The Bible as a historical source

[Fox]

In the RF2 thread Hector Sterling wrote:

I wouldn't be debating, if I wasn't prepared to entertain such a notion...If I was of the opinion that I was infaliable on said subject, then I would also believe you were completely wrong to begin with.  If that were the case, why would I waste my breath debating with someone I already believed to be wrong?  I debate to learn more, not to try and prove someone else may be wrong.

So...

It is my belief that while a large amount of the events as recorded in the Bible can be shown to be more or less accurate, and a large amount cannot be shown to be wrong, there are enough points in the Bible which can be shown to be incorrect or impossible to render the Bible unreliable as an historical source. This does not in any way mean that I am knocking any of the faiths based on the Bible - but that is what they are: faith, not history.

For example, Genesis tell us quite clearly that there were two days between the creation of life in the seas etc and the advent of mankind, whereas science has shown us quite clearly that millions of years seperate the two (and incidentally one questions whether God's image was that of the Australopithecus or Homo genus, without even wishing to consider the species!)

Or look at Noah's Ark. The Bible tells us that it was 450' in length, yet scientifically wood does not have the inherent strength required to support its own weight in such worked lengths. The largest wooden vessel ever built (outside of Bible stories) was only 350', a clear 100' shorter. It required iron reinforcement, was built using technology far in advance of anything known to the ancients, and still warped drastically under its own weight. Even assuming that Noah was able to build a wooden vessel of such megalithic proportions, it still could not possibly have housed two of every species (fourteen of "clean beasts", and fowl), let alone enough food to last them all 5 months (15 days).

Let me ask three questions if I may:

Who had a spear "like a weaver's rod", and who killed him?

How did Judas die?

What were Christ's final words?

(Oh, and which version of the Bible are we working from?)

[Capt. Sterling]

In the RF2 thread Hector Sterling wrote:

I wouldn't be debating, if I wasn't prepared to entertain such a notion...If I was of the opinion that I was infaliable on said subject, then I would also believe you were completely wrong to begin with.  If that were the case, why would I waste my breath debating with someone I already believed to be wrong?  I debate to learn more, not to try and prove someone else may be wrong.

So...

It is my belief that while a large amount of the events as recorded in the Bible can be shown to be more or less accurate, and a large amount cannot be shown to be wrong, there are enough points in the Bible which can be shown to be incorrect or impossible to render the Bible unreliable as an historical source. This does not in any way mean that I am knocking any of the faiths based on the Bible - but that is what they are: faith, not history.

Oh yes, I completely agree that we are not debating the faith issues regarding what the book is primarily about any way... I have no intentions of bringing that into play as that would be a whole other can of worms...

As far as which translation you wish to go on, that in itself is an issue we should come to grips with... you could be quoting King James and I could be resorting to original Hebrew texts which truly changes MANY issues.. for instance... KJV (King James Version) states thou shalt not kill, which throws the entire Old Testement into seemingly one contradiction after another... but the original Hebrew clearly states thou shalt not murder, a HUGE difference, especially when Exodus clearly establishes the captial punishment system for the nations to carry out...

I would think also it needs to be compared to the Hebrew calendars in use at the times certain texts were settled upon as that really throws a whole new out look on things... for instance, again, when the KJV states Jesus would raise again after three days and it is commonly believed that he was crucified on a Friday and rose on Sunday... just doesn't fit the equation but when done reasoned according to the Hebrew calendar of the times, especially when day and night begin and end.. it makes perfect sense...

are we on the same page so far?

[Fox]

Absolutely. Unless you speak fluent Hebrew and Aramaic and have a copy of the original version to hand then I suggest we work from a translation.

One version is much the same as another to me. I've always rather liked the language of the King James, so unless you have other preferences...

[Capt. Sterling]

Absolutely. Unless you speak fluent Hebrew and Aramaic and have a copy of the original version to hand then I suggest we work from a translation.

One version is much the same as another to me. I've always rather liked the language of the King James, so unless you have other preferences...

I have 33 translations at hand, but KJV is fine by me...

[Capt. Sterling]

okay first thing regarding creation... the bible states days, the bible also states one day = thousand years.... so

"Coal: Evidence for a Young Earth"

Abstract:

Evolutionary theory requires millions of years in the formation of coal in order to afford time for the development of living organisms whose fossils are found in coal deposits. However, laboratory and field research has demonstrated that coal is formed rapidly and in vast quantities. These vast coal deposits are unsullied by other material. The conclusion is drawn that actual research indicates a young age to the Earth that contains such coalified materials.

Introduction

"If coal takes millions and millions of years of heat and pressure to form, how is it possible that creationists are teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old?" This is a commonly asked question among individuals seeking answers about the age of the earth and the universe. Research has been done by several creation organizations, as well as independent scientists, in order to answer such questions. The evidence actually shows that coal does not take millions of years to form, as is commonly asserted. In fact, the formation of coal has been proven to be a rapid process that can be duplicated in modern laboratories in a matter of days - or even hours.

I. Rapid Formation

In order for coal to be formed, several factors must be present. Pressure, temperature, water, time, and some sort of vegetation are the key elements for the formation of coal. According to evolutionary theory, the slow accumulation and decomposition of vegetation living in past ages accounts for the coal seams. However, this theory can not answer why such large amounts of original vegetation without soil can be found in the areas that are now coal seams, or how these coal seams became so thick - some being over two hundred feet in depth.

Scientist Robert Gentry analyzed coalified wood found on the Colorado Plateau in order to determine how long it took for coal to form.1 By treating coal with epoxy and slicing it into thin sheets, Dr. Gentry was able to examine tiny, compressed radiohalos found in the coal. Radiohalos are discolorations in the coal, ejected by radioactive elements in the centers (such as uranium).

According to evolutionary theory, in order for these halos to form, several processes must have occurred. First, water-saturated logs must have been laid down in several different geologic formations, including the Triassic, Jurassic and Eocene layers. Later, uranium solutions infiltrated the water-saturated logs, and uranium decay products were collected at tiny sites within the logs. The radioactive decay from the tiny particles ejected spherical radiation damage regions around those sites, thus producing halos. Finally, a pressure event on the site of the formations compressed the logs as well as the radioactive halos within them. However, because coal is not a malleable substance, scientists know that these logs had not turned to coal at the time the compression event occurred. This points to a quick burial and coalification of the logs – rather than a long time period.2

II. Decay Ratios

When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years.3

III. Polystrate Fossils

The presence of "polystrate" trees (trees petrified or coalified in an upright position) point to a rapid coalification process. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, we know this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place.

IV. Unsullied Deposits

Finally, coal seams such as those found in the Powder River Basin of Gillette, Wyoming, ranging from 150 to 200 feet in depth, point to a rapid coalification process. "These coal seams run remarkably thick and unsullied by other material. Usually, unwanted sediments, such as clay, washes over a deposit before coal seams can get very thick. This leaves scientists with the baffling question of how the seams get so massive and still remain undiluted by influxes of clay and other impurities before they thicken."4

Conclusion

The answer can be found in the Biblical account of Noah's Flood. The Biblical description of the fountains of the great deep breaking up gives strong reference to volcanic activity in the pre-Flood basins.5 This would have provided several of the key factors need for the production of coal, along with an explanation of how the process could have occurred at such a rapid pace.

Although the coalification process has been used in the past to support theories of an aged universe, research done by leading creation scientists reveals that this process actually supports creation teachings of a young Earth. Physical evidence demonstrates that the coalification process must have occurred rapidly, rather than over vast time periods.

CEM Staff Writer

1Robert V. Gentry, Video: Young Age of the Earth

2Ibid.

3Science , October 15, 1996

4Earth Magazine, May 1993

5Genesis, chapter seven

[Capt. Sterling]

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously.10 This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.11

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.12

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

1Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp. 46-71

2 Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51

3Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought, ed. A.M. MacLeod and L.S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

4Barnes, Thomas, ICR Technical Monograph #4, Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field (2nd edition, 1983)

5Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103

6Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)

7Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86

8West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)

10Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, Tenn.: Earth Science Assoc.,1988)

11 Baugh, Carl, Why Do Men Believe Evolution AGAINST ALL ODDS? (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1999)

12Cook, Melvin, "Where is The Earth's Radiogenic Helium?" Nature, Vol. 179, p. 213

13Cowan, R., "Further Evidence of a Youthful Universe," Science News, Vol. 148, p. 166

14Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22

15Humphries, Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994)

16Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) p. 263

17 Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4

18Restak, Richard, The Brain: The Last Frontier, 1979, p. 390

19The Brain, Our Universe Within, PBS Video

20Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series

21Weiss, Joseph, "Unconscious Mental Functioning," Scientific American, March 1990, p. 103

[Capt. Sterling]

The Earths Magnetic Field

Many people know that the earth has a magnetic field, but few are aware that this field is shrinking. This decrease has been measured over a period of 150 years, and the rate of the decrease shows that something very earth-shaking took place less than 6000 years ago. The fossil record contains evidence of great disturbances in the field that give us an idea of the magnitude of the geologic events during Noah's flood. This fact sheet answers some common questions on this subject, beginning with basic questions about magnetism and ending with some current theories about geomagnetism.

What's a magnet?

Everyone knows what a magnet is, or what a magnet does. An invisible force (the magnetic field) attracts iron objects. This force can be very strong. A better question is ``Why does a magnet attract iron objects?''. For this we must take a look at what a magnet is made of.

If you take a bar magnet and break it in half, you end up with two smaller bar magnets. If you break the halves into fourths, you get four small bar magnets. If you have enough patience and time you can repeat this until you have millions of microscopic magnets.

All magnets have two poles; a north pole and a south pole. We call this a dipole (two poles). Two north poles or south poles repel each other. Try forcing the two north poles of two bar magnets together. The unseen magnetic field makes it feel like there's a water balloon between them resisting your push. Opposite poles (a north and a south) attract strongly.

How do you make a magnet?

Since opposite poles attract, you can put two magnets together to make a larger magnet. If you have many little magnets, you can keep adding magnets into a larger mass and have one large, strong magnet.

Some molecules, some atoms, and all electrons are little magnets. So why isn't everything magnetic? In most matter, the molecules, atoms, and electrons are all jumbled up together. In a strong magnet, most of the little magnets (magnetic domains if you want to get fancy) point in the same direction. This makes the magnetic force of all the little magnets add up to make a large magnet, called a permanent magnet.

Free magnets tend to align with each other. You can try this by placing one magnet on a table and slowly moving another magnet toward it. The magnet that is loose on the table turns to align with the magnet in your hand. If you stroke a piece of iron with a magnet, you gradually align the little magnetic domains, and the result is a larger magnet.

Electric current is the flow of electrons through a conductor. A conductor is a material that lets the electrons hop from atom to atom when influenced by an outside force. If you move a wire (which is an electric conductor) through a magnetic field, you force (induce) the electrons to travel in one direction through the wire. Electrons flowing through a conductor create a magnetic field around the conductor. This is called electromagnetism.

Can you ´unmake´ a magnet?

A stronger magnet can partially realign the magnetic domains of a weaker magnet.

Many different substances can be made into permanent magnets. However, for all these materials, there is a critical temperature called the Curie point. At this temperature or above, the molecules within the material are moving around too much for the material to retain the magnetic alignment necessary to exhibit a magnetic field.

How big can a magnet be?

We live on a magnet. The earth itself has a large magnetic field called the geomagnetic field. You can see the effects of the field when you use a compass to find out which direction is north.

Earth's magnetic field is very complicated. It can be thought of as being one large magnetic dipole with twelve more small magnets arranged at various angles.

A curious fact about Earth's magnetic field is that it is not lined up with the spin axis. Its alignment is about 11 degrees off the axis defined by the north and south poles. (Without knowing this, you can't find the North pole using only a compass!)

What does Earth's magnetic field do for us?

The magnetic field helps us find our way around. Using a compass, we can tell which way is north even when there are no familiar landmarks in sight.

The magnetic field shields us from much harmful radiation. Cosmic rays come from all directions, and the sun sends out a steady stream of high-energy particles known as the solar wind.

Genesis 1:6 describes the firmament (Hebrew raqia) separating the water below from the water above. Before the flood described in Genesis, the magnetic field may even have helped to suspend the firmament above the earth.

Is the Earth's field changing?

Scientists have made many careful measurements of the magnetic field over 150 years. These measurements show that the magnetic field is slowly shrinking. The intensity of the field decreases by half in 1400 years. This means that as time goes on we have less protection from cosmic radiation and the solar wind.

How strong has it been?

In 560 A.D. the field was twice as strong as it is now. In David's kingdom it was four times as strong. In Noah's time it was eight times as strong. There are limits to how intense the magnetic field could have been. If we assume that the field has been decaying at the same rate for 10,000 years, the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star. The heat and electrical extremes from such conditions would have made life on earth impossible.

This presents a significant problem for evolutionists and their belief in a 4.6-billion-year-old earth. Their answer is the dynamo theory, which assumes that the core of the earth is made of molten metal (iron-nickel mixture). Molten material inside the earth is far hotter than the Curie point, which means that the earth as a whole is not a permanent magnet; it must be an electromagnet. The dynamo theory is that slow, internal convection currents or planetary rotation generates the magnetic field, and that this mechanism has operated for the assumed 4.6 billion years. Since This theory also claims that the field reverses over extremely long periods of time.

Did the field ever change directions?

Of course, it's dangerous to observe a process for a relatively short period of time and then declare that the process has been behaving in exactly that way for all of time. This approach is routinely seen in traditional geology and paleontology (``...the present is the key to the past.''). However, in this case uniformitarianism is denounced by the evolutionists. They point to paleomagnetic measurements in rock formations.

As sediment accumulates or as molten rock cools, the earth's magnetic field is believed to have aligned the magnetic domains within the material as it hardened, locking in a record of the orientation of the geomagnetic field at the time. Measurements of the magnetic-field polarity in ancient volcanic lava flows show that Earths magnetic field gyrated wildly at one point in time. Other evidence for a change is that the residual magnetic fields in rock formed on the ocean floor where the great tectonic plates are pulling apart show a number of different orientations. The traditional assumption here is that these processes went on at the same rate in the past as we observe today. However, during the flood, when cataclysmic geologic events were occurring at a rapid pace, these processes may have been recording what happened to the magnetic field over weeks or months instead of hundreds of thousands of years.

Dr. D. R. Humphreys has studied the physical evidence of magnetic-field reversal and decay and developed a model that describes the magnetic field as having a high initial strength, a series of rapid reversals during the flood year, slower variations until the time of Christ's earthly ministry, then gradual steady decay.

The idea that the geomagnetic field could have rapidly reversed was rejected by the evolutionary community, even though a much larger body, the Sun, reverses its field every eleven years.

Recent discoveries have added more weight to Dr. Humphreys model. The April 5, 1995 edition (Vol. 14) of Science News reported on a Nature article that researchers are finding fresh evidence of extremely-rapid field orientation shifts, as much as six degrees per day. The article states that ``if that happened today, compass needles would swing from magnetic north toward Mexico City in little over a week''. The article quotes one geophysicist as saying ``that shows the core to be violently active in terms of the magnetic field''.

Violently active? ``...on that day all the fountains of the deep were broken up...'' Genesis 7:11, NKJV.

Will the field build back up again?

- Earth seems to have a broken generator. More of the observable facts support the model proposed by Dr. Humphreys. Whatever happened in the past, hard evidence exists for a freely-decaying geomagnetic field now. A collapsing magnetic field encounters resistance, which generates electrical current, which generates more magnetic energy. The result is a slow decay unless new energy is released into the decaying system from an outside source.

``He who was sat on the throne said `Behold, I make all things new!'''... Revelation 21:5, NKJV.

[Capt. Sterling]

Our Created Earth: Uniquely Designed for Life

by David V. Bassett, M.S., CEM Staff Writer

"Speak to the Earth, and it shall teach thee;...Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?" Job 12:8a, 9

Of all the lessons which the Earth continually teaches us, perhaps the most obvious and profound is that it alone among the worlds framed by the Word of God (Heb. 11:3) is divinely crafted, sculpted, and engineered to sustain life. In fact the more we learn about our solar system and the universe, the more unique our Earth becomes. As home to over one million different species of life, each with its own special criteria for survival, the Earth repeatedly reinforces the fact that God orchestrated each detail necessary for terrestrial existence.

"For thus saith the LORD Who created the heavens, God Himself Who formed the Earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited; I am the LORD, and there is none else." Isaiah 45: 18

The Creator's matchless formula for life on Earth involves a multitude of planetary parameters working together in a specific and delicate balance. So precise is this prescription, a mere absence or slight alteration in any one of the countless interrelated factors and mutually-dependent variables upon which life hinges could prove cataclysmic. Consider these more noticeable requirements upon which all life on our world depends:

(1) Abundance of Liquid Water --- This flowing treasure is unique in the combination of physical and chemical properties it manifests as the only possible solvent and medium for living cells. More than 70% of the planet is covered by some 326 million cubic miles of liquid water, enough to submerge a perfectly smooth and spherical Earth to a depth of 8,500 feet (over 1.6 miles!!). [Gen. 1:2, 10b / Job 38:34 / Ps. 33:7 / Rev.14:7b; see also Gen. 7:10 & Ps. 104:6]

(2) Cleansing Ocean Tides --- The ebb and flow of Earth's tidal circulation (in response to the lunar gravitational pull) purifies the world ocean and the continental shorelines which serve to enclose its waters. [Prov. 8:29a / Job 26:10; 38:11 / Ps. 104:9]

(3) Ideal Planetary Size and Mass --- With an equatorial diameter of 7,927 miles (Job 38:18 / Isa. 40:22a) and a mass equal to nearly 6.588 sextillion (10 ^ 23 = billion trillion) tons, the Earth is able to provide the perfect gravitational attraction and optimum atmospheric pressure for living organisms. [Job 28:25 / !sa. 40:12]

(4) Life-Sustaining Atmosphere --- It has been said of the Earth that "the existence of its inhabitants hangs upon a thin and delicate sheath of gas that envelops the planet like the skin of an apple." Though over 99% of our atmosphere (composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases) lies below 50 miles in altitude, it still is able to (a) provide the necessary oxygen crucial for animal and human respiration, ( preserve acceptable temperature ranges while avoiding life-threatening extremes of heat and cold, and © protect from incoming extraterrestrial debris and (UV) solar radiation. [Gen. 1:20b / Job 37:18 / Ps. 104:3,13]

(5) Protective Magnetic Field --- Supplemented by the Van Allen radiation belts, the ionosphere, and the ozone layer as interior shields of defense, the Earth's magnetic field not only protects us from cosmic bombardment of harmful particles and high-frequency waves, it is also responsible for facilitating cellular communication and directional location. [Prov. 8:27; cp. Ps.5:12]

(6) Proper Orbital Shape --- With a circumference of almost 600 million miles, the Earth's orbit around the Sun is nearly circular in order to minimize extreme temperature variations. [Ps. 19:4b-6]

(7) Perfect Orbital Radius --- Earth's 93 million-mile-average distance from the Sun (typically referred to as one astronomical unit or 1 A.U.) allows our planet to have an ideal surface temperature of 58 degrees Fahrenheit and an average ocean-water temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit. In fact, in terms of insolation (i.e., incoming solar radiation), this orbital radius positions our world at the optimum location for life in the entire solar system. [Gen. 1:14-18 / Ps.74:16]

(8) Orbital Speed and Duration --- With an orbital period of exactly 365.256 days, which the Earth can accomplish by racing through space at an incredible 66,600 mph (over 18 miles/sec !!), our planet's seasonal length is conducive for agriculture. [Gen. 1:14]

(9) Angle of Rotational Axis --- Also playing a role in Earth's favorable pattern of climate, the 23.5 degree tilt on its planetary axis permits the four annual seasons and, in the northern hemisphere, increases the amount of suitable land area and fertile soil needed for summer cultivation of crops. [Gen.8:22 / Ps. 74:17]

(10) Rate of Planetary Rotation --- Earth's sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 seconds allows for proper, uniform heating and cooling of its spinning surface (Job 38:14 / Gen. 8:22), as well as the re-circulation of its atmospheric winds and ocean currents in the global hydrologic cycle. [Eccl. 1:5-7 / Ps. 135:7 / Isa. 55:10]

The tolerances for life are extremely narrow, and if there are any other planets in the universe, it is very unlikely that any of them could have life, due to the extremely rigid conditions necessary for life to exist. The mathematical odds that all of these and other essential conditions happened by random chance are indeed astronomical -- in fact, beyond all probability. The ideal combination of prerequisites and requirements crucial to life observed only on Earth surely testifies to intelligent, purposeful design. "The LORD by wisdom hath founded the Earth; by understanding hath He established the heavens." --- Prov. 3:19

To believe that this beautifully balanced life-support system is a mere accident requires invincible faith in the power of blind chance. Would not any honest observer have to admit that the Earth alone appears to have been designed for us to live on, just as the psalmist said.

[Capt. Sterling]

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any

human experimenter (Dobzhansky )

3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )

4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )

RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).

(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes

which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is

damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,

Nobel Prize for Chemistry )

(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,

the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as

incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )

(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change

in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things

are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now

quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an

animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and

his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a

gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random

changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )

[Capt. Sterling]

MAMMOTHS

by Robert F. Helfinstine

Vita:

BSEE, 1950 University of Minnesota

U.S. Navy Commission as electronic specialist, 1951

Honeywell, Inc. 40 years in design and development of automatic controls for aircraft and spacecraft. Lead systems engineer on E1B/S2F automatic control system, lead systems engineer on Apollo command module control system – in addition to various aircraft and spacecraft systems. Independent research in ancient history, archaeology and dating techniques. Participation in excavation activities in Glen Rose, Texas and Hanson Ranch, Wyoming. President, Twin Cities Creation Science Association. Author of TEXAS TRACKS and ARTIFACTS.

Abstract: The secular view of mammoths centers on an Ice Age environment and extinction some 10,000 years ago. Some creationists view the mammoth remains as evidence from Noah's Flood. These large animals could never live in an Arctic environment such as we find in Siberia and northern Alaska, primarily because there is no food supply compatible with their needs. Scientific studies of these animals lead to the conclusions that they were from a temperate climate, there was a mass extinction of many of them, and many were buried along with trees and other vegetation after which the land became frozen by a sudden and permanent climate change. The cause of the extinction and burial appears to be a brief but massive flow of water from a post-Flood disturbance to the earth.

Introduction

The largest quantities of woolly mammoth remains are found in Arctic and sub-arctic locations. They had long hair and underwool, and those found with meat still on their bones showed a heavy layer of fat under the skin. From this evidence the secular view of mammoths is that these large animals, by evolutionary processes, were adapted to living in a cold climate. The frozen remains were attributed to the hazards of living in such a climate. But from earliest scientific studies of these animals, a different picture emerges.

I. Characteristics

Early research proved that the mammoth was distinct from modern elephants. Although related, it is a closer relative to the Asian elephant than the African elephant based on blood tests. It was not a tropical beast, neither was it adapted to living in the Arctic. Adaptation is supposedly based on thick skin, long fur and underwool, and fat deposits under the skin. Mammoth skin, essentially identical to that of the Indian elephant, does not have oil glands. Fur without oil glands is adaptation to a warm climate. The fat layer is not for insulation, but an indication of an adequate food supply. Preserved food found in the mouths and stomachs of several specimens contained temperate climate grasses which do not grow in the Arctic today, but 2000 kilometers farther south. Temperate climate plants and animals go together. The companions of the mammoth were woolly rhinoceros, bison, sheep, horses, bears, lions and deer.

II. Climate Conditions

The climate of Siberia and northern Alaska during the time of the mammoths was not the same as the present climate. Even Charles Lyell concluded that the mammoth Arctic climate was much warmer than it is today. The present tundra mosses and grasses which grow only about eight to ten weeks of the year are unpalatable and even toxic to large herbivores. Mammoths would be living in a practical desert under the present conditions.

Large rooted trunks of trees are found in beds containing mammoths. Large trees cannot grow over permafrost. Animals living with the mammoths, horses and bison, could not have endured the mires of Arctic summer which make travel almost impossible.

III. How Did Mammoths Die?

Some modern ideas of how mammoths died include falling into ice crevasses, falling over a cliff in a storm, falling through thin ice or being buried by a landslide.

Scientific analysis of bodies and other remains in the tundra provide the following information. Remains are for the most part just bones scattered about and piled together with trees, volcanic ash, vegetation and bones of other animals. Some animals were torn apart by violent action. Animals with preserved flesh are buried in the frozen tundra near its upper surface and usually at higher elevations. Decay began before the bodies were frozen, but once frozen they never thawed until exposed by erosion or excavation. The animals died suddenly in the late summer as indicated by food found in their stomach or mouth. Frozen mammoth remains and other animal remains increase in number the farther north one goes in Siberia, being most numerous in the New Siberian Islands.

The probable cause of the death of so many animals is described by H.H. Howorth.

"A great catastrophe occurred by which the mammoth and its companions were overwhelmed over a large part of the earth. This catastrophe involved a brief but widespread rush of water which not only killed the animals but also buried them under continuous beds of loam and gravel."

IV. Dating the Catastrophe

The big question is "When did it happen?" Based on Biblical history, the event happened after the Flood of Noah. Not all people agree with this conclusion.

But there were other effects of the orientation change. Great tidal waves were reported by the Chinese and North American Indians. The Sahara dried out and became a desert. Its present condition appears to have begun after 2000 B.C. The Tarim basin in China was once populated with cities and settlements and forests. Now it is mostly desert. There is evidence that India, Pakistan and Iran all had abundant rainfall before the climate changed. Large areas of former agricultural land on the India-Pakistan border are now desert. American deserts once had abundant rainfall based on pollen and tree remnants found at archaeological sites. All the world's deserts seem to have started about 3500 years ago. This is the same period identified by Charles Ginenthal for the extinction of the mammoths. It is also the time of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

References

1.Stewart, J.M., Frozen Mammoths from Siberia bring Ice Ages to vivid life, SMITHSONIAN, Vol 8 No. 9, Dec. 1977

2.Hapgood, C.H., The Extinction of the Mammoths and the Mastodons, Ch. 10, The Path of the Pole

3.Howorth, H.H., The Mammoth and the Flood, London 1887

4.Farrand, W.R., Frozen Mammoths and Modern Geology, SCIENCE, 17 March, 1961

5.Dillow, J.C., The Riddle of the Frozen Giants, Ch. 10, The Waters Above, 1982

6.Ginenthal, Charles, The Extinction of the Mammoth, The Velikovskian, Vol III, Nos. 2,3, 1997

[Capt. Sterling]

Subject: Carbon Dating

A less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Many people believe that carbon dating disproves the Biblical time scale of history. However, because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by action of cosmic rays. Once the C 14 has been formed, by converting nitrogen-14 into carbon-14, it behaves like ordinary carbon-12, combining with oxygen to give carbon dioxide, and freely cycling through the cells of all plants and animals. Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms which decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is—scientists can not be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Other possible factors, such as the presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years. Also, the decay of the earth’s magnetic field would have direct effects on C14 level, again, giving artificially old ages the farther you go back in time. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all data, such as the decay of the magnetic field and the canopy, is taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth.

[Capt. Sterling]

EVIDENCE FOR CREATION

(as compiled by Creation Evidence Museum - Dr. Carl Baugh)

THE FOSSIL RECORD

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of “primitive” life forms to “more complex” systems we observe today. Yet, “since only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance."(1) “The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.” (2) This supposed column is actually saturated with “polystrate fossils” (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. “To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” (3)

1. John Woodmorappe, “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column.

2. H. Heribert Nilsson, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, THE EARTH BEFORE MAN, Part II

3. E.J.H. Corner, CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT

DECAY OF EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. (4) Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand years.

4. Thomas Barnes, ICR Technical Monograph #4, ORIGIN AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD.

THE GLOBAL FLOOD

The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah’s day. Additionally, there are hundreds of flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. (5) M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. (6) Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth’s sedimentary layers. (7) It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood. (8)

5. Edward Blick, A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF GENESIS; p. 103

6. M.E. Clark and H.D. Voss, FLUID MECHANIC EXAMINATION OF THE TIAL MECHANISM FOR PRODUCING MEGA-SEDIMANTARY LAYERING.

7. Derek Ager, THE NATURE OF THE STRATIGRAPHICAL RECORD, p. 43 and p 86

8. John Anthony West, SERPENT IN THE SKY: THE HIGH WISDOM OF ANCIENT EGYPT, pp 13-14

RADIO HALOS

Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of plonium-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. (10) This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

(10) Robert Gentry –CREATIONN’S TINY MYSTERY)

HUMAN ARTIFACTS THROUGHOUT THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN

Man-made artifacts – such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past. (11)

(11) Carl Baugh, Ph D –WHY DO MEN BELIEVE EVOLUTION ... AGAINST ALL ODDS?

[Capt. Sterling]

Majestic

SCIENTIFIC ALLUSIONS IN SCRIPTURE…

Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has compiled an impressive list of allusions to scientific principles in Scripture. This list actually demonstrates that a matrix of scientific principles underlies the body of Scripture. These principles were not known to the leading minds of the day in which they were written; in fact, many of them contradicted what was being taught at the time. Such a list confirms that the Scriptures are scientifically credible. It further confirms that the Scriptures were supernaturally inspired.

(Compiled by Dr. Henry M. Morris, Defender’s Bible)

Sciencex

Phenomenon or Process Scripture

Hydrology

Hydrologic Cycle

Evaporation

Condensation Nuclei

Condensation

Precipitation

Run-off

Oceanic Reservoir

Snow

Hydrologic Balance

Springs in the Sea

Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10

Psalms 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13

Proverbs 8:26

Job 26:8; 37:11, 16

Job 36:26-28

Job 28:10

Psalms 33:7

Job 38:22; Psalms 147:16

Job 28:24-26

Job 38:16

Geology Principle of Isostasy

Shape of Earth

Rotation of Earth

Gravitation

Rock Erosion

Glacial Period

Uniformitarianism

Dinosaurs

Isaiah 40:12; Psalm 104:5-9

Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:10; Psalm 103:12

Job 38:12,14

Job 26:7; 38:6

Job 14:18,19

Job 38:29,30

II Peter 3:4

Job 40,41

Astronomy Size of Universe

Number of Stars

Uniqueness of Each Star

Precision of Orbits Job 11:7-9; 22:12; Isaiah 55:9;Jeremiah 31:37

Genesis 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22

I Corinthians 15:41

Jeremiah 31:35,36

Meteorology Circulation of Atmosphere

Protective Effect of Atmosphere

Oceanic Origin of Rain

Relation of Electricity to Rain

Fluid Dynamics

Ecclesiastes 1:6

Isaiah 40:22

Ecclesiastes 1:7

Job 28:26; Jeremiah 10:13

Job 28:25

Biology Blood Circulation

Psychotherapy

Biogenesis and Stability

Uniqueness of Man

Chemical Nature of Flesh

Cave-men

Leviticus 17:11

Proverbs 16:24; 17:22

Genesis 1:11,21,25

Genesis 1:26

Genesis 1:11,24-2:7;3:19

Job 12:23-25; 30:3-8

Physics Mass-Energy Equivalence

Source of Energy for Earth

Atomic Disintegration

Electrical Transmission of Information

Television

Rapid Transportation Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3

Psalms 19:6

II Peter 3:10

Job 38:35

Revelation 11:9-11

Daniel 12:4

[Capt. Sterling]

Oh one other thing, when properly reading the book of Genisis (sp), it states that the earth already exisisted prior to the better termed "recreation" or redesigning of it for the placement of Man....

need to work on the graphs for the one illustrations as they did not post ... sorry will get to that promptly...

[Capt. Sterling]

Q: How long was the "day" as described in Genesis 1 and Does the word "let" in Genesis 1 mean to restore?

Answer:

The Hebrew word for "day" ('yom') used in Genesis 1 to reference the seven days of Creation Week occurs a total of 2291 times in the Old Testament and, in 95% of these occurrences, refers to either a defined time period of short duration, a literal solar day (i.e., one rotational cycle of the Earth on its axis), or the daylight portion of one such cycle [as demanded by the context]. The other 5% refer to some aspect of another literal day--the prophetic "day of the Lord," either the literal day of Jesus Christ's physical return to Earth in power and judgment and/or His 1,000-year Kingdom reign over all the nations of the globe for an actual millennial period (also delineated in Rev. 20:1-7). Beware of those misusing the end-time meaning [consummation context] of the word 'yom' when interpreting the days of Earth's beginning [creation context].

It is also good to know that the word 'yom' always (100% of the time) means a literal solar day when it is:

(1) used in the plural form 'yamim' [845 times];

(2) preceded by a numerical adjective (e.g., first day, second day, third day, etc.) called a nominal or an ordinal in historical narrative [359 times in the OT outside of Genesis 1];

(3) modified by the phrase "evening and/or morning" [38 times outside of Genesis 1].

In addition, Genesis 1 is a tight (no-gap) chronology bound together by a Hebrew grammatical structure called the 'waw consecutive.' Note how each of the verses in Genesis 1 (except v.1 & v.27) begins with the word "And ..." (the Hebrew word, 'waw'). This literary device links all the days of Genesis 1 into a sequential unit of six literal days of creative work, finalized by a seventh literal day (in Genesis 2) of Sabbath rest--the basis for our work week of 6 literal days (Exod. 20:11). Besides, if God wanted to convey the idea of long, indefinite time periods, He would have inspired the use of the Hebrew word 'olam,' not 'yom' !

Furthermore, the word "let" as used in Genesis 1 never means to "restore," but instead has the meaning of "cause to be." As to how God did this, the Bible is emphatically clear that the Creator simply spoke the universe (time/ space/ matter) into existence, including the heavens and the earth, instantaneously by the eternal power of His omnipotent Word (Ps. 33:6, 9/ Heb. 11:3/ 2 Pet. 3:5). That is, God creates by divine Fiat, not by any process dependent on time. After this initial act (not process) of creation (Gen. 1:1), you will notice from the Biblical narrative that God is busy both forming and filling His cosmos:

FORMING FILLING

Day 1 Day 4

Day 2 Day 5

Day 3 Day 6

You will also notice that this chronological sequence in no way correlates with the presumed evolutionary scenario

Okay this may be more faith based, so you can chuck if you chose to...

[Dan Reid]

Bravo Capt.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Kent Hovind? (sp) He is a creationist who goes into detail over many of the topics you have brought forward. He is called Dr. Dino www.drdino.com is his website.

If I could make a suggestion about biblical translations. I have studied for the ministry and have found the CSB or Christian Standard Bible to be the closest translation in English of the original Greek and Hebrew. Thought that might help. I will be watching this thread with great interest.

Dan

[Capt. Sterling]

Bravo Capt.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Kent Hovind? (sp) He is a creationist who goes into detail over many of the topics you have brought forward. He is called Dr. Dino www.drdino.com is his website.

If I could make a suggestion about biblical translations. I have studied for the ministry and have found the CSB or Christian Standard Bible to be the closest translation in English of the original Greek and Hebrew. Thought that might help. I will be watching this thread with great interest.

Dan

Thank you for both Dan, I will check into them...

[Fox]

If nothing else Hector you've proven that I can't read as fast as you can copy and paste. Is there any chance you could summarise rather than C&P in future, apart from anything else it would save the repetition.

In answer to the points I was able to take in before my brain got text-blind:

the bible states days, the bible also states one day = thousand years

Where? Unless it's in the creation passage of Genesis it's irrelevant. We can't imagine that every time a day is mentioned in the Bible it's referring to a thousand years, so any such statements must be seen in context. If we start picking and choosing which bits refer to which then we can do anything.

The debate about the age coal takes to form is an interesting one, but it doesn't prove creation. Even if it could be proven beyond doubt, all it shows is that coal doesn't take as long to form as we previously thought.

The flood: just because the flood may have happened (and I'm inclined to believe that it did, based on geological and historical evidence) it still doesn't prove that Noah had a 450' boat made of gophor wood. As I stated originally, large parts of the Bible can be show to have some basis in fact, but that doesn't make it reliable as a historical record. Braveheart had some basis in fact.

Population statistics et al. So many of the arguments presented use data from the present day to calculate what was going on thousands of years ago, then later you say that it is dangerous to use data from the present day to calculate what was going on thousands of years ago. You can't have it both ways.

Expansion of space fabric: the inability of scientists to agree on the size of space is not an argument for creation, it just means they can't agree.

Magnetic field: the relative strength of the Earth's magnetic field can be explained, by evolutionists apparently, by the reversal of the magnetic field. You then quote Dr Humphrey's Model, which apparently shows that magnetic reversal has taken place. The point here is?

Life supporting Earth: you are quite correct, the chances of there being a planet capable of supporting life as we know it are billions to one. How many planets are there?

Mammoths. Mammoths were not arctic dwelling creatures. Fine, your quotation shows that the areas in which mammoth remains are found were not in arctic conditions during the time of the mammoths. This might be slender evidence in favour of the flood, but as I said before, nobody's disputing the flood.

Carbon dating: yup we know it's often inaccurate, that's why it's not relied on when other dating techniques are available.

So, when are you going to answer my three questions?

[Captain Jim-sib]

Boy, what a can of worms twas opened here.

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein's Lazarrus Long:

One man's philosophy is another's belly laugh.

Yet, I am kinda partial to Jimmy Buffet's line:

"It's the Buddist in you & the Pagan in me,

she's Catholic ain't she?"

With respects to the Genesis creation story, the sequence is

in the proper order, just the time symbolism is debatable. Actually,

the Genesis creation story is based on an older Babalonyian creation story, Anu Elish...which the Bab's probably assimilated into their culture from the older Sumerians. The only difference between the Anu Elish & Genesis is that Anu uses polytheism. During the time when the Jews were slaves in Babaloyn, the Anu Elish would had be told. Again, assimilation of a story takes place, yet monotheism replaces polytheism.

Global Flooding Physical Constraints: True many cultures around the world have a similar flood story. Are they connected to a single event?

Who knows. If they are and follow the "rain for 40 day/night", then there is a problem with getting that amount of water vapor into the atmosphere. How much energy would it take to get that amount of water

vapor into the atmosphere ?...Enough to vaporize the planet. ZAAAPPP! (partial meself to the Pole Shift theory...nottin' like a good bath tub sloshing!)

Granite & radioactive decay...and even coal for that matter. If a rock undergoes any type of metamorphism (low-mediium-high), the radioactive decay "clock" is reset to the time that the metamorphism took place. Is the granite you refer to a "true" granite (with acceptable range values for quartz, potassium feldspar, sodium feldspar, and hornblend ), or is it a metatmorphic gneiss that has features of an igneous granite? There are situations where a sedimentary protolith metamorphoses into a "granite" composition.

Yet enough of this debate where only feelings will get bruised.

Have a brew on me at Va. Sail, 2007

Best regards

[Fox]

Q: How long was the "day" as described in Genesis 1 and Does the word "let" in Genesis 1 mean to restore?

Answer:

The Hebrew word for "day" ('yom') used in Genesis 1 to reference the seven days of Creation Week occurs a total of 2291 times in the Old Testament and, in 95% of these occurrences, refers to either a defined time period of short duration, a literal solar day (i.e., one rotational cycle of the Earth on its axis), or the daylight portion of one such cycle [as demanded by the context]. The other 5% refer to some aspect of another literal day<snipped>

So not a thousand years then?

[Capt. Sterling]

Okay, first question, immediately I want to think David and Goliath, but could you mean Elhanan a Bethlehemite and the son of Jair? In one of the many battles with the Philistines, Elahnan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite (1 Chron. 20:5). There is a discrepancy between the account in 1Chron. 20 and 2 Sam. 21:19, where it appears that Elhanan killed Goliath himself rather than his brother. Some have suggested that Elhanan was simply another name for David. Others have thought that they are two different incidents and that, if Elhanan slew Goliath, there must have been two of them. It is also suggested that the phrase "brother of" has been lost from the text in 2 Sam.

please give reference...

According to scripture, Judas hanged himself, and since the jury is still inconclusive regarding the "gospel of Judas" I am not so sure that would be best to bring into the discussion, I have not read anything regarding that text as of yet so would be hard to debate it, but will look into it...

[Capt. Sterling]

If nothing else Hector you've proven that I can't read as fast as you can copy and paste. Is there any chance you could summarise rather than C&P in future, apart from anything else it would save the repetition.

In answer to the points I was able to take in before my brain got text-blind:

the bible states days, the bible also states one day = thousand years

Where? Unless it's in the creation passage of Genesis it's irrelevant. We can't imagine that every time a day is mentioned in the Bible it's referring to a thousand years, so any such statements must be seen in context. If we start picking and choosing which bits refer to which then we can do anything.

The debate about the age coal takes to form is an interesting one, but it doesn't prove creation. Even if it could be proven beyond doubt, all it shows is that coal doesn't take as long to form as we previously thought.

The flood: just because the flood may have happened (and I'm inclined to believe that it did, based on geological and historical evidence) it still doesn't prove that Noah had a 450' boat made of gophor wood. As I stated originally, large parts of the Bible can be show to have some basis in fact, but that doesn't make it reliable as a historical record. Braveheart had some basis in fact.

Population statistics et al. So many of the arguments presented use data from the present day to calculate what was going on thousands of years ago, then later you say that it is dangerous to use data from the present day to calculate what was going on thousands of years ago. You can't have it both ways.

Expansion of space fabric: the inability of scientists to agree on the size of space is not an argument for creation, it just means they can't agree.

Magnetic field: the relative strength of the Earth's magnetic field can be explained, by evolutionists apparently, by the reversal of the magnetic field. You then quote Dr Humphrey's Model, which apparently shows that magnetic reversal has taken place. The point here is?

Life supporting Earth: you are quite correct, the chances of there being a planet capable of supporting life as we know it are billions to one. How many planets are there?

Mammoths. Mammoths were not arctic dwelling creatures. Fine, your quotation shows that the areas in which mammoth remains are found were not in arctic conditions during the time of the mammoths. This might be slender evidence in favour of the flood, but as I said before, nobody's disputing the flood.

Carbon dating: yup we know it's often inaccurate, that's why it's not relied on when other dating techniques are available.

So, when are you going to answer my three questions?

Hang on, haven't address Noah yet... that was all regarding creation

[Capt. Sterling]

If nothing else Hector you've proven that I can't read as fast as you can copy and paste. Is there any chance you could summarise rather than C&P in future, apart from anything else it would save the repetition.

But Foxe I thought you liked all the documentation..?

[Zephaniah W Nash]

At first, I thought I should stay away from this topic like the plague. There is little more likely to create bad feelings than religion or politics.

Then, I saw the huge copy/pastes. From skimming them, most are arguments I've seen before. Whether or not to go into a detailed commentary on them remains to be seen.

I would like to make two points, however. It is extremely unlikely, in my experience, that this sort of debate is ever a wholly objective one. At some point, on one side or t'other, one or more of the debators falls back on accepting some point or other on faith. Once that happens, the discussion is no longer objective, it becomes subjective.

Secondly, regarding creationist theories -- even if they are accepted, for the sake of argument, this in no way points toward the accuracy of the Christian Bible -- only that there was a Creator. It could equally well be Odin creating the Earth from the body of his father, Ymir. It could equally well be Izanagi and Izinami stirring the primordial ocean with a spear. It could equally well be the Great Old Ones creating a playground in their celestial insanity. Etc., etc.

As I read the bulk of the thread in more detail (and if I see that the thread won't be too likely to devolve into arguments), I very well may post a more detailed commentary.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

uhhhmmm... Yeah.. I don't see this ending well.

Kersey anyone?

Greg