warmaker : You're absolutely right, people interpret the Bible hundreds of different ways. Stories or literally, deciding what is more or less important, taking things in context or applying directly to today or both. It's precisely why I could never ascribe myself to any one denomination, especially since many of the ones I know of treat everyone as an outsider until proven otherwise.
"...circling each other like boxers, always questioning, never directly confronting and talking it out. It should be done with serious discourse, open minds, and a non-combative mood."
I think you pretty much summed up most "debates" I have ever heard about anything. Religion, politics, critics, ethics, etc. They almost always degenerate as soon as the other person says anything.
"Science has everything grounded in numbers, in solid facts, and is presented as "This is how it is."
With exception to (by definition) theory, as I pointed out earlier. There are two kinds of science, just like you could say there are two kinds of Bible. Science has laws (Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion, Law of Thermodynamics, etc.) and 'theories' (-of Evolution, -of Relativity, etc.). Theories are based on the Laws or by general observation that can't technically be proven, else they would be considered law. So they are believed faithfully (or not) because there is also no tangible proof to the contrary.
In the same way, by two kinds of Bible I mean history and 'story'. The historical Bible is the wars, the tribes, the slaves, the building of the church, the temples, persecutions, and Jesus as a person--all things that can factually be backed by other sites, stories, histories and generally accepted as an accurate history of the middle east during that time. This is paired with the 'story' side: the fish, the arc, food chains, and Jesus as Messiah. Since we can't go back and live these things, we believe them faithfully (or don't) because there is also no tangible proof to the contrary.
Much like scientific theory (again, based on good-faith knowledge that the laws are accurate), I believe the "stories" on good-faith that the rest is as well. Is it more complicated than that, yes--but at its core that's it. That's it for science and religion both: theory and faith, faith and theory.

huygeb : I would actually suggest that you read this thread to have a correct understand of the difference between law and theory: https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=70888 Science is not something that proves things, but they raise empirical evidence to support a model or theory. It is also important to note that a law that a scientist comes up with might change in the future if more data requires them to make adjustments, just like a model and a theory.

warmaker : You can make your own decision on whether you believe it or not, but when it comes to interpreting the Bible (or any ancient text), one cannot just interpret whatever way that they like. Interpretation is both an art and science and it's goal is to seek out the meaning of the text, so one cannot say that you can just interpret whatever you want that suits you. If someone is interested in getting truth from the text, they should interpret the text rightly.

play4fun : Those are excellent points.  My challenge is this: Lutherans interpret differently compared to Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Protestants, Christians, and so on.  They all have different versions of the Bible, King James, etc, and they all have their own set of 'rules' to follow.  Sure, you believe accepting Jesus Christ as your savior is the way to Heaven, but Catholics put emphasis on good works and so on.

Who's to say who's right?  You'll say you're right but the other folks say they're right.  There does not seem to be a specific, exact answer for everyone to agree on.  If there were, we wouldn't need various sects of Christianity (or Islam or Judaism, or any other religion) but we do.

Again, all cultures and all scientific communities agree to the same principles across the board.  They're busy trying to disprove but they have the same rules around the world.

warmaker : Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists all disagree on what we would call secondary issues and tertiary issues. Secondary issues are differences and conflicting viewpoints within different denominations on topics that are important to discuss and sides can be supported through scripture, but are not crucial in salvation. They don't have their own rules, but through understanding of scripture, there may be differences on some issues, because humans themselves can have fallible understanding of scripture if they are not careful. No one is going to call someone a heretic or that they will be condemned if they have a different belief in church government or end times theology.

Tertiary issues are less important in that the conflict viewpoints are not supported from scripture because scripture doesn't even mention about it, like whether aliens exist. Disagreements on these topics are nothing but personal opinions.

But ultimately they are all still Christians, because they all agree on primary issues that establishes the Christian faith. That is the difference between a Christian and, say, a Hindu, because these two groups disagree with primary issues, and ultimately, they don't believe in Christ. That difference becomes crucial in salvation and that scripture makes it clear that Jesus is the only way, the only one who can forgive sin and transform them anew, which makes Hindus to not have their sins forgiven because they did not return to God in repentance.

So differences in denominations is not that big of a deal. They have disagreements, but they can still call each other brothers and sisters in Christ, and they will see each other in heaven. Great men and women of different denominations have worked together peacefully and joyfully. That's why they are called denominations, and not different religions or cults, that is why Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered denominations, because they stray from the primary issues.

As for the Catholic understanding, there are actually some Catholics who say that they believe in the same thing in terms of being justified by faith, and not of works. If they are actually saying that they are justified by works, then they stray from the primary issues and are not considered true to the Christian faith. A biblical understanding of justification throughout scripture is to have faith in Christ, and not of works (Ephesians, Titus), and that when faith happens, good fruit and works will follow after transformation and sanctification. It's very muddy on their side because, sadly, some so called Catholics don't even know what they believe, and I would say that they are not even converted in the heart if that is the case.

rcarter2 :
warmaker :
huygeb :
Brigand :
Sword legion :
play4fun :


I would like to summon all primary "parties" involved in this discussion if I may, but this is mostly directed at rcarter2.

So, let's forget about Dr. Austin for the moment.  I can talk about mechanisms that create isochrons which gives meaningless ages using research by Dr. Gunter Faure who is a leading geochemist who currently holds the position of Professor Emeritus in the School of Earth Science of Ohio State University.  I can talk about mechanisms that can alter daughter-to-parent ratios and what happens when magma solidifies and melts and its implications for radiometric dating.  These complex processes that occur when magma solidifies can be found in "The Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology by Tarbuck & Lutgens, pp. 55-57, (1987)" together with research from Dr. Elaine Kennedy who holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Southern California.  I can talk about the fallacies of radioactive dating of rocks from research done on basalt lava flows in Grand Canyon by Dr. Andrew Snelling and a bunch of other stuff.  You would almost always, I assume, come back with a counter argument.  So we'll end up - if I may use warmaker's analogy - like two boxers circling each other in the ring.

I just want to be clear on one thing.  Believing in a young Earth (Earth being a few thousand years old) is not my main game here.  My emphasis is on Biblical authority.  Believing in a young Earth is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.  If you take out your Bible and look through it, you will not find ANY hint at all for millions or billions of years.  Many so-called Bible believing Christians as well as respected Christian leaders admits that if you take Genesis in a straight forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation.  However, the reason they don't believe that God created everything in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called "science" that the world is billions of years old.  They are in other words admitting that they start outside of the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of scripture.  
I (like many other Christians) understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting.  I must therefore interpret scripture with scripture and not impose ideas from the outside.  When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious that there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin.  BECAUSE OF SIN God instituted death and bloodshed.  This is fundamental to the Gospel.  One can thus not allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin, which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day.  Also the word "day" can only mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation.  Once you accept the plain words of scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history.  There must thus be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.  The fact is, every single dating method, outside of scripture, is based on fallible assumptions.  There are hundreds of dating tools, but whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past.  Not one dating method man devises is absolute.  Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either.  So the question is:  Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God?  Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!  I'm not even mentioning atheists since they won't care or have any problem with this because they don't believe that God (or any god) exists.

This is the crux of the matter.  When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man's fallible dating methods to interpret God's Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can't be trusted.  They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God's Word.  Once this "door" has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.  You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world's teaching in geology, biology, astronomy etc. and use these to (re)interpret God's Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.  Yes, you can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God's Word from Genesis 12 onwards, but once you have told people to accept man's dating methods and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible's authority.  This attitude is destroying the church throughout the world.  So the issue is not "Young-Earth" versus "Old-Earth", but this:  Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?  A young-Earth view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists but Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 8:2, "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know."  Compared to what God knows, we know not a single thing of anything.  Academic pride is found throughout our culture, thus many "Christians" and Christian leaders would rather believe the world's fallible academics than the simple, clear words of the Bible.  

SoL@R:
rcarter2 :

I am not a scientist, and I can only trust fairly basic concepts. My biggest problem with all research is I want to know what they're not telling me.

But Jesus grew up as a Jew living a Jewish lifestyle and believing the Jewish texts. He often quoted them, and did so of the creation. If a seven day creation is not factual, then much of our theology should be vastly different. I know the Jewish scripts very well and have read the Torah through twice and I have come to know some transcripts from the Talmud. Back in the day, the Jews were very careful about keeping their records. You would write and entire Torah by hand, and if you made one mistake, great or small, you had to tear out the entire page. The Talmud I also believe was given to us by God originally, but it was later corrupted by the rabbis takanotes, so to speak, they added to the Talmud, and now, I am not sure if there is a way to tell what was added and what was not. I believe that the Bilble might be missing the book of Jasher, which has similar accounts to the book of Joshua and the book of Exodus, either way, it is another script that speaks of the same- and more accounts.
Then there are the caraite Jews, who reject the Rabbi's authority to add to God's commandments. Which is true, n the Torah, the adding and the taking away of any of God's commandments is strictly forbade.


