🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
news:8UMAd.7711429$6p.1212943@news.easynews.com...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Sam Stone" <sirian@mental.org> wrote in message 
>> news:Rx2Ad.1636812$SM5.132115@news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>Bama Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>When a species determines its level of awareness, either morally, 
>>>>>scientifically, or otherwise it is always pertinent to examine the 
>>>>>process and see if it is inherently representative of the biases of its 
>>>>>authors.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The problem for the Creationists is that the scientific method simply 
>>>>works whether one believes in it or not, while a belief in the Bible or 
>>>>in God as the Creator is a circular argument, with no basis whatsoever 
>>>>in fact.
>>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>It strikes me there is still a significant, though rather tattered, 
>>>re-translated, even maddeningly incomplete transcribed record of our 
>>>origins, one measured in the eye of the day, both ethical and societal.
>>>
>>>In essence the Bible, and its root scrolls, are early science 
>>>(observation) and history all pasted together.
>>
>>
>> **No. There is no science of any recognisable kind in the Bible. There is 
>> some history, some poetry and some philosophy. There is a good deal of 
>> hysterical ranting too. There's no science.
>
> Dead WRONG!
>
> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
>
> Statements Consistent With Physics
> The Bible suggests the presence of nuclear processes like those we 
> associate with nuclear weaponry. This is certainly not something that 
> could have been explained in 67 AD using known scientific principles (when 
> Peter wrote the following verse).
>
>
> 2 Peter 3:10
> But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the 
> heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with 
> fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned 
> up.

**You're kidding, right? Please provide the PRECISE scientific processes, as 
described in the Bible. What you have described in not science. You want to 
see a description of science? Look at this:

http://www-star.st-and.ac.uk/~kw25/teaching/stars/struc8.ps.prn.pdf


>
>
> The television is a practical (if not always worthwhile  ) device that 
> uses electromagnetic waves (which transmit its video signal). The Bible 
> contains passages that describe something like television�something that 
> allows everyone on earth see a single event. (Note: such passages 
> typically refer to the end of time. It may not be long before all of us 
> learn for sure whether the Bible is true or not.)

**Again, not scientific. The imagination of people is vast and encompasses 
many things.

>
> Matthew 24:30
> Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the 
> tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on 
> the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

**Yes, yes, all very interesting, but the passage has no relevance.

>
>
> Revelation 11:9-11
> Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their 
> dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be 
> put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, 
> make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets 
> tormented those who dwell on the earth. Now after the three-and-a-half 
> days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their 
> feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

**See above.

>
>
> http://www.kjvbible.org/greenland_ice_sheet.html
>
> In July 1993, the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) completed 
> drilling down 3,053.44 meters through the ice and 1.55 meters beyond into 
> the underlying bedrock. From this was recovered the deepest ice core 
> record to date. One year earlier the European Greenland Ice Core Project 
> (GRIP) recovered a core to a depth of 3,028.8 meters at a site 30 
> kilometers east of GISP2. Comparative data between these two deep cores 
> have allowed scientists to develop an ice core-derived paleoenvironmental 
> record dating back greater than 110,000 years BP (BP means "before 
> present" and "BP" is defined as 1950).
>
> The establishment of this 100,000+ year BP record of Earth's atmospheric 
> history in the ice has been fairly well calibrated with proxy dating 
> methods. The annual layer counting of visible ice stratification, when 
> compared to radiocarbon extracted from the CO2 gas trapped within the ice 
> and other measurement techniques, has yielded an age error factor of about 
> 2% from present to 11.64 years BP; about 5% to 17.38 years BP; and 10% to 
> about 40,000 years BP. In other words, the ice has been confirmed to be as 
> old as the collective measurements indicate. These data alone destroy the 
> core doctrine of the theory of Young Earth Creationism, that of the Earth 
> being only about 6,000 years old.

**No argument from me here.

>
> In addition to the actual age of the ice at any given depth in the core, 
> scientists can also determine the mean temperature of the Earth's past 
> climate for different times and ages by measuring the ratio of the 
> isotopes of oxygen (O16 and O18) gas present in the CO2. Full details of 
> this and other techniques and further references to GISP2 and GRIP 
> projects can be read in full at The GISP2 Ice Core Record - Paleoclimate 
> Highlights page.
>
> Secular critics of Young Earth Creationism cite the very existence of the 
> Greenland Ice Sheet and the paleoenvironmental record it contains (as well 
> as the data found in ice cores from the glaciers on Kilimanjaro in Africa 
> and Huascaran in Peru) as absolute proof that the Earth is older than 
> 6,000 years and that Noah's flood did not occur, since there are no 
> indications of a flood in the ice core layers. On the first point they are 
> absolutely correct. On the second point, we disagree that the lack of 
> direct evidence in the ice proves that a global flood did not take place 
> at all. There is certainly "indirect" evidence to consider.
>
> The ice core records, whether in Greenland or mountain top glaciers around 
> the globe, are replete with "melt" indicators. These are layers where an 
> indeterminate amount of the surface ice has been melted between 
> accumulations. The resolution of the layer dating at GISP2 is about 3.8 
> years. Therefore, pinning down a one-year flood sequence to definitively 
> prove or disprove Noah's flood in the ice core record is problematic. 
> Whether the ice was floated off its anchor rock by Noah's flood, or 
> remained stuck fast to the rock and was submerged by the flood waters, 
> would make no difference. In either scenario the top layers would have 
> been washed over by fresh (not salt) water, resulting in a "melt" layer or 
> hiatus in accumulation. In the former case by rains; in the latter case 
> through inundation by a rapidly rising fresh water lens. (See the sections 
> on Noah's flood for fresh water explanation.) What is important is the 
> fact that the Greenland Ice Sheet and mountain glaciers exist and have 
> calibrated dated layer points. We can learn from them if we know what to 
> look for and where.
>
> If our Bible is true when it tells us Noah's flood was a real and global 
> event that according to the Biblical chronology happened about 2,345 B.C. 
> (roughly 4,295 BP), and if the GISP2 and GRIP data are also true, the only 
> possible explanation is that the bulk of the material which constitutes 
> the basement of the present Greenland Ice Sheet somehow survived that 
> flood. Actually, it would have needed to survive two floods, as the Earth 
> was also flooded before the six-day regeneration (see Genesis 1:2). If 
> that is true, the Paleoclimate data from the ice cores can give us insight 
> into environmental conditions, not only after the six days of Genesis 1, 
> but also before the six days. What has accumulated on the ice since Noah's 
> flood can tell us about the environment from then until the present.

**There are severe problems with any so-called "Global flood". Not the least 
of which is the maximum likely sea level rise, which would be about 50 
Metres, thus leaving a substantial proportion of the planet's population 
unharmed. Then there's the fact that the ice in the Antarctic is more than 
100,000 years old. Clearly, it has not melted at any time in human history.

>
>
>
>>>That the record is incomplete in spots, contradictory in others, yet 
>>>oddly coincident across diverse geographically isolated populations 
>>>indeed hints at a root commonality that is compelling.
>>
>>
>> **Really? Explain the commonality between, say, Australian Aboriginals, 
>> Hindu scriptures and Christian Creationists, then. They are WILDLY 
>> different in their attempts to explain things they had no hope of 
>> understanding. The Hindus got close, with their estimates of time. That's 
>> about it.0
>
> Inundation.
>
>>>Lacking but a sporadic frequency of accepted prophets to carry the 
>>>message of the Creator we choose to either accept or reject His essence 
>>>based on His inability to be measured by our instruments and physical 
>>>reality.
>>>
>>>Yet His periodicity is in most records more frequent than the global 
>>>innundation we know also occurs from time to time.
>>
>>
>> **Huh? Which "Global inundation" would that be? Given that there is not a 
>> shred of evidence of such a thing,
>
> Moron.

**Be VERY careful when tossing such desciptions at people who are clearly 
smarter than you are. I actually UNDERSTAND what I read.

>
> http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s215317.htm
>
> Global warming could be on the verge of triggering a rise in sea levels 
> that would flood huge areas of the Earth's most densely populated regions.
>
> New Scientist reports that an unpublished report from the world's top 
> climate scientists says the process would take a thousand years or more, 
> but would be "irreversible" once under way.

**No argument from me. Look at the following words:

"The new assessment, seen by New Scientist, suggests an eventual rise of 7 
to 13 metres is more likely."

Try and explain how such a rise in sea level could place the alleged Noah's 
Ark near the top of a 5,000 Metre mountain.


>
> http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/AshCF1.php?p=1
>
> Graham Hancock, in his latest book, Underworld, proposes that a number 
> (unknown) of sophisticated, urban civilizations disappeared at the close 
> of the Ice Age. A catastrophic rise in global sea level at that time, 
> according to Hancock, had fatal consequences for these maritime peoples, 
> as the lands upon which they had chosen to settle were just those lands 
> most susceptible to flooding.

**Very possible. Look at the time scales. Look at the land areas affected. 
These are not overnight events, nor do they affect the entire planet. Much 
of the population of this planet would have been completely unaware of these 
events.

>
> http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn047/worldwideflood.htm
>
> One of the most fascinating scientific discoveries in recent times 
> regarding a universal flood came from some scientists who were not 
> searching for any evidence of the Flood. It came from oceanographers in 
> the Gulf of Mexico who were doing some rather routine research on coral 
> and sediments of the ocean floor.
>
> Their two oceanographic vessels had pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of 
> Mexico several long, slender core samples of the sediment, which includes 
> the fossil shells of one-celled plankton called foraminifera. While still 
> alive, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the 
> temperature and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells 
> fall away and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that ocean bed 
> carries a record of climates that the oceanographers say go back more than 
> 100 million years.
>
> The cores were analyzed in two different investigations�by Cesar Emiliani 
> of the University of Miami, and by James Kennett of the University of 
> Rhode Island and Nicholas Shack of Cambridge University. Both analyses 
> pointed to a dramatic drop in the salinity of the water, providing 
> compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico 
> thousands of years ago.
>
> Cesar Emiliani explains the results: �A huge amount of ice-melt water 
> rushed into the Gulf of Mexico and produced a sea-level rise that spread 
> around the world with the speed of a tidal wave.� He adds, �We know this 
> because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked 
> temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It 
> clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 
> 10,000 years ago, with a peak about 11,600 years ago. There is no question 
> that there was a flood and there is also no question that it was a 
> universal flood� (�Noah, the Flood, the Facts,� Reader�s Digest, U.S. 
> edition, September 1977, p. 133).

**Assuming, for a moment, that this esteemed scientific publication is 
correct, explain how such a flood deposited the Ark some 5,000 Metres up on 
a mountain. You may care to explain how that same flood managed to cause no 
problems for the Australian Aboriginals.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au