The Miracle of Water.

[URAVIP2ME]

And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have capsized with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have opened at the seams with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
Which happened first? It really doesn't matter.

I saw film footage of a small-scale Ark tossed around in a churning bathtub and No matter how hard the churning was the small Ark did Not capsize. Did you ever make a small-scaled Ark according to Genesis measurements and try to sink it.

 

[nPeace]

So, I agree with christians, you learn about the artist from her art. My personal approach is her art is her biography.

That's a good point about an artist's biography. If someone is familiar with paint mediums, they can tell which the artist uses, without them having to say. They can also learn a lot more details too.
Otherwise I understand what you are saying.

I can see that. I usually collect paintings because the painting itself reflects peace in me. I guess, in a religious light, the artist would be thankful. But unlike christianity, Im sure the artist isnt expecting a thank you when you done that more through like his art than shaking his hand.

What? Speak for yourself.

I can see that. Im more saying it feels uncomfortable to think of the artist before his art. Every artist is different, of course; but, the consesus I get around other writers is that people appreciate their work as gratitude. Its like if my mother gave me a wraped gift. I open it and see its gold jewelry. Of course saying thank you is appropriate. Though even if we cant say thank you, thank you is actually wearing the jewelry.

The appreciation is how you use the gift fiven. As for words, I wasnt raised where words were a symbol of gratitude. I love words and wish I heard more of them. So, it highly depends on the person. But, probably universally, if someone gives a gift, the appreciation is using it. One persons bow of disrespect is another persons respect to elderly.

Dude... I'm looking at you like...

Did you grow up a bit spoiled, would you say?
You answered it though. It has to do with how we are raised.
However, sometimes we don't realize how much it means to someone, when we not only express our gratitude, but the way we do it means so much to them. How we show our gratitude, as you said, in the way we use the gift, is very important.

I understand what you are saying though. Based on many factors, our upbringing plays a role in our makeup. I can relate to what you are saying, because I probably had a similar upbringing, but I got some new mothers, that taught me a few things about people's feelings, which helped me to see that we all in common appreciate praise, even when we don't show it.
It's a human thing, I suppose.

I wouldnt, really. I dont look at signatures, though. I usually can tell the same artist by how they write. Im drawn to their writing style and words they use.

As for god part, thats a two part question for me. Assuming god is a person, I guess you can see it similar if keeping god as a general creator without any religious descriptions. The biblical god has specific definitions and conditions to which he is related to his creation etc. Im more pantheistic. The artist and creation are the same (outside of strict analogy). So when you live as creation you are thanking god.

I understand the idea of thanking the artist for his creation. That hospitality is ideal in many cultures including my own. The difference is the intensity and balance. Christians dont worship their creators creation. So, the reflection isnt balance and the definition is different in context. How I see it, using god-terms, is god is creation. Creation creates itself through recycle and transformation etc (in real life). Bending forms. So, I find it odd to thank an external being or deity when the art or god is right here in front of you.

I have a pantheist mentality on spiritual concepts. I understand the idea of worshiping a deity or saying thank you to the creator but in practice, its more seeing eye to eye with creation as the creator and saying thank you by living and using what I am in gratitude.

I understand your perspective. It seems you understand mine as well.

I remember asking, without scriptures, if creation speaks of a creation (art to his artist), how do you know this? Is it gut feeling? I mean, we discussed we cant get the artist name and history just by seeing his artwork, how is that different with god and creation?

Good question... which I thought I answered.
The art work I presented to you in Workbook B, in this post... How was it done, and how can you tell? Do you use gut feeling? Why, or why not?
Sorry to put it in question form, but I think it's better you reason on it, so I won't have to go there again.

This is more bias, though. When I think of a creator, I dont think of anyone particular. Im not familar with the christian god as a deity; so, I assume yes, you can assume that creation has a signature of its creator. It highly depends on the person and how perceives the world and understands it.

Doubting witnesses-that comment takes on a whole new topic. I dont have that mindset that people are blind or misguided or cant see the creator as if the creation has a literal signature idependent on the people in the bible and the people today (regardless the time period) who speak about it. When people were accused for doubting and denial, they were killed. I dont understand that mentality we still have today.

Another unrelated question/comment. Why the futher back in time we go, the more spiritual something is? When was the time broken that now we are less spiritually aware than the person in the same world with the same human parts just in another era and zip code?

You ask some interesting questions - well thought out too.
Conversation with you is intriguing.

Yes, I believe the ancient Hebrews of the past knew the God of the Bible - identified as the true God, creator of heavens and earth, and all that is in them.
The reason I believe, is simple imo.

you well know with all your heart and with all your soul that not one word out of all the good promises that Jehovah your God has spoken to you has failed. They have all come true for you. Not one word of them has failed.

- Joshua 23:14
This is just one verse of hundreds that make this point, and are verified continually.

Now ask yourself, if someone told you the truth 99 times... When they tell you something the hundredth time, do you have reason to doubt them?
Not me. This is how it is with my faith.

The Bible has proven to be practical, and it's advice always works - always, both in past times, and to the present.
So when people tell me that the ancients wrote things for their time, that don't work for our time, I look at them, then I look at the world, and then look at them like...

Just as an example, in one nation, we have situations such as these...
The “Free the Nipple Movement” is a global campaign seeking equality and empowerment for women when it comes to dress code. It emerged as a reaction to the idea that it was socially acceptable for men to appear without a shirt in public, whereas a woman appearing topless in public would be construed as indecent. The states of New York, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas have made it legal for both men and women to appear topless in public. The remainder of states consider the exposure of the female nipple to be an act of indecent exposure, putting them in a position where they can be charged with a criminal offense. This appears to be a gendered law that promotes different expectations on how a person is expected to dress when in public. - Dress code - Wikipedia

The world is divided on many issues, and the problems are huge.
I don't even want to get into the headaches that are being experience throughout the world, due to the spirit of this world. One of these days, I may well sit and write out a document on these things.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have capsized with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have opened at the seams with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
Which happened first? It really doesn't matter.​

I saw film footage of a small-scale Ark tossed around in a churning bathtub and No matter how hard the churning was the small Ark did Not capsize. Did you ever make a small-scaled Ark according to Genesis measurements and try to sink it.

It's really sad that you would post something so silly. It's really sad that you saw this video and never questioned it.

When you were a kid, didn't you ever smash toy cars into each other? They just bounce off each other. Real cars do not just bounce off each other when they collide. Don't you understand why the difference?

You should realize that your post says a lot about your knowledge of even basic scientific principles.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

ecco:

And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have capsized with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have opened at the seams with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
Which happened first? It really doesn't matter.​

It's really sad that you would post something so silly. It's really sad that you saw this video and never questioned it.
When you were a kid, didn't you ever smash toy cars into each other? They just bounce off each other. Real cars do not just bounce off each other when they collide. Don't you understand why the difference?
You should realize that your post says a lot about your knowledge of even basic scientific principles.

Did you ever make a small-scale Ark as per Genesis measurements and see if it can be capsized in a bathtub of churning water _______

The Ark was Not colliding with another Ark. All it had to do was float.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good point. The world makes much more sense without gods. One benefit of atheism is that when a cute little doe-eyed girl dies of leukemia sometime later today (and one will somewhere), you have the comfort of knowing that it was just rotten luck, and not something caused by or allowed to happen by an unseen agent with the power to prevent or cure the leukemia, but not the will.

In Scripture, I find Satan challenges all of us at Job 2:4-5.
Touch our flesh.... ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.
Both Job and Jesus under very adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.
If mankind's reproductive time was cut short we would Not be here.
The passing of time has allowed for us to be born and think who we would like as Sovereign over us.
The dead can have a resurrection back to healthy life.
That is what Jesus' 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth is about.
Jesus will undo all the damage on Earth that Satan and Adam brought upon us.
Please note that Revelation 22:2 informs us that mankind on Earth will see the return of Eden's "Tree of Life" on Earth for the purpose for the ' healing ' of earth's nations.
We are all free to choose if we want to be part of Jesus ' millennium-long day of governing over Earth.
At that millennial time even 'enemy death' will be No more on Earth as per 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8.
Just picture how happy that doe-eyed girl and her parents will be at that thousand-year day under Christ.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Even if God used evolution in lower forms of life, according to Genesis No evolution for mankind.
Adam was directed created from the dust of the ground. Adam was fashioned from created ground.
Adam did Not come to life until his God ' breathed the breath of life ' into lifeless Adam as per Genesis 2:7.

Genesis isn't intended as literal history.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's a good point about an artist's biography. If someone is familiar with paint mediums, they can tell which the artist uses, without them having to say. They can also learn a lot more details too. Otherwise I understand what you are saying.

True. I guess its a bit more spiritual than knowledge. Like knowing the artists soul rather than if he used a number two pencil or a mechanical one.

What? Speak for yourself.

Haha. I see someone who isnt expecting a thank you more humble when he receive it than one who says thank you because the author expects it. I feel the former is more genuine but, well, not quite universal among most parts of the world, some more pronounced than others.

Dude... I'm looking at you like...

Did you grow up a bit spoiled, would you say?

You answered it though. It has to do with how we are raised.
However, sometimes we don't realize how much it means to someone, when we not only express our gratitude, but the way we do it means so much to them. How we show our gratitude, as you said, in the way we use the gift, is very important.

Yes and no. Mother told us actions (say chores) says I love you rather than words. So, when we said thank you, she roll her eyes or a similar sentiment but if we helped her with the house or finances, etc, she more grateful.

I dont know. Does getting tons of christmas persents and watching your parents play with your toys count? I had a funky childhood with its pros and cons.

But, yeah, my childhood was more: if you dont use it youre not thankful.

I understand what you are saying though. Based on many factors, our upbringing plays a role in our makeup. I can relate to what you are saying, because I probably had a similar upbringing, but I got some new mothers, that taught me a few things about people's feelings, which helped me to see that we all in common appreciate praise, even when we don't show it. It's a human thing, I suppose.

I didnt have the emotion part to much. Its a struggle to figure what people mean with their body language and emotions but I can feel their aura.

You ask some interesting questions - well thought out too.
Conversation

I have to go back and read that post again. It was a long one.

The Bible has proven to be practical, and it's advice always works - always, both in past times, and to the present.

So when people tell me that the ancients wrote things for their time, that don't work for our time, I look at them, then I look at the world, and then look at them like...

Yeah, I would not agree with that if I were you (all) too. It would be as if time was in sections and we live in different realms where one eras message poofs from existence at a specific year and time. We still have Pagan concepts in all religions but, well, not many people like the P-Word so.

 

[Shad]

Yes, the core, not the shell. We were talking about the creation of lighter element, no shell and no supernova required

I was just clarifying the location just for information purposes.

As the core begins running out of hydrogen it begins to collapse, less volume, more pressure, hotter fusion, the lighter elements form. Further collapse creates more elements and so on up to iron. Iron is the last element to form as a typical sun ends its life.

Yup.

Only if the sun is massive enough (several solar masses)
does it go nova where elements above iron are formed.

The range include metallicity. Low metallicity in some stars cause no nova while stars with high content but the same mass do. Population I vs Population II and III stars

 

[Hockeycowboy]

[They] call it metaphor, or allegory,

Yeah, of course! Do you really think otherwise? (You are saying you know more about the Bible than Isaac Newton, who read these same words! ) Because you're omitting a lot of other contextual verses, which emphatically show they are metaphorical, filled with hyperbole.
Like Psalms 104:3, 'God walking on the wings of the wind'

Psalms 18:10, "soaring on the wings of the wind"

(Do you really think they thought the wind had literal wings?)

Job 38:8, "Who shut up the sea behind doors"

(Do we observe doors in the oceans? Neither did they.)

I could go on and on. But I'd be accused of a Gish gallop.
(However, you do it w/ all those Scriptures intending to overwhelm me, and nothing will be said.)

A lot is written in picturesque language. To assume it should be taken literally, is just that: assumption.

OTOH, we have this accurate portrayal of the sea, at Job 38:16...."Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?"

Do we observe "springs of the sea"? Yes....once men developed the technology to explore the oceans, they discovered these "springs": hydrothermal vents, but they're springs. How would the writer of Job have known this, thousands of years ago?

Are "recesses" observed? Yes, the deepest discovered so far is the Mariana Trench. And there are many others!

How would the writer have known about any recesses?

 

[nPeace]

Haha. I see someone who isnt expecting a thank you more humble when he receive it than one who says thank you because the author expects it. I feel the former is more genuine but, well, not quite universal among most parts of the world, some more pronounced than others.

Humility is great.

Yes and no. Mother told us actions (say chores) says I love you rather than words. So, when we said thank you, she roll her eyes or a similar sentiment but if we helped her with the house or finances, etc, she more grateful.

I dont know. Does getting tons of christmas persents and watching your parents play with your toys count? I had a funky childhood with its pros and cons.

But, yeah, my childhood was more: if you dont use it youre not thankful.

Sounds like a good mom. Is she still alive?

I have to go back and read that post again. It was a long one.

Just look at the Spoiler: Workbook B.

Yeah, I would not agree with that if I were you (all) too. It would be as if time was in sections and we live in different realms where one eras message poofs from existence at a specific year and time. We still have Pagan concepts in all religions but, well, not many people like the P-Word so.

Nuff said.

 

[Bear Wild]

There is no substance on earth as vital for life as water is.....can it be just a fluke of nature?...or is it evidence of purposeful design?

Please watch the video and see what logical conclusion you come to.....

Jehovah's Witnesses BROADCASTING

It is not a fluke of nature. It has just the right properties that allowed life to evolve on this earth along with the structure of carbon. Lets not forget oxygen essential for life. And humans cannot exist without iron. Oh and nitrogen another vital element for life. Yes water is vital to life yet alone in cannot support life. Yes water is amazing and can by symbolic but there are many elements and molecules needed for life. It is the interaction of the of many elements and molecules so singling out water only makes no sense.

 

[Milton Platt]

And all of those things that make life possible did not just come together by accident. How could you make a list of all the things that make life possible and come to the conclusion that it was all coincidental? How many flukes would it take, do you think?

They did not come about by accident........they came about by natural processes governed by physics.

 

[Deeje]

It is not a fluke of nature. It has just the right properties that allowed life to evolve on this earth along with the structure of carbon. Lets not forget oxygen essential for life. And humans cannot exist without iron. Oh and nitrogen another vital element for life. Yes water is vital to life yet alone in cannot support life. Yes water is amazing and can by symbolic but there are many elements and molecules needed for life. It is the interaction of the of many elements and molecules so singling out water only makes no sense.

Well that just takes my point and reinforces it. Water was here first according to Genesis. And doesn't science infer that life began in some kind of primordial "soup"? I want to know who was the chef? No soup I have ever eaten was an accidental coming together of just the right ingredients.....

 

[Deeje]

They did not come about by accident........they came about by natural processes governed by physics.

What is a "natural process" and who invented the laws that govern the universe? Where did matter and energy come from? What makes them interact? Do you think they just popped up out of nowhere?

What law do you know that required no lawmaker?

What thing do you use for a specific purpose that was not the result of some intelligent mind addressing a need for it? Someone had to think up the concept, design the product, test it and then manufacture it.

I have a computer that I am typing on right now but if I was to tell you that it just appeared by "natural processes" and all the programs I have downloaded required no intelligent mind to invent them and then write a program for them....you'd think I was cracked....

There are way too many fortunate co-incidences for creation to be anything but the product of an intelligence way beyond our own.

Water is just part of the miracle....a very important part.

 

[Windwalker]

I find nothing in Scripture supporting a ' young earth ' . That is Not biblical.

Not according to most Creationists. How Old Is the Earth?

I have heard people say God just made the earth look old.
To me, that is quite silly because God can Not lie, and to make something young look old would be a deceitful lie.

Yes it would be. But anything to make their beliefs right, goes. God lying seems to be one of them. Such a defense of beliefs! Unwilling to look at evidence.

 

[ecco]

And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have capsized with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
And with no ability to steer and with no propulsion it would have opened at the seams with the first 200 foot wave that hit it.
Which happened first? It really doesn't matter.

It's really sad that you would post something so silly. It's really sad that you saw this video and never questioned it.

You should realize that your post says a lot about your knowledge of even basic scientific principles.

Did you ever make a small-scale Ark as per Genesis measurements and see if it can be capsized in a bathtub of churning water

Did you? A 4 1/2" model would be on a scale of 1:1200. If the ark's hull planks were 12"x24"x100' , your model planks would be .01" x .02" x 1". Each piece would look like a shaving from running a plane over a piece of wood. Does this resemble your video's model construction?

The Ark was Not colliding with another Ark. All it had to do was float.

It was colliding with massive waves.

 

[ecco]

Genesis isn't intended as literal history.

Yes, it was.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, of course! Do you really think otherwise? (You are saying you know more about the Bible than Isaac Newton,

Do you ascribe to all of Newton's beliefs or just the ones that reflect your own ideas and beliefs?

Religious views of Isaac Newton - Wikipedia

According to most scholars, Newton was Arian, not holding to Trinitarianism. 'In Newton's eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin'.[23] As well as being antitrinitarian, Newton allegedly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the immortal soul,[9] a personal devil and literal demons.​

 

[ChristineM]

I was just clarifying the location just for information purposes.

Ok. Just wondered why you mentioned it.

The range include metallicity. Low metallicity in some stars cause no nova while stars with high content but the same mass do. Population I vs Population II and III stars

Yet still several solar masses required before supernova is possible

 

[Shad]

Yet still several solar masses required before supernova is possible

Yes about 20+. Metallicity comes into play between 40 to 90 regarding novas or lack of.