-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions
- Thread starter Mycernius
- Start date
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
Ahh, you oversetimate my understanding. Could you make it a little easier for me to understand, please ?Tsuyoiko said:
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
lexico said:
Mondai nai! At the quantum level, observing something affects the thing you are trying to observe. For example, you need photons to look at something, and the energy of these photons can move or energise the particle you are trying to observe. So you cannot observe and verify all possible states.
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
So would that mean inductive proofs are impossible when measurements involve vastly miniscule quantities of mass, momentum, and position ? If so, inductive reasoning might not stand at all as a valid means of proof of a scientific thesis in the general sense.
Last edited:
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
lexico said:
Well the uncertainty only applies to the quantum level - subatomic particles. At the macro level we are OK, because the effect of your observation is negligible.
Anyway, inductive reasoning only gives us probabilities, not certainties, so it is scientific at macro and quantum levels probably. Even the most obvious scientific truths are only 'probably' true - just with those the dataset is so astronomically huge that the probability is so close to 1 that we can call it 'certain'.
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
Yes, now I remember ! You really studied your science history to heart, haven't you ? You could pass as a teacher/lecturer in physics or history of modern science. :bravo:Tsuyoiko said:
Coming to think of it; with the exception of extremely limited, artificial examples, I don't think true deductive proofs are possible without 'relying' on mathematics/logic. There is trust lying at the basis of the 'reliance' bit.
Furthermore, ALL cases of scientific proofs, if we look at the 'astronimically profuse dataset,' are inherently inductive tests to see if the deductive preditictions (explanations) of new (previously unknown) facts are well played out by nature.
We are assuming a great deal. That is another point that science resembles faith -- without the trust factor, we really could not go on with our iterative, converging improvements on the scientific machinery.
Last edited:
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
That reminds me of something Einstein said:lexico said:
Einstein said a lot that is relevant to this discussion. I have often seen fundamentalists quote Einstein thus:Albert Einstein-sensei said:
"Science without religion is lame"
always quoting just those five words. What Einstein actually said was:
Seeing the quote in its entirety doesn't support their point half as well, ne?Albert Einstein-sensei said:
I love this quote, as I think it reveals more about what Einstein meant when he used the word 'religion':
Wow! :souka:Albert Einstein-sensei said:
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
Do you see a connection (either deep, necessary, or shallow, accidental) between the element of trust in science and an appreciation of the mystical of a scientist ?
Could it be that trust lies at the bases of both scientific reasoning and spirituality ?
As for the understanding of an awesome existence that transcends the ordinary & mundane, could it also be considered a basis for trust (as trust is for awe) ?
Could it be that trust lies at the bases of both scientific reasoning and spirituality ?
As for the understanding of an awesome existence that transcends the ordinary & mundane, could it also be considered a basis for trust (as trust is for awe) ?
Last edited:
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
Well, I will attempt to answer what may have been a rhetorical question! 
My spirituality is dependent upon my knowledge of science, amongst other things. The closest thing I have to a 'temple' is a place called Chalice Well in Glastonbury, South West England. It is a world peace garden, centred on a natural spring and has been a sacred site for 5000 years. The waters are supposed to have healing properties. At the various points where the spring comes to the surface it has left an orangey-red deposit on the rocks. I recognised it as iron oxide, and realised that the healing property of the water is probably due to its high iron content. So my awe at the beauty of the spring was enhanced by my scientific knowledge in relation to it. I later learnt that it is a bacteria in the water that causes the deposit of iron oxide, as it changes soluble ferrous oxide into insoluble ferric oxide, which only increased my sense of wonder.
Is that what you meant?
BTW, if you have time, follow the link and take the virtual tour of the gardens.
My spirituality is dependent upon my knowledge of science, amongst other things. The closest thing I have to a 'temple' is a place called Chalice Well in Glastonbury, South West England. It is a world peace garden, centred on a natural spring and has been a sacred site for 5000 years. The waters are supposed to have healing properties. At the various points where the spring comes to the surface it has left an orangey-red deposit on the rocks. I recognised it as iron oxide, and realised that the healing property of the water is probably due to its high iron content. So my awe at the beauty of the spring was enhanced by my scientific knowledge in relation to it. I later learnt that it is a bacteria in the water that causes the deposit of iron oxide, as it changes soluble ferrous oxide into insoluble ferric oxide, which only increased my sense of wonder.
