SkyWriting Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 269 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 74 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 17 hours ago, one.opinion said: I don't understand what you are asking about here. Are you arguing that the water did have some magical properties? Perhaps it had some Biblical properties: WATER from the rock at Rephidim (Exodus 17:5-7)WATER PROVIDED IN DESERT—from the rock, after smitten twice by Moses, in the desert of Zin (Numbers 20:7-11) WATER from a hollow place “that is in Lehi” (Judges 15:19) WATER TURNED TO WINE (John 2:1-11) Jesus walks on water Seas part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 32 minutes ago, SkyWriting said: Perhaps it had some Biblical properties: WATER from the rock at Rephidim (Exodus 17:5-7)WATER PROVIDED IN DESERT—from the rock, after smitten twice by Moses, in the desert of Zin (Numbers 20:7-11) WATER from a hollow place “that is in Lehi” (Judges 15:19) WATER TURNED TO WINE (John 2:1-11) Jesus walks on water Seas part. Granted, there are specific miracles throughout the Bible regarding water. But there is nothing in Genesis that specifically addresses unusual properties of the water, itself. The sources of the water are interesting and a subject of much debate, but not the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dprprb Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 98 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 38 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 15, 2017 19 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: By using a term like pseudo-science or (pseudo)scientific evidence you already show your bias which makes you unqualified to lead this discussion. Nothing can be learned from your analysis. It's a label. I have a varied audience that sees some evidence as 'pseudo-science' and 'science' depending what they believe. Since I would like to focus on the topic rather than be lead away by CTRL+P posts because someone over reacts to my use of the word 'geology' anywhere near the word 'science' it is merely my attempt at defeating this language barrier to call things both. I do notice that a GREAT NUMBER of your posts (that should be fielded) disintegrate and participants are quickly lead away from the thrust of your Op on those simple grounds alone. You have had my sympathy. You will also note that I added a similar label(hypothetical reading) to the line 2 item description to indicate that that is part of my interpretation rather than Scriptural. Yes As far as actual science Im completely unqualified. At best I might a achieve a narrative that points out acts of God and highlights we think about what that means and the tradition of perspective that we have adopted. I dont have to be anyone or anything to point to acts of God , the rest is flowdown and beyond any one's credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.19 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 On 11/15/2017 at 1:44 PM, dprprb said: It's a label. I have a varied audience that sees some evidence as 'pseudo-science' and 'science' depending what they believe. Since I would like to focus on the topic rather than be lead away by CTRL+P posts because someone over reacts to my use of the word 'geology' anywhere near the word 'science' it is merely my attempt at defeating this language barrier to call things both. I do notice that a GREAT NUMBER of your posts (that should be fielded) disintegrate and participants are quickly lead away from the thrust of your Op on those simple grounds alone. You have had my sympathy. You will also note that I added a similar label(hypothetical reading) to the line 2 item description to indicate that that is part of my interpretation rather than Scriptural. Yes As far as actual science Im completely unqualified. At best I might a achieve a narrative that points out acts of God and highlights we think about what that means and the tradition of perspective that we have adopted. I dont have to be anyone or anything to point to acts of God , the rest is flowdown and beyond any one's credentials. I have a problem with the OP that cannot be swept away with the slight of a hand. Instead of becoming a distraction to whatever you hope to achieve here, I'll just respectively bow out. I think that's better than picking apart your OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted November 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted November 16, 2017 5 hours ago, dprprb said: because someone over reacts to my use of the word 'geology' anywhere near the word 'science' Whoever might that be? regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted November 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 11/14/2017 at 4:40 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said: By using a term like pseudo-science or (pseudo)scientific evidence you already show your bias which makes you unqualified to lead this discussion. Well that would depend on what he classified as Pseudo-Science... was actually Pseudo-Science!! Quote Nothing can be learned from your analysis. Well nothing can be learned from your treatment of his 'analysis', save for a Baseless Ipse Dixit 'Hand-Wave' Dismissal Fallacy. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dprprb Posted November 16, 2017 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 98 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 38 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 And I have a good source (not outta my imagination Im mean a real source) for K-T boundary info but the posting direction has gone so far off course that I feel stupid posting it in the midst of everyone chewing on word usage and given the log book it appears that the original poster abandoned the discussion and wouldnt reply anyway. IS THERE AN UGLY FACT IN THE HOUSE? I dont have a problem with them shutting me up-really. I AM a crackpot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dprprb Posted November 16, 2017 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 98 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 38 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 11/12/2017 at 8:33 AM, SkyWriting said: God did allow evil becasue it is a consequence for not having love slaves, in that for the kind of Love that God desires, one must have the option to reject or embrace it. To have that option, existence without God must exist. I think it was We chose evil according to the Scriptural account and THEN God chose the path of love in response. I think in the area of where the left path and right path are merging the ability to see both causeways makes it easy to form false connections. But the ability to see that is wholly dependent on having eaten the forbidden fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dprprb Posted November 16, 2017 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 98 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 38 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/08/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said: Whoever might that be? regards You were the one that said 'unfordable' gap. Only an Act of God can cross such a thing. So if my proposal is correct then an Act of God honors the YEC original position something I now also do despite years of OEC confusion and neglect. Now if we admit miracles(completely unexplained and untouched ) then what is wrong with my somewhat physics sounding narrative? what do you find most objectional? Is it sitting with us OECer's in church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyWriting Posted November 16, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 269 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 74 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/05/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 16, 2017 On 11/8/2017 at 11:43 PM, dprprb said: And while He is destroying the land as known to Noah the forces unleashed would also kill the ark contents so by extending the force/time equation God also saves them from His wrath. I dont have an equation that outputs 13.7 /8 bya but there you have it and continents scrambled every which way. Or the water may have had no effect at all other than to end land life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts