The flood, and meat eating.

I dont feel the Big Bang is either scientific or has anything to do with Genesis.Can you think of any facts that support the Big Bang?How does the Big Bang = the creation of light?Here is a link to arguments refuting the Big Bang:
Page not found – Evolution-Facts--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-26-2005 06:51 AM

chiroptera,I felt bad for even injecting the comment in there as it can lead only to off-topic stuff. I almost deleted it (rather replaced it with "sorry, off-topic comment"), but decided that might be even worse to do.But I ask, what can cause red-shift? Can gravity? The farther a star is from us, the more objects in space the light must pass by...iow, gravity from countless objects will be "pulling back" on the light all along the way, I must wonder if this can affect or even cause the red shift. But, more importantly, the red shift, if it does indeed indicate that things are moving away from the viewer, then everything is moving away from the earth...do we have any observational evidence that everything is moving away from everything (we might, but I am unfamiliar with it)? If not, the red shift could conceiveably be used to argue that the earth is the center of the universe (I'm not making that argument, though, okay).The far away, therefore long ago argument (while not convincing ME of a great age for the universe) could be used as circumstantial evidence for an ancient universe, but it does nothing to support a big bang origin.Could background radiation be explained by the fact that the universe is filled with radiation-producing objects (the sun and other stars)? It most certainly is not a "clincher."

If the ability to reproduce comes from God ('be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth'), why shouldn't we think that God could turn off the instinct to reproduce once the earth was filled?I realize that the following comment is you quoting a creationist (I am a creationist, too), but I must also disagree with the comment."On reproduction, there could well have been a far lower rate originally, which incidentally fits well with the original longer lifespans after the Fall."I would think that the long lifespans meant that fewer parent individuals could more rapidly populate an area...not the other way around. I see no reason not to think this.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-28-2005 02:30 AM

red shift is caused by the light waves elongating.This can be caused by the light-emitting object moving away from the viewer.It can also be caused by the gravity of the light-emitting object.I am less certain, but I believe that the gravity of all the objects the light passes by on the way to the viewer "pulls back" on the light, and thus, from the viewer's perspective, stretches the light wave (making it appear redder than it should be).I am unfamiliar with the process that can conclusively demonstrate which process is responsible for any particular light-emitting object's red shift. I'd love an informative link about it if you know of one. Background radiation is figured (so far as I can tell) by subtracting doppler shifts due to Earth's motions and by subtracting out all the radiation from our galaxy. The resulting radiation then is NOT consistent, but lumpy (just not very lumpy). Well, that is not surprising. We are looking, then, at objects outside our galaxy, how strong are we expecting their signals to be?Also, how well do we subtract out the radiation from our galaxy? What objects do we observe flying away from each other? I was aware that red shift indicates (possibly) that everyting is moving away from the earth. I am currently under the impression that the "flying away from each other" is merely an assumption based on the idea that "the earth is no big deal."Which objects have been observed flying away from each other?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-02-2005 07:27 AM

I have no problem with doing that. Why should I? According to the Bible, He miraculously caused the desire to be there in the first place because he wanted the earth to be filled. Of course, I realize it doesn't "cut the mustard" here at EvC, but that doesn't bother me.[thanks, though, for acknowledging that God COULD do this...even if you don't believe in Him...you do appear to at least have the ability to "see" it from my perspective]One more thing, though, I am not saying that God was going to do this...only offering it as one possibility. Well, I'm not thinking of making you believe it. However, what causes the degenerative qualities of aging? If the environment were slightly different in a few key ways, could that possibly prevent (well, really slow down) the degenerative qualities of aging?Many plant species are now extinct (in the fossil record, but not observed today...and of course we YECers think the fossil record was made by Noah's Flood). So, the preFlood diet would have been different. IF the Flood caused the fossils and layers, then the original topsoil of the preFlood world was likely vastly different from what we have now (once again, affecting the diet). The preFlood atmosphere might have blocked harmful solar radiation...might have been slightly richer in oxygen.I do believe the long life spans. I also note that the life spans are recorded to drop over a few generations after the Flood and settle at 70 years to 100 years. I believe this is due to new equilibriums in atmosphere, water mineral content, diet, topsoil content, etc. being established after the flood, but all this is belief (faith) and/or conjectures based on my beliefs...and I wouldn't dream of asserting it as observed facts.--Jason