Old age earth based prophets jailed

[CabVet]

No heat when plates move on a worldwide scale fast then according to you? Why?

Heat and plate movement have nothing to do with the Hawaiian islands or any other hotspot, neither does friction.

 

[dad]

Heat and plate movement have nothing to do with the Hawaiian islands or any other hotspot, neither does friction.

Interesting claim. Let's see you prove it. I say it does, most likely. We sure can't invoke a hot core from a big bang sequence in imaginary time.

 

[CabVet]

Interesting claim. Let's see you prove it. I say it does, most likely. We sure can't invoke a hot core from a big bang sequence in imaginary time.

When you prove your different state past I will prove my claims.

 

[dad]

Evolve? Did you just say evolve?

Yes. Of course. I accept that man and beast and plants evolved from the original created kinds. That was a created ability.

And as far as I know, landmasses cannot "be fruitful and multiply".

Stars apparently do. People sure do, as do fish

 

[dad]

When you prove your different state past I will prove my claims.

So your ability to prove your own claims rests on a different state past. OK. Bizarre.

 

[CabVet]

So your ability to prove your own claims rests on a different state past. OK. Bizarre.

Let me try to be very clear. I don't like double standards. When you say there was a "different state past" and we ask for evidence, you say "you can't prove me wrong". Now every time you ask me for evidence for any of my claims I will apply the same standard that you use and simply answer "you can't prove me wrong" until you stop with the double standard (either produce evidence for your claims or stop asking evidence for other people's claims, got it?).

 

[Tiberius]

No problem. Name something specific.

I'm asking YOU to provide support, dad. I'm not going to provide anything. YOU have to do the work.

It isn't mine it is just how it was.

Quibbling over semantics. YOU show US evidence that supports a different state past. I don't care who first came up with the silly idea.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you say there was a "different state past" and we ask for evidence, you say "you can't prove me wrong".

CabVet, when we speak of a different state past, we mean that everything after the sixth day of creation was complete & perfect.

No death of humans or animals; nothing "ran down;" the air & soil were at maximum purity; the gene pool was in its purest form; light traveled through space unimpeded by dust & debris; the earth was one tropical climate (no polar caps) ... yea, everything was perfect.

Then the Fall.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

the gene pool was in its purest form

What is an impure gene pool?

 

[RickG]

the earth was one tropical climate (no polar caps) ... yea, everything was perfect.

Then the Fall.

AV, this is the part of creationism that I have a real problem with. Have you ever thought of asking yourself why you or anyone has to go into some totally unfounded assertion about things we know were not true in order to reconcile ones beliefs with the bible. Do we have to make stuff up to keep our faith? There is nothing in the bible that suggests that there were no polar ice caps. The bible speaks of nothing that can be observed outside the ancient biblical lands.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is an impure gene pool?

You know ... a gene pool with floaties in it.

People are being born with genetic problems nowadays and stuff.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, this is the part of creationism that I have a real problem with. Have you ever thought of asking yourself why you or anyone has to go into some totally unfounded assertion about things we know were not true in order to reconcile ones beliefs with the bible. Do we have to make stuff up to keep our faith? There is nothing in the bible that suggests that there were no polar ice caps. The bible speaks of nothing that can be observed outside the ancient biblical lands.

This is probably because you believe in that gnostic creation junk; that the earth was depicted as having some kind of solid dome over it.

Some believe* that the earth was surrounded by a water canopy that refracted & reflected the sun's rays around it, producing a tropical atmosphere year round.

* I used to be a staunch supporter of the water canopy model, but I'm leaning more toward a giant ice ball (or even ice cube) in space.

Note here in Genesis, it says:

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
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.

Picture the earth at this time as nothing more than a ball of water (Terra Aqua, I like to call it). Now go about five miles underneath the surface of the waters and create a firmament (containment field) and "balloon" the waters out from the earth in all directions (i.e. all 120,600 degrees [360x360]).

You now have the sea, the sky, and the waters which are 'above the firmament'. Those waters are what some say is a water canopy above the earth, that came raining down on it when God 'opened the windows of heaven' in the days of Noah.

You may not agree with this, that's your prerogative ... you paid good money to learn otherwise, and where your treasure is, there will your heart be also ... but anyway, you may not agree with this, but to say ...

The bible speaks of nothing that can be observed outside the ancient biblical lands.

... is assuming too much.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, Rick, et.al., I salute all of you veterans who served/are serving this great country in the armed forces.

I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran myself; thus the 'VET' at the end of my name.

 

[RickG]

This is probably because you believe in that gnostic creation junk; that the earth was depicted as having some kind of solid dome over it.

I do not. I believe in the known science. Genesis is only a story, an allegory.

Some believe* that the earth was surrounded by a water canopy that refracted & reflected the sun's rays around it, producing a tropical atmosphere year round.

Again, ask yourself why people have to make things up. We know that not to be true.

*

I used to be a staunch support of the water canopy model, but I'm leaning more toward a giant ice ball (or even ice cube) in space.

Why, when the known science through physical evidence shows neither to be true.

Note here in Genesis, it says:

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
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.

Picture the earth at this time as nothing more than a ball of water (Terra Aqua, I like to call it). Now go about five miles underneath the surface of the waters and create a firmament (containment field) and "balloon" the waters out from the earth in all directions (i.e. all 120,600 degrees [360x360]).

You now have the sea, the sky, and the waters which are 'above the firmament'. Those waters are what some say is a water canopy above the earth, that came raining down on it when God 'opened the windows of heaven' up in the days of Noah.

More creative interpretation. Creative interpretation abandons the literal interpretation.

You may not agree with this, that's your prerogative ... you paid good money to learn otherwise,

Actually Uncle Sam paid the bills then via the G.I. Bill.

and where your treasure is, there will your heart be also ... but anyway, you may not agree with this, but to say ...
... is assuming too much.

Yes, we both believe differently. From what you post, you seem to believe in a literal Genesis 1, which includes a creative interpretation that ignores real science and makes its own psudo-science up in order to reconcile what even you seem to be contradictory.

I, on the other hand just accept Genesis 1 as an allegory about creation. That way I don't have to make things up or force square pegs into a round hole. The bible does not have to be 100% literal, it can include allegories, metaphors, and parables.

 

[RickG]

By the way, Rick, et.al., I salute all of you veterans who served/are serving this great country in the armed forces.

I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran myself; thus the 'VET' at the end of my name.

And to you as well AV, thanks for serving.

 

[verysincere]

By the way, Rick, et.al., I salute all of you veterans who served/are serving this great country in the armed forces.

I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran myself; thus the 'VET' at the end of my name.

That prompts its own topic. I've always found it interesting how those who never served in Vietnam nevertheless reference Nam in speaking of their "era" of service. I don't think I've ever heard any of my fellow vets call themselves "WWII Era Veterans" or "Koren War Ear Veterans", but "Vietnam Era Veteran" is a self-description that gets announced often nowadays--especially by those who signed up after Nixon started the pullout. I even see it in obituaries of vets who enlisted after Vietnam. I wonder if any studies have been published on that topic. Many who served in Vietnam avoid mentioning the place while those who were fortunate to have missed out on that Hades and never toured there seem much more prone to mentioning the country in their self-description. Why is that?

 

[CabVet]

You know ... a gene pool with floaties in it.

People are being born with genetic problems nowadays and stuff.

"Nowadays"? People have always been born with genetic problems.

 

[CabVet]

By the way, Rick, et.al., I salute all of you veterans who served/are serving this great country in the armed forces.

I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran myself; thus the 'VET' at the end of my name.

Hooray Vets!

 

[dad]

Let me try to be very clear. I don't like double standards. When you say there was a "different state past" and we ask for evidence, you say "you can't prove me wrong".

No, I point out that you can't prove you right for you fundamental science claims. I am not the one claiming science knows!! You are, are you not?? Man up.

Now if you claim that thermodynamics and plate movements etc have nothing to do with hot spots you ought to say what you think does.

 

[dad]

I'm asking YOU to provide support, dad. I'm not going to provide anything. YOU have to do the work.

I have knowledge to go by. I have times and dates and a record of many things in the past. I can compare this to the fossil record plate movements and etc as well. I see no problem. Now, do you have a science claim you can support that you think can oppose God's version or not??

Quibbling over semantics. YOU show US evidence that supports a different state past. I don't care who first came up with the silly idea.

The state of the past is not an idea or a claim just a matter of fact and record. Nothing about it is a so called science claim and no one thinks science can confirm or deny. Science is small. Fairly insignificant in the creation issues, and future and past.