Some Einstein sh..tuff, science discussion

[MeganC]

Well how does it affect your belief that God inspired the text of Genesis

God did inspire the text of Genesis. And that inspiration was filtered by the mind and understanding of nomadic shepherds, semi-literate nobles, and scientifically ignorant men of two to five millennia ago.

The only literal Word of God is the Ten Commandments and even that has been reinterpreted by men over the ages. I mean God Himself wrote this and douchebag men decided to rewrite it to suit themselves? The nerve.

Do you remember the TV show Touched by an Angel?

There was a line that resonated with me: Our understanding is but a grain of sand on the beach of God's wisdom.

It's true. God knows and we don't.

It is an assumption to presume that Walter Brown assumed that the Noahic Flood occurred exactly as described in Genesis.

Yet he does which is why he calls himself a Young Earth Creationist and one who is a proponent of flood geology or creation geology.

Do you fully embrace Tectonic plates?

No. My arms are not big enough.

Answering the question I think you tried to ask here is that the evidence I've seen would support the theory of plate tectonics.

I used to live near the San Andreas Fault and I've seen evidence of its movement in recorded human history. I remember the 2004 Thailand quake and the 2011 quake in Japan.

Do continental plates move? Yes, they do and we can observe this happening. It's happened in my lifetime. It's happening still.

I also live in Wyoming and I've seen plenty of evidence of the last ice age. It was a very real thing and we can see evidence of it in many places on the planet. Yet the Bible never mentions it.

Genesis 1:16 refers to the moon as a source of light. Isaiah 60:19 does too. Lots of passages in the Bible do. Is this true? Or does the moon merely reflect light from the Sun?

The moon itself is not a source of light but to the mind and understanding of nomadic shepherds, semi-literate nobles, and scientifically ignorant men of two to five millennia ago it was.

They were inspired by God but limited by their understanding.

Just as we are today.

But of course you could go construct a theory that the moon somehow radiates light and that even if the sun were to be snuffed out the moon would still shine just as bright all on its own because the Bible declares it to be a source of light.

Or you could follow the evidence and use the mind that God gave you to come to your own conclusion. It doesn't mean you're right but at least you're following the evidence and not torturing it to conform to a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Mark C]

The moon itself is not a source of light but to the mind and understanding of nomadic shepherds, semi-literate nobles, and scientifically ignorant men of two to five millennia ago it was.

The original Hebrew in Genesis doesn't say "source" - as in 'generator' of photons. It says 'lights', or 'luminaries,' or things that are 'brightness.' Evidently you're trying to read that "source" part into a text that isn't there.

Maybe He was making a different point.

So, without computers (which STILL, arguably, couldn't have accomplished it) - how do you explain those ignorants encoded ELS checks into His text?

 

[Mark C]

And just where do you get this? (emphasis added)

The only literal Word of God is the Ten Commandments and even that has been reinterpreted by men over the ages.

Here I might have thought that when it says, "And said Elohim," that He actually said it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Evidently you're trying to read that "source" part into a text that isn't there

Of course you’re trying to read a text that isn’t there since we don’t have the original Hebrew….

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

God did inspire the text of Genesis. And that inspiration was filtered by the mind and understanding of nomadic shepherds, semi-literate nobles, and scientifically ignorant men of two to five millennia ago.

Filtered by the mind = unreliable. Got it!

Do you remember the TV show Touched by an Angel?

There was a line that resonated with me: Our understanding is but a grain of sand on the beach of God's wisdom.

It's true. God knows and we don't.

Really? So we are going to draw our understanding from TV shows?

Yet he does which is why he calls himself a Young Earth Creationist and one who is a proponent of flood geology or creation geology.

Well of course he does, but that does not support your claim that he started with that initial assumption! In fact quite the opposite! You are starting off with the assumption that if someone believes in a young earth, that they arrived at this conclusion by accepting the claims of Scripture before examining the evidence, and that simply is not the case! Take some time for crying out loud, and examine each claim made in those links, and then provide an answer. Remember what Proverbs tells us about the one who provides a hasty answer. Prov 29:20

No. My arms are not big enough.

Answering the question I think you tried to ask here is that the evidence I've seen would support the theory of plate tectonics.

Do continental plates move? Yes, they do and we can observe this happening. It's happened in my lifetime. It's happening still.

That is not evidence that Plate Tectonic Theory is valid. I notice you did not address the evidence shown in the links that I provided.

I also live in Wyoming and I've seen plenty of evidence of the last ice age. It was a very real thing and we can see evidence of it in many places on the planet. Yet the Bible never mentions it.

