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.
What gets me, Split Rock --- (and I'm serious) --- is when I see someone preferring --- (that's preferring) --- to challenge someone on something not expressed in the Scriptures, when there are things that are expressed that are even more --- shall we say --- incredible?
For instance, I can say Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, fed 5000 people from a lunchbox, died and rose again, walked through a door, and levitated to Heaven; and get nary a "meh".
But let me mention that God cleaned up a global flood that He, Himself, sent; and I'll get 10 pages of: "say what?"
If God can speak this entire universe into existence, why argue if He cleaned something up?
This was the crux of the Ken Ham creation seminar that my wife and I attended --- (or at least what I got out of it).
If you're going to disprove anything in the Bible, start with Genesis 1, and the rest will be rendered moot.
You do, huh?Someone says something on behalf of science that is wrong, i correct it...
Someone says something on behalf of science that is currently wrong, I correct it.
You do, huh?
You are the one responsible for correcting Pluto's status as our 9th planet?
Or will you admit that you were just as wrong once, and was corrected yourself?
Is there anything wrong in science that needs correcting today?
I think --- to make your statement correct --- I'd change it to:
Someone says something on behalf of science that is currently wrong, I correct it
What gets me, Split Rock --- (and I'm serious) --- is when I see someone preferring --- (that's preferring) --- to challenge someone on something not expressed in the Scriptures, when there are things that are expressed that are even more --- shall we say --- incredible?
For instance, I can say Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, fed 5000 people from a lunchbox, died and rose again, walked through a door, and levitated to Heaven; and get nary a "meh".
But let me mention that God cleaned up a global flood that He, Himself, sent; and I'll get 10 pages of: "say what?"
If God can speak this entire universe into existence, why argue if He cleaned something up?
This was the crux of the Ken Ham creation seminar that my wife and I attended --- (or at least what I got out of it).
If you're going to disprove anything in the Bible, start with Genesis 1, and the rest will be rendered moot.
You do, huh?
You are the one responsible for correcting Pluto's status as our 9th planet?
Or will you admit that you were just as wrong once, and was corrected yourself?
Is there anything wrong in science that needs correcting today?
I think --- to make your statement correct --- I'd change it to:
Nothing is more ridiculous than some of the stuff that dad has come up with in this thread. You are missing the point, however... and that is he is simply making this stuff up as he goes along. Then he says science is stupid becasue it doesn't agree with his made up fantasies.What gets me, Split Rock --- (and I'm serious) --- is when I see someone preferring --- (that's preferring) --- to challenge someone on something not expressed in the Scriptures, when there are things that are expressed that are even more --- shall we say --- incredible?
If it is a miracle, it is not explainable by science. That is the way I look at it, though others do different. Now, we can argue over whether of not it really did happen, but I am not much interested in that.For instance, I can say Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, raised the dead, fed 5000 people from a lunchbox, died and rose again, walked through a door, and levitated to Heaven; and get nary a "meh".
That is because you have claimed many times that the "documentation" overrides all else. If you are running without the "documentation," and are still at odds with physical science, then where does that leave you? In nowhere land.But let me mention that God cleaned up a global flood that He, Himself, sent; and I'll get 10 pages of: "say what?"
Could have should have. He could have done anything... so what? Did He clean it up the to make it look like it never happened? Why?If God can speak this entire universe into existence, why argue if He cleaned something up?
That is because Ken Ham is a YEC. That is why he insists that Gen 1 is all important to Christianity. Because it is all important to his form of Chrisitianity. I don't buy it.This was the crux of the Ken Ham creation seminar that my wife and I attended --- (or at least what I got out of it).
If you're going to disprove anything in the Bible, start with Genesis 1, and the rest will be rendered moot.
Perhaps you will get it sometimes: Pluto´s current or former designation is not in any way a scientific mistake that got corrected. It is a result of a more precise definition of that status.
Well, Dad was saying that the core isn't hot, and seemed to be saying that the reason is that it's because spiritual beings were there. I was just saying that Biblically, we can believe the earth's core is hot.
Is what this thread boils down to that scientists haven't ACTUALLY been able to probe to thevery centre of the earth, so we cannot say for certain what it is made up of..only that there are unproven hyptotheses based on scientists knowledge of physics?
I'm stiill not convinces by your argument Dad...I should have thought that spirits, assuming they are in the core of the earth, can survive there whether it's hot, cold OR made of green cheese.
No!!! No need, UNLESS the inner earth is physical only material. Why would it be, since it is known to house spiritual beings? The workmanship of God is known, He does eternal structures. The ground or surface may be cursed, but what about deep deep down? Gold, precious stones, gems, quartz, etc are the materials He uses in the New Jerusalem. He made the earth, and foundations as well. Why assume the weak and beggarly, base things science of the surface does? They have no proof. I find it insulting tripe, the way they envision God's creation high and low.Actually, whether the centre is hot or cold, would there be extrem pressure down there?Or maybe it's hollow...a kind of gigantic cavern..??? Perhaps there's hardly any gravity..or maybe an airlock...
No. I have not said what temperature it is. How would I know? Science has! I point out that the basis upon which it dreams up the heat is all lactose-intolerent, non-cheese based imagination. It is they that are on the hot seat here. I am sitting pretty.
Remember, that no one went down to the core, and came back up and said, 'gee, it is hot down there, and an electric field is being generated a certain way...etc' They cooked it all up after the fact!! They sought a cheeseless explanation, and came up with stuff. End of story. That is all they did. They do not know.