Because of the Bible's prophecies, and because of the Bible code, (original languages!) I see the Bible as a book with no equal. So many Christians have no idea of the depth that the scriptures have because we read a translated version that has lost most all of the little tags that teach us great lessons, there is only one way to know about it, and it's here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWP0m4ZmauQ&list=PLXGtOuqF0vJli9EjIvKG_JFOjTVl65yPb

That's part 1 of 4, this might be better:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRKZ7dIGEo4&list=PLXGtOuqF0vJli9EjIvKG_JFOjTVl65yPb



I look at Evolution vs Creationism as a History vs Scientific speculation debate, no offense intended, this is just how I view. And I used to be just fine with have boxing rounds with people and keep bringing counter attacks, I used to have a lot more patience than anyone else in this forum. even carter. But in the end I stopped for a while because I didn't want to keep spending time on it. plus most counters are just ways to buy time, not reach a conclusion. That's what's going on right now, and that's what I've dealt with in the past.


warmaker :


"The trouble I have with the Bible is the level of allegory it *could* represent.  Did Jonah really get swallowed by a big fish?  He survived?  Is that truth or is that a story."

I personally think it's a true story. It's a great that disprove predestination.

"Did Noah really have two of every single animal in existence on a boat?  That's a lot of animals.  How did they eat all that time they waited for water to drop.  And the entire world was covered in water?"

You have to know how big the boat was and how many different kinds o animals there were back then. there probably weren't as many breeds of dogs as we have now. Noah probably took the common ancestors.


"Where did it go after the storm?"

It's still here, it's in the ocean. originall it was in the crusts of the earth. Even to this day, we have water shooting out from the ocean floor where all the other water used to be, or at least most of it. Of course we had water on the surface before the flood.

"All animals were herbivores before the Fall?  So Lions suddenly turned into meat-eating machines immediately following and zebras got stuck with grass?"  

Look at this animal:



Lastly, people lived to 900 years of age?  Why don't do we do that nowadays?





Hey, that's a meat eater, .look at it's teeth! No wait it's a panda bear. Maybe those teeth were that so many meat eater have were meant for other things? Or, only the bears with the sharper teeth survived, because they could use those fend themselves off? I don't know how strong a panda bear is though.




Chianese Water grass deer.

Has sharp teeth as well, but do all deer have sharp teeth? This deer will eat grass.

This is just cool to look into.

I quote wikipedia on the water deer's behavior:

"Despite all findings of Goethean science water deer use their tusks for territorial fights and are not related to carnivores. Confrontations between males begin with the animals walking slowly and stiffly towards each other, before turning to walk in parallel 10–20 m / 32–64 ft. apart, to assess one another. At this point, one male may succeed in chasing off his rival, making clicking noises during the pursuit. However, if the conflict is not resolved at the early stage, the bucks will fight. Each would try to wound the other on the head, shoulders, or back, by stabbing or tearing with his upper canines. The fight is ended by the loser, who either lays his head and neck flat on the ground, or turns tail and is chased out of the territory. Numerous long scars and torn ears seen on males indicate that fighting is frequent. The fights are seldom fatal but may leave the loser considerably debilitated. Tufts of hair are most commonly found on the ground in November and December, showing that encounters are heavily concentrated around the rut."

Maybe natural selection and other factors made it to where these water deer descended from normal deer who didn't have tusks?
That's what my guess would be. But I don't know. Just guessing.

SoL@R : I want to start by saying that was a great re-definition of what the issues are, as the way you pointed it out makes it much more clear.  However, it also illustrates my point that sometimes we draw lines of division where we could use knowledge and wisdom to work together, as I believe God intended.  Yes, the Bible is the authority and it covers everything from life, goodness, God, love, grace, war, sex, disaster (not in any particular order), but it also does not spell every letter in black and white.  If it did, we would not have sects that believe it is bad to have music in church (Psalm 150:3-6).  If it did, the death penalty would not be surrounded in controversy--many laws in the Old Testament demand it, but Jesus says we are not to judge each other (yet He does leave that authority to the government (Mark 12:17) (And the fact that He surrendered to begin with).  Our last couple of church sessions talked about Paul's "thorn" (2 Corinthians 12:7), something that may have been left vague so that we could fill with our own heartache and realize that God has the right to say "No".  The same is true for the implication of "Days".  To Him, a day is as a year and a year as a day (2 Peter 3:8); our concept of time is just that--OUR concept.  It means nothing to God, who is outside and above our time, God does things in His own time.  Six days and a rest could be six of our days and a rest, or it could not.  In seven days, God created the Heavens and the Earth, but time and time again we see seven as a number symbolizing completion (which is where we get our notion that six is evil, sinful, incomplete, literally imperfect.)  So the long and short of that is I cannot attest to the answer either way.  As my preacher likes to say, "If I could explain it, it wouldn't be a God-thing."
Yes, the Bible is the authority on just about any issue you can think of; but God also gave us the ability to create, innovate, and use knowledge to understand His creation.  The phrase I see most in the story of Creation is "He saw that it was good."  God made no impure thing, which brings me to my second point.
You said in your argument that "BECAUSE OF SIN God instituted death and bloodshed.  This is fundamental to the Gospel."  Even Satan was a glorious angel with a designated purpose: to test humanity.  Adam and Eve are the ones who sinned and fell short of God's glory.  Humans (with Satan's help) instituted sin, and the pain and suffering that comes with being separated from God (Genesis 3).  The one thing that scared Jesus about being crucified--separation from His Father--we brought upon ourselves.  God did not bring pain into the world, but He allows it so that we can know Him better.

Sword legion : There is a huge gaping hole in your explanation on where all the water is from the great flood. The amount of water needed to make a flood like that of Global proportion is WAY more water than we even have on the planet. The amount of water on the ground we have here would only have 1% of the water needed. That means 99% of it would have to have been sky water that just appeared out of nowhere, and disappeared after the flood. Again, all the water in the ocean, average planet saturation in the air, rivers, lakes, ponds, water in the rocks, etc would only be 1% of the amount needed to cover the entire globe to the point to where even the mountains are under water. Simple knowledge of the water cycle shows that that couldn't happen unless the planet somehow received 99 times the amount of water it already had from somewhere else, and then all that water would have had to have left the planet completely, which doesn't happen as long as we have an intact atmosphere. Water couldn't just leave the Earth. So again, where did all that water go. It is not still here.

But that detail doesn't even matter compared to the next problem. For every mountain to have been covered by rainfall over a period of 40 days, it would have to fall at 6 inches per minute. For a level 5 hurricane, you are looking at 6 inches of rainfall per hour. That is 60 times less than what would have to happen for the great flood, and even that is extremely dangerous for our modern ships to sail in. No way an arc built with comparatively primitive technology would have been able to survive through something 60 times worse than a class 5 hurricane with no people or animals unharmed. It would have been torn apart. On top of that, the heat generated from water traveling and impacting at that speed on the food surface would have been more than enough to boil the flood water. That would cause it to not be able to rise anyway, therefore the world could not have been covered by the Great Flood. Even if the planet did have enough water to make a Great Flood happen, it couldn't have happened in a span of 40 days due to the heat generated from that much energy. It would have had to have happened over a span of years. But the Bible specified 40 days, and I know you one who is a firm believer in all time frames in the Bible to be literal. I honestly believe the Great Flood to be another metaphorical lesson that God is giving us.

Same with the story of Jonah and the Whale. A blue whale (biggest whale on the planet) only has an esophagus that is roughly 4 inches in diameter. Way too small to swallow a human. Heck, a whole grapefruit would have trouble fitting through there. That is why whales eat tiny creatures in mass quantities (like krill). So if Johan was swallowed by something, it could not have been a whale. It would have to have been something that nobody but Jonah has ever seen. But again, the Bible specifies a whale.

rcarter2 : If I may step in, the flood wasn't all rain. In Genesis chapter 7 verse 11 it says "All the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.". And in verse 24 it says "And the waters prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.". It wasn't all rain water. And it took five months for the earth to be filled. It also took underground springs, and possibly earthquakes. And, my theory, with many others, is that the floodwater became our oceans today, and some of it must have evaporated as well. They did stay in the ark an extra year or so before they actually left the ark for inhabitable land.

A user of this : That is not a relevant argument, as I already addressed that. The springs of the great deep were included in what I said before. If that water did not disappear from the planet, and it is all still here, then our planet does not contain enough water to cover the earth. Even if all of the water from below the Earth surface (springs of the great deep) came seeping up, we still only have 1% of the water required to cover all the mountains. Only 1% of the water in the flood could have come from the ground water we have on the planet. The other 99% had to be skywater. The only way that is not the case is if God brought a bunch of water that wasn't there before and took all that extra water out of the planet when the flood was done. And even with the 150 days, you are still looking at a storm 16 times more severe than a class 5 hurricane. Not as bad as 60, but even our modern ships would have VERY slim chances of surviving it.

I'm not saying that the Great Flood didn't happen for sure. I'm just saying that the ONLY way it could have happened is if God had a very strong manipulation in it. There is absolutely 0% scientific explanation to support the Great Flood, and it is frustrating when people try to come up with scientific explanations for it to debate. Every 'scientific' explanation I have ever seen attempted is based on rules against our fundamental physical laws. People should stop trying to get scientific to prove the Great Flood, and just stick to the only thing it could be. Supernatural. Again, not saying it couldn't have happened, but it HAS to be by supernatural means.

rcarter2 :

You assume there were mountains before the Flood, but the mountains were probably caused by the flood. We found clam shells on Mount Everest.
The Bible only says a whale in certain translations. Some say fish. But I don't know what it was. And yes, there was supernatural things going on in Noah's flood. The Bible says that God sent it.

SoL@R :

Sorry again to those who think my posts are too short and I don't bother to tangle with each and every issue.

I believe firmly myself that many things in the Bible are mystery and parables. This does not contradict with the fact the Bible is inspired word of God. It is written by humans, edited by humans and not God or Jesus himself. It is a fact but I don't see how come it would take away any of the dignity of the book. Jesus himself often spoke in parables. The truth is in there but we were after all given a mind of our own to figure it out (even though it has lead to conflict, war and divide in Christians that will last until the end of days).

Yeah, there are no dinosaurs in it and it doesn't explain the cavemen or how nuclear reactors work but those things are I think besides the point when we want to come face to face with our spirituality or how we want to treat others as human beings or how can a person is trying to love God.

I know there are people out there who think my humble and short opinions don't count for much and I am not sure if this is the way my local reverend would put things but this is the way I see it. I don't want to burn bulls at the altar or shun women who are menstruating or them to kill doves each month nor I don't think they should be quiet in the congregation and many other things but I still do believe in the Bible. And I see no contradictions in it.

I don't understand the argument here.  As Christians there is a certain thing we have called faith.  We don't need the details to scientifically work out.  For that matter if you are strong in your faith why are you even arguing about this topic.  The only reason I can see would be to try to convert people but I think there are much better ways of going about that than trying to argue the scientific  validity of the Bible.  Or maybe it is just because it is fun to argue about these type of topics? I dunno.

Sword legion : You brought up the argument about shells on Everest before. Once again, that was not due to a flood. And water can't form mountains. You really need to learn how mountains are formed. Simple water/floods can NOT form mountains. It doesn't work like that. As for the clams, you made the assumption in that other thread that the clams were near the surface of the top of Mount Everest. That is completely untrue. There have NEVER been clams found anywhere near the surface of the summit of Everest. There are some marine fossils within the rocks that make up the summit area. These rocks are limestones and Buckland. These are stones that form very slowly in LAYERS. The rock on the summit of mountains are the oldest rock of the mountains, as they get pushed up due to TECTONIC ACTIVITY, not water placement. Being the oldest rock, it has gone through the most amount of erosion, giving us less rock to have to dig through to find fossils. Again, water does not form mountains, and there is absolutely no evidence that water can form mountains. I challenge you to find REAL study that concludes that water can form an entire mountain. And sites that just state speculation without evidence to prove it (like 6000years.com) don't count. Real studies only that have evidence to back it up.

But on top of that, you claim to be a Biblical expert, but then you clearly implied that mountains were made by the flood, implying that there were no mountains before the flood. But read Genesis 7:18-24--> The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Genesis clearly states that there were mountains. A Biblical expert would not make that kind of mistake.

Again, I am not going to try to say that the flood didn't happen. There is nothing wrong with believing it. But if you are going to believe it, accept it for what it is. It can only happen by supernatural means. There is no scientifically natural way for the flood to have happened. God would have to have had a supernatural control over an event like that. Quit trying to explain it scientifically. It does not support your the belief. It just makes your belief sound less credible. Accept it for the supernatural thing it would have to be. You believe that God created the entire Earth and Universe in 7 days out of nothing. You have no problem ignoring any evidence that points otherwise. But the creation of the Earth in 7 days is supernatural. So why is something like the flood so important to creationists to try to explain scientifically. Why is that the flood is one thing that you are not willing to just say "God did it. It was made possible by his power alone. Nuff said"? Creationists are so willing to just accept that for other things. Why not the flood?

rcarter2:

I should have specified mountains like today. My mistake. While I am aware of the verse that speaks of the mountains, nowadays I think that they might count more as hills, so, I was thinking of hills when I said this, yes, even though the Bible says mountains, but I was thinking of them as hills in the same way people think of bats as not a bird although the Bible lists bats as some of the kinds of birds that we should not eat. So, I made a quick post and a mistake. Sorry bout that.

My point is this, you don't know how high the mountains were before the flood.

"You really need to learn how mountains are formed. Simple water/floods can NOT form mountains."

You really need to learn how they can form mountains. It's because you say stuff like this all the time that I've quit debating you in the past. And you assume I believe that a simply water/flood created this. sigh. Stop assuming that I believe things that I don't. -another reason that I've quit debating you in the past.

"As for the clams, you made the assumption in that other thread that the clams were near the surface of the top of Mount Everest. That is completely untrue."

Do you know what I believe currently? No.

"These are stones that form very slowly in LAYERS. The rock on the summit of mountains are the oldest rock of the mountains, as they get pushed up due to TECTONIC ACTIVITY, not water placement"

"the top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest is made up of sedimentary rock layers containing all kinds of marine fossils. For example, petrified, closed clams: Since clams open when they die, then, in order to get petrified in the closed position, they would have been buried alive in the Flood catastrophe. Before and/or during the Flood, Mt. Everest was just flat surface under the ocean."

They had to have died very quickly to have died with closed mouths. You're just like the creation scientist whom you say only look so far and then quite rather than find the conclusion.


For some reason my text has changed, I think that I'll have to just deal with it. :/

"But on top of that, you claim to be a Biblical expert"

Here you go inserting words in my mouth as usual. - Why I've quite debating you in the past.

Here's what I said:

"I know the Jewish scripts very well and have read the Torah through twice"

That's not the same as claiming to be a Biblical expert, and the Bible can be much different from the Torah and Jewish scripts. Do you know which Jewish scripts that I am talking about? No. Although, here I was speaking of the Torah and Jewish scripts as one in the same. You will assume anything just so that you can paste it on your opponent. You don't care to have a real debate. Why should I keep talking to you? This is why I quit sometimes. :/


"Again, water does not form mountains, and there is absolutely no evidence that water can form mountains."

Do you know what I believe was going on here? No. I haven't told you yet.

Sword legion : I don't need to learn more about clams. You do. I have a biology degree. You have said on more that one occasion that 'clams open when they die'. Then why is it that I have dissected more clams than I can remember, and EVERY single one was tightly shut? Every single dissection I did had to start with me prying it open using steel rods as a wedge? They were most certainly dead, but I have never had one open when I got it. The only places I find claims that clams open when they die are on young earth sites. Nowhere else do I ever see this being a universal occurrence with clams. That argument is null and void.

As for the mountains, no, I don't need to learn how water does form mountains. They don't. The only thing they can do is deposit sediment on shore lines. And that takes years. But not only that, the sediment deposit rate is much slower than erosion rate. So land actually gets eroded more than built on. Water is one of the main chemical erosion processes. So they could not possibly have formed mountains. Mountains are formed along convergent plate boundaries. Water has pretty much no aid in their formation. The main effect they have is slowing the formation rate as it erodes sediment, not continuously depositing it.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You have mentioned in numerous threads how you so learned in biblical text. Not just the Torah. I'm going off what you have said. As for you last comment saying "do I know what you believe was going on there". You said that in response to me restating that water is not what forms mountains. You specifically said that the food caused mountains. So..... yeah. I do know what you believe. You told me. And, yeah, we do know what Everest was like during the time frame of the flood. We know exactly how fast land moves along the boundaries. Our current mountains are formed right where we have convergent boundaries (fault lines where the crusts on both sides move towards each other, pushing the crust up). Knowing how fast the crust is moving, it can be predicted how the mountains will look 1000 years from now. Simply rewinding the directions at their constant speed, you can look at how much mountain material there was at any given point in time. Fault lines do not change position. The crust will always be pushed out from the divergent fault lines. Always. When you rewind the direction that the crusts are moving having going at the same speed thy have always gone since they records have been kept over it, the mountain heights were not some huge amount smaller during the time period of the flood than they are now.

And nowhere in the Bible did it say that the mountains were practically flat or below the Ocean. Nowhere did it say that mountains were basically just large hills. It said mountains during the great flood just as it said mountains when Moses received the 10 Commandments. If the mountains were hills, there would have been a distinction, as the Bible has specified mountains and hills in other stories. You have said that the exact word of the Bible should be taken as literal. But now you are saying "Oh, when they said mountains during the flood, they were really just hills compared to now". Which is it? Take the words literally, or make interpretive assumptions? You have to pick one or the other. You can't just choose to take scripture literally or interpretive depending on the situation. If you want to claim mountains during that time are just hills now, why do you jump over people when they say 7 days in Gods eyes might be billions in ours?

SoL@R :

Evolution does not contradict the bible. The only contradiction that someone may take from evolution is that man is ONLY a product of evolution, and therefore is no different from the animals. People have souls, which are not obtained through evolution, but are given to us by our creator at the moment of our existence.

rcarter2 :
rcarter2 :


"I don't need to learn more about clams. You do. I have a biology degree."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_clams_die_when_will_they_open

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0LEVjK.ZhFTknQAXh0PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnV2cXQwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?qid=20080624091525AAMlZxm

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=136767

It bothers me that someone like you got to be a biology teacher if you don't know stuff like this.


You also said this:

"The only places I find claims that clams open when they die are on young earth sites."

yeaaaaaah (.)

Hey, this japanese scientist tells me that the japanese are the highest evolved of all people. He says that I need to learn why they are cause he's the scientist, and I'm not.

Oh well, Darwin was a Theologian. And hey, Charles Lyle was a lawyer.

"You have mentioned in numerous threads how you so learned in biblical text.Not just the Torah. I'm going off what you have said.

Yes, use the word Numerous, but never quote me once.

You never quote me because then you wouldn't be able to put words in my mouth.

also, you're changing what you said.

you originally said:

"But on top of that, you claim to be a Biblical expert"

All I ever talked about was the Torah. Ask any jew if reading the Torah twice makes you a Biblical expert. I certainly didn't say that. You always put words in my mouth.

And I'll never see you quote me, cause rephrasing what I say in you own words lets you get away with putting words in my mouth more easily.


I'm this close to just calling you bent on revenge, and leaving. I have only seen you debate this poorly once before. You are a manipulator. That's what you are rcarter, not a debator, a manipulator. I leave after this post.

"As for the mountains, no, I don't need to learn how water does form mountains. They don't."

"And nowhere in the Bible did it say that the mountains were practically flat or below the Ocean."

Doesn't tell us how high they were either.

"But now you are saying "Oh, when they said mountains during the flood, they were really just hills compared to now". Which is it? Take the words literally, or make interpretive assumptions?"

You are going back too our first debate again. What I said back then does not correspond to now. You have no idea how much, or how little I have changed my beliefs since that time period. We should just open up the old thread if you want to finish that debate. I guess I understand your desire for revenge though.

You read the Bible and use common sense. It wasn't written so that you could never understand it. You might not know everything immediately, and it can be confusing at time, but looking at the whole picture of what it says usually clarifies.

We have a law.


Cars may not travel over 60 miles per hour.

Okay, got that.

we have another law.


Cops may travel over 60 miles an hour to catch speeders.

Oh no, it's a contradiction, you can't trust the law.

No, it's an exception, and a very necessary one.

Until you read both laws, you will never grasp the entire picture. I have not read to much of the Bible honestly, just the Torah. But I do believe in it's authority mostly. But that's another conversation for later. I can't know for sure, but I'd bet you don't read, or care much for the Bible.

Sword legion : Oh my God. You try to debate with your sources being wikipedia, yahoo answers, and google answers. Then tell me that if scares you that I don't know that stuff as a biology teacher. Try looking at REAL sources. That seriously just deserves a slap on the face. Clams don't just pop open when they die. The spring-like mechanism muscle does not release upon death. That muscle is designed to lock, and the clam must release it, not the other way around. That muscle must decompose before the clam will release. But here is the thing, it doesn't just pop open. They remain closed unless something opens them or unless they are tossed around in a manner that opens them. It takes almost no pressure at call keep them shut. That is why if you are cooking clams, the ones on the bottom are not likely to open without stirring them around because the weight of a single clam on top is more than enough to keep it shut. Now take a second to think about clams at the bottom of the ocean. More than enough pressure to crush you, which is more than enough to keep clams shut unless something knocks them open. On top of that, you use a yahoo answer question in which the man 'evidence' is a kid who said they had a pet clam that opened when it died? Ever take into consideration that your typical pet clam is not even the type of clams you find in the deep ocean bottom? Of course you didn't. You just typed in 'clam' in google and applied it to all clams, not even considering that clams have VAST biological differences, particularly the deep sea clams that were found in Everest and the clams you typically eat, use as pets, and find along the Continental Rise and Ocean Basin.

But before I continue, I am going to say something to you. What in the HELL gives you the right to basically insult my 7 years of hard work and research?! You do child quality research on wikipedia, think you know everything, and make an insulting comment like that. And here is what really pisses me off. You said that comment based off of information that isn't even correct in the way you think it is because you are just too lazy to do more than type "do clams open when they die?" on Google. Do what I did. Get a hold of deep see clams to dissect for yourself, and you tell me they aren't clamped shut. You insult my degree, myself as a teacher, and basically my life. Screw you. Just screw you. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. There are a lot of times I restrained myself from telling you what you are, but if you are going to say something like that, then fine. Gloves off. You are not an intelligent person. You are the worse type of arguer. By that, I mean the type that thinks that because they have access to Google, they can outdo anyone who has spent years doing real firsthand experience research. You do minimal research and find a detail that you think proves you right, then think you have a right to insult 7 years of my life.
How about we look at you. You may not claim to be a science expert directly, but you do indirectly. Without even lifting a finger to do any real research yourself (not talking about your sad attempts at Internet research), you try to come up with your own twisted scientific explanations to tell everyone who has done the work that they are wrong. Here is the truth. You are not even a layman in science. Your understanding on how things work on a geological, physical, and chemistry level is elementary at best. Therefore, you have absolutely, positively, no room to make any arguments in this topic. As far as these topics go, your opinions and arguments are little more than garbage.
And here is the sad thing. I would tell you to leave science alone because you have no real weight in the subject and just stick with biblical text. But you can't even do that. You may not have directly said "I am a biblical expert". But you indirectly say it all the time in these debate threads. Here is how. Armed with nothing more than scripture, you make all these claims that you can disprove any other view. Looking at your earlier debate threads, you have said that what you say on your arguments is the real truth. Heck, you even had the audacity to all my religious belief a 'compromised interpretation'. With that statement alone, you are claiming to be well learned on the topic enough to be able to tell other religions that their views are compromised of the truth. Therefore, you transversely claim to be an expert on understanding the truth. Yet, here is your view. First, you say that you must take the text of the Bible as it is literally written. Yet, when I ask how Jesus knew Peter would deny knowing him exactly 3 times, your explanation on that was
"That was just Jesus saying, 'oh yeah? you think that you can go without betraying me? okay, boys, your on!'"
You can't even follow your own philosophy of not projecting your own interpretation to Biblical text, yet there is NOWHERE in the Bible says that Jesus told Peter this as if it were some sort of 'bet', as your words explain it.
On top of that, you admitted yourself that you cannot accept scripture that doesn't fit your personal view of God. Everyone can look at that thread of man being made in God's image. You flat out told Play4fun that you can't accept the scripture Play4fun showed you because it goes against what you have believed all your life. You specifically said that you have believed in your view for too long, and you can't just change it. Therefore, you have proven right there that you are a CHERRY PICKER. You have your own view of the God. So you only look at scripture that supports your personal views and beliefs, and admittedly don't accept scripture that is against your personal opinions. scripture is nothing more than a tool you use as a shield for your own personal views.

