Christian Age of Earth?

[Chris]

Quote by: LetThereBe Well, again, I don't see why anyone would possibly imagine Noah taking adult animals onto the ark. That would be stupid. He would take babies, which would be easy to manage, feed, and clean up after, and would also have more time to breed after the ark landed. And also again, he didn't need to take every species. Every kind. Big difference. Could have been one pair of therapods, one pair of sauropods, etc.

WTF? So did he sneak into a TRex nest and steal eggs and incubate them himself? And how did you come to this conclusion? did you use your time machine? And if he didn't need to take every species what do you mean "Every kind"??? WTF do you mean? Organisms are classed via:

Kingdom

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

What do you mean kind? Get thyself back to school.

Quote by: LetThereBe If thats the best challenge you can give to creationism, than I am deeply disapointed.

If that's your best answer to my direct question than I am deeply disappointed. You can't honestly say that rain caused a volume of water so great that it would encompass Mt. Everest at nearly 30,000 feet. That would require so many cubic kilometers of water it is impossible. I of course realize you have got your head set on what you believe in.

[Starboy]

Quote by: |Chris| WTF? So did he sneak into a TRex nest and steal eggs and incubate them himself? And how did you come to this conclusion?

God made all the animials march to the ark. Jeesh, everyone knows that is a completely natural explanation.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy Cop out. If it were an issue then you would have stopped responding long ago. It conveniently becomes an issue when you are having trouble holding up your side of the debate. Starboy

I'm sure if I had stopped any time in the past 20 posts you would say I stopped as soon as I was "having trouble holding up my side of the debate". I have been complaining about the insults on many posts, and, as I said before, I'm sick of it. I figured at first just bringing it up would get you to stop. Then I thought I would try appealing to the rules. I then questioned your maturity, thinking that would surely get you to see how silly it had become. Nope, each time it got more intensce. "Christians are morons" was the one that really got me. That and saying that calling me an idiot was "stating the facts". But I will not back down from this obvious challenge. I believe your post was on the subject of creationism not explaining fossils? You said there were too many, and that the ground level would have to be changing 27 feet per year. Well, creationists believe nearly ALL fossils were the result of the cataclysm of the flood. Hence, one event. Thats why we aren't getting so many anymore, because most happened all at once. Creationists believe most of that sediment was laid down in that one cataclysm.
Again, your pyramids analogy is poor, because they were not predicted. The fact that the boat was found after the prediction is what gives it validity. Your statment "The Egyptians built the pyramids just as you claim someone built the ark" itself shows one advantage to finding the ark: It would no longer be "you claim". It would be fact. The ark itself would be unquestionable, which at the moment is not the case. Hence, progress for the creationist argument. You also say "Just because there is a story about an ark and an ark is discovered makes it no more supernatural then the supernatural purpose of the pyramids and the existence of those pyramids validates Egyptian supernatural beliefs." Another reason your pyramid analogy is poor is because we know a natural purpose for the pyramids: they were tombs to house the dead pharoahs. We currently have one explanation for the ark, which is presented in the Bible. I'm not saying there would be no other explanations. I'm not saying you would be convinced. But some definitely would be convinced. PERHAPS THEY WOULD EVEN BE WRONG IN BEING CONVINCED. Perhaps it would be illogical for them to be convinced! But it would convince them!

Again, we differ on the def. of supernatural. You basically take it to mean "that which cannot happen" seeing as how you say if it did happen it is natural. Of course I don't believe that which cannot happen happened. My definition of supernatural is more along the lines of "that which cannot be explained by predictable, natural, observable, or empircally testable causes"

I shall consider that list of publications, and I thank you for the recommendations. The only mags I currently read are Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.

Again, my conclusion that the supernatural exists is more than ignorance. I also take into account the witnesses I have mentioned. Witnesses have always been respected as acceptable evidence. However, if the origion of life were demonstrated to occur naturally, and all the other questions answered sans God, then I would reconsider the validity of the witnesses testimony, and give more credibility to the chance that they were mistaken, confused, lying, dreaming, or whatever else.

There, now that I have shown I am not "copping out" I will again not respond to your posts until you can show yourself to be of more maturity than you have demonstrated in the past. You can't say I did so because I "wasn't holding up my side of the argument" any more than I wasn't before I refused to reply, since the responce is now left in your hands.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: |Chris| WTF? So did he sneak into a TRex nest and steal eggs and incubate them himself? And how did you come to this conclusion? did you use your time machine? And if he didn't need to take every species what do you mean "Every kind"??? WTF do you mean? Organisms are classed via: Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species What do you mean kind? Get thyself back to school. If that's your best answer to my direct question than I am deeply disappointed. You can't honestly say that rain caused a volume of water so great that it would encompass Mt. Everest at nearly 30,000 feet. That would require so many cubic kilometers of water it is impossible. I of course realize you have got your head set on what you believe in.

I have often been attacked for not knowing the opposing argument, and for not reading previous posts. It is clear this is an example of both.
First: I already clarified the idea of kind. I know how organisms are classified today. And of course thats how they were always classified right? OF COURSE NOT. The species concept is relatively new. A few examples: He would take one pair of bears, not many bears. he would take one pair of chickens, not many chickens. He would take one pair of dogs, not wolves, coyotes, jackels and whatever else. These animals all have the genetic potential for variation that could develope into all of our SPECIES. As the kinds began to reproduce, geographic isolation and selective breeding would begin to make distintions. Eventually genetic mutations could prohibit breeding inbetween the different kinds, resulting in SPECIES.
For the rest, you clearly have not even read the Biblical account, but I'll do your homework for you and fill you in. The Bible says the animals came. Thats right. Noah didn't have to hunt them all down. They came. Yes, this most likely requires belief in the supernatural, so thats where you probably start shutting out the very idea and don't even consider the possibility. Thats fine by me. Your choice to believe or not, it requires some faith. I am merely presenting the argument of the creationist as I understand it. And of course the rain issue. No, I don't believe rain provided so great a volume, it was just one factor. Most of the water probably came from beneath Earth's crust (the springs of the deep were opened). So as rain was falling from the sky, it was also rushing up from below. Also, the 'Bible would seem to indicate that a shell of water was above the Earth's atmosphere, divided by the "firmament" of the sky. This would have been part of the water that came with the flood.

[zynner]

What I'm saying is more like this:

1) The universe IS VERY COMPLICATED.
2) Everything we know of that IS VERY COMPLICATED was created.
3) Therefore, the universe MIGHT HAVE BEEN created

Prove #1. (Give me a 1, 2, 3 that leads to the conclusion of #1 above.)

Say we send a space ship to Mars...and see a perfect reproduction of stonehenge.

We would study it, put it through the test of logic, and arrive at conclusions.

Lets say instead of a single stonehenge, the entire land scape is filled with them. Lets say it is not an excpetion, but is the norm.

If they were the norm, then we wouldn't notice them at all.

Can you say the same for the healings, the dreams that came true, or the answered prayer? How can they be "mistaken or dreaming" about cancers that baffled doctors by disapearing? or pains that were suddenly gone?

Nature works in mysterious ways.

~ zynner

[RickSp]

Quote by: |Chris| WTF? So did he sneak into a TRex nest and steal eggs and incubate them himself? And how did you come to this conclusion? did you use your time machine? And if he didn't need to take every species what do you mean "Every kind"??? WTF do you mean?

As folklore, the flood is interesting, particularly as it appears in various Middle Eastern mythologies. Both the Christians and the Jews borrowed heavily from other cultures though both groups prefer to deny it.

Taking the story of the flood literally is ludicrous on virtually every level. I am trained as a naval architect, a ship designer, and I understand why a wooden vessel of 450 feet long is not reasonable. It doesn't take much knowledge of biology to know why a single breeding pair of any animal would guarantee only extinction. Talk about the shallow end of the gene pool. And anyone who understands animal husbandry would know that 8 people could not provide care and feed for two animals of every living species for a period of between 140 and 370 days,depending on which Bible verse you believe. And on and on and on it goes.

Taking the sorty of Noah's ark literally requires such a huge suspension of disbelief that believing almost anything suddenly seems almost reasonable. Of course, it is not, but that is the literalists problem.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: zynner What I'm saying is more like this: 1) The universe IS VERY COMPLICATED. 2) Everything we know of that IS VERY COMPLICATED was created. 3) Therefore, the universe MIGHT HAVE BEEN created Prove #1. (Give me a 1, 2, 3 that leads to the conclusion of #1 above.) Say we send a space ship to Mars...and see a perfect reproduction of stonehenge. We would study it, put it through the test of logic, and arrive at conclusions. Lets say instead of a single stonehenge, the entire land scape is filled with them. Lets say it is not an excpetion, but is the norm. If they were the norm, then we wouldn't notice them at all. Can you say the same for the healings, the dreams that came true, or the answered prayer? How can they be "mistaken or dreaming" about cancers that baffled doctors by disapearing? or pains that were suddenly gone? Nature works in mysterious ways. ~ zynner

I dont plan on getting caught in that. You ask me to give you a 1,2,3 to prove the #1, and you'll ask me to give you a 1,2,3 to prove my 1 of that argument. Instead, I will give you a definition. Complicated: Containing intricately combined parts. Or, if you prefer: Complex: intricate, complicated. That can surely be said of life, if not the universe as a whole. Do you question the statement that the universe is complex?
Of course we would study said phenomena, but the point is would it be illogical to consider an intelligence as the cause?
In my second analogy, the stonehenge becomes common on said planet, but is not the norm from which the theoretical astronauts came. Hence it would be noticed, and it is still not a perfect analogy to nature, but since nature is unique it is difficult to find a comparison. Arguments are difficult to make without a reference point.
And of course you are left with no answer as to my witnesses. Understandable.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe First of all, freezing water would lower the ocean level. I did not say all the water would freeze and they would walk across on ice. That would be ridiculous. It is believe that people walked across a Bering land bridge when ocean levels dropped, not when the ocean froze over. God did not put every species on the ark, he put every kind. So perhaps he put two therapods, two sauropods, etc. Also, most likely they would have taken the young: that way they would take up less space, less food, leave less waste, and have more time to breed after departing the ark. They think the K-T hit in the Yucatan peninsula. So lets say it did, and at the time no humans were there. The event triggers a period of very cold weather, and massive amounts of plants die. This is the trigger to create the land bridge, and the people cross because they are in search of food because they would see smaller crop yields. I doubt that thousands of years of ice age would be the result. Why would it? Dust would not remain in the atmosphere nearly that long in any respectable amount. Why would the cold weather last more than a decade or so? Or are you just throwing out numbers without knowing the reasoning behind them?

So he destroyed all the other species forever? And just kept the ones he liked? What do you mean by kind?

What caused the ocean levels to drop??? They would have to drop hundreds of meters to be walked across on the sea floor.

You are unknowledgeable and annoying in your responses. You are like 8 year, making me repeat myself over and over. Large scale Ice Ages with the even slightest possibility of freezing the entire straight for walking across, would NEED to last thousands of years before that water is entirely frozen over. It is not only dust particles covering the clouds, but the chemicals in the air change. These are long term effects. Effects that reach the status quo over millions of years, not a thousand.

Your responses make you look like you have no idea what your talking about. It's not possible.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp As folklore, the flood is interesting, particularly as it appears in various Middle Eastern mythologies. Both the Christians and the Jews borrowed heavily from other cultures though both groups prefer to deny it. Taking the story of the flood literally is ludicrous on virtually every level. I am trained as a naval architect, a ship designer, and I understand why a wooden vessel of 450 feet long is not reasonable. It doesn't take much knowledge of biology to know why a single breeding pair of any animal would guarantee only extinction. Talk about the shallow end of the gene pool. And anyone who understands animal husbandry would know that 8 people could not provide care and feed for two animals of every living species for a period of between 140 and 370 days,depending on which Bible verse you believe. And on and on and on it goes. Taking the sorty of Noah's ark literally requires such a huge suspension of disbelief that believing almost anything suddenly seems almost reasonable. Of course, it is not, but that is the literalists problem.

I can only contest you in the area of caring for all the "species". Again, not all the species. The Bible says kinds. KINDS. The concpet of species did not exist back then.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe I believe your post was on the subject of creationism not explaining fossils? You said there were too many, and that the ground level would have to be changing 27 feet per year. Well, creationists believe nearly ALL fossils were the result of the cataclysm of the flood. Hence, one event. Thats why we aren't getting so many anymore, because most happened all at once. Creationists believe most of that sediment was laid down in that one cataclysm.

I know this is what you believe. It is not a matter of what you believe; it is a matter of the ramifications of those beliefs. What those beliefs predict. That is science. Just repeating the same dang thing over and over again without address the problems is religion. But because of your profound ignorance of science you just ignore it. The point is that if all the fossils were created at the time after the flood they would have to all be at the surface of the earth. You see that is where the animals and plants were. Plants did not grow ten miles under the ground. So it begs the question, how did plant fossils get ten miles underground in two thousand years? How did they get incorporated into sedimentary rock and then end up at the top of mountain ranges? There is no geological mechanism that can do either of those things and if there were it would be very obvious. That is the point. Do you get it? Can you comprehend it? I have to repeat this very basic stuff over to you. Stuff that should be obvious to anyone that could think and it is as if you are not able to comprehend it at all.

If you want to display some intelligence address the point. How did plant fossils from the flood that would have died on the surface of the earth get ten miles underground?

Again, your pyramids analogy is poor, because they were not predicted. The fact that the boat was found after the prediction is what gives it validity. Your statment "The Egyptians built the pyramids just as you claim someone built the ark" itself shows one advantage to finding the ark: It would no longer be "you claim". It would be fact. The ark itself would be unquestionable, which at the moment is not the case. Hence, progress for the creationist argument. You also say "Just because there is a story about an ark and an ark is discovered makes it no more supernatural then the supernatural purpose of the pyramids and the existence of those pyramids validates Egyptian supernatural beliefs." Another reason your pyramid analogy is poor is because we know a natural purpose for the pyramids: they were tombs to house the dead pharoahs. We currently have one explanation for the ark, which is presented in the Bible. I'm not saying there would be no other explanations. I'm not saying you would be convinced. But some definitely would be convinced. PERHAPS THEY WOULD EVEN BE WRONG IN BEING CONVINCED. Perhaps it would be illogical for them to be convinced! But it would convince them!

The pyramids were build to send the pharos into the Egyptian hereafter. They were placed with respect to the stars in accordance with Egyptian supernatural beliefs. There were shafts cut into the pyramids at precise angles corresponding with the stars that they considered to have supernatural significance. Do not forget the mummification rituals as well as all the material goods that were included in the tomb for use in the afterlife. The pyramids were an integral part of Egyptian mythology. If you persist in this claim that they were not then all you will be doing is providing more evidence that you are the idiot that I say you are. So do yourself a favor and either accept the supernatural role of the pyramids in Egyptian mythology or drop it or I will be forced to rub your face in it.

The flood story is not a prediction. It is an account of the event after the fact. The flood is not an event yet to come. It is an event that is supposed to have already happened. If the ark was always known to exist it would not change the situation any more than the existence of the pyramids not being known and then being discovered.

Again, we differ on the def. of supernatural. You basically take it to mean "that which cannot happen" seeing as how you say if it did happen it is natural. Of course I don't believe that which cannot happen happened. My definition of supernatural is more along the lines of "that which cannot be explained by predictable, natural, observable, or empircally testable causes"

That is essentially conflating the supernatural with ignorance. You are saying that if it can’t be explained naturally and verified naturally then *poof* it is supernatural. What I find interesting is that someone that would think this way would even care about finding natural explanations for anything. Because every time you did this you would be destroying the supernatural. Your position just doesn't make any sense.

Again, my conclusion that the supernatural exists is more than ignorance. I also take into account the witnesses I have mentioned. Witnesses have always been respected as acceptable evidence. However, if the origion of life were demonstrated to occur naturally, and all the other questions answered sans God, then I would reconsider the validity of the witnesses testimony, and give more credibility to the chance that they were mistaken, confused, lying, dreaming, or whatever else.

Very funny. So because there are other people who can't explain it and verify it naturally then *poof* it is even more so supernatural. And yet you then say that if it gets explained naturally then you will reconsider the supernatural as being the result of ignorance. And yet your definition of the supernatural is actually based on ignorance.

Here is a little education for you.

There is the phenomena and then there are the explanations. Supernatural is just an explanation. It is a very lame explanation because it doesn't really try to explain anything in terms of anything that we can actually verify. It is worse then just saying "I don't know" because it makes you think that you know something when you actually don't and thus you pretend to know things you don't, you know, like an idiot. It is much better to either go find an explanation that can be verified or just say "I don't know." But if the explanation can be verified then it will be a natural explanation. Because that is what natural explanations are.

There, now that I have shown I am not "copping out" I will again not respond to your posts until you can show yourself to be of more maturity than you have demonstrated in the past. You can't say I did so because I "wasn't holding up my side of the argument" any more than I wasn't before I refused to reply, since the responce is now left in your hands.

I will stop calling you an idiot when you stop saying and thinking idiotic things.

Starboy

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: CheckMate You Sould Not Judge A Book By Its Cover

Kind of like when people judge the Bible without reading it and give it truthful, realistic, and uncontradictive qualities.

--even after reading it.

[zynner]

LTB,

I'm heading out for the night.

The Argument from Design is a fallacy because the word "designed" necessarily implies the existence of a designer, and then that is supposedly used to prove the designer exists. Since the designer is already assumed as soon as the word "designed" is used, you cannot then "prove" that the designer exists. You have already assumed it by the nature of the argument. IOW, it proves nothing. The argument is a fallacy.

~ zynner

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: zynner LTB, I'm heading out for the night. The Argument from Design is a fallacy because the word "designed" necessarily implies the existence of a designer, and then that is supposedly used to prove the designer exists. Since the designer is already assumed as soon as the word "designed" is used, you cannot then "prove" that the designer exists. You have already assumed it by the nature of the argument. IOW, it proves nothing. The argument is a fallacy. ~ zynner

IDs would rather avoid that part of the argument.

[Starboy]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 IDs would rather avoid that part of the argument.

Nahhh, they just dance around it. The transcript from the Dover trial is very interesting. The Panda book is claimed to be about ID but it was written prior to ID and there are drafts where it is clear the it is a creationist account. The expert witness shows how they just substituted the word creation(ism-ist) with ID. Didn't even bother to change the definition as abrupt creation. And yet these "truth" loving Christians claim that ID is not creationism. Yeah right. The witness also shows that they were deliberately pushing a biblical agenda dressed up as ID. Their intent was to frame the argument in a way that supported the idea of a "designor" but to then say that science can't answer questions about such a "designor" and that it could only be addressed by the bible. And then out of the other side of their mouth they claim that ID is a scientific explanation. What a bunch of liars for Jesus.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe I can only contest you in the area of caring for all the "species". Again, not all the species. The Bible says kinds. KINDS. The concpet of species did not exist back then.

Which makes it even more ridiculous. The less biological diversity the more problems are created. And the arrival of dinosaurs, even baby dinousaurs, gets really silly. If indeed it took Noah 150 years to build the ark, the wood that he started with would have long rotted before he finished with the final plank. Of course, how a 450 long ship built of gopher wood could manage not to break up as soon as it was launched, rot or no rot, is another question.

The problem is that to make the story of Noah' s ark work, at some point it is necessary to say, "well, here is where you need divine intervention." At that point literalism collapses. You essentially say, "Magic happens." There may be no problem with that in religious terms but if one is making any claims to being scientific if all falls apart completely. The story of the ark then is on equal footing with the Celtic story that Merlin cast a spell to make the stones of Stonehenge walk from the quarries to the Salisbury Plain. The only difference becomes religion.

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp Which makes it even more ridiculous. The less biological diversity the more problems are created. And the arrival of dinosaurs, even baby dinousaurs, gets really silly. If indeed it took Noah 150 years to build the ark, the wood that he started with would have long rotted before he finished with the final plank. Of course, how a 450 long ship built of gopher wood could manage not to break up as soon as it was launched, rot or no rot, is another question.

Just the whole idea that a boatful of animals and a handful of people using Bronze Age technology are going to single handedly and all naturally recreate the ecology of the earth let alone just survive the experience is just ludicrous. The other thing that is not mentioned is the diversity of people that we now have. Four thousand years is not enough time to convert a short, olive complexion, big nosed, dark haired people into Australian aborigines or Swedes let alone Eskimos or Chinese. The other strange thing is that the Chinese civilization has existed continuously for almost six thousand years, the purported age of the earth and they have no records or legends of a worldwide flood. And I don't think that Noah was Chinese.

The whole idea is just so profoundly stupid that it is very difficult for me to see how such a belief can not reflect very badly on the intelligence of a person that held it in this day and age of information about the world that is just so easily accessible.

The problem is that to make the story of Noah' s ark work, at some point it is necessary to say, "well, here is where you need divine intervention." At that point literalism collapses. You essentially say, "Magic happens." There may be no problem with that in religious terms but if one is making any claims to being scientific if all falls apart completely. The story of the ark then is on equal footing with the Celtic story that Merlin cast a spell to make the stones of Stonehenge walk from the quarries to the Salisbury Plain. The only difference becomes religion.

That is the other very stupid thing about it all. Literalism has already collapsed. It is not as if the flood is not an account of a supernatural intervention.

Starboy

[Chris]

How about this Let there be, You can be a Christian and also believe that the flood story was just a middle eastern interpretation of a local event, not worldwide. (Black sea flood maybe) but going to the lengths you go to to try and explain everything is bordering on the insane.

There is no way in hell that someone back 5-7000 years ago could have traveled the world -to Japan, America, and Australia, and South Africa, a distance of thousands of thousands of miles to verify that indeed the whole EARTH was covered in water. Unless the author rode on the back of a giant God like he was riding on the back of the luck dragon (from Never ending story) visiting all the places on earth. I realize that this part of the bible was probably written when we thought the earth was flat. Why can't you accept that this story, very old, is just an attempt to explain an actual natural event (like the flooding of the Black Sea) and attributing it to "God's Wrath" and "You better not sin or God will punish you!"

You are starting to discredit yourself in a huge way when you start borrowing theories from Evolution and supporting your own ludicrous belief that the flood actually affected the whole earth.

[Lilith]

Ok, let me jump in here. No, I have not read every page of this thread, because of course there is too much to read and I start to lose my train of thought when I get bogged down. But something has been swirling around in my head, so let's see if I can "put into words" what I am thinking...ahh, the spoken word, what would we do without it.

Is not that how creation came about? The spoken word, God said...and it happened. Or at the beginning of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"....Are not sounds vibrations that merge to make something? Oh, hell, what is it in science that says that all throughout the universe is sound? Somebody jump in here anytime now! But do not most relgious traditions, the creator deity is the Logos, the word made flesh?

"The voice of the Gods"
"The word made flesh, the vibration of destiny coiled at the heart of life itself, the spiral force that formed the very universe itself"

Or the story of the Tower Babel, (my boyfried loves this stroy from the Bible), how the people wanted to build a tower that would reach heaven itself, so they could see God, so what did he do to foil the plans? He mixed up all the languages. *God* sure has a thing about sound. Am I on to something, or am I just talking out of my backside?

[Starboy]

Lilth that is an interesting point. Imagine what it must have been like to be a common person in the world when the common person did not know how to read and write. The few people who could read and write would seem like wizards. Here they were able to bring forth the speech and thought of someone else from what would appear to be nowhere. Even people that were dead could communicate. And ancient knowledge would just spring forth. Information on how to make useful gadgets or cure illnesses. These things called words that were spelled would be magic. Gee word, spell, how'bout that.

Starboy

[Athena]

Quote by: Lilith Ok, let me jump in here. No, I have not read every page of this thread, because of course there is too much to read and I start to lose my train of thought when I get bogged down. But something has been swirling around in my head, so let's see if I can "put into words" what I am thinking...ahh, the spoken word, what would we do without it. Is not that how creation came about? The spoken word, God said...and it happened. Or at the beginning of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"....Are not sounds vibrations that merge to make something? Oh, hell, what is it in science that says that all throughout the universe is sound? Somebody jump in here anytime now! But do not most relgious traditions, the creator deity is the Logos, the word made flesh? "The voice of the Gods" "The word made flesh, the vibration of destiny coiled at the heart of life itself, the spiral force that formed the very universe itself" Or the story of the Tower Babel, (my boyfried loves this stroy from the Bible), how the people wanted to build a tower that would reach heaven itself, so they could see God, so what did he do to foil the plans? He mixed up all the languages. *God* sure has a thing about sound. Am I on to something, or am I just talking out of my backside?

I don't think you are off track. Vibrations are essential to all manifestation. Here is the Mayan concept of manifestation:

1. The pulstaion ray of unity
2. The pulsation ray of polarity
3. The pulsation ray of rhythm
4. The pulsation ray of measure
5. The pulsation ray of center
6. The pulsation ray of organic balance
7. The pulsation ray of mystic power
8. The pulsation ray of harmonic resonance
9. The pulsation ray of cyclic resonance
10. The pulsation ray of manifestion
11. The pulsation ray of dissonat struture
12. The pulsation ray of complex structure
13. The pulsation ray of universal movement