Is Astrology a science?

[Aaron112]

Trust me Mark,
A person cannot read the bible and come away a Calvinist.
One must be doctrinated to that belief system.

Trust who ? No thanks.
A person CAN read the Bible, as the religious leaders in Jesus' day did more than anyone you know, and they STILL sought to kill Jesus.
Today, religious leaders are STILL doing much harm, EVEN if they read the Bible.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Trust who ? No thanks.
A person CAN read the Bible, as the religious leaders in Jesus' day did more than anyone you know, and they STILL sought to kill Jesus.
Today, religious leaders are STILL doing much harm, EVEN if they read the Bible.

Still don't know what you're speaking of.
Sorry.

 

[Astrid]

I guess you and others are entitled to your own fevered imaginations.

Me too.

No one has ever proven truthfully that the flood did not happen.
When someone seeking truth goes into active research to try to prove the flood did not happen, or that Jesus did not live on earth,
they end up believing in Jesus and the flood.

Weird to some, true to all those seeking truth.

Seeking to " prove " what you have
decided in advance is the very definition
of intellectual dishonesty.

A very poor start on a Quest for Truth.

 

[Astrid]

Trust who ? No thanks.
A person CAN read the Bible, as the religious leaders in Jesus' day did more than anyone you know, and they STILL sought to kill Jesus.
Today, religious leaders are STILL doing much harm, EVEN if they read the Bible.

Fundamentalists for sure bring discredit

 

[Aaron112]

Seeking to " prove " what you have
decided in advance is the very definition
of intellectual dishonesty.

A very poor start on a Quest for Truth.

What was decided in advance ?
Why can't you or anyone else prove the flood did not happen, or that Jesus did not live on earth ?
You are not required to prove anything, but making dishonest statements like you did in this quoted post of yours, as if it proves anything , which it doesn't, does not help you in any way.

 

[Aaron112]

Still don't know what you're speaking of.
Sorry.

Maybe I misunderstood. What did you mean about reading the Bible in the post I quoted a couple different times and you replied asking a question what I meant ? Do you still think no one can read the Bible and come out a Calvinist or any other group ?

 

[dlamberth]

Obviously you're not listening.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Or maybe you're marching to a different drummer?

Oh...clearly a different drummer than you my friend.

 

[Aaron112]

Fundamentalists for sure bring discredit

And Unfundamentalists too. Men bring multitudes of discredit on mankind daily, politically, medically, religiously, educationally, financially, in basically anything and everything men get involved in, they prove themselves greedy or actors in the stage of life, or simply to not be what they want to appear to be, but they still want the approval of other men that they want approval from.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Maybe I misunderstood. What did you mean about reading the Bible in the post I quoted a couple different times and you replied asking a question what I meant ? Do you still think no one can read the Bible and come out a Calvinist or any other group ?

I believe that a person that reads the New Testament all on his own, will come away with the following ideas:

Man is a sinner detached from God.
He needs help.
Jesus loves us and died for us.
If we love and obey Jesus we can go to heaven, be right with God.

Anything other than that is theology and must be learned.

This is especially true of calvinist ideas that are nowhere to be found in the NT.

Do you agree?

 

[Aaron112]

Do you agree?

No. Too many flaws in the post.
Or maybe not a flaw, but an assumption ? Or not the same as the original post ?
Adding "all on his own" makes a huge difference in starting point, and
there is no one who can read the Bible "all on his own" as it is put in this thread/ posts.

 

[Tuur]

What is the Surrency Bright Spot?

The Surrency Bright Spot is a large geographic feature about nine miles (15 km) below the surface that reflects seismic waves. It's located near Surrency, Georgia, along the suture point between the old North American Plate and part of the African Plate. That's about all that's known about it. Speculation on what it is ranges from water trapped in the suture point to a pocket of gas trapped in the suture point, both under extreme pressure. Problem is the temperature at that depth should rule out water and maybe gas as well.

If you look for references on it, try to find the various science articles and papers. If you're not careful, you'll wind up with tales of a paranormal event that's said to have occurred in Surrency, as well as the Surrency Ghost Lights. Stick with the science; that's the interesting thing here.

 

[Tuur]

He's got his wires crossed.

I submit two major geological phenomena as evidence of the Flood: meandering rivers and white cliffs.

More appropriately, they would constitute evidence of God's cleanup afterwards.

The meandering rivers etching serpentine paths into the earth's surface; and the white cliffs being formed when God swept up coccoliths into nice neat piles.

Um...I know of a meander that became an oxbow lake during the US Civil War, when, during a flood, a river cut through the closest point. Rivers with oxbows aren't fixed. Even the Mississippi isn't fixed. I think there was a steamboat carrying a cargo of whiskey that sunk in the Mississippi, and it was found some years ago in what's now a corn field.

 

[AV1611VET]

Um...I know of a meander that became an oxbow lake during the US Civil War, when, during a flood, a river cut through the closest point. Rivers with oxbows aren't fixed. Even the Mississippi isn't fixed. I think there was a steamboat carrying a cargo of whiskey that sunk in the Mississippi, and it was found some years ago in what's now a corn field.

Interesting.

 

[dlamberth]

No one has ever proven truthfully that the flood did not happen.

There is zero evidence that a Global flood ever happened. The Earth itself clearly shows that truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is zero evidence that a Global flood ever happened. The Earth itself clearly shows that truth.

Maybe you need to look again.

Across the ages, sea levels have risen and fallen with temperatures—but Earth's total surface water was always assumed to be constant. Now, evidence is mounting that some 3 billion to 4 billion years ago, the planet's oceans held nearly twice as much water—enough to submerge today's continents above the peak of Mount Everest. The flood could have primed the engine of plate tectonics and made it more difficult for life to start on land.

SOURCE

 

[Tuur]

There is zero evidence that a Global flood ever happened. The Earth itself clearly shows that truth.

I wonder, though, what evidence we would see, based on nothing more than something I observed once. It was during a major flood. One location was maybe a mile from the river, another was maybe half a mile. Both were situated where the water backed onto the sites without much of a current. The result was no erosion and nothing in the way of sediment deposit. The only sign after the water went down was a stain on a wire fence.

How is this anecdote possibly applicable? Because the Genesis account of the flood not only says it rained, but that the water also came up from what it describes as the springs of the deep. Possibly making it similar to that event I observed? Don't know. A lack of current would have an impact on erosion, and that in turn on the amount of sediment.

This idea is double-edged, though. If it didn't cause significant erosion, some of the cited arguments in favor of the flood become meaningless. I'll also offer a counter-argument with the Antarctic ice cap with the question of why wouldn't it float off.

Just tossing out something. Not arguing about it one way or the other.

 

[dlamberth]

Maybe you need to look again.

SOURCE

There's a LOT of time difference between 3 or 4 billion years ago than the time line of the supposed Biblical flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a LOT of time difference between 3 or 4 billion years ago than the time line of the supposed Biblical flood.

Then give me a timeframe, please.

 

[Astrid]

What was decided in advance ?
Why can't you or anyone else prove the flood did not happen, or that Jesus did not live on earth ?
You are not required to prove anything, but making dishonest statements like you did in this quoted post of yours, as if it proves anything , which it doesn't, does not help you in any way.

I made no dishonest statement.
You misunderstand.

It's Iike this. Science cannot prove things.
But it's real good at DISPROVING.

The existence of polar ice hundreds of thousands
of years old disproves the flood.

What was decided in advance ?
In your account, persons unknown set out to
prove there was no flood.
See the preconceived conclusion?
Two big errors.
-not knowing science cannot prove anything
-starting with a conclusion
The first is dumb, the second is intellectual dishonesty

The correct procedure is to just gather evidence.
Like a detective. Get some evidence.
When he got a guess who did it, test it.
If it passes every test a he can think of,
maybe our detective has a chance to convict
the suspect.
But defense shows he was having High Tea with
the Queen in London. Not knocking over a 7-11
in Queens, NYC.

The detectives case is disproved.

It doesnt matter if he has ten thousand pieces
of what seemed good evidence. Our man was
in London, not NYC.
" Flood"?
It makes no difference how many clams you
find in the desert or on Everest, or how many
legends there are.

The ice is there, so, the flood wasnt.

 

[Astrid]

I wonder, though, what evidence we would see, based on nothing more than something I observed once. It was during a major flood. One location was maybe a mile from the river, another was maybe half a mile. Both were situated where the water backed onto the sites without much of a current. The result was no erosion and nothing in the way of sediment deposit. The only sign after the water went down was a stain on a wire fence.

How is this anecdote possibly applicable? Because the Genesis account of the flood not only says it rained, but that the water also came up from what it describes as the springs of the deep. Possibly making it similar to that event I observed? Don't know. A lack of current would have an impact on erosion, and that in turn on the amount of sediment.

This idea is double-edged, though. If it didn't cause significant erosion, some of the cited arguments in favor of the flood become meaningless. I'll also offer a counter-argument with the Antarctic ice cap with the question of why wouldn't it float off.

Just tossing out something. Not arguing about it one way or the other.

Ice floats, breaks up and melts.
What else is there to say?