“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#64 Sep 1, 2013
Truthsayer777 wrote:
<quoted text>God bless him and his work in reaching lost souls. Perhaps you will find that peace which surpasses all understanding someday:
www.scribd.com/doc/31322017 ...
That would take mind altering drugs. In other words I would have to be out of my mind to believe that stuff.

The earth is billions of years old.Evolution works and the odds of there being a god are slim to none.
zuma

Singapore

#65 Sep 2, 2013
There are three different views regarding the time in which the stars were formed.

1)Scriptural order of creation.

Let’s meditate the verses below:

Genesis 1:6,“Then God said,“Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.”(New American Standard Bible)
Genesis 1:11,“Then God said,“Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation,[k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so.”
Genesis 1:16,“God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also.”

As Genesis 1:11,, the creation of fruit-bearing plants or flowering plants, is mentioned after Genesis 1:6, the appearance of land, and before Genesis 1:16, the creation of stars, it implies that the scripture highlights fruit-bearing plants should have been created after the appearance of land and before the creation of stars (Genesis 1:16).

2)Scientific view of creation.
What did scientists suggest the date in which flowering plants began to evolve?

It was shown in the chart from the website address, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-evolution... ...., that the flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago.

What did scientists suggest the date of formation of stars?

The following is the extract from the website address, http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild... ...., after the sub-title, Answer:

‘Results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) released in February 2003 show that the first stars formed when the universe was only about 200 million years old. Observations by WMAP also revealed that the universe is currently about 13. 7 billion years old. So it was very early in the time after the Big Bang explosion that stars formed.‘

As scientists suggest that flowering plants began to evolve between 135-65 million years ago, the above discovery that first stars were formed only about 200 million years ago would turn up to be that the flowering plants began to evolve after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years) and after the formation of stars (200 million years ago).

3)Alternative scientific view of creation.

Let’s compare with the extract below from first paragraph of the website address, http://fossils.valdosta.edu/era_precambrian.h... :

The sun and solar system formed about 4,600 million (or, 4.6 billion) years ago from a vast cloud of interstellar hydrogen and helium, enriched with a sprinkling of heavier elements.…..LONG BEFORE OUR SUN WAS BORN, generations of STARS LIVED AND DIED, paving the road for the existence of Earth and the other rocky planets.

When was the sun formed?

The following is the extract from the second paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ,

‘The Sun formed about 4.6 billion[b] years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud.’

As the earth was formed in 4.5 billion years ago and the sun was formed in 4.6 billion ago and the stars lived and died long before our sun was born, it implies that this website, supports that the flowering plants began to evolve (135-65 million years) after the formation of the earth (4.5 billion years ago) and before the formation of the stars since they were formed long before the sun was born.

The great discrepancies about times in which the stars were formed have caused us to question how accurate the times that have been furnished by scientists.
zuma

Singapore

#66 Sep 3, 2013
Second part of scientific view of creation as mentioned in the main topic above is wrongly computed regarding the birth of first stars. It should be 13.5 billion years ago (i.e. 13.7 billion years minus 200 million years.)
Never mind! Let’s proceed further to see the variation of the dates of first stars:
1) The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.zmescience.com/space/when-did-the-... ...:
‘First stars formed 750 million years after the Big Bang’
The same is mentioned in the following websites:
http://phys.org/news/2012-12-stars-universe-m...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/when-the-f... -...
2)The following is the extract from the last paragraph of the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm... ...:
‘According to the cosmological models, the first small systems capable of forming stars should have appeared between 100 million and 250 million years after the big bang.’
The same is supported in the following websites:
http://www.astro.yale.edu/larson/papers/SciAm...
http://www.space.com/2628-star-heated-quickly...
3)The following is the extract from the website address, http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_the_first... :
‘According to the Big bang theory, the first stars (Population III stars, those with a very low metal content) were created around 400 million years after the initial expansion.[See related link]’
The above shows the discrepancies of the dates in which First Stars formed. The great discrepancies about times in which First Stars formed have put us in doubt the accuracy of the times that have been furnished by scientists.
When did Big Bang begin? I would like to highlight the discrepancies in time.
1) The following website supports the Big Bang began 18 billion years ago:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index... :
2) The following websites support the Big Bang began 14 billion years ago:
http://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMSZ5WJD1E_OurU...
http://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMSZ5WJD1E_OurU...
3) The following websites support that the Big Bang commenced about 13.7 billion years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_unive...
http://www.openculture.com/2013/03/big_histor...
4) The following website supports that the Big Bang has its commencement about 15 billion years ago:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
5) The following website supports that Big bang did not start but a big freeze:
http://io9.com/5936949/new-theory-universe-di... ...
6) Big Bang theory started from TV show:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2342339/
The above discrepancies have also caused us to ponder how accurate the time that was furnished by Scientists. Besides, about the existence of Big Bang.
When did the universe form?
1)The website, http://www.space.com/4201-greatest-mysteries-... , indicates that the universe was formed about 13.7 billion years ago.
The same is supported by the websites below:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_univer...
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detecti...
zuma

Singapore

#67 Sep 3, 2013
2)The following is the extract from the website, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycar... , that scientists ponder where the universe comes from and this has caused us to ponder how accurate that they could gather for the date of creation of universe:
‘No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? As difficult as these questions are, scientists are attempting to address them with bold new ideas - and new experiments to test those ideas.’

3)The following website support that the universe was formed in 15 billion years ago:
http://mocomi.com/how-and-when-did-the-univer...

Scientific figures keep on changing as a result of the introduction of new technology. Thus, it might not give any warranty that the scientific figures would not be changed if new advanced technology would be introduced in the future. How could scientists be sure that the scientific figures that they had produced in the past could be correct? As the scientific figures keep on changing from time to time, its reliability is in question.
zuma

Singapore

#69 Sep 5, 2013
The discrepancies between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth:

The scriptural verses about the beginning of the earth:

Genesis 1:2,“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

Genesis 1:9-10,“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

As the phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially covered with water.

As the phrase, let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies that land should appear lately. If the land should appear first, there should not be any reason for the scripture to mention with the phrase, let the dry land appear. Besides, it would not be possible for the scripture to mention with the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered unto one place, if the land should have appeared before the existence of sea. Even if one might assume that land and sea water would coexist in the beginning in the creation of the earth, why should the scripture mention with the phrase, Let the dry land appear, as if that there was no land initially on earth?

The following is the extract from the website address, http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline... , pertaining to the evolution of the earth:

4650 mya: Formation of chondrules in the Solar Nebula
- 4567 mya: Formation of the Solar System
Sun was only 70% as bright as today.
- 4500 mya: Formation of the Earth.
- 4450 mya: The Moon accretes from fragments
of a collision between the Earth and a planetoid;
Moon's orbit is beyond 64,000 km from the Earth.[33]
EARTH DAY IS 7 HOUR’S LONG[34]
- Earth's original hydrogen and helium atmosphere
escapes Earth's gravity.
- 4455 mya: Tidal locking causes one side
of the Moon to face the Earth permanently.[30]
- 3900 mya: Cataclysmic meteorite bombardment.
The Moon is 282,000 km from Earth.[34]
EARTH DAY IS 14.4 HOURS LONG[34]
- Earth's atmosphere becomes mostly
carbon dioxide, water vapor,
methane, and ammonia.
- Formation of carbonate minerals starts
reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide.
- There is no geologic record for the Hadean Eon.

My comment: As listed above, the earth day was 7 hour’s long in 4450 mya and yet in 3000 mya, its speed reduced to 14.4 hour’s long per earth day. Thus, the spinning speed of the earth was super fast prior to 4450 mya since it took 7 hour’s long to finish its full day. In such a high speed, all the substances, such as, sea water, would fly out of the sky. Or in other words, sea water should not be in existence in beginning of the evolution of the earth.

As listed above also, earth’s orginal hydrogen and helium atmosphere would escape from the earth’s gravity in 4450 mya. Considering the environmental condition if the whole earth was filled with water, it is impossible for the earth to emit hydrogen and helium when the land was covered fully with water.

Besides, the rapid spinning of the earth in 7 hour’s long prior to 4450 mya would cause sea water to fly out of the earth.

The above show the contradiction between the scripture and the scientific evolution of the earth.
zuma

Singapore

#70 Sep 5, 2013
Was the earth formed through several destructions that were brought forth by volcanoes, meteorites and etc.? Does it differ from scriptural point of view?

