Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,862 Year: 4,119/9,624 Month: 990/974 Week: 317/286 Day: 38/40 Hour: 4/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to make sand.
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 35 of 121 (431231)
10-30-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
10-30-2007 1:32 AM


Re: The Two Biblical Flood Accounts
buzsaw writes:
I'm sorry but the text says the Holy Spirit and light came at the time of the rising up of the waters to create the atmosphere, clearly implying evaporation which takes heat and lots of it to effect that much evaporation. I'm applying some science, logic and reason to the account according to what is clearly implied.
Buzsaw, why do you do this?
How can you be applying science, logic, and reason, when you deny the entire content of all geoscience, most of bioscience, and considerable portions of chemistry and physics? How can you be applying what it says in the Bible concerning science when it says nothing about modern science at all?
What you are doing is taking your faulty idea of what the Bible says and taking your faulty idea of what science says, and glue them together into some bizzare myth that is not remotely supported by either.
We all know that light produces heat and it takes heat for water to rise. Interpretation of scripture requires some logic and reason to get it right, you know, that stuff you falsely alleged that Biblical creationists do not apply in the debates.
If radioactivity magically works differently in the past so as to support your mythological pseudo-reality, how can you justify not saying heat and light work differently in the past to support some other random mythological pseudo-reality? Is it because the concept of radioactive decay is harder to understand than the concept of heat and light to the (I really hate having to say this) child-like mind?
The principles of heat and light, along with radioactive decay are all quite well described by physics. Before you pretend to understand such principles well enough to pick and choose physics along with pick and choose the Bible to create your unsupported myth, vapor canopy and all, shouldn't you actually learn something about the physics?
Why don't you just say it was a miracle and stay out of the self-appointed role of final authority in what should be taught in public schools? If your glued-together myth is as compelling as either mainstream Christianity or science I'm sure all you have to do is sit and wait for the masses to follow.
So, can you explain how one year of water erosion creates such vast and deep deposits of sand within the time frame alloted, without resorting to any dodge concerning how sand is somehow formed differently in the past or sand is formed miraculously? Remember, the 'universally deluded' geoscientists, by virtue of training and/or employment, pretty much can trace where the sand came from by using petrology along with some other principles that are consistent with math, physics, and chemistry.
Edited by anglagard, : a little addition to the end.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 1:32 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 3:16 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024