YEC and Fossil Fuels

[AV1611VET]

Irrelevant to the question, answer it again, please. Why are you posting statements you've already agreed won't contribute anything to the question?

Read the QV, please --- my statement has not been debunked.

 

[Cabal]

QV please: 1 .

Kudos for the last post in that one (mostly )

My point still stands - regardless of whether it would be believed or not, the principle is still important. God isn't going to "perform" for our empirical edification on demand, is He? Whereas with a scientific measurement, it can be done as many times as you like, money permitting.

 

[Cabal]

Read the QV, please --- my statement has not been debunked.

Blah, my bad, sorry. Thought that was the one about not observing angels/God in some corner of the universe...

 

[AV1611VET]

God isn't going to "perform" for our empirical edification on demand, is He?

No, He isn't --- so science is on it's own --- and the Bible makes it clear that nature, which runs on science --- is hostile to God.

 

[Cabal]

No, He isn't --- so science is on it's own --- and the Bible makes it clear that nature, which runs on science --- is hostile to God.

So you concede the point then about documentation?

And how exactly is the existence of a deep ocean trench (to use your example) hostility towards God? Does it cuss or something?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you concede the point then about documentation?

Whether the documentation is the Bible, or McGraw-Hill, people are still placing their faith in it.

And how exactly is the existence of a deep ocean trench (to use your example) hostility towards God? Does it cuss or something?

Try doing what Adam could have done and just mosey down there w/o drowning.

[Yes, I know, the trench probably didn't exist in Adam's days; but hopefully you get my point.]

 

[Cabal]

Whether the documentation is the Bible, or McGraw-Hill, people are still placing their faith in it.

*sigh*....but with the science documentation, you can technically reproduce the data yourself, which means it's not faith (and even if it were, "faith" in science isn't equivalent to "faith" in God). The Bible doesn't even have that option.

Try doing what Adam could have done and just mosey down there w/o drowning.

[Yes, I know, the trench probably didn't exist in Adam's days; but hopefully you get my point.]

Ok, so water drowns people. And? Any other reason an ocean trench having depth is somehow rebelling against the Almighty? How does having a physical dimension in space constitute rejection of the Lord?

I get what you're saying, but trying to argue that we can't be sure of ANY fact without it being labelled "faith" is plain ludicrous.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

No, He isn't --- so science is on it's own --- and the Bible makes it clear that nature, which runs on science --- is hostile to God.
​

So you concede the point then about documentation?

And how exactly is the existence of a deep ocean trench (to use your example) hostility towards God? Does it cuss or something?

Nature runs on science and nature is hostile to god. wow. That has to rank as one of the absolutely weirdest things I have ever read.

Reminds me tho, that
I was trying one time to explain some basic Christian concepts to a friend back home... guess I'm not the best one for that, but anyhow...I was talking about the idea that the earth is dirt and sin and corruption and sickness and that one should turn instead to god and reject the things of the earth... something like that.

She thought about it for quite a while and then asked, does that mean that god is 100% good, and everything he made is bad?

I guess I dont know the answer to that one.

 

[AV1611VET]

I get what you're saying, but trying to argue that we can't be sure of ANY fact without it being labelled "faith" is plain ludicrous.

I never said you "can't be sure of it" --- I said that if one goes through life w/o verifying the fact of the depth of the Mariana Trench himself, then he is clearly placing his faith in the documentation of those who have been down there and have measured it, themselves.

I wouldn't go there, either --- even if I could.

I too place my faith in the documentation (specifically, the Wikipedia article) that the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep.

I've lived right next to it for years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

No, He isn't --- so science is on it's own --- and the Bible makes it clear that nature, which runs on science --- is hostile to God.
​

Nature runs on science and nature is hostile to god. wow. That has to rank as one of the absolutely weirdest things I have ever read.

Then read this:

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Please explain why death, which is an integral part of [fallen] nature, is God's enemy.

 

[Cabal]

I never said you "can't be sure of it" --- I said that if one goes through life w/o verifying the fact of the depth of the Mariana Trench himself, then he is clearly placing his faith in the documentation of those who have been down there and have measured it, themselves.

I wouldn't go there, either --- even if I could.

I too place my faith in the documentation (specifically, the Wikipedia article) that the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep.

I've lived right next to it for years.

No dice, AV, sorry....You won't admit the marked difference between believing the account of a one-off that can never be reproduced, and that of repeated and repeatable measurements based in a self-correcting system. The only objection you've raised in contention is that nature is hostile to God - and you haven't even answered how having dimensions is somehow sinful for inanimate objects.

 

[Cabal]

Please explain why death, which is an integral part of [fallen] nature, is God's enemy.

Couldn't it just be referring to humanity's enemy...?