Is that what you meant?
BTW, if you have time, follow the link and take the virtual tour of the gardens.
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
It was actually a serious question. I made a remark on the trust factor in science being a shared property of both science and faith; upon which you commented with Einstein's observation on the mystical.Tsuyoiko said:Well, I will attempt to answer what may have been a rhetorical question!
Initially I was surprised at the difference between the two; trust and the mystical. But to explore, I tried to find one of two possibilities
(1) the two are strongly related by way of frequent association but lacking a necessary relation
(2) the two are necessary and sufficient, ie. identical in logical value.
This 2nd possibility might or might not prove to be true identity; for it might turn out to be related by a relationship of cause and effect, or co-ocurring effects of a common cause.
Thanks for sharing your experience and the link. Let me ponder upon the meaning of the mystical with your example of the mystery of the red coloring on the rock at the age-old healing spring of 'Glastonbury Temple.'My spirituality is dependent upon my knowledge of science, amongst other things. The closest thing I have to a 'temple' is a place called Chalice Well in Glastonbury, South West England. It is a world peace garden, centred on a natural spring and has been a sacred site for 5000 years. The waters are supposed to have healing properties. At the various points where the spring comes to the surface it has left an orangey-red deposit on the rocks. I recognised it as iron oxide, and realised that the healing property of the water is probably due to its high iron content. So my awe at the beauty of the spring was enhanced by my scientific knowledge in relation to it. I later learnt that it is a bacteria in the water that causes the deposit of iron oxide, as it changes soluble ferrous oxide into insoluble ferric oxide, which only increased my sense of wonder.
....
BTW, if you have time, follow the link and take the virtual tour of the gardens.
Last edited:
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
I think my example is a case of cause and effect - my knowledge causes a mystical experience leading me to seek more knowledge, which enhances my next experience. But I think they are both necessary, sufficient I'm not sure. There could be something else happening there that I'm not aware of yet. Nature is always involved though - Mars Man may have a comment about that.
I suppose my example will seem lame to some people
Please folks, describe a spiritual experience you have had!
I suppose my example will seem lame to some people
Please folks, describe a spiritual experience you have had!
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
... and perhaps how the spiritual (mystical) experience might be related to the enormous trust (assumption) that supports science (and faith).
Good evening there folks !! :wave:
Just to let you know I'm still here. That's a great flow that you, Tsuyoiko and lexico, have going there, I feel like I may be breaking that a bit, since I'm still in reply to mode to sabro's #78 post. There is still some fine points to work out, I reason, before having to go to the extent which has so poetically been shared with us all. I'll need some time to go over that very carefully, but first, hope to get back on some points about the Genesis account itself, and the other presupposition ( the other side of the coin, if you will)--more plainly presupposing what has been learned from nature by scientific method and exploration is true.
In the next couple of days I have a lot to do. But will be back as soon as possible. :sorry:
And lexico, it's really nice to see you here again !! See you all :wave:
Just to let you know I'm still here. That's a great flow that you, Tsuyoiko and lexico, have going there, I feel like I may be breaking that a bit, since I'm still in reply to mode to sabro's #78 post. There is still some fine points to work out, I reason, before having to go to the extent which has so poetically been shared with us all. I'll need some time to go over that very carefully, but first, hope to get back on some points about the Genesis account itself, and the other presupposition ( the other side of the coin, if you will)--more plainly presupposing what has been learned from nature by scientific method and exploration is true.
In the next couple of days I have a lot to do. But will be back as soon as possible. :sorry:
And lexico, it's really nice to see you here again !! See you all :wave:
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
Thanks for welcoming me back. I have some catching up to do, too.
I respect your principle of confirming what has been accomplished--a common ground before going further. I apologise for breaking the flow, so here's back to where we broke off.Mars Man said:
Sabro's post 78 said:
Revenant
No Longer a Member
The word 'God' has presided over terrible acts against humanity, and been carried into so many battles, that it has lost it's sense of awe and wonder.
In short, I think spirituality is a sense of awe and wonder, as the word the Polynesians use for the great forces of nature they see is mana. For some reason, that for me carries a sense of magic to it, a sense of awe. Strange really.
God, what He is, and what the human relationship to Him is, are still answered with such a variety of answers, from the God who involves himself with human affairs all the time, to one that has limited Himself to the logic of this universe, and will do no more (we are left on our own).
