Water canopy check, and mate!

[dad]

Ha ha! There is no objection to the custard canopy idea either, good start! In other words, as long as the bible doesn't say anything on it, you can make up whatever nonsense you like!
[Of course there is, like all theories proposed by evos. Here is a hint, when the fountains of the heaven opened, it rained water, not custard. You see, it has to check in with the department of weights and measures-the bible. One thing really, only believers can do. Check, and cross check, and see if it is found wanting]



Ha ha! You're stuck in the "physical only box" for any kind of support!

No, I have the bible as well as physical based sciences.

 

[notto]

No, I have the bible as well as physical based sciences.

But before the split the canopy was custard.

This is basically the nature of your arguments here. Anything you dream up is possible and answerable. The ad-hoc nature of your reasoning and answers makes them look silly.

 

[dad]

I thought it was ruby, surrounded by cold liquid gold and shiny pretty stones that are all very very expensive.

Could be, a ruby was one candidate mentioned, and the stones used in the construction of the wall of New Jerusalem are also something I would look at. We don't know, of course, what it is, including (especially box science). The advantage christians have, is they know the Architect, and have other examples of His work.

 

[dad]

But before the split the canopy was custard.

This is basically the nature of your arguments here. Anything you dream up is possible and answerable. The ad-hoc nature of your reasoning and answers makes them look silly.

Not at all, box science, or the bible can shoot down all your ill conceived sarcastic so called theories in a moment. Not mine, thats why peple resort to ignorance, lightheadedness, and high minded emptiness.

 

[dad]

But before the split the canopy was custard.

This is basically the nature of your arguments here. Anything you dream up is possible and answerable. The ad-hoc nature of your reasoning and answers makes them look silly.

OK, now you're getting fancy, so we have to look to the bible. The waters above were made from the getgo. Mate.

 

[dad]

Hmmmm, gold and precious stones you say....?

*invests in some deep-mining company shares*

Don't waste your money. By the time men are capable of going down there, and attempting to take some, the clock will have run out on the physical only. Maybe that's why we never thought of it earlier, someone might have believed it, and gave it a go? Ha.
No, all we have to play in is the dirt near the top. Get out your sandbox shovels, thats as close as you get, on your own.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Could be, a ruby was one candidate mentioned, and the stones used in the construction of the wall of New Jerusalem are also something I would look at. We don't know, of course, what it is, including (especially box science). The advantage christians have, is they know the Architect, and have other examples of His work.

There's as much physical evidence for a ruby planet-core as there is for a custard canopy: zilch.

The bible says nothing about either idea, so I guess both ideas should hold equal weight for you.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Not at all, box science, or the bible can shoot down all your ill conceived sarcastic so called theories in a moment. Not mine, thats why peple resort to ignorance, lightheadedness, and high minded emptiness.

So when "box science" and the bible don't agree, which do YOU trust?

 

[dad]

There's as much physical evidence for a ruby planet-core as there is for a custard canopy: zilch.

The bible says nothing about either idea, so I guess both ideas should hold equal weight for you.

The lack of evidence about our earth center is entirely due to the limitations of science. It is admitted that we really know little about it. So, there are some old ages theories that say it should be hot there, and they may be right, I don't know, so scientists look for materials (in theory) that would try to fit the bill in such an insanely hot envirioment.
Now as to the bible, it does tell us a few clues, like the earth is forever. Looking at another forever project from the same Builder, certain materials were used. This does not mean He used any of the same materials in eternal earth's interior. But it is a sample of eternal materials by the same Guy. Again, do you have any biblical objections to a certain temperature, or material used in our earth center?

 

[dad]

So when "box science" and the bible don't agree, which do YOU trust?

That's the beauty of having both, when one falls short, we can see if the other can shed light on it. Physical only science really has very pronounced limitations.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

The lack of evidence about our earth center is entirely due to the limitations of science. It is admitted that we really know little about it. So, there are some old ages theories that say it should be hot there, and they may be right, I don't know, so scientists look for materials (in theory) that would try to fit the bill in such an insanely hot envirioment.
Now as to the bible, it does tell us a few clues, like the earth is forever. Looking at another forever project from the same Builder, certain materials were used. This does not mean He used any of the same materials in eternal earth's interior. But it is a sample of eternal materials by the same Guy. Again, do you have any biblical objections to a certain temperature, or material used in our earth center?

Heat is not the only thing scientists are trying to explain. There's the magnetic field, active geology of the crust, etc.. Your arguments are very weak. To call them uninformed would be giving them more credit than they deserve.

And to clarify, I don't have biblical objections about anything. The bible doesn't really address science at all, and I have very little interest in mythology, so it is pretty useless to me.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

That's the beauty of having both, when one falls short, we can see if the other can shed light on it. Physical only science really has very pronounced limitations.

How do you know when one falls short? When its conclusions stray from your comfy delusions? Or are you actually god?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's the beauty of having both, when one falls short, we can see if the other can shed light on it. Physical only science really has very pronounced limitations.

Whereas your delusions of infallibility extend to the stars and beyond...

All the way to the strawberry custard.

 

[Elduran]

Don't waste your money. By the time men are capable of going down there, and attempting to take some, the clock will have run out on the physical only. Maybe that's why we never thought of it earlier, someone might have believed it, and gave it a go? Ha.
No, all we have to play in is the dirt near the top. Get out your sandbox shovels, thats as close as you get, on your own.

Oh well, I guess I'd better invest in "WMD tunelling methods" too then.

 

[Numenor]

You see, it has to check in with the department of weights and measures-the bible. One thing really, only believers can do. Check, and cross check, and see if it is found wanting

So where in the Bible is the support for your 'gradual split' theory? Chapter and verse please....what it's nowhere in the bible? Your idea has been found wanting.

 

[Numenor]

Physical only science really has very pronounced limitations.

...just like the thermometer which doesn't tell the time.

 

[dad]

How do you know when one falls short? When its conclusions stray from your comfy delusions? Or are you actually god?

How do we know if one has no answers if the other does? In the case of the custard delusion, for example, both tell us it was not so. If you want to appeal to the shortcomings of physical only science for a distant past, as someone jestingly did, fine. As I pointed out, we know that water was created right in the creation week, and thats what came down.

 

[dad]

QUOTE=Numenor][/i][/b]

So where in the Bible is the support for your 'gradual split' theory? Chapter and verse please....what it's nowhere in the bible? Your idea has been found wanting.[/QUOTE]
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.

 

[dad]

Heat is not the only thing scientists are trying to explain. There's the magnetic field, active geology of the crust, etc.. Your arguments are very weak. To call them uninformed would be giving them more credit than they deserve.

And to clarify, I don't have biblical objections about anything. The bible doesn't really address science at all, and I have very little interest in mythology, so it is pretty useless to me.

Magnetic field, and "active geology" don't tell us much about the earth center. Of course we have a power center down there, and some surface heat, do you think saying the words somehow makes someone "informed"? I have little interest in Granny and the Speck myths either.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do we know if one has no answers if the other does? In the case of the custard delusion, for example, both tell us it was not so. If you want to appeal to the shortcomings of physical only science for a distant past, as someone jestingly did, fine. As I pointed out, we know that water was created right in the creation week, and thats what came down.

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?