Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 4:17:02 GMT -5
I don't understand what you mean.
My understanding was that you meant that when "GOD" started resting on the 7th day, HE had been continuing to rest ever since.
It would seem to me that sometime later he must not have been resting when HE supposedly sent the flood.
He rested . Rain is part of what God had already created. The flood was a heavy heavy rain but GOD Only knows how it happened. According to the Bible the pre-flood earth was watered by mist, not rainfall. Actual rainfall appears to have been unknown until the time of the flood. However, the Bible clearly states that the "fountains of the deep" opened up! This was stated thousands of years ago and for a long time seemed crazy because no one imagined huge amounts water lying beneath the earth's surface, at least in amounts anything like that lying on the surface. In very recent times it has been discovered there is a lot more water beneath the earth than on its surface or above it. Once more science is proving the accuracy of the Bible. Read this brief article. There is a lot of the new scientific theory that supports the Biblical account of the flood. Another strand in the cable of evidence which points us to the truth of the Bible and increases the possibility of God existing! www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/16/study-deep-beneath-north-america-theres-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/ |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 4, 2016 4:47:04 GMT -5
I have a difficult time trying to unravel your idea of logic.
Right at the beginning you make a statement,: (It has been demonstrated that we were designed) - which may be your "belief" but for which is no evidence of that being the case.
So that throws the discussion off the rails to begin with.
After that, it seems you are really struggling. Not struggling here If anything , I do understand that naturalistic logic depends on miracles and "remote likelihood" and ignores the rational intelligence of an instruction given as an information bit was not logically ordered to perform its pre-programmed by design, design. In other words if it looks like it was pre-programmed to self replicate then it is easy to accept the premises and move on to workable and intelligent designs that our nature has demonstrated and surrounds us with!
You have already decided that something is true instead of putting forth a hypothesis that is not proven but that leads to further study .
In this case that, "It has been demonstrated that we were designed."
Then you attempt to prove what you already decided is true by using "LOGIC."
Define LOGIC: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
Now you are trying to persuade us that logic depends on "miracles?"
Define "miracles": "an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god because it does not follow the usual laws of nature.
I find it interesting that religious people who always believed everything was due to the work of some god or other, but now because of the developments in science which are so evident they can't ignore them, they are suddenly trying to come up with a so-called "science" of their own calling "creation" SCIENCE! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 4, 2016 18:04:29 GMT -5
He rested . Rain is part of what God had already created. The flood was a heavy heavy rain but GOD Only knows how it happened. According to the Bible the pre-flood earth was watered by mist, not rainfall. Actual rainfall appears to have been unknown until the time of the flood. However, the Bible clearly states that the "fountains of the deep" opened up! This was stated thousands of years ago and for a long time seemed crazy because no one imagined huge amounts water lying beneath the earth's surface, at least in amounts anything like that lying on the surface. In very recent times it has been discovered there is a lot more water beneath the earth than on its surface or above it. Once more science is proving the accuracy of the Bible. Read this brief article. There is a lot of the new scientific theory that supports the Biblical account of the flood. Another strand in the cable of evidence which points us to the truth of the Bible and increases the possibility of God existing! www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/16/study-deep-beneath-north-america-theres-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/Yes I believe the logical evidence points toward the truth of Noah and the flood There is a video of a seminar given by Patrick Nurre (a geologist that examines the Egyptian chronology ) In my opinion his analysis is very revealing about how deceptive world science is tampered with ? Please google his video : Patrick Nurre ; Egyptian chronology |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 4, 2016 18:49:28 GMT -5
There is a video of a seminar given by Patrick Nurre
(a geologist that examines the Egyptian chronology )
In my opinion his analysis is very revealing about how
deceptive world science is tampered with ?
Please google his video : Patrick Nurre ; Egyptian chronology  |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 4, 2016 22:54:13 GMT -5
According to the Bible the pre-flood earth was watered by mist, not rainfall. Actual rainfall appears to have been unknown until the time of the flood. However, the Bible clearly states that the "fountains of the deep" opened up! This was stated thousands of years ago and for a long time seemed crazy because no one imagined huge amounts water lying beneath the earth's surface, at least in amounts anything like that lying on the surface. In very recent times it has been discovered there is a lot more water beneath the earth than on its surface or above it. Once more science is proving the accuracy of the Bible. Read this brief article. There is a lot of the new scientific theory that supports the Biblical account of the flood. Another strand in the cable of evidence which points us to the truth of the Bible and increases the possibility of God existing! www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/16/study-deep-beneath-north-america-theres-more-water-than-in-all-the-oceans-combined/ Yes I believe the logical evidence points toward the truth of Noah and the flood. There is a video of a seminar given by Patrick Nurre (a geologist that examines the Egyptian chronology ) In my opinion his analysis is very revealing about how deceptive world science is tampered with ? Please google his video : Patrick Nurre ; Egyptian chronology |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 4, 2016 23:42:36 GMT -5
Yes I believe the logical evidence points toward the truth of Noah and the flood There is a video of a seminar given by Patrick Nurre( a geologist that examines the Egyptian chronology ) In my opinion his analysis is very revealing about how deceptive world science is tampered with ? Please google his video : Patrick Nurre ; Egyptian chronology
All he can claim by his own words is that he "was trained in secular geology."
Nurre gives no information as to having any academic degrees, even as a teacher, in geology.
Again, I find it interesting that those who insist on the literal account of creation in the bible, do not seem to trust a god enough for their belief without attempting to don the mantle of science while at the same time simply not using or understanding the method of scientific inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 5, 2016 10:31:55 GMT -5
Once more science is proving the accuracy of the Bible. Read this brief article. There is a lot of the new scientific theory that supports the Biblical account of the flood. Another strand in the cable of evidence which points us to the truth of the Bible and increases the possibility of God existing! First, the accuracy or inaccuracy of a written text says nothing about the existence of a deity or deities. But once again you are taking a bit of data regarding hydrogen and oxygen that are part of the molecular structure of rocks and treating it as if it were free flowing water that could suddenly rise hundreds of miles through the earth's crust and become the "waters of the deep". There is no evidence that this has/could happened and it is creationists taking any data that they can and distorting it in a vain attempt to support their beliefs. Science isn't proving the accuracy of the bible - you are distorting the data to meet your need to have some evidence of your beliefs. None of this newest theory supports the flood myth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 10:48:00 GMT -5
Once more science is proving the accuracy of the Bible. Read this brief article. There is a lot of the new scientific theory that supports the Biblical account of the flood. Another strand in the cable of evidence which points us to the truth of the Bible and increases the possibility of God existing! First, the accuracy or inaccuracy of a written text says nothing about the existence of a deity or deities. But once again you are taking a bit of data regarding hydrogen and oxygen that are part of the molecular structure of rocks and treating it as if it were free flowing water that could suddenly rise hundreds of miles through the earth's crust and become the "waters of the deep". There is no evidence that this has/could happened and it is creationists taking any data that they can and distorting it in a vain attempt to support their beliefs. Science isn't proving the accuracy of the bible - you are distorting the data to meet your need to have some evidence of your beliefs. None of this newest theory supports the flood myth. By conveniently removing the existence of the deity you conveniently remove the agency through which all that hitherto unknown source of water was released. My statement was to show clearly that the Bible had made a statement which indicated (fountains of the deep) there were massive amounts of water beneath the earth's surface. Until recently such a notion was generally considered unlikely. In very recent times scientific evidence has corroborated the simple Biblical statement and proven it to be a true testimony. This cannot be denied and is another little thread in the cable of circumstantial evidence which will not only prove the truth of the Bible, but also science's agency in doing so. In recent threads we have two or three such strands of evidence. Our cable is getting stronger! A discovery of similar standard by evolutionists which would support their theories would have them throwing parties. We need to look at these things with an open mind, with sound reason and logic, without fear, favour or bias, in order that the evidence not only tells us the correct information, but that we are willing to receive it. That is what fairness is all about. beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/allnewspipeline.com/Biblical_Fountains_Of_The_Deep_Discovered.php |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 5, 2016 15:48:33 GMT -5
By conveniently removing the existence of the deity you conveniently remove the agency through which all that hitherto unknown source of water was released. "God did it" is not an answer that can be supported. It is your belief.The bible also made a statement regarding a firmament that supported the waters above the earth. And it still is unlikely since it is not water in a liquid form.No, you are twisting the data and implying that there is water that could flow trapped 300 miles down that will somehow free itself from the molecules it is part of, liquify, and find its way to the surface.Again, the water you are claiming would flow up and flood the world is equivalent to believing that water will suddenly start gushing out of gypsum or opal, both which contain large amounts of water in their structure. You could say that the story of water coming out of the rock in the desert was supported by science discovering that some minerals contain water as part of their structure. On the other hand the gypsum in the wallboard in my house does not gush water.It is not evidence. You have distorted what was discovered and claimed it was predicted in the bible.It remains unchanged.The theory of evolution is already well supported by the facts. Let's look at what was discovered and what is claimed. From the site you referenced: In yet another confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy, scientists have now confirmed what Scripture refers to as “the fountains of the deep.” In the days of Noah and the Ark, these large pools of water beneath the Earth’s crust burst forth onto the surface providing the massive amounts of water needed for the global flood judgment. And what the report said: Analysis of the mineral shows it contains a significant amount of water — 1.5 per cent of its weight — a finding that confirms scientific theories about vast volumes of water trapped 410 to 660 kilometres beneath Earth’s surface, between the upper and lower mantle. So the data shows the water is tied up in the molecular structure of rocks located hundreds of miles beneath the surface. A mineral that is less than 2% water. No pools. No gushing. Just distortion in a vain attempt to twist the data to make it look like the bible predicted this. This is not a mineral that has absorbed or adsorbed water. This is water that is bound on the molecular level. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 17:22:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 5, 2016 19:04:26 GMT -5
Ocean? I wonder what definition they are using. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 7:46:27 GMT -5
Ocean? I wonder what definition they are using. Possibly a descriptor to emphasise the great mass/volume involved? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 6, 2016 10:57:46 GMT -5
Possibly a descriptor to emphasise the great mass/volume involved? But you never hear about an ocean of silicon and there is a lot more silicon than water. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 15:57:36 GMT -5
Possibly a descriptor to emphasise the great mass/volume involved? But you never hear about an ocean of silicon and there is a lot more silicon than water. Agreed, but generally speaking "ocean" is mainly used to describe a vast body of "liquid" water. We don't refer to the Arctic or Antarctic snow/ice fields as oceans. Although the body of water which separates Great Britain from Continental Europe is 26 miles wide, or thereabouts at its narrowest part, it is not referred to as an Ocean. Ron Obvious correctly referred to it as the (a) Channel! The correct word is not "ocean" anyway, it is sea or seas. Genesis 1. V. 9-10 "And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven, be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: And God saw that it was good."
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 6, 2016 16:20:27 GMT -5
But you never hear about an ocean of silicon and there is a lot more silicon than water. Agreed, but generally speaking "ocean" is mainly used to describe a vast body of "liquid" water. That was my point. There is no liquid water ocean 400 km under the surface of the earth.I am looking at the globe on the table and it clearly says Arctic Ocean.according to the KJV there are no oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 6, 2016 18:19:00 GMT -5
Personally, I think that each person drawing their own conclusions, -especially religious conclusions, -without
the unfettered research that science provides, is the reason there is so much conflict in the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 19:25:06 GMT -5
Agreed, but generally speaking "ocean" is mainly used to describe a vast body of "liquid" water. That was my point. There is no liquid water ocean 400 km under the surface of the earth. No but all that water is contained in the rocks. Here is an example of how easily it can be extracted with the right scientific process.
Numbers 20:11 "And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also."
I am looking at the globe on the table and it clearly says Arctic Ocean. I assume that is because of the water underneath and surrounding the ice mass? We do not refer to the ice mass which covers the Antarctic Continental Shelf as the Antarctic Ocean, but to the waters which surround it.according to the KJV there are no oceans. No, the Bible does not say there are no oceans. It clearly implies that the large bodies of water which we call oceans, God called "seas!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 19:26:32 GMT -5
Personally, I think that each person drawing their own conclusions, -especially religious conclusions, -without
the unfettered research that science provides, is the reason there is so much conflict in the world. I admire your honest use of "Personally I think......" |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 7, 2016 0:39:43 GMT -5
Feb 6, 2016 17:19:00 GMT -6 dmmichgood said:
Personally, I think that each person drawing their own conclusions, -especially religious conclusions, -without the unfettered research that science provides, is the reason there is so much conflict in the world.
Feb 6, 2016 18:26:32 GMT -6 ram said:
I admire your honest use of "Personally I think......"
Feb 6, 2016 GMT: dmmichgood said:
Well? -see the influence someone can have on another?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 4:58:03 GMT -5
Feb 6, 2016 17:19:00 GMT -6 dmmichgood said:
Personally, I think that each person drawing their own conclusions, -especially religious conclusions, -without the unfettered research that science provides, is the reason there is so much conflict in the world.
Feb 6, 2016 18:26:32 GMT -6 ram said:
I admire your honest use of "Personally I think......"
Feb 6, 2016 GMT: dmmichgood said:
Well? -see the influence someone can have on another?
we are in agreement on this issue. I hope this influence continues. From little acorns great oak trees are grown. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 7, 2016 9:45:23 GMT -5
True belief in flood depends a lot upon our view Of the world we see. Example : do we see the Grand Canyon, Fjords, large erode land formation as the result of a worldwide flood or haphazard unguided evolution I prefer the beauty of nature as a result of th majesty. of God |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 7, 2016 9:56:16 GMT -5
Perhaps ram, there were few that understood
your analogy of Ron O. Attempt to jump the
Channel ?
It was obvious to me, but then maybe there wet also
few that considered such an attempt to be futile
and utterably unarguably a rediculous effort .
Much the same some scientists also set forth
to demonstrate through some arguably rediculous
hypothesis that nature is the unguided , undesigned,
result of rocks evolving into the pyramids of Egypt, and then
becoming through another miracle the cyberspace
and all of the details of that paradigm ? Hmmm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 12:18:50 GMT -5
Perhaps ram, there were few that understood your analogy of Ron O. Attempt to jump the Channel ? It was obvious to me, but then maybe there wet also few that considered such an attempt to be futile and utterably unarguably a rediculous effort . Much the same some scientists also set forth to demonstrate through some arguably rediculous hypothesis that nature is the unguided , undesigned, result of rocks evolving into the pyramids of Egypt, and then becoming through another miracle the cyberspace and all of the details of that paradigm ? Hmmm Thank you Guest4 for your, as always, critical and observant insight into these matters. It is "Obvious" that you have applied an open mind as well as your own good common sense,logic and sound reasoning to these matters in an unbiased and thoughtful way, without fear or favour shown towards the outcome. It is with such an approach and only with such an approach that the seeds of truth are watered and blossom forth to display all its fine beauty, the observance of which is denied many. You are well blessed indeed! Until Science properly accommodates the possibility of God's handiwork in these matters it cannot truly claim to be seeking the truth of same. The evidence clearly and irrefutably conspires not only to provide for the possibility of there being a God, but due to its immensity, it overwhelmingly points to the only real conclusion, i.e. that God exists. For evidence I rely only at this point on "circumstantial evidence," i.e. "the evidence of facts and circumstances which COMBINE to point to only one possible conclusion." The cable of evidence, established by strand after strand of facts and circumstances, is so numerous and so strong that it is not only laughable but certifiable to deny it. The cable is so long and "Obvious" it would Ron from the south English coast to Calais and back many times and you would be able to suspend the combined weight of every brick ever manufactured by the Chippenham Brick Company from it without fear of it ever snapping! |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 7, 2016 19:50:44 GMT -5
Feb 6, 2016 17:19:00 GMT -6 dmmichgood said:
Personally, I think that each person drawing their own conclusions, -especially religious conclusions, -without the unfettered research that science provides, is the reason there is so much conflict in the world.
Feb 6, 2016 18:26:32 GMT -6 ram said:
I admire your honest use of "Personally I think......"
Feb 6, 2016 GMT: dmmichgood said:
Well? -see the influence someone can have on another?
we are in agreement on this issue. I hope this influence continues. From little acorns great oak trees are grown.
I haven't forgotten the last series of debates years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 7, 2016 20:15:00 GMT -5
True belief in flood depends a lot upon our view Of the world we see. Example : do we see the Grand Canyon, Fjords, large erode land formation as the result of a worldwide flood or haphazard unguidedevolution I prefer the beauty of nature as a result of th majesty. of God
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Welcome to Evolution 101! by the Understanding Evolution team What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections: Three domains An introduction to evolution Evolution briefly defined and explained
The history of life: looking at the patterns How does evolution lead to the tree of life? Mechanisms: the processes of evolution How does evolution work? Microevolution How does evolution work on a small scale? Speciation What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve? Macroevolution How does evolution work on a grand scale? The big issues What are some of the big questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer? Until one studies evolution as to what it really is about, it is easy to be deluded by those who don't understand the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 7, 2016 20:39:43 GMT -5
No but all that water is contained in the rocks. Here is an example of how easily it can be extracted with the right scientific process. Numbers 20:11 "And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also."Oh I forgot the science! I always wondered about 2 million people, and their animals, lining up for water coming from a rock. I am looking at the globe on the table and it clearly says Arctic Ocean. Could be because land masses and minerals are not generally referred to as oceans. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 8, 2016 2:27:02 GMT -5
True belief in flood depends a lot upon our view Of the world we see. Example : do we see the Grand Canyon, Fjords, large erode land formation as the result of a worldwide flood or haphazard unguidedevolution I prefer the beauty of nature as a result of th majesty. of God
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Welcome to Evolution 101! by the Understanding Evolution team What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections: Three domains An introduction to evolution Evolution briefly defined and explained
The history of life: looking at the patterns How does evolution lead to the tree of life? Mechanisms: the processes of evolution How does evolution work? Microevolution How does evolution work on a small scale? Speciation What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve? Macroevolution How does evolution work on a grand scale? The big issues What are some of the big questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer? Until one studies evolution as to what it really is about, it is easy to be deluded by those who don't understand the process.
Are you saying that evolution is guided ? If we see the guide as a design then perhaps the design is a design. Seems logical |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 8, 2016 3:27:05 GMT -5
Perhaps you could benefit by replacing your "haphazard unguided" idea of evolution with information from this site.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Welcome to Evolution 101! by the Understanding Evolution team What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections: Three domains An introduction to evolution Evolution briefly defined and explained
The history of life: looking at the patterns How does evolution lead to the tree of life? Mechanisms: the processes of evolution How does evolution work? Microevolution How does evolution work on a small scale? Speciation What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve? Macroevolution How does evolution work on a grand scale? The big issues What are some of the big questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer? Until one studies evolution as to what it really is about, it is easy to be deluded by those who don't understand the process.
Are you saying that evolution is guided ? If we see the guide as a design then perhaps the design is a design. Seems logical
to intend a result:
Then look at the term "guided' guided: To direct the course of; steer:
To exert control or influence over
Then when you look at how evolution works, you can see what "guides" biological evolution has NO presupposed (assumed beforehand) "design" ("plan" or "intent") that evolution is following.
That is why we can say with quite a lot of assurance that there wasn't any "designer" entity who "drew up plans" for evolution with "intended results."
As humans, we are intentional beings. WE do things with some kind of "intention."
Therefore, we tend to think that everything that happens must be due to some kind of intention behind it.
In fact it goes very much against our zone of comfort to think otherwise.
But I think there are times we just need to get outside of that comfort zone.
|
|