More am I interested in, is how God communicates to people. To me, it seems that a person's personal spiritual enlightenment is often associated with God, when others don't associate it with God at all, but just name it a new realization.
No problems with you adding the chan to my name Mars Man, actually, I like the idea. And I might agree, considering Paul's background as a pharisee, that he would've most likely been against homosexuality.
In short, I think spirituality is a sense of awe and wonder, as the word the Polynesians use for the great forces of nature they see is mana. For some reason, that for me carries a sense of magic to it, a sense of awe. Strange really.
God, what He is, and what the human relationship to Him is, are still answered with such a variety of answers, from the God who involves himself with human affairs all the time, to one that has limited Himself to the logic of this universe, and will do no more (we are left on our own).
More am I interested in, is how God communicates to people. To me, it seems that a person's personal spiritual enlightenment is often associated with God, when others don't associate it with God at all, but just name it a new realization.
No problems with you adding the chan to my name Mars Man, actually, I like the idea. And I might agree, considering Paul's background as a pharisee, that he would've most likely been against homosexuality.
Void
Regular Member
my two pence input to the "scientific side-road"
1) Even the beauty of precise and straight Math changes with time to adjust
to wanders of human perceprion. True, more likely true, almost true, a little
bit true, uncertain, a little bit false, almost false, more likely false, false...
Welcome to the fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic
2) Almost every scientific theory (at least in physics) is supposed to be verified by experiment. And even more, it has to be reproducible experiment. Then the set of tests is conducted measure of inaccurasy and error are counted. If it is within certain range (again, range is decided by scientific society) then theory considered faithful (trustful). And indeed it`s like Einstain said - climbing a mountaing adding new pieces of glass to a mosaic. Discovering the limits of old theories and setting up the new once (boundaries fro them will be dicovered in a future)
3) Another problem of our perception - we can`t study the object as it is. We can see how it evince itselfe only in various interactions. We can create some of this interactions artificially. On scale of objects above size of a molecula we don`t see relation "subject-observer" as smth what affects the result of the studing, but in a scale of micro-world it is an issue.
But looks like it is also should be taken into account in macro-world as well.
Social studies, psychology, study of self-organized systems of all sorts bring
back the uncertainity. Now it is a part of macro-world as well as of micro-world And the observer and objet are tightly bond and affect each other
4) There is something in deductive proof what bothers me. WE cam prove A1, A1, ..., Ak. If all of them true it might give us B. But there is also exist emergent B, which is more than just the sum of A...
... that`s just smth what poped in my head so far. Maybe after more carefull reading of the whole thread ill return to change (or to add) some points
About mysterious and spiritual. Mystery behind every thing we don`t yet have an explanaton for. but even explained it doesn`t lose its charm. Rainbow was a mystery, but science explained the phenomenon, electric bulbs are almost like tamed lightning bolts. We know some rules of the Universe, but it`s neverending (well, exagerrating
) dance in all its beauty is still a mystery I see the leaves on a tree getting yellow and falling down every fall, and every spring they appear fresh and green. There is a scientific explanation but it is always sort of mystery for me how little bits of first live proto-cells created all this wonder...
and such
:blush:
1) Even the beauty of precise and straight Math changes with time to adjust
to wanders of human perceprion. True, more likely true, almost true, a little
bit true, uncertain, a little bit false, almost false, more likely false, false...
Welcome to the fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic
2) Almost every scientific theory (at least in physics) is supposed to be verified by experiment. And even more, it has to be reproducible experiment. Then the set of tests is conducted measure of inaccurasy and error are counted. If it is within certain range (again, range is decided by scientific society) then theory considered faithful (trustful). And indeed it`s like Einstain said - climbing a mountaing adding new pieces of glass to a mosaic. Discovering the limits of old theories and setting up the new once (boundaries fro them will be dicovered in a future)
3) Another problem of our perception - we can`t study the object as it is. We can see how it evince itselfe only in various interactions. We can create some of this interactions artificially. On scale of objects above size of a molecula we don`t see relation "subject-observer" as smth what affects the result of the studing, but in a scale of micro-world it is an issue.
But looks like it is also should be taken into account in macro-world as well.
Social studies, psychology, study of self-organized systems of all sorts bring
back the uncertainity. Now it is a part of macro-world as well as of micro-world And the observer and objet are tightly bond and affect each other
4) There is something in deductive proof what bothers me. WE cam prove A1, A1, ..., Ak. If all of them true it might give us B. But there is also exist emergent B, which is more than just the sum of A...
... that`s just smth what poped in my head so far. Maybe after more carefull reading of the whole thread ill return to change (or to add) some points
About mysterious and spiritual. Mystery behind every thing we don`t yet have an explanaton for. but even explained it doesn`t lose its charm. Rainbow was a mystery, but science explained the phenomenon, electric bulbs are almost like tamed lightning bolts. We know some rules of the Universe, but it`s neverending (well, exagerrating
) dance in all its beauty is still a mystery I see the leaves on a tree getting yellow and falling down every fall, and every spring they appear fresh and green. There is a scientific explanation but it is always sort of mystery for me how little bits of first live proto-cells created all this wonder...and such
:blush:
Last edited:
lexico
Chukchi Salmon
I am perplexed either God or Science should have much to do with the overwhelming presence of the rainbow, but perhaps it is your personal preference.Tsuyoiko said:
Rainbow as a code can mean a promise to forgive, forget, tolerate, love, gay-identity, or gay-support. Rainbow as a meteorological phenomenon can mean stable air mass with little air flow. A circular rainbow, a double circular rainbow, or a lunar halo often means clear, non-windy skies the following day. When there is a city air-polution alert, these could all mean a higher probability of smog pretty soon.
Scientism as a system of reason takes away the mystical sense by its reductionism. Scientism as a religion might allow the exclusion of reductionism, leaving room for awe when beholding a rainbow. Don't you think the element of surprise plays at least some part in the mystery ?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Trust
I forgot the trust part. Threre is a mysterious~cryptic passage, "Fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom/knowledge (?)" I could never understand that because fear hampers learning from my experience; not that I am justified in generalising on it.
Could the "fear" part mean "mystery" ? "Awe" seems to have both meanings. Could the passage be translated as, "Awe for the lord is the beginning of wisdom/knoledge" ?
I think there is an element of trust between man and object that allows an "awesome" presence to be "mysterious." If the presence cannot establish trust, then it fails to be mysterious, but only becomes "aweful." Essentially the same reasoning goes for human reason. A wonderful presence can indeed be full of wonders if it is rationalised. It ceases to be wonderful and becomes "doubtful" "intimidating" "insulting" or "overwhelimgly negative" without the intellectual trust established.
It is almost as if nature-reason and human-reason are in contact. Non-sentient beings (objects) inconscious animal beings, and humans communicating works either cooperatively or with mistrust and enmity.
Last edited:
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
Typing fast here...
Tsuyoiko I really enjoy your posts. I get a real sense that deep down you are truly looking for truth. I'm waiting on my husband to go out to dinner so I can't say much here but seems like Mars_man wants me to comment real bad about "signs"(?)...so here's a copy and paste:
What was written on the sign on the cross?
Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19
1.(Matthew 27:37) - "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
2.(Mark 15:26) - "And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS."
3. (Luke 23:38) - "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
4.(John 19:19) - "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin."
The Inscription above the cross of Christ was written in four different languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. We see this when we look at Luke 23:38 and John 19:20. Luke 23:38 clearly states it was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In John the word for "Hebrew" is hebraisti. "John 19:20 uses for this the adverbial form Hebraisti, which in gospel usage did not mean "in Hebrew" but in the Jewish dialect of Aramaic. We know this because wherever Hebraisti is used elsewhere, as in John 5:2; 19:13,17; 20:16, the word is given in its Aramaic form, transcribed into Greek letters," (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 346).
***************
Jump to a different subject ...copy/paste:
Mount St. Helens?\evidence for Genesis!
May 17, 2000
The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in America?fs Pacific Northwest ?c .
"As I stood staring at the incredible geologic features that resulted from the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State, I was reminded afresh of how small and vulnerable we are as humans, but how awesome must be the power of God who created earth and its mountains.
It was hard to believe on May 18, 1980 right where I stood, incredibly hot swirling gases and debris from the explosion had devastated the landscape as the energy equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT (approximately 33,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs) was unleashed on this once beautiful landscape?\now looking as barren as the surface of the moon.
What struck me even more was that the study of the eruption and its after-effects has challenged the very foundations of evolutionary theory.
In actuality, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was a rather small and localized event. I realized that if a small explosion like this could cause such catastrophic results, what could happen if there were larger explosions all over the globe?
I was thinking this way because the Bible states in Genesis 7:11, concerning the beginning of the great Flood of Noah?fs day, that ?eall the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up.?f I believe this is a reference to great volcanic activity across earth, which must have been cataclysmic.
In fact, all over our globe, there?fs evidence that in the past there has been much volcanic activity. On the floor of the Pacific Ocean alone, there are an estimated 20,000 volcanoes.
The events associated with the volcano?fs explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the ?eLittle Grand Canyon.?f About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow.
Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachers?\not having known what happened at Mount St. Helens?\would have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon.
The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one day?\perhaps even just three hours.
People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of ?ebillions of years?f is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.
The evidence here shows that one can logically accept that the Flood of Noah?fs day?\and its after-affects?\could have accomplished extraordinary geologic work, carving out canyons and the laying down of sediments in massive quantities all across the globe?\just as we see today!
Increasingly, most geologists?\evolutionist or creationist?\who have been to the Grand Canyon will now acknowledge that the Canyon was carved by a lot of water over a little period of time, not over millions of years.
In 2 Peter 3:7, the apostle Peter writes that in the last days, people will deny that there was a worldwide flood. Just like those who did not listen to the warning of the impending explosion of Mount St. Helens, how much more alert we should be today to heeding the words of Peter who says that there is a judgment to come, an enormous explosion (2 Peter 3:10)?\much bigger than Mount St. Helens. "
*********Pararousia -- Out!***************
Tsuyoiko I really enjoy your posts. I get a real sense that deep down you are truly looking for truth. I'm waiting on my husband to go out to dinner so I can't say much here but seems like Mars_man wants me to comment real bad about "signs"(?)...so here's a copy and paste:
What was written on the sign on the cross?
Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19
1.(Matthew 27:37) - "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
2.(Mark 15:26) - "And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS."
3. (Luke 23:38) - "And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
4.(John 19:19) - "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin."
The Inscription above the cross of Christ was written in four different languages: Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. We see this when we look at Luke 23:38 and John 19:20. Luke 23:38 clearly states it was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. In John the word for "Hebrew" is hebraisti. "John 19:20 uses for this the adverbial form Hebraisti, which in gospel usage did not mean "in Hebrew" but in the Jewish dialect of Aramaic. We know this because wherever Hebraisti is used elsewhere, as in John 5:2; 19:13,17; 20:16, the word is given in its Aramaic form, transcribed into Greek letters," (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, page 346).
***************
Jump to a different subject ...copy/paste:
Mount St. Helens?\evidence for Genesis!
May 17, 2000
The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in America?fs Pacific Northwest ?c .
"As I stood staring at the incredible geologic features that resulted from the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State, I was reminded afresh of how small and vulnerable we are as humans, but how awesome must be the power of God who created earth and its mountains.
It was hard to believe on May 18, 1980 right where I stood, incredibly hot swirling gases and debris from the explosion had devastated the landscape as the energy equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT (approximately 33,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs) was unleashed on this once beautiful landscape?\now looking as barren as the surface of the moon.
What struck me even more was that the study of the eruption and its after-effects has challenged the very foundations of evolutionary theory.
In actuality, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was a rather small and localized event. I realized that if a small explosion like this could cause such catastrophic results, what could happen if there were larger explosions all over the globe?
I was thinking this way because the Bible states in Genesis 7:11, concerning the beginning of the great Flood of Noah?fs day, that ?eall the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up.?f I believe this is a reference to great volcanic activity across earth, which must have been cataclysmic.
In fact, all over our globe, there?fs evidence that in the past there has been much volcanic activity. On the floor of the Pacific Ocean alone, there are an estimated 20,000 volcanoes.
The events associated with the volcano?fs explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the ?eLittle Grand Canyon.?f About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow.
Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachers?\not having known what happened at Mount St. Helens?\would have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon.
The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one day?\perhaps even just three hours.
People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of ?ebillions of years?f is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.
The evidence here shows that one can logically accept that the Flood of Noah?fs day?\and its after-affects?\could have accomplished extraordinary geologic work, carving out canyons and the laying down of sediments in massive quantities all across the globe?\just as we see today!
