Evidence for an Old Earth

Sure, the English Bibles say that... You do know that the Bible wasn't written in English, right? And that Rrhain is quoting from the more original Greek bibles?You seem to be replying to a message in a different topic. - AM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-11-2003]

Are you truly that ignorant about translation? I assume you speak no foreign languages, right? But surely you've heard the phrase "lost in the translation"? Why do you suppose we have that phrase if translation is simply a matter of word exchange?Furthermore, if it's so easy to translate bibles (or anything else) why are there so many translations of the bible in English?Rrhain has told you what the Bible says in Greek. Your bible translates wrong. What part of this aren't you getting? The Greek is there for you to read. So is the English. They don't agree. What more evidence do you need to say that your bible is mistranslated?

I thought the verb they used was "pinch", as in "pinch me a fag".

Well, it says "his love for (what's-his-name) surpassed the love of women." And they get naked together. If a male friend of mine today said "Hey Crash, I love this dude more than I love women, and we get naked together," I'd assume they were gay. Seems pretty clear to me. Rrhain told you that the Greek reads "arsenkoites" (sp?) where older English translations have said "homosexuality", but that's not what "arsenkoites" means. It means "male temple prostitute", not "homosexual".Just to make it clear - I'm not arguing Rrhain's position for him, just repeating the things that he's already written to you. I can appreciate that you're 10 to one, here, and that you might have missed it the first time. I suggest you go back and read again, or get Rrhain to make some things more clear for you.

Some of that erosion is due to floods, sure.Oh, you meant one huge global flood? How did life survive it? And how would a flood sort fossils?

Huh? Land life survived somehow, right? And how would sea life survive a flood that held enough sediment to deposit several kilometers of geologic column? That would be a Mud, not a flood. Ah, yes, the fleeing theory. What about the humans who couldn't swim? How about the dinosaurs that could? Why do we never find human bones below dinosaurs? Surely some human must have fallen behind a dinosaur?And (this is the real clincher) why don't we find fossil grasses with dinosaur bones? Are you telling me that grass and other modern plants picked up their roots and ran ahead of the flood? Ludicrous!

But the Ark isn't big enough to support as much life as the bible says, plus food, plus drinkable water, plus a compliment of human caretakers. Even juveniles. And two of every population is far too few to resuccitate an entire population, even if they're God's own "perfect" specimens.I mean, let's say you just let the animals off the ark. You've got two antelopes and two lions. What are the lions going to eat? An antelope? If your population of antelopes consists of only one mated pair, and then one of them is killed, guess what happens to your antelopes?So the Ark story doesn't hold water (or keep it out, as the case may be.) Here's another one - why didn't they get into boats and survive like Noah? I think you misunderstand our objections. Plants have as much of an evolutionary history as animals, with primitive ferns towards the beginning and more modern angiosperms much, much later. (At least, that's the evolutionary interpretation of the plant fossil record.)But we never find modern grass with dinosaurs. Never ever. And look outside - grasses do pretty well. There's grass all over the place. So, if the reason "primitive" animals are at the bottom of the geologic record is because they can't outrun the rising flood waters, then surely modern angiosperms should be all the way at the bottom? Plants can't outrun anything. But what we find is that angiosperms are largely at the top of the fossil record - well above dinosaurs. How did they get there, except by an explanation that modern angiosperms evolved later than dionsaurs - and the geologic column represents a record of millions of years? No, they're quite point-ful. You're just missing the point. The question isn't "did the flood kill plants?" but rather "if the flood killed everything at once, why aren't all types of plants distributed evenly throughout the fossil record? Why do more advanced plants appear solely at the top of the geologic column?

Oh - if you wanted to talk about magic, why didn't you say so? I thought we were talking about science. Then what did the predators eat? How would you keep meat fresh enough for felines (for example) for 190 days without refrigeration?For that matter how do you ventilate a boat with only one window? I'm sure it probably is all you can say. But there aren't advanced plants at the bottom of the fossil record. Just at the top. The record is very complete in this regard and there's absolutely no reason to assume that we've overlooked or missed advanced, modern plants in a place where they shouldn't be.Why isn't that enough to falsify the flood theory for you? How much more evidence against it do you need?