Are you a Christian?

[paultnl]

A writer I admire because he had a terrific imagination, but his hit rate was, unfortunately, a big duck egg. Then again, he wasn't even pretending to predict the future.

Leaving aside submarines,

In 1863, Jules Verne wrote a novel called Paris in the 20th Century about a young man who lives in a world of glass skyscrapers, high-speed trains, gas-powered automobiles, calculators, and a worldwide communications network, yet cannot find happiness and comes to a tragic end. Hetzel thought the novel's pessimism would damage Verne's then booming career, and suggested he wait 20 years to publish it. Verne put the manuscript in a safe, where it was discovered by his great-grandson in 1989. It was published in 1994

 

[Parthelan]

and papal infallibility.

I've had a few jars and a long day, so I'll come back to the other stuff you mentioned later, but I just want to say something quickly about papal infallibility.

Again excuse me if you know this already, but theres a lot of misunderstanding around papal infallibility and DCE might be interested in this too.

The Pope is said to be infallible but ONLY in matters of FAITH and MORALS.
In other words, the pope cannot suddenly declare the world is triangular and catholics world wide are duty bound to believe it. He equally cannot say 2 and 2 is 5 and although patently in error, catholics have to believe it because the Pope said so. No. Thats not the case.

In addition to that, the Pope is only considered infallible in terms of FAITH and MORALS ONLY and ONLY when he is speaking EX-CATHEDRA.
In other words, the pope is a man, a sinner, human, and fallible just like all of us. He is not proteted from sinning and he goes to confession to confess his sins just like any Catholic or Orthodox, and some Lutheran congregations. I cant remember now but it's a franciscan or dominican priest that hears his confession every week. So the Pope is a sinner like the rest of us.
No ex-cathedra statement can contract the Holy Scriptures, or Sacred Tradition ( not all tradition is sacred, but much is made up of localised cutoms and practices that can been seen to an outsider as tradition but can be overturned and are not official church teaching).
In the whole history of the church only something like 6 ExCathedra statements have been made. Thats 6 directives in 2000 years.
The Orthodox hold to the infallible statements of the early ecumenical councils but not the infallibilty of the Bishop of Rome (Pope) even speaking exCathedra.
This is because Orthodox hold the infallibility comes from the ecumenical council, working in concert.

It is THIS methodoly that gave us the Bible. And it took several councils and a few hundred years to reach a final agreement as to what books will make up the canon. The Bishop of Rome has always been held up as First Amongst Equals within the ecumenical councils and it was his nod that finally closed the Canon giving us the Bible we have today.

Well, most of it. The reformers ditched 7 books whose scriptures contradicted their man made doctrines, hence the catholic bible has 73 books and the protestant reformers bible have 66.
Interestingly the first versions of the King James Bible contained all 73 books.

It makes me laugh when you realise many fundamentalists believe the Bible has always been. They dont seem to realise for the first few hundred years of the ONE church there was NO Bible as the canon had not been approved and that process took several synods and HUNDREDS of years! So no Bible - but the Church had TRADITION, SACRED TRADITION and thats what kept it afloat until the Bible could be approved and agreed.

Again this is for people like DCE but it's always made me laugh that they reject the whole concept of infallibility, yet declare the Scriptures infallible and inspired. Ask them if you can add a book to their Bible. They'd shoot you for heresy.
So they DO accept the INFALLIBLE decisions of the Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical councils, under the auspices of ROME that gave them their bible, but reject infallibility.

Weird huh?

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve isn't stupid either

Isn't that what's known as "damning with faint praise?"

but until very recently he thought evolution was wrong

One thing I always hope to be is teachable. Evolution is a topic I've looked into for years, and I admit that I was wrong. What I should have been more open to is that God directed creation through probability - because what's the probability of specific modifications occurring through descent? The entire process depends very fundamentally on probability. (Incidentally, I get a lot of flak about this, but I'm willing to stand side by side with Francis Collins - a great scientist but someone who similarly gets a lot of flak. Once again, so be it.)

Indeed, I've come to realize that probability is another very important principle. We live in a probabilistic world. When you consider ancient Israel, the priest carried around two rocks, known as urim and thummim. Whenever the nation's leaders called for God's direction, the priest chose one or other rock. In other words, God spoke through probability - which sometimes led to some very specific directions. This, to my mind, is how God (outside of time) interacts with our world (bound to time). Those rocks were a picture of the probability that we now know is built into the dynamic of our world. 20th century science revealed the role of probability in our universe, and I missed the importance of this.

hitting children with a leather strap is 'beautiful'

I beg your pardon?

and that Jesus Christ would approve of capital punishment.

I approve of capital punishment, yes. There are consequences for our actions. Whereas we can forgive someone for their actions, that in no way takes away the penalty for their actions. Without consequences, there would be no justice. Grace is not letting everyone get away with murder. I'm not God, so I don't have the power to wipe away sins. To the best of my ability, though, I can have a forgiving spirit.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Noah really did have an ark

Every ancient civilisation has its flood narrative, and they share remarkable similarities, so it would be foolish to pretend there was no such event. The key question is its purpose. The answer to that will shed light on its extent.

 

[cjd]

Weird huh?

Oh it's weird alright and I'm afraid you haven't done much to convince me that papal infallibility makes any normal kind of sense either. So I can hardly wait for the verbal cartwheels on transubstantiation.

But do have a bash.

 

[cjd]

I beg your pardon?

How soon they forget. In the Mind of God thread you told us how you believe that the physical punishment of children was both necessary and good. Another psychopath quoted a psalm about beating children which you declared was beautiful. I was so appalled it's stuck firmly in my head.

I approve of capital punishment,

Of course you do. But that wasn't the thing that baffled me. You argued also that Jesus would approve of it too - and I can think of nothing less likely. It proved to me that you were capable of twisting anything around to suit your personal belief. The idea that JC would agree with the electric chair is completely mad.

As for your road to Damascus moment on evolution - I'm pleased that you got there isn the end, but I'm peeved that it was Francis Collins saying that it's ok to accept it rather than your own deduction that got you there. But we must be grateful for any convert.

Now about this bloody ark - I'm sure Collins can put you right on that one too.....

 

[Parthelan]

Oh it's weird alright and I'm afraid you haven't done much to convince me that papal infallibility makes any normal kind of sense either. So I can hardly wait for the verbal cartwheels on transubstantiation.

But do have a bash.

I wasnt trying to convince you it made any kind of normal sense.

I was just trying to clear up a lot of common misunderstandings of what infalliblilty actully is.

And I was having a bit of fun highlighting the hysterical position fundamentalists find themselves in with regards to the pompous why they declare the Bible infallible, and dismiss Sacred Tradition, when even an amateur glace at the History of the Church shows the key centrality of Tradition, and the fact they accept the decisions of the men who made up the Ecumenical Councils as infallible, because it's they that gave them their infallible Bible

Thus highlighting their pic n mix attitude that has led to more than 30 thousand competing, contradicting, conflicting and combating christian churches, when in fact there is ONE.

You know too much to be a cradle aethist or agnostic.

Whatever it is youre looking for I wish you well on your journey and hope you do find what ever it is that will settle your restless soul.

 

[bdw]

Every ancient civilisation has its flood narrative, and they share remarkable similarities, so it would be foolish to pretend there was no such event.

Take the situation today in Queensland Australia and put it back a few thousand years. The local population would have been simple, uneducated, untravelled people. If they looked as far as the eye could see and everything was under water it is not inconceivable that they would believe that the whole world was under water (and they would not be in any position to check it out).

Every ancient civilisation has its flood narrative...

I think it is safe to assume that every ancient civilisation experienced flooding of Queensland levels at some time.

It never fails to amaze me that religious people today, with their arguably greater education and perception, still believe in this nonsense and continue to propagate it when the simple explanation above is much more believable.

.

 

[Cornish Steve]

How soon they forget. In the Mind of God thread you told us how you believe that the physical punishment of children was both necessary and good.

I do believe that children need to be punished when they do wrong. When they continue down a particularly difficult path, then maybe a spanking is deserved - yes. I would never call such a thing 'beautiful'! Necessary, yes. My oldest son, now 25, will tell you that, in his case, it was deserved and it helped. He was a 'wild thing' during his teenage years. Thankfully, he grew out of it, is now a male nurse, laughs at his antics from those days, and agrees with how we addressed his excesses.

As parents, we have an awesome responsibility to see that our children know right from wrong and have the self-control to resist wrong paths. For some personalities, they need a little help. Yes, I'm aware that some children are physically abused, which is despicable, but that's very different from corrective punishment. The key, perhaps, is that it's applied in an unemotional, after-the-fact manner and its purpose is carefully explained. From my experience, it can hurt the parent more than the child.

As for your road to Damascus moment on evolution - I'm pleased that you got there isn the end, but I'm peeved that it was Francis Collins saying that it's ok to accept it rather than your own deduction that got you there. But we must be grateful for any convert.

Science sometimes progresses when we discard smaller principles to embrace a previously missed larger principle. This was my little example. I missed the importance of probability as the tool for guiding the process - and as the way God interacts with our world. It's true in miracles as well. What really drove the message home to me was a better understanding (I think) of what it means to exist outside of time and how probability links the two worlds.

Now about this bloody ark - I'm sure Collins can put you right on that one too.....

Over the last couple of years, I've developed an interesting theory about this, which will (once again) probably make me an 'outcast' to all groups! As I mentioned before, it's unwise to write off a story that's present in the writings of just about every ancient culture. The key is to understand the purpose of the event.

 

[cjd]

:
And I was having a bit of fun highlighting the hysterical position fundamentalists find themselves in with regards to the pompous why they declare the Bible infallible, and dismiss Sacred Tradition, when even an amateur glace at the History of the Church shows the key centrality of Tradition, and the fact they accept the decisions of the men who made up the Ecumenical Councils as infallible, because it's they that gave them their infallible Bible

One thing I can virtually guarantee when talking to any believer is that they have never researched their belief's history. Generally they know nothing about how their beliefs came about and if they did, they'd realise what a pile of horse manure they have in their hands today.

Catholics make a great deal of what they call Sacred Tradition - but what it actually is is just the proof that their beliefs are man made in the usual way of these things through money and power politics. Constantine was more concerned with protecting his empire than creating something properly representing the words of a guy that may or may not have been said some 300 years earlier.

btw, I long ago found what I'm looking for, for god's sake to start praying for me..........

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think it is safe to assume that every ancient civilisation experienced flooding of Queensland levels at some time.

It never fails to amaze me that religious people today, with their arguably greater education and perception, still believe in this nonsense and continue to propagate it when the simple explanation above is much more believable.

You haven't read the accounts, have you? They share some remarkable similarities, and they cannot be explained by Queensland-style flooding. It was more than that.

 

[cjd]

You haven't read the accounts, have you? They share some remarkable similarities, and they cannot be explained by Queensland-style flooding. It was more than that.

So let's get this straight Steve, are you still saying that you believe the bible story of Noah's Ark to be literally true?

 

[Parthelan]

Catholics make a great deal of what they call Sacred Tradition -.

btw, I long ago found what I'm looking for, for god's sake to start praying for me..........

Catholic AND Orthodox

I'm genuinely pleased you've found what you're looking for.

 

[DCE]

So let's get this straight Steve, are you still saying that you believe the bible story of Noah's Ark to be literally true?

Would finding Noah’s ark really confirm and even create faith?

The Bible shows that genuine faith does not depend on objects we can see and touch. (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Some people are so skeptical that they insist that only physical evidence would enable them to put faith in certain Bible accounts.

The truth is, though, that for such individuals no amount of evidence would produce faith.

Jesus himself said that some people simply cannot be convinced of spiritual truths—even if they should see someone rise from the dead!—Luke 16:31.

On the other hand, genuine faith is not credulity; it is based on solid evidence. (Hebrews 11:1)

Is there solid evidence that can help reasonable people today to put faith in the Bible account about the Flood?

Indeed, there is. Jesus Christ plainly stated: “Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived.” (Luke 17:26, 27)

This is the best evidence possible.

Why?

Jesus was in heaven before he came to the earth. (John 8:58)

He watched the building of the ark; he saw the Flood.

Now, which evidence seems more convincing to you?

The real eyewitness testimony of One who proved perfectly reliable and who gave proof of being the Son of God?

Or the dim possibility of explorers finding some ancient pieces of wood on a frozen mountaintop?

When considered from that standpoint, the evidence that Noah’s ark existed is already overwhelming.

 

[DCE]

So let's get this straight Steve, are you still saying that you believe the bible story of Noah's Ark to be literally true?

Noah's Ark had ample carrying capacity.

The passenger list of the ark was quite impressive.

Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures "of every sort of flesh, two of each," were to be taken aboard. "Male and female they will be.

Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive."

Of the clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken.

A great quantity and variety of food for all these creatures, to last for more than a year, also had to be stowed away.-Ge 6:18-21; 7:2,*3.

The "kinds" of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding "according to their kinds."

It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family "kinds"-the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two.

The breeding boundaries according to "kind" established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today.

Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 "kinds" of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird "kinds" were all that were required.

That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind-short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin-all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

These estimates may seem too restrictive to some, especially since such sources as The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals. (1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873)

However, over 60 percent of these are insects.

Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark.

Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.

(The Deluge Story in Stone, by B.*C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A.*M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p.*69)

So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

 

[paultnl]

So where did he get the Austrailian representatives from?

 

[cjd]

The simplest definition of a species is a group of animals or plants that can breed successfully. We've identified about 1.25m animal species but we know that there could be at least 10 times that as yet unidentified - mostly insecta and arthropods (mites).

On top of that there could be about 1 billion species of bacteria and an unknown number of animal species in the oceans awaiting identification.

Then we have plants.

Broadly speaking freshwater fish can't survive in salt water and saltwater fish can't survive in fresh - neither could survive in a mixture.

Virtually no plant would survive 6 months under water.

Once the idiotic creationists understood that there are more species in the world than those that the desert living stone age man knew about when the story was written and that it couldn't possibly work, they had to introduce the idea of 'kind'.

Kind could mean anything at all, but regardless of how it's defined; it couldn't possibly work as the animal in their 'kinds' can not interbreed (because only species can interbreed.). It's so fatuous it's really not worth going any further into - but I will if forced.

How can anyone that uses electric lighting think that this could possibly be true?

 

[DCE]

Kind could mean anything at all, but regardless of how it's defined; it couldn't possibly work as the animal in their 'kinds' can not interbreed (because only species can interbreed.). It's so fatuous it's really not worth going any further into - but I will if forced.

How can anyone that uses electric lighting think that this could possibly be true?

Breeders have discovered, while there may be many varieties of cats, for example, all the varieties forever stay cats and can interbreed only among themselves.

The same is true regarding all other basic kinds.

 

[cjd]

The same is true regarding all other basic kinds.

That's just rubbish DCE.

Some Species are so closely related that their DNA and chromosone count are almost identical and can be forced to mate. Usually the offspring of these species are short lived and or sterile but very occasionally a weird mixture like a liger can be produced that is potentially viable. It's rare and it doesn't happen in nature because the species never inhabit the same geography. (ironically, that's how some forms of evolution happens - by geographical separation of two once Interbreeding groups)

It doesn't help you DCE - the only way this ark works is by invoking miracles in several places. It beats me why you try so hard to make this a natural thing - if god did it by magic, fine. just don't try to make this seem physically plausible - it ain't.

 

[qsunvle]

raised to be a christian since i was a child, but now dont even go church cant be bother but beleive in the most high

 

[DCE]

That's just rubbish DCE.

Some Species are so closely related that their DNA and chromosone count are almost identical and can be forced to mate. Usually the offspring of these species are short lived and or sterile but very occasionally a weird mixture like a liger can be produced that is potentially viable. It's rare and it doesn't happen in nature because the species never inhabit the same geography. (ironically, that's how some forms of evolution happens - by geographical separation of two once Interbreeding groups)

It doesn't help you DCE - the only way this ark works is by invoking miracles in several places. It beats me why you try so hard to make this a natural thing - if god did it by magic, fine. just don't try to make this seem physically plausible - it ain't.

(Mark 10:27) Looking straight at them Jesus said: “With men it is impossible, but not so with God, for all things are possible with God.”

 

[paultnl]

(Mark 10:27) Looking straight at them Jesus said: “With men it is impossible, but not so with God, for all things are possible with God.”

And with my magic pixie dust I can win all arguments.

 

[Cornish Steve]

So let's get this straight Steve, are you still saying that you believe the bible story of Noah's Ark to be literally true?

Sorry for the delay. My son had an audition for the state honour band (he's a tuba player), and it consumed most of the day.

I do believe there was a flood, yes. The principal elements of a story appear in the ancient history of many civilisations around the world (across every continent, in fact), and there must be a reason for this. I'm not convinced the flood was worldwide in extent, though, mainly because of a lack of evidence. The chief protagonist would have believed it to be so, and I suspect that every person in that region was killed by it (for which there was a reason).

There is plenty of evidence for a huge flood in the region, the result of water suddenly flowing through the Bosporus and into the Black Sea - and the evidence was found and published comparatively recently. It's quite possible we'll find evidence of other floods, of a similar or even larger magnitude, in the region. Time will tell.

 

[Cornish Steve]

(Mark 10:27) Looking straight at them Jesus said: “With men it is impossible, but not so with God, for all things are possible with God.”

Context, context, context. There are plenty of things that God cannot do - and you'd better believe it. Otherwise, one day, you may hear a voice tell you "I was just kidding; get to the back of the line!"

Basically, God acts consistent with his personality, and that personality is revealed in the law and in the person of Christ. This is why documented promises and covenants can be believed. It's also why we can trust all the scientific evidence around us: He will not deceive.

 

[cjd]

So the flood itself was obviously impossible because no natural phenomenon could do it, it's impossible to gather all the animal and plants of the world into the deserts of north Africa, it's impossible to build a boat to contain them all, it's impossible to keep them alive for 6 months and it's impossible to get them all back to where they where supposed to be and it's impossible for them to repopulate the world to the point we see it today. So it's all only explicable by a miracle.

So far so daft.

The other explanation of course is that it's just a story.

 

[Subbynet]

Context, context, context. There are plenty of things that God cannot do - and you'd better believe it. Otherwise, one day, you may hear a voice tell you "I was just kidding; get to the back of the line!"

Basically, God acts consistent with his personality, and that personality is revealed in the law and in the person of Christ.

No, not at all. He acts consistently with the personality others have given him in the Bible - the same as Harry Potter. There is no law, there is no person, so you cannot find a personality any other way.

The context should be - we have not seen this God, or heard from this God. That's the context of the whole discussion, yet for some reason, its taken and discussed like his existence is a given based on the words of man.

This is why documented promises and covenants can be believed. It's also why we can trust all the scientific evidence around us: He will not deceive.

There is no reason to believe them, for they were wrote by man, not God, and man will deceive you for his own benefit.

 

[Subbynet]

BBC 1 now - The Big Questions, they will be discussing the new "Christian Atheists".

 

[cjd]

It's also why we can trust all the scientific evidence around us: He will not deceive.

In that case you're forced to accept the scientific evidence that tells us that a global flood could not possibly have occurred 4,000 years ago.

If it had, we would see the evidence of it everywhere we look - and we don't.

 

[DCE]

In that case you're forced to accept the scientific evidence that tells us that a global flood could not possibly have occurred 4,000 years ago.

If it had, we would see the evidence of it everywhere we look - and we don't.

It seem to me that if you saw evidence CJD you wouldn't believe that either.

Where did all this water come from that is frozen but is now melting?

During 2007, Arctic sea ice shrank to “the lowest levels since satellite measurements began.” The ice measured 1.65*million square miles [4,280,000*km2], a 23*percent drop beyond the previous low, recorded in 2005.—NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER, U.S.A.

Evidence that cannot be disputed.

 

[Subbynet]

It seem to me that if you saw evidence CJD you wouldn't believe that either.

Where did all this water come from that is frozen but is now melting?

Outer Space.

During 2007, Arctic sea ice shrank to "the lowest levels since satellite measurements began." The ice measured 1.65*million square miles [4,280,000*km2], a 23*percent drop beyond the previous low, recorded in 2005.-NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER, U.S.A.

Evidence that cannot be disputed.

You cannot calculate the amount of ice melting using miles squared, so actually, this data is very much in dispute. Your missing the very important calculation of depth which a satellite cannot tell you.

Even if all the ice on planet earth melted, it would not consume the surface land area. So its impossible for there to have been a "global" flood.

 

[DCE]

In that case you're forced to accept the scientific evidence that tells us that a global flood could not possibly have occurred 4,000 years ago.

If it had, we would see the evidence of it everywhere we look - and we don't.

A Marvelous Order of Things

Years ago, Kirtley F. Mather, at the time professor of geology at Harvard University, reached the following conclusion: “We live in a universe, not of chance or caprice, but of Law and Order. Its Administration is completely rational and worthy of the utmost respect.

Consider the marvelous mathematical scheme of nature that permits us to give consecutive atomic numbers to every element of matter.”

Let’s consider briefly that “marvelous mathematical scheme of nature.” Among the elements known to the ancients were gold, silver, copper, tin, and iron. Arsenic, bismuth, and antimony were identified by alchemists during the Middle Ages, and later during the 1700’s, many more elements were found.

In 1863 the spectroscope, which can separate the unique band of colors that each element gives off, was used to identify indium, which was the 63rd element discovered.

At that time the Russian chemist Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleyev concluded that the elements were*not created haphazardly. Finally, on March 18, 1869, his treatise “An Outline of the System of the Elements” was read to the Russian Chemical Society.

In it he declared: ‘I wish to establish some sort of system not guided by chance but by some sort of definite and exact principle.’

In this famous paper, Mendeleyev predicted: “We should still expect to discover many unknown simple bodies; for example, those similar to aluminum and silicon, elements with atomic weights of 65 to 75.” Mendeleyev left blank spaces for 16 new elements. When asked for proof for his predictions, he replied: “I have no need of proof. The laws of nature, unlike the laws of grammar, admit of no exception.” He added: “I suppose when my unknown elements are found, more people will pay us attention.”

That is exactly what occurred! “During the next 15 years,” explains Encyclopedia Americana, “the discovery of gallium, scandium and germanium, whose properties closely matched those predicted by Mendeleyev, established the validity of the periodic table and the fame of*its author.” By the early part of the 20th*century, all existing elements had been discovered.

Clearly, as research chemist Elmer W. Maurer noted, “this beautiful arrangement is hardly a matter of chance.” Of the possibility that the harmonious order of the elements is a matter of chance, professor of chemistry John Cleveland Cothran observed: “The post-prediction discovery of all of the elements whose existence [Mendeleyev] predicted, and their possession of almost exactly the properties he predicted for them, effectively removed any such possibility.

His great generalization is never called ‘The Periodic Chance.’ Instead, it is ‘The Periodic Law.’”

A close study of the elements and how they fit together to form everything in the universe caused famous physicist P.A.M. Dirac, who was a professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, to say: “One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and one could say he used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

More evidence!

 

[Subbynet]

That's not evidence DCE.

Its false evidence, because mathematics was not the subject of study, hence the numbers we create to explain the universe maybe large in number, but you don't need maths to change H and O to H2O.

Also, elements are not exact the world over, you will find different atomic weights depending where you found the element, but for mathematical purposes, this is not taken into so much consideration!

Hence your beauty in maths, is actually an illusion created by man to make the maths simpler to calculate.

 

[DCE]

Outer Space.

You cannot calculate the amount of ice melting using miles squared, so actually, this data is very much in dispute. Your missing the very important calculation of depth which a satellite cannot tell you.

Even if all the ice on planet earth melted, it would not consume the surface land area. So its impossible for there to have been a "global" flood.

Scientists have said that in the past many of the mountains were much lower than at present and that some have even been pushed up from under the seas.

Furthermore, it is believed that there was a time when the oceans themselves were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as testified to by river channels extending far out under the oceans.

But regarding the present situation, National Geographic magazine, in its issue of January 1945, reported: “There is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level.

Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds caused water to drain off the land and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was ample water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the Bible states.

Contradiction of your facts again by people more qualified to give a correct answer would you agree.

 

[cjd]

It seem to me that if you saw evidence CJD you wouldn't believe that either.

Show me evidence and I WILL change my mind. I have no problem being wrong, I will abandon any opinion I hold if it can be shown to be wrong.

Where did all this water come from that is frozen but is now melting?

During 2007, Arctic sea ice shrank to “the lowest levels since satellite measurements began.” The ice measured 1.65*million square miles [4,280,000*km2], a 23*percent drop beyond the previous low, recorded in 2005.—NATIONAL SNOW AND ICE DATA CENTER, U.S.A.

Evidence that cannot be disputed.

I'm speechless.

 

[Beachcomber]

When he asked the question I was on the computer at work and looked up the relevant info pertaining to what he was asking about the Early Church Fathers and what they taught - and gave it to him.
You think I'm going to lock up, drive home, open the relevant volumes of books and type the exact same words :|

Thanks for the most useless contribution to the thread to date

That comment reveals how much of this thread you have skipped.

I, and many other followers of this thread, are interested in opinions, thoughts, reasoning and points of view - we are not interested in regurgitation of endless tracts of scripture.

The well established fact that scripture can be interpreted in any way which suits your needs makes such an exersise irrelevant.

If a point cannot be made using your own words, then you have no point.

 

[Subbynet]

Scientists have said that in the past many of the mountains were much lower than at present and that some have even been pushed up from under the seas.

Yes, but mountains created over millions of years are not going to change that much in just 2000 years. :redface:

Furthermore, it is believed that there was a time when the oceans themselves were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as testified to by river channels extending far out under the oceans.

Its well known now that the North Sea was once land, but the water which made the sea didn't appear from no where, it moved from one place to another.

But regarding the present situation, National Geographic magazine, in its issue of January 1945, reported: “There is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level.

Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds caused water to drain off the land and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was ample water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the Bible states.

Did the bible also state that the land was dumped evenly into the sea? No, of course not, because that would be stupid.

Contradiction of your facts again by people more qualified to give a correct answer would you agree.

You cannot even comprehend the "facts" your showing us."

 

[Parthelan]

That comment reveals how much of this thread you have skipped.

I, and many other followers of this thread, are interested in opinions, thoughts, reasoning and points of view - we are not interested in regurgitation of endless tracts of scripture.

The well established fact that scripture can be interpreted in any way which suits your needs makes such an exersise irrelevant.

If a point cannot be made using your own words, then you have no point.

And your comment revels you didnt read the question I was answering did you
I was asked what the ECF had to say on the Trinity, so I was quoting what they had to say on the Trinity.
Oh, and the writings of the ECF is not Scripture

<<Edited by mod>>

 

[DCE]

Yes, but mountains created over millions of years are not going to change that much in just 2000 years. :redface:
Its well known now that the North Sea was once land, but the water which made the sea didn't appear from no where, it moved from one place to another.
Did the bible also state that the land was dumped evenly into the sea? No, of course not, because that would be stupid.
You cannot even comprehend the "facts" your showing us."

There was tremendous changes which occurred on the earth's surface with the fall of a vast canopy of water!

This immense weight of water apparently caused a shifting and buckling of earth's relatively thin crust. Thus, new mountains were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened and new shorelines were established.

And, too, the sudden fall of this canopy and the tremendous upheavals of earth would create great waves of rushing water, accomplishing in a matter of days what many scientists believe took millenniums of time to occur by slow processes of erosion.

Mighty torrents of water carved out deep valleys and huge canyons. Monstrous boulders were smashed together and moved great distances from their native setting, like so many pebbles.

Think of the great destruction of animal life this would cause.

Then consider this report by Byron C. Nelson in his book The Deluge Story in Stone:"The way fishes by the millions are entombed in the rocks of England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Switzerland, the American Rockies; the way elephants and rhinoceroses are buried by the millions in Alaska, Siberia, England, Italy, Greece; the way hippopotami are buried by the thousands in Sicily; the way reptiles are buried by the millions in western Canada, the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, to mention only a portion of such instances, absolutely require the explanation of great catastrophes for their elucidation."

In this connection, William J. Miller, Emeritus Professor of Geology at the University of California at Los Angeles, notes in An Introduction to Historical Geology (1952): "Comparatively few remains of organisms now inhabiting the earth are being deposited under conditions favorable for their preservation as fossils. .*.*. It is, nevertheless, remarkable that so vast a number of fossils are embedded in the rocks." A catastrophe such as the Noachian flood could account for this.

Around the Arctic Ocean there is a great swath of permanently frozen land, the greater part of which is covered with a frozen muck composed of sand, silt and earth. In an article entitled "Riddle of the Frozen Giants," The Saturday Evening Post of January 16, 1960, observes: "The list of animals that have been thawed out of this mess would cover several pages. .*.*. They are all in the muck. These facts indicated water as the agency which engulfed the creatures. .*.*. many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright.

"Here is a really shocking-to our previous way of thinking-picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat.

Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?"

The logical answer is that it came with the rapid change that occurred at the time of the Flood.

With the removal of the insulating watery canopy, the polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze, trapping animals that then lived far north of their present habitat.

The proof that this was a sudden event, and not something that occurred over a long period of time, is the fact that even the green grass they were eating was quickly deepfrozen in their mouths and stomachs, where it has been discovered in modern times.

How consistent this evidence is with what the Bible says about the Noachian flood!

 

[cjd]

This sort of religious fanaticism for some reason which I just can't understand 'can't be true unto itself.'

The bible stories are obviously just stories passed down the generations by vocal traditions ; creation had to be explained, famine floods and war had to be understood. These people were literally bronze age primitives with no knowledge of how even the simple things of the natural world worked.

The thing that fascinates me is why the modern day primitives like DCE need to use fake scientific claims in order to support their stories. It doesn't make any sort of sense, the stories can not survive any real scientific scrutiny but they somehow can't just say that it was all a miracle and god did it. End of discussion. They somehow lack the confidence in their own belief, they have to tell lies about it to others.

It must be a nightmare trying to hold the tide back. (But they are helped by not being allowed to read any real science themselves I suppose; the stuff they spout is all from their creationist sources, no actual science can studied.)

 

[Parthelan]

The thing that fascinates me is why the modern day primitives like DCE need to use fake scientific claims in order to support their stories.

Because they are literalists.

They take every word written in the Bible literally.

So they have to go through all sorts of hoops to make it fit their personal private interpretation of the Bible.