Non sequitor. The Hydroplate Theory addresses how the Ice Age occurred as a direct result of the Flood of Noah

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Genesis 1:16 refers to the moon as a source of light. Isaiah 60:19 does too. Lots of passages in the Bible do. Is this true? Or does the moon merely reflect light from the Sun?

That really depends on what translation you are reading.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Why does the Bible describe the moon as a light? | GotQuestions.org

Why does the Bible describe the moon as a light? Is the Bible inaccurate when it refers to moonlight?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Also some good exchanges here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....sus-believe-the-moon-had-its-own-light-source

 

[MeganC]

That really depends on what translation you are reading.

Really. Which translation says something else?

 

[MeganC]

Also, Walt Brown is the founder of the Center for Scientific Creation.

He's not a mere geologist who happened to stumble upon a unique set of facts. He has a bias and it shows.

The conclusion precedes the investigation here.

It's inherent in the name of his organization.

 

[MeganC]

Filtered by the mind = unreliable. Got it!

Yes, human minds are unreliable. I forget things all the time. I also understand things through the context of my own limited understanding.

Humans also take in words from God and then promptly ignore them. God told Moses to strike the rock once and he hit it twice.

Since we're speaking of Moses how do you think he would have described the computer you're using right now?

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Take your pick:

Genesis 1:16 - The Fourth Day

God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

biblehub.com

Isaiah 60:19 - Future Glory for Zion

No longer will the sun be your light by day, nor the brightness of the moon shine on your night; for the LORD will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your splendor.

biblehub.com

Also, if you didn't catch it in the Stack Exchange, Jesus was basically quoting Isaiah 60:19, so I suppose in your mind, Jesus was also mistaken.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Also, Walt Brown is the founder of the Center for Scientific Creation.

He's not a mere geologist who happened to stumble upon a unique set of facts. He has a bias and it shows.

The conclusion precedes the investigation here.

It's inherent in the name of his organization.

Balderdash! It's a good name for the organization, but it says NOTHING about where he came from. Why is it you still have not investigated the evidence? What are you so afraid of? Do I have to show you each point of evidence? You made the claim that he left out evidence, but have offered nothing in the form of specific evidence. You base your claim that Plate tectonics is a fact, on the fact that the ground has moved. That shows complete ignorance of the two competing theories.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Explain this:

Evidence Requiring an Explanation​

The Ring of Fire. What accounts for this most volcanically violent and seismically active region on Earth, and why does it surround all but the southern side of the Pacific Basin?

Figure 10: Plate Tectonic Explanation for Trenches. Internal heat circulates the mantle, causing large plates to drift, like rafts, over the Earth’s surface. Consequently, material rises at oceanic ridges, forcing the seafloor to spread, so plates must subduct at ocean trenches, allowing layered sediments, shown in yellow, to collect. Earthquakes usually occur where plates subduct (Benioff zones) and at other plate boundaries. Subducting plates also melt rock, and the resulting magma rises to form volcanoes.

[Response: Actually, most volcanoes are not above Benioff zones. If this theory were correct, the sediments (shown above in yellow) would hide a cliff face that is at least 30 miles high and the trench axis should be a straight line. Also, some very large earthquakes occur far from plate boundaries. The powerful New Madrid, Missouri earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 and Charleston, South Carolina earthquake of 1886 are famous examples.]

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Now examine these two explanations:

Gravity Anomalies. Why do Earth’s greatest mass deficiencies exist under trenches, even after adjusting for their shapes?

3. HP: As the Atlantic floor rose, all the material below it had to rise as well, so trenches in the western Pacific were pulled down (toward the rising Atlantic). This created the mass deficiency below trenches.

4. PT: Plates are subducting into the mantle, so mass is continually added and compacted under trenches. While this increases (not decreases) the pull of gravity under trenches, other factors may play a role.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Follow the links that I posted. There is MUCH more evidence that shows how weak the Plate Tectonics Theory is.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Understanding of magma and how earthquakes occur:

Once you understand this, you can make sense out of the real reason why the plates move.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Yes, human minds are unreliable. I forget things all the time. I also understand things through the context of my own limited understanding.

Humans also take in words from God and then promptly ignore them. God told Moses to strike the rock once and he hit it twice.

Since we're speaking of Moses how do you think he would have described the computer you're using right now?

Moses ignored God, but it wasn't because he forgot what God said. He knew what God had told him, but he acted in anger and ultimately disobedience. If God had wanted Moses to describe a computer, Moses would have used a word that in our modern language, would be translated "computer". God would have given him the proper word to use, if He had desired for Moses to describe such a device.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

FYI: Dr. Walt Brown does not present himself as a geologist.

About the Author

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.

 

[The Revolting Man]

FYI: Dr. Walt Brown does not present himself as a geologist.

About the Author

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here.

That’s a unique military career there. I wonder how he pulled that off.