Creationism - Lazy Man's science?

[I_Love_Cheese]

We will find out at the rapture who will go with Jesus and who will remain behind. Those who are living free from sin can not die.

That wasn't the question, You raised the point that you believe a man in sin should not be trusted, I asked if you should be trusted?

 

[JohnR7]

"May we burn 'im?"

You would have to go through my wife to get to me and I do not think you will want to mess with the Filipino women.

 

[steen]

i don't know what your point is, there are Christians who enroll in medical school, and do very well.

But you really don't see any YEC enroll in medical school. Their views really xcan't be consolidated with science.

 

[JohnR7]

I asked if you should be trusted?

I said no, do not trust me, take everything I say to the word of God and see what God has to say about it. Or if it is science check it out for yourself to see if what I say is accurate or not. I expect that people are going to check out what I say and I also expect when they do they will find that I was pretty close to being accurate. Actually, that is a part of why I am here, to test what I say to see if anyone can find any fault in it.

 

[steen]

not much, the rough average between liquid and gas volume at atmospheric pressure is around 1000:1 so maybe 1/15000 of the water would be necessary to generate 1psi.

What was the calculation of the pressure and temp of the atmosphere if there truly was a firmament that could rain enough water for even 1000 feet of flooding?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

What was the calculation of the pressure and temp of the atmosphere if there truly was a firmament that could rain enough water for even 1000 feet of flooding?

sorry, I was not referring to anything specific, only that most gasses have about a 1000:1 ratio between liquid volume and gas volume at atmospheric pressure thus even if air pressure were constant with altitude, 100 miles of pure water vapor would only amount to 500 feet of water.

 

[kangitanka]

I said no, do not trust me

Of course not

take everything I say to the word of God and see what God has to say about it. Or if it is science check it out for yourself to see if what I say is accurate or not. I expect that people are going to check out what I say and I also expect when they do they will find that I was pretty close to being accurate. Actually, that is a part of why I am here, to test what I say to see if anyone can find any fault in it.

Wow!
You're looking to see if people find fault in your hypothesis?
Great!!

I found fault not only in your so-called "science" but also in your personal interpretation of Genesis 1
HERE
Post #340 of this thread

I notice that you are strangely silent on your mistaken personal interpretation of Gensis 1 (regarding water and ice)

 

[JohnR7]

I found fault not only in your so-called "science" but also in your personal interpretation of Genesis 1HERE Post #340 of this thread

The snowball earth is not my theory. I just mention it for anyone that wants to look into it and study up on what science has to say about it. Of course here is another example of where science can be used to verify the Bible. But the main thing is that science helps us come to a better and more accurate understanding of the Bible.

"The Snowball Earth hypothesis attempts to explain a number of phenomena noted in the geological record by proposing that an ice age that took place in the Neoproterozoic was so severe that the Earth's oceans froze over completely, with only heat from the Earth's planetary core causing some liquid water to persist under ice more than two kilometers thick. The general hypothesis has been around for several decades. Joseph Lynn Kirschvink, professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology coined the term "Snowball Earth" in 1992. The hypothesis has since been reformulated and championed by Paul F. Hoffman, Sturgis Hooper professor of geology at Harvard University and his colleague Daniel P. Schrag"

 

[Beastt]

You would have to go through my wife to get to me and I do not think you will want to mess with the Filipino women.

Nor would I have any desire to see any harm come to you, John. It was an obscure Monty Python reference. I may not agree with your views, but I certainly don't think any harm should come to anyone simply for holding a different view than my own.

 

[kangitanka]

The snowball earth is not my theory. I just mention it for anyone that wants to look into it and study up on what science has to say about it. Of course here is another example of where science can be used to verify the Bible. But the main thing is that science helps us come to a better and more accurate understanding of the Bible.

Riiight
" 1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water."

And then you argue (and I quote)-
"The Bible says nothing about "liquid" water. Why you added the word "liquid" I have no idea. Perhaps so you could argue against the word you added."
The red bolded part is mine for emphasis
And you went on to say-
"they had a word for frost, but there was no word for ice."
Again, the red bolded part is mine for emphasis.
Both arguments of yours are, as Ive shown, completely false.
Admit it
You were wrong

If you need a direct reference (since searching back through pages of posts is such a hassle), HERE it is

No really, just admit you were wrong in your assesment of "water" vs "ice" in Genesis 1:2 and I'll drop it.

