Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The flood, and meat eating.
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 106 of 183 (226978)
07-28-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by TheLiteralist
07-28-2005 2:10 AM


Re: The Big Bang
Red shift has been demonstrated to be caused by objects moving away. The greater the red shift, the faster the object is moving.
And no, the background radition can not be explained by a number of 'radition objects' That is because the background radation is consistant, not coming from any one source. Radation from specific objects would vary in intensity. (i.e... just like stars to). The 'background' radiation is amazingly even. This would be consistant with a big bang.
The observation that caused people to conclude that the 'big bang' happened is that the objects in the universe are flying away from each other. As we took our observations, and extraploated back , the objects got closer and closer togather. BTW, The concept that is started as a single point came from a priest.. .. funny thing, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 2:10 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-02-2005 7:24 AM ramoss has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 107 of 183 (227082)
07-28-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by TheLiteralist
07-28-2005 2:29 AM


Longer lifespans?
TheLiteralist writes:
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.
I can think of some reasons:
First, the topic of this thread is about a supposed time when there was no meat-eating - i.e. no death. The whole idea of "lifespans" is irrelevant.
Second, deerbreh's point was about overpopulation. Longer lifespans and more offspring would only aggravate the problem.
Third, as I have been trying to explain to randman, this is a science forum. "Maybe this..." and "maybe that..." are not good enough. The Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy forum requires some correlation between the Bible and the outside world. So "goddidit" (altered the reproduction rate, etc.) is not a productive argument here.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 2:29 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 12:03 PM ringo has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 108 of 183 (227335)
07-29-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ringo
07-28-2005 12:34 PM


Re: Longer lifespans?
Ringo, the problem here is I provide you with evidence, and then you pretend it never happened. As such, it sort of gets useless to respond to you anymore.
Take science's discovery of the Big Bang and now dark matter and energy. Both of these discoveries are predicted by the text of the first few verses of Genesis.
You choose to ignore that "evidence," and I suspect either chalk it up to coincidence or perhaps you offer a different interpretation of the text.
How do you propose the text of Genesis was right concerning the Big Bang, and probably dark matter and energy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ringo, posted 07-28-2005 12:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 12:19 PM randman has not replied
 Message 110 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 12:22 PM randman has not replied
 Message 111 by ramoss, posted 07-29-2005 12:32 PM randman has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 109 of 183 (227352)
07-29-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
07-29-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Longer lifespans?
randman writes:
... the problem here is I provide you with evidence....
Um... what "evidence" would that be now? I'm old and short of memory. All I do recall is you making excuses for not having any evidence.
Perhaps you could repeat, or at least, link to something other than handwaving?
... it sort of gets useless to respond to you anymore.
And yet you still do. Must be my good looks, eh?
Take science's discovery of the Big Bang and now dark matter and energy. Both of these discoveries are predicted by the text of the first few verses of Genesis.
Nonsense (and off topic).
I have been asking you for evidence about meat-eating. For example, show us a fossil T. Rex with big, flat cow-teeth. Or show us a cow-tooth tiger skull. Show us any evidence that has something to do with the topic.
I will continue to repeat this as long as you continue to blather about the Big Bang, etc:
You can not excuse your complete lack of evidence with "time-travel" hand-waving.
Stop doing that. Address the topic. Show us some evidence.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 12:03 PM randman has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 110 of 183 (227360)
07-29-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
07-29-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Longer lifespans?
"Take science's discovery of the Big Bang and now dark matter and energy. Both of these discoveries are predicted by the text of the first few verses of Genesis."
How so?
On edit: As Ringo points out, this is off topic, so if you want to pursue this line of thought you should propose a new topic.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 12:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 12:03 PM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 111 of 183 (227364)
07-29-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by randman
07-29-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Longer lifespans?
Really?? They were?? I would have to say that when you look at Genesis, and the evidence for the big bang, it doens't match at all.
But, I suppose you see what you want to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 12:03 PM randman has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 112 of 183 (227365)
07-29-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by TheLiteralist
07-28-2005 2:29 AM


Re: Interesting discussion - some observations
Yes, I suppose God could "turn off" the desire to reproduce, but now you have just invoked another miracle. Are you really sure you want to do that?
By the way, I think the long lifespans are nonsense. Somebody seriously messed up either in translation or the individuals mentioned were not really individuals but represented families or clans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by TheLiteralist, posted 07-28-2005 2:29 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 12:50 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 116 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-02-2005 7:54 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 113 of 183 (227371)
07-29-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Interesting discussion - some observations
deerbreh writes:
Somebody seriously messed up either in translation....
I read somewhere that it may have been a problem with number-base conversion. Didn't the Babylonians use base 60, or some such thing?

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 12:33 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 1:38 PM ringo has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 114 of 183 (227403)
07-29-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ringo
07-29-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Interesting discussion - some observations
You may have something there.
"The Babylonians also used clay for writing. They incised numbers with a stylus that left wedge-shaped marks. This resulted in the writing system being known as cuneiform, from cuneus, meaning a wedge, and forma, meaning a shape. The Babylonian system used a mixture of base ten and base sixty. Base sixty tended to be used for larger numbers."
http://www.geocities.com/...fair2002/school/arit/arithm1.htm
Hmm - and isn't it thought that Genesis was written by Babylonian exiles?
on edit: That means Bishop Usher overestimated the age of the earth using his "begat" methodology, no? So the YEC position is even more absurd.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-29-2005 01:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 12:50 PM ringo has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 183 (228709)
08-02-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ramoss
07-28-2005 8:42 AM


Re: The Big Bang
ramoss writes:
Red shift has been demonstrated to be caused by objects moving away. The greater the red shift, the faster the object is moving.
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.
ramoss writes:
And no, the background radition can not be explained by a number of 'radition objects' That is because the background radation is consistant, not coming from any one source. Radation from specific objects would vary in intensity. (i.e... just like stars to). The 'background' radiation is amazingly even. This would be consistant with a big bang.
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?
ramoss writes:
The observation that caused people to conclude that the 'big bang' happened is that the objects in the universe are flying away from each other. As we took our observations, and extraploated back , the objects got closer and closer togather. BTW, The concept that is started as a single point came from a priest.. .. funny thing, huh?
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?
--Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 08-02-2005 07:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ramoss, posted 07-28-2005 8:42 AM ramoss has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 183 (228713)
08-02-2005 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by deerbreh
07-29-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Interesting discussion - some observations
deerbreh writes:
Yes, I suppose God could "turn off" the desire to reproduce, but now you have just invoked another miracle. Are you really sure you want to do that?
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.
deerbreh writes:
By the way, I think the long lifespans are nonsense. Somebody seriously messed up either in translation or the individuals mentioned were not really individuals but represented families or clans.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by deerbreh, posted 07-29-2005 12:33 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 08-02-2005 3:12 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 117 of 183 (228885)
08-02-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by TheLiteralist
08-02-2005 7:54 AM


Changing environments
TheLiteralist writes:
I believe this is due to new equilibriums in atmosphere, water mineral content, diet, topsoil content, etc. being established after the flood....
But we have all kinds of different environments on earth today: sea level to many thousands of feet in altitude, desert to arctic, every possible variation of "water mineral content, diet, topsoil content, etc."
Do we detect vastly different lifespans based on those different environments?
Are creation "scientists" doing experiments to try to extend lifespans by changes in environment? Wouldn't your prediction be easy enough to test?
-------------
Meanwhile, back at the topic:
Where's that evidence of no meat-eating? Any veggie-burning T. Rex remains?

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-02-2005 7:54 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by SantaClaus, posted 09-16-2005 3:34 PM ringo has not replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 183 (244191)
09-16-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by ringo
08-02-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Changing environments
The whole idea that they didnt know their days, months and years, is ridiculous. Right from the beginning, they called the evening and the morning "the first day". The calendar they used was different to a small degree, but every 13 years or so, they would add an extra month to the year to balance it out. A year was 1 rotation around the sun, just as it is today. They knew what a year was...especially Moses (The guy who compiled the genesis story) who was a highly educated son of egyptian royalty. People have tried to write off 1 year as 1 rotation of the moon. If that were the case, methuselah would have had his first kid when he was 5 years old. Its thought that the lifespan of every living creature was longer. Dont lizards grow their entire life? Imagine how big a lizard would get if it lived 500 years. Ever see how big insects and other small animals grow in very humid climates? My friend moved to mississippi for 4 years, and he was screaming on the phone about a praying mantis close to him that was the size of a cat. (I know not that big but thats the idea). The genesis story describes a firmament above. This gaseous canopy (Hey why not? Look at all those planets covered in a gas canopy?) would have created a greenhouse effect for the entire earth. No direct sun radiation, equal temperature around the earth, and huge creatures just like in humid climates. No genetic mutation caused by solar radiation (among other things that enter our atmosphere that are known to damage DNA). Imagine not only your DNA being damaged, but the DNA in every animal you eat has changed. The RNA in every plant you eat has changed. All this genetic code continues to change through time. Who knows. All I know is that the trend of this thread doesnt resemble the original question at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 08-02-2005 3:12 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by gene90, posted 09-16-2005 4:14 PM SantaClaus has replied
 Message 122 by Brian, posted 09-17-2005 6:09 AM SantaClaus has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 119 of 183 (244198)
09-16-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by SantaClaus
09-16-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Changing environments
quote:
Ever see how big insects and other small animals grow in very humid climates? My friend moved to mississippi for 4 years, and he was screaming on the phone about a praying mantis close to him that was the size of a cat. (I know not that big but thats the idea).
I live in Mississippi and know what you're talking about, and they can carve you up it you prod at them. But most of our bugs don't get that big, in fact that species may not even be native since gardners occasionally order Chinese praying mantis egg cases and set them out, so that the foreign species are naturalizing.
Of course, that's beside the point you seem to be making, that if I put an anole or a bug from my yard in a terrarium and crank up up the humidity it might get really big. I think somebody would have documented this effect by now were that the case.
When you say the gaseous canopy might have thicker, just to clarify, I presume you simply mean the atmosphere, and not something more complicated like a shell of ice in orbit, since you specifically mentioned the outer planets.
As for DNA not being damaged, I suppose you wouldn't have to worry about skin cancer in that scenario, though I thought you needed UV to produce vitamin D? Maybe a biologist can clear up my misunderstanding. What this wouldn't protect you against, though, is the background radiation you'll still be getting from the Earth itself, from the natural decay of uranium, radon, some isotopes of potassium, some thorium, etc. Also I expect Carbon-14 and Nitrogen-13 will be created at the top of the canopy in the same way it is in today's atmosphere and settle to the surface, to be soaked up by living things, again contributing to a mutation rate.
As for Venus Flytraps, you can grow them without feeding them. They don't get energy from bugs, they simply soak up their nitrogen because they have trouble getting it out of their boggy habitat.
This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2005 04:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by SantaClaus, posted 09-16-2005 3:34 PM SantaClaus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by SantaClaus, posted 09-16-2005 9:56 PM gene90 has not replied

  
SantaClaus
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 183 (244262)
09-16-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by gene90
09-16-2005 4:14 PM


Re: Changing environments
I have plants that are in shade all the time, yet thrive beautifully. Even scattered UV (shades and through clouds), is sufficient to allow photosynthesis. I forget what is is that rips through our bodies 24/7 and literally breaks sections of our DNA apart..it's neutron particles or something like that, that are constantly bombarding us from space. I have no idea what effect a thick atmosphere would have on this...if it would block them to any extent. As to the composition of this upper atmosphere, i dont know. People say that water is too heavy to build a canopy, but thats not true of water vapor....Duh. Stratus clouds are higher than 40,000 feet, and are made of ice particles. Then there are clouds in the lower area of the atmosphere. I imagine it would be possible to have another layer up there at some time in the past..who knows. Maybe it could have been a completely different gas. Who knows. The evidence points at Mars having had a thicker atmosphere and being covered in water at some time. But where did it go? Having a different gas distribution could affect the amount of carbon 14 one absorbs, therefore giving false carbon dating results. There was some ice drilling quite some time ago, and they (dont know who "they" are) found the ancient oxygen content to be higher, as well as some other differences. The conclusion they drew, was that the earth was riddled with 200-300 mph winds globally. Yeah..ok.
As far as the vitamin D thing goes, we obviously have the ability to adapt to conditions. And it definetely doesnt appear to take millions of years to do so. The equatorial people developed darker skin to block an over production of vitamin D..thats what the scientists say. I dont know why evolution wouldnt just have preferred to adjust on a hormonal level instead of changing the amount of melanin. Perhaps dark pigmentation didnt start showing up until some time after the canopy was gone. You look at the adaptive rate of some creatures, and it would appear that it doesnt take very long for certain types of adaptation to occur. I definetely dont agree with creationists that ignore adaptation. Its very real. I just dont think it takes as long as scientists think. Scientists havent been observing this type of adaptation long enough to draw any conclusive data. For them to assume (and then state as fact) it takes millions of years to adapt to the sun, is pretty arrogant. There are many many things that have never been observed, yet touted as fact. They havent been alive long enough to observe much of anything on a "millions of years" timespan. Just like many creationists, they make a huge amount of assumptions, then build a theory around a mix of hard data and alot of assumptions. But its really hard for them to ever admit they made assumptions.
Anything that is subject to change (like the theory of evolution), can never be stated as a fact at any time, because the theory itself is in a constant state of change. They always say its a fact, yet how can a "fact" be subject to constant change?
This message has been edited by SantaClaus, 09-16-2005 09:57 PM
This message has been edited by AdminBen, Friday, 2005/09/16 07:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by gene90, posted 09-16-2005 4:14 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by AdminBen, posted 09-16-2005 10:11 PM SantaClaus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024