- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,242
- 52,664
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Read the QV, please --- my statement has not been debunked.Irrelevant to the question, answer it again, please. Why are you posting statements you've already agreed won't contribute anything to the question?
QV please: 1 .
No, He isn't --- so science is on it's own --- and the Bible makes it clear that nature, which runs on science --- is hostile to God.God isn't going to "perform" for our empirical edification on demand, is He?
No, He isn't --- so science is on it's own --- and the Bible makes it clear that nature, which runs on science --- is hostile to God.
Whether the documentation is the Bible, or McGraw-Hill, people are still placing their faith in it.So you concede the point then about documentation?
Try doing what Adam could have done and just mosey down there w/o drowning.And how exactly is the existence of a deep ocean trench (to use your example) hostility towards God? Does it cuss or something?
Whether the documentation is the Bible, or McGraw-Hill, people are still placing their faith in it.
Try doing what Adam could have done and just mosey down there w/o drowning.
[Yes, I know, the trench probably didn't exist in Adam's days; but hopefully you get my point.]
So you concede the point then about documentation?
And how exactly is the existence of a deep ocean trench (to use your example) hostility towards God? Does it cuss or something?
I never said you "can't be sure of it" --- I said that if one goes through life w/o verifying the fact of the depth of the Mariana Trench himself, then he is clearly placing his faith in the documentation of those who have been down there and have measured it, themselves.I get what you're saying, but trying to argue that we can't be sure of ANY fact without it being labelled "faith" is plain ludicrous.
Then read this:
Please explain why death, which is an integral part of [fallen] nature, is God's enemy.1 Corinthians 15:26 said:The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
I never said you "can't be sure of it" --- I said that if one goes through life w/o verifying the fact of the depth of the Mariana Trench himself, then he is clearly placing his faith in the documentation of those who have been down there and have measured it, themselves.
I wouldn't go there, either --- even if I could.
I too place my faith in the documentation (specifically, the Wikipedia article) that the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep.
I've lived right next to it for years.
I never said you "can't be sure of it" --- I said that if one goes through life w/o verifying the fact of the depth of the Mariana Trench himself, then he is clearly placing his faith in the documentation of those who have been down there and have measured it, themselves.
I wouldn't go there, either --- even if I could.
I too place my faith in the documentation (specifically, the Wikipedia article) that the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep.
I've lived right next to it for years.
For about, what, the fourth time? --- I am not --- repeat: not --- talking about those who have been there --- I am talking about those who will never go there, yet will believe what those who have been there and did all this sonar and laser stuff.We don't verify the depth of the mariana trench by going down there, we use sonar, lasers, and pressure gauges to do so. We have multiple tools for performing this feat, and have done it multiple times. If I so chose, I could join a research vessel studying the trench and see for myself. I cannot in any way verify the claims of Jesus walking on water.
I can contrast multiple technical documents that provide the methods, tools, and assumptions used in verifying the depth of the mariana trench. They will give me the details so that I can logically deduce if the methods, tools, and assumptions make logical sense, and by comparing multiple documents I can get a more general picture of the issue of measuring the depth of the mariana trench. The bible is a single source that provides no hard facts such as Jesus's weight, the dispersion of rocks in the water, the depth of the water, etc. Contrast this to white paper specifications of sonar equipment, equations used in distance calculation, assumptions about water density at varying depths and you see a distinct disparity in the amount and value of data given between the two subjects.
Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?
The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".
You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.
So I'm really not interested in your double standards.
Although precursors to this table exist, its invention is generally credited to Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. Mendeleev intended the table to illustrate recurring ("periodic") trends in the properties of the elements. The layout of the table has been refined and extended over time, as new elements have been discovered, and new theoretical models have been developed to explain chemical behavior.[1]
The periodic table is now ubiquitous within the academic discipline of chemistry, providing an extremely useful framework to classify, systematize and compare all of the many different forms of chemical behavior. The table has also found wide application in physics, biology, engineering, and industry. The current standard table contains 117 elements as of 27 January 2008 (elements 1-116 and element 118).
