Have you ever climbed a mountain? How does the air pressure compare at the peak? What do you think happens if you keep climbing?
1 Like
We watched kind of a fun movie last night, somewhat based on real events apparently:
2 Likes
I think that reading a direct quote from God saying he created heaven and earth in six days and then basically calling Him a liar by making excuses for why He couldnât have possibly meant what He explicitly said because today we know better makes a mockery of God.
Maybe if I made the image bigger and in better resolution?
1 Like
Of course not. They are identical.
Agreed. And like I keep pointing out to anyone who has ears to hear, thereâs not a lot of room for misinterpretation in the words, âYou work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE I created for six days and rested on the seventh.â
So since itâs impossible to misinterpret such a simple and straightforward declaration from God Himself, the misinterpretation must lie elsewhere.
Not sure what youâre talking about. I did request that you give me one single scriptural reason why we shouldnât take Genesis as an historical account - or more precisely, what scriptural reason is there to not take the six days of creation literally?
Is that the âgotcha questionâ to which you refer?
Enough said then.
I donât think @MikeBoll read that, or at least he couldnât see through his own severely opinionated thinking to comprehend it.
Maybe if someone guided the hand of a YEC holding a pencil they mike get the big picture right.
Polystrate fossils werenât an issue in the nineteenth century, werenât an issue in the twentieth century, and so far they arenât actually an issue in the twenty-first century.
People who think polystrate fossils (PFs) are a problem for geology are where the problem lies: they actually donât grasp geology. For starters, the vast majority of PFs are trees that never moved from the places they grew, as shown by the condition of the fine roots in the (usually clay) ground they grew in: if they had been moved by a flood or landslide the roots would not be spread out like those of a growing tree nor would they be undamaged. Many also grew in clay sediments that were themselves deposited by a local flood, deposits that can be multiple meters deep, and the sediments which buried them are of the same type â local flood events. Others show evidence that they died submerged when the location for some reason was inundated, and the water that covered them preserved them while sediments accumulated.
More interesting ones are those that were again covered where they grew and were buried due to volcanic eruption: first buried most of the way by mud-flow lahars, then additionally buried by highly liquid aa lave that encirlced them so fast that the bark turned to charcoal while the wood inside remain nearly untouched (itâs a bit complicated, but the process {a} eliminates all the oxygen and {b} traps the steam from the flash-charred bark so the wood just gets mildly baked), and then the whole area turned into a swamp or lake, burying the trees almost intact. They cross the stratum they grew in, the lahar muds, the lava flow, and then swamp or lake or sometimes another mud flow.
And the thing is that there are ways to measure how long it took for each layer to accumulate, whether there was time between layers and if so how much, etc., so the question about âany particular depositâ fails because it is uninformed about the fact that geology has ways of measuring all these things. Thatâs true even of sediments: strata formed by slow deposition under water differ from those with swift and/or turbulent deposition; strata formed and left uncovered for a long time are different from strata that formed and then were covered fairly quickly, etc.
And these arenât assumptions, either; geologists have set up monitoring systems with many multiple instruments to record and event and then sat waiting for it to happen to see if it matched predictions. [We had to write a paper on one of those in glacial geology class; it was in one of the Scandinavian countries where there was a glacier that formed a dam in a canyon and water would slowly but steadily build up around it until it floated the glacier loose, then a flood of icy, muddy water bearing glacial loess, sand, and gravel. The floods this glacier produced were pretty regular, so geologists whoâd made predictions about the sort of deposits that would result formed a joint group and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on instruments from cameras to microphones to flow meters to tilt meters and more, many of which instruments would be ruined by the flood but would get data and could be located and retrieved.] So geologists arenât just guessing at what different deposits were produced by, theyâre actually making predictions, setting up instruments, and waiting to see how their âexperimentâ turns out [BTW, this is how the problem of âgalloping glaciersâ, glaciers that just sit and increase for years then suddenly advance as much as twenty meters in just a few weeks, was solved; there were actually cameras and other sensors carefully placed right in the path of one of these glaciers â the sensors were mostly ruined, but not before they recorded one heck of a lot of data].
I donât have the energy at the moment to explain why thatâs not true of evolution. As for the Big Bang, itâs not actually a scientific theory, itâs a conclusion based on what is observed, a conclusion first reached by a Christian who took the fact that galaxies are getting farther apart and asked what if we run that backwards; the obvious answer is that it was all in one spot once. Now the term is a sort of shorthand for âHow the universe beganâ for the simple reason that the conclusion is pretty inescapable . . . if you assume that the nature of space itself doesnât change (which some cosmologists are now questioning though not from the Big Bang end of it but from the other end, the forecast end of the universe).
But even with the Big Bang much of whatâs involved is science, and it gets tested in the big colliders, primarily ones at CERN (it just sucks that Congress wimped out and didnât finish funding the SSC, the Superconducting Super-Collider because it would have been capable of achieving energies that CERN canât reach but that scientists are now wishing for).
3 Likes
I hunted and couldnât find any prior reference to chemtrails.
1 Like
Itâs not entirely made up; two of my university geology professors mentioned that the term âfloodâ was avoided enough to be noticeable for a while, though I donât recalling them saying when that was or for how long.
1 Like
Maybe God didnât create the heaven and earth at all then, since no man was around to observe it, huh? Listen to what I said before⌠God alone and by Himself created the concept of what we know as a day, and defined it. A day is directly related to Godâs creation of our world, and thereâs no reason to suspect that there ever existed any such thing as a âdayâ before God created our world. And God defined the one and only âdayâ that we even know exists as a dark/light period on our world.
To suggest there are different kinds of âGod daysâ or âdivine daysâ or whatever is to add to what the scriptures actually teach us. End of story, no matter how many millions of rabbis add their own thoughts into what the scriptures actually teach.
What does that even mean? Do we have a different meaning of yowm/day now than Moses and his contemporaries did? Or is it still a dark/light period on our world?
International Standard Version
because the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, in six days, then he rested on the seventh dayâŚ
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Because for six days LORD JEHOVAH made Heaven and Earth and the seas and everything that is in them, and he was refreshed in the seventh dayâŚ
Most English versions translate it as âforâ, which in this context means exactly the same thing as âbecauseâ. And most people donât need Ken Ham to tell them that âforâ is another way of saying âbecauseâ. Nor would Ken Ham knowing this basic fact of the English language somehow discredit it into not being a fact anymore.
Says who? In what chapter does Genesis transform into being an historical account from whatever it was before that?
Besides, the statement from God Iâm quoting is from Exodus. It is part of the ten commandments that God wrote on stone. Is Exodus also not literal history?
I donât need to have grown up speaking Hebrew to recognize that what you say these rabbis suggest is an addition to scripture, just as I donât need to have grown up speaking Greek to understand that the Pharisees came up with extrabiblical rules for washing hands and utensils and many other things.
What? The days are listed in numerical order, but might not have occurred chronologically? So letâs say the second day of creation was really the 88th actual day of our world. Why would it be called the second day then? And worse yet, why âa second dayâ - as if there could be many different âsecond daysâ in the history of our world. Can the earth have been 100 days old multiple different times? Or can there be only one day on which the earth was 100 days old?
Scripture says the earth was formed two days after God created light. And it doesnât mention any expansion or any light-dampening fluid. This is just another addition to the scriptures - despite the claim that this idea was derived âjust on the basis of the Hebrew textâ. Iâd be interested in seeing which particular Hebrew words led to this belief.
When did the very first scholar who didnât take the creation account literally live? Where can I read his writings in which he demonstrated that âText Aâ clearly indicates a non-literal creation account and âText Bâ indicates a light-dampening fluid, etc?
You canât rightly dismiss what God himself is directly quoted as saying in the Bible by simply claiming that some unnamed ancient rabbis thought this or that throughout history - especially when there is absolutely nothing in even the actual texts to indicate anything close to such things.
It is literally what the actual text clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally states in plain language.
Can you deny that God said, âin six days I createdâŚâ? Of course not. He even wrote those exact words on a stone tablet! So appealing to this scholar or that scholar who decided to add his own ideas into what God actually said doesnât really carry much weight. God not only said six days, but equated those six days with the six literal days the Israelites were to work before taking a day off.
Can you offer a SCRIPTURAL reason to take those days as anything other than literal, consecutive days?
If you mean by that âBible onlyâ, then no; that deliberately ignorant approach wonât work, or at least you wonât admit it does (âdayâ with no sun canât be literal). But if you mean including studying the Bible as the ancient literature it was written as, then yes: the days of creation cannot be literal days because the first Creation account is not that kind of literature. Itâs actually a couple of different types of literature at once, with three different messages going on:
- Setting YHWH-Elohim out as a great king with Creation as His mighty work.
- Declaring that the world is a temple that God Himself built and filled for Himself and in which He took up residence.
- That all the gods of the Egyptians and their neighbors are nothing more than created things made by YHWH-Elohim for His purposes â with a footnote that says that rather than being the enemy of existence that the gods have to fight every night, darkness is also something that serves YHWH-Elohim.
To an ancient Israelite hearing that account read, those things would jump out like slaps in the face, and been memorable and talked about when it was first read, then memorized and recited because of its value. And that brings up another aspect of those two types of literature: both got written in ways that were balanced and ordered so they would be easy to remember in a society where important things were passed down verbally from generation to generation.
Iâll pick a nit with one of the points made in that article, about fractured rocks: there are indeed deformed/bent layers of rocks that are not fractured. But that doesnât help the YEC position since the minerals and crystals in them are also bent â and the rates at which these minerals and crystals can deform have been assessed in the lab, and thus the maximum deformation rates can be used to establish a minimum age for mountains where such bent minerals can be found. Using these known rates, the age for the Himalayas comes in at a minimum of many hundreds of thousands of years, more likely a few million â and thatâs not a complete dating, itâs just the shortest possible time they have been around.
Iâve been to fifteen thousand feet, but for most Americans all they have to do to experience the atmospheric pressure difference is travel to Denver and try to run a mile â even very fit Americans wonât make it, something I know from experience because as a long-distance runner who moved from a hundred feet above sea level to the âmile highâ area, even jogging a mile was agonizing.
BTW, I lost track of who posted the link to this; I just saved it to my Wordpad and forgot where I was going to use it, so Iâm just going to throw it in here:
A statement by Charles Colson of Watergate infamy:
I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, tortured, stoned and put in prison. They would not have endured that if it werenât true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world â and they couldnât keep a lie for three weeks. Youâre telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.
The flip side of that is a point a university sports coach for rowing made one day: youâd be hard pressed in a city of ten thousand to find twelve people who would put up with the agony and pain of learning to row competitively for forty days; forget forty years!
Iâve got to watch that. I once talked with the captain of a balloon crew before a race while two others were going over their pre-launch checklist. When once called out âToolbox!â my till-then-silent friend asked, âWhy a tool box â isnât that heavy?â So we got told the story of a crew whoâd only carried a couple of tools, whose burner got stuck in the ON position and they didnât have the exact right tool. They managed to deal with it with what they had, but the lesson was to take every tool you might need.
It also brings back skydiving memories of a jump where the pilot âaccidentallyâ (yeah, right) took us over 12,000 feet instead of the 10,000 max for A and B rated skydivers; going from 75 feet above sea level to 12,100 is a good way to seriously experience the difference in air pressure!
2 Likes
Iâve done a lot of hiking in RMNP, but blew my knee out the day before we were going to do Longs Peak. Thankfully there was nothing torn and I had two strong teenage boysâ shoulders to lean on coming down from Hallett Peak. Weâd been up it before, but they did Longs without me. Driving or taking the cog railway up Pikes Peak isnât too difficult and hot cocoa at the top is nice. Trying to cook spaghetti at higher elevations is a challenge though, not to get a sticky, starchy mass â I only tried it once, unsuccessfully. 
(I would highly recommend the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo if youâre ever in the vicinity â the giraffe area is fun because itâs cut into the slope and you can hike up one side and be at face level with the wonderful creatures and their long gray tongues and long eyelashes. ;Â -Â )
1 Like
I hiked much of Banff. Regretfully, ambitious hikes are behind me, and I do much miss it.
Once, I experienced a bit of altitude sickness at a mere 11,000 feet. That is a modest elevation, but even there pressure there drops under 10 PSI, so a third of sea level pressure is lost. The peak of Everest is under 5 PSI, contributing to the body count.
1 Like
Me as well. Iâm in my mid-geezerhood, you may have seen me say. I also used to be an avid biker, but I still have the bad knee. âBack in the dayâ, before shaving or suturing a torn meniscus was a thing, they took the whole thing out. And I did all that hiking and biking and taking the stairs to the fifth floor of the hospital where my office was completely without a right lateral meniscus.
Mikey, do you even know what weights and measures actually are?
Weights and measures are not Bible verses. Not even the Bible itself considers weights and measurements to be Bible verses. Weights and measures are physical things that are used to figure out numbers that describe other physical things in ways that can be repeated by everyone to give the same result, no matter what their worldview may be. Things such as length, or volume, or weight, or concentration, or density, or speed, or age.
Seriously, this is something that gets taught to six year olds. if you canât even get your facts straight about what measurement actually is and how it is done on that level, what makes you think youâre qualified to judge who is being honest and accurate about it and who isnât?
No she didnât. The people who break the rules of the game here are the young earthists who claim that she found things that she did not. She did not find actual DNA, actual red blood cells, actual osteocytes, actual collagen, actual haemoglobin, or any other actual unstable biomolecule of dinosaurian origin. She only reported finding the ultimately stable breakdown products of those molecules, which present no measurable challenge whatsoever to the measurements indicating that they were 65 million years old.
This is one of the ârules of the gameâ that Iâm talking about here, Mikey. Before you can make any claims about how the evidence is interpreted, or what assumptions may or may not be involved, you must first get your facts straight about what the evidence actually consists of.
3 Likes
Right, itâs collapsing right under their noses.
No more singularity, but I am sure whatever it is needs a big explosion to get going. Somebody must have put some gas on it.
2 Likes