-Jay-

You know, if more people actually took this particular approach, it would be a step up, since in that case one is basically saying "I don't have the knowledge, so I'll refrain from judgement." Unfortunately, the way I've seen it, and speaking only for myself here, is that a distressingly large number of people will take it to the more extreme case that I mentioned - "I don't understand it so it's wrong." I think we're on the same page with this one, Lars, just maybe not on the same line of text.


This is a sticky problem. The trouble is, the ideal place to learn about evolution isn't within the context of an evolution vs. creation discussion - it's in a (college) biology classroom*. Unfortunately, an apparently large number of folks try to do it in ev vs. cre discussions, and unfortunately that sort of discussion tends to get polarized very quickly. Now, as far as things challenging the Bible being more "profoundly correct" - what would constitute "profoundly correct" to someone who has had notions of Biblical inerrancy drummed into their head since before they could walk? If I point out, for example, that Lev. 11:6 says that rabbits chew their cud, and that rabbits actually do no such thing, somebody's gonna come along and say "well, chewing their cud doesn't really mean chewing their cud. It means eating their droppings, which rabbits sometimes do so Lev. 11:6 isn't wrong." I might reply with "why doesn't Lev. 11:6 clearly say "eats its own droppings" and avoid the error?", and someone will come back with an apologetic about the verse being written in a colloquial way for scientifically illiterate people to understand, but we should interpret differently because we know better. So it's a slippery slope. It's an interesting situation when so many explanations of a supposedly inerrant collection of books start out with the words "well, maybe" or "it could mean".

As for "high-level tit-for-tat" vis-a-vis evolution, allow me to reverse the question on you and ask when all the various Christian denominations can be expected to get past the "high-level tit-for-tat" vis-a-vis Biblical interpretation. Or canonical content. Or which version is the "right" version. Or which Gospels drew from which. Or who wrote which books when. Just wondering.

(*I make the distinction of college biology classroom simply because in my experience a high school biology course typically doesn't have the scope to teach evolution in any siginficant detail. Most college courses that start with "Introduction to..." may not either.)



regards,

NinJay

Withered

Holy shit.

Where can i read more about this solid ice canpoy that was blocking out the sun?

And where do i find the evidence for it?

If you dont want to derail this thread, please feel free to start a new thread...
If you dont i will.

I would appreciate your help finding all of the evidence for this ice canopy though.

I cant imagine the amount of water it would take to create such a thing, or how low the ambient temperature would have to be to allow it to exist, or the catastrophes that would take place as it melted and fell to earth...

Please enlighten me.

Gullwind

I was at a creationist seminar once when this was mentioned. I asked what prevented the ice from boiling away when in direct sunlight. He looked genuinely confused and asked me, "What do you mean? It's really cold in space!"

Larsguy47

Job 38:30 "30 The very waters keep themselves hidden as by stone,
And the surface of the watery deep makes itself compact."

When the Earth was being prepared there was waters in cloud form over seas. These waters were separated so that one layer of water was high above the waters below. This reference in Job mentioning the surface of the waters was "compact" and hidden as by "stone" suggests hardness such as in the case of ice, which might appear invisible, much like a glass casing around the earth.

The sun and other lights could shine through it and since it was transparent wouldn't likely absorb much heat. But this is just a guess.

If the waters collected above the earth were compacted and then hardened then it wouldn't affect atmospheric pressure below it but would create a greenhouse effect over the entire planet, which is attested to by tropical plant life found underneath the ice in Antartica. When this ice canophy was removed then the sunlight would be more direct, of course. This might have effected some changes, including fungi which could cause the aphrodesiac effects experienced by Noah and witnessed by Ham.

Of note, after Noah entered the art it took seven days before it began to rain. The presumption is that this ice canopy was superheated and vaporized into obviously quite thick clouds that certainly cause the earth to be completed dark by the time it began to rain, as we experience with some severe storms where sometimes it gets very dark. Likewise, a period of "darkness" will likely occur from the time it is too late to be saved and the actual destruction begins during our day.

LG47

Doug Shaver

Why should I believe that?

I mean, aside from your say-so?

Sauron

Too bad you're struggling to prove even a tenth of that claim.

You have it backwards. We don't declare something true unless nothing has disproven it.

1. A lack of evidence is a refutation of the bible claim, therefore the bible is not true;

2. It's not offered because people worry about the bible - but because the evidence disagrees with the bible claims and what the christians are saying

Actually, the bible's track record is only mediocre in this regard.

And your creative re-ordering of history has never worked.

1. The flood is quite definitely deniable.

2. The age of life can be established - but not by reading creationist websites.

Only proves that people will believe nonsense in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence - nothing more.

Nonsense. The science is accessible to the lay person -- but not to the lazy person. Which is why you are having trouble with it.

Withered

Okay, i thought you were joking.

I am an average joe, and pretty laid back. I like to discuss religion, and learn new things.

I am laughing right now. Out loud.
At you, or anyone else that would possibly believe this.
It is hands down the stupidest fucking thing i have heard in some time.

See you in S&S.

L.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Actually those drawings on the walls, while not mentioned in the Holy Bible, Jesus did them.

God got real fucking angry over that [He was only renting Heaven at the time] and punished poor Jesus severly. He sent Jesus down to Earth... well you know the story!



If you look at this picture, you can see Fat Albert eating a Klondike bar [ you have to squint]



Others have seen the same thing and can verify that it is Fat Albert eating a Klondike bar.

The statue, well... Jesus was playing around with the magic clay and sculpted God. This really pissed God off [it actually looks just like Him, thank God for evolution we don't look like that anymore!] as it came to life [because of the magic clay] Resulting in two Gods!
This is why God made those laws, the "No Gods before Me, for I am a jealous God!" [look real close, the other one has a tallywhacker! No wonder God was jealous!] and the graven image thingy [this has since been down graded after the Renaissance and the invention of the vibrating egg]

Toto

I've been thinking this is headed for E, and these last posts cinch the case.

bu-bye.

vikingrob

There are several problems with that. You would have to consider the amount of energy necessary to put all the water up there in the first place, the fact that ice and snow reflects sunlight back into space, and the question of how to create a bubble of ice above the surface.

In addition, the release of water from beneath the crust of the earth in the quantities necessary for what you are saying would result in many large earthquakes in a short succession; please correct me if I am wrong, but I find no mention of these quakes in chapters 6 through 9 of Genesis.

As for the superheated ice canopy, you also have to consider the fact that the sun is pretty consistent in the amount of energy it produces and consequently the amount of energy that reaches the earth. Now if it melted away the ice on one side of earth, the other side would not have any structural support and would simply crash to the earth in the form of ice. You would have a considerable amount of air displaced by this that would simply be blown out to space.