Increasingly, most geologists?\evolutionist or creationist?\who have been to the Grand Canyon will now acknowledge that the Canyon was carved by a lot of water over a little period of time, not over millions of years.
In 2 Peter 3:7, the apostle Peter writes that in the last days, people will deny that there was a worldwide flood. Just like those who did not listen to the warning of the impending explosion of Mount St. Helens, how much more alert we should be today to heeding the words of Peter who says that there is a judgment to come, an enormous explosion (2 Peter 3:10)?\much bigger than Mount St. Helens. "
*********Pararousia -- Out!***************
No problem, lexico, and thank you !! I'd like to talk about the 'contact' position a little more later just to explain it better.
Tsuyoiko chan, I like those posts too. I hope to learn more there than share maybe. Thanks !!
Nice input Void ! The science aspect will surely come round again, I want to take it all in.
Revenant chan, yes, it seems that Paul would have been anti-homosexual, but that doesn't mean he was right about it--it was a lack of understanding by a strict religious patriarchial society. They were wrong.
Pararousia !! I really appreciate the grond work you did on that subject, and am glad to see that you are checking out some source material. I would urge you to check various sources, and use caution when doing research. The source which you had used apparently had had an error in their working premise, because they obviously had used only the King James Version as a guide. If we look at the Greek texts themselves, we will find that the latest and better ones do not have that 'b' portion of Luke 23:38.
American Standard (1901 original type printing) does not have it.
New American Standard (1977 ed) does not have it.
Today's English Version (ABS 1976) does not have it.
New Revised English Version (1977ed) mentions it in a footnote only.
New World Translation (1984) mentions it in a footnote only.
I apologize for not having been so clear with my question; please forgive me for that. I know what is written there, so to speak, my intention was to ask you to think about what would have actually been written on the board.
Well, I wrote this all out, and then (perhaps because of a pop-up) I suddenly lost all that text. Wow, I simply do not have to time to spell it all out again--but will later on, on that thread dealing with biblical texts--so I will for the time being, pass go, collect my 200, and reach the conclusion which should be so obvious: There is no way of knowing what actual words had been written on that plaque, because the several different claims cannot all be historical truths, and yet we have absolutely no way of knowing which claim is. I don't know, you don't know, and most obviously the several writers hadn't really known--it was just a shot in the dark at something that had been written there that had gotten lost in the oral tradition before going down on paper; that's all.
I'll get to the details on the other thread, later on. Sorry, but I just lost it all--the PC did it, I swear !! :sorry: :wave:
I'd like to talk about the 'contact' position a little more later just to explain it better. Tsuyoiko chan, I like those posts too. I hope to learn more there than share maybe. Thanks !!
Nice input Void !
The science aspect will surely come round again, I want to take it all in.Revenant chan, yes, it seems that Paul would have been anti-homosexual, but that doesn't mean he was right about it--it was a lack of understanding by a strict religious patriarchial society. They were wrong.
Pararousia !! I really appreciate the grond work you did on that subject, and am glad to see that you are checking out some source material. I would urge you to check various sources, and use caution when doing research. The source which you had used apparently had had an error in their working premise, because they obviously had used only the King James Version as a guide. If we look at the Greek texts themselves, we will find that the latest and better ones do not have that 'b' portion of Luke 23:38.
American Standard (1901 original type printing) does not have it.
New American Standard (1977 ed) does not have it.
Today's English Version (ABS 1976) does not have it.
New Revised English Version (1977ed) mentions it in a footnote only.
New World Translation (1984) mentions it in a footnote only.
I apologize for not having been so clear with my question; please forgive me for that. I know what is written there, so to speak, my intention was to ask you to think about what would have actually been written on the board.
Well, I wrote this all out, and then (perhaps because of a pop-up) I suddenly lost all that text. Wow, I simply do not have to time to spell it all out again--but will later on, on that thread dealing with biblical texts--so I will for the time being, pass go, collect my 200, and reach the conclusion which should be so obvious: There is no way of knowing what actual words had been written on that plaque, because the several different claims cannot all be historical truths, and yet we have absolutely no way of knowing which claim is. I don't know, you don't know, and most obviously the several writers hadn't really known--it was just a shot in the dark at something that had been written there that had gotten lost in the oral tradition before going down on paper; that's all.
I'll get to the details on the other thread, later on. Sorry, but I just lost it all--the PC did it, I swear !!
:sorry: :wave: