SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
A few months ago I opened a thread about the Biblical description of Creation, and whether science disproved the Bible on its description.
It was a very nice debate with some very intellectual members, and I must admit, that there were quite a few new arguments that came to the front, which I never seen before. Be as it may, my conclusion on the discussion is that there are no evidence in science to disprove the creation narrative, but just as scientists makes assumptions about how eveerything came into being, it is very easy for the Biblical apologist to be ready with other assumptions which is equally sound and not easily debunked.
Therefore, I have yet to see any evidence in science in contradiction with the Bible.
However, there were quite a few members that continiously arrived at another argument, to validate their viewpoint that the Bible is a compilation of mythology, and not scientific at all.
That argument is...the Noah's flood story...
Again, if one were to read the story of this global flood, and dont want to take many, or as much factors, into consideration to allow the Biblical narative to explain itself, then with a superficial bias are able to discard the story as far fetched made up.
What do I mean with superficial?
Well, a "Global flood"?
One filling the earth to about 20 meters above the highest mountains?
"Are you serious?", the question normally goes, " 20 meters above Everest?
Everest is what, 8850 meters high! If the earth was covered with 8850 meters of water...
"Where did the Water come from, and where did it go?"
Questions such as the one above is not asked by simply normal joes such as you and I, nope, this is asked by highly educated scientists.
And guess what?
This simple question is actually a statement, by mostly bias thought, not as a question, but as a statement:
And that statement is: "Are you serious? you dont understand a simple logical statement which your Bible speaks about. Only a very stupid uneducated person will believe that there was billions of cubic miles of water covering Everest and the rest of the Earth, without even considering that this water had to come from somewhare, and we dont see that volume everywhere at all today! So where is that water!
If I remember, Carl Sagan asked the exact same question.
From my point of view, I was amased that such highly educated scientists would be so superficial on their observation. let me demonstrate how this strawpuppet they created simply burns out once we take everything into consideration.
When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.
Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.
The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.
If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.
Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack curcumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.
We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.
This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.
However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.
Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.
Anyhow, I hope this will be a nice discussion going forward, and I urge anyone who would like to join in, to please take one step at a time.
Nothing is so frustrating as someone coppying and pasting a lot of claims, not expecting any answer.
Greetings
It was a very nice debate with some very intellectual members, and I must admit, that there were quite a few new arguments that came to the front, which I never seen before. Be as it may, my conclusion on the discussion is that there are no evidence in science to disprove the creation narrative, but just as scientists makes assumptions about how eveerything came into being, it is very easy for the Biblical apologist to be ready with other assumptions which is equally sound and not easily debunked.
Therefore, I have yet to see any evidence in science in contradiction with the Bible.
However, there were quite a few members that continiously arrived at another argument, to validate their viewpoint that the Bible is a compilation of mythology, and not scientific at all.
That argument is...the Noah's flood story...
Again, if one were to read the story of this global flood, and dont want to take many, or as much factors, into consideration to allow the Biblical narative to explain itself, then with a superficial bias are able to discard the story as far fetched made up.
What do I mean with superficial?
Well, a "Global flood"?
One filling the earth to about 20 meters above the highest mountains?
"Are you serious?", the question normally goes, " 20 meters above Everest?
Everest is what, 8850 meters high! If the earth was covered with 8850 meters of water...
"Where did the Water come from, and where did it go?"
Questions such as the one above is not asked by simply normal joes such as you and I, nope, this is asked by highly educated scientists.
And guess what?
This simple question is actually a statement, by mostly bias thought, not as a question, but as a statement:
And that statement is: "Are you serious? you dont understand a simple logical statement which your Bible speaks about. Only a very stupid uneducated person will believe that there was billions of cubic miles of water covering Everest and the rest of the Earth, without even considering that this water had to come from somewhare, and we dont see that volume everywhere at all today! So where is that water!
If I remember, Carl Sagan asked the exact same question.
From my point of view, I was amased that such highly educated scientists would be so superficial on their observation. let me demonstrate how this strawpuppet they created simply burns out once we take everything into consideration.
When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.
Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.
The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.
If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.
Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack curcumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.
We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.
This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.
However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.
Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.
Anyhow, I hope this will be a nice discussion going forward, and I urge anyone who would like to join in, to please take one step at a time.
Nothing is so frustrating as someone coppying and pasting a lot of claims, not expecting any answer.
Greetings
