May 21st 2011

[Wandered Off]

In preparation for this blessed event, let's stop drinking caffiene.

And risk sleeping through it?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well as I see it science is constantly updating as it learns more. Not knocking science at all, I love it. However hwne it comes to the flood and other events like that, the scientific community as a whole is at odd against each other. They have evidence to support it, and they also have ideas that take them in other directions. I mean the bib bang has been revised several times, black holes have been revised before.

Global flood geology has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists and historians. As for physics. like all science, the more we know, the more secrets are unlocked and the more theories are revised.

All I am saying is the bible is constant.

Sorry, no it is not. Every since Constantine and the Council of Nicea established what the Christian scripture would be, beliefs and interpretations have changed, mutated, and been revised.
What was once believed to be true and immutable has is now interpreted in new light.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Global flood geology has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists and historians. As for physics. like all science, the more we know, the more secrets are unlocked and the more theories are revised.

Sorry, no it is not. Every since Constantine and the Council of Nicea established what the Christian scripture would be, beliefs and interpretations have changed, mutated, and been revised.
What was once believed to be true and immutable has is now interpreted in new light.

Unequivocally rejected? Please cite your source for that. As I have read many times, it is best guess and theories that scientist have about the creation of our world.
I am not knocking what you are saying I would just like to read from a reputable university, or an accredited study on the subject matter of the flood from your point of view.

Of course creationist scientist who are fully qualified in geology and so forth have other things to say, I won't jump on their band wagon, because that is besides the point. I am just saying I believe that their are scientist on both sides, that are both reputable and good at what they do.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Unequivocally rejected? Please cite your source for that. As I have read many times, it is best guess and theories that scientist have about the creation of our world.
I am not knocking what you are saying I would just like to read from a reputable university, or an accredited study on the subject matter of the flood from your point of view.

Of course creationist scientist who are fully qualified in geology and so forth have other things to say, I won't jump on their band wagon, because that is besides the point. I am just saying I believe that their are scientist on both sides, that are both reputable and good at what they do.

Well, I am not going to quote every respected geologist at every respected university, but here is an interesting article.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well, I am not going to quote every respected geologist at every respected university, but here is an interesting article.
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf

Big article, and I have read it before and I am reading it again now, but I wanted to jump in right from the beginning of the article because it states in quotes:

"as in Noah's time and place, people (including the Genesis

writer​

​

​

​

) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had
no word for it. Their .world. mainly (but not entirely)​

encompassed the land of Mesopotamia"

Already the article is starting from the premise that God didn't write the bible. So if they are going to use the bible as evidence either for or against something you would need to be faithful to the book you are representing. The bible states more than once that God authored the book, while using men to pen the words. If this is the case, than surely God had a concept of Earth.

Just wanted to make that point as this is an article that is full of good information, but could be making an argument that is biased

 

[tumbleweed41]

Big article, and I have read it before and I am reading it again now, but I wanted to jump in right from the beginning of the article because it states in quotes:

"as in Noah's time and place, people (including the Genesis

writer​

) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had
no word for it. Their .world. mainly (but not entirely)​

encompassed the land of Mesopotamia"

Already the article is starting from the premise that God didn't write the bible. So if they are going to use the bible as evidence either for or against something you would need to be faithful to the book you are representing. The bible states more than once that God authored the book, while using men to pen the words. If this is the case, than surely God had a concept of Earth.

Just wanted to make that point as this is an article that is full of good information, but could be making an argument that is biased

So you are saying, If a researcher, biologist, geologist or historian does not start with the premise that the bible is Gods word, all of there findings are biased?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So you are saying, If a researcher, biologist, geologist or historian does not start with the premise that the bible is Gods word, all of there findings are biased?

NO NO NO, I thought I said carefully that there is a lot of good information. However this article is from a "faith based" organization, and as such have to be suspect to start off with the premise that man wrote the bible and not God. Doesn't jive very well, you know what I mean?

I don't mean to get hung up on that, but just seems off a bit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What non faith based scholars do you know of that support a worldwide flood?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

What non faith based scholars do you know of that support a worldwide flood?

I appreciate that question, as I have never had to produce evidence of such. I take for granted what I read and assume it is secular or non faith based. I will look into it and respond. I didn't mean to put the burdon on you only.
Though if you come across a compelling paper from scientist that disclaim the global flood outright, I would love to read it.
Thanks again...

 

[Enoch07]

Global flood geology has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, biologists and historians. As for physics. like all science, the more we know, the more secrets are unlocked and the more theories are revised.

Did not read your link posted earlier on so forgive me if I step on your toes Tumble. I have heard of the theory that the flood was a localized event, hence less animals to carry, etc making it more logically sound. To Noah and his family it would apperar that the whole world was flooded. That is the best logical theory on Noahs flood I have heard so far. Is it the same as the one your thinking of? Or am I way off base here?

 

[HoldemDB9]

itwillend I have not completely looked at the whole thread, so forgive me if I ask anything that has already been answered.

1) How sure are you that what you are saying is true?

2) In what way will God return? In an obvious, physical way that no one could deny. Or in a spiritual type way, which would be hard to prove?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Charles Lyel http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/

 

[Just_me_Mike]

itwillend I have not completely looked at the whole thread, so forgive me if I ask anything that has already been answered.

1) How sure are you that what you are saying is true?

2) In what way will God return? In an obvious, physical way that no one could deny. Or in a spiritual type way, which would be hard to prove?

Just so you know I decided to start another thread called May 21st 2011 part 2 because I am learning better how to write on this forum, as I have never written on a forum before.

Umm to answer you question I have 100% faith so much that many people ask me to sign over my belongings and stuff like that.

When Jesus comes back he will come in the clouds, other than that I do not know as I only know what the bible says. However the bible does say for 5 months judgement will take place, and during that judgement people still won't turn to God, because they will believe God hsn't come yet. They will be defiant until the very end.

However the bible does say all the believers from beginning to end will be raptured that day May 21st 2011, so that will be significant. Although the believer are not that many people I can't say how noticeable it will be. Considering the fact that as many as 200,000 people die every 24 hours according to the world almanac.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Did not read your link posted earlier on so forgive me if I step on your toes Tumble. I have heard of the theory that the flood was a localized event, hence less animals to carry, etc making it more logically sound. To Noah and his family it would apperar that the whole world was flooded. That is the best logical theory on Noahs flood I have heard so far. Is it the same as the one your thinking of? Or am I way off base here?

No, but here is a link to the evidence you are talking about.
PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

 

[Enoch07]

Ah ok sorry for the derail.

 

[HoldemDB9]

Just so you know I decided to start another thread called May 21st 2011 part 2 because I am learning better how to write on this forum, as I have never written on a forum before.

Umm to answer you question I have 100% faith so much that many people ask me to sign over my belongings and stuff like that.

When Jesus comes back he will come in the clouds, other than that I do not know as I only know what the bible says. However the bible does say for 5 months judgement will take place, and during that judgement people still won't turn to God, because they will believe God hsn't come yet. They will be defiant until the very end.

However the bible does say all the believers from beginning to end will be raptured that day May 21st 2011, so that will be significant. Although the believer are not that many people I can't say how noticeable it will be. Considering the fact that as many as 200,000 people die every 24 hours according to the world almanac.

Funny you mentioned the "sign over the belongings" part. That is why I was interested in how obvious it would be and how sure you are, etc.

I would be willing to bet any amount of money that you are wrong. ANY amount, that I can afford. Not taking such a deal, in my opinion, shows that you are not at all confident.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Funny you mentioned the "sign over the belongings" part. That is why I was interested in how obvious it would be and how sure you are, etc.

I would be willing to bet any amount of money that you are wrong. ANY amount, that I can afford. Not taking such a deal, in my opinion, shows that you are not at all confident.

Look man I am not hear to do this kind of thing. I know from reading your posts that you are very smart, and well spoken. So unlike Enoch I know you will understand this post.
If I fully 100% believe that this will happen and 5 months after word the world will disappear, why would I be concerned with my belonings. Is that really my aim is to prove it to someone by making a bet?
So with all do respect I know where youy are coming from, but this is real to me, and as such you can see in my view it would be pointless to sig nmy stuff over when it won't be here.
I am really trying to answer your question, and not just give you a flimsy answer, so hopefully you understand my point.

 

[HoldemDB9]

Look man I am not hear to do this kind of thing. I know from reading your posts that you are very smart, and well spoken. So unlike Enoch I know you will understand this post.
If I fully 100% believe that this will happen and 5 months after word the world will disappear, why would I be concerned with my belonings. Is that really my aim is to prove it to someone by making a bet?
So with all do respect I know where youy are coming from, but this is real to me, and as such you can see in my view it would be pointless to sig nmy stuff over when it won't be here.
I am really trying to answer your question, and not just give you a flimsy answer, so hopefully you understand my point.

I completely understand that you have absolutely nothing to gain from making the bet, that is not the point. The point is that you claim to be 100% sure. If you were 100% sure then you would take the bet, even though you have nothing to gain by taking the bet, since you also have nothing to lose.

I do not believe that you think that you're 100% sure. You could EASILY prove that you are 100% sure by taking me up on a $100K bet, or any other amount. You have nothing to lose, since you are 100% sure. Now if you were anything less than 100% sure, even 99.999%, then I would understand you not taking the bet.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I completely understand that you have absolutely nothing to gain from making the bet, that is not the point. The point is that you claim to be 100% sure. If you were 100% sure then you would take the bet, even though you have nothing to gain by taking the bet, since you also have nothing to lose.

I do not believe that you think that you're 100% sure. You could EASILY prove that you are 100% sure by taking me up on a $100K bet, or any other amount. You have nothing to lose, since you are 100% sure. Now if you were anything less than 100% sure, even 99.999%, then I would understand you not taking the bet.

If you don't mind lets turn that around. If I take the bet, what does that do to your views on things. I mean you are saying you don't believe I am 100% sure, but I don't see how taking the bet changes your view on how sure I am.
Make sense?

One more question, if you don't mind. Are you the kind of person that will admit when they are wrong? No offense, I just am tired off talking to people that are not able to admit mistakes. I can easily admit mine. On that day if I am wrong I will admit it. So, I am just trying to learn more about you.

 

[HoldemDB9]

If you don't mind lets turn that around. If I take the bet, what does that do to your views on things. I mean you are saying you don't believe I am 100% sure, but I don't see how taking the bet changes your view on how sure I am.
Make sense?

If you take the bet then I would be convinced that you are sure that you are right. It would not make me any less confident though.

One more question, if you don't mind. Are you the kind of person that will admit when they are wrong? No offense, I just am tired off talking to people that are not able to admit mistakes. I can easily admit mine. On that day if I am wrong I will admit it. So, I am just trying to learn more about you.

If the judgement does happen when you say, then how will I be able to deny it? What would I just stand there saying "this is not happening"? Of course I would admit it, Id have to.