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.
All I have to say is this last point is bunk:Oh your going to love this.
http://environmentalchristian.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/the-sliding-rocks-of-racetrack-playa/
No. Just no. Understanding is always more interesting than lack of understanding. And besides, it's not as if there's a dearth of things we don't understand.Perhaps this story will remain more interesting if the real answer is never discovered!
Their are, you have to look hard, but they are their. honestly it looks like their might be some photoshop done, or just odd lighting. whatever the case, their are cracks if you look.
Edit
I enhanced the image levels and made an enlargement. No other doctoring was done to this photo.
Sorry, MoonLancer, but the misuse of these particular words just gets a bit on my nerves. The correct word to use in your post was "there", not "their" (at each spot).
There: location.
Their: possessive (plural/gender neutral of his/her)
They're: they are.
So what if it is? It's a VERY, VERY small part of the cycle.
Are you under the impression that plate tectonics is dependent on volcanic eruptions? That it takes volcanism in order for plates to move? If so, you've got the cause and effect backward.
???????????????????
Gee, they don't have wind erosion and do not have plate tectonics.. If we got some enormous fans big enough to create a wind, suppose we could initiate plate tectonics there?
While languages do change and evolve over time, I don't believe that the definitions of there/their/they're/your/you're are considered to have changed.Obviously you are not in the teaching job. If so, you should be used to this type of new language.
How delightfully condescending of you! Why don't you explain yourself, as we have been continually asking of you? All you ever do is present bald assertions, and then, when asked for your reasoning, if you don't ignore the request altogether you merely repeat the same assertions all over again! Come, now, if this is your idea of "teaching", you're doing a horrific job. Explain your reasoning for once.To your benefit, if you do not understand, then humble yourself and start to ask some basic questions. One of the purpose for me to hang around here is to educate.
Indeed. If only. However, I still object to the idea that this has anything to do with the hydrologic cycle, except in a very peripheral manner.
Water may well be necessary for plate tectonics, but I don't see why a hydrological cycle would be necessary.
That is, if the planet is frozen, so that no liquid water flows, but there is lots of water in the mantle and lower crust, might not the same basic effect be achieved?
Me, I'm more scared for his students. Having a teacher that just tries to ram facts down his students throats, with no argument, no supporting evidence? No understanding, just random assertions? If I ever have children, I would pull them out of that class in an instant if I found their teacher taught like that.This is precisely why I wish Juvenissun would support his claims in detail. Even if he's onto something he tends to be too opaque to actually learn anything from. So I end up being relatively frustrated by his posts and his claims to being involved in education.
Here we go --- another thread reduced to pure science --- time to take my technoclaustrophobic hide elsewhere.
That's techno - claustro - phobic.Face it, you aren't just "technophobic", you are "debate-o-phobic"!
John 10:9 said:I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
That stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling? That's what it feels like when you just begin to realize that you might be wrong. You should learn to embrace it. After all, recognizing when you're wrong is the only way you can stop being wrong. Sure, it feels uncomfortable to be wrong. And even embarrassing. But isn't it better to be right than simply think you're right?That's techno - claustro - phobic.
As in --- when there is more science than Truth --- I start to get that stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling; and it's time for me to go to pasture.
How do you convince someone they are wrong about believing something God said He did [or didn't do], using only science in the conversation?That stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling? That's what it feels like when you just begin to realize that you might be wrong. You should learn to embrace it. After all, recognizing when you're wrong is the only way you can stop being wrong. Sure, it feels uncomfortable to be wrong. And even embarrassing. But isn't it better to be right than simply think you're right?
How do you convince someone they are wrong about believing something God said He did [or didn't do], using only science in the conversation?
As in --- when there is more science than Truth
--- I start to get that stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling; and it's time for me to go to pasture.
How do you convince someone they are wrong about believing something God said He did [or didn't do], using only science in the conversation?
While languages do change and evolve over time, I don't believe that the definitions of there/their/they're/your/you're are considered to have changed.
How delightfully condescending of you! Why don't you explain yourself, as we have been continually asking of you? All you ever do is present bald assertions, and then, when asked for your reasoning, if you don't ignore the request altogether you merely repeat the same assertions all over again! Come, now, if this is your idea of "teaching", you're doing a horrific job. Explain your reasoning for once.
As long as you guys keep thinking this, you're not going to believe a word I say. "My Truth" is "Your Truth" as well.For you "Truth" is only what you decree it to be!
Because science is currently hostile [but obedient] to God, and in no way represents the state of the universe 6100 years ago in Genesis 1 --- not even close.Why can't God allow "science" to support the claims his followers make about what he said or did?
I would imagine that, to God, science is a nuisance --- and soon to be removed out of the way.Does God have as much difficulty with science as some of his followers do?
No --- Lucifer did --- and thought he could subvert his Creator with it.Did God just take all "humanities" classes at "God College"?
You know, juvenissun, you could stand to explain yourself for once. I asked for you to explain how the water cycle has an effect upon plate tectonics. I did not ask for you to just repeat the assertion all over again.
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?