Is the Bible the Word of God?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
suspended no in orbit yes if it was a complete canopy of ice it would be a sphere with an axis of rotation at the points on the sphere near the axis of rotation the ice wouldn`t be moving fast enough to avoid gravitational collapse to a lower orbit (read as the surface of the earth) thus busting the canopy ....

​

*note* - claiming that it wouldn`t rotate merely spreads the problem of gravitational collapse to the whole structure...

​

*note* - this collapse would happen very quickly certainly to soon for all the pre flood events in the bible....

---

*also note that if the sphere were spinning any faster than necessary for the plane perpendicular to the rotational axis to form an orbit the material in this plane would be thrown up into a higher obit.*If the sphere were spinning at the correct obital velocity for the perpendicular plane then anything not in that plane would gravitationaly collapse....

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Furthermore,some folks,dont remember which ones today were explaining that ice so close to the sun cant last long in space without being vaporized.

---

thats quite apart from the problems of gravitational collapse....

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
suspended no in orbit yes if it was a complete canopy of ice it would be a sphere with an axis of rotation at the points on the sphere near the axis of rotation the ice wouldn`t be moving fast enough to avoid gravitational collapse to a lower orbit (read as the surface of the earth) thus busting the canopy ....

​

*note* - claiming that it wouldn`t rotate merely spreads the problem of gravitational collapse to the whole structure...

​

*note* - this collapse would happen very quickly certainly to soon for all the pre flood events in the bible....

​

*also note* If the sphere were spinning any faster than necessary for the plane perpendicular to the rotational axis to form an orbit the material in this plane would be thrown up into a higher obit.

​

*and*If the sphere were spinning at the correct obital velocity for the perpendicular plane then anything not in that plane would gravitationaly collapse....

---

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)They would have recognized the dangers of various animals a little bit after the Flood when God gave his creatures the right to eat meat and be omnivorous/carniverous.

​

2)Oh my goodness, to reach a full grown size (actually there isn't one for reptiles) for any dinosaur in a year, implying that full grown is the equivelant of the multi-ton animal, you would have to increase celluar replication million/billion fold! Also, as I stated reptiles don't really have a full grown state, repitles such as iguanas and other lizards, thus including dinosaurs, do not stop growing,

​

3)assuming it was the other way around, say one type of dinosaur didn't die out and was still abundant today, and the komodo dragon were the extinct one, the komodo would have been just as amazing as the rest of the dinosaurs.

---

Just a few quick points.1)I thought you lot said animals started eating each other after adam and eve ate the fruit..... Bit befor3e noah that wasn`t it?2)I assume you are saying you would have to increase the replication rate that much to attain sizes that we see evidence of in fossils (given that they had no maximum size) in this case a factor of millions/billions would suggest the examples that we find fossils of lived to ages between 10^6 and 10^9 years, Given your assertion of a 6,000 year old universe how?3)Not really dinosaurs predominantly walked on 2 legs rather than 4, if say Allosaurs existed today they would be conspicuous as being the only lizards that walked on 2 legs.......quite apart from the "oh shit its the size of a small house and it wants to eat me" factor.......

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
1)You mean we shouldn't just guess just yet?

​

2)Did you know there's ice on mercury?

​

3)Who's to say the universe acted exactly the same before the flood as it does now?

---

1)sublimation is only half the problem you have to construct a canopy that won`t be torn apart by gravity first....2)Yes I did you will however note it is in the regions that never get exposed to sunlight. The evidence is actualy against you here the reason we only find ice in the craters is that all the other ice, having been exposed to sunlight, sublimated off. your canopy would be exposed to sunlight (unless you also postulate some sort of giant parasol).....3)Oh I see it didn`t have to collapse under gravity and it didn`t have to sublimate off because everything worked differently. Yeah right, what you have just done is construct a fantasy object (firmament) then when told it wouldn`t work said well the laws of physics (gravity) and chemistry (vapour pressure) didn`t apply then..... In other words spurious bollocks....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
You must have just started doing that. A few post back you said all reptiles are fully grown in 1 year and that ice is denser than water

​

[/QUOTE]Actually it was Ludvan who said reptiles are full grown after a year....Your reply was to Gene....Gene and Ludvan are different posters.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Please reread over and over until you understand

---

Not that there is anything surprising about ice in polar craters, it would be surprising if a glacier was sitting there on mercurys day side and there was no ice at the poles, but that isn`t what was observed was it?

quote:

---

No WE dont normaly think that ice cant exist on mercury because WE know that only one side is exposed to the sun and WE know that the other side is frozen solid.

---

Actually from the NASA link"The local day on the surface of Mercury is 176 earth-days, so the surface is slowly rotating under a relentless assault from the Sun."So you are wrong there Ludvan mecury rotates just like the earth it just happens a whole lot slower....

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Hovind's point was just that evolution justifies one race as above another.

​

---

Then he is wrong species maybe but races are NOT seperate species....

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Do you know what the title of darwin's book is? (including the sub title)

---

This is an intresting straw man you are setting up it assumes the theory put forward by Darwin is the same as the current ToE...Oh and by todays standards Darwin was a racist so I wouldn`t be surprised if it was something about those of us who aren`t white Europeans are primitives.....Thing is that sort of casual racism was not at all uncommon in Darwins day there were many creationists at the time, Louise Agassiz for example, who not only considered non-Europeans inferior, but who denied that whites and blacks were even the same species...Also which book origins of the species or descent of man?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-08-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Do you know what the title of darwin's book is? (including the sub title)

---

Which one?The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859)
The Fertilisation of Orchids (1862)
The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication (1867)
The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)
The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)
Insectivorous Plants (1875)
The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom (1876)
Different Forms of Flowers in Plants of the Same Species (1877)
The Formations of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms (1881).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)They (dinosaurs) are currently identified as reptiles, to say that they aren't on the basis that they are decendents of modern birds or mammals isn't the best way to conclude non-reptilian phylum.

​

2)I am aware a bit of this debate, tell me how would you capitulate warm and cold bloodedness on extinct dinosaurs? What is it exactly is it that is making them question whether they were cold/warm blooded?

---

1)As far as i know no one says dinosaurs were descended from birds...2)I think capitulate is the wrong word determine may be better....