My India Challenge

[AV1611VET]

No, it's definitely not basic doctrine. It's your own personal extra-Biblical doctrine.

Tell that to the guys at the source I quoted.

They'll straighten you out.

And while I appreciate you giving me credit for having made this up -- you're wrong.

As usual.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tell that to the guys at the source I quoted.

They'll straighten you out.

And while I appreciate you giving me credit for having made this up -- you're wrong.

As usual.

Except that you are the one calling it 'basic doctrine', not them. So I am correct to say that is your own extra-Biblical doctrine.

So you've not shown me to be wrong. As usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I am correct to say that is your own extra-Biblical doctrine.

I see.

Would I be off the hook if I said the breakup came during the Flood?

Or would I still be making that up as well?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I see.

Would I be off the hook if I said the breakup came during the Flood?

Or would I still be making that up as well?

It's definitely against the evidence from God's own creation, but we've long since found out that God's own creation doesn't mean squat to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's definitely against the evidence from God's own creation, but we've long since found out that God's own creation doesn't mean squat to you.

Second time:

If I said Pangaea was broken up by the Flood, would you accuse me of making it up?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Second time:

If I said Pangaea was broken up by the Flood, would you accuse me of making it up?

Second time:

It's definitely against the evidence from God's own creation, but we've long since found out that God's own creation doesn't mean squat to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Second time:

It's definitely against the evidence from God's own creation, but we've long since found out that God's own creation doesn't mean squat to you.

Have a nice day, Warden.

Learn some doctrine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Either that, or it's my way of showing how science can take a hike.

Or in other words, to inject yourself into topics on which you have no expertise or even deep knowledge and nothing to offer and by that injection propagate an anti-science message.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or in other words, to inject yourself into topics on which you have no expertise or even deep knowledge and nothing to offer and by that injection propagate an anti-science message.

When the Bible says something, and science says otherwise, at times it will pique my interest as to how science can be so wrong.

I don't think there's anything wrong with issuing thought-provoking challenges that garner discussions whereby we both learn doctrine and critique one-another's side.

In this case I issued a challenge concerning India and the Himalayan mountains.

I since learned that Pangaea broke into two giant continents: Laurasia & Gondwana, that India followed Gondwana, then broke off and went to Laurasia, and even how scientists came up with how far it traveled.

By the same token, I like to think you guys learned that some of us believe that God broke the earth up in Peleg's time, kinetic energy wouldn't have hindered God's will by boiling the oceans away, and that India didn't have to travel across any ocean.

Unfortunately emotions got in the way when science was challenged.

 

[dlamberth]

Interesting read on possible geological future for the Indian Plate and the Himalayas.

"Now, a new analysis of earthquake waves traveling beneath Tibet and telltale gases rising to the surface points to yet another possibility, one that in effect splits the difference between the two scenarios. Part of the Indian Plate appears to be “delaminating” as it slides under the Eurasian Plate, with the dense bottom part peeling away from the top. The study also finds evidence for a vertical fracture, or tear, at the boundary between the peeled-apart section of the slab and its intact neighbor."

https://www.science.org/content/art...wJKrvRHNfRGX82EpPg-uyFcucC6o6Q8649o1b8BB7skqI

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting read on possible geological future for the Indian Plate and the Himalayas.

"Now, a new analysis of earthquake waves traveling beneath Tibet and telltale gases rising to the surface points to yet another possibility, one that in effect splits the difference between the two scenarios. Part of the Indian Plate appears to be “delaminating” as it slides under the Eurasian Plate, with the dense bottom part peeling away from the top. The study also finds evidence for a vertical fracture, or tear, at the boundary between the peeled-apart section of the slab and its intact neighbor."

https://www.science.org/content/art...wJKrvRHNfRGX82EpPg-uyFcucC6o6Q8649o1b8BB7skqI

My Tectonic Plates Challenge

 

[sjastro]

When the Bible says something, and science says otherwise, at times it will pique my interest as to how science can be so wrong.

I don't think there's anything wrong with issuing thought-provoking challenges that garner discussions whereby we both learn doctrine and critique one-another's side.

In this case I issued a challenge concerning India and the Himalayan mountains.

What this thread has revealed which is nothing new is your opposition to science based on low brow anti-intellectual emotive responses.
On the flip side of the coin your comments are probably offensive to many conservative Christians who have no time for science by your reading things into the Bible rather than what the Bible actually states.

I since learned that Pangaea broke into two giant continents: Laurasia & Gondwana, that India followed Gondwana, then broke off and went to Laurasia, and even how scientists came up with how far it traveled.

By the same token, I like to think you guys learned that some of us believe that God broke the earth up in Peleg's time, kinetic energy wouldn't have hindered God's will by boiling the oceans away, and that India didn't have to travel across any ocean.

Here is something else for you to learn, the evidence.
The fossils of the extinct gymnosperm Glossopteris have only been found in South America, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, and Antarctica.
The evidence therefore tells you India was once part of Gondwana and not Laurasia which was composed of Asia, Europe and North America.
India separated from Gondwana and eventually collided with the Eurasian plate with the Himalayas formed in the collision process.

I also explained to you in post #24, India sits on the Indo-Australia plate which also includes parts of the Indian, Antarctic and Pacific oceans, so it makes absolutely no sense to state India didn’t float off because God boiled the ocean away.
The plate sits on the Earth’s mantle not water.

This leads me to another point your so called Boolean standards.
Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x.
The Bible says nothing about the Glossopteris fossils so therefore you go by the science which proves India collided into the Eurasian plate and therefore your distortion of the Bible is wrong.
So which is it going to be, admitting you are wrong or being a hypocrite for not following your own standards.

Unfortunately emotions got in the way when science was challenged.

Your contribution to the emotions is the science can take a hike remark.

 

[AV1611VET]

What this thread has revealed which is nothing new is your opposition to science based on low brow anti-intellectual emotive responses.

Save it, Astro.

You're just demonstrating what I said about emotions running high when science is critiqued.

On the flip side of the coin your comments are probably offensive to many conservative Christians who have no time for science by your reading things into the Bible rather than what the Bible actually states.

Then let them explain where India came from.

I don't find their comments about the continents being created in Noah's time offensive; why would they find my comments about the continents being created in Peleg's time offensive?

Here is something else for you to learn, the evidence.

There isn't anything to learn.

The fossils of the extinct gymnosperm Glossopteris have only been found in South America, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, and Antarctica.

So?

Big deal.

They weren't found all over the earth.

Have you ever heard of ecological niches?

So there's an area in Pangaea that have these gymnosperms.

Then the split comes in Peleg's time, and India goes one way with them, Australia another way with them, America another way, and Antarctica another.

If they found sapote trees in Louisiana, would you claim Louisiana broke away from Mexico, crossed the Gulf, and slammed into the southern United States?

The evidence therefore tells you India was once part of Gondwana and not Laurasia which was composed of Asia, Europe and North America.

Wow.

Let me ask you this:

Has anything been found in Gondwana that was indigenous to Laurasia?

Did Florida break away from Australia because both have eucalyptus trees?

India separated from Gondwana and eventually collided with the Eurasian plate with the Himalayas formed in the collision process.

Ya -- so I hear.

I also explained to you in post #24, India sits on the Indo-Australia plate which also includes parts of the Indian, Antarctic and Pacific oceans,

I don't care where India sits or sat.

... so it makes absolutely no sense to state India didn’t float off because God boiled the ocean away.

Fair enough.

India didn't float off because God boiled the ocean away.

The plate sits on the Earth’s mantle not water.

Neat.

This leads me to another point your so called Boolean standards.

Here we go -- another QED.

Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x.
The Bible says nothing about the Glossopteris fossils so therefore you go by the science which proves India collided into the Eurasian plate and therefore your distortion of the Bible is wrong.

Maybe you'd better check with my Prime Directive first, before you trot this out.

So which is it going to be, admitting you are wrong or being a hypocrite for not following your own standards.

I'll go with my Prime Directive:

Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Your contribution to the emotions is the science can take a hike remark.

Sorry it bothers you.

Science is where you invested a lot of your treasure, isn't it?

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're just demonstrating what I said about emotions running high when science is critiqued.

SMH. Frankly your schtick is so worn, it takes no engagement just to jump to the end of the discussion and make the concluding post. No emotions required.

 

[sjastro]

Save it, Astro.
You're just demonstrating what I said about emotions running high when science is critiqued.

I’m stating facts your posts are illogical, irrational and dishonest particularly when you refer to critiquing science when in fact you are attacking it because you see it as a threat to your faith.

Then let them explain where India came from

I don't find their comments about the continents being created in Noah's time; why would they find my comments about the continents being created in Peleg's time be offensive to them?

The Bible is supposed to be a source of enlightenment, you treat the Bible as a justification for ignorance by deliberately misinterpreting the passages to suit your own means.
I'm not the only individual in this thread that has made the same observation.

There isn't anything to learn.
So?
Big deal.
They weren't found all over the earth.
Have you ever heard of ecological niches?
So there's an area in Pangaea that have these gymnosperms.
Then the split comes in Peleg's time, and India goes one way with them, Australia another way with them, America another way, and Antarctica another.
If they found sapote trees in Louisiana, would you claim Louisiana broke away from Mexico, crossed the Gulf, and slammed into the southern United States?

Wow.
Let me ask you this
Has anything been found in Gondwana that was indigenous to Laurasia?
Did Florida break away from Australia because both have eucalyptus trees?

What are you going on about?
Of course there were species indigenous to both which had a common ancestor before Pangea split into Gondwana and Laurasia.
What you appear not to understand is Glossopteris evolved after Pangea split and only in Gondwana.
It could not spread into Laurasia as there was a physical barrier called an ocean which prevented this.
Your whataboutisms characteristically don’t make any sense.

Ya -- so I hear.
I don't care where India sits or sat.
Fair enough.
India didn't float off because God boiled the ocean away.
Neat.

Don’t let the science get in the way it might destroy your reputation for being willfully ignorant.
Since you want to use the Bible as a form of citation in a science forum point out where the Bible explicitly mentions India didn’t float because God boiled the ocean away and what is the supportive evidence for this.

Here we go -- another QED.
Maybe you'd better check with my Prime Directive first, before you trot this out.
I'll go with my Prime Directive:
Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

It amazes me how you are completely blind to the contradiction.
If the Prime Directive is the Bible is not be contradicted then,

Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x clearly does contradict the Prime Directive.

In this case ø can be something that is an unknown to the Bible and x is the case where it is known to science.
The condition is to go by the science which a clear contradiction of the Prime Directive.

Sorry it bothers you.
Science is where you invested a lot of your treasure, isn't it?
Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

What bothers me as I have mentioned on many occasions is your hypocrisy in attacking the science while conveniently sponging off the benefits the science has given you.

 

[AV1611VET]

It amazes me how you are completely blind to the contradiction.
If the Prime Directive is the Bible is not be contradicted then,

Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x clearly does contradict the Prime Directive.

Example One:

The Bible does not say Force is the product of mass and acceleration.

Science does.

Therefore I go with science and believe that F=ma.

Example Two:

The Bible does not say India skirted across the ocean over a period of millions of years.

Science does.

BUT, in this case, I can't go with science and believe that, because it would contradict the Prime Directive.

Got it now?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Example One:

The Bible does not say Force is the product of mass and acceleration.

Science does.

Therefore I go with science and believe that F=ma.

Example Two:

The Bible does not say India skirted across the ocean over a period of millions of years.

Science does.

BUT, in this case, I can't go with science and believe that, because it would contradict the Prime Directive.

Got it now?

We've seen your "heuristic" and we just don't care.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've seen your "heuristic" and we just don't care.

That's why I have to explain them all the time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's why I have to explain them all the time.

Perhaps you don't understand, but we do. We know what you are trying to say and we just aren't interested in it.

 

[sjastro]

Example One:

The Bible does not say Force is the product of mass and acceleration.

Science does.

Therefore I go with science and believe that F=ma.

Example Two:

The Bible does not say India skirted across the ocean over a period of millions of years.

Science does.

BUT, in this case, I can't go with science and believe that, because it would contradict the Prime Directive.

Got it now?

You have answered my question on whether you are prepared to admit your interpretations of the Bible are wrong or for being a hypocrite for violating your own “heuristics”.
The answer is the latter given the two examples indicate you are prepared to pick and choose what does and doesn’t meet
criteria 4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x.

In other words your “heuristic” is useless because your decision is based on personal opinion rather than an execution of your “heuristic”.
The situation is made even more ridiculous because you have used the Bible to claim India has never moved because God boiled the ocean in which case the appropriate “heuristic” is criteria 2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x.

I challenged you to show me where your claim is explicitly stated in the Bible and the evidence behind it.
Given you avoided to provide the answer means this “heuristic” bombs out as well.
I rest my case.