Water canopy check, and mate!

dad · May 28, 2005

Nathan Poe said:
But how do you know it wasn't custard? Seeing as how the Anceint Hebrews had no word for "custard," can't you step out of the box for just a moment and accept the possibility of a mistranslation in the Bible?

Just check with some bible scholars, .....water. No Granny, no custard, no speck. These three are all yours. You proposed the sweet, and modern box science is selling us the other two.
With the division or split, now at Peleg's time, the boundries of the box have shrunk a lot! And, no one has a cohesive word to say about it! Amazing. Well, once a chess game is won, and the opponents king is knocked over, it is time to put the game away. Unless someone comes up with more than juevenile sarcasm, it is checkmate.

Nathan Poe · May 28, 2005

dad said:
Just check with some bible scholars, .....water. No Granny, no custard, no speck. These three are all yours. You proposed the sweet, and modern box science is selling us the other two.

And box Bible scholars discount it all. What makes your method so much better?

With the division or split, now at Peleg's time, the boundries of the box have shrunk a lot!

I agree; the Bible box has shrunk quite a bit...

And, no one has a cohesive word to say about it! Amazing.

Least of all, yourself.

Well, once a chess game is won, and the opponents king is knocked over, it is time to put the game away. Unless someone comes up with more than juevenile sarcasm, it is checkmate.

I'll thank you to stop dragging the good name of chess into this nonsense you call a theory. Is there any part of it you haven't made up?

dad · May 28, 2005

Nathan Poe said:
And box Bible scholars discount it all. What makes your method so much better?

As you know, physical only science cannot discount a split. As much as some of them desire to.

I'll thank you to stop dragging the good name of chess into this nonsense you call a theory. Is there any part of it you haven't made up?

Don't be a sore loser. If you have anything real from science or the bible, by all means, speak up. But I think most know if you had anything, or could come up with anything we would have seen a taste by now. The split, now past even the flood, to Peleg, stands. Is it any wonder, knowing the severe limits of the box, how they messed things uo so badly up till now on orgins?

enlightenment · May 28, 2005

dad said:
I have thought that when the new heavens are revealed, that the physical only universe will cease to exist, as it will be a complete spiritual/physical universe then. Of course the laws of physics, and gravity will not apply as they now do. I also suspect the bible indicates such a state existed before in our early history, but the two had to be seperated, probably as a result of the fall.

I have speculated that this split was fast, maybe instant, probably at the time of the fall of man. That is still what I think.
However, thinking about a water canopy of some kind, enough to really cause a flood, has led to a new possibility! I think it is pretty well known, and accepted, really, that such a canopy would be impossible, due to the great heat, and other things the laws of physics simply prohibit.
How about this, then. The split was not instant, but perhaps never really was completed till during the flood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This makes it entirely possible, as the merged laws were different. Presto- all arguements hitherto used against a canopy no longer valid!!! I like that. With science, then being neutered, this leaves only objections of a biblical nature to be a possible theory killer here.(?) But that's not going to happen, I am almost positive! So, evos, check, and MATE!!

Sometimes ignorance can be entertaining.

I don't know if I could even get into a debate about evolution vs. creationism. I'd feel silly. I see you other evolutionists doing it...aren't you embarassed?

dad · May 28, 2005

enlightenment said:
Sometimes ignorance can be entertaining.

I don't know if I could even get into a debate about evolution vs. creationism. I'd feel silly. I see you other evolutionists doing it...aren't you embarassed?

Yes, I find it amusing how nothing much but ignorance, like the custard thing can be brought to bear against a seperation of the physical and spiritual.
Especially when the bible talks so much about a merged eternal state. With the limits of physical only based science now clearly exposed, and the bible on my side, we can see how there is nothing left but to knock over the king, and admit defeat here.

ImmortalTechnique · May 29, 2005

ummm... even if the bible says that (which even most christians seem to be doubting in this thread) that doesn't prove anything... the bible is flawed, though not as much as your half baked ideas

dad · May 29, 2005

ImmortalTechnique said:
ummm... even if the bible says that (which even most christians seem to be doubting in this thread) [Look again, I think most of the doubt has to do with whether these known future conditions have existed in our past] that doesn't prove anything... the bible is flawed, though not as much as your half baked ideas

.

Nathan Poe · May 29, 2005

dad said:
As you know, physical only science cannot discount a split. As much as some of them desire to.

Ah... but physical science plus the arbitrary application of magic can account for a split.

And it can also account for custard; step out of the box and see that.

Don't be a sore loser. If you have anything real from science or the bible, by all means, speak up. But I think most know if you had anything, or could come up with anything we would have seen a taste by now. The split, now past even the flood, to Peleg, stands. Is it any wonder, knowing the severe limits of the box, how they messed things uo so badly up till now on orgins?

The problem is that you yourself have admitted that you have no real science. You're "outside the box," remember?

You haven't given a single legitimate reason to discount the custard theory, which was arrived at using the very same logic as the split. Your methods are therefore no less limited.

The problem with your chess metaphor is that chess, like science. is a "box" game. It has rules; you couldn't arrive at your conclusions by follownig them.

Ozymandius · May 29, 2005

MMMmmmm...custard.

Nathan Poe · May 29, 2005

Ozymandius said:
MMMmmmm...custard.

Strawberry custard, no less.
Hope you're not allergic!

Numenor · May 29, 2005

dad said:
Where is anything against it..Chapter and verse please....? I cited lifespans and a few things already you didn't address. I also gave a verse about when the earth was split, or devided.

It's your ridiculous theory, you support it. I notice that you still can't find a chapter and verse which states the canopy was not made of custard pre-split, which just proves my point I think.

