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.
I have no idea what the ancient people thought about the sky's color --- nor do I care.I always thought ancient people thought the blue sky was made of water. They had know clue that the blue color is because of the diffusion of blue spectrum light because of our atmospheric gas content.
Oh, my --- someone needs a wake-up call.
Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."
Have you ever wondered why It's called the HOLY BIBLE?
Anyway, to expose your error in thinking ---Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?
I'm sorry --- what did you say?
"I don't know?" --- good deal ---
For a moment I wondered how any animal would survive at 75 degreesAccording to the Water Canopy Theory, in earth's distant past, prior to Genesis 6, the earth was one tropical climate --- I'd say around 75 degrees year-round.
Pangaea --- (a.k.a. Eden).
You do realize that Pangaea was comprised of vast deserts on the interior of the continent and was prone to wild fluctuations of temperature between day and night?
DiffractionI always thought ancient people thought the blue sky was made of water. They had know clue that the blue color is because of the diffusion of blue spectrum light because of our atmospheric gas content.
Slow down, old chap. The title "theory" isn't a batch of cupcakes that scientists are keeping for themselves just to spite creationists. It's a way of organizing known facts in a way that helps us understand the universe and nature. You can go about discovering the universe and nature however your heart desires, but unless you meet the criteria, you cannot call it a theory. If you find your ideas unable to meet these criteria, then perhaps you should rethink your ideas; don't shoot the messenger.Now ain't that a pity?
Looks like scientists think they have a monopoly on theories, doesn't it?
For shame, for shame --- someone needs to learn to share?
Oh, he's a maverick, this one. Everything can take a hike unless it helps me prove you wrong.Wikipedia can take a hike.
Oh, I quite agree that it's poetic and intellectually stimulating on many points. So is The Iliad. Scripture isn't what he was calling superficial, your "water canopy theory" is.Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."
This is quite possibly my most triumphant QV, please moment ever!!!Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?
I'm sorry --- what did you say?
"I don't know?" --- good deal ---
I hate to interrupt your dance, but which one of those clouds dropped rain for 40 days and 40 nights through the "windows of heaven"?This is quite possibly my most triumphant QV, please moment ever!!!
*dances*
Genesis 7:11 said:In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
"Windows of Heaven" could easily be kenning for clouds. Saying a window opened up was probably more to describe the deluge than it was to describe the source. And it probably didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights. A water canopy can't cause rain at all, so clouds are actually your best bet.I hate to interrupt your dance, but which one of those clouds dropped rain for 40 days and 40 nights through the "windows of heaven"?
Then why, may I ask, are we having this conversation?And it probably didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights.
We're extinguishing your water canopy idea. It's scientifically impossible and Biblically indefensible. You've gradually sidestepped the issue, but it's not going away.Then why, may I ask, are we having this conversation?
By telling me it didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights?We're extinguishing your water canopy idea.
Because then you'll keep on using your water canopy argument, which will only discredit you and annoy everyone else. I personally don't believe it happened, but what we're arguing here is whether or not a water canopy is even possible. The laws of physics say no, and the Bible says nothing about it. If it did rain for 40 days and 40 nights, then it was from a cloud, not from some magical ring of water magically suspended above the Earth. Have you never been to Seattle?By telling me it didn't rain for 40 days and 40 nights?
Sounds to me you're trying to extinguish the whole story while you're at it.
If you want to extinguish the Water Canopy Theory, why don't you just do it like you're doing the rest of the story?
Just say: IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
I won't say one word in reply --- promise.
You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles. It was taught long before I was born, and I'm sure it will be taught after I'm gone.Because then you'll keep on using your water canopy argument, which will only discredit you and annoy everyone else.
Hopefully, it would be scientifically impossible --- that would make the miracle stand out even more. Just like the order of the events in Genesis 1. And I think this is a good place to repeat this mantra of mine: If you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.I personally don't believe it happened, but what we're arguing here is whether or not a water canopy is even possible.
Okay --- thank you --- see my last point.The laws of physics say no...
