Origins - Life and "Big Bang" cosmology

August · Post by **August** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:47 pm

The space theory is mastermind's, not mine. Just joking, I don't even know if he is seriously considering it.

I believe each living thing was individually created, no stemcell or evolution nonsense here.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:00 pm

I am fairly certain we did not originate from earth. I am not certain at which point God brought us here however.

how did the different species from South America walk the 12,000 miles in 7 days to get on board the ark?

They teleported. Duh.

August · Post by **August** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:03 pm

They teleported. Duh.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:26 pm

Quote:
how did the different species from South America walk the 12,000 miles in 7 days to get on board the ark?

You assume that the continents were in the same location back then as they are now though. This is probably not true. The theory I'm finishing up reading (it's a big bugger...) says that as the water pushed up the rock at the mid-atlantic...what you call it...rift, crack, whatever.... the continents began sliding downhill and away from the crack on a large layer of water. Even evolutionists claim that the continents were together (though, they made up this story to account for fossils of one animal being found all over I think).

August · Post by **August** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:05 am

You assume that the continents were in the same location back then as they are now though. This is probably not true.

I don't assume anything of the sort, but then I also don't assume that all life was contained on a small island in the Middle East 6000 years ago. There is a lot of proof that all the continents were connected by landbridges, probably fairly recently in geological terms (10's million years). There is no proof that this was less than 6000 years ago.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Except that the universe couldn't be older than 10,000 of course. And that millions of years is based on plate techtonics and uniformitarianism (which was made up to pretty much deny a Flood, and is pretty false-it assumes rates of erosion and such have always been the same-the key to the past is the present in other words).

2 Peter 3:3-7
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men

WOW, never read the end of that section, I stopped 2 verses too short-he's literally talking about uniformitarianism!

No, life wasn't refined to a Middle East Island-the land was connected, like Pangei, until the Flood ripped the world apart-and land bridges were exposed until after the Ice Age (I think there was one, I've read from two sources at least that there was most likely one)

August · Post by **August** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 3:55 pm

Except that the universe couldn't be older than 10,000 of course. And that millions of years is based on plate techtonics and uniformitarianism (which was made up to pretty much deny a Flood, and is pretty false-it assumes rates of erosion and such have always been the same-the key to the past is the present in other words).

Wanna quote some peer-reviewed scientific studies here? You saying it's so does not make it so.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:07 pm

A peer review article that goes against the belief in evolution...HHHHMMM....like that'll happen.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1556360

And I don't believe it's not true because I say it is not true, I'm not a cosmic humanist.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... gnetic.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /stars.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/sun.asp

Of course it's not peer reviewed, you're not getting anti-evolution published by evolutionists after the article is reviewed by evolutionists.... though it would be cool.

August · Post by **August** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:09 pm

I did not ask for articles about evolution, I asked about articles referring to the age of the earth.

The evolution debate is another story, and there are some peer-reviewed articles and works published that are anti-evolution.

Earths magnetic field: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 ... cfield.htm
This is debunked in many places.

Supernova argument debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova

Age of the sun argument: (I found the info in the link you provided sketchy, but here goes)
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/20 ... uctuations

Also, read some of the work of Guillermo Gonzalez, a notable Christian astrophysicist.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:50 pm

You know, it's really funny...if you type the right thing in, you can find ANYTHING debunked. I've seen creationism debunked as well (though if you looked, the guy was setting up strawmen and running over the dumbest arguments and evidences I've seen with a tractor). Those articles weren't on evolution were they? Man I'm copying the wrong stuff...

How can the magnetic field not be decaying? Nothing is applying additional energy, so it should decay-entropy, 2nd law, and all those other nice words.

I've read about those geological clocks in books (which I have sadly given away or turned into the library). You throw your sources at me, and I throw my sources at you...trench warfare didn't work in WWI either.

August · Post by **August** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:46 pm

You know, it's really funny...if you type the right thing in, you can find ANYTHING debunked.

So where do you draw the line? What is your criteria for something being the truth?

Those articles weren't on evolution were they?

The presupposition on them was that the opposite needed to be true for the good of evolutionists.

How can the magnetic field not be decaying? Nothing is applying additional energy, so it should decay-entropy, 2nd law, and all those other nice words.

Did you read the article? Also, where is the proof that the magnetic field is decaying and not oscillating? There has been no physical proof, only postulates.

You throw your sources at me, and I throw my sources at you...trench warfare didn't work in WWI either.

So how do you propose we solve the differences? I refuse to let you make claims without being able to present arguments to the contrary, since this is a public website with many readers. I would like to present the evidence and let them make up their own minds.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Feb 21, 2005 5:46 pm

So where do you draw the line? What is your criteria for something being the truth?

Don't know. One reason I probably believe what I do is because I heard it first, and I found sources. You probably heard evidence for your side, so you stick with that. As Churchill says, the lie can get all around the world before the truth can get his pants on.

Did you read the article? Also, where is the proof that the magnetic field is decaying and not oscillating? There has been no physical proof, only postulates.

I guess not in the sources I've sited, but I've read that as scientists have been measuring it, has been decreasing (over a time period I don't know how long...at least a century, but I don't want to say 300 years like I'm thinking because I'm not sure...). And I believe it oscillated once, at the time of the Flood. it's in the http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook the only online site that I read it in (the source that says the field oscillated during the Flood and other stuff on it...go to index).

So how do you propose we solve the differences? I refuse to let you make claims without being able to present arguments to the contrary, since this is a public website with many readers. I would like to present the evidence and let them make up their own minds.

I'm not telling you to let me be the only one pushing only my belief, sheesh. I just made a silly humorous association with this discussion and WWI.

Nice icon by the way (unless you're catholic, then nice picture).

August · Post by **August** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:03 pm

Not Catholic. Thanks

I guess not in the sources I've sited, but I've read that as scientists have been measuring it, has been decreasing (over a time period I don't know how long...at least a century, but I don't want to say 300 years like I'm thinking because I'm not sure...). And I believe it oscillated once, at the time of the Flood. it's in the http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook the only online site that I read it in (the source that says the field oscillated during the Flood and other stuff on it...go to index).

Why don't you start looking at other sources too? Are you really searching for the truth, as commanded by God, or is your mind made up? I try to continuously question my assumptions, it leads to growth and better understanding.

I'm not telling you to let me be the only one pushing only my belief, sheesh. I just made a silly humorous association with this discussion and WWI.

No offense intended, just wanted to make sure we both understood where we stand.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:06 pm

No, I'm only citing that source because my other sources are books I've read and other sites I've visited but haven't bookmarked. That's why all this frustrates me because I don't know which is the truth!

August · Post by **August** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:16 pm

Kmart, just start searching from this website. If you like, I can PM you some links too. If we are to grow the kingdom of God, we must speak the truth?