christians, what do you think of Genesis 6:1-8?

[outhouse]

Back that up with links, I've got links that show how the data is fudged. The only real evidence Plate Tectonics theory has is Marine fossils, saying anything else is dishonest. Do you know exactly is it "measured and logged" anyway? Do you even understand how it supposedly works?

I know every detail.

High school level geology covers this.



what is your other method of how land moves?????

 

[outhouse]

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

READ

 

[waitasec]

The world was divided in the days of Peleg, that's why.

so?
even if they did migrate...there is no evidence of them ever being en route to where they are now indigenous...like marsupials, penguins and polar bears...
and it's not like it took them a short time to migrate to these places

 

[sojourner]

Back that up with links, I've got links that show how the data is fudged. The only real evidence Plate Tectonics theory has is Marine fossils, saying anything else is dishonest. Do you know exactly is it "measured and logged" anyway? Do you even understand how it supposedly works?

...and then there are those who argue merely to hear their own heads rattle...

:seesaw:

 

[outhouse]

...and then there are those who argue merely to hear their own heads rattle...

:seesaw:

No kidding

Ive seen theology blind minds like this on a daily basis

 

[Shermana]

...and then there are those who argue merely to hear their own heads rattle...

:seesaw:

Yes, such as people who make comments like this instead of actually addressing the claims. Try the discussion boards if you're not interested in addressing the specifics of what people say. It's not my fault if you have nothing to say on the subject.

Basically, comments like this are: "You're stupid, hahaha". Well, that may fly on some forums, but here you have to actually address people's concerns. Get off this forum and try the discussion boards if you're just looking to make attacks. Otherwise, perhaps you have something insightful to add about Plate Tectonics or Marine fossils? Somehow I'm guessing not , but you got plenty of eggs to toss. I know it may be hard to believe that scientists may be wrong and use fudgy data for their claims, but go have some aspartame diet cola to calm down if you don't want to accept this fact.

 

[outhouse]

actually addressing the claims.

you havnt made a claim, just a denial of facts


there is no debate at all on this science, why you personally choose to not accept FACTS is beyond me

 

[Shermana]

Plate Tectonics: too weak to build mountains

Try to attack the claims instead of the source if you can. Their data is well sourced.

Tomographic images of earth's interior are often used to show subduction. However, "low velocity volumes of the mantle detected by tomography can be due to lateral variations in composition rather than in temperature, i.e., they can be even higher density areas rather than hotter, lighter buoyant material as so far interpreted." "As extreme examples, gold or lead have high density but low seismic velocity. Therefore the interpretation of tomographic images of the mantle where the red (lower velocity) areas are assumed as lighter and hotter rocks can simply be wrong, i.e., they may even be cooler and denser. With the same reasoning, blue (higher velocity) areas, which are assumed as denser and cooler rocks may even be warmer and lighter." Sometimes pieces are assumed to have detached from slabs and fallen away, and appear as blobs on tomographic images. "Tomographic images are based on velocity models that often overestimate the velocity of the asthenosphere where usually the detachment is modeled. Therefore the detachment disappears when using slower velocity for the asthenosphere in the reference velocity model, or when generating regional tomographic images with better accuracy."
"If oceanic lithosphere is heavier than the underlying mantle, why are there no blobs of lithospheric mantle falling in the upper mantle below the western, older side of the Pacific plate?" Slab dip has been thought to be related to its age, as in "the western Pacific subduction zones because the subducting western Pacific oceanic lithosphere is older, cooler and therefore denser. However, the real dip of the slabs worldwide down to depths of 250 km shows no relation with the age of the downgoing lithosphere."
We are supposed to believe that "the 700 km-long West Pacific slab... should pull and carry the 10,000 km-wide Pacific plate, 33 times bigger, overcoming the shear resistance at the plate base and the opposing basal drag induced by the relative eastward mantle flow."
"The negative buoyancy [(dense enough to sink)] of slabs should determine the pull of plates, but it has been shown that the dip of the subduction zones is not correlated with the age and the thermal state of the downgoing plates." "In fact there are slabs where, moving along strike, the age of the downgoing lithosphere varies, but the dip remains the same, or vice versa, the age remains constant while the dip varies (Philippines). There are cases where the age decreases and the dip increases (Western Indonesia), and other subduction zones where the age increases and the dip decreases (Sandwich). This shows that there is not a first order relationship between slab dip and lithospheric age."
Finally, no matter how it is computed, "results do not support a correlation between slab length percentage (length of the trench compared to the length of the whole boundary around the plate) and plate velocity."
"This long list casts doubts on the possibility that slab pull can actually trigger subduction... and drive plate motions."
Why should the lithosphere start to subduct at all? "Hydrated and serpentinized oceanic lithosphere that has not yet been metamorphosed by the subduction process... is still less dense." Slab pull has been calculated to become potentially efficient only at a certain depth, around 180 km. Shallower than that, how is subduction initiated?
This raises a basic problem for plate tectonics theory
"Why convection in Earth's mantle gives rise to plate tectonics is not obvious. The top thermal boundary layer is supposed to be very stiff because the viscosity of silicate rocks is strongly temperature-dependent. This temperature dependency is so strong that so-called stagnant lid convection should be the most likely mode of mantle convection; the entire surface should be covered by just one single plate, not by a number of rigid plates." "What is needed for the self-consistent generation of plate tectonics is... a mechanism to initiate subduction." Consider moderate-age oceanic lithosphere, say 100 million years old. Even at a "depth range of 10-45 km, oceanic lithosphere of this age is too stiff to be deformed by any reasonable tectonic stress, resulting in a fatal bottleneck for the operation of plate tectonics." "The currently available estimate suggests that yield strength for this 'semi-brittle' regime is still on the order of 600-800 MPa [6000-8000 bars]." "It is known that the self-consistent numerical modeling of plate tectonics (i.e., plate tectonics naturally arising from buoyancy distribution and given rheology, not imposed by boundary conditions) is impossible with such high yield stress. In all previous attempts to simulate plate tectonics in a self-consistent fashion, therefore mantle rheology is modified in one way or another" to get the desired result.26 (Emphasis added)

 

[outhouse]

John Michael Fischer is a known idiot.


his work is not peer reviewed and so far he is alone in his view.


just look at all the geologist he quote mined from at the bottom of your page


everyone believes and studies plate tectonics.



your reply is laughable, really is this POE

 

[outhouse]

next you will tell us that all the 800 year old men were normal before the supposed great worldwie flood [facepalm]

 

[Shermana]

Try to attack the claims instead of the source if you can. Their data is well sourced.

I tried. I said "If you can" for a reason. My guess is you can't. Apparently you think all you have to do is attack the source. If that worked, no one could post anything, you could dismiss anything you wanted without having to attack anything anyone said. Get into where the science is wrong, or honorably retract and say you can't actually debunk anything I underlined. Calling my reply laughable does not disprove any of the claims made, or the quoted sources or the data. If you are going to accuse him of quote mining, it might help your case to post an example or three and show how they are mined.

If this is the case where you can just call people idiots instead of discussing the data, try the discussion boards.

 

[outhouse]

Calling my reply laughable does not disprove any of the claims made

the article is not peer reviewed

that means it is worthless, that is all that needs to be said when it comes to scientific data.

It is so far out there it is is listed as a "weird earth mythology"





what part of no part of science discounts plate tectonics do you not understand.




I will not argue pink unicorns with polka dots with you. PERIOD.




you copy paste garbage and want me to sift through your trash, take your POE somewhere else

 

[e2ekiel]

by the way many of the early legends have NO HISORICITY

it means they never happened as far as scholars and historians can tell.


they were written as allegorical fables, they were never ment to be taken as literal stories

Can you quote any historian or scholar that say this? Or are these your own assumptions?

