Hehh spot on there Errol. I was talking to a Christain friend of mine a while back and I asked him how he reconciles his faith in light of the fossil record we have. His reaction was a quiet limp and rather under the breath muttering of, 'Well the Bible does mention monsters'.
I couldn't help myself, I just laughed, right in his face. I did feel ashamed of that one though, he was clearly embarreshed and he is great mate of mine whom I love dearly. On 9 Feb, 07:57, Errol <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspected you might clutch at that particular straw, but > unfortunately the order is all wrong in the Genesis account. > > Land for example was separated from sea on the thrid day, but stars > only created on the fourth day. We know that all elements higher than > iron have been forged within a star, so how did they end up in the > land before the stars were "created"? maybe they were placed there > afterwards by god to thwart the atheists as the dinosaur bones were > placed in the Earth to confuse evolutionists? > > How about birds on the 5th day and reptiles on the 6th? Birds are > actually descended from reptiles. > > On Feb 8, 6:09 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 8 Feb, 14:40, Errol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 8, 3:14 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Would you like to name a few specifics, here? That is, of things that > > > > have been disproven. I'm just curious as to which things. And, thank > > > > God, there aren't door-to-door atheists...although that would make a > > > > classic comedy sketch!! > > > > How about; the universe and everything in it was created in 6 days? > > > Not impossible at all given modern science. The age of the universe > > all depends on the rate of the expansion of space-time. And we KNOW > > that the rate of expansion (governed by the value of the Hubble > > Constant) has varied in the past. In fact, it's a functional part OF > > the Standard Model, i.e., that period of VAST expansion just after the > > Big Bang called 'Inflation'. So, we KNOW, beyond doubt, that the rate > > of expansion has varied and that the Hubble Constant is not a > > constant, rather, it's a variable. What we DON'T know is how fast the > > rate slowed down from the period of inflation to the first time the > > 'constant' was measured. There's every possibility that the universe > > COULD have been on 'fast forward' up to the point of mankind. Since > > all radioactive decay is RELATIVE TO the value of the Hubble Constant, > > we cannot rely on radioactive decay as any indication of the actual > > age of the universe; rather, it's only an indication of the RELATIVE > > age. And there absolutely NO WAY of discovering the rate of slowing > > OF the Hubble Constant as all of the indicators are relative TO it. > > It could well be that it slowed in 6 stages that, given the value of > > the Hubble Constant today, amounts to 6 days of current time. > > > Nice try, but I've already given that one some thought and modern > > science CANNOT rule out a 6-day Creation based on what we know to > > date. Next?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