Scriptural verses about the creation of the earth:

Genesis 1:2,“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

Genesis 1:9-10,“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.”

The phrase, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, in Genesis 1:2, implies that the scripture supports that the earth was initially covered with water. As the phrase, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together…and let the dry land appear, is mentioned in Genesis 1:9-10, it implies the appearance of land lately. Thus, the scripture supports that the land was not visible on the surface of the earth since it was covered with water.

As the scripture mentions that the earth was covered with water, it is unlikely that volcanoes could be visible at that time since they should be under the sea water. As all the mountains were in the sea as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, how could the earth be under-attacked by volcanoes? As all the lands were in the sea water as mentioned in the scripture, how could the earth be under-attacked by meteorites? This is by virtue of meteorites would simply drop into the sea without any strong impact upon the land of the earth.

The following is the extract from the website, http://www.universetoday.com/76509/how-was-th... , in which contradiction has been found against the scripture:

‘This first eon in which the Earth existed is what is known as the Hadean period, named after the Greek word “Hades”(underworld) which refers to the condition of the planet at the time. During this time, the Earth’s surface was under a continuous bombardment by meteorites, and volcanism is believed to be severe due to the large heat flow and geothermal gradient. Outgassing and volcanic activity produced the primordial atmosphere. Condensing water vapor, augmented by ice delivered by comets, accumulated in the atmosphere and cooled the molten exterior of the planet to form a solid crust and produced the oceans. This period ended roughly 3.8 years ago with the onset of the Archean age, by which time, the Earth had cooled significantly and primordial life began to evolve.’
zuma

Singapore

#71 Sep 6, 2013
Scientific evolution of the earth contradicts the scriptural view of God’s creation:
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.bobthealien.co.uk/earthform.htm , under the subtitle, Four billion years ago, seems to support the presence of the sun prior to the formation of the earth:
‘This is an artist's impression of what Earth looked like 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. The planet has no oxygen in its atmosphere and no ozone layer, so poisonous ULTRAVIOLET RAYS FROM THE SUN HIT THE SURFACE DIRECTLY….”
The website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_time... ., under the heading, THE EARTH FORMS, seems to imply the simultaneous formation of the sun and the earth:
‘THE EARTH IS thought to have been FORMED about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that ALSO FORMED THE SUN. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth’
My comment: Genesis 1:3-5,“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”(King James Version)
Genesis 1:2,“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”
Genesis 1:3-5 should undoubtedly refer to the creation of sun since the phrase, God divided the light the darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:4. As Genesis 1:4, the creation of sun, is mentioned after Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, it implies that the sun only existed after the creation of the earth. Even if some would assume that the creation of sun should fall within day four, the creation of sun was still treated to be after the creation of the earth since Genesis 1:2, the creation of the earth, is mentioned before the day four.
Some might argue that the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should not be in sequential order. However, there is no reason to assume that the scripture would support the sun could be created prior to the earth since the phrase, the earth was…darkness….upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 implies the absence of light on earth. As long as there was sunlight on earth, the entire darkness on earth should not be present. As the word, darkness, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies the non-existence of sun or else the earth should be filled with some brightness. Thus, the scripture supports the sun was created after the earth and yet scientific evolution supports otherwise. Besides, the arrangement of creation in Genesis 1 should be in sequential order.
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.mcwdn.org/MAPS&GLOBES/Earth.ht... , to support the earth was a ball of white gases with extreme heat:
‘The earth was formed in the same way as the sun, planets, stars. At first the earth was a hot glowing ball of white hot gases with a temperature that was millions of degrees Fahrenheit. This was caused by particles of gases being drawn together and compressed, giving off a lot of heat. This happened millions of years ago.’
My comment: Genesis 1:2,“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE OF WATERS.”
Genesis 1:9,“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”
zuma

Singapore

#72 Sep 6, 2013
ScienAs the phrase, the face of waters, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that the earth was initially filled with water. As the earth was covered with water initially, it would be impossible for the earth to emit gases since all its lands were under water.

It is irrational to assume that active volcanoes might erupt in the water or the earth could be in molten stage. This is by virtue of any of these disasters would cause the earth to be shone with brightness especially the presence of larva. The word, darkness, as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of the earth in molten stage or the presence of eruption from volcanoes.

The following is the extract from the ninth paragraph of the website, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/2... ...:

‘Early Earth was a very different place to the planet we inhabit today. Initially the planet didn't have a crust, mantle and core, and instead all the elements were evenly mixed. There were no oceans nor continents and no atmosphere. Meteorite collisions, radioactive decay and planetary compression made Earth become hotter and hotter. After a few hundred million years the temperature of Earth reached 2,000C - the melting point of iron - and Earth's core was formed.’

My comment: As Genesis 1:2 supports that the whole earth was covered with water, it opposes scientific evolution of earth that supports the non-existence of ocean.

As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was filled with darkness and water, it is impossible for the earth to become hotter due to the absence of sign that the earth was in molten stage or the sign of larva from the eruption of volcanoes. The presence of eruption of volcanoes or the earth in molten stage would cause some brightness on the earth.

The following is the extract from the twenty second paragraph under the heading, How our earth was formed (Apr, 1923), from the website, http://blog.modernmechanix.com/how-our-earth-... :

It- is reasonably certain that the earth at first was very hot, hot enough to be molten all the way through. Its surface was a sea of melted rock in which great flaming tides hundreds of feet high raced twice daily around the globe. Gradually the rock grew cooler. It hardened. After awhile there was a solid surface crust. And slowly, after many millions of years, this crust grew cool enough for water to collect in hollows on it and to stay there. The first oceans were formed.

My comment: As Genesis 1:2 mentions that the earth was in darkness, it is irrational to support that the earth was in molten stage due to the absence of sign of brightness on earth.
zuma

Singapore

#73 Sep 7, 2013
The doctrine of evolution contradicts the books of New Testament:

Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings in the past, many of them would evolve into human beings at that time. There is no reason to assume that there would only be one man to be evolved from evolution if the environmental condition would turn up to be suitable for apes to evolve. If human beings flourished in the past were the result of the evolution of many apes, the origin of human beings could not be traced back to one man, i.e. Adam. The sin of Adam would not affect all human races if their forefathers could not trace back to him but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22 mention that all fall into sin by one man? Thus, the doctrine of evolution does contradict Romans 5:12, 14 & 1 Corinthians 15:22.

The following are the extracts:

Romans 5:12,“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If human beings were evolved from apes, did Jesus die for apes also as they were the forefathers of human beings? Why should Jesus Christ not die for apes when human beings were evolved from them?

Was Eve formed from Adam?

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
If 1 Timothy 2:13 should be interpreted literally, why shouldn’t Genesis 2:21-23 be interpreted the same literally since both of them agree that Adam was formed prior to the existence of Eve?

Besides, there should not be any reason for 1 Timothy 2:14 to mention the word, Adam, if this word in the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. As the word, Adam, is mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14, the book of Genesis should be interpreted literally instead of treating it to be a non-existing event. The following is the extract:
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

If the first human beings were not made by God but evolved through nature, why should the word, made, be mentioned in Matthew 19:4?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
zuma

Singapore

#75 Sep 11, 2013
Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, justifiable from scriptural point of view? Was there any living creature during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2?

The gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, that could be located in the website, http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifers-flood.ht... , states that it supports another human races without souls that have no connection with any genetic mutation with the plants, animals and human living today could have existed during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2. At that time, Satan was a ruler of the earth and sin entered into the universe as a result of its rebellion that caused God to execute His judgment with pre-flood as mentioned in Genesis 1:2.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of any light on this earth. As long as there was sunlight, the entire earth at that time should not be in darkness. As the earth was in darkness, the sun was not created at that time.

As we know plants needed sunlight to perform photosynthesis. Without sunlight, carbon dioxide could not be able to divert to oxygen through photosynthesis. Without sunlight, all the oxygen on this earth would be diverted to carbon dioxide due to the respiration of all living creatures even if oxygen would have existed in Genesis 1:2. How could there be any animals, especially another human race, to be able to survive in Genesis 1:2 at the absence of sunlight since they needed oxygen to breathe in? How could animals be able to evolve from one to another at the absence of sunlight for a prolonged period, such as, million years, due to oxygen would entirely be consumed without a chance to be diverted to oxygen at the absence of sunlight? Thus, it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2. As it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2, how could it be that Genesis 1:2 was treated to be God’s judgment in bringing flood?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#77 Sep 11, 2013
Truthsayer777 wrote:
<quoted text>God bless him and his work in reaching lost souls. Perhaps you will find that peace which surpasses all understanding someday:
If Comfort (and YOU) have to LIE to "reach lost souls," perhaps you aren't on the "right side" after all.

It seems like your "peace which surpasses all understanding" involves shutting off your God-given mind and living in a fantasy world. Why would your God want that?
zuma

Singapore

#78 Sep 14, 2013
Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.

The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-univers... :

‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’

My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

Genesis 1:2,“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.

The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html , that states that stars do give off light:

‘Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’

As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.
zuma

Singapore

#79 Sep 16, 2013
Plate Tectonics Theory has been found to be illogical to the formation of mountains. The only possible reason for the existence of sea creature fossils on top of mountains should be none other than Great Flood during Noah’s ark.
The following is the extract from the website, http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Eart... ..., pertaining to the origins of plate tectonic theory under the subheading, Ongoing Evidence for Plate Tectonics:
‘Today, much of the evidence concerning plate tectonics is acquired with satellite technology. Through use of the global positioning system (GPS) and other satellite-based data collection techniques, scientists can directly measure THE VELOCITY (or speed and direction of movement) OF PLATES on Earth’s surface. SPEEDS RANGE FROM 10 TO 100 MM PER YEAR, confirming the long-held belief that plates move at a slow but constant rate (see our module on Linear Equations for more detail on how to calculate rates of plate movement).
The Himalayas, as it turns out, started forming about 40 million years ago when the Indian Plate collided head-on with the Eurasian Plate, shoving and folding rocks that had formed below sea level into lofty peaks. Because the Indian Plate is still moving northward, the Himalayas are still rising at a rate of about 1 cm per year. We no longer need to invoke a shrinking, wrinkled Earth to explain the marine fossils at the top of these tall mountains; it is the process of plate tectonics that continues to lift seafloor rocks to the sky.’
My comment: As mentioned above, the velocity of plate tectonic is at a very slow speed with 10 to 100mm per year. Besides, the phrase, the Himalayas are still rising at a rate of about 1 cm per year, as mentioned above implies scientists support the continuous rising of mountain Himalaya with the speed of 1 cm per year.
Let’s assume that the mountain Himalayas would be rising from 1 cm per year is true. As the mountain Himalaya would rise from 1 cm per year, the plain land in which living creatures reside would rise 1 cm as well. There is no reason why the plain land would remain the same high despite its nearby mountain could be risen by 1 cm. As the plain land would increase the same high as the same as the nearby mountain, the person that would stand at the mountain to measure its high would find no discrepancy even million years later. Thus, there is no reason why scientists would presume the continuous increase in high of mountain except the rising of sea level due to the simultaneous increase in high for both the mountain Himalaya as well as the plain land nearby. Indeed, the sea level all the while remains about the same high has proven the assumption of the continuous increase of mountain to be erroneous.
The following are the extracts from website, http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.h... :
‘Soon afterwards, about 65 million years ago (Upper Eocene Period), came the second phase of mountain building. The bed of the Tethys started rising again. The sea retreated, and the sea bed was elevated into high mountain ranges.
Later, about 25 million years ago (Middle Miocene Period) came another mountain building period which led to the formation of the low Shivalik ranges. After this, periodic mountain building phases occurred as the Indian plate pushed against the Eurasian plates which led to the Himalayan ranges rising further. The last major phase occurred 600,000 years ago.’
My comment: As the speed of plate tectonic is at 10 to 200 mm per year as mentioned earlier, how could this slow speed have great impact upon lands to cause sea bed to be elevated into high mountain ranges? Unless the speed would be fast, the impact upon the land would be weak to cause seabed to be elevated. With such a slow speed to act upon seabed, it would be impossible for plate tectonic theory to be workable upon it to cause it to form mountains.
zuma

Singapore

#80 Sep 16, 2013
Even if one would assume that the speed of plate tectonic upon the seabed would be fast so as to cause the rise of mountain, it might cause the concrete that is underneath the seabed to crack and turns up to have two layers of seabed and one is the upper seabed and another is the one that is underneath. The continuous exerting of pressure to cause the upper seabed to rise would result the hollow that is underneath to be formed after the crack to become broader to the ultimate collapse of the upper seabed. Thus, it seems to be that the formation of mountain through plate tectonic might seem to be unrealistic.

