Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Audie]

And if it exploded all would not be well.

What point are you trying to work toward?

Ok never mind, you pretty much said it with
"scripture.....".

Do keep in mind that there are about as many
versions of what scripture says / means by what
it says, as there are readers.

You have the right idea, or at least part of the
right idea, trying to match the realities of earth
as we know it, to the words in the bible, as
you believe them to mean.

But what do you do when you find that there
is just no way to make it match? There is a
sensible thing to do next, and an insensible one.

 

[LightofTruth]

Actually, no. Having a significant cloud cover would be more likely to trap greenhouse gases and produce a *hotter* planet, not a colder one. See what happened to the planet Venus for an example.

To produce a *cold* planet, you need to *reduce* the cloud cover.

Without the sun's rays the earth would be very cold.

 

[Polymath257]

It always amazes me how people try to force old wine (ancient scriptures) into new wineskins (science).

I really fail to see the point to it.

 

[Polymath257]

Without the sun's rays the earth would be very cold.

The sun would still be there providing energy. That would be trapped by the clouds (not reflected off into space), warming the Earth, not cooling it.

Once again, look at the planet Venus. It is about the same size as the Earth, but covered with clouds. It is about 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface there.

What you need for *cooling* is a *lack* of cloud cover, so the heat isn't trapped. That would start a cycle where ice forms, which reflects the light back out again, allowing more cooling.

 

[LightofTruth]

Ok never mind, you pretty much said it with
"scripture.....".

Do keep in mind that there are about as many
versions of what scripture says / means by what
it says, as there are readers.

You have the right idea, or at least part of the
right idea, trying to match the realities of earth
as we know it, to the words in the bible, as
you believe them to mean.

But what do you do when you find that there
is just no way to make it match? There is a
sensible thing to do next, and an insensible one.

Unlike most Christians I've ever met, I remain teachable. call it a childlike quality.

 

[LightofTruth]

The sun would still be there providing energy. That would be trapped by the clouds (not reflected off into space), warming the Earth, not cooling it.

Once again, look at the planet Venus. It is about the same size as the Earth, but covered with clouds. It is about 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface there.

What you need for *cooling* is a *lack* of cloud cover, so the heat isn't trapped. That would start a cycle where ice forms, which reflects the light back out again, allowing more cooling.

But suppose that the earth was submerged.

 

[Polymath257]

But suppose that the earth was submerged.

That doesn't change that aspect.

/E: In fact, you are more likely to get cooling if the land is NOT submerged, but at the poles. Having a cloud cover would still *increase* temperature, not decrease it.

 

[LightofTruth]

Actually, no. Having a significant cloud cover would be more likely to trap greenhouse gases and produce a *hotter* planet, not a colder one. See what happened to the planet Venus for an example.

To produce a *cold* planet, you need to *reduce* the cloud cover.

Suppose that the earth has existenced billions of years and life was upon it. Then all of a sudden it became completely submerged by water. What would happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I not thinking of the Noah flood. I'm interested in the idea of dry land being surrounded by water then quickly
frozen. It would seem to me a the perfect condition for fossils to form

That is a rather strange belief. First off the fossil record spans hundreds of millions of years. That would be endless freezing and refreezing and no evidence of that or any known reason. Many environments show continual deposition and no freezing. Check out the Green River Formation. That one alone spans 6 million years of continual deposition. No freezing need, in fact that would have been contrary to what is observed:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia


It is not wise to add unnecessary steps to a hypothesis.

 

[Audie]

Unlike most Christians I've ever met, I remain teachable. call it a childlike quality.

Terrific!

What have you learned in this thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suppose that the earth has existenced billions of years and life was upon it. Then all of a sudden it became completely submerged by water. What would happen?

Since the Earth is very large and it would take a lot of water to do that there would be unmistakable evidence of that event.

Why ask? There is no such evidence by the way so we know it did not happen. Instead what we see is continual evidence of a variety of environments, and dry land is always part of it. For example you cannot have sandstone without an ultimate dry land source for the sand.

 

[Polymath257]

Suppose that the earth has existenced billions of years and life was upon it. Then all of a sudden it became completely submerged by water. What would happen?

Well, that would depend on what you mean by 'sudden'. Do you mean 'over a few million years', which a paleontologist would consider to be sudden?

If so, then you would see widespread extinction of land species. The specific mechanism of submersion (volcanic, melting of ice, etc) would determine some of the subsequent events. You might get some changes in ocean currents and some extinction of ocean species also.

If you are talking faster than a few million years, you are starting to talk about fantasy (well, truthfully, even that few million years is, but we can stretch a bit). And if you want to change the rules of physics to that extent, then anything can happen. But again, without evidence, there is no reason to think this happened at all.

And an event like this *would* produce copious amounts of evidence.

 

[Audie]

Suppose that the earth has existenced billions of years and life was upon it. Then all of a sudden it became completely submerged by water. What would happen?

Fill in a detail or two for us.
How fast is "sudden" and by "completely" do
you mean to a depth of at least five and a half
miles so as to submerge Everest?

It would take a lot of calculating, but the consequences
would be enormous. Probably change Earth's orbit,
among some few other things.

 

[Polymath257]

@LightofTruth ,

You seem to be trying to fit science into a specific interpretation of your scripture. Instead, why don't you find out what the science is *first* and *then* see if your scripture agrees with it? maybe you have the wrong interpretation, after all.

 

[Audie]

Since the Earth is very large and it would take a lot of water to do that there would be unmistakable evidence of that event.

Why ask? There is no such evidence by the way so we know it did not happen. Instead what we see is continual evidence of a variety of environments, and dry land is always part of it. For example you cannot have sandstone without an ultimate dry land source for the sand.

I guess that is more to the point. As it did not
happen, it is idle sci fi speculation what would
happen if.

For those who like serious answers to absurd questions-

What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions by Randall Munroe

 

[Audie]

@LightofTruth ,

You seem to be trying to fit science into a specific interpretation of your scripture. Instead, why don't you find out what the science is *first* and *then* see if your scripture agrees with it? maybe you have the wrong interpretation, after all.

talk is cheap! We await action.

LightofTruth said: ↑
Unlike most Christians I've ever met, I remain teachable. call it a childlike quality.

 

[LightofTruth]

Since the Earth is very large and it would take a lot of water to do that there would be unmistakable evidence of that event.

Why ask? There is no such evidence by the way so we know it did not happen. Instead what we see is continual evidence of a variety of environments, and dry land is always part of it. For example you cannot have sandstone without an ultimate dry land source for the sand.

You would also have to consider that the earth was in a different form then it is today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would also have to consider that the earth was in a different form then it is today.

Why would one need to do that? If you want to continually push strange claims then of course one could get to the point where one could agree that "yes, at that point it may have been done by pink and green fairies that ride on grasshoppers". But it would never be reasonable. If your only reason is "my myth fails if we cannot change the basic nature of the universe" then it is best to be honest and admit that one's personal belief fails.

 

[Polymath257]

You would also have to consider that the earth was in a different form then it is today.

You mean 'other than spherical'?

No, I would not. The sphericity follows from the laws of physics.

If you *don't* mean that, then what *do* you mean?

 

[LightofTruth]

Why would one need to do that? If you want to continually push strange claims then of course one could get to the point where one could agree that "yes, at that point it may have been done by pink and green fairies that ride on grasshoppers". But it would never be reasonable. If your only reason is "my myth fails if we cannot change the basic nature of the universe" then it is best to be honest and admit that one's personal belief fails.

Let me know when your belief succeeds.