 

[ragarth]

I never said you "can't be sure of it" --- I said that if one goes through life w/o verifying the fact of the depth of the Mariana Trench himself, then he is clearly placing his faith in the documentation of those who have been down there and have measured it, themselves.

I wouldn't go there, either --- even if I could.

I too place my faith in the documentation (specifically, the Wikipedia article) that the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep.

I've lived right next to it for years.

We don't verify the depth of the mariana trench by going down there, we use sonar, lasers, and pressure gauges to do so. We have multiple tools for performing this feat, and have done it multiple times. If I so chose, I could join a research vessel studying the trench and see for myself. I cannot in any way verify the claims of Jesus walking on water.

I can contrast multiple technical documents that provide the methods, tools, and assumptions used in verifying the depth of the mariana trench. They will give me the details so that I can logically deduce if the methods, tools, and assumptions make logical sense, and by comparing multiple documents I can get a more general picture of the issue of measuring the depth of the mariana trench. The bible is a single source that provides no hard facts such as Jesus's weight, the dispersion of rocks in the water, the depth of the water, etc. Contrast this to white paper specifications of sonar equipment, equations used in distance calculation, assumptions about water density at varying depths and you see a distinct disparity in the amount and value of data given between the two subjects.

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't verify the depth of the mariana trench by going down there, we use sonar, lasers, and pressure gauges to do so. We have multiple tools for performing this feat, and have done it multiple times. If I so chose, I could join a research vessel studying the trench and see for myself. I cannot in any way verify the claims of Jesus walking on water.

I can contrast multiple technical documents that provide the methods, tools, and assumptions used in verifying the depth of the mariana trench. They will give me the details so that I can logically deduce if the methods, tools, and assumptions make logical sense, and by comparing multiple documents I can get a more general picture of the issue of measuring the depth of the mariana trench. The bible is a single source that provides no hard facts such as Jesus's weight, the dispersion of rocks in the water, the depth of the water, etc. Contrast this to white paper specifications of sonar equipment, equations used in distance calculation, assumptions about water density at varying depths and you see a distinct disparity in the amount and value of data given between the two subjects.

For about, what, the fourth time? --- I am not --- repeat: not --- talking about those who have been there --- I am talking about those who will never go there, yet will believe what those who have been there and did all this sonar and laser stuff.

It's getting close to "/thread" time, fellas --- step it up, please.

 

[BananaSlug]

Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?

The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".

You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.

So I'm really not interested in your double standards.

*Cracks knuckles*

The Periodic Table has not been "changed." Scientists knew the table was incomplete and were expecting it to become filled as we discovered more elements.

Although precursors to this table exist, its invention is generally credited to Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. Mendeleev intended the table to illustrate recurring ("periodic") trends in the properties of the elements. The layout of the table has been refined and extended over time, as new elements have been discovered, and new theoretical models have been developed to explain chemical behavior.[1]
The periodic table is now ubiquitous within the academic discipline of chemistry, providing an extremely useful framework to classify, systematize and compare all of the many different forms of chemical behavior. The table has also found wide application in physics, biology, engineering, and industry. The current standard table contains 117 elements as of 27 January 2008 (elements 1-116 and element 118).

As of 2006, the table contains 117 chemical elements whose discoveries have been confirmed. Ninety-four are found naturally on Earth, and the rest are synthetic elements that have been produced artificially in particle accelerators. Elements 43 (technetium), 61 (promethium), 93 (neptunium) and 94 (plutonium) have no stable isotopes and were first discovered synthetically; however, they were later discovered in trace amounts on earth as products of natural radioactive decay processes.

When the Periodic Table was first made we knew that there would be other elements to be found and could use the Periodic Table to predict what properties the element would have.

[FONT=Garamond, Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Garamond, Times New Roman, serif]Mendeleev was bold enough to suggest that new elements not yet discovered would be found to fill the blank places. He even went so far as to predict the properties of the missing elements. Although many scientists greeted Mendeleev's first table with skepticism, its predictive value soon became clear. The discovery of gallium in 1875, of scandium in 1879, and of germanium in 1886 supported the idea underlying Mendeleev's table. Each of the new elements displayed properties that accorded with those Mendeleev had predicted, based on his realization that elements in the same column have similar chemical properties. The three new elements were respectively discovered by a French, a Scandinavian, and a German scientist, each of whom named the element in honor of his country or region. (Gallia is Latin for France.) Discovery of a new element had become a matter of national pride--the rare kind of science that people could read about in newspapers, and that even politicians would mention.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

The table itself is a visual representation of the periodic law which states that certain properties of elements repeat periodically when arranged by atomic number. The table arranges elements into vertical columns (Groups) and horizontal rows (Periods) to display these commonalities.

In 1914 Henry Moseley found a relationship between an element's X-ray wavelength and its atomic number (Z), and therefore resequenced the table by nuclear charge rather than atomic weight. Before this discovery, atomic numbers were just sequential numbers based on an element's atomic weight. Moseley's discovery showed that atomic numbers had an experimentally measurable basis.
Thus Moseley placed argon (Z=18) before potassium (Z=19) based on their X-ray wavelengths, despite the fact that argon has a greater atomic weight (39.9) than potassium (39.1). The new order agrees with the chemical properties of these elements, since argon is a noble gas and potassium an alkali metal. Similarly, Moseley placed cobalt before nickel, and was able to explain that tellurium occurs before iodine without revising the experimental atomic weight of tellurium (127.6) as proposed by Mendeleev.
Moseley's research also showed that there were gaps in his table at atomic numbers 43 and 61 which are now known to be Technetium and Promethium, respectively, both radioactive and not naturally occurring. Following in the footsteps of Dmitri Mendeleev, Henry Moseley also predicted new elements.

As you can see, claiming that science is invalid because we discover new information that refines and clarifies current ideas is invalid.

Wikipedia says the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep --- what say you --- and why?

[Please answer the "why".]

The Bible says Jesus walked on water --- what do you think I'll say --- and why?

[Please answer the "why". I'll bet it's the same answer: the documentation says so.]

The Mariana Trench is labeled approximately 6.8 miles deep because it has been repeatably tested and measured.

This is the Trieste Challenger, the submarine that has a recorded depth of 31,614 feet. The Trieste was funded and is classified as a ship of the US Navy. All of it's expeditions have been under the guidance of the US Navy.
In 1995 the Japanese sent the unmanned vehicle the Kaiko to explore the Mariana Trench and set a world record depth of 35,798 feet.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is also going to send a remotely operated vehicle the Nereus to explore the trench in the near future.

And I assume if Nat Geo ever plans to do a special presentation of an expedition to the Mariana Trench I wonder if your argument would have any validity?


Jesus walked on water because "the Bible says so." The Mariana Trench is 35,000 feet deep because a multitude of expeditions, sonar findings, and depth gauges from various different countries show it does.

Speaking of things changing, let's go ahead and look at some stuff from the Bible, the book of supposed "Divine Inspiration."

Exodus 20:5 "I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations."

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Hm... very interesting.

2 Kings 2:11Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

John 3:13 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Jesus clearly says that no one has ascended to heaven except for the Son of Man.

Matt. 28:1-2, 5-10 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
But the angel answered and said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, “Rejoice!” So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.”


John 20:1-2 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

Wow, I never realized how much of a difference there was between the Matthew story and the John story. On one hande we have Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb, watched it become open by the angel who told her that Christ is risen and to go tell the disciples. She even met Christ on the way to Galilee! On the other hand, we have Mary Magdalene who goes to the tomb where it had already been open, saw Christ's body was gone, and told Peter that someone had taken Christ's body! I would think that a book inspired by God would be more... what's the word I'm looking for... identical?

 

[Cabal]

The Bible has 66 books, sounds like it's been through its fair share of improvements too (before it reached the current finished product). Is it going to take a hike?

 

[BananaSlug]

For about, what, the fourth time? --- I am not --- repeat: not --- talking about those who have been there --- I am talking about those who will never go there, yet will believe what those who have been there and did all this sonar and laser stuff.

It's getting close to "/thread" time, fellas --- step it up, please.

The point is that we could go there if we had the funds. We could see it for ourselves. You'll never be able to go back in time and show Christ existed. You aren't able to see it for yourself. You have your book and that's really about it. We have myriads of studies and still have the actual trench that we could study if we wanted to.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that we could go there if we had the funds. We could see it for ourselves. You'll never be able to go back in time and show Christ existed. You aren't able to see it for yourself. You have your book and that's really about it. We have myriads of studies and still have the actual trench that we could study if we wanted to.

Man --- this line of rhetoric is reminiscent of my old Millard Fillmore thread, where I challenged anyone to prove he existed without placing their faith in any kind of documentation.

I might recreate it --- just for fun.

 

[Cabal]

Man --- this line of rhetoric is reminiscent of my old Millard Fillmore thread, where I challenged anyone to prove he existed without placing their faith in any kind of documentation.

I might recreate it --- just for fun.

Why don't you just tell us the point of the challenge? Would save time...

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Man --- this line of rhetoric is reminiscent of my old Millard Fillmore thread, where I challenged anyone to prove he existed without placing their faith in any kind of documentation.

I might recreate it --- just for fun.
​

Why don't you just tell us the point of the challenge? Would save time...

He who calleth forth the zombie thread, shall he after abideth long enough for ye regrets?

Hath we not seen zombies enough, and more, that ye should call forth yet more onto us?