The ice age and the flood

[cupid dave]

Sorry, cupid, I didn't go to Harharvard and study paleoanthropology; and I didn't go to Yale and study lockmaking.

Science is like a kite to me -- over my head, hanging by a string, and works best when it's blowing.

That is unimportant.
The point is that the people who did go to those schools can understand Genesis on the terms that it is factual.

It does not hurt you that they do not believe your explanation of the statements made in the Bible.

What is important is that those people who presently do not accept scripture because it is explained the way the churches insist is correct can see that the facts actually make a strong case for what the Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation explains.

Isn't it nice that everyone can see that Genesis is actually correct, regardless of the way they preceive that belief?

 

[cupid dave]

That shouldn't be an excuse, Skywriting keeps saying that even first grade kids can "do" science and no qualification is necessary to work in the field and teach science.

Of course he is just kidding.

He knows what scientist have told us about a beginning with the Big Bang, and all the waters collected around Pangea, and light appearing after the stars formed, and the Plant kingdom appearing before the Animal kingdom and the seven Eras that are described by the geologists, etc.

I am just appealing to his conscience, that he doesn't hinder science educated people from reading Genesis the way Dr Kofh as set it down in the Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation.

 

[Keachian]

What is important is that those people who presently do not accept scripture because it is explained the way the churches insist is correct can see that the facts actually make a strong case for what the Theistic Evolution Bible Interpretation explains.

Your solution is little more than a band aid on someone's arm that has been dismembered.

 

[Huram Abi]

Probably the most important one is Christ "the Lion of Judah"

Absolutely.

I suppose calling himself a doctor isn't such a big deal considering that.


Still, he shouldn't call himself a doctor, either.

 

[dad]

Yes, I need you to point out which assumption is faulty and why. We can't observed sub-atomic particles and gravity either, but we know they are there.

Look, the whole thing was bogus. Like this part..

"Stellar evolution is not studied by observing the life of a single star, as most stellar changes occur too slowly to be detected,"

So we are not talking actual observations! Just religion. Like the evolution of man. They see some ape head or something, and claim it is a man.

So...how do we KNOW that a star changes into the things they claim? We do not and cannot!

And when we do see a star blow up (supposedly) like SN1987a did they see it coming? No. They claim it must've been 2 stars if I recall that were there. Why? Because they run computer models and NEED 2 stars for a present earth state law based scenario to transpire! What a scam. What a farce. What a crock.

 

[CabVet]

Look, the whole thing was bogus. Like this part..

"Stellar evolution is not studied by observing the life of a single star, as most stellar changes occur too slowly to be detected,"

So we are not talking actual observations! Just religion. Like the evolution of man. They see some ape head or something, and claim it is a man.

So...how do we KNOW that a star changes into the things they claim? We do not and cannot!

And when we do see a star blow up (supposedly) like SN1987a did they see it coming? No. They claim it must've been 2 stars if I recall that were there. Why? Because they run computer models and NEED 2 stars for a present earth state law based scenario to transpire! What a scam. What a farce. What a crock.

Yeah, as I thought, you accuse the research of having false assumptions but cannot point out a single one of those. I will ask again, we cannot observe gravity either, or sub-atomic particles, or radioactivity, does that mean they don't exist?

If you were shown a photography of an old person, and one of a young person, would you be able to tell one was young and another was old? According to your logic, you would not, because you did not see them aging, there was no observation of anything.

 

[dad]

Yeah, as I thought, you accuse the research of having false assumptions but cannot point out a single one of those.

You fail to understand that claiming a star came to exist a certain way, but not having the power to have observed that is an assumption that cannot be proven in any way. Everything they say about time and deep space and the past here on earth is pure uncut, 100% belief. Since it is all smoke and no fire, when they claim man came from some ape thingie, or is related a worm, etc I can say that making such an ungodly unbiblical statement is false in every sense of the word. I would ce content with saying it is merely totally unknown, but since they love to pulpit pound their foolish fables and pawn them off as science ..false is a more accurate word.

I will ask again, we cannot observe gravity either, or sub-atomic particles, or radioactivity, does that mean they don't exist?

No. Of course gravity and forces and atoms exist. We know that. However, please explain exactly what force causes spin in an atom? What exactly is the strong and weak nuclear forces, what causes them, and makes them the exact way they are? What is time? What is space? You see, just because we can detect some physical objects and some forces that work on them near and on earth, does not mean that all the universe is the same and always was. You might as well say..'there is apple pie on my plate, so there is apple pie on alpha centauri'. Illogical.

If you were shown a photography of an old person, and one of a young person, would you be able to tell one was young and another was old? According to your logic, you would not, because you did not see them aging, there was no observation of anything.