You have no knowledge of scientific concepts, and rely on doing quick google searches because you are too lazy to go out and do the work yourself. You have no real grasp on real biblical text past what you choose to interpret. You even said so yourself that you refuse to believe that God can be all knowing because you have believed for too long that God doesn't know the future. Even when God is specifically stated as all knowing, and there were multiple occurrences where the Bible had God predict events down to specific details. So instead of interpreting the text literally as you often preach, you make up your own explanations. You aren't even a solid Christian either. You can't even see that you are a giant hypocrite. And it is based on the fact that you don't even have a good grasp on biblical text. You get your scripture from Google searches too?
All you do time and time is just embarrass yourself because you try to act like you know more than the biologist on the science explanations, and more than the others who have read the bible on a holy interpretation, but you clearly just rely on Internet research. Here is what you are. Lazy. You should just hang up any more attempts at debating here. It is just getting pathetic how much it is becoming obvious that ALL of your knowledge stems only as far as you can find on the Internet.

For the rest of your arguments. You are right. The bible doesn't say how tall the mountains were. But what it does do is at times, specify mountains, and other times, specify hills. Just from reading the Bible, there is clearly a difference. But this is just another example of you not being able to stick with biblical text. Because it doesn't specify how high they were, you make the assumption that the mountains were just hills back then. Even when it specifically says mountains. So when you get caught in that hole, you just add on to it by saying the mountains were shorter then. Well at that point, the burden of proof is all on you. You said the Flood made the mountains big. But the bible says NOTHING of the sort. You are making up explanations that aren't in the Bible and have no evidence to support it. If you are going to claim that the Bible is the absolute truth, then you can't use explanations that aren't in the Bible to 'prove' biblical events. You are limited to the Bible, and only the Bible. But you can't do that, so you make up your own explanations and claim them to be scriptially supported.

Now, at least, you admit in your ending post that you haven't read much into the Bible. What I find HILARIOUS is how in many of your older debates, it was "bible says this. Bible says that. Bible is truth. Bible is literal. Bible is the Word of God. Bible is law. I am a CHRISTIAN". And now we know that you have not even read much into the Bible. I wish I could just summon everyone that you argued with using the Bible, just so they can see once and for all that you don't know what the Hell you are talking about.

And I hope you aren't a betting person, because you would lose that bet. I have read the Bible cover to cover 5 times. I have 3 in my house. I actually care very much for the Bible. But I don't look at all the stories in the Bible as history. I see many of the stories to be a message from God to show us how to live in the path of Salvation. I care very much for the message of the Bible. I have told you before that I am still a religious person, and you throw a comment like that in my face. I told you long ago, my religious belief. Then you not only tell me I have not likely read the book of my religious belief, but that I don't care much for it.

With that, I will say this a gain.

Screw you. Pathetic.

Sword legion:

There is nothing wrong with evolution. It does not degrade humanity. It does not degrade God. It does not refute the bible. Is does not lessen the bible. Why are you so adamant that it is wrong? It doesn't impact the Christian faith in the least bit.

Assuming just a "poof" into existence by God speaking, we have problems. First off, why put dinosaur (and other fossils) in the ground? Adam and Eve are in the garden and creation is perfect, they sin, they are cast out, and then God is like "Oh wait, these plants and animals weren't perfect. Oops. My bad." It just looks wrong, unreasonable, flaky, and makes God look unpredictable and, therefore, dangerous. Evolution is, in fact, good for interpretation.