Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific errors in the Bible
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 163 (16320)
08-31-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Arachnophile
05-07-2002 7:27 AM


Hey! Boy, you guys sure can have a long post without being answered! Well, I'll try and take a shot at it.
The writer of Leviticus has never seen an insect, I suppose. I think that it would have been comman enough knowledge, even then, that grasshoppers had six legs. I believe it is just a figure of speach.
The hare does, in layman's term, eat it's cud. It has, as I am sure you know, two pellets. One is hard, and is waste. The other is soft, and the Rabbit eats them again, like cud.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Arachnophile, posted 05-07-2002 7:27 AM The Arachnophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Randy, posted 09-03-2002 12:53 PM JJboy has not replied
 Message 36 by The Arachnophile, posted 10-24-2002 11:02 AM JJboy has not replied
 Message 37 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-24-2002 8:27 PM JJboy has not replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 163 (16332)
08-31-2002 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jonathan
07-07-2002 6:10 PM


You are absolutely correct. Creation is not based on science. It is based on the Genesis account, which we believe is supported by scientific evidence. Also, if God created the universe, he also created the scientific laws. Since the he created them, and is obviously greater than they, is he expected to be bound by them? The cause is always greater than the effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jonathan, posted 07-07-2002 6:10 PM Jonathan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:08 AM JJboy has replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 163 (16357)
09-01-2002 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
08-31-2002 2:08 AM


Sure. Check out my new post in the Evolution section titled "The Big one."
------------------
Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
------------------------
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.
-Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-31-2002 2:08 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by R. Planet, posted 09-01-2002 6:59 AM JJboy has replied
 Message 28 by John, posted 09-01-2002 9:17 AM JJboy has not replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 163 (16511)
09-03-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by R. Planet
09-01-2002 6:59 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by R. Planet:
[/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry JJboy, but all you did in The Big One post was assert the first cause argument. That argument has nothing to do with whether Genesis is a scientific account of how the universe came into being.
[/QUOTE]
You are right in saying that Genesis was not a scientific account of how the Universe came into being. In fact, it defies all scientific laws. Energy was created from nothing, and it's a well known fact that energy cannot be vreated or destroyed. But the scientific evidence supports a Genesis account. Yes, I admit, it is hard to find one peice of evidence that we can clearly say, 'Oh, well here is a proof that God made the Universe.' There is no way that we can do that. All we can see today is today. we can see fossils and so on, and hypothosize about it all we want, but we cannot know. But there is no evidence that clearly contradicts the Genesis account. But I will look into it further, and maybe later I can back with a 'proof'
Evolution faces the same problem, that is, the lack of concrete evidence. There is, however evidence that we see today that contradict what Evolution says would be. Actually, maybe not what Evolution says, but what would be if Evolution was correct. Here are two examples of what I am talking about:
World Population.
The world’s population hovers near six billion. Currently a big ‘scare’ is the fear of over-population. A population of six billion is certainly a mind-boggling number, but we are nowhere near devastating the world’s resources. What, if any, difference would we see in the population of the Earth if Evolution’s theory were correct? Consider that the Human race, or Homo sapiens, has allegedly been in the evolutionary picture for approximately one million years. If the average generation lasted forty years, then there would have been 25,000 generations from the period man appeared to the present time. Today’s annual growth rate averages 2%. If we make the annual growth rate %, the current population would be an incredible 10 followed by 2100 0’s following it. This is a huge number, and, thankfully, we do not see this population today. Imagine the immense numbers of graves we would see around us! Obviously, life would perish on earth before we could reach such an enormous population. As seen by the current population, we can see that Man has not existed for as many years as evolutionary scientists would have us believe.
The size of the Sun.
The Sun is a life giver. Without it, life could not exist on the planet Earth. But in the evolutionary timeframe, the sun would have prohibited life on earth, and the formation of all the other planets.
The diameter of the sun is currently 865,000 miles. Scientists tell us that it is 4.6 billion years old. It has been observed that the sun shrinks at a rate of 5 feet an hour. In a day, the sun shrinks 120 ft. a day.
5 ft
x 24 hours
= 120 ft. a day
There are 365 days a year.
120 ft.
x 365 days
= 43805 ft. per year
In a mile there are 5280 ft.
5280/43805= 8.3 miles
8.3 miles per year. If we give the sun 600 million years to assume the current rate of shrinkage, then we have 4 billion years in which the sun has been shrinking. So:
8.3 miles per year
x 4,000,000,000 years
= 332,000,000,000 miles.
We must divide the number in half, as the Sun shrinks on both sides.
2/332,000,000,000
=166,000,000,000
The planet furthest from the sun, Pluto, is 3,660,000,000 miles away from the sun, on average. How can this be? Only 20 million years ago the sun would still have been as far out as earth’s orbit. To explain this, I have started a new theory. I call it the In-sun Theory. My theory explains the origin of life exactly the same as the Theory of Evolution, with one minor detail. The planets formed in the sun. The first organism appeared on earth three billion years ago in the sun. Or, maybe, a better explanation is that the sun, earth and other planets are not nearly as old as we have been told.
____________________________________________________________________
If you want, there are more of these kind of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by R. Planet, posted 09-01-2002 6:59 AM R. Planet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Randy, posted 09-03-2002 8:59 PM JJboy has replied
 Message 35 by R. Planet, posted 09-04-2002 8:24 PM JJboy has not replied
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 10-25-2002 1:24 AM JJboy has not replied

  
JJboy
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 163 (16523)
09-03-2002 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Randy
09-03-2002 8:59 PM


You find the Population thing funny, eh? The numbers I figured out obviously were based on the fact that everyone would have children, live a normal life, and not be killed prematurely. But even if they had, (Which obviously happens. Who lives an average life?) we still have a one million year history to account for. We would most certainly see a much larger population than we see today. Even if the numbers I cited are incorrect, (Which, they are, as I do not want factor in all those factors.) we still would see a much larger population than what we see today.
As for the sun, what is it powered by? It is obviously burning something. What? Last I heard, Space is not flammable. Even if the sun shrinks at a rate of five feet a year, it would still have been past the 'Comfort Zone' of Earth's orbit. Think about it! Ever heard of Entropy? things get smaller and colder. A Brand new sun would have been bigger and hotter. A 4.6 Billion year old sun would have been Even bigger!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Randy, posted 09-03-2002 8:59 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 09-04-2002 1:07 AM JJboy has not replied
 Message 34 by John, posted 09-04-2002 1:15 AM JJboy has not replied
 Message 38 by Mister Pamboli, posted 10-24-2002 8:30 PM JJboy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024