I take it that you consider my take on the Flood as "obviously false" in that case, which means, I would like to see some debating on it by you - if you can debate and not just bite and bark, that is!
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood
Collapse
X
-
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostIt is not a joke.
I prefer debate over attempts to "wake me up".
Well, the fact is that quite a number of good and sane people HAVE believed either in gods - plural for the pagans - or in God and His angels doing quite a lot of the stuff you are inventing new tasks for blind matter about.
There is really nothing extreme about my views - except to the extreme and indeed deadly mind of modernity.
You have time after time been challenged by me to substantiate that YOUR take on what Christ rebuked the Pharisees over is the correct one. The challenge, by the way, extends to your pastor, if you feel disinclined.
You have time after time refused to give examples.
However, would you, with your views, not have labelled Christ insane and extreme when twice he took the whip and drove out the merchants from the temple?
I think you are closer to National Socialists than I am. They were also worshippers of scientism, they were also rejecting the "blind dogma" of Catholics (and perhaps, if then available in Germany, of Rabbinic Jews).
You have engaged in vituperation of what I am doing rather than in answering my actual arguments here.
But your vituperation has gone very vitriolic.
I am tired of your attempts to "wake me up" - especially since they involve even more calumny.
Aquinas had lots more of light on the topic than you have.
If you had told him that - given the evidence available since his day - what he said about angels would amount to painting God as a deceiver, he would as far as I can gather as a student of his, have replied that your view would equally excuse astrological determinism.
You had another thread where I charged you to give another example of when angels would really be just deceiving us, if my world view "were" true, after I had refuted more than one and asked for time on exactly one (though I forget which one), and you refused to do that there. But here you come back with the same accusation, equally unsubatsntiated this time.
I am not going to waste time with you on theological debate. When you can't be honest enough and/or can't comprehend the depth of deception you have ascribed to God and the Angels, we have little if any common ground or common moral understanding on which to base any legitimate debate.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 12-28-2016, 09:44 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostWhat aquinas said is not what you are saying.
Check : Aquinas says angels are moving planets eastward (including notoriously sun and moon each year and month full circle) - I say angels are moving planets eastward and doing some dance moves in "fix" stars as well, not just limited to constellations, but also including those known to Heliocentrics as "aberration, parallax, proper movement" and a few fireworks known as novas.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostYou are saying the angels purposefully simulate a 13.7 billion year old uinverse
I never admitted that either one or other false deducction was their main motivation for their movements.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postwhere the earth orbits the sun and the sun orbits a galactic center in a galaxy moving against the CMB
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postfor the express purpose of tricking mankind into believing that is the state of the universe.
I have also never admitted that it is "for the express purpose", see next.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThat is pure deception, and you know it.
For one thing, the acts now described by astronomers of heliocentric convictions as "aberration, parallax and proper movement" are all so small that before the telescopes, that is for most of the existence of mankind, it was an affair between angels, unwatched by men.
For one thing more, if Herschel did his deductions wrongly in 1838, less than hundred years later, Tolkien was writing Silmarillion, which could bring at least some readers (if not the author himself) on the right track. Especially such readers of JRRT who are also readers of St Thomas Aquinas.
For a third, it is totally possible there is a real aesthetic motive for it even outside all of this, I even think this very likely, and as the angel who guides the sun has a role so to speak mirroring that of Christ in certain ways, he enjoys some admiration (not adoration!) from other angels who do their dance moves in sympathy.
And fourth, as to people who act like you, you might deserve being fooled as a by product of these things, according to Isaiah 40:[23] He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI am not going to waste time with you on theological debate.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostWhen you can't be honest enough and/or can't comprehend the depth of deception you have ascribed to God and the Angels,
None at all for people living before telescopes, outside science admiration, or who have other ideas than scientists and therefore won't be misled by your false reasonings.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postwe have little if any common ground or common moral understanding on which to base any legitimate debate.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostI take it that you consider my take on the Flood as "obviously false" in that case, which means, I would like to see some debating on it by you - if you can debate and not just bite and bark, that is!
That's why I stopped arguing with Trump voters, Young Earthers, Global Flooders and AGW deniers to name a few.
Sometimes the only reasonable response is just to point and laugh."The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."
Navin R. Johnson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wally View PostTo paraphrase Jonathan Swift; You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Originally posted by Wally View PostThat's why I stopped arguing with Trump voters, Young Earthers, Global Flooders and AGW deniers to name a few.
Originally posted by Wally View PostSometimes the only reasonable response is just to point and laugh.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostCheck : Aquinas says God is moving solid spheres westward each day - I say God is moving aether westward each day.
Check : Aquinas says angels are moving planets eastward (including notoriously sun and moon each year and month full circle) - I say angels are moving planets eastward and doing some dance moves in "fix" stars as well, not just limited to constellations, but also including those known to Heliocentrics as "aberration, parallax, proper movement" and a few fireworks known as novas.
No. I said they take into account that people like you will neglect angelic movers and due to counting only on mechanistic causation will deduce that - just as they take into account that astrologers will deduce improper deductions from horoscopes about character and fates of people born under certain horoscopes.
I never admitted that either one or other false deducction was their main motivation for their movements.
You are once again confusing "mankind" with heliocentric scientists and their believers. That is once again like confusing mankind with astrologers and their believers (or did I make this parallel just now?).
I have also never admitted that it is "for the express purpose", see next.
And fourth, as to people who act like you, you might deserve being fooled as a by product of these things, according to Isaiah 40:[23] He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostOne doesn't have to say that. Part of your problem Hans is that your ignorance of science and mathematics and astronomy leave you blissfully unaware of the fact there is not other possible motivation for the millions of motions measured in the heavens. Every place one looks are motions, from parallax to orbits to gasses ejected and modified over time, direct observations of dynamic physical processes whose 'simulation' on a sphere 1 light day wide can only be one thing: The purposed deception of any and all earth-bound observers. There is not side step, no feigned wave of a hand, not alternative justification that can account for what is observed. Your theory makes God a willful deceiver. Aquinas could hold his view with impunity, for he did not have the evidence you have which makes the concept ludicrous. But you have that data, or at least access to it. So you can't justify your position theologically. It is 100% contrary to the revelation of the God of scripture, a God of truth.
There is no legitimate parallel between those who presume to foretell the future based on a mystical presumed connection between the motions of the star and the destinies of men with those who study the physical structure of the universe we observe from the Earth.
Nor will you ever, regardless of its truth. That is the nature of those in your position.
This verse is not talking about the scientific endeavor, but those mystics who seek out magical power and knowledge through the black arts.
Jim
Nothing in the Hebrew references secrets or knowledge, but rather princes, judges, rulers.
The actual context here is neither the illegitimate access to knowledge through mysticism nor any legitimate search for knowledge, but rather a rebuke to the proud and powerful who do not recognize their need to be submitted to God in their rule. Who think they themselves are great. There is no legitimate translation from the actual Hebrew that can be twisted into some sort of excuse for God to willfully deceive mankind, proud or not.
And - in fact - in this passage several times the author appeals to the majesty of the heavens as evidence of the greatness of God and His creation and the human need to recognize His greatness over their own. And concept contradicted violently by the idea God has created the heavens as an instrument of deception.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 12-28-2016, 08:31 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostOne doesn't have to say that. Part of your problem Hans is that your ignorance of science and mathematics and astronomy leave you blissfully unaware of the fact there is not other possible motivation for the millions of motions measured in the heavens. Every place one looks are motions, from parallax to orbits to gasses ejected and modified over time, direct observations of dynamic physical processes whose 'simulation' on a sphere 1 light day wide can only be one thing: The purposed deception of any and all earth-bound observers. There is not side step, no feigned wave of a hand, not alternative justification that can account for what is observed. Your theory makes God a willful deceiver. Aquinas could hold his view with impunity, for he did not have the evidence you have which makes the concept ludicrous. But you have that data, or at least access to it. So you can't justify your position theologically. It is 100% contrary to the revelation of the God of scripture, a God of truth.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThere is no legitimate parallel between those who presume to foretell the future based on a mystical presumed connection between the motions of the star and the destinies of men with those who study the physical structure of the universe we observe from the Earth.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNor will you ever, regardless of its truth. That is the nature of those in your position.
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThis verse is not talking about the scientific endeavor, but those mystics who seek out magical power and knowledge through the black arts.
How can you guarantee God thinks differently of you?
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostBTW: Hans has quoted Isaiah 40:23 in a form found in the Latin Vulgate, which is in fact not a correct representation of the Hebrew. ...
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe actual context here is neither the illegitimate access to knowledge through mysticism nor any legitimate search for knowledge, but rather a rebuke to the proud and powerful who do not recognize their need to be submitted to God in their rule. Who think they themselves are great. There is no legitimate translation from the actual Hebrew that can be twisted into some sort of excuse for God to willfully deceive mankind, proud or not.
Making someone ridiculous may involve giving someone enough rope to hang himself in. Metaphorically. This is what I think awaits the scientists whom you think of as representing mankind - which also makes them kind of powerful, these days. How long have Heliocentrics been ruling in Western astronomy? Since 1750, perhaps?
266 years of Heliocentric astronomy, earlier half of it not very socially dominant either, out of 7215 years, that is 3.6 or 3.7% of the history of mankind, and you think THAT represents mankind in God's eyes?
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostAnd - in fact - in this passage several times the author appeals to the majesty of the heavens as evidence of the greatness of God and His creation and the human need to recognize His greatness over their own. And concept contradicted violently by the idea God has created the heavens as an instrument of deception.
God has most probably given both them and you "enough rope to hang yourself", if you refuse to listen to sense.
1 light day is VERY huge and majestic, there is really no need for billions of light years in order for the verses to be true.
Also, the part of "proclaim God's glory" quite certainly concords very well with angels doing a choreography. Especially one which next year will lead up to an "astrological" equivalent of Apocalypse 12.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostThe proportion between actual discoveries and what are unwarranted changes of paradigm has been overrated.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post... Vulgate represents the Hebrew accessible to St Jerome in 400 AD. NASB represents the Hebrew of the Masoretic version, accessible since 1000 AD or so. ...אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostWhy not look at earlier witnesses to the text at Qumran and in the LXX?
LXX comp. to Vulgate:
23 ὁ διδοὺς ἄρχοντας εἰς οὐδὲν ἄρχειν, τὴν δὲ γῆν ὡς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν.
23 qui dat secretorum scrutatores quasi non sint iudices terrae velut inane fecit
Who giveth the rulers into ruling nothing and earth as if He hadn't made it (? My Greek is rusty)
Who giveth the scrutinisers of secrets as if they were not judges of earth, He made as if vain. (Either my Latin is rustier than I thought, or there is a problem in the text - a problem which could be due to a calque on Hebrew*).
* Who has not moaned over the Latin of "cuius participatio eius in idipsum"! That is an over literal rendering of some Hebrew phrase, word for word.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostQumran - beyond me. Totally.
LXX comp. to Vulgate:
23 ὁ διδοὺς ἄρχοντας εἰς οὐδὲν ἄρχειν, τὴν δὲ γῆν ὡς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν.
23 qui dat secretorum scrutatores quasi non sint iudices terrae velut inane fecit
Who giveth the rulers into ruling nothing and earth as if He hadn't made it (? My Greek is rusty)
Who giveth the scrutinisers of secrets as if they were not judges of earth, He made as if vain. (Either my Latin is rustier than I thought, or there is a problem in the text - a problem which could be due to a calque on Hebrew*).
* Who has not moaned over the Latin of "cuius participatio eius in idipsum"! That is an over literal rendering of some Hebrew phrase, word for word.
I'm not sure the Greek says what you want it to say. What is it that you want the Vulgate to mean here?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostBY soil I suppose you mean humus - it is forming very rapidly and no one who digs up humus in his garden will ever be told by any scientist the humus took billions of years to form.
The limestone deposits in caves ... will you give me a source saying there are annual actual RINGS?
The flowstones, anyway, we do have pictorial evidence it can form very rapidly.
You failed to notice, perhaps, that the limestone we talk about is CaCO3 - just as the end product of cement.
CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) → Ca(HCO3)2(aq)
Ca(HCO3)2(aq) → CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq)
This is not how cement nor concrete is made.
In other words, it is not a chemical impossibility for limestone to form rapidly.
Obviously, in the aftermath of a huge Flood, certain areas would look like gigantic magnifications of, for instance, cement being put in place and left to harden in a building.
Calcium Carbonate + H2O is heated to form CaO+CO2 and Ca(OH)2
Tricalcium silicate + Water--->Calcium silicate hydrate+Calcium hydroxide + heat
2 Ca3SiO5 + 7 H2O ---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + 3 Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI'm not sure the Greek says what you want it to say. What is it that you want the Vulgate to mean here?http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBy soil I mean the weathered regolith that forms by the weathering of bedrock where biologic activity takes place. Humus is soil organic matter and only is a small percentage of the surface horizons. It is the weathered soil regolith that takes tens of thousands of years to form
If so, God had provided material of that quality before Adam started ploughing.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo we do not. Still, what are flowstones?
Actually, when looking up, I found this wiki on the precise term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowstone
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBy the way this is how limestone forms
CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) → Ca(HCO3)2(aq)
Ca(HCO3)2(aq) → CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq)
This is not how cement nor concrete is made.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo the chemical makeup and formation of concrete is not the same as limestone.
Calcium Carbonate + H2O is heated to form CaO+CO2 and Ca(OH)2
Tricalcium silicate + Water--->Calcium silicate hydrate+Calcium hydroxide + heat
2 Ca3SiO5 + 7 H2O ---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + 3 Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ
Note I said cement (I think) and not concrete. Even if it was some time back.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
1 response
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
05-03-2024, 01:14 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
12 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment