I've been at University for a while and have not responded to Pilgrim's rebuttals as they have appeared, so I will try to take them in chronological order:
First: on the Hypothesis that the fall of Satan caused a catastrophic super-physical shift in the structure of the entire cosmos:
How can one say that Satan caused a massive disturbance in the entire universe when the entire cosmos is the under dominion of the One, True God? How can an angel, whose supernatural potential to influence the Earth comes only from their Creator. It is my supposition that a mere angel could not weild such destructive power that the reality of the cosmos could be changed, merely by the Angel's (Satan's) own moral paradigm shift.
More than this, if it is the supposition of your theory that it was a paradigm shif in the way that God viewed the universe, let me ask you to consider the emotional and mental state of God Almighty: He is a being of Infinities in all of the capacities which are virtuous. This includes mental fortitude, clarity, and omnipresence, not only within the physical universe, but across time itself. To assume that God Almighty would experience a paradigm shift (which in this postulate is the only thing which could disrupt God's Creation, and I do emphasise that it is God's creation...) is to underestimate the very fortitude and pervasive nature of the Creator.
By this logic, I think that I must conclude that Satan, for as much as Popular Culture would equate him to Him, in any faculty, or even to assume that Satan has power enough from God to fundamentally disrupt His Creation, cannot be correct.
Part 2: The Evidence:
The evidence whch you have shown previously:
There are well-documented scientific studies which deal with changes in light-speed, that I have encountered previously, though none of these deal with a long-term decline in the actual speed of light throughout the universe. I would require a well-documented mathematical proof to substantiate this claim, preferrably something which has already gone through the process of peer-review.
It may be many things, but is is not atheist, and neither are are all who believe in a way similar to this. The Big Bang, the Old Earth and Older Cosmos, these are not ideas which dismiss God as a Creator; indeed, it is their antiquity, their beauty and their vastness which truely show the hand of God in all things. We do not argue against God, we argue to further the understanding of His glorious work. This is the true heart of the argument. But, I digress...
As for the Flood myth...
there are many theories which have been put foward to explain the Biblical Flood. The flooding of the Mediterranean Sea is the most probable. Though there has yet to be a proper investigation into the claims that this is the case, I will concede, pending furthur investigation, that that may be the source of the Biblical Flood. But bear in mind that floods are not uncommon, especially when the Ice begins to melt and breaks open the Srait of Gibraltar. But I'll leave stuff like that to you.
As for Satan (Back to the Ice in a bit...)
It is not that I beleive in Satan, but not his fall; it is that I interpret the stories regarding Satan as an allegory of the honeyed tongue corrupt men often use to persuade others to evil,(In an external sense) or, that it is the sweet voice our baser self uses when we convince ourselves to sin. Either way, it is not the story of the Fall, or that Satan is our pal, it is that I am not sure he exists as an individual entity. BTW: Proof of Satan will be equally hard to find as proof of God. To say that there is evil is not to say that we are not responisble, ourselves. Indeed, sometimes it seems that the only Satan is the one people conjure when they wish to sidestep responsibility for their own actions. But, on to the Ice Age... But one more thing:
If it is that I leave Truth to Philosophers and Theologians, it is only because I am no authority. Let those who have a better truth than I preach such a thing. But, as for what may or may not be a fact, I have ample time for... Like Ice
On the Ice...
the ice age is unlikely i think how would you get enough water to cover the globe. how would water turn to ice in the eguater were the tempeture is always way above freezing. Can you measure the rate of which the deserts in africa are growing and show when it started. And show how this shows a billion year old earth. I would think a gradual rise in the platonic plates would show a much different environment to that which is now there.
It is evidenced by the Great Lakes, which are fresh water (so much so that there is no accouning for it except by the melting of great glaciers) and the narrow, channels which line the shores of Scandinavia that there was a Global Ice Age. But this Ice Age was global in as much as WWI involved the whole world. Indeed, it is as Ron21647 said i his post: The glaciers are a North American, Northern Asia, Northern European Phenominon.
In an earlier post you stated that there was not enough sand on the bottom of the oceans. You attributed the primary source of mud, and sediment to the flowing of rivers into the oceans. But, with a vast area like North America (most of it) covered in ice, as well as N. Europe and N. Asia, it is not difficult to assume that the low of water from those areas would be greatly diminished, because most of the water that would normally flow across it is frozen. Moreover, this Ice Age would have an impact on the weather cycle and evaporation. Colder water, like in glaciers, would not evaporate so readily as it once did. Such a large discrepancy in the amount of water vapor would be a hinderance to the formation of clouds, and thusly, rain. For many thousands of years, this was the case. And this past Ice Age is not unique in Geological History. The primary falsehood in your 'lack of mud' argument is that the earth is not a static entitiy. It is constantly changing. Sometimes it gets hot, sometimes it is not. Sometimes Dry, sometimese wet. Sometimes the world has one Pangea, sometimes it has 7 continents and an Indian subcontinent. I think that I have made my point against any linear models concerning something like the earth. Remember EL NINO!!!
Anyway, I think that that is all of what you said; I await your response.
First: on the Hypothesis that the fall of Satan caused a catastrophic super-physical shift in the structure of the entire cosmos:
How can one say that Satan caused a massive disturbance in the entire universe when the entire cosmos is the under dominion of the One, True God? How can an angel, whose supernatural potential to influence the Earth comes only from their Creator. It is my supposition that a mere angel could not weild such destructive power that the reality of the cosmos could be changed, merely by the Angel's (Satan's) own moral paradigm shift.
