Posted on 01/10/2002 11:01:49 AM PST by VaBthang4
You are.
Especially not if they have to eat. Does anyone really think there would be that many people, just from having that much time? Why make this argument?
Figure a creationist to omit that population is limited by environmental resources. Beyond that point, somebody has to die. Your technology level figures heavily into this. If hunting and gathering are all you know, your maximum possible population density is going to be pretty thin. With settled agriculture, it can be higher, plus you can support cities now. With irrigated agriculture, you can grow even more. And so proceed.
BTW, as many have pointed out, your other posts are of a piece with this one. Not a real stumper in the bunch. Polystrate fossils? Polonium halos? At this point, the author's ignorance can only be deliberate. This article isn't at all posing real questions for science. This article is trolling for dupes.
LOLOLOLOL!!
That aside, Jewish Kabbalah notes, "G-d created and destroyed many worlds before this one." Nachmanides, a renowned Torah scholar who lived during the middle ages, wrote that at the moment the Universe appeared, it was "no larger than a mustard seed," and ,
From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin, non-corporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it.Rashi, an 11th century scholar, noted "God separated out some of the primeval light and hid it away for a future time when it would be used by the righteous. This light will extend through all space, and with it it will be possible to see from one side of the universe to the other." The deployment of RADAR in Britain during WW-II resulted in detection of the cosmic backround radiation.From this initial act of creation, from the ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is and will be formed.
"Think of the odds."
One might suggest that there is only a conflict between science and the Torah only if you don't fully understand one or the other. It's evident that the author of the article in #1 doesn't fully understand either.
The hogback and Dakota formations were instrumental in me quitting church as a kid because the pastors kept telling me to forget about the fossils and sediment that I could plainly see and to accept contraditory sotires that had no evidence.
The Hovind Theory accounts for sedimentation, folding and uplifting, the Grand Canyon, and many, many other aspects of this debate.
This info was new to me, so if you or anyone else has something to say about it, I'm here to learn.
The rock sequence itself. If all sedimentary rocks were laid down by a global flood, there would be an expected sequence - clastics, sandstones, siltstones, shales - and maybe a smattering of limestone at the top - all over the world, at the same time. Instead, we have a broad range of intermixed rock sequences indicated countless transgressions and climatic changes. And then we have sedimentary rocks uplifted, folded, and then eroded, with subsequent additional sedimentary rocks, sometimes with a younger sequence deposited upon an eroded, angled sequence (such as the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon). And not all sedimentary-rock is based upon marine deposition - you have terrestial dune sandstones that are hundreds to thousands of feet thick out in the Colorado Plateau - you have fossil coral reefs that are hundreds of feet thick, and, since we can study the rate of coral growth and accumulation in the present, it isn't hard to determine that such thick limestone sequences are millions of years old.
So how do you propose that the flood could deposit a sequence of sedimentary rocks, tilt them, erode them UNDERWATER (a depositional, not an erosional environment), and then deposit more sedimentary rocks of a completely different type.
There is a video series by this guy. One of my kids brought home this video and we watched it this weekend. I thought he made a very good presentation of his case and it was very different than what I had previously believed and I'm one who always loved the Denver Museum of Natrual History, the Rooney Ranch fossil beds, etc, etc.
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.