PDA

View Full Version : How old is the Earth?

KotO[REvan]
12-09-2007, 06:12 AM
What is the age of the Earth?

If you go through the Bible and add up the dates, you will find out that the Bible dates add up to about 6000 years to total human history. If scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).

There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.
Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief). First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old. According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?

Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution. All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.

So, you have my belief and my reasoning. The Earth is 6000 years old.

mur'phon
12-09-2007, 07:18 AM
I really need to get back to work, anything I don't adress now I'll do later, unless someone beats me to it.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”

Mind telling me where you are getting with this?

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!

What curve do you use? Keep in mind that the world population remained relativiely stable for thousands of years, harsh conditions, disease, famine etc meant that the most of the increase in population has happened relatively recently, an example being that it only reached 1 bilion around 1800.
Not the most reliable but: wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography)

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.

Or maybe climate changed turning areas that was once fertile soil into deserts. You might want to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth) to learn a bit about how they estimate the earths age.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution.

It seems to me that you don't know excatly what evolution actually is, so you might want to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.

Have you got any free sources?

swfan28
12-09-2007, 08:16 AM
Normally I would stay away from debates with creationists but this time I will make a one time exception.
KotO[REvan] wrote:
There are six different meanings to evolution. Out of those six, only 1 has truly been observed. The six different types are:

Cosmic evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. (Big Bang)
hemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution – origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution – origin of life.
Macro-evolution – changing from one kind to another.
Micro-evolution – variations within kids.
Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief).Untrue. The Big Bang theory is based on the observations have made about the universe combined with modern physics (general relativity and quantum mechanics). It is true that we don't know how or why the Big Bang occurred or what was before it (if anything). The origin of higher elements is explained quite well by nuclear physics and that theory is very well known and tested. Origin of stars and planets is also explained by modern physics and both the formation of star systems and the events after the big bang have been tested in computer simulations that are based on the laws of physics. Macro-evolution theory exists even though it has some gaps but it has not yet been thorougly tested. This is because according to the theory the process is too slow to be observed on currently living species. So far there is no scientific evidence against that theory though.

I agree that organic evolution is not explained by sciense and I doubt it ever will. I believe that God is the reason behind the origin of life (and also what caused the Big Bang). Unlike many of my physicist colleagues I am not an atheist.
KotO[REvan] wrote:
The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.Exactly where did you find that information about the Big Bang? I don't recall seeing it before. It may be true though that the singularity must have had angular momentum for the matter to be scattered as it is observed but I'm not sure. The opposite rotation of the planets you mentioned can be explained by asteroid impacts (or actually planetoid) when the Solar System and the planets were beginning to form and large impacts were very frequent. The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to a specific system at the time. The whole universe still has the same angular momentum as it had at the time of the Big Bang but the situation may be different with the sub systems.
KotO[REvan] wrote:
From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!There are other factors that affect the population of humans than just a geometric growth rate. I just hope we don't have to see what happens when the population grows too large for Earth to support. Also according to the theory of human evolution Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a species is about 200000 years old.
]KotO[REvan] wrote:
The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.I don't know anything about the ages of the Earth's deserts but there would be lot of evidence everywhere about a worldwide flood only 4400 years ago but there isn't any. Personally I think the myth of a worldwide flood was caused by flow of water from Mediterranean to the Black Sea that flooded a large area there.
KotO[REvan] wrote:
Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?*Sigh* A single supernova is only visible for a short time, very few stars are actually large enough to explode as a supernova, and most stars actually "live" billions of years (the large ones have shorter life span). The amount of detected remnants of supernovas (pulsars, black holes and the nebulas that are left behind from "recent" supernovas), that are actually close enough for us to detect are consistent with the distribution of stars and the theory of the universe's development.
KotO[REvan] wrote:
Evolution states that the transformation from a red giant to a white dwarf star takes billions of years. Here are some records of the white dwarf Sirius:

Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000 B.C. described Sirius as a red star.
Cicero, in 50 B.C., stated that Sirius was red.
Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars.
Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D.
Today it is a white star-binary.
Evolution says it should take billions of years for this to happen, while it obviously doesn’t; actually, it happens in a few thousand years.Well, this is strange. First of all you are wrong about the nature of Sirius. It is a binary system of a fairly large white star and a white dwarf. The transformation of Sirius B from red giant to white dwarf would not take as long as you described but still too long for this to be right. The planetary nebula left behind of the red giant Sirius B would be blown away quickly by the solar wind from Sirius A but not quickly enough for us to find no trace of it now. There must be some other explanation of why Sirius appeared red. The evolution doesn't say anything about development of stellar bodies, the thoroughly tested laws of physics do and I do not believe that could be wrong. Sirius is also too close for any nebula or other star to get between it and us to explain the color change. It is actually one of the closest stars. The color of the star depends on the temperature of it's photosphere but I have a hard time understanding why Sirius A's photosphere would temporarily cool by over 10000 degrees.
KotO[REvan] wrote:
Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.There is a theory of how moon was formed. I'm not familiar with it but it is consistent with the Moon's current distance.

Pavlos
12-09-2007, 08:36 AM
']Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

”Uni” meaning “single”
and “verse” meaning “spoken”
“Let there be light,” anyone?Just speaking as someone who has one or two classics qualifications and in the interests of making sure facts are straight; universe is more likely to come from ūniversus which means entire. Though it is a rather nice idea to have it mean "one line" I doubt that's the origin. Anyway, just because the name may have come from a religion doesn't mean that it is automatically a form of proof.

I think the seven day week comes from the Titan Cult in ancient Greece. By your logic that sort of thing proves the existence of the Titans, surely?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-09-2007, 08:57 AM
Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

* ”Uni” meaning “single”Heaven and Hell aren't real, then?

I heartily recommend TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) for whoever want to learn more about evolution. It shoots down just about every single argument against the theory of evolution.

What is the age of the Earth?4.57 billion years. Contrary to what some people like to believe, we actually know a good deal about the Earth's formation and age.

If you go through the Bible and add up the dates, you will find out that the Bible dates add up to about 6000 years to total human history. If scripture isn’t enough evidence to support the age of the Earth being 6000 years, then the only other way to gain evidence is to disprove the other theories (this case, being Evolution).First of all, no, Scripture is not a good enough source until you prove that it is. Secondly, disproving other theories doesn't mean squat unless you actually prove your own. If you have four theories, A, B, C, and D, disproving A-C doesn't automatically make D true. In order for me to believe D, you'll have to actually test and prove it.

And finally, the theory of evolution concerns itself only with the evolution of life - what Creationists for political reasons like to refer to as micro- and macro-evolution. It says squat about the creation of life, Earth, or the universe.

There are six different meanings to evolution.Nope.
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift. -- Wiki

Only micro-evolution has been truly observed. The other five are all religious beliefs (evolution being the belief).Both variations within a species and speciation have been observed. And even if they were false, they'd not be religious beliefs. Religion is the belief in supernatural afterlife, gods, miracles, and the like, and has nothing to do with science.

First, let’s talk about the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory states that all matter existing formed into a compressed, supposedly “smaller than a period on this page”. This dot begun to spin, and as it spun it got faster and faster, until the point where it eventually exploded, giving us our universe.I've never heard that it started to spin, nor that it exploded. It expanded, which is something else entirely.

Did you know that the word “universe” comes from two Latin words?

* ”Uni” meaning “single”
* and “verse” meaning “spoken”

“Let there be light,” anyone?I'm more concerned with the words 'theory' (misconception being that 'theory' means 'unproven') and 'Big Bang' (misconception being that 'Bang' actually refers to one) being so easily misunderstood.

Going back to the Big Bang theory, there is a physics law called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. To give an example of what this law says, think about kids on a merry-go-round. The merry-go-round is spinning 100 mph clockwise. If the kids on the merry-go-round were to fly off, they’d be spinning clockwise as they soar through the air. This is the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.Interesting. I'll wait for others to discuss this one, as it's new to me.

The Big Bang theory says that all of the matter was spinning until it eventually exploded. This would mean that all of the scattered material would be spinning in the same direction, correct? Isn’t it odd then, that Uranus, Venus, and Pluto spin in the opposite direction as the rest of the planets? There are also six or so moons that spin backwards, a few even revolve around their planet backwards. Now, there’s something wrong with that.Not at all. The planets didn't come out of the singularity fully formed. The Earth didn't get flung out of the singularity as it is now - it was formed later in a complex process of collisions, chemistry, and all that.

Continuing on, remember that Evolutionists believe that the Earth is millions of years old.Billions. And a proven scientific theory is not an 'ism'.

According to the Bible, 6000 years ago, God made Earth. 4400 years ago, there was the flood (Noah’s flood). This flood left only 8 living people on the Earth.The Flood is an impossibility. It'd have melted the ice caps, killed the freshwater fish, drowned plant life, and so on. And 8 individuals is hardly enough to effectively repopulate a planet, without incest taking a significant toll. The Flood simply cannot have happened for so many reasons.

From 4400 years ago until now, the word’s human population has grown by 6 billion. For 4400 years, that population growth curve seems just about right. If the world were to be three million years old, our population would be 150,000 people per square inch. If you’d ask me, that’s pretty crowded!But the idea that the population curve is constant comes from you, not the 'evolutionists', so this is a moot point.

The Sahara Desert is the largest desert in the world. It grows four miles per year. Researchers have found that the Sahara desert is four thousand years old. If the Earth was millions of years old, why is it that the oldest desert on Earth is only four thousand years old? Well the answer is quite simple: it’d be kind of hard for a desert to grow underneath a gigantic flood.As was said, climate change. And actually, seeing a gigantic flood would kill most plant life, I'd say it would speed up the formation of desert, not slow it. But that's me.

Going further on, let’s talk about some super novas and the like. Astronomers have observed that about every thirty years a star “dies” and explodes into a super nova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than three hundred super novas? There should be several hundred million of them. Are the stars wrong, or the evolution theory?The theory of evolution does not talk about stars.

Finishing, let’s talk about the moon. As the moon revolves around the Earth, it gradually moves farther away. Each year the moon moves outward 1.5 inches. If the Earth, along with its moon, was millions of years old, our moon would be much farther from us than what it is.Variation. You know how the tides don't constantly rise, but rather rise, for then to fall again, for then to rise, and so on. Apply that concept, in a modified form, to the Moon.

And these are just a few of the many facts that help disprove Evolution. All of this information came from Dr. Kent Hovid’s (AKA: Dr. Dino’s) video called “Age of the Earth”. I recommend that you watch his video for more information on the matter.I suffered my way through 2 and a half hours of Hovind once. I was faced with conspiracy theories on everything from the dollar bill to 9/11 (he even convinced himself he didn't have to pay taxes and thus got himself jailed), bigotry directed at atheists, gun nuttery, pseudo-science, and religious fundamentalism. Never again.

PoiuyWired
12-09-2007, 10:46 AM
6000 years old?

Well, various civilizations have History and reasonably believed records more than 6000 years old. Hack, even the chinese have record of countries and lords and random antiques that dates back 6000+ years.

So according you you human civilization must have been floating in the void form many years, before a planet magically appears. That is interesting indeed. I mean, practicing pottery while floating in space must be really fun. :)

Darth InSidious
12-09-2007, 12:06 PM
I think the seven day week comes from the Titan Cult in ancient Greece. By your logic that sort of thing proves the existence of the Titans, surely?
Not sure. Certainly, the 365 day year and the 24-hour day were both known to the Egyptians, but I don't think they divide the year into weeks.

Given that the Badarian Culture of Upper Egypt flourished from around 4500 BC, I think Bishop Usher's dating of 4004 is just a tad bit out.

Certainly, Egypt has been inhabited since at least 8000 BC, while work by Stan Hendrickx and Peter Vermeersch, as I recall, has uncovered the possible inhabitance of Egypt at least as far back as 250,000 BP.

So I'm afraid the Biblical literalist dating to 6000 BC doesn't stand up to archaeology. :)

Dagobahn Eagle
12-09-2007, 12:10 PM
So I'm afraid the Biblical literalist dating to 6000 BC doesn't stand up to archaeology.Or any other relevant field of science, for that matter.

Darth InSidious
12-09-2007, 12:19 PM
Or any other relevant field of science, for that matter.
Quite true.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 04:04 PM
Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0)
Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG - Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q)
Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG - Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM)

Part 1 is pretty simple, but part 2 might be a little advanced for some.

Ray Jones
12-09-2007, 04:10 PM
']So, you have my belief and my reasoning. The Earth is 6000 years old.How old are the other planets?

Dagobahn Eagle
12-09-2007, 04:15 PM
Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the EarthI stand corrected. There are six meanings to 'evolution', just not the six our YEC brought forth. I apologize.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-09-2007, 04:28 PM
How old are the other planets?They aren't in the Bible therefore the planets are a lie put forth by the Global Atheist Conspiracy.

mimartin
12-09-2007, 04:42 PM
Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0)Haven’t looked at the other two links yet, but I found this one hilarious. Does Mr. Hovind have his own HBO comedy special yet? If not they need to sign him up quickly before Showtime gets him. Thanks I needed a cheer me up today. I wonder if it would have been as funny if I wasn’t hoped up on cold medicine.:D

Serpentine Cougar
12-09-2007, 05:27 PM
[Other planets] aren't in the Bible therefore the planets are a lie put forth by the Global Atheist Conspiracy.
The Internet, cars, guns, masturbation, and a bunch of other things aren't either. That doesn't prove anything.

Aeroldoth
12-09-2007, 05:33 PM
Sure it does. It proves the Internet, cars, guns, masturbation, and a bunch of other things don't exist.

Hallucination
12-09-2007, 07:55 PM
The Internet, cars, guns, masturbation, and a bunch of other things aren't either. That doesn't prove anything.
Those things are/were man made. The universe wasn't. Your analogy is invalid, methinks.

HerbieZ
12-09-2007, 08:09 PM
It'd be interesting if all of our theories went to hell thanks to some newly discovered archeological find. I mean, it only takes one thing. One solid unquestionable piece of evidence to prove that the planet was made whenever. But maybe it was made six thousand years ago. I theory i entertained for a short while was that every planet up there has a god. Our's got it right and is currently in the process of gussying up the place. Other gods hav'nt got it so great. I think the owner of Pluto upped and left a long time ago.

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 08:11 PM
The Internet, cars, guns, masturbation, and a bunch of other things aren't either. That doesn't prove anything.

*woosh* that was the sound of a joke going right over your head.

and mastrubation IS in the Bible.

Achilles
12-09-2007, 09:11 PM
Haven’t looked at the other two links yet, but I found this one hilarious. Does Mr. Hovind have his own HBO comedy special yet? If not they need to sign him up quickly before Showtime gets him. Thanks I needed a cheer me up today. I wonder if it would have been as funny if I wasn’t hoped up on cold medicine.:DI don't think that they'll be able to do much of anything until he finishes his prison sentence. It might restore some of my faith in humanity though to learn that his spreading of lies was intended to be interpreted as comedy routine instead.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 10:40 PM
Gosh I thought it was simple... Its "Mother" Earth. Now, since we aren't supposed to ask a lady her age.....

And its not like she'll tell us her real age anyway.

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 10:42 PM
Gosh I thought it was simple... Its "Mother" Earth. Now, since we aren't supposed to ask a lady her age.....

And its not like she'll tell us her real age anyway.

I have to admit, I'd be a little worried if she only said she was 39.

Of course if her age was 39...then I'd just be curious how long an 'age' is.

Tommycat
12-09-2007, 11:00 PM
I have to admit, I'd be a little worried if she only said she was 39.

Of course if her age was 39...then I'd just be curious how long an 'age' is.
My guess, revolutions of Sol around the center of our galaxy....
Though if that were the case I would believe she would say she was 18. She's still a young planet

Web Rider
12-09-2007, 11:02 PM
My guess, revolutions of Sol around the center of our galaxy....
Though if that were the case I would believe she would say she was 18. She's still a young planet

so, if she's "mother" earth, she's a teen mom? Or is father time involved in there?

Darth InSidious
12-10-2007, 06:26 AM
Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TNZCcTcOPV0)
Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG - Part 1 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q)
Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG - Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM)

Part 1 is pretty simple, but part 2 might be a little advanced for some.
Bu...but...but...my evidence says otherwise (http://reformation.org/stationary-earth.html) :xp:

mur'phon
12-10-2007, 06:37 AM
Bu...but...but...my evidence says otherwise

Nice find, evidence that people will belive anything

Achilles
12-10-2007, 10:40 AM
Bu...but...but...my evidence says otherwise (http://reformation.org/stationary-earth.html) :xp:What was I saying about my faith in humanity?

*watches as it slips further away*

Sad to know that some people will be/have been convinced by this.

Darth InSidious
12-10-2007, 10:50 AM
Just so you know, I was joking about it being either mine, or evidence.

ET Warrior
12-10-2007, 12:05 PM
I find it interesting how many people who believe in the young earth are keen to point out "constant" rates of things. In the opening post for example we have the constant rate of desert growth, moon distance, population growth, etc. Yet, whenever a scientist wants to bring up any manner of radiometric dating it is immediately ignored out of hand.

Darth Xander
12-10-2007, 02:21 PM
I do hope nobody answers "2007". :lol:

Serpentine Cougar
12-12-2007, 02:14 AM
Those things are/were man made. The universe wasn't. Your analogy is invalid, methinks.
Okay, you have a point. Should I have used dinosaurs as an example instead? (no sarcasm intended)

*woosh* that was the sound of a joke going right over your head.

and mastrubation IS in the Bible.
Where? Now I'm curious. Oh, and I knew jmac was joking....

LOL @ TommyCat.

Web Rider
12-12-2007, 03:08 AM
Where? Now I'm curious.
Referencing the Sin of Onan

Now Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's first-born, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. (NASB) Genesis 38:6-10

There are different interpretations as to exactly why this act invoked the Wrath of God, but masturbation was a taboo subject, so it's generally thought(from what I've read), that the wasting of one's seed extends to masturbation as well.

Darth InSidious
12-12-2007, 09:38 AM
There are different interpretations as to exactly why this act invoked the Wrath of God, but masturbation was a taboo subject, so it's generally thought(from what I've read), that the wasting of one's seed extends to masturbation as well.
From a linguistic perspective, it seems pretty clear that that's what the text refers to. :)