If Evolution

[Stripe]

Do tell.

You want me to tell you what you believe?

 

[Stripe]

I was just making a point about fundamentalists and their insistence that the Genesis creation stories must be read literally, or else Christianity itself is false.

You've corrected on this numerous times.

A Christian is someone who confesses Jesus Christ as risen Lord and savior. Nothing else matters.

Genesis is historical narrative. Nobody reads anything insisting that it all be literal.

One day the Darwinists will learn to respect the conversation.

 

[Stripe]

https://youtu.be/tpQSPaJ-X_U

 

[6days]

You want to test the facts of the flood story and limit it based on physical characteristics?
If so, the story cannot be taken literally,

I think I see why you have difficulty trusting God's Word. Do you deny that Jesus fed a crowd from 2 small fish and bread "based on physical characteristics"?

The germination and growth period required to get an olive branch brought back ark is longer than the time the story allow..

Suggestion... Try get your information from apolgetics sites that trust God's Word; rather than atheist and evutionist sites that try poke holes in it.

...if the flood was global.

IF?

Yes, I know you deny what the text actually says in the second creation story.

Jesus: "But at the beginning of creation (Genesis 1) God 'made them male and female.'(Genesis 2). Reminder of your own words..."But you deny what the text says.

 

[Jose Fly]

You want me to tell you what you believe?

When I noted that the "hydroplate theory" doesn't work without miracles, you responded "You believe in the exact same work being done".

Explain.

 

[Jose Fly]

A Christian is someone who confesses Jesus Christ as risen Lord and savior. Nothing else matters.

Genesis is historical narrative. Nobody reads anything insisting that it all be literal.

6days: "If physical death was used as part of the creation process, then what was the purpose of the cross... it becomes meaningless."

6days: "The Gospel... and the Hebrew context both demand a young creation where death entered our world after sin."

6days: "Also interesting is that Jesus asks if you don't believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Him (Jesus)? Paul explained the Gospel in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15. The Cross becomes meaningless if first Adam was not a real person, and the one who we inherited our sin nature from. "

 

[JudgeRightly]

. . . the "hydroplate theory" doesn't work without miracles, . . .

It doesn't? I'm pretty sure one of the benefits of the HPT is that it DOESN'T require any miracles to work.

 

[Jose Fly]

It doesn't? I'm pretty sure one of the benefits of the HPT is that it DOESN'T require any miracles to work.

Can you provide a general description of how this idea works? Please focus on the question of movements of large land masses and sea floors, with a particular emphasis on the extent of their movements and the timeframe in which they occur.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Can you provide a general description of how this idea works? Please focus on the question of movements of large land masses and sea floors, with a particular emphasis on the extent of their movements and the timeframe in which they occur.

I'll give an analogy real quick, and then I'll do one better than what you asked for.

So, imagine a kid climbs up a very snowy hill and he has one of those foam/plastic sleds, and when he reaches the top of the hill, he puts his sled on the ground, and then jumps on it and pushes it a little bit before gravity takes over and he slides down the rest of the way on the sled.

Now that you've got that image in your head...

Now picture the same thing happening, except not with a snow sled, but with large continental plates sitting above giant caverns of water. I believe this image

(http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html)

shows how such an event would have occurred.

Jose, I know I can write well on occasion (most of the rest of the time I hardly know how to explain a concept) but for this I could never do Dr. Brown's overview of the HPT justice (which takes several pages for him to explain). I could try, but it probably wouldn't give enough detail.

Would you mind, instead, reading Brown's "Hydroplate Theory Overview" chapter?

Here's a link:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

It provides a better summary than I could ever present, and it provides (at least most) everything you requested.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'll give an analogy real quick, and then I'll do one better than what you asked for.

So, imagine a kid climbs up a very snowy hill and he has one of those foam/plastic sleds, and when he reaches the top of the hill, he puts his sled on the ground, and then jumps on it and pushes it a little bit before gravity takes over and he slides down the rest of the way on the sled.

Now that you've got that image in your head...

Now picture the same thing happening, except not with a snow sled, but with large continental plates sitting above giant caverns of water. I believe this image

(http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html)

shows how such an event would have occurred.

Jose, I know I can write well on occasion (most of the rest of the time I hardly know how to explain a concept) but for this I could never do Dr. Brown's overview of the HPT justice (which takes several pages for him to explain). I could try, but it probably wouldn't give enough detail.

Would you mind, instead, reading Brown's "Hydroplate Theory Overview" chapter?

Here's a link:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

It provides a better summary than I could ever present, and it provides (at least most) everything you requested.

Oh, I'm familiar with Brown's scenario. That's why I went straight for its primary weakness....the amount of heat generated by moving enormous amounts of mass in very short time frames.

One YEC estimated that such movements would generate enough heat to boil off the oceans and the atmosphere, rendering the entire planet uninhabitable.

Simply put, there's a reason why Brown's scenario has had absolutely zero impact on science.....it doesn't work without several miracles.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, I'm familiar with Brown's scenario. That's why I went straight for its primary weakness....the amount of heat generated by moving enormous amounts of mass in very short time frames.

One YEC estimated that such movements would generate enough heat to boil off the oceans and the atmosphere, rendering the entire planet uninhabitable.

Simply put, there's a reason why Brown's scenario has had absolutely zero impact on science.....it doesn't work without several miracles.

Is that rock on rock with no water? or rock on rock lubricated with water? Big difference.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is that rock on rock with no water? or rock on rock lubricated with water? Big difference.

You're misunderstanding. In order to move that much mass in that short of time, you have to input enormous amounts of energy. And by basic physics, most of that energy will be given off as heat.

And we're not even getting into the question of having that much water under immense pressure and the sort of heat it would give off once released.

If you're interested, CLICK HERE.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hey, Barb, you do realize that there are two water sources there, right? Not just one?

Yes. I realize that the hydroplate hypothesis, is far less nutty than Stipe's idea that the sky is a dome with windows in it, from which water falls.

As I said above, I reject the canopy theory because there could never be enough water held above the earth without suffocating all life on earth.

Quite apart from the kinetics, it would have put the Earth into darkness and super cold temps.

I look at what the Bible says, and what the Hydroplate theory says, and am convinced that most of the water from the Flood came from beneath the crust of the earth, through fountains of the great deep.

The problem is finding from were that water came, and where it went when it left. But not totally crazy, like the water canopy.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're misunderstanding. In order to move that much mass in that short of time, you have to input enormous amounts of energy. And by basic physics, most of that energy will be given off as heat.

Just given the mass of the crust, the energy to move and stop them in so short a time would produce enough heat to boil the seas. Worse, the upper mantle and the crust are solid rock, not plastic like the asthenosphere. So, it would drag like rubbing two chunks of granite against each other.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes. I realize that the hydroplate hypothesis, is far less nutty than Stipe's idea that the sky is a dome with windows in it, from which water falls.

I'm not sure I've seen Stripe even remotely suggest the canopy theory as valid. Maybe I missed it, but I doubt He would have said so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Stripe.

Quite apart from the kinetics, it would have put the Earth into darkness and super cold temps.

One of the "rescue devices" that would save the canopy (but that the requirement for such would completely disprove it and show it as being ludicrous) was that the Sun would have to be

The problem is finding from were that water came, and where it went when it left. But not totally crazy, like the water canopy.[/QUOTE]

Yes. I realize that the hydroplate hypothesis, is far less nutty than Stipe's idea that the sky is a dome with windows in it, from which water falls.



Quite apart from the kinetics, it would have put the Earth into darkness and super cold temps.



The problem is finding from were that water came, and where it went when it left. But not totally crazy, like the water canopy.

Yes. I realize that the hydroplate hypothesis, is far less nutty than Stipe's idea that the sky is a dome with windows in it, from which water falls.

I'm not sure I've seen Stripe even remotely suggest the canopy theory as valid. Maybe I missed it, but I doubt He would have said so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Stripe.

Quite apart from the kinetics, it would have put the Earth into darkness and super cold temps.

One of the "rescue devices" that would save the canopy (but that the requirement for such would completely disprove it and show it as being ludicrous) theory was that in order for the sun to not bake everything under the canopy the Sun would have to be darkened by 75%, the canopy would have to block 75% of the radiation, or the Sun would have to be 50% farther away than it currently is, and that's with only 4-inches of rain worth. Certainly not globe covering at all.

The problem is finding from were that water came,

Which the HPT answers (below the "firmament" (not "of the heavens") of day 2).

and where it went when it left.

Which the HPT also explains (much of it is in the ocean water we see today, some is in orbit around the earth (remember the organisms they found on the exterior of the windows of the ISS?), some is on the surface of the Moon, and the rest is throughout the rest of the solar system, in the asteroid belt, comets, Mars, etc.)

But not totally crazy, like the water canopy.

Fun fact, the canopy theory was originally proposed by Isaac Vail (died in 1912), who quoted Genesis in support of his theory though he claimed the book was a myth. He was not a Christian affirming the truth of God's word, he just had his own model of the history of the world.

He wrote Waters above the Firmament.

 

[Stripe]

When I noted that the "hydroplate theory" doesn't work without miracles, you responded "You believe in the exact same work being done".Explain.

Don't you hold to plate tectonics theory?

What's to explain?

 

[Jose Fly]

Don't you hold to plate tectonics theory?

What's to explain?

Just as I thought.

 

[Stripe]

6days: "If physical death was used as part of the creation process, then what was the purpose of the cross... it becomes meaningless."

6days: "The Gospel... and the Hebrew context both demand a young creation where death entered our world after sin."

6days: "Also interesting is that Jesus asks if you don't believe what Moses wrote how can you believe in Him (Jesus)? Paul explained the Gospel in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15. The Cross becomes meaningless if first Adam was not a real person, and the one who we inherited our sin nature from. "

I guess you have a point somewhere. :idunno:

What is it? Another attempt to win points by pretending I disagree with Six on something?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, I'm familiar with Brown's scenario.

If you're familiar with it, you would know where the energy went.

 

[Stripe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Stripe.

You can believe whatever you like. :up: