|
Post by rational on Feb 12, 2016 17:07:22 GMT -5
On evolution. Why don't we see a riot of intermediary species existing today? Did evolution freeze or slow down? How do humans distinguish themselves from other species today, by design or by fluke? Evolution belongs to the church of what's working now. :) It requires only to be; good enough, for just long enough, to reproduce, most of the time. Sometimes variety has an advantage, and sometimes not. There are 350,000 different species of beetles cataloged, but the estimated real number may be between 4 million and 8 million different beetle species. By contrast, the horseshoe crab has been basically unchanged, for the last 445 million years. And remember, Homo sapiens are new comers to the scene. The reason you are even looking for intermediary species is because you have obtained your 'knowledge' of evolution from creationist sources. There are no 'intermediary species'. Organisms evolve from one species to another. The phrase intermediary species make little sense.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 12, 2016 19:55:50 GMT -5
Then why did you present that link?Mission Statement of Got Questions Ministries:
"Got Questions Ministries seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually related questions through an internet presence."
I notice when you finally paint yourself into a corner where you are unable to give any proof for your assertions, -suddenly you do a diversion tactic by trying to become a comedian.
I understand your standard of proof begins with such things that you are in agreement with. You may recall that recently I gave you good advice on learning how to recognise evidence and the value of the information that it transmits. Also that matters need to be examined with an open and unbiased mind, not discarding any possibilities until they can be reasonably ruled out; to apply common sense, sound reasoning and logic as well as showing no fear, favour or ill will to anything that you are examining. I have also showed how to build a case using circumstantial evidence to arrive at the best possible conclusion. Can you beat that? Few of us can be scientists, but we can all use our own intelligence by these methods..............unless we have an agenda! Your own posts do NOT start with proof, ("evidence") & let it lead to a conclusion.
You state your conclusion, ("I believe in Jesus") & then try to make your evidence fit the conclusion you had already arrived at! That isn't what I would call "good advice!"
Arriving at the conclusion before examining the evidence is NOT using "an open and unbiased mind," as you stated we need to do. Arriving at the conclusion before examining the evidence also does NOT show "common sense, sound reasoning or logic," as you stated . It is true that NOT of us can be scientists, - however, all of us can use the scientific method of inquiry & research, -rather just deciding what we have already determined to be true and then trying to twist that into something we want/decided is true.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 13, 2016 6:19:54 GMT -5
☺ Would that spirit of Christ also welcome someone not interested in purification by faith in Christ specifically? - Just curious I guess that depends on what "welcome" means to you. I was suggesting that on some level Jesus saw all people equally who responded to him, whereas in our day people have many different categories for believers based on their fellowship/denominational affiliations. Or are you suggesting that salvation is available to some without the involvement of Christ? Merely musing that to be nonexclusive salvation, however defined, must be accessible for all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 6:45:14 GMT -5
I understand your standard of proof begins with such things that you are in agreement with. You may recall that recently I gave you good advice on learning how to recognise evidence and the value of the information that it transmits. Also that matters need to be examined with an open and unbiased mind, not discarding any possibilities until they can be reasonably ruled out; to apply common sense, sound reasoning and logic as well as showing no fear, favour or ill will to anything that you are examining. I have also showed how to build a case using circumstantial evidence to arrive at the best possible conclusion. Can you beat that? Few of us can be scientists, but we can all use our own intelligence by these methods..............unless we have an agenda! Your own posts do NOT start with proof, ("evidence") & let it lead to a conclusion.
You state your conclusion, ("I believe in Jesus") & then try to make your evidence fit the conclusion you had already arrived at! That isn't what I would call "good advice!"
Arriving at the conclusion before examining the evidence is NOT using "an open and unbiased mind," as you stated we need to do. Arriving at the conclusion before examining the evidence also does NOT show "common sense, sound reasoning or logic," as you stated . It is true that NOT of us can be scientists, - however, all of us can use the scientific method of inquiry & research, -rather just deciding what we have already determined to be true and then trying to twist that into something we want/decided is true.Honey, thou doth faileth to understand my point, but that may be at least in part to me? First we must establish that the Bible can be relied upon as a source of truth. Science can be used to establish this. I started to show how this can be done with a slow build up process. In every instance of Biblical statement supported by science, History, archaeology, oral testimony etc, the Bible claims that God was behind it. Once we establish the verity of the Bible, which is not difficult, but perhaps time-consuming, by the methods I stated, then we have to consider to who and what Biblical truth points us to. This does not require the aversion of the biased mind, but the willingness of the unbiased mind to draw proper conclusions from what the clear evidence tells us.
|
|
|
Post by learning on Feb 13, 2016 7:06:04 GMT -5
I guess that depends on what "welcome" means to you. I was suggesting that on some level Jesus saw all people equally who responded to him, whereas in our day people have many different categories for believers based on their fellowship/denominational affiliations. Or are you suggesting that salvation is available to some without the involvement of Christ? Merely musing that to be nonexclusive salvation, however defined, must be accessible for all. For me, I'm not ready to conclude that everybody is 'saved' (truly non-exclusive, as you point out) but I do not say that everyone or even most outside of 2x2 is 'unsaved' (exclusive, from the 2x2 perspective).
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2016 7:28:10 GMT -5
Your own posts do NOT start with proof, ("evidence") & let it lead to a conclusion.
You state your conclusion, ("I believe in Jesus") & then try to make your evidence fit the conclusion you had already arrived at! That isn't what I would call "good advice!"
Arriving at the conclusion before examining the evidence is NOT using "an open and unbiased mind," as you stated we need to do. Arriving at the conclusion before examining the evidence also does NOT show "common sense, sound reasoning or logic," as you stated . It is true that NOT of us can be scientists, - however, all of us can use the scientific method of inquiry & research, -rather just deciding what we have already determined to be true and then trying to twist that into something we want/decided is true. Honey, thou doth faileth to understand my point, but that may be at least in part to me? First we must establish that the Bible can be relied upon as a source of truth. Science can be used to establish this. I started to show how this can be done with a slow build up process. In every instance of Biblical statement supported by science, History, archaeology, oral testimony etc, the Bible claims that God was behind it. Once we establish the verity of the Bible, which is not difficult, but perhaps time-consuming, by the methods I stated, then we have to consider to who and what Biblical truth points us to. This does not require the aversion of the biased mind, but the willingness of the unbiased mind to draw proper conclusions from what the clear evidence tells us. No, you are going at it backwards. You try to make science prove the bible is correct because you are the one with the biased mind & because that is what you want to believe.
Your "slow build up " of biased bits & pieces only builds up a house of cards. One slight touch & your house of cards falls down like the bits & pieces of confetti that they are.
Another one of your strategies when you can't give any proof of your statements & you begin to try to detract from the subject by playing the "comedy" card, - you also start playing the "condescending" card.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 8:19:13 GMT -5
Honey, thou doth faileth to understand my point, but that may be at least in part to me? First we must establish that the Bible can be relied upon as a source of truth. Science can be used to establish this. I started to show how this can be done with a slow build up process. In every instance of Biblical statement supported by science, History, archaeology, oral testimony etc, the Bible claims that God was behind it. Once we establish the verity of the Bible, which is not difficult, but perhaps time-consuming, by the methods I stated, then we have to consider to who and what Biblical truth points us to. This does not require the aversion of the biased mind, but the willingness of the unbiased mind to draw proper conclusions from what the clear evidence tells us. No, you are going at it backwards. You try to make science prove the bible is correct because you are the one with the biased mind & because that is what you want to believe.
Your "slow build up " of biased bits & pieces only builds up a house of cards. One slight touch & your house of cards falls down like the bits & pieces of confetti that they are.
Another one of your strategies when you can't give any proof of your statements & you begin to try to detract from the subject by playing the "comedy" card, - you also start playing the "condescending" card.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 8:23:25 GMT -5
Okay DM Honey, let's give it a try, shall we? Before I start, do you promise to have an open and unbiased mind, free from fear, favour, malice or ill will towards any consideration that you may not like? Are you willing to approach things with common sense, sound reason and logical thinking? Are you prepared to keep things simple? If so we can look at several things that the Bible claims to be true, which has support from science and take things from there. Perhaps looking at a few examples just might lead us in the direction of possibilities?
This is not a scientific experiment, but one where common sense can apply and those looking on can form their own judgements, instead of being distracted by attacks on the messanger rather than the message.
Pretend you are a member of a courtroom Jury and are being asked to weigh up the facts and circumstances in order to arrive at a verdict. We will look at an attempt to prove or disprove our case through circumstantial evidence, beginning with, whether or not the Bible tells us the truth. Evidence is a cable of strands. It is not a chain. Break a link and you break the chain. A strong cable may have several strands broken, but sufficient may remain to present a strong case.
If we start to establish a cable of evidence, it will not be long before the open and unbiased mind will accept 'possibilities' and if so we can discuss 'probabilities' and degrees of proof. This is a common, average, layman approach to proving things. We all do this every day in our daily lives in arriving at and making judgements from buying a washing machine to eating rice, so others may enjoy the exercise and even provide potential evidence for us to consider?
Art thou willing or art thou not?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2016 9:14:26 GMT -5
I guess that depends on what "welcome" means to you. I was suggesting that on some level Jesus saw all people equally who responded to him, whereas in our day people have many different categories for believers based on their fellowship/denominational affiliations. Or are you suggesting that salvation is available to some without the involvement of Christ? Merely musing :) that to be nonexclusive salvation, however defined, must be accessible for all. Christianity is available to everyone as long as they follow the tenets of christianity. In essence, christians believe that salvation is only available to christians.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 13, 2016 10:38:29 GMT -5
Evolution belongs to the church of what's working now. It requires only to be; good enough, for just long enough, to reproduce, most of the time. Sometimes variety has an advantage, and sometimes not. There are 350,000 different species of beetles cataloged, but the estimated real number may be between 4 million and 8 million different beetle species. By contrast, the horseshoe crab has been basically unchanged, for the last 445 million years. And remember, Homo sapiens are new comers to the scene. The reason you are even looking for intermediary species is because you have obtained your 'knowledge' of evolution from creationist sources. There are no 'intermediary species'. Organisms evolve from one species to another. The phrase intermediary species make little sense. Rat, do I understand correctly , from your posts , that you would be in agreement with this "world view"- "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Alvin
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2016 10:46:20 GMT -5
Okay DM Honey, let's give it a try, shall we? Before I start, do you promise to have an open and unbiased mind, free from fear, favour, malice or ill will towards any consideration that you may not like? Are you willing to approach things with common sense, sound reason and logical thinking? Are you prepared to keep things simple? If so we can look at several things that the Bible claims to be true, which has support from science and take things from there. Perhaps looking at a few examples just might lead us in the direction of possibilities? This is not a scientific experiment, but one where common sense can apply and those looking on can form their own judgements, instead of being distracted by attacks on the messanger rather than the message. Pretend you are a member of a courtroom Jury and are being asked to weigh up the facts and circumstances in order to arrive at a verdict. We will look at an attempt to prove or disprove our case through circumstantial evidence, beginning with, whether or not the Bible tells us the truth. Evidence is a cable of strands. It is not a chain. Break a link and you break the chain. A strong cable may have several strands broken, but sufficient may remain to present a strong case. If we start to establish a cable of evidence, it will not be long before the open and unbiased mind will accept 'possibilities' and if so we can discuss 'probabilities' and degrees of proof. This is a common, average, layman approach to proving things. We all do this every day in our daily lives in arriving at and making judgements from buying a washing machine to eating rice, so others may enjoy the exercise and even provide potential evidence for us to consider? Art thou willing or art thou not? This sounds interesting. But we have gone this road before and the problem is that what you consider 'evidence' is usually based only your belief. For example, you claimed the scientific describing water bound to minerals deep in the earth as somehow being circumstantial evidence of the bible's mentioning fountains of The deep. These types of things fall under vaticinium ex eventu or perhaps retrodiction or postdiction.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2016 10:53:45 GMT -5
Rat, do I understand correctly , from your posts , that you would be in agreement with this "world view"- "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." Alvin Blunt to very much to the point. I would object to using 'pitiless'. In implies cruel but that is not one of the traits of the universe. Homo sapiens are in a position to make minor changes and provide comfort to others but from the point of view of the universe things will follow the natural laws. The universe will not build a shelter to protect us - we have to do that on our own.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 13, 2016 11:50:09 GMT -5
Thankyou. No existence of evil. Etc implies homo sapiens e.g.hitler do not really have any choice of actions, good or evil, only following , dancing to the dna they randomly evolved from. Same to murderers or csa offenders in 2x2 fellowship etc etc. Its simply not their fault and not evil. Hmmmm Helps me understand. Thankyou. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 13, 2016 12:07:27 GMT -5
TURE or FALSE ?
Who trusted God was love indeed And love Creation's final law Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shriek'd against his creed
- Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"Nature red in tooth and claw" = untamed nature which is inherently violent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 12:23:57 GMT -5
Okay DM Honey, let's give it a try, shall we? Before I start, do you promise to have an open and unbiased mind, free from fear, favour, malice or ill will towards any consideration that you may not like? Are you willing to approach things with common sense, sound reason and logical thinking? Are you prepared to keep things simple? If so we can look at several things that the Bible claims to be true, which has support from science and take things from there. Perhaps looking at a few examples just might lead us in the direction of possibilities? This is not a scientific experiment, but one where common sense can apply and those looking on can form their own judgements, instead of being distracted by attacks on the messanger rather than the message. Pretend you are a member of a courtroom Jury and are being asked to weigh up the facts and circumstances in order to arrive at a verdict. We will look at an attempt to prove or disprove our case through circumstantial evidence, beginning with, whether or not the Bible tells us the truth. Evidence is a cable of strands. It is not a chain. Break a link and you break the chain. A strong cable may have several strands broken, but sufficient may remain to present a strong case. If we start to establish a cable of evidence, it will not be long before the open and unbiased mind will accept 'possibilities' and if so we can discuss 'probabilities' and degrees of proof. This is a common, average, layman approach to proving things. We all do this every day in our daily lives in arriving at and making judgements from buying a washing machine to eating rice, so others may enjoy the exercise and even provide potential evidence for us to consider? Art thou willing or art thou not? This sounds interesting. But we have gone this road before and the problem is that what you consider 'evidence' is usually based only your belief. For example, you claimed the scientific describing water bound to minerals deep in the earth as somehow being circumstantial evidence of the bible's mentioning fountains of The deep. These types of things fall under vaticinium ex eventu or perhaps retrodiction or postdiction. Rational, I said before, keep things simple. Beliefs on 'both' sides MUST be put to one side. We need impartiality and honesty. I am only looking for small steps to begin with, just like evolution, you know. The Bible indicates there was water below the surface of the earth before the flood. We do not know in what form it was. That is not the argument. Until recently man never really imagined there could be such quantities below the earth that could cover the earth. Recent science has confirmed the simple, basic statement from the Bible, albeit all that water is contained in rocks. Is it possible that the geological upheaval at the time of the land mass break-up could have caused the fountains of the deep? However, we are not concerned with that right now. What we are concerned about is: a) The Bible makes a clear statement that shows there is/was huge amounts of water below the surface of the earth, pre-flood. This water quantity was so huge that it contributed greatly towards covering the whole earth. b) Science has recently discovered there are indeed huge amounts of water in the rocks below the earth, so vast that if released, the water would cover the earth. In its simplest form, science has confirmed the Bible's identifying a huge source of water below the surface of the earth, hitherto unknowable to man. We are seeking to find out if the Bible speaks truth. At this stage we are not claiming we have a 'rope' of evidence, but rather something like a thread, no matter how thin. It may be nothing or it may be something very important when taken together with other facts and circumstances drawn from science, archaeology, history etc. Do you deny there is a simple, basic connection between what the Bible states and what science has discovered on this issue, i.e. both state there is/was huge amounts of water below the surface of the earth that could cover the earth, which could not have been proven by man until recently? Are you prepared to accept this? No waffle. Just keep it simple. There's a long way to go, but I promise you that it won't take billions of years.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2016 12:30:58 GMT -5
Thankyou. No existence of evil. Etc implies homo sapiens e.g.hitler do not really have any choice of actions, good or evil, only following , dancing to the dna they randomly evolved from. Same to murderers or csa offenders in 2x2 fellowship etc etc. Its simply not their fault and not evil. Hmmmm Helps me understand. Thankyou. Alvin The conclusion that it is not their fault is one you arrived at. People are responsible for their actions. In your post you were speaking of the universe and the fact that it was indifferent. And not you have changed and are speaking of individuals. Some would claim that people have free will and their actions are by choice. For many this is the case. At least to a degree. However, it has been demonstrated that people do not always have the free will they think they do. There are well documented cases where what had been normal people suddenly became pedophiles due to a tumor in their brain. Remove the tumor and they returned to normalcy.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 13, 2016 14:41:46 GMT -5
For clarification then , evil does or does not exist in the universe?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2016 15:10:41 GMT -5
This sounds interesting. But we have gone this road before and the problem is that what you consider 'evidence' is usually based only your belief. For example, you claimed the scientific describing water bound to minerals deep in the earth as somehow being circumstantial evidence of the bible's mentioning fountains of The deep. These types of things fall under vaticinium ex eventu or perhaps retrodiction or postdiction. Rational, I said before, keep things simple. Beliefs on 'both' sides MUST be put to one side. We need impartiality and honesty. I am only looking for small steps to begin with, just like evolution, you know. The Bible indicates there was water below the surface of the earth before the flood. We do not know in what form it was. That is not the argument. Until recently man never really imagined there could be such quantities below the earth that could cover the earth. Recent science has confirmed the simple, basic statement from the Bible, albeit all that water is contained in rocks. Is it possible that the geological upheaval at the time of the land mass break-up could have caused the fountains of the deep? The breaking up of 400 km of the earth's crust to release the "fountains of the deep" would have made existing on the surface difficult (impossible??) and there would still have been only minerals that contained water in their molecular structutre - not fountains by any stretch of the imagination! No the bible made a statement that water flooded up from the fountains of the deep and contributed to the rain in covering the earth. Science has discovered that at a depth of 400 km there are minerals that contain in their molecular structure enough water that if it was all released from the minerals it would flood the earth. Let's be clear - the water part of the rocks is about 1.5%. It is just at 400km there are a lot of rocks. I am sure you could come up with something like this concerning the release of chlorine from the minerals of the deep and killing most life forms. The bible was claiming a large source of liquid water that would gush up. This is not at all what was discovered.As I said, this is a case of postdiction. An event happens and there is a search for the 'prediction' of the event. There is only the misconception of the claim of liquid water in the bible and the discovery that there are minerals 400 km under the ground that have about 1.5% of their molecular weight composed of water molecules.No, I reject this for the same reason I reject Matthew's claim that the bible states that Jesus will be born of a virgin. It is a misapplication of what the bible states compared to what was discovered. Not sure where you are going.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 16:14:07 GMT -5
Rational, I said before, keep things simple. Beliefs on 'both' sides MUST be put to one side. We need impartiality and honesty. I am only looking for small steps to begin with, just like evolution, you know. The Bible indicates there was water below the surface of the earth before the flood. We do not know in what form it was. That is not the argument. Until recently man never really imagined there could be such quantities below the earth that could cover the earth. Recent science has confirmed the simple, basic statement from the Bible, albeit all that water is contained in rocks. Is it possible that the geological upheaval at the time of the land mass break-up could have caused the fountains of the deep? The breaking up of 400 km of the earth's crust to release the "fountains of the deep" would have made existing on the surface difficult (impossible??) and there would still have been only minerals that contained water in their molecular structutre - not fountains by any stretch of the imagination! I will take that as agreement that both Bible and scientists point to a massive source of water below the earth's crust? How the water was bound up below the earth's crust before the flood is unknown, since all the land mass was broken up and all sorts of geological upheaval was going on. We can speculate all day long. The Bible pointed to a source of water long before science knew it was there. Science confirms the location. That's all we need to know at the moment. A thread of evidence to prove the truth of the Bible has been established. No the bible made a statement that water flooded up from the fountains of the deep and contributed to the rain in covering the earth. That's not what my KJV Bible says. Genesis 7 v. 11'....the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.' Clearly the rock masses were broken up and released a huge volume of water, possibly from rocks. The rains came from the windows of heaven being opened up. Rmember the 'scientific' link XNA produced about all that huge volume of water above the heavens? I feel a second thread of evidence coming on. God divided the waters by the firmament, i.e. the heavens. The Bible indicates there is water in outer space. Science has recently confirmed thisScience has discovered that at a depth of 400 km there are minerals that contain in their molecular structure enough water that if it was all released from the minerals it would flood the earth. Let's be clear - the water part of the rocks is about 1.5%. It is just at 400km there are a lot of rocks. I am sure you could come up with something like this concerning the release of chlorine from the minerals of the deep and killing most life forms. I am trying to keep things 'simple.' This is not a scientific approach. It is a simple, common sense, reasonable approach to see if the Bible is indeed a source of truth with its statements and claims. Keep an unbiased and open mind towards all possibilities. The bible was claiming a large source of liquid water that would gush up. This is not at all what was discovered. Are you sure you cannot imagine that occurring with the verses I quoted from Genesis above? The fountains of the great deep were broken up. How it happened is not the question. The question is the identification of a huge enough water source lying beneath the earth's crust. At the time of the flood, the way the water was bound up may have been different. The point is 'the source!" We are only content with establishing a thin thread, not a rope!As I said, this is a case of postdiction. An event happens and there is a search for the 'prediction' of the event. Who recorded the event (Moses?). A long time afterwards. Was it God inspired or his imagination? How would he know about sources of water contained in rocks? Of course he did strike a rock twice to release water.There is only the misconception of the claim of liquid water in the bible and the discovery that there are minerals 400 km under the ground that have about 1.5% of their molecular weight composed of water molecules. No, I reject this for the same reason I reject Matthew's claim that the bible states that Jesus will be born of a virgin. It is a misapplication of what the bible states compared to what was discovered. Not sure where you are going. Establishing a simple 'thread' of circumstantial evidence. That being that what the Bible clearly states has been shown by science to have some foundation.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2016 17:24:06 GMT -5
For clarification then , evil does or does not exist in the universe? There is no evil as an entity. People may do what others consider evil.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 13, 2016 20:19:53 GMT -5
When you address me without the use of a personal, condescending manner I might answer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 14, 2016 0:54:31 GMT -5
I will take that as agreement that both Bible and scientists point to a massive source of water below the earth's crust? How the water was bound up below the earth's crust before the flood is unknown, since all the land mass was broken up and all sorts of geological upheaval was going on. We can speculate all day long. The Bible pointed to a source of water long before science knew it was there. Science confirms the location. That's all we need to know at the moment. A thread of evidence to prove the truth of the Bible has been established. Nope. You can repeat it as often as you want but the two are very different statements. This is simply a poor understanding of chemistry. Breaking the rocks does not release the water. And at 1.5% there would be far more of the other elements that make up the rock. The water would hardly make a paste. [/font] [/quote]Again, the firmament was a structure. It is simply not there. I understand the need for you to keep it simple because the foundation on which you are building, the details, simply do not support your contention. No. Not knowing all of the data. It simply does not happen as you ate imagining. Not you are speculating that at the time of the flood the molecular structure of the minerals was different. Based on what? The need to add support to your 'thread'? Who recorded the event (Moses?). A long time afterwards. Was it God inspired or his imagination? How would he know about sources of water contained in rocks? Of course he did strike a rock twice to release water.Only if you misapply what the scientists have discovered. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying that the fact that the wall board that make up the walls in my house do contain water as part of their molecular structure supports the fact that Moses struck a rock and water came out. Granite is 0.8% water and sandstone is 1.6% water. Yet we walk on them every day and don't even get our feet damp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 4:36:36 GMT -5
When you address me without the use of a personal, condescending manner I might answer. I type in an endearing manner, yet you interpret it as condescending? However, I recognise that you and one other have viewed my posts different to my intention. And here was me thinking we had turned over new leafs and made up after our past tifs? PS A good way of worming out of my request though, I'll give you that!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 14, 2016 5:02:36 GMT -5
When you address me without the use of a personal, condescending manner I might answer. I type in an endearing manner, yet you interpret it as condescending? However, I recognise that you and one other have viewed my posts different to my intention. And here was me thinking we had turned over new leafs and made up after our past tifs? PS A good way of worming out of my request though, I'll give you that! Nice try, ram.
It is 2016, Ram; -not 1950. The times they have been a changing!
I will just copy part of what I told someone else concerning your "endearing manner."
"Well, -------, you know how it is with Ram. He hasn't caught up with the times yet.
He thinks by using condescending words like "honey" & "girl," to someone who is a woman perhaps even older than he, -that we will think him as a REAL "He Man" and we will get all giggly and be so in awe of his attention that we will be putty in his hands!
Problem is, -he doesn't seem to realize that he is acting like a swaggering "little boy!"
PS: ehmm, the '-----' church you say? I didn't know that!
I wonder, -could that be the reason for his retardation concerning present day mores?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 5:05:30 GMT -5
I will take that as agreement that both Bible and scientists point to a massive source of water below the earth's crust? How the water was bound up below the earth's crust before the flood is unknown, since all the land mass was broken up and all sorts of geological upheaval was going on. We can speculate all day long. The Bible pointed to a source of water long before science knew it was there. Science confirms the location. That's all we need to know at the moment. A thread of evidence to prove the truth of the Bible has been established. Nope. You can repeat it as often as you want but the two are very different statements. No one is saying they are the same statement, but they are BOTH pointing to where vast sources of water are/were to be found. The Bible stated it long before science proved it. There's something awkward in accepting that. It has 'implications.' This is simply a poor understanding of chemistry. Breaking the rocks does not release the water. And at 1.5% there would be far more of the other elements that make up the rock. The water would hardly make a paste. I have stated that the Bible points to a large volume of water beneath the earth's crust. We do not know the form of that water. Water can take several forms. The Bible clearly pointed to a great source of water. Other than the crust breaking up we are not told anything other than the water was there. We do not know if it was rock bound or not. The important thing is that until recently we never knew that there could be vast amounts of water beneath the crust. The Bible shows us that there was. Science confirms it. The actual form in each case may be the same. It may not. The simple thing that I am driving at is that science has confirmed the source of large amounts of water at a place where until recently we did not know was there, and the amount was so vast it could flood the earth, along with the heavens opening up with rain. Also neither of us could even imagine the geological and other processes going on during the flood which resulted in the break up of the land masses, eventually pushing up the continents and mountain ranges etc. Common sense shows us a clear link in the identified sources of the huge amounts of water. To deny such is dishonest. This is not a scientific analysis, but one for those who can lay aside their biases, and approach matters with an open and honest mind, using common sense, sound reasoning, logic in a way that shows no fear or favour towards possible outcomes.
[/font] [/quote]Again, the firmament was a structure. It is simply not there. Not according to my Bible. It was the heavens, or our atmosphere and space. Genesis 1. 7 " And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8. And God called the firmament Heaven.'I understand the need for you to keep it simple because the foundation on which you are building, the details, simply do not support your contention. I understand your need to avoid this approach because of where it would rapidly lead to.
No. Not knowing all of the data. It simply does not happen as you ate imagining. Not you are speculating that at the time of the flood the molecular structure of the minerals was different. Based on what? The need to add support to your 'thread'? [font color="e6194b" No, you cannot seem to look at things in a simple manner. The water may well have been largely a huge aqueous pool or pool. Who knows? All I am attempting to show here is that both the Bible and Science have identified vast sources of water beneath the earth's surface. It's as simple as that. You appear to want to complicate this, perhaps in order to avoid the implications?]Who recorded the event (Moses?). A long time afterwards. Was it God inspired or his imagination? How would he know about sources of water contained in rocks? Of course he did strike a rock twice to release water.[/font] Only if you misapply what the scientists have discovered. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying that the fact that the wall board that make up the walls in my house do contain water as part of their molecular structure supports the fact that Moses struck a rock and water came out. Granite is 0.8% water and sandstone is 1.6% water. Yet we walk on them every day and don't even get our feet damp. I suppose that is why the scientists were so astounded to make the recent discovery of the vast amounts of rock borne water beneath the earth's surface? Something they would have known about for centuries? A bit like finding ice in very cold places. Amazing! If it is/was as you imply, it would hardly have been an eye-opening new scientific discovery. It would have been expected. This is common sense.[/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 5:08:41 GMT -5
I type in an endearing manner, yet you interpret it as condescending? However, I recognise that you and one other have viewed my posts different to my intention. And here was me thinking we had turned over new leafs and made up after our past tifs? PS A good way of worming out of my request though, I'll give you that! Nice try, ram.
It is 2016, Ram; -not 1950. The times they have been a changing!
I will just copy part of what I told someone else concerning your "endearing manner."
"Well, -------, you know how it is with Ram. He hasn't caught up with the times yet.
He thinks by using condescending words like "honey" & "girl," to someone who is a woman perhaps even older than he, -that we will think him as a REAL "He Man" and we will get all giggly and be so in awe of his attention that we will be putty in his hands!
Problem is, -he doesn't seem to realize that he is acting like a swaggering "little boy!"
PS: ehmm, the '-----' church you say? I didn't know that!
I wonder, -could that be the reason for his retardation concerning present day mores?
When I see the way that sane people behave I find comfort in my insanity. Also, it is a live fish that swims against the tide. Dead fish go with the (modern) current in matters of chivalry.Now how about we move on from that and either accede to my request of reject it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 14, 2016 5:56:59 GMT -5
When I see the way that sane people behave I find comfort in my insanity. Also, it is a live fish that swims against the tide. Dead fish go with the (modern) current in matters of chivalry. Now how about we move on from that and either accede to my request of reject it? This has nothing what-so-ever to do with live or dead fish, -it has to do with respect as to whether one person respects another person as equal to themselves
definition of condescending:
condescending: treating someone as if YOU are more important or more intelligent than them:As I said somewhere else, -I doubt that you will be able to see the problem, but I will try.
Do you consider yourself a "boy" or a "man?" Would you think that it would be a compliment if someone said, "that's some distance for a nice boy to be driving in 24 hours."
Would you think they might be questioning whether you were really "nice" or maybe "not so nice," -as in inappropriate for a "boy" to do such a thing?
Perhaps you might feel that by calling you a "boy" instead of a "man", that they might think that you weren't capable of such a feat?
It is condescending when a "man" calls a "woman" a "girl" just like it was condescending for a "white man" to call a "black man" a "boy." Can you understand that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 6:21:57 GMT -5
When I see the way that sane people behave I find comfort in my insanity. Also, it is a live fish that swims against the tide. Dead fish go with the (modern) current in matters of chivalry. Now how about we move on from that and either accede to my request of reject it? This has nothing what-so-ever to do with live or dead fish, -it has to do with respect as to whether one person respects another person as equal to themselves
definition of condescending:
condescending: treating someone as if YOU are more important or more intelligent than them:How does that gel with this? 'When I see the way that sane people behave I find comfort in my insanity.' Do people who regard themselves as more important or more intelligent than others regard themselves as insane? As I said somewhere else, -I doubt that you will be able to see the problem, but I will try.
Do you consider yourself a "boy" or a "man?" Would you think that it would be a compliment if someone said, "that's some distance for a nice boy to be driving in 24 hours."
I would have no problem with it. I certainly would not see any offence in it. That is not the point though. I was being chivalrous.
Would you think they might be questioning whether you were really "nice" or maybe "not so nice," -as in inappropriate for a "boy" to do such a thing?
You are very good at making up your mind how the other party feels about it. Isn't that a key issue? She has explained it to you, but still you want to create a diversion from my earlier request. That is another key issue!
Perhaps you might feel that by calling you a "boy" instead of a "man", that they might think that you weren't capable of such a feat?
It was not about capability. It was about gentltmanly concern (there are a few of us left) for a "nice girl" making a long and tiring journey, as well as safety and vulnerability issues. Do you "get" that? It is condescending when a "man" calls a "woman" a "girl" just like it was condescending for a "white man" to call a "black man" a "boy." Can you understand that? Here we go again. Why do you have to bring the "race card" into this. This is absolute nonsense. Women of all ages over here are called girl or girls and there's no complaints. The older ones probably love it? Keep this up and you will manage to squirm out of my request.
|
|