Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Stripe]

Stripe hates reading.

Nope.

We've been through all this.

Summary: We don't hold to Baumgardner's ideas.

None of it was about kinetic energy.

And yet that was what you thought we were getting wrong when you realized — but did not concede — that the ideas you were criticizing were not ours.

Try paying closer attention next time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

No. It's the same word that was introduced in the previous verse. It doesn't have "firmament of the" in front of it, it doesn't have an extra plural, it isn't capitalized in Hebrew, it just is the same word. And because it refers to the previous events, the waters below the thing called "heaven", it is ridiculous to detach the two verses and say they are talking about two different heavens and two different firmaments.

That seems fair, given the approach I introduced.

However, Biblical use makes it clear that the phrases "under the heaven" refers to everyday stuff like animals (Gen 6:17), hills (Gen 7:19), or men (Ex 7:14).

And as I showed, there are multiple heavens.

Thus I think it is possible that the context of the Hebrew makes it clear that the "heavens" of the firmament named Heaven in verse 8 and the waters under the heavens in verse 9 refer to two different things.

However, I'm not a scholar of Hebrew, so if there is compelling reason to say that those two heavens have to be the same thing, then I'll have to rethink.

The word for "heavens" is exactly the same word as the one for "heaven". Exactly. No difference. When you insert a difference, you are adding to scripture. Don't do that.

Context matters. Also, the Bible makes it clear that there are multiple heavens. It would be incorrect to insist that every instance refers to the same thing.

You are using the model to redefine terms in scripture to say something scripture doesn't really say. That's adding to scripture. Don't do that.

Not really.

Asserting that there are two firmaments and multiple heavens isn't adding to scripture. In the second case, it's respecting scripture, in the first, it is at worst a slight accommodation for an idea that allows the creation account and the flood account to mesh.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Walt's interpretation of Genesis is poor to terrible.

Have you read anything of his work?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Summary: We don't hold to Baumgardner's ideas.

Well duh, that's the point. His critiques were of some of the things required with your beliefs.

And yet that was what you thought we were getting wrong when you realized — but did not concede — that the ideas you were criticizing were not ours.

So you believe batholothic mountain ranges existed prior to the flood?

I also recall someone here advocating for rapid and extensive movement of continental plates, which is also part of what I posted. Have you dropped that as well?

 

[Stripe]

Well duh, that's the point. His critiques were of some of the things required with your beliefs.

Nope.

You posted his paper and I read it. I've also read what I believe. They are dramatically different.

Have you read either?

In the original discussion, you posted like you had:

There's quite a bit of overlap and both have many of the same problems and requirements for miracles.

Nope. Specifically, the heat problem you assert does not exist in the Hydroplate theory. Kinetic energy does not have to be converted to heat.

You agree with that bolded part, right?



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

You posted his paper and I read it. I've also read what I believe. They are dramatically different.

Have you read either?

Yep. So again, do you believe batholithic mountains existed prior to the flood? Do you believe rapid and extensive movement of continental plates occurred?

 

[Stripe]

Yep.

Good. So you will know there are dramatic differences between what Baumgardner presented and what is in Brown's book. Specifically, the initial conditions and the driving forces behind the movement of the continents.

Perhaps you could quickly summarize the differences, then the heat problem you so desperately want to be true will be shown irrelevant in one case.

By the way, you do agree that kinetic does not have to go to heat, right?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

David says something interesting in Psalm 136.

To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy endures forever; - Psalm 136:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm136:6&version=NKJV

"Earth above the waters." :think:

Awesome. :up:

It's in 2 Peter, the other reference similar to that, right?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Awesome. :up:

It's in 2 Peter, the other reference similar to that, right?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I believe so...

 

[Stripe]

I know you and Stripe are trying to make this case, but you're not convincing me.

I'm not trying to convince you. I don't care what you believe. I only care whether you can show that something I believe cannot be accurate.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Good.

Again, do you believe batholithic mountains existed prior to the flood? Do you believe rapid and extensive movement of continental plates occurred?

Specifically, the initial conditions and the driving forces behind the movement of the continents.

How did the viscosity of the mantle change? Or do you believe it didn't?

Perhaps you could quickly summarize the differences, then the heat problem you so desperately want to be true will be shown irrelevant in one case.

I don't see why.

By the way, you do agree that kinetic does not have to go to heat, right?

Not all of it, but most certainly a portion of it would have to.

 

[Stripe]

Again, do you believe batholithic mountains existed prior to the flood? Do you believe rapid and extensive movement of continental plates occurred? How did the viscosity of the mantle change? Or do you believe it didn't?

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of the two presentations, you would quickly be able to figure out the answers to these questions.

I don't see why.

Then you need to read what you insist you already understand.

Not all of it.

I'll take that as a "yes."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Derf]

Have you read anything of his work?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Some. My comment was based on the two-firmament subject.

Personally, despite JR's objection, I don't think Walt needs the two firmament theory, and it stumbles in Gen 1.

 

[Derf]

I'm not trying to convince you. I don't care what you believe. I only care whether you can show that something I believe cannot be accurate.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I care what Christians say about the bible. If it is plastic enough to bend to any theory, it's of no use for determining that kind of scientific truth.

 

[Stripe]

I don't think Walt needs the two firmament theory, and it stumbles in Gen 1.

I would agree with the first part, if it was a useful point to make. Genesis 1 makes a distinction between the firmaments.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

I care what Christians say about the bible. If it is plastic enough to bend to any theory, it's of no use for determining that kind of scientific truth.

Good.

I don't think that what I have said is unjustified.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

If you had even a rudimentary understanding of the two presentations, you would quickly be able to figure out the answers to these questions.

I can see that you're just not going to answer those questions. I don't blame you.

I'll take that as a "yes."

Of course you will. That's how desperate you are.

 

[Stripe]

I can see that you're just not going to answer those questions. I don't blame you.

:yawn:

Those questions got answered in the original discussion. Darwinists will do anything to ressurect their eviscerated talking points.

You're parading a rotting corpse.

Of course you will.

I'm comfortable with you saying "no." :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Those questions got answered in the original discussion.

Ah, the standard creationist two-step....dodge questions, dodge questions, dodge questions, and then say "I already answered" (of course never saying what those answers were or where they are).

That's one big reason creationists always lose in court.

 

[Stripe]

Ah, the standard creationist two-step....dodge questions, dodge questions, dodge questions, and then say "I already answered" (of course never saying what those answers were or where they are).

That's one big reason creationists always lose in court.

Uh, no. It was you who popped up in this thread with a rehash of a previous conversation, one where you asked the same question and it got answered.

The conversation is linked right there. The answer I provided is right after the post it leads to.

You're just desperate to justify your inane contributions here and are too stupid to come up with anything fresh, so you rehash debunked nonsense.

The tale of the tape is clear.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk