientist”, I would read more arguments, especially the common arguments, the things on which most specialists agree. The common sense says that earth and sun and universe are much older. You see, scientists use radioactive decay to find the age of the solar system - uranium and other heavy elements. And carbon 14 is only for small periods of time, like 1500 years at most. It’s a too vast subject, but try the internet on serious well known sources. You may not believe me, but the solar system is aproximately 4.5 billion years and this is a result from a laborous work. Life on earth is also very old. We see galaxies that are 10 billion light-years away from us, so this would mean that the age of the universe is more than 10 billion years (it is estimated at 14). The scientifical method is red shift and magnifying lenses.
You could say that the results are not precise, so this scientifical method is not right. They may not be precise, but it’s safer then describing scientifical events with a non-scientifical book.
There are big big differences between dinos and humans.
Some serious scientists say that we may be growing old because of the reactions when we breathe.
As for the protection from the sun, I agree with rossum, st atanasia etc. Could you tell me the source of these theories, I’m curious. And also this what you call comon sense in water vapors. A too big protection from the sun in any way - ice crystals - would create an ice age, not a longer life. This is an idea to overcome global warming, but the exact quantity should be calculated.

Good luck,
Simona

So God’s revelation when it comes to the origins of the Earth and Noah’s flood is fiction, according to most catholics in this thread. He deliberately caused a lot of untruths regarding these two major events in world history to be written in the inspired scriptures. And his omniscience did not cover scientific and biological subjects? And if all God wanted was to convey his love of mankind why did he go and make a fool of himself by getting involved in astronomy, geology and biology if he didn’t have a clue about these sciences? Follow my reasoning? And then there is the small matter of what Moses said or what Joshua said and what Jesus said and did. Did they indeed do and said all the things attributed to them in the Scriptures or were they the product of what the inspired writers decided they should have said and done?

 

[buffalo]

So God’s revelation when it comes to the origins of the Earth and Noah’s flood is fiction, according to most catholics in this thread. He deliberately caused a lot of untruths regarding these two major events in world history to be written in the inspired scriptures. And his omniscience did not cover scientific and biological subjects? And if all God wanted was to convey his love of mankind why did he go and make a fool of himself by getting involved in astronomy, geology and biology if he didn’t have a clue about these sciences? Follow my reasoning? And then there is the small matter of what Moses said or what Joshua said and what Jesus said and did. Did they indeed do and said all the things attributed to them in the Scriptures or were they the product of what the inspired writers decided they should have said and done?

Many cannot believe it because they cannot see evidence of it, like Thomas not believing in the Resurrection until he could put his fingers in Jesus’ wounds.

 

[avflf]

Many cannot believe it because they cannot see evidence of it, like Thomas not believing in the Resurrection until he could put his fingers in Jesus’ wounds.

Fair enough, but then they should not hold to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God either, as by their disbelief of certain passages they compromise the whole - a little leaven etc.- for they cannot be sure of the evidence of any of their beliefs

 

[John7]

So God’s revelation when it comes to the origins of the Earth and Noah’s flood is fiction, according to most catholics in this thread. He deliberately caused a lot of untruths regarding these two major events in world history to be written in the inspired scriptures. And his omniscience did not cover scientific and biological subjects? And if all God wanted was to convey his love of mankind why did he go and make a fool of himself by getting involved in astronomy, geology and biology if he didn’t have a clue about these sciences? Follow my reasoning? And then there is the small matter of what Moses said or what Joshua said and what Jesus said and did. Did they indeed do and said all the things attributed to them in the Scriptures or were they the product of what the inspired writers decided they should have said and done?

Hey, I literally believe the creation account, Noah’s flood, sun stood still one day, Moses and the exodus plagues and parting of Red sea, Joshua and Jericho’s walls, etc

oh, you said most Catholics…okay

Wait…I think most Catholics believe these things too but with a difference in how they believe. Example, all Catholics believe (I hope) in Gen 3, but not all believe that the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ had carbohydrate rich apples or figs growing from it, or that the serpent was a species of python or something.

