[_ Old Earth _] Continental split? Peleg's english name?

[dad]

Ah , Yes we do. The evidence that is left in the form of fossils, geologic strata , testing of materials in regards to natural wear, etc etc etc. We have many tests and the funny thing about them is that they confirm the results of the other tests.

False, no fossil supports your position more than mine. No strata, etc. No natural wear more than 6000 years old, either. You simply apply the very same principle of assuming a physical only past and future to everything with no proof. Nothing else in this world gives old dates, which do not exist, except in your mind.

[quote:8de25]Sorry but it is science. Science observes the real

Absolutely not, I call your bluff right now! You are right science observes the real, but only in the present, not in the unknown past and future. (aprox a century after flood, till 1000 some years from now). You'd do well to learn, and remember that!

and your side observes or should I say believes without evidence.

Both sides do that, using the same evidence.

] I guess you are in that trap of trying to prove a negative. If I have nothing to suggest a spirit world or the existance of a non physical world then WHY would I think one exists?

If you are blind and deaf, why believe a fireworks symphony exists? Who cares anyhow if you do? Point is, you can't prove your physical only past existed, cause it never did!

I guess in your world if something cannot be proved it didn't exist then it must exist.

No, unless it is taught to people as science, then I demand it be supported, or flushed.

In that case Santa exists because you can't prove he doesn't.

He's not in science class, or we'd kick his sorry uknowwhat as well.

As I said all the evidence points to the natural laws of nature being adhered to and nothing to suggest otherwise.

No, the evidence does not point to any such thing, that is just your belief! I say the evidence points to a pre split world.

The bible makes all kinds of claims that are nowhere supported by what is found.

[/quote:8de25]
Don't cry me a river if your finding abilities are so poor! Not everything the bible speaks of is in this PO world! That, my firend, is as far as you can see. No wonder you think something is missing!

 

[dad]

It is my opinion, but there are MOUNTAINS of basis.

Po speculation with no possible basis every crumb!

[quote:eebdd]What YOU are claiming IS without basis whatsoever.

Wrong, I have ALL the same evidence you do, properly interpreted, the bible itself, and the human experience that tells us there is a spiritual realm as well.

One word: fossils.

Look at it this way. Man and beast, and plants were in eden. Sea creatures as well, in the sea of Eden. Outside in the new planet God put some creatures and plants to help prepare the earth for our eventual spread. The fall comes, things start to die. In the planet, we see trilobites, and such starting to appear in the record! Later, as Eden's life spreads out, it 'appears' in the record. In the fantastic pre split world, trees grow in days, and other major differences, so strata is built up very fast. Get it?

You obviously didn't even read the article.

I glanced at it, if you claim it wasn't as outdated as I thought, I'll look again at it.

I thought you were talking about the big bang? ok, even better.
That's ridiculous. There are MILLIONS of yeas of separation between say, trillobites, and humans. If all life had been created at the same time, they would all be in the same sediment layer. And dont' say that the flood sorted them out according to size of some other crap, because things like prehistoric sponges or insects or whatever are most definately smaller than T-rexes, or modern whales, and yet they're at the bottom. You obviously know nothing about the fossil record. It does NOTHING to support adam, eve, creationism, the flood, or any of that. Heck, it DISPROVES it.

[/quote:eebdd]
Already covered! See above.

 

[Oran_Taran]

False, no fossil supports your position more than mine.

Show me your evidence.

No strata, etc. No natural wear more than 6000 years old,

no strata? what the are you talking about?
no natural wear? well gee, I see your point. I mean, a rock inside an even bigger rock SHOULD be worn out.
You believe in the 6000 year? LOL. Even the human population shows that's false.

There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1900 to 2000 has been closer to 0.132 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984; Martin 1999). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 15,500 years. And recent population growth has been historically high.


The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by

P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

Nothing else in this world gives old dates, which do not exist, except in your mind.

rock strata, ice strata, radioactive dating techniques, even old organisms.

Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.


The King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG010.html
and many others http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Both sides do that, using the same evidence.

no, you completely ignore 99.99% of the evidence, and instead focus on mistakes made in dating things, etc.

No, the evidence does not point to any such thing, that is just your belief! I say the evidence points to a pre split world.

Give me your evidence.

Look at it this way. Man and beast, and plants were in eden. Sea creatures as well, in the sea of Eden. Outside in the new planet God put some creatures and plants to help prepare the earth for our eventual spread.

So you're saying the garden of eden was another planet?

The fall comes, things start to die. In the planet, we see trilobites, and such starting to appear in the record! Later, as Eden's life spreads out, it 'appears' in the record. In the fantastic pre split world, trees grow in days, and other major differences, so strata is built up very fast. Get it?

No, look at it this way. Every tuesday at 5 PM, little unicorns come and totally destroy the universe! YES! destroy the universe! Then when they're gone, little fairies with big red glowing eyes and magic wands come and re-create the universe exactly as it had been, so we don't remember anything... but really, we're no more than a week old at any given time!!! get it?

C'mon, neither of that is supported either by the bible, reality, or anything else. What's next... do you believe the earth is flat? and that the sun, moon, and starts revolve around the earth?

I glanced at it, if you claim it wasn't as outdated as I thought, I'll look again at it.

yeah, next time READ. That's the whole purpose of posting things. You don't even have to read the whole thing.

Already covered! See above.

HA!

*edited to remove foul language* and please tone down the sarcasm!

 

[dad]

Show me your evidence.

The fossils are the evidence. If you interpret it colored by your beliefs, don't blame me.

no strata? what the hell are you talking about?

Exactly what I said, no strata is older than 6000 years. What the hell about it?

no natural wear? well gee, I see your point. I mean, a rock inside an even bigger rock SHOULD be worn out.
You believe in the 6000 year crap? LOL. Even the human population shows that's false.

No, the dates for ancient civilizations are wrong. Just look at how, say, Egypt is dated.

The population growth from 1900 to 2000 has been closer to 0.132 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984; Martin 1999). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 15,500 years. And recent population growth has been historically high.

You can play the numbers game, but much creation research is out there, that better relects the truth.

The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year,

Hyper population abilities, for the centurry after the flood, where the world was still pre split, got things rolling beyond your dreams. Add to that they used to take more than one wife. and the big factor we forgot -no TV!

The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E.,

Show us exactly on what you base this claim. This is always fun.

Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood,

Before you get to play, 'let's try to make the bible look silly' - Put your dating precision on the table, I could use a laugh.

rock strata, ice strata, radioactive dating techniques, even old organisms.

You kidding? I think I dealt with most of that already anyhow, but let's pick one for a look. Radioactive dating. That is a measurement based on present decay, there was none then, so now what can you say? Nothing. Unless you prove it was a PO world, which you never could do.

[quote:cb10d]Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.

If the split happened a century after the flood, trees still grew in days till that point. This nueters your calculations completely, exposing them for the presumptuous guesswork, and Godless old age philosophy it is.

no, you completely ignore 99.99% of the evidence, and instead focus on mistakes made in dating things, etc.

No, no, you misunderstand, I do no such thing. Sounds like you been reading that religious site too much. Any ideas of your own, perchance? All dating is wrong beyond some 4400 years or so! There was no decay in the pre split world, or universe, it was spiritual and physical, unlike our present physical only.

Give me your evidence.

You name some evidence you think is yours. it is now mine. For example, the entire fossil record.

So you're saying the garden of eden was another planet?

No, just that the evidence seems to indicate that God put man and beast in the garden, wherever on earth it was. I used to wonder how God could bring all the animals to Adam, for him to name them, if they lived so far away!

but really, we're no more than a week old at any given time!!! get it?

Yes I get it, the universe was in a speck, all life came from a magic granny first lifeform, and we are all a week old at the most. Got it. Now, one day, you might hear of something called science, and evidence. If that happens, you'll realize your are dreaming. If you still don't catch on after that, read the bible.

C'mon, neither of that is supported either by the bible, reality, or anything else. What's next... do you believe the earth is flat? and that the sun, moon, and starts revolve around the earth?

