• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by ThouShaltNotPoe, Apr 13, 2013.

  1. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,601
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    Yeah, that was it. It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that as more information was learned about the solar system astronomers and astrophysicists needed to use more precise language and classifications. It had to be about one man wanting money.

    :doh:
     
  2. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,707
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    oh I am following the debate just fine,

    sound's like you are making up definitions,

    never heard of "technical" definition.

    I have heard of scientific definitions,

    philosophic definitions,

    etc.

    never the technical one.

    please propound your case....
     
  3. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,707
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    the other poster is correct,

    the Bible does not change in the original manuscripts and is 97% or greater in accuracy to this alleged original texts.

    Some crossing of T's dotting of i's etc are different with different manuscripst but like I said it's less than 3% of the text.

    according to "evidence that demands a verdict"

    I could post the chapter for you to read if you wish.

    but AV1611

    is correct too.

    the 1611 is a very good translation, but there are 3 revisions of the 1611.

    I personally like I believe it's the 3rd revision of the 1611.

    the first had a lot of errors, I mean they were real bad. But I believe they corrected 90% of them in the first revision.

    (even critics will say that there may have been revisions but it was all one process of translation, not separate)
    http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html

    either way. It didn't come out correct at first.

    but like I said the original copies of manuscripts only have a 3% error rating, and those are only miniscule grammatical items not changing of phrases, thoughts or verses. The complete text is available, we know for sure what God said and what He did not.


    that is no longer a question.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2013
  4. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,707
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    even in your link which is wikipedia,

    is says nothing of a "technical" definition,

    I assume you mean the scientific definition?
     
  5. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +151
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    You can't let this go, can you? Ok then, so here we go.

    From thesaurus.com:

    technical [tek-ni-kuhl]
    Synonyms: abstruse, high-tech, industrial, mechanical, methodological, occupational, professional, restricted, scholarly, scientific, special, specialized, technological, vocational

    Now that we left that behind, for the history of the definition:

    "Before the discoveries of the early 21st century, astronomers had no real need for a formal definition for planets."

    "Because a new planet is discovered infrequently, the IAU did not have any machinery for their definition and naming. After the discovery of Sedna, it set up a 19-member committee in 2005, with the British astronomer Iwan Williams in the chair, to consider the definition of a planet."

    Source: IAU definition of planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Technically, there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006. When the Greeks observed the sky thousands of years ago, they discovered objects that acted differently than stars. These points of light seemed to wander around the sky throughout the year. We get the term "planet" from the Greek word "Planetes" - meaning wanderer."

    "It was the recent discovery of an object larger than Pluto within the Kuiper Belt that changed everything. Is this object, now named Eris, our 10th planet since it is larger than Pluto? This discovery and the naming of this new object prompted the IAU to discuss a scientific definition for the term planet."

    Source: Mission:Science
     
  6. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Using that definition, there are probably millions of planets in our solar system once we include the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and Oort cloud.

    How so?
     
  7. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    When in doubt, just start insulting scientists. Nice approach you have there. Yet another example of creationism's intellectual bankruptcy.
     
  8. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +6,334
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I will never understand the KJV only movement. To me it seems to verge on idolatry, they are arbitrarily assigning infallibility to one translation that was made 1600 years after the fact, as if Jesus Himself came down and translated it personally.
     
  9. StormanNorman

    StormanNorman Newbie

    619
    +3
    Agnostic
    Single
    You would think that this would put this whole Pluto nonsense to bed, but I'm not holding my breath .... :doh:
     
  10. Lucy Stulz

    Lucy Stulz Well-Known Member

    +53
    Other Religion
    Married
    :doh:

    Scientific, technical either or. Doesn't matter. The fact is that the word Planet did not have a technically defined (scientific) definition prior to 2006. Which means that if someone could find something flying across the sky relative to the more "fixed" stars (I used "fixed" losely there) just like the ancients they might call it a "planet".

    In 1939 when Pluto was first discovered we knew very little if anything about the Kuyper Belt or the fact there might be larger objects out there.

    Since you don't like Wiki I'll point you to the International Astronomical Union webpage that outlines RESOLUTION 5A

    (IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes | Press Releases | IAU)

    The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

    This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that "planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.

    Honestly the fact you are even finding something to debate on this baffles me. I really don't get what you and AV1611VET see in this debate point. I mean no offense but it appears to betray a fundamental and shockingly low threshold for understanding the topic.
     
  11. Lucy Stulz

    Lucy Stulz Well-Known Member

    +53
    Other Religion
    Married
    Ummmm...what about all the other astronomers who voted for the change? Are they rich too? Or did Neal DeGrasse Tyson strong arm everyone and intimidate them likea mafia don?

    Must be a fanstastical wonder-world some of you guys inhabit in which an astronomer in a relatively prestigious position already somehow "cashes" in on a technical definition.

    Oh, yeah, and if you can't address the technical point, then personal attacks serve the same purpose to elevate God, right?
     
  12. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +151
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    Oh but AV goes one step further. He thinks Adam and Eve spoke KJ era English and that is what will be spoken in heaven.
     
  13. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    It was a rigged vote, in my opinion.

    QV:
     
  14. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +151
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    In my opinion it was the right decision, otherwise we would have 23 "planets" in the solar system now, and possibly many more in the future. And if that was the case you would be here complaining just as much about the growing number of new "planets" instead of the "demotion" of Pluto.
     
  15. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    So it doesn't matter if it was rigged or not? so long as it was right in your eyes?

    Did you read her comment about "too many planets"?
     
  16. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    Why won't you ask yourself those same questions? Why does it matter to you if Pluto falls into the newly defined dwarf planet group?
     
  17. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET BELIEVE IN MIRACLES Supporter

    +42,004
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    9 is a groovy number.
     
  18. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +151
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    Your numerology is failed. If Pluto is back in, so will be many others and 9 won't be the number (as I said, closer to 23, perhaps more). What you are looking for is a new definition that neither matches the old, nor the current one, but one to make the number of planets coincide with what some consider completion (nine).
     
  19. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +151
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    I don't think it was rigged.

    I read it and I don't agree with her reasoning.
     
  20. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,953
    Agnostic
    8 is great.
     
Loading...