Posted on 02/03/2014 5:44:47 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Not sure. There are several theories, the most commonly supported being a large body collided with the newly formed proto-earth and the resulting debris acreted to form the moon.
Not as cut and dried as "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.." but science is like that.
Getting ready for the debate, the board is set.
You didn’t see anything of a model? Werner Gitt’s information theorems (I forget if he had another term for them) is at the root of the issue.
Gotta go.. debate starts soon.
Just started....both are doing a good job....though Nye hasn’t defended his position, just attacked Ham.
Nye just said the USA is ahead all of the world in science. Huh?
Well, whether creationists say God just made it all happen, or “scientists” assert that suddenly all time and space just... Happened... There’s not really a dimes’ worth of difference in the magic of the moment. There’s really no point in the debate. Science and religion need not agree or disagree. They are studies of different things.
Science attempts to observe and describe. Religion attempts to understand. They’re different objectives. Science looks at a tree and names it, and gives names to all of its parts. Perhaps even to the subatomic level. But science does not understand the tree to the point it can make a tree from its component parts. Science can build a nice and perhaps accurate model of a tree... But so far anyway, they can’t make it alive. When science can do that, THEN they might have something to argue about but until then it is all a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
We are...unfortunately, all our science professionals are from Asia, Pakistan, India etc.
That sure is easier to memorize than learning science is.
I can just see you handing your science teacher a pass the day of the quiz that says :”BrandtMichaels is excused from his quiz, signed God”
Here’s a major problem with the proto-earth - stuff that would be commonly known if folks were more interested and educated in facts more than silly evolutionary lies, conjectures and assumptions.
Recession of the moon from the earth. Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age.
That was item number 66 from the following list:
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
BTW sickoflibs I do and did just fine in about any class tests presented to me - I also knew when to supply the answers the teacher required rather than the facts he/she knew nothing regarding why they were wrong.
Thank you for that response. I’ve been trying to point out the hypocrisy of calling either one [creation or evolution] science but they only hear what they want to hear and only try to defend the low hanging evo fruit.
If it were necessary [and I’m not saying it was] God could have miraculously supplied all their fresh water.
After all it would not be the first miraculous type of God intervention in mankinds’ existence and it certainly would not be the last.
Roger that. Thanks!
Ham (Creationist rep) just read bible verses, Nye (Science Guy rep) seemed very prepared for this show (which is all it was) and he lectured the Creationists on rather basic facts they didnt seem to know about like the speed of light and how far Australia is from Mount Ararat and that the creationists have not come up with a single Kangaroo bone between the two.(none of this is new)
That forced Ham to argue that there is not a single law of science observed today that we can assume applied even a few hundred years ago.
There ya go, to Creation experts like Ham there are no laws of science we can trust to apply over time(like speed of light) , Yet Ham says he just loves science. That's a great summary of Creationism.
Thanks for inviting me to watch this.
>> When Noah and his family and all those animals were on the ark? What did they drink?
Milk of course.
My church is showing it...
Well, ‘you get what you pay for’ - I knew going into this not to expect much. I’ve learned more pro and con for each side right here on FR.
I never have visited the Creation Museum either simply b/c Ham ignores the most plausible theory imho of all origins theories - namely the hydroplate theory - the one I keep posting and excerpting from by Dr. Walt Brown.
It is a very good read with plenty of scientific facts and quotes [mostly from the leading evolution ‘experts’] as well as Dr. Brown’s own scientific findings, 50 some predictions, and more cross-references than I’ve seen in any other book. Part III is a Q&A on the most commonly asked questions. Outside of the Bible it is the one book that completely won me over to the straightforward plain and simple reading of Genesis.
If you want to see the best arguments against evolution and for biblical creation then read this free online book.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences5.html
It is much better than flinging poo like so many monkees do...
Yeah I scanned it. Now can you address my question of what they drank? You say water. Are you honestly saying they drank salt water?
Also in HS my guidance counselor allowed me to skip certain classes that I knew I did not care to endure b/c the teachers had such bad reputations. Never had any HS teaching in biology nor geometry, [skipped the later and went straight into trigonometry - math and logic have always been my forte], but I learned plenty about biology and DNA at Purdue and throughout my professional career writing software.
My best teachers at all levels stayed on the facts of the subject and taught fundamentals using the best time-tested methods - unlike today’s public schools. My best college prof who later became the head of his dept pointed out that to be effective in computer software [or most any field of endeavor] we must always be willing to learn and even teach ourselves new things.
John Wooden [God rest his soul] once said:
“It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”
Honestly, I didn’t answer further b/c I don’t know, but I can tell you they were much smarter than our culture credits them with. In our current day they can make fresh water from sea-water and the sea were much less salty than they are now. Item 40 from my links page on 101 natural clocks.
“Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also. “
If Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden of Eden for an unspecified amount of time don’t you think they’d learn a few things? Early on in the book of Genesis A&E [1st and 2nd generation] descendants were farming, blacksmithing, making musical instruments etc.
Plus taking the Bible as completely true, honest and forthright [as Jesus affirmed] they lived almost 1,000 years before the flood and that would allow for a much larger body of knowledge to be attained.
There is no good evolutionary explanation for the oldest languages to be more complex than present day nor for the vast number of languages that caused mankind to spread out and inhabit the entire globe [as in the biblical story of the Tower of Babel].
Besides the number 1 item from another website I love to share:
“DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.”
They have also recently found carbon-14 in ancient fossils - including dinosaur fossils.
Modern day culture is promoting a pack of lies that they just can’t afford to give up - they are too much in love with the money and power [mainly supplied by the federal government] to give up any of their power and prestige in the quest for truth.
I already debunked that book you kept referencing twice. Its misses any arguments for the Creation, as did Creationist Ham last night,
The weight of DNA cited as proof of creation doesn't’ point the meter one way or the other.
Ham showed what is demanded of other Christians by his Creationists : Io deny the laws of observable physics and other scientific laws.
I thought Nye's rhetoric about Creationists hurting kids was hyperbole, but Creationist Ham proved its a real danger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.