As of 2006, the table contains 117 chemical elements whose discoveries have been confirmed. Ninety-four are found naturally on Earth, and the rest are synthetic elements that have been produced artificially in particle accelerators. Elements 43 (technetium), 61 (promethium), 93 (neptunium) and 94 (plutonium) have no stable isotopes and were first discovered synthetically; however, they were later discovered in trace amounts on earth as products of natural radioactive decay processes.
[/FONT][FONT=Garamond, Times New Roman, serif]Mendeleev was bold enough to suggest that new elements not yet discovered would be found to fill the blank places. He even went so far as to predict the properties of the missing elements. Although many scientists greeted Mendeleev's first table with skepticism, its predictive value soon became clear. The discovery of gallium in 1875, of scandium in 1879, and of germanium in 1886 supported the idea underlying Mendeleev's table. Each of the new elements displayed properties that accorded with those Mendeleev had predicted, based on his realization that elements in the same column have similar chemical properties. The three new elements were respectively discovered by a French, a Scandinavian, and a German scientist, each of whom named the element in honor of his country or region. (Gallia is Latin for France.) Discovery of a new element had become a matter of national pride--the rare kind of science that people could read about in newspapers, and that even politicians would mention.[/FONT]
The table itself is a visual representation of the periodic law which states that certain properties of elements repeat periodically when arranged by atomic number. The table arranges elements into vertical columns (Groups) and horizontal rows (Periods) to display these commonalities.
In 1914 Henry Moseley found a relationship between an element's X-ray wavelength and its atomic number (Z), and therefore resequenced the table by nuclear charge rather than atomic weight. Before this discovery, atomic numbers were just sequential numbers based on an element's atomic weight. Moseley's discovery showed that atomic numbers had an experimentally measurable basis.
Thus Moseley placed argon (Z=18) before potassium (Z=19) based on their X-ray wavelengths, despite the fact that argon has a greater atomic weight (39.9) than potassium (39.1). The new order agrees with the chemical properties of these elements, since argon is a noble gas and potassium an alkali metal. Similarly, Moseley placed cobalt before nickel, and was able to explain that tellurium occurs before iodine without revising the experimental atomic weight of tellurium (127.6) as proposed by Mendeleev.
Moseley's research also showed that there were gaps in his table at atomic numbers 43 and 61 which are now known to be Technetium and Promethium, respectively, both radioactive and not naturally occurring. Following in the footsteps of Dmitri Mendeleev, Henry Moseley also predicted new elements.
Wikipedia says the Mariana Trench is 6.8 miles deep --- what say you --- and why?
[Please answer the "why".]
The Bible says Jesus walked on water --- what do you think I'll say --- and why?
[Please answer the "why". I'll bet it's the same answer: the documentation says so.]
Exodus 20:5 "I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations."
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Jesus clearly says that no one has ascended to heaven except for the Son of Man.2 Kings 2:11Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
John 3:13 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
Wow, I never realized how much of a difference there was between the Matthew story and the John story. On one hande we have Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb, watched it become open by the angel who told her that Christ is risen and to go tell the disciples. She even met Christ on the way to Galilee! On the other hand, we have Mary Magdalene who goes to the tomb where it had already been open, saw Christ's body was gone, and told Peter that someone had taken Christ's body! I would think that a book inspired by God would be more... what's the word I'm looking for... identical?Matt. 28:1-2, 5-10 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
But the angel answered and said to the women, Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.
8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, Rejoice! So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me.
John 20:1-2 Now the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.
For about, what, the fourth time? --- I am not --- repeat: not --- talking about those who have been there --- I am talking about those who will never go there, yet will believe what those who have been there and did all this sonar and laser stuff.
It's getting close to "/thread" time, fellas --- step it up, please.
Man --- this line of rhetoric is reminiscent of my old Millard Fillmore thread, where I challenged anyone to prove he existed without placing their faith in any kind of documentation.The point is that we could go there if we had the funds. We could see it for ourselves. You'll never be able to go back in time and show Christ existed. You aren't able to see it for yourself. You have your book and that's really about it. We have myriads of studies and still have the actual trench that we could study if we wanted to.
Man --- this line of rhetoric is reminiscent of my old Millard Fillmore thread, where I challenged anyone to prove he existed without placing their faith in any kind of documentation.
I might recreate it --- just for fun.
Why don't you just tell us the point of the challenge? Would save time...
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?