As the plate tectonic theory seems to be illogical to be used to support the existence of seashells that were found on top of mountains, the only reason that we would rely upon is the existence of Noah’s ark that would have caused sea creature fossils to be deposited on mountains.

The logic is simple that there is no reason to assume that sea creature fossils could climb up themselves to the top of mountains. The only possible reason is the strong waves as a result of Great Flood during Noah’s time that caused the seashells to be pushed up to the top of the mountains.

The photographs about the seashells that were discovered on top of mountains:
https://www.google.com.sg/search...
zuma

Singapore

#82 Sep 16, 2013
Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.
What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(King James Version)
Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.
Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.
The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.
When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
zuma

Singapore

#83 Sep 16, 2013
The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

Is God omnipotent?

Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
zuma

Singapore

#84 Sep 16, 2013
Strong evidence of Noah’s ark in the past.
Refer to the website, https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hi... .... Many theories were established in the past pertaining to the formation of mountains and they were The conflagration Theory, Halley’s Theory and The Geologic Theory.

However, all these theories fail to explain the discovery of many seashells on the top of mountains since how they could reach up to the top of mountains unless the presence of sea waves that would have caused the seashells to be pushed up from the seabed to the top of mountains. The mountains are a few thousands meters above the ground. In order for seawater to be increased and to be raised up to the top of the mountain, the sea level has to be increased. As the sea level increased, the whole wide world would be in the water since all the plain lands of this earth in which inhabitants dwell are very much lower than the top of the mountains. Even if the sea level would reach 1/5 of the high of the mountains, the entire earth would be in the flood since none of the plain lands of this earth would have such a high. Even though there might be floods in the past, it was mainly caused by rains instead of from the rise of sea level. There is no way for rains to bring forth sea creatures but from seas. The mountains are most of the time located more than a few hundreds or thousands miles far away from the sea. As mountains are very far away from the sea, it is impossible for any crisis of Tsunami that would bring forth from the sea to reach out to the high of mountains. There is no way for sea creatures to be deposited in the mountains unless the sea water would rise. If the sea water would rise above the plain lands in which inhabitants dwell, many of them could not survive and not even the survivals of edible plants, such as, carrots, tomatoes and etc., or even living animals. Even if they would survive, they would have to live on boats and could not grow edible plants, such as, tomatoes, carrots and etc., for their consumption.

There is no reason to assume that seashells could climb their way up to the top mountains so as to have their rest there.

The existence of seashells on top of mountains is a strong evidence to prove the presence of Great Flood in Genesis 6-7. It was with this Great Flood that covered the entire earth that was accompanied with great sea waves as a result of continuous rain that would have caused the seashells to be pushed up on top of mountains.

The following are the websites to prove the discovery of sea creature fossils in the mountains especially the undeniable truth, the presence of seashells on top of mountains:
https://www.google.com.sg/search... ...
https://www.google.com.sg/search... ...
zuma

Singapore

#85 Sep 30, 2013
How could rock strata be formed through Great Flood?

a) The sea level kept on increasing as a result of continuous rains so as to cause a Great Flood.

b) As a result of sea waves, many dead creatures that would have died in the period between Genesis 3-6 as well as old rocks to be pushed up to the land so as to form the first layer of rock strata. There were many living creatures still alive to struggle for their survival.

c) As the rains continued, another group of dead creatures would have died in the period between Genesis 3-6 as well as different rocks to be pushed up to the land as well to form the second layer of rock strata on different day. Some living creatures might still be alive to struggle for their survival.

d) As the rains continued without ceasing, the dead dinosaurs’ bones that would have died in the period between Genesis 3-6 as well as iridium would have been pushed up to the land by strong sea waves to form k-t boundary on different day. Some living creatures might still be alive to struggle for their survival.

e) As the rains continued without ceasing and some living creatures would still struggle for their survival, many living creatures might have been dead not long ago would be pushed up to the land so as to form additional layer of rock strata on different day.

f) As the rains continued, the final batch of animals perished. Sea waves caused these dead creatures to be pushed up to be land to form the upper limit of strata.

g) As the rains continued without ceasing, the strong sea waves would have pushed the seashells up on top of the mountain.

h) When the rains ceased, rock strata were formed on top of the land and that is what we called, mountain.
zuma

Singapore

#86 Sep 30, 2013
Even if evolutionary theory is true, the modern seashells on mountaintop have placed the reliability on whether the mountains should be dated in million years.
When did the formation of Mount Himalaya begin?
The following is the extract from sixth, seventh and eighth paragraphs under the heading, The Formation of the Himalayas, from the website, http://library.thinkquest.org/10131/geology.h... :
‘The initial mountain building process started about seventy million years ago (or the Upper Cretaceous period) when the two land masses (or plates) began to collide with each other. As a result, the already shallow seabed rapidly folded folded and was raised into longitudinal ridges and valleys.
Soon afterwards, about 65 million years ago (Upper Eocene Period), came the second phase of mountain building. The bed of the Tethys started rising again. The sea retreated, and the sea bed was elevated into high mountain ranges.
Later, about 25 million years ago (Middle Miocene Period) came another mountain building period which led to the formation of the low Shivalik ranges. After this, periodic mountain building phases occurred as the Indian plate pushed against the Eurasian plates which led to the Himalayan ranges rising further. The last major phase occurred 600,000 years ago.’
From the above statements, it could come to the conclusion that the initial mountain began in 70 million years ago and this event had been followed by the second phase of elevation of mountain in about 65 million years ago. Lastly, another mountain building fell on about 25 million years ago.
Let’s assume that evolution is true that sea creatures that are deposited in a mountain should be dated in a few million years. As numerous sea shells were found on mountaintop, they should be dated either 70 or 65 or even 25 million years old with the assumption that plate tectonics was the cause to push the seabed up so as to form the mountain instead of through Great Flood. The reason is simply that the mountain was gradually pushed upward by means of plate tectonics and this would cause the original seashells that were located on top of seabed to become higher. There is no justifiable reason to assume that seashells from the bottom of the mountain in which they were located could climb their way up to the top so as to mix up with those old seashells. Or in other words, the seashells on mountaintop should remain on top as they were and would not be increased with new seashells despite the presence of exerting force from the bottom of the mountains to cause them to be increased in height. Thus, the seashells on mountaintop should be dated either 70 or 65 or even 25 million years old depending upon the date in which they were placed on it. As the seashells on mountaintop should be dated 70 or 65 or even 25 million years, there is no reason to assume that these seashells could look exactly like modern seashells if evolutionary theory should be true that everything in the past was subjected to evolution. Or in other words, the seashells on mountaintop should not look exactly as modern seashells since they were presumed to have been subjected to some kind of evolution.
However, modern seashells are found on mountaintop. It provides the truth that seashells should not be dated in a few million years since the outlooks of the seashells are contemporary with the assumption that evolution should be true. The reason is simply that seashells should have been subjected to changes from time to time due to its slow evolution. Or in other words, if evolution should be true, the seashells on mountaintop should not look like contemporary seashells. Instead, there should be some kind of differences due to early progressive evolution.
The website, https://www.google.com.sg/search... ..., to show the picture in which modern seashells were found on mountaintop.
zuma

Singapore

#87 Sep 30, 2013
Even if some might insist that seashells on mountaintop would be the work of plate tectonics, there is no justifiable to assume that plate tectonics would always continue to deposit new creatures into the mountains when the increase of height of the mountains is due to the pushing work done through plate tectonics by means of land and land pushing instead of through rising of sea water to direct new sea creatures into the mountain. Or in other words, plate tectonics fails to explain why the whole mountain should be filled with sea creature fossils.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why doesent God help? 3 min Truth 280
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 8 min Gary Coaldigger 16,521
HERE is WHAT DEMON POSSESSION LOOKS LIKE 21 min Gary Coaldigger 67
Why doesn't God let its believers know who has ... 25 min dollarsbill 161
God lied and sepent/satan told truth (Jul '10) 1 hr Truth 121
Imagine that you had to tell an alien about God... 1 hr FSM 31
A must read and must watch for all Christians 1 hr Xcaliber 1
Why doesent God cure cancer? 2 hr dollarsbill 382
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 8 hr messianic114 4,099

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE