All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said you need to read the account if you want to discuss it, who
told you the land mass we see today was the same as it was before
and after the flood?
Kelly

Assuming that the earth´s crust´s radius didn´t change and that the highest mountain at the time was only a tenth the height above sea level, that is still half a billion cubic kilometers of water. The earth is not hollow. We know this from seismic measurements.

What is more, if you think about the myth a bit they only had one mating pair for each species. This is going to cause some real inbreeding problems.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What is more, if you think about the myth a bit they only had one mating pair for each species. This is going to cause some real inbreeding problems.

Creationists stem from Noah, remember?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Assuming that the earth´s crust´s radius didn´t change and that the highest mountain at the time was only a tenth the height above sea level, that is still half a billion cubic kilometers of water. The earth is not hollow. We know this from seismic measurements.

What is more, if you think about the myth a bit they only had one mating pair for each species. This is going to cause some real inbreeding problems.

Yes, and if you read the account you'll see people were living
hundreds of years. I imagine animals were the same way, which would
have given us the huge dino's fossils we seen. Since their lives would
have been as long as people's, it wouldn't have been until after the
flood would they have died off quicker odds are not reaching the huge
sizes we see in the fossils. It would mean that there were less
mistakes or errors within DNA so breading problems wouldn't have
become an issue until later. As far as the earth's crust didn't change,
why would you believe that? In the beginning when the earth was
formed water covered the surface of the earth, God brought the land
up to the surface, that water went somewhere else, why not under
ground?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, and if you read the account you'll see people were living
hundreds of years. I imagine animals were the same way, which would
have given us the huge dino's fossils we seen. Since their lives would
have been as long as people's, it wouldn't have been until after the
flood would they have died off quicker odds are not reaching the huge
sizes we see ...[text shortened]... he land
up to the surface, that water went somewhere else, why not under
ground?
Kelly

Because it´s not there now. We would have noticed the presence of 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of subterranean water. The fact that peoples ages are unrealistic in the account does not improve its plausibility. Essentially you are insisting that the bible is literally true despite there being no evidence for even the physically possible bits.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Because it´s not there now. We would have noticed the presence of 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of subterranean water. The fact that peoples ages are unrealistic in the account does not improve its plausibility. Essentially you are insisting that the bible is literally true despite there being no evidence for even the physically possible bits.

We have the same amount of water pretty much as we always have
that does not mean that the surface or the land mass of the earth
has held its shape over time. I do believe that scripture is true, if
you are going to accept it or not is up to you, but the stories are as
good as the so called stories people have come up with, like
everything from nothing.
Kelly

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You are the true master of ad hoc argumentation!

I can see how you think it odd that I believe that if you reject God
out of hand, but you are than left with everything from nothing which
I think is less likely.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have the same amount of water pretty much as we always have
that does not mean that the surface or the land mass of the earth
has held its shape over time. I do believe that scripture is true, if
you are going to accept it or not is up to you, but the stories are as
good as the so called stories people have come up with, like
everything from nothing.
Kelly

This is a false dichotomy. You are saying either the whole of the Bible is literally true, or God does not exist and since the consequence of none of it being true is philosophically unsatisfying the biblical account is a rigorous history. Mainstream Christian thinking on this is that God started the universe 13.6 billion years ago and that the history of the universe after that is identical to the scientific narrative, and that the mythology of the Bible is just that - a mythology.

By insisting on the mythology being true you end up having to explain away more water than actually exists on the planet - according to Wikipedia there is 1.3 billion km³ of water, you need an additional 4.5 billion km³ of water to just submerge Mount Everest.

You don´t expect the story of the boy who cried wolf to be literally true to accept the underlieing message, so why do you insist on the literal truth of the Bible?

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is a false dichotomy. You are saying either the whole of the Bible is literally true, or God does not exist and since the consequence of none of it being true is philosophically unsatisfying the biblical account is a rigorous history. Mainstream Christian thinking on this is that God started the universe 13.6 billion years ago and that the ...[text shortened]... true to accept the underlieing message, so why do you insist on the literal truth of the Bible?

I'm not saying that, what translation would I apply that to any way if
I were? Since the translations could be removed from the original
text with respect to meaning and intent? I am saying that if you are
are going to pick and choose what parts you like and dislike you are
now the judge of the scripture instead of scripture being in a place
to enlighten you! I do believe each text must be looked at in the
context it sits in was this written and meant to be history or was it
some made up story to give truth? Was it referred to later as factual
or was it referred to later as just a made up story?

I accept God created, once I did that I see no reason for me to limit
God's ability to do it any way He wanted to or could. He speaks and
the universe and earth are here, He only needed to say something
and it is so! Now if that were true, why would it take Him billions,
or trillions of years? If He can speak things into reality, why would
He have to setup a process for life? He could just as easily create all
life like He did the universe in what we call a more mature stage of
development that is much father along then starting at dead dirt and
putting the pieces together over the time of billions of years.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is a false dichotomy. You are saying either the whole of the Bible is literally true, or God does not exist and since the consequence of none of it being true is philosophically unsatisfying the biblical account is a rigorous history. Mainstream Christian thinking on this is that God started the universe 13.6 billion years ago and that the ...[text shortened]... true to accept the underlieing message, so why do you insist on the literal truth of the Bible?

As I believe I have told you before the mass of earth how it is formed
comes into play. Taking all the scripture into account water covered the
whole earth at the beginning, God made land appear so how did God
do that? One possible way would be to allow the earth to take into it
much of the water by altering the shape, creating holes in the ground
pushing the earth upward above the surface. If God again can speak
into reality the earth why would changing the shape ever so slightly
be all that hard, the amount of water would not have to increase or
decrease it simply goes where the laws of the universe force it too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not saying that, what translation would I apply that to any way if
I were? Since the translations could be removed from the original
text with respect to meaning and intent? I am saying that if you are
are going to pick and choose what parts you like and dislike you are
now the judge of the scripture instead of scripture being in a place
to enlight ...[text shortened]... rting at dead dirt and
putting the pieces together over the time of billions of years.
Kelly

So God creates the universe 6,000 years ago and makes it appear 13.6 billion years older than it really is? I argued several hundred posts ago that this kind of cosmic deception is equivalent to stating that evolution is true.

That 13.5 billion km³ figure for the total amount of water on the planet includes all underground water. You cannot get round the disappearance of that much water, it´s not a small percentage gone, it´s a small percentage left over.

You contradict yourself in this post, first you complain that the bible has translation dependence. Then you say that you can´t pick and choose which stories are true and which are not. Then you say that the Bible has to be read in context - which means picking and choosing based on arbitrary criteria. It is strange that the most objective criteria for determining the literal truth of the stories are the ones you dismiss.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So God creates the universe 6,000 years ago and makes it appear 13.6 billion years older than it really is? I argued several hundred posts ago that this kind of cosmic deception is equivalent to stating that evolution is true.

That 13.5 billion km³ figure for the total amount of water on the planet includes all underground water. You cannot get roun ...[text shortened]... st objective criteria for determining the literal truth of the stories are the ones you dismiss.

God does not make it appear 13.6 billion years older, people come up
with what they think it is as they come up with different ways to look at
the universe around them. God made the universe period, what you
think about it, the conclusions you draw about it are between your ears
not necessarily does that mean your getting it right! Have you seen
what 13.6 billion year old univese created from nothing looks like to
be able to say this is what we should see, or did you look at the one
you are in and say I think it is 13.6 years old? You have nothing to
compare, nothing but your point of view to suggest your right!

The age of the universe doesn't come into play as far as I'm concern
with what I think is wrong with evolution, you can have trillions of years
and I don't think what is being suggested as truth would work out. I
don't care how old the universe is really for evolution. I believe it to be
young, but I could be wrong about that, no big deal.


I've spelled out to you twice now the water amount today could be the
same as it was during creation, the only difference would be how much
is in the sky, under ground, and on the surface. Depending on the
shape of the surface and how much water is allowed to go under
ground there isn't an issues with the amount of water!
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
So God creates the universe 6,000 years ago and makes it appear 13.6 billion years older than it really is? I argued several hundred posts ago that this kind of cosmic deception is equivalent to stating that evolution is true.

That 13.5 billion km³ figure for the total amount of water on the planet includes all underground water. You cannot get roun ...[text shortened]... st objective criteria for determining the literal truth of the stories are the ones you dismiss.

There are parables in scripture they are even acknowledge as such
in scripture, I would not take such passages and claim those events
occurred. Where we see names and events spelled out and those same
events quoted by others as true events; I'd take those events as true.

It is context, it is always context if all you have is that you don't like
a passage of scripture because that passage is describing an event
that you find far fetched, that isn't enough to say this could not have
happened, there has to be some reason to suggest it didn't occur
besides your willingness to believe it or not. You must be consistent
in your approach to scripture, it isn’t a matter of I like this part, I
dislike that part, so obviously this part is good that part is bad.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are parables in scripture they are even acknowledge as such
in scripture, I would not take such passages and claim those events
occurred. Where we see names and events spelled out and those same
events quoted by others as true events; I'd take those events as true.

It is context, it is always context if all you have is that you don't like
a pas ike this part, I
dislike that part, so obviously this part is good that part is bad.
Kelly

This is not science, this is based on your opinion, and your opinion only.

Listen to people who knows their science. And learn from them. Perhaps you will have some revelations...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is not science, this is based on your opinion, and your opinion only.

Listen to people who knows their science. And learn from them. Perhaps you will have some revelations...

Hey you badgered me to talk about scripture, it happened and now
you changed your mind?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hey you badgered me to talk about scripture, it happened and now
you changed your mind?
Kelly

Oh, this is my fault, is it? You have not any responsability to stay on topic, do you?
Then it is my fault that you whines as a pig going to its slaughter too, is it?