Noah in New Jersey

[AV1611VET]

And that post flies completely in the face of what all of the evidence shows and what the Bible says.

I'll bet you think it rained on the earth before the Flood too, don't you?

You don't have a clue what the earth was like before the Flood, do you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll bet you think it rained on the earth before the Flood too, don't you?

You don't have a clue what the earth was like before the Flood, do you?

I've probably got a better clue than you do. At least I'm not the one relying on shoddy ad-hoc reasoning and a stunningly poor understanding of the English language.

 

[RickG]

I'll bet you think it rained on the earth before the Flood too, don't you?

Now you have entered "dad's" world of changed chemistry and physics after the flood.

You don't have a clue what the earth was like before the Flood, do you?

Oh yes I do. Paleoclimatology was the concentration of my Earth Science degree. For one who views 'creation science' as the 'Devils Toolbox', you have not only opened it up, but picked it up and shaken everything out.

 

[mmksparbud]

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

[RickG]

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Then why is the physical evidence left by God quite different?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why is the physical evidence left by God quite different?

You mean your interpretation of the physical evidence?

 

[RickG]

You mean your interpretation of the physical evidence?

Are you, a person with no background in any physical science, belittling my profession as a chemist and academic background in paleoclimatology? Keep in mind that this is the SCIENCE portion of the CF. Also, you keep avoiding my direct question concerning the topic of the thread, which by the way you created including me in the OP, about how you connect Pangaea with New Jersey and the Noah's flood without the Devil's toolbox.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you, a person with no background in any physical science, belittling my profession as a chemist and academic background in paleoclimatology?

If you're going to use your 'profession as a chemist and academic background in paleoclimatology' to contradict Scripture, then chemistry and paleoclimatology can take a hike.

Keep in mind that this is the SCIENCE portion of the CF. Also, you keep avoiding my direct question concerning the topic of the thread, which by the way you created including me in the OP, about how you connect Pangaea with New Jersey and the Noah's flood without the Devil's toolbox.

If you have a specific question, ask it.

I have no idea what you mean by connecting Pangaea with New Jersey.

New Jersey was a part of Pangaea in the first place.

 

[RickG]

If you're going to use your 'profession as a chemist and academic background in paleoclimatology' to contradict Scripture, then chemistry and paleoclimatology can take a hike.

WELL EXCUSE ME for presenting science in a science forum where the CF has a rule against APOLOGETICS being used in it.

If you have a specific question, ask it.

I already have several times. I gather you have not begun accepting and using 'creation science'. How about addressing it, "the problem with Pangaea".

I have no idea what you mean by connecting Pangaea with New Jersey.

Seriously? You are the one who introduced it.

New Jersey was a part of Pangaea in the first place.

Then I am correct in assuming from your posts in this thread that you now accept 'creation science', which you have openly deplored previously?

 

[AV1611VET]

I gather you have not begun accepting and using 'creation science'.

Hell will freeze over before I do that

How about addressing it, "the problem with Pangaea".

If the term PANGAEA is confusing you, then let's call it THE LANDMASS or THE GENESIS 1 LANDMASS or something else.

Would that help?

 

[RickG]

Hell will freeze over before I do that

I am glad to hear that, so let's proceed with how Noah gets from New Jersey to the Mountains of Ararat.

If the term PANGAEA is confusing you, then let's call it THE LANDMASS or THE GENESIS 1 LANDMASS or something else.

Would that help?

I have reservations but I'll not judge yet, proceed.

 

[[serious]]

Looks like your "original Hebrew" agrees with me.

Else it would say REFILL THE LAND.

Right, which I'd be fine with. However, as I recall you claim that the KJV is the one true perfect version and superior to the original hebrew. If you are rethinking that, I completely understand.

 

[mmksparbud]

Science hasn't quite caught up to God's way of doing things yet. For eons, science kept insisting the bible isn't true because the bible says God created light---before He created the sun. So therefore, that obviously is wrong. Had to wait a long time for science to figure out there is invisible light---invisible to our eyes, not to God's. Light is not just sunlight.

"The human eye can only see optical or visible light. Light comes in many other colors -- radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray. Astronomers can get more information about stars and other distant cosmic phenomena by using instruments and telescopes which can detect these different types of "invisible" light." http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/~jill/EPO/Light/invisible.html

It is, of course, foolish to think anything can be created by the power of a voice----God speaks, and it is a fairy tale. Science is just getting into the power of sound--

"The sound waves are mechanical waves which are created from vibrations between the particles of the medium. When it is moved through the medium of air then the air particles are displaced by the moving energy of sound waves and wave is travelled. But it can also be a longitudinal wave like in vibrating tuning fork which creates waves from vibrations."
http://physics.tutorvista.com/waves/sound-waves.html

Now they're saying, that sound can not travel in a vacuum so God couldn't have created by voice as sound can't travel in outer space----sounds that they know of. As with light, there are sounds the human ear can't hear. It wasn't that long ago that everybody laughed at a silly dr that said there were invisible things that cause sickness and we need to wash our hands in between patients. Then they discovered germs. Little by little science is catching up---so I'll wait and see what future discoveries reveal about what they think God can't do. It changes.

 

[mmksparbud]

Right, which I'd be fine with. However, as I recall you claim that the KJV is the one true perfect version and superior to the original hebrew. If you are rethinking that, I completely understand.

I would have to disagree with that. The original Hebrew is very complex and one word can have many meanings. The original Hebrew is what Jesus read, and as it was written is much more to what the original writers intended. The meaning of those words have to be interpreted as it was understood at the time it was written, not by todays standards. Jesus did not speak in King James English.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science hasn't quite caught up to God's way of doing things yet. For eons, science kept insisting the bible isn't true because the bible says God created light---before He created the sun. So therefore, that obviously is wrong. Had to wait a long time for science to figure out there is invisible light---invisible to our eyes, not to God's. Light is not just sunlight.

"The human eye can only see optical or visible light. Light comes in many other colors -- radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray. Astronomers can get more information about stars and other distant cosmic phenomena by using instruments and telescopes which can detect these different types of "invisible" light." http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/~jill/EPO/Light/invisible.html

It is, of course, foolish to think anything can be created by the power of a voice----God speaks, and it is a fairy tale. Science is just getting into the power of sound--

"The sound waves are mechanical waves which are created from vibrations between the particles of the medium. When it is moved through the medium of air then the air particles are displaced by the moving energy of sound waves and wave is travelled. But it can also be a longitudinal wave like in vibrating tuning fork which creates waves from vibrations."
http://physics.tutorvista.com/waves/sound-waves.html

Now they're saying, that sound can not travel in a vacuum so God couldn't have created by voice as sound can't travel in outer space----sounds that they know of. As with light, there are sounds the human ear can't hear. It wasn't that long ago that everybody laughed at a silly dr that said there were invisible things that cause sickness and we need to wash our hands in between patients. Then they discovered germs. Little by little science is catching up---so I'll wait and see what future discoveries reveal about what they think God can't do. It changes.

What does any of that have to do with the OP topic?

 

[RickG]

Science hasn't quite caught up to God's way of doing things yet. For eons, science kept insisting the bible isn't true because the bible says God created light---before He created the sun. So therefore, that obviously is wrong. Had to wait a long time for science to figure out there is invisible light---invisible to our eyes, not to God's. Light is not just sunlight.

"The human eye can only see optical or visible light. Light comes in many other colors -- radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma-ray. Astronomers can get more information about stars and other distant cosmic phenomena by using instruments and telescopes which can detect these different types of "invisible" light." http://lithops.as.arizona.edu/~jill/EPO/Light/invisible.html

It is, of course, foolish to think anything can be created by the power of a voice----God speaks, and it is a fairy tale. Science is just getting into the power of sound--

"The sound waves are mechanical waves which are created from vibrations between the particles of the medium. When it is moved through the medium of air then the air particles are displaced by the moving energy of sound waves and wave is travelled. But it can also be a longitudinal wave like in vibrating tuning fork which creates waves from vibrations."
http://physics.tutorvista.com/waves/sound-waves.html

Now they're saying, that sound can not travel in a vacuum so God couldn't have created by voice as sound can't travel in outer space----sounds that they know of. As with light, there are sounds the human ear can't hear. It wasn't that long ago that everybody laughed at a silly dr that said there were invisible things that cause sickness and we need to wash our hands in between patients. Then they discovered germs. Little by little science is catching up---so I'll wait and see what future discoveries reveal about what they think God can't do. It changes.

mmksparbud, there is something that you need to understand. Science doesn't say anything about God because science does not investigate what it cannot observe. Everything we have learned from scientific inquiry and research is completely independent from anything for or against having to do with the bible or any sacred writings pertaining to any religion. If you think differently, the please provide a scientific article from the mainstream scientific literature. I am not aware of any.

 

[[serious]]

I would have to disagree with that. The original Hebrew is very complex and one word can have many meanings. The original Hebrew is what Jesus read, and as it was written is much more to what the original writers intended. The meaning of those words have to be interpreted as it was understood at the time it was written, not by todays standards. Jesus did not speak in King James English.

You misunderstand. I'm fine with the original hebrew being authoritative, AV is not. In his opinion, the KJV is the one true version of the bible, so under his logic appeals to the hebrew original would not be relevant.

 

[RickG]

You misunderstand. I'm fine with the original hebrew being authoritative, AV is not. In his opinion, the KJV is the one true version of the bible, so under his logic appeals to the hebrew original would not be relevant.

If I recall correctly, he also has said that Adam & Eve spoke English.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I recall correctly, he also has said that Adam & Eve spoke English.

Specifically Jacobean English.

 

[AV1611VET]

No questions, I take it?