 

[outhouse]

Can you quote any historian or scholar that say this? Or are these your own assumptions?

Every single follower of judaism will tell you that they are taught to read the early books as allegory

 

[Protester]

Oh about Isaiah 45:7
Isaiah 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB

The above version of the Bible is the most accurate one in the English language -- at the present time.

For short accurate answer:

Scofield 1917 Notes

Isaiah 45:7:

create evil
Heb. "ra" translated "sorrow," "wretchedness," "adversity," "afflictions," "calamities," but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that He made sorrow, wretchedness, etc., to be the sure fruits of sin.

By the way, Comparing Bible Translations

However, when it comes to translation as befits this thread, allegory isn't used in Proper Biblical Interpretation. This means, Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal? which is a rhetorical question, since conservative Protestants know the answer is Yes! Pulling verses out of contest, (See Why is it important to study the Bible in context?)

is to treat the Bible like a dictionary, oh ignore the reference to this one particular group in this really excellent commentary about How [Fill in the Blank!!!!] Twist Scriptures

because even the non-religious such as atheists use this technique as well.:cigar:

 

[outhouse]

allegory isn't used in Proper Biblical Interpretation.

Thats because you personally choose to follow those that make their own translations doesnt make yours correct.

Upon doing so one perverts the scripture and also hold liable all the mistakes and contradictions. One also has to discount historians, scholars and science in one hefty blow.



Try putting away known poor translations and follow what the religion of the people who wrote the book have to say about it.

OR get a scholarship on the book for yourself and learn real history

 

[Thief]

Thats because you personally choose to follow those that make their own translations doesnt make yours correct.

Upon doing so one perverts the scripture and also hold liable all the mistakes and contradictions. One also has to discount historians, scholars and science in one hefty blow.



Try putting away known poor translations and follow what the religion of the people who wrote the book have to say about it.

OR get a scholarship on the book for yourself and learn real history

And then spend the rest of your days trying not to believe.

It's more to faith, rather than what you can prove.
What another person makes of scripture...is up to him.

Chasing historians is time consuming.
It won't help your faith...unless you already believe.

Making sense of Genesis...should be left to the faithful.

 

[waitasec]

Making sense of Genesis...should be left to the faithful.

and one wonders why it's being pushed in the classrooms

 

[allright]

Genesis 6:1-8

It is speaking of men who were being faithful to God backsliding and marrying unsaved women. It is not talking about supernatural beings.
Psalms says "you are gods sons of the most high yet you will die like any man" clearly referring to men.
Also Jesus said "if he called them gods to whom the word of came"

Also the idea that angels took on human form, got married and raised families is just plain
ludicrous.

 

[Shermana]

Genesis 6:1-8

It is speaking of men who were being faithful to God backsliding and marrying unsaved women. It is not talking about supernatural beings.
Psalms says "you are gods sons of the most high yet you will die like any man" clearly referring to men.
Also Jesus said "if he called them gods to whom the word of came"

Also the idea that angels took on human form, got married and raised families is just plain
ludicrous.

That would totally disregard what Jude and Paul and Peter said about how they were actual Fallen angels. If you think it's ludicrous, snip Jude out of your bible. And Paul. And 2 Peter.

As for the fallen angels who participated in the abomination, God put them in custody "in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). This is sometimes interpreted as Tartarus or the "nether realms" (2 Peter 2:4). This would also explain why some fallen angels are in custody and why others are free to roam the heavens and torment mankind.

This was something pretty much all the early Church Fathers and Jews believed at the time, it didn't become a "Ludicrous" idea until much later. You'll have to also ignore that Jude quotes from 1 Enoch and calls the writing1 "Prophetic".

http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)
The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)
Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)

No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that: "The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)

I suppose King Og was over 10 feet tall from a strange gigantism birth defect? (And the rest of the rephaim)?

Interesting that Paul tells women to cover their heads to avoid tempting the angels too.