Lilandra · May 29, 2005

You would be

The King Ad Hoc

ImmortalTechnique · May 29, 2005

ummm... rappers can be cleverer than that!

what about Big dAD Hoc?

dad · May 29, 2005

Nathan Poe said:
The problem is that you yourself have admitted that you have no real science. You're "outside the box," remember? [No, I am not outside our physical universe at the moment. I have real science. All that is admitted is that physical only based science is real, but quite really limited]

You haven't given a single legitimate reason to discount the custard theory, which was arrived at using the very same logic as the split. [I cited both science, and the bible] Your methods are therefore no less limited. [Trying to be clever doesn't really go far, as you may find out someday]

The problem with your chess metaphor is that chess, like science. is a "box" game. It has rules; you couldn't arrive at your conclusions by follownig them.

Of course you could, use science, and especially the rule book, given by the Ruler

dad · May 29, 2005

consideringlily said:
You would be

The King Ad Hoc

When science only goes so far, we can add a little known quantities from the creator's handbook. Handbook Of Creator! The King don't mind.

dad · May 29, 2005

Numenor said:
It's your ridiculous theory, you support it. I notice that you still can't find a chapter and verse which states the canopy was not made of custard pre-split, which just proves my point I think.

1) Lifespans were almost a thousand years right on up to Noah. This indicates something else at work than normal physical processes! 2) God walked among men, this too was indicitive of something different than today. Since He is a Spirit, assuming the spiritual was not fully split from the physical is a very valid option. 3) Peleg lived in the days when the split, or division occured, which has been a mystery, exactly what this was. All these are biblical support. 4) Light also was known to reach us infinitely faster than it now could, this also is support for a big change, of the type, I propose is only possible with the division, or split. I have never heard another explanation that can stand up to science. 5) The sun, and earth etc. is biblically said to be eternal, this would be impossible in the physical only universe, as they would eventually burn out, or decay, etc. 6) We know there is a 6000 year timeframe given in the bible roughly since creation, and that some process other than a decay process was at work, and certainly will be at work. For lasting forever, you need to bring the spiritual in. 7) Some aspects of the flood, I propose can only be answered in a pre split scenario, as there is too many factor's like great heat, impossible canopy, etc.

Here are some reasons for you. Add to this no one can use the bible to discount this, that I know of, unless they just haven't posted yet. And lastly, the sharply limited physical only based sciences could not begin to raise a peep about it, as they can with many creationist 'science' arguements (noble as they maight be in effort).

Lilandra · May 29, 2005

An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute ones theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists. For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments. The hostile vibes, they say, made it impossible for them to duplicate a positive ESP experiment. Being able to duplicate an experiment is essential to confirming its validity. Of course, if this objection is taken seriously, then no experiment on ESP can ever fail.

http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

dad said:
When science only goes so far, we can add a little known quantities from the creator's handbook. Handbook Of Creator! The King don't mind.

So whatever science doesn't explain or disagrees with you, you make something up ad hoc to try to refute it.

dad · May 29, 2005

"An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists..."

"Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence

Pronunciation: "sü-dO-'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" The highest definition of pseudoscientist, then, is a physical only science! The shorter form of the word, then, boxscience.
Esp is a real phenomena, and the inability to accurately measure and detect it, speaks further to the huge limitations of boxscience! Crudely medievilish attempts in comparison with spirit added true science!

consideringlily said:
http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

So whatever science doesn't explain or disagrees with you, you make something up ad hoc to try to refute it.

Actually, I think boxscience, at least those of an evoist bend, have been at the reverse of that game since at least Darwin's day! All I do is take back what is rightfully His, the truth of creation, despite the dark tales of the box.

Lilandra · May 29, 2005

dad said:
"Main Entry: pseu·do·sci·ence

Pronunciation: "sü-dO-'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific" The highest definition of pseudoscientist, then, is a physical only science! The shorter form of the word, then, boxscience.
Esp is a real phenomena, and the inability to accurately measure and detect it, speaks further to the huge limitations of boxscience! Crudely medievilish attempts in comparison with spirit added true science!

also on that pseudoscientist page that you just quoted:

Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creationists, for example, make observations only to confirm infallible dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world.

Curious you didn't quote the part that doesn't agree with you.

Dad said:
Actually, I think boxscience, at least those of an evoist bend, have been at the reverse of that game since at least Darwin's day! All I do is take back what is rightfully His, the truth of creation, despite the dark tales of the box.

Consider for a brief moment that God used evolution to create biodiversity.
Like the evidence points to. Afterall, God is not a liar.

Who is in the medieval dark ages box then?

dad · May 29, 2005

consideringlily said:
also on that pseudoscientist page that you just quoted:

Curious you didn't quote the part that doesn't agree with you.[ Replace the word creationists with boxscience for a better fit. With their old age dogmas that they try to make everything fit to. It used to be the evos looked at yecs and saw them as limited in the knowledge of science. Now it is the severe limitations of physical only based science that are looked at with a smile]

Consider for a brief moment that God used evolution to create biodiversity.
Like the evidence points to. Afterall, God is not a liar. [OK I considered it. He says it was all made in 7 days, how much evolutionary diversity do you think happened in a week? The compromise theories look only at physical based science as well, to the neglect of a spiritual reality, which is an inseperable, intricate part of understanding the big picture. Otherwise, all we get is doctrines of men, based on a small part of the evidence.]

Who is in the medieval dark ages box then? [The compromise theories, physical only based science, of course]

.

Water canopy check, and mate!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

enlightenment

Guest

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Princess-Majestrix

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Princess-Majestrix

Undefeated!

Princess-Majestrix

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency