24 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, there is NO way floods can bend rocks, because if there was a sufficient force to bend said rocks, they are way to cold, being submerged in liquid water, they would by definition be between zero and 100 degrees C and that range of temperature would only mean rocks subjected to the huge forces of a flood would only shatter and turn into smaller rocks which would accumulate like we already know rocks like that accumulate, there is ZERO bending at 100 degrees C. Not in 6000 years, not in 600,000 years.
There are ways that bend rocks can appear after the flood, so there is no need for hundreds of millions of years for marine fossils to appear on mountains when a worldwide flood could account for it easily.
Such rocks ONLY bend when they get close to their melting point. If you had done even a cursory study of geology you would have known that.
Oh wait, I forgot. Geologists are part of the vast conspiracy so they must be wrong about that one too, right, your expected response.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseSedimentary strata, when they are laid down in moving water are initially permeated with water and thus they bend very easily. They are pliable. But it only takes a few years for these sedimentary strata to dry out and harden and when that happens they become brittle as was learned from the events of Mount St Helens eruption in 1980 followed by a 1983 lake breach.
No, there is NO way floods can bend rocks, because if there was a sufficient force to bend said rocks, they are way to cold, being submerged in liquid water, they would by definition be between zero and 100 degrees C and that range of temperature would only mean rocks subjected to the huge forces of a flood would only shatter and turn into smaller rocks whi ...[text shortened]... of the vast conspiracy so they must be wrong about that one too, right, your expected response.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsGeologists can tell the difference between sedimentary bending and bending from huge forces and high temperatures deep in the Earth, unless you also don't believe continents collide with one another.
Sedimentary strata, when they are laid down in moving water are initially permeated with water and thus they bend very easily. They are pliable. But it only takes a few years for these sedimentary strata to dry out and harden and when that happens they become brittle as was learned from the events of Mount St Helens eruption in 1980 followed by a 1983 lake breach.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsDude, why can't you even visualize this tiny detail:
There is still no evidence that it takes billions of years.
If the continents all slammed together in 6000 years there would be so much heat generated the surface would probably be around 1000 degrees.
It happens in millions of years so the heat generated by that friction gets bled away safely so we don't get cooked. It's as simple as that.
Therefore, the Earth is WAY more than 6000 years old.
If the Earth's continents crashed into each other in 6000 years it would be going more than 10,000 times faster than the roughly 1 to 2 inches per year we see now. They would be going a quarter MILE a year and we would DEFINITELY feel that and WOULD have felt that 5000 years ago, it would be total chaos on the surface.
You need to think in terms of thermodynamics here. That would be heat generated ten thousand times faster and it would have no way to escape so it would FOR SURE be more like a thousand degrees at which point the oceans would boil away and all life on Earth would cease to exist.
Life has not ceased to exist on Earth, been through a few crises but at no point in the history of life on Earth has ALL life died out.
Therefore the Earth is a LOT older than 6,000 years.
I want you to actually think for yourself and think through the idea of continents actually smashing together 10,000 times faster than they are today or at ANY time in the past.
You can't say, well, 5,500 years ago they WERE moving 10,000 times faster because all that heat would have left a smoking gun, literally, the rocks would be way hotter than they are now, MEASURABLY hotter.
Think about the implications of what I just wrote. Remember, these are MY words, MY analysis, not some assswipe video.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseKnow this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
Dude, why can't you even visualize this tiny detail:
If the continents all slammed together in 6000 years there would be so much heat generated the surface would probably be around 1000 degrees.
It happens in millions of years so the heat generated by that friction gets bled away safely so we don't get cooked. It's as simple as that.
Therefore, the ...[text shortened]... ations of what I just wrote. Remember, these are MY words, MY analysis, not some assswipe video.
(2 Peter 3:3-6 NASB)
Did this fact escape your notice or are you willingly ingnorant? God does not do everything based on your uniformitarian principles.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsDude, first, what has that to do with continents cramming into each other slow or fast? and second, so what if the world was somehow created from water, right now we have a lot more than just water so if you want to believe the universe was some giant water ball and your god went POOF now there is iron, manganese, sulfur, aluminum, uranium, so be it. The fact is, we now have all those things and they are in all those rocks and they were in fact once all horizontal and now some of it is vertical. THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN IN 6000 YEARS because we would be fried by the friction.
Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens ex ...[text shortened]... are you willingly ingnorant? God does not do everything based on your uniformitarian principles.
What part of that statement can't YOU understand? You do know the continents are running into each other at about 1 inch per year right now don't you? Or do you not believe that? I asked you that question and all I got was deflection.
If all that happened, say 5,500 years ago the Earth would be fried, it's really as simple as that.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseAre you willingly ignorant that water cools?
Dude, first, what has that to do with continents cramming into each other slow or fast? and second, so what if the world was somehow created from water, right now we have a lot more than just water so if you want to believe the universe was some giant water ball and your god went POOF now there is iron, manganese, sulfur, aluminum, uranium, so be it. The fa ...[text shortened]... all that happened, say 5,500 years ago the Earth would be fried, it's really as simple as that.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsRJHinds... big words like you use here are out of character - I checked where you lifted this passage from:
Sedimentary strata, when they are laid down in moving water are initially permeated with water and thus they bend very easily. They are pliable. But it only takes a few years for these sedimentary strata to dry out and harden and when that happens they become brittle as was learned from the events of Mount St Helens eruption in 1980 followed by a 1983 lake breach.
http://considerthegospel.org/blog/2014/03/
Please cite your sources
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI think perhaps this (otherwise good) post somewhat confuses and conflates belief in something called “God” with the following:
IF there was a god, it might think like this, where you insert what a real god might be like. So your religion goes, this god would NEVER be jealous. This god would NEVER be spiteful, this god would be above all that with just one overriding attribute, unconditional love.
You could reference to that kind of god, knowing full well there may not be such a ...[text shortened]... med at lifting the spirits of mankind.
Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?
--A particular god-concept: that of a supernatural, separate, personalistic being or entity.
--A god (or at least a theism) that has the nasty attributes that you list.
--What humans say and write about what they call “God” (even if they claim that their scriptures actually come from “God” ).
--And, perhaps, a particular way of reading said scriptures: as descriptive or propositional prose to be taken as literal/historical fact.
All of the above represent, when conjoined, a particular religious “matrix” that is not universal, and has never been universal. (See my post on page 5 of the “Adieu” thread, which apparently was in reaction to this one). Granted that such religionists tend to view all challengers as heretics - if not atheists and “god-haters”.
Consider the following from the Sufi non-dualist Ibn Arabi:
My heart has become able
to take on all forms.
It is a pasture for gazelles,
for monks, an abbey.
It is a temple for idols,
and for whoever walks around it, the Kaaba.
It is the tablets of the Torah,
and also the leaves of the Qur’an!
I believe in the religion of Love,
whatever direction its caravans may take,
for Love is my religion and my faith.
—Ibn Arabi
Here is my own (admittedly clumsy) offering from a non-dualistic point of view:
“God”
is one of many names
for the whole,
indivisible and vibrant
orgasm of Is,
of which we are—
And your religion of who and whom
will only succeed
in perpetuating the illusion
of your own coitus interruptus.
—Vistesd
And, less clumsy I think (or at least more poetic):
Fana
As long as there is herself and myself
—beloved and lover, an imagined mirage
cast in a dream of two mirrors—
love is the desperate, jealous flame of desire.
When the images join in a singular form
—returning to only Ourself and no other—
then love is the passion and pulsation of One,
forgetful of dreams imprisoned in a mirror.
And it begins again until it ends,
this rhythm of form and fullness and form.
“How silly for the single flame to fear
annihilation in the larger fire,
or waterdrop to be afraid to fall
again into the vastness of the sea”—
—Vistesd (fana might be best translated as “dissolving” )
Because our language is so often dualistic in grammatical form, even poetry - even by non-dualists - often employs dualistic and personalistic metaphors (as does mine above, as well as the following from another Sufi):
I will incinerate this creed and religion, and burn it.
Then I will put your love in its place.
How long must I hide
this love in my heart?
What the traveler seeks
is not the religion
and not the creed:
Only You.
—‘Ayn alQozat Hamadani
And this, that was originally posted by our “god-hating” atheist friend LemonJello:
"There is only one reason
We have followed God into this world:
To encourage laughter, freedom, dance
And love.
Let a noble cry inside of you speak to me
Saying,
'Hafiz,
Don't just sit there on the moon tonight
Doing nothing'..."
—Hafiz
Again, these are not new notions of either “God” or religion. They are just foreign (and threatening) to a particular - admittedly conventional, at least in the “Christian West” - theism.
NOTE: I am not saying that you are confused! I suspect that you know precisely which “conventional theism” you are critiquing.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsSo basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'willingly ignorant'?
No, it is sunhouse that is obviously the "willingly ignorant" one, and you may be following closely on his heels.
So why don't you display you wonderful knowledge for us ignorant ones, and explain how water cools. Where does all the heat go?
Originally posted by RJHindsActually no, at best you have a stagnant repository of view points owned by others which you plagiarise or refer to without comprehension.
Do you mean the word "permeated"? At least I have a backup for my views, right?
No one backs up *your* views since you don't actually have any to call your own.