some other dude
New member
:thumb:
think in terms of the heat from these H-bomb equivilents. How do you expect to "equalize" that? How do you get rid of the heat?
The friction generated by moving entire continents at those rates would generate enough heat to boil the oceans.
All that energy would have to be released into the seas and atmosphere. Ejection of that much water at escape velocity (about seven miles a second) would incinerate the earth.
None of this can be reconciled with reality, unless you want to invent scores of new miracles.
But once you let magic solve your problems, then anything is possible.
Magic, like a dead man coming back to life?
Oh that's right. You don't believe in a literal resurrection. It's a "parable."
Magic, like a dead man coming back to life?
Oh that's right. You don't believe in a literal resurrection. It's a "parable."
Magic, like making up non-scriptural miracles to solve problems with your ideas.
I see you haven't learned that lying isn't a Christian trait. As you know from our previous exchanges, I assert that the Resurrection is a fact.
This is why you have the reputation you do, here.
Oh, that's right. You think that you can sin against God all you want, and He'll have to save you because you have "faith." Carry on.
Notice how very easily Barbie thinks he can get away with changing what a man writes and claiming the other person to be the one with the failing.(Stipe claims a layer of water above the Earth) Barbarian chuckles: Well, let's see your model with some numbers on how a ocean of water can be suspended in the sky above the Earth. This should be fun. Stipe dodges: It wasn't.
So the creation account is an allegory for creation. Man, you're weird. :chuckle:Creation.
Yeah, but we have a word for an allegory about a real event that is called the same thing. An allegory called creation and about creation based on real events is more simply called "History". :chuckle:For example, there was a real creation, and there were two people. Allegories can be about real things.
No, it doesn't. Unless your "period of time" is one day.It says the initial creation was disordered and over time became ordered and things appeared out of the initial creation. If you'd spend some time learning about the foundations of Christianity, this wouldn't surprise you.
But you can beg the question all day. :thumb:You can't read Genesis like a lawyer going over a contract, Stipe. Allegories don't work like that.
So?The word "raqua" meant something like a vessel beaten out of malleable material, like copper. Early on, people thought of the sky as a big inverted bowl, and that metaphor was used in the Hebrew language.
So?Not understanding the water cycle, the ancient Hebrews supposed there was a big ocean overhead, with the sky containing windows from which it could drain out as rain.
Sure, there can. All you need is a light source and a rotating Earth.Allegories don't have to be entirely consistent. That's one of the ways we know. Obviously, unless you redefine words, there can be no morning or evening without a sun.
Yeah .. He still is. :chuckle:He was describing creation to a scientifically primitive people. Did a really fine job of it, didn't He?
What were His purposes?The Bible is about God and men and our relationship. Creation is part of that. So His purposes were important.
Notice how very easily Barbie thinks he can get away with changing what a man writes and claiming the other person to be the one with the failing.
Heat especially is what I was thinking of. It moves from hot to cold. You and your fake science aptitued. When you are in a corner, you say something stupid like this.
The heat pushed some of the water into the upper atmosphere and into outerspace. And moved the continents. It took treamendous energy to do it.
It doesn’t matter how the escape velocity is imparted to the object, if it is thrown off by an explosion with the escape velocity, then no further thrust is required.... to get to escape velocity now you need a continuous push from a chemical rocket for some time to build up speed. Brown's idea would seem to require an almost instantaneous escape velocity
Which would require a very large and sudden input of energy, which would probably sterilise the planet unless one invokes "magicmandunnit"Brown's idea would seem to require an almost instantaneous escape velocity
As I recall (without having reviewed it recently), Walt postulates that the energy had been building up in subterranean chambers (details in his book), and was released when a significant fracture allowed the superheated material to expand, similar to a steam jet.Which would require a very large and sudden input of energy, which would probably sterilise the planet unless one invokes "magicmandunnit"
It wasn't.
Notice how very easily Barbie thinks he can get away with changing what a man writes and claiming the other person to be the one with the failing.
So the creation account is an allegory for creation.
Man, you're weird.
Yeah, but we have a word for an allegory about a real event that is called the same thing. An allegory called creation and about creation based on real events is more simply called "History".
No, it doesn't. Unless your "period of time" is one day.
But you can beg the question all day.
The firmament refers to the crust of the Earth. Which had water above it (not in the sky).
Sure, there can. All you need is a light source and a rotating Earth.
What were His purposes?
What does this mean if it does not mean exactly what it says?
Genesis 1:6-8
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
What is a firmament?
Where was the water?
Where did evening and morning come from?
What do these things mean if it is all an allegory?
Why did God put all this in the bible?
What, Barbie? :squint:Barbarian chuckles: (Stipe claims a layer of water above the Earth) Barbarian chuckles: Well, let's see your model with some numbers on how a ocean of water can be suspended in the sky above the Earth. This should be fun. Stipe dodges: So Stipe now denies the "water canopy?" Oh, I get it. How much water, exactly did you imagine was above the Earth?
So Genesis is an allegory from creation for creation. Man, you're weird. :chuckle:Barbarian on the subject of early part of Genesis:CreationYep. Allegories use symbolic actions, representations, or persons, and may include both figurative and real things. Genesis in other words. Barbarian observes: For example, there was a real creation, and there were two people. Allegories can be about real things. But as you learned, Genesis includes some history and some allegory. The creation week is such an allegory.
So you don't understand? All one needs to see evening and morning is a light source and a rotating Earth. What is so difficult about that?If you chose to use words outside of their accepted usage, you can hardly blame people for not understanding you, Stipe.
You're still able to beg the question. :shocked:Barbarian, regarding "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"; It says the initial creation was disordered and over time became ordered and things appeared out of the initial creation. If you'd spend some time learning about the foundations of Christianity, this wouldn't surprise you. Simply denying the fact won't help you. You can't read Genesis like a lawyer going over a contract, Stipe. Allegories don't work like that.Sorry, you can do that, but it won't help your case. Barbarian observes:The word "raqua" meant something like a vessel beaten out of malleable material, like copper. Early on, people thought of the sky as a big inverted bowl, and that metaphor was used in the Hebrew language.That's where the Biblical symbolism for a flat, circular Earth, with a solid dome of a sky came from.
What guy and what water canopy? Man, you're weird!Barbarian observes:Not understanding the water cycle, the ancient Hebrews supposed there was a big ocean overhead, with the sky containing windows from which it could drain out as rain. It's why your guy invented the "water canopy" above it. Of course, he changed it from a solid dome with with windows and the sun and stars in it, for obvious reasons. Cafeteria creationist, he is.
And yet we could still call what we see evening and morning with another source of light and a rotating Earth. :idunno:Barbarian observes:Allegories don't have to be entirely consistent. That's one of the ways we know. Obviously, unless you redefine words, there can be no morning or evening without a sun.Again, if you redefine words to mean other things in order to save your story, isn't at a revelation? Definition of MORNING a : dawn b : the time from sunrise to noon c : the time from midnight to noon All in relation to the Sun, notice.A bit of a problem, that. No sun to have them. So, this is either an allegory, or you have to redefine "morning" and "evening."
What was important about His purposes and His relationship with us when He described making a firmament within the waters to separate the water above from the water below?Barbarian observes: The Bible is about God and men and our relationship. Creation is part of that. So His purposes were important. To tell us about God and men and our relationship.
Well, it exactly says evening and morning on the first through sixth day. So it must exactly mean six days, huh?It does mean exactly what it says.
Who? :idunno:Allegories are no less true than any other way of communication. We don't use them so much anymore, but they are an equally valid way of expressing the truth. Notice Augustine calls his work, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" and he is pointing out that it's an allegory.
You have shown exactly zero comprehension of what I believe - so we can safely ignore your mischaracterisations for the time being. :up:It says God made the Earth and the Heavens. But it's not a exposition of astronomy. Notice this puts your "water canopy" above the sun and the stars of the firmament. (which is not, contrary to your belief, the Earth's surface.
And this is part of your "exactly what it says"? Man, you're weird! :dizzy:The "firmament" in Genesis is a solid dome, containing the sun and stars, with windows through which water falls to make rain.
That's not what the bible says. Try those slightly earlier verses. :thumb:Above the sun and the stars of the firmament.
You love these generalisations, huh? Problem is, there are a lot of details that go into this short passage. Saying it all means "God created the universe" is to ignore those details. What we want to know is the meaning of those details. If they do not mean what they clearly say, if they are allegorical, what do they mean?"God created the universe."
Or perhaps people had a better understanding of the universe than you do because they understood better what was being said. :up:Because that was the way people interpreted the universe at the time.
When Jesus told the parable of the mustard seed there was a distinct message for the listener to take away. A lesson on faith and the power of God. All it's details had meaning and explanations. What was the message of Genesis if it was not exactly what it meant (even though you like to say it means exactly what it said :dizzy: )? What do the details pertain to? What lesson does Genesis teach?Go no more erred in using common understanding than Jesus erred in calling the mustard seed the smallest seed. He wasn't giving a botany lecture.
What guy and what water canopy? Man, you're weird!
I notice you're very good at insisting that it is an allegory, begging the question by presenting evidence that relies on your assumption, excellent at misapplying descriptions of the Earth as if I said them, a past master of sowing confusion & irrelevancy and willing to say almost anything in order to avoid answering simple questions. But we know you'll never be able to provide anything of substance against the perfectly reasonable and rational practice of reading God's word and accepting what it plainly says. :thumb:
:think:He does tend to get confused easily. :chuckle:
:thumb:
=The Barbarian;2707502]He actually wrote that?
:think:
:chuckle:
:thumb:
What, Barbie?
You guys still think it's flat?There would be nearly 2km of water depth available everywhere, if the Earth were completely spherical.
So Genesis is an allegory from creation for creation.
(Stipe redefines "morning" from "sunrise" to "big light in the sky."Man, you're weird.
All one needs to see evening and morning is a light source and a rotating Earth.
You're still able to beg the question.
The firmament refers to the crust of the Earth. Which had water above it (not in the sky).
Water above and below the firmament!
What guy
And yet we could still call what we see evening and morning with another source of light and a rotating Earth.
What would be wrong with that?
What was important about His purposes and His relationship with us when He described making a firmament within the waters to separate the water above from the water below?
Well, it exactly says evening and morning on the first through sixth day.
You have shown exactly zero comprehension of what I believe
And this is part of your "exactly what it says"?
Man, you're weird!
That's not what the bible says.