 

[avflf]

Hey, I literally believe the creation account, Noah’s flood, sun stood still one day, Moses and the exodus plagues and parting of Red sea, Joshua and Jericho’s walls, etc

oh, you said most Catholics…okay

Wait…I think most Catholics believe these things too but with a difference in how they believe. Example, all Catholics believe (I hope) in Gen 3, but not all believe that the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ had carbohydrate rich apples or figs growing from it, or that the serpent was a species of python or something.

Good for you John7. Stand tall in defence of Holy Writ no matter how ridiculous it may look to others. Like your choice of name. Any particular verse or is it the whole chapter

 

[StAnastasia]

This is rather funny. A theologian that does not believe in the Book that he normally vigorously protests to be the very word of the living God given by inspiration to humankind for their edification. Well, as far as I see it if one part of it is myth lets call it all myth and stop the time wasting exercise of convincing people that they profit from reading the Book, let alone spend years In a seminar studying to become a theologian.

Did I say I don’t believe in the Bible?

 

[StAnastasia]

Interesting idea… you know, they say all parts of the earth were under water at some stage, perhaps a geologicalesque globalesque floodesque…

Probably not all parts of the earth. There may be some parts of the inner cores of continents that have always stood above sea level. I’ll ask our staff geologist.

 

[StAnastasia]

They didn’t know untill copernicus that the earth is not flat. So God respects human history and is not interested in making a science book like astronomy and biology. For it is Him who speaks through sacred authors, and what He wants to say is that He loves us and this is the reason why we were created and that we have a meaning in life. /QUOTE]

Simona, two thousand years before Copernicus, Aristotle knew ghat the earth is spherical, and articulated four ways to prove it.

 

[StAnastasia]

Fair enough, but then they should not hold to the belief that the Bible is the Word of God either, as by their disbelief of certain passages they compromise the whole - a little leaven etc.- for they cannot be sure of the evidence of any of their beliefs

So if one telephone number in the New York phone book is wrong, the whole book is untrustworthy?

 

[StAnastasia]

So God’s revelation when it comes to the origins of the Earth and Noah’s flood is fiction, according to most catholics in this thread. He deliberately caused a lot of untruths regarding these two major events in world history to be written in the inspired scriptures.

God didn’t cause untruths to be written. Divine inspiration does not mean that God dictated the bible word for word. God inspired authors and editors who themselves were embedded in their own times, cultures and economic classes.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Shall we have a look at some “lies of Buddhism”?* “Love others as you love yourself” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91

• “And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech and from idle chatter.” - Samyutta Nikaya 45.8
• “A lay follower should not engage in five types of trade. Which five? Trade in weapons, human beings, meat, intoxicants and poison.” - Anguttara Nikaya 5.177

If you are going to criticise Buddhism, then you would do better to have a look at what Buddhism says before telling people to do the opposite. Much of Buddhist morality is as close to Christian morality as makes no real difference. Or are you trying to tell us that Christians should hate other people while they trade in armaments, slaves, meat, alcohol, drugs and poisons? No, I didn’t think so.

rossum

It’s all mythological nonsense anyway … but if religion works for you (whatever religion) then cool (at least Buddhists don’t barrage others and try to force feed their religion down everyone’s throat like most of the other ones do). I say if Buddhism works for you … then be Buddhist and proud of it (though if you’re in the cubical next to mine at work, I’d much rather talk about sports and hot women ).

But selling alcohol is a sin in your religion? Man … I hope you can you at least drink it (cause buddy if not that makes for a boring Buddhist; although you would be quite useful as a designated driver)??

 

[Thing]

Probably not all parts of the earth. There may be some parts of the inner cores of continents that have always stood above sea level. I’ll ask our staff geologist.

Thanks

 

[Thing]

The Boring Buddhist

Good name for a pub