C'mon, you're an honest christian, right? You can admit when you've made a mistake can't you?

 

[Beastt]

We will find out at the rapture who will go with Jesus and who will remain behind. Those who are living free from sin can not die.

Sinning? Do you mean like... oh... lying, perhaps? Lying is a sin, right? So if I were to say... claim I had evidence for something, all the while knowing I didn't, that would be a sin, right?

Don't worry about it, John. The Rapture is heavily over-rated. You'll be fine right here with all of us "heathens".

 

[Beastt]

So I was reading through this thread and noticed an interesting exchange regarding Genesis 1
I'll give the salient points of the conversation here-



The word used in Genesis 1 is mayim {mah'-yim}.
It is not 'ice', 'frost' or any other sort of solidified water.
The hebrew word for 'ice' and 'frost' is qerach {keh'-rakh} or qorach {ko'-rakh}, and is specifically mentioned in Job6, Job 38, and Psalms 147. Additionally, snow (another form of solidified water) is likewise mentioned, and it is (in the Hebrew) sheleg {sheh'-leg}. Again, not mayim.
So, beastt has some valid claim in stating that Genesis is speaking of liquid water. JohnR7, on the other hand, conflates mayim with qerach and sheleg.

In a nutshell, Genesis is not speaking of solidified water, and the language bears this out

Thank you for this additional information, kangitanka. It seemed to me that if the translators had any level of credibility at all, it would be expected that they would choose the proper English word to match the context in the Bible. But your information cinches the whole issue. The Bible says "water" because it's referring to liquid water. That won't be convenient for those of opposing desires but reality doesn't bend to desire.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I said no, do not trust me, take everything I say to the word of God and see what God has to say about it. Or if it is science check it out for yourself to see if what I say is accurate or not. I expect that people are going to check out what I say and I also expect when they do they will find that I was pretty close to being accurate. Actually, that is a part of why I am here, to test what I say to see if anyone can find any fault in it.

Except John, we have already done all that, and found your views lacking in every regard. All the while you continue to post them as if nothing has been said to contradict you, and you never post anything to substantiate what you say.

You are a fraud. You have lots of ideas, but when queried for evidence you fail to produce it every time. When presnted with the actual reality, you cannot understand it, and dodge or flat out ignore the post. When called on your dodging, you leave the thread and start up 2-5 irrelavant, and oft times out right silly threads that have no relation to the thread you just ran away from.


You are a sham. You have admitted that your knowledge of science is very shallow, and yet you still try to use science to defend your position. No one takes you at all seriously, not even the lurkers, who have on several occasions come out of lurking to tell you just how off base your views seem to be.

I have asked you over 20 times now to substantiate your claim that you have scientific evidence to back up your claims. You have ignored this request every time.

After this continued routine of ignoring questions put to you, I ask you how you can honestly expect anyoen to take anything you say at all seriously? You are even worse than the boy who cried wolf. At least in that tale he limited himself to one small village, you decry your ignorance to the entire internet.

 

[Beastt]

The point is that light has no fellowship with darkness. People claim not to "believe" in God, but really they just want to life a life of sin and they want to violate the moral laws of God. So to try to justify themselves they will try to claim that there is no God and that they will NOT be held accountable. But they will be held accountable.

John, I don't eat animals because they are living, sentient beings. As a sentient being myself, I find it beyond my ethics to thrust another sentient, feeling being into suffering and death when to do so would only be detrimental to all involved.

My discomfort with lying is so acute that friends consider my honesty to extend into the absurd; practicing Christian friends among them.

I live well below my means because I feel that everything I consume which I don't need, leaves less to be shared by the rest of the world.

I've even refused to report the most blatant of rule violations on the forum because I do not believe that rule violations constitute any real harm to anyone and thusly, returning such action with instigation of a negative action is simply seeking to deliver harm where no harm has been delivered to me.

