Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Thank You.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aaron Viviano on May 9, 2002 02:49:28 UTC

Thank You for the compliment, it is there fault since tehhy just don't do they research that I do. Though I must admit to used to being like them. :(

Most people in religion simply argue, that it is in here it must be true! I don't buy that. After all if everyones' book was "true" Then no ones could be. Just like there is only one answer in normal math, I believe that there is only one truth or to, but to say it more acuratly I believe that even if you tell only 99% of the truth on purpose (not because you forgot something, then your not lying you just forgot something, I can't have anythign against you then) then you are lying because you left out the 1%.

Example: A Mom ask where her kid went, the kid went to the store and his girl friends house, if the kid answers the store and my girl friends house then he is not lying, but when he leaves out lets say the girl friend's house, then he is lying. That is what I consider the truth, so if somebody can disprove 1 part of the Bible or any other religous book, then the rest of the book can't be trusted. (Please note: just because a translation is wrong, doesn't mean the original text is wrong.)

Quote #1: "True, but in those cases, we see evidence of extremely violent events, such as explosions. We could likely go to Krakatoa twenty million years from now and tell that what transpired there was due to violent events, not gradual."

Well if you could go back that far (you now what I mean) you could see that, but what I thought He was refering to all Geological process, not just the slow ones, but mabey my interpertation was wrong.

Qoute #2 "What? Why? Are you telling me that a fast river doesn't curve? I find little logic in this statement. But I will assume it is true for the sake of argument, though I find it dubious."

I should have been more clear let me try again:

A fast river will curve, but not as much as a slow river. A fast river has more power beind it so it won't conform to the land like a slow river. Compare any fast river to something like the mississippi and you will see what I mean.

Quote #3 "You know, it's funny. The general accepted time for the great flood (about 2300 BC) falls right in the middle of the Fifth Egyptian dynasty and the Chinese Yao dynasty. I wonder how they didn't notice the end of the world?" Glad you asked! After giving this consideration I remembered something strange: Based on typical population growth rates one would need a total of 8 people 4400 years ago to acheive current population figures. If you had more the world would have a much greater number of people on this planet. Also no one is really sure about the exact age of something or the date of a civilizarion (to a certain point) because carbon dating isn't reliable. What I mean is this no one is quite sure how much carbon was in something to start with. Let me put it this way:

You are given this problem: You enter a room with a candle lite you are to find the starting hight of the candle, the candle is 7 inches tall. You find the burn rate to be one inch per hour, but you aren't told how long the candle has been burning and you can't ask. Impossible isn't it? That is the same way it is with carbon dating you don't know how much was there in the first place.

Hight = How Much Carbon Left
Rate = Half Life
Original Hight of the Candle = The original amount of carbon.

That is the problem with carbon we aren't sure. In my picture of the earth before the flood there used to be a huge layer of water or water vapor above the existing atmosphere (scientists have found a huge amount of water vapor in the very top of the atmosphere. It shouldn't be there) This water/water vapor blocked most of the sun's ability to produce the type of carbon that is needed for carbon dating. Which is why when one goes back to pre flood times one seems to get a really old date.

Let me put another way: Take a dinosaur bone to a lab to have it analized, they will ask you how old it is first (A funny thing to do when your not sure of something's date?) if you say you just dug it up from a archioligical site, they will take it. If you say it is a dinosuar bone they will refuse because carbon dating won't go back past 50,000 years. If they accept the dinsaur bone they will return it with a date of less then 50,000 years Garentied. In fact I would beat money on it!

Quote #4 "Why aren't there signs of water erosion on the ancient Pyramids?" Any signs of water erosion shouldn't exist since all of the capping stones are gone, except for the top ones on the great.
Knowing these top ones show no signs of eroision, this could be from three things:
1. They could resist the water some how
2. It would depend on how long they stayed underwater before they were eroided in any way.
3. The pyramids were built after the flood.

Personally I like the 3rd option the best because I don't think the structure/s would have survived the flood. I also think that the Great Pyramid wasn't built by the Egyptians. First look at the internal structure: An easy wide path DOWN into the queens chamber, but a hard narrow path UP to the empty kings chamber. The kings chamber also has 12 chambers above it or "following it." If sombody can find egypatian artifacts in one of the shafts, I will admit I'm wrong on this one.

Quote #5 "It used to be ten times more powerful." True, that is what I ment, but I should have said this before. However even from early accounts of the river, it was still a preety slow one except for the rapids. I will give this though however it would still go against geological evidence for how Canyons form, so it really doesn't matter how fast the river went, but I still relent to your point about it going 10 times faster. It should be able to do it in millions of years, but I think that might be a little ify. 20 times really close to having me. 30 times you got me.

Quote #6 "You mean the highest point of the canyon being the top of the highest wall? Well, of course. The entire canyon system has been eroding for eons. That is, millions of years ago, both the height of the Colorado river and its origin and exit would all be higher."
The problem with that is that the river was never above the 2000 foot mark and there for couldn't have carved the upper part of the canyon. The canyon goes through a bulge in the earth, so if the water was higher it would have taken a different path. If my answer wasn't what you were looking for please let me know, I will try as many times as it takes to fully articulate my opions/evidence to you, Thank You.

Quote #7 "Because different cultures have similar legends, they must have the same source? It would amaze me if, so soon after the world was destroyed, Noah's offspring went forth and started so many new religions and cultures in so short a time. By the way, did you know that Hinduism predates the Flood? How did the religion survive?" First the hindu thing relies on carbon dating, which I explained my opion on before. Second the ledgends aren't just similar they are almost identical.

Aside from Names/What Spirt told the guy to leave/the type of boat. They all follow the general patern of: Man is evil, the Great Spirt/s tell the only good man and his family to build a boat, he builds a boat, brings animals with him, the Great Spirt/s flood the WHOLE world, and the good man's family repopulates the whole earth once again. With nearly all ancient and modern cultures having this ledgend suggest that it must have had a single source. They are just too similar to suggest otherwise. Besides how would the ledgend get to the Americas if people got there 15000 years ago and the "local" flood happened only 4000 years ago and still have the similarities in stories?

Quote #8 "Given the huge floods of times past, occuring only in the spring, we get a pattern that would work in your list of requirements: a non-raging river most of the time, producing a curving pattern, but every once in a while you get your "broken dam" effect in a different form, producing steep walls. You can't think of the river as a static, unchanging entity. The top of the canyon is shale, limestone, and sandstone, so it would have eroded through faster at the beginning. Now, the river has eaten through to the granite below, so it slowed down. If the entire canyon was one big hard granite stratum I may be more inclined to agree with you."

Good point. I must look into some sources and do some thinking. I will get back to you on this one.

Qoute #8 "I see no logic in this statement. A breached dam of enourmous proportions can produce a curvy canyon but a fast river cannot? I would imagine water let loose from a broken dam would produce a much straighter course than a river. Anyway, though, do you have any idea of how much water we're talking about here? To form the entire canyon in one fell swoop? Show me where the water came from (what dried lake) It would have to be quite buggering large." The lake would be huge and would have lasted for maybe weeks also realize that the canyon material would still have to be "soft" (from the flood) for this to work. In hard rock you would be correct, but if you look at it after the thing being covered with a huge amount of water ans soften it would happen realativly easily. Also the water from the broken dam would follow the weekest (softest) part in the mud/ash which would produce the curving effect. There was a recent occurence of breach damming creating a canyon that looks like the Grand Canyon, smaller of course, it occurd right after Mt. St Helens wnet to peices. I have to find the name again. I hope to find it soon. Thank you for being pacient with me.

Thanks for reading my responce.
Reply with questions/comments.

May God Bless You.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins