Maybe someone here can explain

Hi all,I like your forum. I think it's a great oppertunity to discuss this subject. Let's face it, this,( Created or Evolved) is the greatest and most important question to be answered by any human being. It sets the stage for how we conduct ourselves, and ultimately our destination as individuals and collectively.
On to the questions....
In the book of JOB, GOD askes Job if he has " entered into the springs of the sea". How did the author know that there were springs in the sea? These springs were not discovered until 1977,( Job was written well before the equipment was availible to discover these). So how did they know they were there approximately 4000 years ago?
Second- there have been literally hundreds of trees found running through rock layers all over the world. If the geologic column is true- how did these trees get there, in hundreds of sedimentary layers. That would be a tree a few millions of years old? As a side note I would reseach what happened after the Mt. St. Helens eruption before you leap in on this one- The bottom of Spirit lake is forming the same phenomenon as we discuss this.
Third- It is a documented fact that planets and moons in the solar system do NOT all spin in the same direction- some not even on the same axis. Since one of the laws of nature is the Conservation of Angular Momentum,( if something breaks off from a spinning object, that part will continue to spin in the same axis) How could the BIG BANG have produced these? If something hit it to change the direction it would have to leave a significant mark- yet none are observed.
Four- Where did all this material in the BIG BANG come from? How about the energy that caused it? Where did that come from? The earth may be an open system, but the universe,( From the latin UNI- single VERSE- spoken sentence i.e. Let there be..) is a CLOSED system. WHO or what got this top spinning in the first place?
Five- The grand canyon is formed through the Cayabab,( SP?) uplift. The river,which supposedly formed the canyon, enters @3200 ft. below the top of the canyon- How could a river flow up hill? It's obvious the Grand canyon is a breeched dam by the formation of reverse,( I'm sure that is not the right term) canyons on the east side of the canyon. The High steep walls show fast moving water was present at sometime,( much like the canyon formed when the dam at Spirit lake breeched and failed), yet the river itself is a low gradient type similar to the Mississippi. Yet the Mississippi has no high walls? How can this be? I would think they would show similar charateristics?

Hi, James, wecome aboard! This is a common Creationist misunderstanding. Evolution is a scientific theory that I accept, and it has no more impact on how I conduct my life than any other scientific theory that I accept. If evolution were disproven tomorrow I would change nothing about my life, except maybe to spend a lot less time here.--Percy

To look at your queries1) How do you know that advanced technology is needed ? Are ther no springs accessible to unaided divers ?2) What happened at Mt. St. Helens is not relevant. The fossils were explained in the 19th Century as described here "Polystrate" Tree Fossils3) This is I am afraid total nonsense (from Kent Hovind, right ?). The Big Bang has nothing to do with the formation of the solar system. There is just no issue here.4) Matter condensed from the energy released in the Big Bang5) It's spelled "Kaibab". But wouldn't a truly massive dam break look more like the channelled scablands than the Grand Canyon ? Wouldn't the water spread rather than cutting a deep channel ?

It might be more appropriate and more productive to post these points individually in their most appropriate forum. It's a little hard to have a single productive thread of discussion on 5 widely varying topics.1. Job question could go into "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy"
2 and 5. "Geology and the Great Flood"
3. Isn't really a Big Bang question, but the Cosmology/Big Bang forum is probably the closest fit.
4. Is definitely a Big Bang question.Just a suggestion.

This isn't any law of nature that I'm familiar with. When you break off from a spinning object, you don't continue to spin yourself - you travel in a straight line along the tangent from where you broke off. This would be the cause of centrifugal force.When I jump off a merry-go-round, I don't myself continue to spin, I head in a straight line. Can you cite a source for this supposed "law of nature?" It's never been in any textbook that I'm familiar with...

Hey James,Most of these points have been refuted, time and time again. They are simply false.As to your Job claim:How do we know god was refering to volcanic sea vents? Springs of the deep would likely mean water springs, because the ancient hebrews belived that the ocean water came from under the earth, and also was constantly being draind into a large underground chasam.Takeing the Job story into historical context, with the myths at the time, bring us to that more logical conclusion. Remember, Job also mentions leviathan, amongst other fantastical creatures such as the unicorn.In the future, try to avoid Kent Hovind, he is a fool.

I think you should spend a bit of time hunting around here. The issues you are raising have already been discussed a lot.There are also websites that offer very clear explanations of most of what you are bringing up.There seem to be two possibilities behind your post.
1) You are honestly curious about these things are are coming from a position that is based solely on out-of-date and, in most cases, very wrong information promulgated by dishonest individuals. With very little effort you will find just how badly you have been mislead.
2) You think you are asking questions that somehow "disprove" and defeat the theory of evolution (ToE). You are already convinced it is wrong and are picking a few "devestating" questions to "win". If this is the case, you are in for a rude shock. There haven't been many (or even [i]any[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-23-2003]

1) The first question has largely been answered, so I'll go onto the others.2) First off, what is visible in the fossil record is not trees. It is petrified trees. There is a huge difference. A fossilized organism occurs where minerals seep in and replace the original mineral. When you find a petrified tree, you're not seing wood - you're seing rock. A simple chemical analysis proves this point.What is occurring in Spirit Lake is nowhere close to fossilization - nor "coal formation" or "peat formation" as most creationists try to claim. The material is still near 100% wood, so it isn't fossilization. The chemical structure is nowhere near coal or peat, either. You have a lake of slowly decaying plant matter. If it can manage to be exposed to almost no oxygen (being deeply buried relatively fast), it may one day have enough mineralization to be petrified wood. In its current state, however, it is just wood. You can take it out, dry it off, and start a fire. To learn why what is found in Spirit Lake is nothing like peat or coal, visit: Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens3) Just ignoring the inherent chaos involved in the formation of a solar system, the effects of coronal ejecta, and other phenomina, there's the problem of gravitational assists. If an object swings past a larger one, it is "flung" into a highly elliptical orbit. This often offsets the angular momentum of the larger body (in addition to changing its orbit as well). Collisions do the same thing. Unless your claim is that the solar system, and all gravitational fields in it, are perfectly symmetrical and have always been so, that makes no sense.4) The big bang is being intensely studied, and is still poorly understood. Nonetheless, all available evidence points to its occurance, even though it's hard to say *why* it occurred. Everything in the universe is radiating outward from a single location, and everything is in a sphere with a radius related to the age of the universe and the speed of light. See the cosmology section for more detail.5) Do you know why uplifts (such as the Kaibab uplift) are called uplifts? They have a diagonal fault line in them, and the "upper" slope on that diagonal has been pressed along the fault, causing it to "lift up". Uplifts are patently obvious by looking at the rock where there's nice clear layers like in the grand canyon - you can see each layer break and resume further up. The fault has since stopped moving, and new layers have been deposited on top of the old uplift, forming a curved cap. In short, the uplift has been [i]lifting upwards[i] over time. Next, a breached dam would simply spread outwards - digging would be the exact opposite of what would be expected, unless there is, for some reason, an easily erodable channel in the shape of the current Grand Canyon. The Mississippi actually *does* have high walls in the north - visit Wisconsin some time, it's really pretty. The end of the Missippi is a flood plain, and it is depositing more sediment than it is eroding. The Colorado is gathering sediment in the canyon. Also note that the Colorado used to be far more rapid flowing than it is today, due to modern dams and water diversion. Initially, sailing it was viewed as almost suicidal. For more about the Grand Canyon, visit http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt4.html------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

There is, of course, conservation of angular momentum. But, off the top of my head I don't think it requires the broken off part to spin at all. Just that it's speed and direction conserve the angular momentum of the whole system.In the case of collisions between objects of the solar system we can get one object to rotate "retrograde" if the other acts to conserve the total angular momentum.

Hi Guys,I am asking because I would like to hear all sides of this. I am a Christian, and yes some of this does come from Hovind. But not all of it. I don't accept theories until proven. I've gotten more than a few PhD's in hot water because of that, not to mention myself for not going with the flow. Proof in this matter is going to be tough to find- Until then I will tend to lean to what is fitting the result I can see.
I will hunt around here before I reply. I should have done that to begin with. I apologize for that.
But I will be back with my questions.

I wonder if these Ph.D's are as competent as Hovind's 'Berkeley Professor'?Brian

James J,We've honestly never had a believer post such probing questions before. Since most of us have frankly been brainwashed by the atheist scientific elite and its indoctrination machine, we are ill-equipped to confront a crusader such as yourself armed with Truth.Frightened as we are when faced with hard evidence that couldn't possibly be mere wishful thinking, we naturally try to disguise our terror by presenting facts from several scientific disciplines. Don't be fooled, pilgrim, the sound you hear is not measured, objective scientific discussion. On the contrary, it's the sound of a fraudulent farce being desperately defended.You certainly seem like a formidable foe, and I'm not surprised to hear you've left a trail of inadequate PhD types weeping pathetically in the wake of your powerful intellect. You sure don't accept theories until proven! I'm sure the points you brought up in post #1 were all ones you questioned and researched with the same rational, discriminating sense of rigorous inquiry that you demand from our explanations.You win, James J. May the smoke and mirrors of methodological naturalism finally be dispelled and replaced with something that's solid and true. Thank you for showing us how to think. And not just that, no. Thanks for showing us how to question.------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

Hi Guys, It is fine to hear all sides of everything, but are you willing to change your opinions if adequate evidence is provided? Your credibility rating has just plummeted. If Hovind appears to you to be a credible source, and you cannot see errors in this guy’s way of thinking, it speaks volumes about your ‘research.’ Yes, the rest of it is from equally poor ‘academic’ creationist websites. Could you provide your definition of ‘theory?’ You have gotten a few PhD’s in hot water because of what? This is a new sentence James and needs a qualifier. What matter, the laundry list of flogged to death creationist paranoia? Nice to welcome another evolutionist to the board then! A hunt around the local library would have shown you how poor these creationist claims are. Try to focus on one or two at a time, a long list isn’t really conducive to good debate.You could also do with referencing and supporting your arguments, so far your posts appear to be unsupported creationist propaganda. If you want to seriously debate these issues then you have to give supporting data for your claims.I look forward to discussing some of your questions soon.Best Wishes
Brian.

Percipient,Just a minor point, I would argue that your view of evolution would (or should) affect the way you view all biological life. I find it a lot easier to justify saving the rainforest knowing that the animals within it are not all that different than we are.

I believe I can give you the most correct explanation here. The problem that you have here, is that you are trying to write things into the Bible that were not intentionally put in. Forget your knowledge of the present world for a second, step outside and what do you see? A gigantic blue sphere over your head. What else is blue... water. But how can it be held up there? A firmament (check references to this in Genesis, the KJ version uses this word.). Also, in Genesis God seperates the waters of below from the waters above. So the ancient Hebrews thought of the Earth as being totally surounded by water, except for underneath it. Under the Earth were the "Pillars of The Earth" (There are several Old Testament references to these). Between the pillars, of course, was water that sometimes sprang through the surface. This isn't a crazy notion... when you dig down far enough mainy times you hit water so it stands to reason that there is water under the Earth. Mainy rivers start from underground springs also. By induction you can say that if there is water underground and rivers comming forth from springs, there must be springs feeding the oceans.When you intentially try to put words in authors mouths, frequently you arive at contrived meanings.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein