wrote:How so?

wrote:One possible naturalistic and scientific explanation for such phenomena is that the oxidation of hydrogen phosphide and methane gases produced by the decay of organic material may cause glowing lights to appear in the air. Experiments, for example, done by the Italian chemists Luigi Garlaschelli and Paolo Boschetti, have replicated the lights by adding chemicals to the gasses formed by rotting compounds. Critics claim that this theory does not easily account for reported cases which claim lights bob, swoop, soar upwards or downwards, or move against the wind.

William Corliss writes, in Remarkable Luminous Phenomena in Nature (Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm, MD, 2001:290): "No satisfactory mechanism has been demonstrated whereby gases escaping from marshy areas will spontaneously ignite. Furthermore, most low-level nocturnal lights are cold--not what one would expect from burning methane. Also, no one has explained how clouds of luminous gas can maintain size and shape while engaging in erratic maneuvers over many minutes."

Others believe bioluminescent effects (e.g. honey fungus) cause the light. Other explanations include causes similar to ball lightning.

More recently, under the broader banner of 'Earth Lights', pseudoscientific theories as to how they are produced have been put forward by Professors Derr & Persinger, and Paul Devereux (who, in some circles, is considered the 'authority' on earth lights of various kinds, including ball lightning, St. Elmo's Fire and lights associated with earthquakes). Derr & Persinger put forward the theory that earth lights may be generated by tectonic strain. (NB. These are faults in the earths crust, similar to, indeed including, earthquake faults.) The theory goes that the strain causes heat in the rocks, vaporising the water in them. Piezoelectric rocks such as quartz then produce electricity, which is channeled up through this column of vaporised water, until it reaches the surface - somehow displaying itself in the form of earth lights. This theory would assert that the majority of earth lights are seen over places of tectonic strain. If it is correct, it would explain why such lights often behave in an erratic and even seemingly intelligent manner, often defying the laws of gravity. Paul Devereux's explanation, however, is much broader. He thinks that the link between the lights and the landscape is more tenuous. He says that they are probably related to many things: tectonic strain, weather conditions, local geography, 'ley lines', terrain, water table depth and so forth. This explanation, however, is rejected by most experts as highly unscientific.

Other similar theoretical explanations, however, involving light emanating from naturally occurring electric currents do not involve pseudoscientific elements. Also, electric-based theories more easily account for the claimed seemingly free movement of the lights and claims that the lights react upon the introduction of nearby objects (e.g. humans).

wrote:One possible naturalistic and scientific explanation

wrote:Yeah, but some of those humans talked to God himself. Or to Jesus. All it proves is that there might be very important "typos" in the bible.

wrote:And just because you know how it happened doesn't mean that it wasn't a miracle. :3

Kibblediggit wrote: How do you know it was sixty years?

wrote:Magic and miracles are two very different things. Are you interested/open or should I not go into detail?

wrote:And the truth always comes out, somewhere and sometime.

Kibblediggit wrote: And editorials aren't always correct, besides, people lived longer in biblical times. And sixty years was enough time to mentally make mistakes while writing it. Or whatever. Where did this point come from again?

Phaos wrote: No one ever has, no one ever will, only god himself can prove that he exists

dont want to sound stupid, but...I have no clue what micro and macro evolution is.

and what do you mean that god does nothing? Everyday there are miracles, people revived, people saved, prayers answered.

wrote:So, if we have free will, and God is omnipotent, he already knows what we're going to do, which rather destroys the point. Or else he doesn't fit the quota.

wrote:Creationists, on the other hand, work by taking the scriptures as their primary source of imformation.

wrote: it goes against everything from carbon dating to fossil records.

wrote:determines the age of carbonaceous materials up to ca 60,000 years old

wrote:A rat in a cage also has free will, but can it control it's own destiny? No. Same principle here.

wrote:Actually no. Like they said, the Bible is scripture, a.k.a religious. So it's not historical.

Luciene wrote: God knows what we're going to do. That doesn't mean he has to do something to stop us. I think he lets us make mistakes and learn from them.

wrote:Actually no. Like they said, the Bible is scripture, a.k.a religious. So it's not historical.

wrote:Carbon dating only

wrote:Regarding the disproval of God: I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that people would agree with you. Just because something makes sense, doesn't mean that it's right, especially if you're talking about religion.

wrote:Are you sure he knows what choices you're going to take? How would you know anything about knowing everything? Maybe he knows what choices are available to you, and according to your past experience and general lifestyle, which ones you are most likely to pick.

wrote:Regarding Average Lifespan: In the bible people lived for a very long time.

wrote:@ post above: God isn't logical.