More than this, if it is the supposition of your theory that it was a paradigm shif in the way that God viewed the universe, let me ask you to consider the emotional and mental state of God Almighty: He is a being of Infinities in all of the capacities which are virtuous. This includes mental fortitude, clarity, and omnipresence, not only within the physical universe, but across time itself. To assume that God Almighty would experience a paradigm shift (which in this postulate is the only thing which could disrupt God's Creation, and I do emphasise that it is God's creation...) is to underestimate the very fortitude and pervasive nature of the Creator.
By this logic, I think that I must conclude that Satan, for as much as Popular Culture would equate him to Him, in any faculty, or even to assume that Satan has power enough from God to fundamentally disrupt His Creation, cannot be correct.
Part 2: The Evidence:
The evidence whch you have shown previously:
There are well-documented scientific studies which deal with changes in light-speed, that I have encountered previously, though none of these deal with a long-term decline in the actual speed of light throughout the universe. I would require a well-documented mathematical proof to substantiate this claim, preferrably something which has already gone through the process of peer-review.
It matters to me. I am more of an Old-Earth Creationist myself. I think that you have mistaken your audience for Atheists. That god is eternal lends itself to the possibility that the creation of the Earth was not his first creation. How long did God wait in the emptiness of the Pre-universe before it occoured to Him to create the Earth and Men. It was never God's obligation to create us, though it is only on us that the Bible concerns itself. I think that the possibility exists that God created the Universe first, 13.5 Billion Years ago, and saw that it was good. Having seen photos from the Hubble telescope, I know it to be Good as well. How long did God sit in patience, marvelling at His own creation before beginning the Earth? The Earth itself was a marvel, even to God, for he considers not his creations to be trivial. How long did God watch the Jewel of the Cosmos, as he breathed life onto the Planet's surface? Have you never walked across a moon-lit beach and marvelled at God's artistic hand? Then came Man, to some, it was his finest creation, and he is marvelling at what we are becoming even now. God is proud of us, and I think that we are pleased by Him and all that he has created; not FOR us, however, the Cosmos and this Blessed Earth are gifts which God has shared with us. At least, that is what I think.
It may be many things, but is is not atheist, and neither are are all who believe in a way similar to this. The Big Bang, the Old Earth and Older Cosmos, these are not ideas which dismiss God as a Creator; indeed, it is their antiquity, their beauty and their vastness which truely show the hand of God in all things. We do not argue against God, we argue to further the understanding of His glorious work. This is the true heart of the argument. But, I digress...
As for the Flood myth...
there are many theories which have been put foward to explain the Biblical Flood. The flooding of the Mediterranean Sea is the most probable. Though there has yet to be a proper investigation into the claims that this is the case, I will concede, pending furthur investigation, that that may be the source of the Biblical Flood. But bear in mind that floods are not uncommon, especially when the Ice begins to melt and breaks open the Srait of Gibraltar. But I'll leave stuff like that to you.
As for Satan (Back to the Ice in a bit...)
It is not that I beleive in Satan, but not his fall; it is that I interpret the stories regarding Satan as an allegory of the honeyed tongue corrupt men often use to persuade others to evil,(In an external sense) or, that it is the sweet voice our baser self uses when we convince ourselves to sin. Either way, it is not the story of the Fall, or that Satan is our pal, it is that I am not sure he exists as an individual entity. BTW: Proof of Satan will be equally hard to find as proof of God. To say that there is evil is not to say that we are not responisble, ourselves. Indeed, sometimes it seems that the only Satan is the one people conjure when they wish to sidestep responsibility for their own actions. But, on to the Ice Age... But one more thing:
If it is that I leave Truth to Philosophers and Theologians, it is only because I am no authority. Let those who have a better truth than I preach such a thing. But, as for what may or may not be a fact, I have ample time for... Like Ice
On the Ice...
the ice age is unlikely i think how would you get enough water to cover the globe. how would water turn to ice in the eguater were the tempeture is always way above freezing. Can you measure the rate of which the deserts in africa are growing and show when it started. And show how this shows a billion year old earth. I would think a gradual rise in the platonic plates would show a much different environment to that which is now there.
It is evidenced by the Great Lakes, which are fresh water (so much so that there is no accouning for it except by the melting of great glaciers) and the narrow, channels which line the shores of Scandinavia that there was a Global Ice Age. But this Ice Age was global in as much as WWI involved the whole world. Indeed, it is as Ron21647 said i his post: The glaciers are a North American, Northern Asia, Northern European Phenominon.
In an earlier post you stated that there was not enough sand on the bottom of the oceans. You attributed the primary source of mud, and sediment to the flowing of rivers into the oceans. But, with a vast area like North America (most of it) covered in ice, as well as N. Europe and N. Asia, it is not difficult to assume that the low of water from those areas would be greatly diminished, because most of the water that would normally flow across it is frozen. Moreover, this Ice Age would have an impact on the weather cycle and evaporation. Colder water, like in glaciers, would not evaporate so readily as it once did. Such a large discrepancy in the amount of water vapor would be a hinderance to the formation of clouds, and thusly, rain. For many thousands of years, this was the case. And this past Ice Age is not unique in Geological History. The primary falsehood in your 'lack of mud' argument is that the earth is not a static entitiy. It is constantly changing. Sometimes it gets hot, sometimes it is not. Sometimes Dry, sometimese wet. Sometimes the world has one Pangea, sometimes it has 7 continents and an Indian subcontinent. I think that I have made my point against any linear models concerning something like the earth. Remember EL NINO!!!
Anyway, I think that that is all of what you said; I await your response.
Upvote
0
