If Evolution

[JudgeRightly]

Could be. But of course, since it doesn't say the whole world was flooded, and since there was a huge regional flood in the Middle East at roughly the right time, I'm inclined to believe that it did happen.



As you admit, the mountains at the time were thousands of feet high, and therefore, if the water only raised 25 feet, not even the mountains in the Middle East would have been covered. Not even valleys higher than 25 feet above the lower plains. So that's pretty much out.

So what part of "and the mountains were covered" do you not get? Or are you just ignoring that sentence?

There were such peaks where the Black Sea was created by the flood. There are also remains of settlements at the bottom of the Black Sea.

I see your denial, but as in this post, you have revised God's word to suit your own inclinations.

Please show how.

As I keep saying, I'm taking what is said in the Bible at face value, reading what it says as what it says, which is that all the mountains were covered. How can mountains be covered in water if it's a local flood? How does the ark "[rise] high above the earth" if the waters are only 15 cubits high (first of all, the boat wouldn't have even been lifted off the ground if the water was only 15 cubits high, it's too heavy and there's not enough upward pressure on the hull) and then how could the ark get moved around on the surface of the waters? It wouldn't move at all if it were simply a local flood. Please zoom out a bit and get the big picture of what's being said, instead of just focusing in on a single phrase.

Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days. - Genesis 7:17-24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:17-24&version=NKJV

 

[Stripe]

Well, let's see if we can help you with it.

You can't help anyone with anything until you learn to read.

This reminds me of when TH schooled Stipe as to how the legal system works, a thread actually started by Stipe and one in which he he embarrassed himself by showing a lack of even a layman's understanding of the law.

:rotfl:

You expect a lawyer to understand the law?

Prediction: He'll call you 'blablaman', scuttle off under a flurry of smileys and/or go on about 'Darwinists' again.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Arthur's brain.

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile, the Darwinists' remain in their ignorance, raising a weak objection to an idea and ignoring the answer.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:rotfl:

You expect a lawyer to understand the law?

Oddly enough, yes. TH does and he comprehensively took you apart on the subject, showing you up for a lack of understanding of even the basics. It was entertaining in its own way as there's always a satisfaction to be had when pompous, arrogant blowhards are humiliated.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Barbarian chuckles:
Of course. How else would it be dispersed? If it wasn't dispersed, it would roll back and forth indefinitely.




Well, let's see if we can help you with it...

A moving ball has kinetic energy. Going down the hill, it gains kinetic energy, losing potential energy. At the bottom of the hill, it has a maximum of kinetic energy and zero potential energy. As it goes up the hill, it gains potential energy and loses kinetic energy. When it gets to a point somewhat lower than the point at which it started, it will stop and then begin to roll downhill the other way. And it will go back and forth, in lower and lower runs as more and more of the energy is dispersed as heat from friction. Eventially, all of the energy will be lost, and the ball will come to a halt at the bottom of the hill.

Since it's at the bottom of the hill, it has no potential energy and since it's not moving, it has no kinetic energy. Where did it all disperse? In the form of heat.

Now, if there was no friction from air resistance or rolling friction, there would be no dispersion of energy as heat, and the ball would oscillate back and forth indefinitely.

What has you confused, Stipe, is the fact that kinetic energy is not dispersed (other than by friction into heat), but is transformed into a different form of energy, potential energy.



If you'll watch closely, you'll see that he doesn't just "drop", Stipe. He "pumps" when he hits the bottom of the pipe, to add energy to the board. This increases the kinetic energy and allows him to go higher than he would than if he merely rolled like a ball down a hill:

So, up the hill, most of the kinetic energy has been transformed to potential energy. The remaining energy is lost as heat from friction, when he dismounts and he lands on the deck,and comes to a halt.

Stipe, being unaware of the physics involved, exclaims: "Oh, his energy didn't disperse! He's going to have to keep rolling back and forth forever!"

Stupid, stupid Stipe. :chuckle:

Seems as though Stipe is too busy rolling up and down a hill to answer you...

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. He tries to pass off the lessons of history as "figurative" and refuses to elaborate on what the Bible might mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says.

You've merely revised the figurative languaged to make it more acceptable to you. We understand, Stipe. But it's still your new revision.

 

[The Barbarian]

Seems as though Stipe is too busy rolling up and down a hill to answer you...

The Energizer Bunny of creationism. Swinging from one side to the other, seemingly endlessly tossing out generic one-liners.


The funny thing is, Stipe has no way of comprehending what's going on in such a system.

 

[The Barbarian]

Creationists often have a problem with understadning energy and how it works.

 

[6days]

You've merely revised the figurative languaged to make it more acceptable to you. We understand, Stipe. But it's still your new revision.

God's Word has not changed. It tells us in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The OT Jews believed it. The NT Christians believed it.

There is no revision.... Even In the NT, Jesus and Paul argued for the historical truth of Scripture, upon which the Gospel stands.

 

[The Barbarian]

God's Word has not changed.

But YE creationists have tried to change it. Without success.

Let me ask you. Is the story of Abraham and Isaac a literal history or a parable?

 

[6days]

But YE creationists have tried to change it. Without success.

Let me ask you.

You are mistaken... The earliest manuscripts still tell that In the beginning, God created in six days.

Is the story of Abraham and Isaac a literal history or a parable?

Uh.... Are you suggesting that God sacrificing His Son was just a parable? No... its history...It's God's Word. Yes of course Abraham and Isaac is literal history.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Is the story of Abraham and Isaac a literal history or a parable?

Uh.... Are you suggesting that God sacrificing His Son was just a parable? No... its history...It's God's Word. Yes of course Abraham and Isaac is literal history.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a parable receive him back.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Barbarian asks:
Is the story of Abraham and Isaac a literal history or a parable?

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a parable receive him back.

Literal history.

The following section of scripture (at least in my Bible is titled, "The Faith of the Patriarchs."

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,”concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. - Hebrews 11:17-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews11:17-20&version=NKJV

Patriarchs. As in, the fathers of the Nation of Israel. Israel's a real country, right? It's not figurative?

This:

concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. - Hebrews 11:19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews11:19&version=NKJV

is saying that Abraham received Isaac, in a figurative sense, from the dead. In Abraham's mind, the entire three day journey (note the parallels between "Abraham and Isaac" and Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection), Isaac was as good as dead, because God has told Abraham to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice, and Abraham was obedient to God because of his faith. So to Abraham, It was all but guaranteed his beloved son was going to die.

So when God stopped Abraham just as he was about to drive the knife into his son, it was as if Isaac was raised from the dead, because in Abraham's mind, Isaac was no longer going to die, but he would live. And live he did, and became one of the patriarchs.

 

[6days]

Barbarian asks:
Is the story of Abraham and Isaac a literal history or a parable?

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; 18even he to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19accounting that God is able to raise up, even from the dead; from whence he did also in a parable receive him back.

I love it when you quote scripture!!
Keep it up!

 

[Stripe]

Creationists often have a problem with understadning energy and how it works.

Not this time, Blablarian.

You presented a challenge to the Hydroplate theory, saying the crust could not have slid as it did without boiling the oceans.

However, it's quite clear that you spent no time actually reading the theory or thinking seriously about where the energy might have gone other than toward heating water.

As my two thought experiments showed, it is quite obvious where the energy went.

But in a vain attempt to draw attention away from how seriously you've embarrassed yourself again, you pretend that you don't understand the simple explanations I provided.

One day, you'll learn to engage in an honest manner.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not this time, Blablarian.

You presented a challenge to the Hydroplate theory, saying the crust could not have slid as it did without boiling the oceans.

However, it's quite clear that you spent no time actually reading the theory or thinking seriously about where the energy might have gone other than toward heating water.

As my two thought experiments showed, it is quite obvious where the energy went.

But in a vain attempt to draw attention away from how seriously you've embarrassed yourself again, you pretend that you don't understand the simple explanations I provided.

One day, you'll learn to engage in an honest manner.

Stripe, which post # did you explain the hydroplate physics?

I'm not doubting you at all. I want to see

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, which post # did you explain the hydroplate physics?

I'm not doubting you at all. I want to see

This is where the Darwinist's practice of avoiding sensible dialogue gets us. They will do anything to avoid a discussion over the evidence, so when the conversation heads that way, they spam it until it's buried.

Good luck finding the posts. They're back there somewhere.

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is where the Darwinist's practice of avoiding sensible dialogue gets us. They will do anything to avoid a discussion over the evidence, so when the conversation heads that way, they spam it until it's buried.

Good luck finding the posts. They're back there somewhere.

What? I'm asking to examine your evidence? Why would you refuse that request?

 

[Stripe]

It's all there.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It's all there.

So just TELL ME where it is? I'll take an approximation if you don't remember exactly

You said this:

Good luck finding the posts. They're back there somewhere.

You claim you want to discuss evidence. I'm trying to do so.