• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
newsbreak....

So.... I decided to do an experiment... I wanted to see if heavy things ended up lower than light things when immersed in water....

I have this above ground pool in my back yard... it's filled with 1500 gallons of water.


On occasion grass clippings end up in the pool. While very light, after only a few hours or maybe days they get saturated with water and sink to the bottom. I also tossed a ceramic cup in, and lo! it also ended up on the bottom. In the exact same place as the lighter grass, and actually, while heavier it stuck up higher than the grass clippings.

Well, I though, there's no sand on the bottom for this stuff to sink in to, so it's not really telling me anything...

So... Trial 1 - I took a 5 gallon bucket and put some sand in the bottom... filled it with water.... and contaminated it with things of varying weights... and it turns out that heavy and light things both settled to the bottom, and none was appreciably more embedded in sand than any other...

So... then, I decided... well, let's try seeing if things settle to the bottom in strata consistent with age of burial. So.. I added more sand, which in my mind represented several thousands of years of sediment building up. And.. I dropped more things in to the bucket... and... even really heavy things didn't end up lower than the stuff I had already buried in trial 1.

How can this be? Surely the heaviest items should work their way to the bottom, and alas they do not. It's almost as if it matters WHEN something sunk to the bottom, and weight has virtually nothing to do with it. I'm at a loss to explain this. Can someone help?
 
Upvote 0
Just curious, I believe evolution relies on the theory that everything evolved from something. If that is true what was there first and how did it get there?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the grand design of God in action?
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;890734; said:
Just curious, I believe evolution relies on the theory that everything evolved from something. If that is true what was there first and how did it get there?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the grand design of God in action?
Click to expand...

I believe that, and not the "big zoo boat" theory, and that belief does not prevent me from still being elected an Elder at my church. Now, I am not saying that my view is the only one worth having (I have fellow church members and Elders who believe in Noah as literal fact), but evolution is - in my church at least - generally considered to be the result of God's handiwork and part of His overall plan.

And while I can't for the life of me figure out how someone could believe in a 6,000 year old earth and a zoo boat, I'm even more incredulous that anyone could look at life and the heavens and not believe in God.
 
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;890759; said:
BKB, your posts are taking on quite a nasty tone. when you get your attitude fixed, i will me more than willing to continue the discussion.

until then, cheers.
Click to expand...

".../snip/...as for your church and priest arguments, i don't care what the pagan roman church or any of its pedophile priests says about evolution. i'm a protestant. i follow the Bible, not some false religion. the pope is the antichrist.../snip/..."

Sorry sunshine you're the wrong person to ever play the victim card.
 
Upvote 0
Wait... I figured it out.....

The earth is unlike a salad dressing bottle... that's why....

The whole fossils in liquid settling theory falls on it's face because in order for it to be a correct example, it' would have to be the case that not only was the world flooded (at a depth which was higher than Mt. Everest) but was shaken so violently that the ocean floors were turned up considerably, causing a thick goo of bones and dirt....

But, of course, neither science nor the Bible show any indication that the earth was shaken like you might shake Italian dressing. And, under several miles of water, it is quite calm even in desperately stormy seas above.

LV - yes, my posts have taken on a "tone." I don't regard you as an idiot, but I do think your position on this issue is wholly without rational support and, frankly, I've seen your arguments in support already and there's no point in "arguing" about them.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;890725; said:
Jwin, what precisely about evolution do you believe to be in error? I ask because I wonder if your understanding of what evolution is is as corrupt as LVs understanding.

It has been my expirience that people who deny evolution don't really understand it, and don't really have any desire to.

A test just for kicks. Some other thoughts worth exploring
Click to expand...

I'll bite. I have no education and will admit my vocabulary does not include any words longer than 8 letters (except education and vocabulary):!. I am Christian and believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Therefore, God is perfect in my eyes and the Bible is God's word breathed so forth and so on....


My understanding of what an evolutionist believes...

Man came to existence from simple single celled amoebas (or cells, or proteins, or electrons, or whatever they are). Over the course of m/billions of years, these simple organisms grew into fish then monkeys then men-cliff notes version.

If I have accurately summarized in the most elementary view, Christianity and evolution (from amoeba to man) must be mutually exclusive because I believe the world is only 6000 years old, give or take a few, and such cannot coincide.
To further my faith standpoint, Genesis 1:27 God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

So, understanding what my faith is and you can see my ignorance or brilliance in the field of evolution is, how can evolution and Christianity both be true?

I am completely open minded to your stance and perspective and am rather anxious to your education of fanaticbuckeye.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;890812; said:
Wait... I figured it out.....

The earth is unlike a salad dressing bottle... that's why....

The whole fossils in liquid settling theory falls on it's face because in order for it to be a correct example, it' would have to be the case that not only was the world flooded (at a depth which was higher than Mt. Everest) but was shaken so violently that the ocean floors were turned up considerably, causing a thick goo of bones and dirt....
Click to expand...
if you had done your homework you would know that fossilized sea creatures have been found thousands of feet up in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest itself has layers of sedimentary rock near the top. the fact that the sediment layers are folded upwards indicates that the mountains grew after they had been covered with water. further, a quick study of the Mt. St. Helen's region post eruption will show that several layers may be laid down horizontally and vertically at the same time.

But, of course, neither science nor the Bible show any indication that the earth was shaken like you might shake Italian dressing. And, under several miles of water, it is quite calm even in desperately stormy seas above.
Click to expand...
perhaps you would like to explain what Genesis 7:11 means when it states that all the foundations of the great deep were broken up. sounds like a pretty big shakeup to me. but then again, you don't believe the Bible, so i suppose that it means nothing to you to be wrong in your assumption that the Bible does not mention a great shaking of the earth's crust.

i'll skip the rest.
 
Upvote 0
LV.... you're aware of how the Himalayas formed, right? You realize that there weren't always "on top of the world" right? India slamming in to Asia has a lot to do with it.... You want proof of plate tectonics? Go spend some time in California.

On the earth being 6,000 years old....

Establish that for me with references to science, not scripture. When you can do that, we can talk. Dating techniques (the decay of elements like Uranium - which are very precise in time) establish the earth is about 4 Billion years old.

Your turn.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;891042; said:
LV.... you're aware of how the Himalayas formed, right? You realize that there weren't always "on top of the world" right? India slamming in to Asia has a lot to do with it.... You want proof of plate tectonics? Go spend some time in California.
Click to expand...
umm... yeah, i'm aware of that. YOU are the one that said that the flood would have to cover the very heights of the Himalayas. have you never stopped to think that they were formed BY the process of the Flood? of course not, you don't believe it ever happened, despite all the evidence for it. incidentally, i think you should take a trip out here to visit the Grand Canyon and explain to me how all that rock can be removed without leaving an enormous delta where the river entered the sea. i live in Las Vegas. there are mountains all around me. i have lived through a couple earthquakes here as well. i do find it quite amusing that you should say the Himalayas were formed when India "slammed" into Asia. "slammed" is not the verbiage of a process of a couple centimeters per year; it's the verbiage of a sudden and violent breaking up of the foundations of the deep. :)

On the earth being 6,000 years old....

Establish that for me with references to science, not scripture. When you can do that, we can talk. Dating techniques (the decay of elements like Uranium - which are very precise in time) establish the earth is about 4 Billion years old.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
which references would you like me to cite? the ones that you can instantly dismiss as being those of religious fruitcakes? or the ones that kowtow to the political consensus in order to receive funding?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
lvbuckeye;891101; said:
which references would you like me to cite? the ones that you can instantly dismiss as being those of religious fruitcakes? or the ones that kowtow to the political consensus in order to receive funding?
Click to expand...

Here you nail it for reasons you perhaps did not intend. Others do not have one - any - none -zilch - nada - ounce of religious belief wrapped up in this issue. To me, and many others, to embrace mainstream science and its revelations on the age of the earth and the existence of its earlier inhabitants is in no way a denunciation of Christianity. To people who think that every story in the Bible is true, if you move off of any of it, it all falls.

So the first requirement of a scientific inquiry - an open mnd - is not available to those who base their religion (and perhaps their idea of eternal salvation) on the literal word. To put it differently, those who are literalists cannot afford to look at this issue with an open mind. To even presume to admit evolution and the vast mainstream of scientific thought that through biology, physics, geology, etc. refute a 6,000 year old earth is to abandon your faith. So say what you will, insistance on a literal reading of the Bible as it relates to Genosis is not scientifc inquiry, it is a concentrated effort that is nothing less than a means to prove an end, that the Bible is right. Any proof that differs is to be disregarded.

If you could show that the world is full of non-Christian scientists, you might have some sort of bias. But as the bulk of modern science at the highest levels of government and university research is conducted by scientists who consider themselves "Christian", one has little to throw rocks at. OTOH, there are virtually no athiests or agnostics who think the earth 6,000 years old.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................
 
Upvote 0
Best Buckeye;890734; said:
Just curious, I believe evolution relies on the theory that everything evolved from something. If that is true what was there first and how did it get there?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the grand design of God in action?
Click to expand...
That's precisely my view on the matter. At one point in history (prehistory actually), life began. I see no way that life could begin without a divine stroke, but that's just me. This notion that evolution requires an absence of divinity has always been fantastic to me. The fact of macroevolution is one of the most persuasive arguments for the presence of a divine Creator, IMO.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top