I don't feel there is any harm in finding the form of particular females to be pleasing to the eye or stimulating to the hormones. In appreciating the female form I cause no harm to anyone. My ethics are built upon reason rather than superstition and prudity. I certainly don't hold my beliefs as any kind of excuse to avoid answering for my actions. I simply see no evidence to support the kind of beliefs which you hold. And when examining my standards of behavior against your own, perhaps you'd like to offer any instance where I have claimed to have evidence, but refused to present said evidence upon request.

 

[Beastt]

But you really don't see any YEC enroll in medical school. Their views really xcan't be consolidated with science.

Which is correct.

But more relevant to my original point, people are not prone to pursuing educations which are likely to refute their chosen beliefs. Atheists rarely attend Bible colleges. YECs don't take archaeology classes, etc.

Therefore, appealing to the expertise of biblical scholars as an indication of validity for Christian doctrine is a bit of circular reasoning.

 

[kangitanka]

Thank you for this additional information, kangitanka.

Null sheen

It seemed to me that if the translators had any level of credibility at all, it would be expected that they would choose the proper English word to match the context in the Bible.

And in this case, apparently, they did, as opposed to JohnR7's unbased assertions

But your information cinches the whole issue.

Im sure JohnR7 will 'pooh-pooh' it all away, despite the fact that he is wrong

The Bible says "water" because it's referring to liquid water. That won't be convenient for those of opposing desires but reality doesn't bend to desire.

Something JohnR7 has yet to learn


Thanks for your encouragement.
As a newbie here, I hope to be able to contribute something that's actually meaningful to these forums.

 

[JohnR7]

John, I don't eat animals because they are living, sentient beings.

There is no sentient involved with a cow. You are doing them a favor to eat them. But I would prefer not to eat five in a cage factory chickens or their eggs. What is not healthy for them I think is not healthy for me either. Of course you can eat whatever you want, what difference does that make to me. I am just glad that there are a lot of Amish growers around here so I can get food that science has not got a hold of to modify in some way. It use to be that food came out of a kitchen, but now it comes out of a lab, esp. with all the artificial flavor they use. It seems like the more science gets involved, the fatter people get in america and the more unhealthy they are. Esp. when "fast food" is a part of the formula somewhere.

 

[JohnR7]

Atheists rarely attend Bible colleges. YECs don't take archaeology classes, etc.

There are lots of "atheists" in "Bible college". As students and instructors. What about our own resident "atheist" that works in a christian high school.

 

[kangitanka]

There is no sentient involved with a cow.

That is not accurate
"[SIZE=-1]Sentience is the capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".) "
From HERE
Of course, being a "we are placed in domination of the planet"- type of Christian, I can see how you feel that cows (along with pigs, deer, elk, etc etc) aren't "self aware" (which I think is your definition of sentient)

[/SIZE]

You are doing them a favor to eat them.

Really?
Have you ever personally killed a cow?
Slowly, with its blood oozing out and it fighting for life?
I doubt you have
Trust me, it's not a pleasant outing when you see it fighting for its life.
Some people would say that eating a white man is a favor to the white man, but I doubt you agree with that


Ack! I think a wholly different thread needs to be dedicated to this subject (perhaps in the E&M forum?)

 

[kangitanka]

Oh, and JohnR7?
Im still looking for your actual rebuttal to THIS
post and THIS post
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=25455112#post25455112
I realize that you are a busy man (or so you claim) and have (according to what Ive read of your posts) ADHD, but Id appreciate a point by point rebuttal.

So far, all you've done is state that the Snowball Theory isnt your theory, which is irrelevant since you presented the theory as one that you possibly agree with (and I quote- " The Bible says nothing about 'liquid"'water. Why you added the word 'liquid' I have no idea." and "there was no word for ice")
In both cases, you were completely wrong.

So, point by point rebuttal
Or an admission that you were wrong

Either way

Of course, you could take the cowards way out and not answer at all (and what an embarassment that would be to the martyrs who DIED for their faith, yes?)

Yes, that's right. Ive seen how you completely derail threads with nonsense comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Im not going to let that happen here.

Point by point rebuttal
Or an admission that you were wrong

Either way