I disagree.... and the Bible says nothing about it.
Thank you for being honest enough to use the word "magic". This further confirms where the problem lies.If it did rain for 40 days and 40 nights, then it was from a cloud, not from some magical ring of water magically suspended above the Earth.
No.Have you never been to Seattle?
Keep talking --- you're just making yourself look bad --- not me.And I'm quite sure that if I used the only answer you understand -- IT DIDN'T HAPPEN -- then you'd have nothing else to say, because you have no facts, evidence, or even theories to back up the contrary.
As will flat-earth-ism.You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles. It was taught long before I was born, and I'm sure it will be taught after I'm gone.
To be scientifically impossible defeats the entire purpose of the water canopy; the argument is offered up as a scientific cause for the Eden-like climate. If the cause itself is scientifically impossible, why must the effect be scientifically possible? It's like trying to keep yourself from falling by grabbing something else that's also falling; it won't hold up.Hopefully, it would be scientifically impossible --- that would make the miracle stand out even more. Just like the order of the events in Genesis 1. And I think this is a good place to repeat this mantra of mine: If you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride, as it only gets harder from there.
See mine.Okay --- thank you --- see my last point.
I see clouds. Do you have any more passages, or is that all you're working with?I disagree.
If I change the word to "miracle," what changes? It's still something physically impossible happening, which is our main problem. It matters not what you call it.Thank you for being honest enough to use the word "magic". This further confirms where the problem lies.
No matter. It seems I had the place confused with Manchester, where it rains around 300 days a year. 40 days and nights of rain is very plausible by completely natural causes.
You just keep telling yourself that.Keep talking --- you're just making yourself look bad --- not me.
I have to admit --- you've got a point here --- and a good one at that.To be scientifically impossible defeats the entire purpose of the water canopy; the argument is offered up as a scientific cause for the Eden-like climate. If the cause itself is scientifically impossible, why must the effect be scientifically possible? It's like trying to keep yourself from falling by grabbing something else that's also falling; it won't hold up.
There is a reason for using terms like 'theory' and 'hypothesis'.Looks like scientists think they have a monopoly on theories, doesn't it?
For shame, for shame --- someone needs to learn to share?
not totally unexpected.Wikipedia can take a hike.
I didn't say scripture was superficial, I said you like the theory because it superficially meets your needs.Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."
No, not really.Have you ever wondered why It's called the HOLY BIBLE?
Poetic language, metaphor, fantasy and allegory.Anyway, to expose your error in thinking ---Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?
I can say with all confidence that it never happened, because the bible is the only piece of evidence for it. That may be enough for you, but it isn't for me.I'm sorry --- what did you say?
"I don't know?" --- good deal ---
Sorry, I honestly thought you were simply beaten into submission but didn't want to admit it.Either that, or because of blasphemy, I told Dantose he could go ahead and close it if he want to.
Sorry, cheap shot and totally unwarranted.No comment.
Even Creatapedia describes it as discredited. Doesn't that tell you something?You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles.
As will the Qu'ran - still doesn't make it true.It was taught long before I was born, and I'm sure it will be taught after I'm gone.
Science fiction is often scientifically impossible, it makes for a good story.Hopefully, it would be scientifically impossible --- that would make the miracle stand out even more.
I received a "challenge" from a member of this forum a while back to explain punctuated equilibrium in terms a kindergardener would understand. Here I go... How did I do?
You guys must annoy easily then --- that's basic doctrine in some circles.
A Babylonian scientist didn't write that passage though, did he?The "waters above" in Genesis are a reflection of Babylonian science.
Small quibble: AFAIK, that's peripatric speciation. Allopatric speciation can happen with two populations of any size, peripatry is a special case with a small isolated population.PE states that most evolution occurs by allopatric speciation. In allopatric speciation a small population is isolated geographically from the large parent population.
A Babylonian scientist didn't write that passage though, did he?
It was written, in my opinion, by Adam, himself; then later rewritten by an [ex]-Egyptian scientist --- Moses.
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?