Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We've read a lot of the same books.Yeah, I've read those types of accounts too. It's rather common that there's a lot of stuff found in various rock layers that "shouldn't be there".
Good question?
Yeah, there's evidence of early Mesopotamian writing in Canada.
There's also theories I've heard people say that there's remnants of early astronomical calendars (similar to Stonehenge) in North America too. Although there's not enough that's been unearthed to verify that for certain.
There's a lot of that type of stone architecture around the world that people can't explain. The Sphinx was underwater at some point; which makes me wonder if it was derived from some other pre-flood structure? (But the flood was like 7000 or so years ago.)
Interesting, if you line up the patriarchs ages in the Bible, except for where it says "he called his name..." we get a planet that's a little more than 13,000 years old at this point. Which raises some interesting questions. There were originally 12 tribes; then 13. 12 apostles; then 13? Does that mean anything? (I don't know?)
Another interesting thing I found in Revelation. The "1000 year reign". The term "thousand years" is a "duel plural". Does that mean 2000 years? Well 2000 years post crucifixion is 2033 AD. Does that mean anything? (I don't know that either.)
This I wasn't aware of. Interesting.
This would support my theory that the flood was initiated from a tidal wave that started on one side of Pangea. Now if we are looking at multiple sized rock fragments hitting earth.
Apparently I'm not the only one who has this theory: (and lookie - these Harvard professors think it hit off the coast of Mexico!)
New theory behind Chicxulub impactor that killed the dinosaurs
New theory explains origin of comet that killed the dinosaurs.news.harvard.edu
AND; does this make you wonder about the large fresh water basin that's basically under the western half of the North American continent? That has intrigued me. I'm not aware of any other underground fresh water basin that big anywhere else on the planet.
I've heard this too. But that begs the question too of fossils laid down during the flood conceivably could be flipped from volcanic activity too. There are several examples of intersecting layers of rock that are "out of alignment too". Then there's examples of places where there's just big stacks of sedimentary rock jutting up out of the plains. Then the Grand Canyon is basically a big crack in the ground. Look at the sediment layout inside of it. Erosion doesn't do that. That's an earthquake fault line.
Thank you. I will definitely check that out.@Wolseley - Speaking of "scientific research" you might find this interview fascinating: They talk about the academic dishonesty in this interview. It's fascinating!
James Linsey is a mathematician and he wrote a paper on mathematic calculations about glaciers and geology. They rejected the paper because there was "no notations" from "a female viewpoint" or reference to "native mythology on the formation of ice".
Venus comet THEORY:
Eight New Reasons To Accept the Revised Venus Theory
Here are eight new reasons to accept the Revised Venus Theory, improving on the original Venus Theory of Immanuel Velikovsky.www.scientiapress.com
The mass and radius of Venus have nothing to do the question of the origin or age of the universe.
So?"Scientific" assessments of origin and age are THEORIES.
What is your point other than you apparently have no proper conception of a scientific theory.Measurement of a planet is a potentially observable phenomena; (go back and read my initial response) provided we are capable of getting close enough to evaluate the accuracy of the measurement.
Nice try though.
A theory is an opinion. A theory is not a fact.
"Scientific" assessments of origin and age are THEORIES.
Venus comet THEORY:
You really don't understand what a theory is when used in science, do you?
Like the CEN theory?
I don't even think you actually care.
It doesn't matter if I care or not, does it?
A theory is still a theory, is it not?
And I thought heaven was just an imaginative name for the atmosphere above the cloud layer. So what is heaven? And is there more than one?Second Heaven -- not Third.
And I thought heaven was just an imaginative name for the atmosphere above the cloud layer. So what is heaven? And is there more than one?
BTW: I'd still like someone to explain why God didn't know from the start that widespread wickedness would fill the world. And why in post-flood modern times—where human beings (as the Bible would suggest) are all descendants of Noah—do we still find horrific evil and reprehensible behavior everywhere? What did the flood accomplish?
And I thought heaven was just an imaginative name for the atmosphere above the cloud layer.
So what is heaven? And is there more than one?
So what is heaven? And is there more than one?
A theory (doesn't matter what field it is) is still someone's opinion.You really don't understand what a theory is when used in science, do you?
A "theory" even if they say it's "scientific" is still someone's opinion. As hard as you try, you can't escape that reality.Of course they don't, but then again neither does a flood on an obscure planet.
So?
What is your point other than you apparently have no proper conception of a scientific theory.
NASA has a.... THEORY that comets aren't just made of ice. What comets are actually made of; we've never gotten close enough to know for sure. The THEORY is that they are made of ice and dust; but that theory has never been proven that this is the only thing they are made out of.Venus *ISN'T* a comet. Period. The whole concept is laughable. Venus is too dense to be made of ice. And it doesn't matter what kind of stupid claim you can find on the internet. It is still just that -- a foolish claim in opposition to the actual observed data.
No, it isn't. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework that is well tested and supported by evidence.A "theory" even if they say it's "scientific" is still someone's opinion. As hard as you try, you can't escape that reality.
Not any serious scientists. Who are these cranks?Several scientist have a THEORY that Venus was a comet. I'm not saying It is or not. I'm just pointing out that this is one theory.
No, theories are far better than mere facts.Apparently you don't know what the word "theory" means. Theories are not facts.
Some thing that's "well tested and supported by evidence" is not a theory; that's a fact. 2+2 is always 4; that's a fact; not a theory.No, it isn't. A scientific theory is an explanatory framework that is well tested and supported by evidence.
Space craft have flown close enough to comets to observe the nucleus up close:NASA has a.... THEORY that comets aren't just made of ice. What comets are actually made of; we've never gotten close enough to know for sure.
The THEORY is that they are made of ice and dust; but that theory has never been proven that this is the only thing they are made out of.
You should really stop while you're behind.Now people on earth may see something they call a comet; but is what they are seeing made of ice and dust? Not necessarily.
So you can't prove that anything people have seen they've called "a comet" is only made out of ice and dust.
Which of course is another theory that NASA can't actually prove that comets are only made out of ice and dust.
Yes, and the problem that a lot of people on this thread seem to have; is admitting that they just don't know.We've read a lot of the same books.There are some schools of thought that speculate that rather than being worn down by erosion over millions of years by the Colorado River, the Grand Canyon was created in half an hour by an ocean sloshing across the continent and carving it out. (shrug)
Some thing that's "well tested and supported by evidence" is not a theory; that's a fact. 2+2 is always 4; that's a fact; not a theory.
The fact that something is called a theory proves that it's not a fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?