They assume. All the way past the few little miles they know.
If, for example the electric field was generated before the cheese, (Cheddar or Swiss) and conked out, like a car that blew a belt, we would not know what caused the field to begin with. Would we? We would merely note it is decreasing...as I think it is measured to be..and that it is there.
The rest is fiction, anti-cheese based fables. Unless you prove it of course. Why would I much care how hot it is there? I do care about people making stuff up, and pawning it off as fact, and known, and science. Facts and truth I like. Foolish, frightening cheeseless fables I hate.
Not only have they not actually been there, they merely try to apply the laws of physics there. Do they apply there? How would you know?
New Jerusalem is also a place for cheese-based beings, made by the same Architect. Have you also reason to suspect we will cook or live in a cheese blob there?????
The question is not what could we stand, but what did Jack Soo prepare for us!? Since there is cheese in The 12th Precinct, and a fondue pot, we can rule out sun like temperatures! Elementary. In the Paradise below the earth Jesus spoke of, and went to, we could say the same. I never heard of a paradise that was without cheese, you? Elementary. I also do not recall any bible saying that the spirits in prison down there were in lactose intolerent cells?
That leaves science on it's own. What can you offer on that front? This is the crux of the issue. The answer you will find is actually nothing. Seimic waves bounce through cheese as well, one can assume as much as they pass through non-cheese material. All that has been done in the name of science is to assume that the inner earth is like the surface, and other things man knows in our cheese-eating state.
No!!! No need, UNLESS the inner earth is cheeseless material. Why would it be, since it is known to house Abe Vigoda? The workmanship of Ron Glass is known, He does cheese structures. The ground or surface may be cursed, but what about deep deep down? Gouda, Swiss, Provelone, Mozzerella, etc are the materials He uses in Greenwich Village. He made the earth, and foundations as well. Why assume the weak and beggarly, base things science of the surface does? They have no proof. I find it insulting tripe, the way they envision Hal Linden's creation high and low.
Who cares what Dad thinks about the interior of the earth.
Here's some real geology:
Scientists know what the interior of the earth is like in a way that x-rays tell us what the interior of out body looks like. Only instead of using light rays geologists use seismic waves.
Utter religious nonsense, of course. We know squat. We simply see that it behaves as the physical only material we know up here would. That does not mean that it is liquid there. Nor does it mean, if there was liquid, it would be the sort we surmise, at the temperature and density and gravitational specificity we imagine. After all, we would need to FIRST prove that the laws of physics ( i.e. temporal state rules) apply there. We can't. Your simple surface geology simply does not, and can not be shown to apply.Note that the S and P waves have specific "shadow zones" where they are missing. This is how we know at least part of the core (the "outer core") is liquid.
Not at all. That is only if it was under temporal rules, and there is reason to assume otherwise, since spirits are known in many cultures through history to reside there. There is, on the other hand NO reason to assume it is in the temporal state down there, and physical only.The core of the earth is largely iron as well as some nickel and maybe some oxygen or sulfur.
No doubt there is a field. What causes it is another matter.. The mass of the earth tells us absolutely nothing UNLESS that mass is physical only. That we do not know. Fess up.We also have several other avenues of evidence, as mentioned earlier; the magnetic field and its strength tell us about the ferromagnetic materials in the core, the mass of the earth tells us something about the materials that make it up.
What about baseless speculation do you find interesting, precisely?? Do tell.Interestingly enough there's some information about the actual crystal form of the iron in the core
One last thing; the word Nickel, the element which makes up a couple percent of the core, is said to be derived from a couple of interesting words:
-----------------------------------------------
Word Origin: German Nickel: Satan or Old Nick, also, from kupfernickel: Old Nick's copper or Devil's copper (SOURCE),
Before I ignore it, you would need to produce it. Work on that.Creationist (dad-style) logic: if you cannot prove - PROVE!!!111eleven - it, everything I can make up on the spot is correct.
Dad, perhaps before you ignore all the evidence pointing to the "physical only in the box" solution, you should bring some proof of you own?
Not to the core of the earth. But I think your experiment demos that gravity applies on the surface.You know, I'm holding an orange right now. If I let go, will it fall down?
What you fail to comprehend is that I have a fantastic bible base. The sort of raw power that those that know the bible somewhat would either have no reason to differ, or would not dare, because they would get blasted out of the water.The thing that astonishes me (and not much astonishes me from creationists anymore) is not that dad is making up silly stuff that makes Christianity look ridiculous... to the point that it almost seems like he is raving... but that no other creationist here posts that they think he is being ridiculous. Instead, AVET actually tells him "good point!"
Amazing.
I propose a test. Say something on the behalf of science, and let's see if it is right or wrong. Isn't that what you are here for?...
Someone says something on behalf of science that is wrong, i correct it, i dont want them as an embarrassment to my side. Beside the little fact that I actually care about things like what is true, reasonable, verifiable etc.
He waved them away..Let me ask... do you believe that Jesus deliberately removed his footprints after he walked on the water?
Since there are trees in New Jerusalem, and a river, we can rule out sun like temperatures! Elementary.
What? We can rule out sun like temperatures? No way! All you are doing here is applying surface physical only in the box thinking.
Spiritual trees and rivers have no problems existing with sun like temperatures.
How hot is hell? Any hints in the Bible?Does that mean the garden was hot as hell? No. You seem to forget that we are not talking spook trees here. Spirit trees. We are talking good eats. Juicy fruits. And we are talking physical also bodies, like Jesus had.
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?