False. Your in fishbowl, in box analogy happens under known laws and environment.

One cannot look at Adam, who is recorded to have lived over 930 real years, and compare that to anyone alive today, no matter how old.


If a snow machine makes snow, and it forms in layers, a casual observer might think those layers took months to form.

 

[CabVet]

One cannot look at Adam, who is recorded to have lived over 930 real years, and compare that to anyone alive today, no matter how old.

And that is why we cannot agree about anything. You accept that Adam lived 930 years based on a book written 2500 years ago yet do not accept real physical evidence about star (and organismal) evolution. So, all you say about science has no value to me.

 

[dad]

And that is why we cannot agree about anything. You accept that Adam lived 930 years based on a book written 2500 years ago yet do not accept real physical evidence about star (and organismal) evolution. ..

False I accept ALL evidence. Too bad you have none. It is belief. Sure we see atoms or molecules near stars, so what? Whether you accept the record of history and God is another matter. If not, too bad for you. It doesn't help your case.

 

[CabVet]

False I accept ALL evidence. Too bad you have none. It is belief. Sure we see atoms or molecules near stars, so what? Whether you accept the record of history and God is another matter. If not, too bad for you. It doesn't help your case.

So, not going to say which assumptions are wrong? Good to know.

 

[gipsy]

Look, the whole thing was bogus. Like this part..

"Stellar evolution is not studied by observing the life of a single star, as most stellar changes occur too slowly to be detected,"

So we are not talking actual observations! Just religion. Like the evolution of man. They see some ape head or something, and claim it is a man.

I think you should improve a little bit on your reading comprehension ...
Your quoted text doesn't say that there are no actual observations, but rather that we have to look at many stars in all different phases of "stellar evolution" to understand the process. It's not enough to look at one single star.

But I can understand it, it's just the way you work, you're only looking at a single book instead of all the others around you ... no wonder you can't grasp reality ...

 

[dad]

So, not going to say which assumptions are wrong? Good to know.

It is wrong to assume anything about laws in the far past when we do not actually know. That applies to assuming stars evolve rather than were created or men. Now get on with it.

 

[dad]

I think you should improve a little bit on your reading comprehension ...
Your quoted text doesn't say that there are no actual observations, but rather that we have to look at many stars in all different phases of "stellar evolution" to understand the process. It's not enough to look at one single star.

Nonsense. Too slowly to be observed mean that we have NOT observed stars evolving. Period. When you look at a variety of stars all you do is slap on the evolution belief to whatever one you look at, as if it got here that way. So there are NO ACTUAL observations of a star evolving.

But I can understand it, it's just the way you work, you're only looking at a single book instead of all the others around you ... no wonder you can't grasp reality ...

Rather than look at a single star, which you can't do in a meaningful way, you look at them all as if they were self created and in some throws of evolving. Then you make an anti bible book all about it. No wonder you cannot come to a knowledge of the truth.

If you had of looked at God's book and believed it you wouldn't be in such a mess. Pitiful.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is wrong to assume anything about laws in the far past when we do not actually know. That applies to assuming stars evolve rather than were created or men. Now get on with it.

-- You mean things were different back then!?

Next, I'll bet you'll say we lived to be 700, 800, and 900 years old!

 

[gipsy]

Nonsense. Too slowly to be observed mean that we have NOT observed stars evolving. Period. When you look at a variety of stars all you do is slap on the evolution belief to whatever one you look at, as if it got here that way. So there are NO ACTUAL observations of a star evolving.

I'm not discussing your dadology or reality or anything about "stellar evolution" with you, just your reading skills or lack thereof, and the text you quoted does not tell what you think.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

-- You mean things were different back then!?

Next, I'll bet you'll say we lived to be 700, 800, and 900 years old!

Except according to dad those lives would have been hyper accelerated, rather like a Benny Hill chase scene, only more so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except according to dad those lives would have been hyper accelerated, rather like a Benny Hill chase scene, only more so.

Does it matter?

Whether hyper-accelerated or real-time, the point is the same: things were different back then.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Does it matter?

Whether hyper-accelerated or real-time, the point is the same: things were different back then.

In a parallel universe where people lived to be 900 years old in a few nanoseconds, things would indeed be different. Luckily we live in this universe and the Benny Hill music can be saved for when we read dad's posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

In a parallel universe where people lived to be 900 years old in a few nanoseconds, things would indeed be different. Luckily we live in this universe and the Benny Hill music can be saved for when we read dad's posts.

I could be wrong, but I don't think dad is here to discuss parallel universes; and although I speak of Earth1 and Earth2, the two are consecutive, not concurrent.

 

[CabVet]

Does it matter?

Whether hyper-accelerated or real-time, the point is the same: things were different back then.

And there is zero evidence for that.