[/quote:cb10d] The earth, of course is the center of the universe, but, being in the physical only, we cannot see it at the moment. When the new heavens are revealed (merge) -it will be clear! AS for biblical support, try me anytime, I can defend what I say.


PS I reglanced at your link, seems to deal with the old 'eve' thing, and I can't find anything relevant. The tiger/elephant modern science links I gave are recent, and overrules the religious nonsense you linked to, whatever it was supposed to be!

 

[Oran_Taran]

Exactly what I said, no strata is older than 6000 years. What the hell about it?

That it's wrong. There are plenty of strata that are even millions of years old.

No, the dates for ancient civilizations are wrong. Just look at how, say, Egypt is dated.

How?

You can play the numbers game, but much creation research is out there, that better relects the truth.

I'm getting tired of empty statements. Show me your logic (BASED ON FACTS, not just your eve migration, trees growing in hours), give me your evidence, etc. You can say anything but no one with a neuron in their brain will believe you or take you seriously.

Add to that they used to take more than one wife. and the big factor we forgot -no TV!

What do TVs have to do with it? Yes, they had more children. Yes they had more wives. But yes, most of them died. It's not about having children or wives, it's about how many survive. And back then, and still in poor rural societies, the mortality rate is very high.

Show us exactly on what you base this claim.

I'll do what you do (for now). How I base that claim is much better than your creation methods.

That is a measurement based on present decay, there was none then, so now what can you say? Nothing.

ok, that's it. Nothing I can say will change your mind. *edited :roll: *

All dating is wrong beyond some 4400 years or so!

carbon 14, yeah. But there are many more datig techniques.

Now, one day, you might hear of something called science, and evidence.

Can I ask you something? Are you really someone who accepts evolution but only pretends to be a creationist to make creationist look stupid?

The tiger/elephant modern science links I gave are recent, and overrules the religious nonsense you linked to, whatever it was supposed to be!

The methods used are the same, and since the methods are flawed, the conclusions are flawed too.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Is there any other person in this site that believes the thing he's saying?

 

[dad]

That it's wrong. There are plenty of strata that are even millions of years old.

No, not a one! The dating methods are wrong.

How?

Well, stick to something you know then, and give any example you want, the dates are wrong as wrong can be.

Show me your logic (BASED ON FACTS, not just your eve migration, trees growing in hours ), give me your evidence, etc. You can say anything but no one with a neuron in their brain will believe you or take you seriously.

Getting angry is a first sing of old agers, when they find out about the split. Disbelief. But the record matches the bible, and the split better than old age baseless belief. Notice you can't say a thing about it. but fume? If you don't like merged growth rates, then prove the universe was physical only. Simple!

[quote:b4209]Add to that they used to take more than one wife. and the big factor we forgot -no TV!

What do TVs have to do with it? [/quote:b4209]

Ever heard of the birth rate spike in the New York blackout years ago?

Yes, they had more children. Yes they had more wives. But yes, most of them died.

No, they lived a long time, and were fruitful and multiplied. Look at Noah, what did he live, many centuries after the flood!

It's not about having children or wives, it's about how many survive.

What was, then the survival rate of men in the first 2000 years after the flood?

And back then, and still in poor rural societies, the mortality rate is very high.

Back then and 'still' are 2 different things.

ok, that's it. Nothing I can say will change your mind.

The mistake you make here is assuming in so doing we would agree with you!

carbon 14, yeah. But there are many more datig techniques.

All are wrong for giving dates beyond the time I said!!

Can I ask you something? Are you really someone who accepts evolution but only pretends to be a creationist to make creationist look stupid?

Why, you not used to losing to creos? Better adapt.

The methods used are the same, and since the methods are flawed, the conclusions are flawed too.

Really, you can correct BBC science dept, with some passe apologetics site?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4535190.stm
Article dated 21 Dec, 2005! "Dan Bradley, an expert in ancient DNA at Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, said the research was "a bit of a landmark".
Who are you, that you can slap this guy down?

 

[dad]

Is there any other person in this site that believes the thing he's saying?

Preferably with more than 13 posts!

 

[Solo]

Is there any other person in this site that believes the thing he's saying?

Preferably with more than 13 posts!

Hey dad. Keep up the good work.
God bless.

 

[reznwerks]

dating

That it's wrong. There are plenty of strata that are even millions of years old.

No, not a one! The dating methods are wrong.
Yea right, somehow all the geologists, scientists biologists etc are wrong and somehow a lone poster on a lone Christian forum knows the truth. All these people who have spents thousands of dollars for an education and use the tools and methods that were taught in their daily work somehow all conutinue to get false measurements and somehow no one notices it except Christian apologists.



[quote:75ca4][quote:75ca4]Add to that they used to take more than one wife. and the big factor we forgot -no TV!

What do TVs have to do with it? [/quote:75ca4]


No, they lived a long time, and were fruitful and multiplied. Look at Noah, what did he live, many centuries after the flood!
Do you really want to use Noah as an example? I mean did you read the story of what Noah did after the flood ? Read it slowly so you understand it. We have laws against this sort of thing.

carbon 14, yeah. But there are many more datig techniques.

[/quote:75ca4]
All are wrong for giving dates beyond the time I said!!
What testing methods are YOU using and what are the credentials? The bible is not a textbook.

 

[dad]

Re: dating

...
Yea right, somehow all the geologists, scientists biologists etc are wrong and somehow a lone poster on a lone Christian forum knows the truth.

I am not the only one who knows that the bible was true all along, and your dates are wrong.
[quote:716b9]All these people who have spents thousands of dollars for an education and use the tools and methods that were taught in their daily work somehow all conutinue to get false measurements and somehow no one notices it except Christian ...

The measurements they get may be right, they just misunderstood what it means. They can measure that things now decay and die, and how fast, yes. They vcannot measure heaven, where that will not be the case, yet they tell us the sun will burn out one day. The bible says it will be around still, so something will be different, stop assuming sameness! That is boring.

Do you really want to use Noah as an example? I mean did you read the story of what Noah did after the flood ? Read it slowly so you understand it. We have laws against this sort of thing.

??? Get drunk? WE have laws against marring and caring for more than one girl, but many places same sex couples can marry, and just look at the average partner counts they have! Man's laws are wicked, and getting more so all the time! Noah did live centuries after the flood, yes, and was a good man. But he was a man.

What testing methods are YOU using and what are the credentials? The bible is not a textbook.

[/quote:716b9]
It is the most sacred, well preserved, historical and prophetic, and important document on earth, and will exist after the surface of the earth is burned, and the new heavens are revealed. Long after evolution is an eternal laughingstock, and lesson, how delusional men can become.
It is so far more than just physical science, it should bring a tear to your eye!

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

What exactly is wrong with radiometric dating?

 

[dad]

What exactly is wrong with radiometric dating?

It assumes present decay existed in the far past. I don't believe it did. No proof exists that it did. It exists now, yes, of course. It will not in the future, nor did it, I contend, in the far past.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: dating

...
Yea right, somehow all the geologists, scientists biologists etc are wrong and somehow a lone poster on a lone Christian forum knows the truth.

I am not the only one who knows that the bible was true all along, and your dates are wrong.

You mean there are others?
[quote:25d29]All these people who have spents thousands of dollars for an education and use the tools and methods that were taught in their daily work somehow all conutinue to get false measurements and somehow no one notices it except Christian ...

The measurements they get may be right, they just misunderstood what it means. They can measure that things now decay and die, and how fast, yes. They vcannot measure heaven, where that will not be the case, yet they tell us the sun will burn out one day. The bible says it will be around still, so something will be different, stop assuming sameness! That is boring.
I see.


[quote:25d29] Do you really want to use Noah as an example? I mean did you read the story of what Noah did after the flood ? Read it slowly so you understand it. We have laws against this sort of thing.

??? Get drunk? WE have laws against marring and caring for more than one girl, but many places same sex couples can marry, and just look at the average partner counts they have! Man's laws are wicked, and getting more so all the time! Noah did live centuries after the flood, yes, and was a good man. But he was a man.
Noah seems to have had an unhealthy relationship with his daughters.

What testing methods are YOU using and what are the credentials? The bible is not a textbook.

It is the most sacred, well preserved, historical and prophetic, and important document on earth, and will exist after the surface of the earth is burned, and the new heavens are revealed. Long after evolution is an eternal laughingstock, and lesson, how delusional men can become.
It is so far more than just physical science, it should bring a tear to your eye!
Unfortunately your claim doesn't seem to hold water. It has been shown to be in error on more than one occasion.

[/quote:25d29][/quote:25d29]

 

[dad]

Re: dating

..
You mean there are others?

Untold millions believe in a young earth. Hundreds of millions in Noah, etc.



[quote:f7bc1] Noah seems to have had an unhealthy relationship with his daughters.

Never heard that one.

Unfortunately your claim doesn't seem to hold water. It has been shown to be in error on more than one occasion.

[/quote:f7bc1] No, all that is shown is a limited ability to understand it.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

What exactly is wrong with radiometric dating?

It assumes present decay existed in the far past. I don't believe it did. No proof exists that it did. It exists now, yes, of course. It will not in the future, nor did it, I contend, in the far past.

That is illogical and contains an unfounded assumption, that nuclear decay can start or stop. Decay happens because a nucleus has too many or two few neutrons, it occurs because of a number of properties of quantum mechanics that can be seen occuring elsewhere and can be shown easily to be necessary for the existence of nuclei in general.

You contend that nuclear decay did not happen in the far past, but you present no evidence that this is the case.

Furthermore, why would nuclear decay cease.

 

[dad]

...That is illogical and contains an unfounded assumption, that nuclear decay can start or stop. Decay happens because a nucleus has too many or two few neutrons, it occurs because of a number of properties of quantum mechanics that can be seen occuring elsewhere and can be shown easily to be necessary for the existence of nuclei in general.

It occurs because we now live in a physical only universe, very logical. In the merged universe the spiritual element was there, and a different balance exists, not one of decay.

[quote:34683]You contend that nuclear decay did not happen in the far past, but you present no evidence that this is the case.

Neither do you present any that it did, neither can you, cause you can't! The bible tells us we will never die, and the sun and stars and earth are forever, we must have a different universe for this to occur, and we will! A new heavens and a new earth.

Furthermore, why would nuclear decay cease.

[/quote:34683] It will cease when the universe is merged again. It started when it was temporarily split, leaving us in the physical only!

 

[dad]

...That is illogical and contains an unfounded assumption, that nuclear decay can start or stop. Decay happens because a nucleus has too many or two few neutrons, it occurs because of a number of properties of quantum mechanics that can be seen occuring elsewhere and can be shown easily to be necessary for the existence of nuclei in general.

It occurs because we now live in a physical only universe, very logical. In the merged universe the spiritual element was there, and a different balance exists, not one of decay.

[quote:0f4d7]You contend that nuclear decay did not happen in the far past, but you present no evidence that this is the case.

Neither do you present any that it did, neither can you, cause you can't! The bible tells us we will never die, and the sun and stars and earth are forever, we must have a different universe for this to occur, and we will! A new heavens and a new earth.

Furthermore, why would nuclear decay cease.

[/quote:0f4d7] It will cease when the universe is merged again. It started when it was temporarily split, leaving us in the physical only!

 

[pasta911]

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to make countless stars blaze away countless kilowatts of energy in every corner of this vast cosmos for no apparent purpose; and have the prize of his creation, the earth - which God worked on for "five" out of the "six days of creation" - receive only an infinitesimal portion of the energy expended by even the nearest star, the sun.

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to make faint galaxies, faint stars, asteroids, meteors, etc., that produce or reflect so little light that they are undetectable by the earth's inhabitants. [Yet it says in the Bible that all the objects in the firmament were created to "light" the earth, and "for signs and seasons" on earth.]

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to intentionally destroy his own cosmic designs, making stars in distant galaxies explode with such intensity that they stand out from all the rest of the hundreds of billions of stars in their immediate galaxy. The energies released by such novas also destroy any life forms (if they happen to exist) on planets circling stars within quite a few light-years of the nova. The cosmos also contains the remains of stellar explosions, like the Cygnus ring, a great expanding ring of matter. And there are whole galaxies seen in the process of colliding with one another; and weird "O-shaped" galaxies that are believed to be the remnants of one galaxy colliding and passing through another and turning it inside out.

The Milky Way galaxy (that we all know and love, since it is where our solar system resides) is presently "ripping apart a helpless smaller galaxy in the constellation Sagittarius and will soon swallow millions of its stars." [See "To Kill a Galaxy" in Astronomy, Vol. 24, no. 12, Dec. 1996]

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to create large asteroids (like Icarus and Hermes) whose known orbits around the sun intersect with that of our own planet's orbit around the sun, ensuring that at some time in the near or distant future our planet will most likely collide with such objects.

Furthermore, asteroids with "near-earth" orbits can have their orbits subtly altered by gravitational effects over time so that they intersect with earth's orbit. "433 Eros" (which is an asteroid twice the size of the one believed to have struck the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs) presently occupies a near-earth orbit. But recent computer simulations [discussed in the article, "Eros has Earth's Number" in Astronomy, Vol. 24, no. 12, Dec. 1996] have shown that the gravity from the planet Mars is very gradually moving that asteroid into an earth-crossing orbit. Astronomers have predicted that in less than 1.1 million years Eros could collide with the Earth.

To date, over 70 asteroids have been discovered that have "earth-approaching" orbits, and astronomers estimate that several thousand such objects exist out there. Asteroids are difficult to detect since they are small dark bodies of matter, and there is no well-funded program to chart them. As one astronomer stated, "The asteroid with our name on it probably won't even be seen until it is too late, since it will begin as an invisible black dot in the sky, that expands imperceptibly as the asteroid heads stright for us, i.e., rather than moving across the sky."

On Oct. 30, 1937, the earth and the asteroid Hermes missed colliding by only 500,000 miles (that's about twice the distance from the earth to the moon). On March 22, 1989, the asteroid "1989 FC" passed by even nearer, within 437,000 miles of Earth. The latter asteroid was between 650 to 1,600 feet in diameter, and if it had struck the earth it would have exploded with the force of more than a million tons of TNT, and left a crater up to 4 and 1/3 miles across. [Sky & Telescope, July, 1989, pg. 30]

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to create vacant worlds that circle the Sun along with the earth; and also create immense discs of matter, and planets, that have been detected circling other stars, i.e., countless acres of presumably uninhabited and barren territory.

(With the aid of the Hubble telescope, cloudy rings of matter have been detected circling about half of a hundred stars closely examined in the nearby Orion nebula. These stars are relatively young and the size of our own Sun or smaller. A number of stars near our Sun even have planets and/or discs of matter circling them. Unfortunately, our present astronomical instruments are not sensitive enough to detect earth-sized planets, just gigantic ones, and huge discs of matter, circling stars.

Yet, such huge discs of matter resemble what our own solar system would look like from a distance, since the Kuiper belt (made up of millions of asteroids and cometary bodies) has been observed lying beyond Pluto and circling our own Sun.

Furthermore, the nearby star, Beta Pictoris, which is only 50 light-years away, has a disc of matter surrounding it, and has given astronomers a clue that a number of planet-sized bodies could possibly be circling it. Because we can clearly see the star, Beta Pictoris, even looking right through the disc of matter (the edge of which faces our vantage point and passes right in front of the star), therefore the disc of matter must not contain much dust - which is exactly what one would expect if the material had already condensed into planets.)

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to create dozens of moons in our solar system that can't be seen from Earth except with a telescope - Moons that provide light at night, or, "rule the nights" of uninhabited planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to make only a portion of the earth easily habitable by man, the rest being ocean surface, deserts, barren scrub lands, nearly impenetrable rain forests, swampland, frozen tundra, steep mountain ranges and cliff sides, or places lacking fresh water, or having little fresh water to offer.

 

[Oran_Taran]

Lol, that's great pasta.
Can I use your post? I mean I'll make clear I didn't think of that (and if you want I can cite it... not that anyone will know who you are but whatever), but can I post that in other forums and stuff?