Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I take it that you consider my take on the Flood as "obviously false" in that case, which means, I would like to see some debating on it by you - if you can debate and not just bite and bark, that is!
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
      It is not a joke.

      I prefer debate over attempts to "wake me up".



      Well, the fact is that quite a number of good and sane people HAVE believed either in gods - plural for the pagans - or in God and His angels doing quite a lot of the stuff you are inventing new tasks for blind matter about.



      There is really nothing extreme about my views - except to the extreme and indeed deadly mind of modernity.



      You have time after time been challenged by me to substantiate that YOUR take on what Christ rebuked the Pharisees over is the correct one. The challenge, by the way, extends to your pastor, if you feel disinclined.

      You have time after time refused to give examples.

      However, would you, with your views, not have labelled Christ insane and extreme when twice he took the whip and drove out the merchants from the temple?



      I think you are closer to National Socialists than I am. They were also worshippers of scientism, they were also rejecting the "blind dogma" of Catholics (and perhaps, if then available in Germany, of Rabbinic Jews).

      You have engaged in vituperation of what I am doing rather than in answering my actual arguments here.

      But your vituperation has gone very vitriolic.

      I am tired of your attempts to "wake me up" - especially since they involve even more calumny.



      Aquinas had lots more of light on the topic than you have.

      If you had told him that - given the evidence available since his day - what he said about angels would amount to painting God as a deceiver, he would as far as I can gather as a student of his, have replied that your view would equally excuse astrological determinism.

      You had another thread where I charged you to give another example of when angels would really be just deceiving us, if my world view "were" true, after I had refuted more than one and asked for time on exactly one (though I forget which one), and you refused to do that there. But here you come back with the same accusation, equally unsubatsntiated this time.
      What aquinas said is not what you are saying. You are saying the angels purposefully simulate a 13.7 billion year old uinverse where the earth orbits the sun and the sun orbits a galactic center in a galaxy moving against the CMB for the express purpose of tricking mankind into believing that is the state of the universe. That is pure deception, and you know it.

      I am not going to waste time with you on theological debate. When you can't be honest enough and/or can't comprehend the depth of deception you have ascribed to God and the Angels, we have little if any common ground or common moral understanding on which to base any legitimate debate.

      Jim
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-28-2016, 09:44 AM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        What aquinas said is not what you are saying.
        Check : Aquinas says God is moving solid spheres westward each day - I say God is moving aether westward each day.
        Check : Aquinas says angels are moving planets eastward (including notoriously sun and moon each year and month full circle) - I say angels are moving planets eastward and doing some dance moves in "fix" stars as well, not just limited to constellations, but also including those known to Heliocentrics as "aberration, parallax, proper movement" and a few fireworks known as novas.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        You are saying the angels purposefully simulate a 13.7 billion year old uinverse
        No. I said they take into account that people like you will neglect angelic movers and due to counting only on mechanistic causation will deduce that - just as they take into account that astrologers will deduce improper deductions from horoscopes about character and fates of people born under certain horoscopes.

        I never admitted that either one or other false deducction was their main motivation for their movements.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        where the earth orbits the sun and the sun orbits a galactic center in a galaxy moving against the CMB
        All of this is a very abstruse line of reasoning, which cannot be laid down to the responsibility of God, if I am right.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        for the express purpose of tricking mankind into believing that is the state of the universe.
        You are once again confusing "mankind" with heliocentric scientists and their believers. That is once again like confusing mankind with astrologers and their believers (or did I make this parallel just now?).

        I have also never admitted that it is "for the express purpose", see next.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        That is pure deception, and you know it.
        That would have been deception if the outcome in those particular minds were the main intended outcome of the acts.

        For one thing, the acts now described by astronomers of heliocentric convictions as "aberration, parallax and proper movement" are all so small that before the telescopes, that is for most of the existence of mankind, it was an affair between angels, unwatched by men.

        For one thing more, if Herschel did his deductions wrongly in 1838, less than hundred years later, Tolkien was writing Silmarillion, which could bring at least some readers (if not the author himself) on the right track. Especially such readers of JRRT who are also readers of St Thomas Aquinas.

        For a third, it is totally possible there is a real aesthetic motive for it even outside all of this, I even think this very likely, and as the angel who guides the sun has a role so to speak mirroring that of Christ in certain ways, he enjoys some admiration (not adoration!) from other angels who do their dance moves in sympathy.

        And fourth, as to people who act like you, you might deserve being fooled as a by product of these things, according to Isaiah 40:[23] He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I am not going to waste time with you on theological debate.
        Why would you waste anyone's time on theological debate?

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        When you can't be honest enough and/or can't comprehend the depth of deception you have ascribed to God and the Angels,
        Isaiah 40:[23] He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity. - For people like you.

        None at all for people living before telescopes, outside science admiration, or who have other ideas than scientists and therefore won't be misled by your false reasonings.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        we have little if any common ground or common moral understanding on which to base any legitimate debate.
        Indeed, you share a collective megalomania with the science community, which I do not share.
        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
          I take it that you consider my take on the Flood as "obviously false" in that case, which means, I would like to see some debating on it by you - if you can debate and not just bite and bark, that is!
          To paraphrase Jonathan Swift; You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

          That's why I stopped arguing with Trump voters, Young Earthers, Global Flooders and AGW deniers to name a few.

          Sometimes the only reasonable response is just to point and laugh.
          "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

          Navin R. Johnson

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Wally View Post
            To paraphrase Jonathan Swift; You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
            When did I tell you my intellectual autobiography?

            Originally posted by Wally View Post
            That's why I stopped arguing with Trump voters, Young Earthers, Global Flooders and AGW deniers to name a few.
            When did all of above tell you their intellectual autobographies? (I am not a Trump voter, since not US, and I would have preferred Santorum or Rubio - or that guy Darrell Castle).

            Originally posted by Wally View Post
            Sometimes the only reasonable response is just to point and laugh.
            Especially if you have no arguments yourself.
            http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

            Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
              Check : Aquinas says God is moving solid spheres westward each day - I say God is moving aether westward each day.
              Check : Aquinas says angels are moving planets eastward (including notoriously sun and moon each year and month full circle) - I say angels are moving planets eastward and doing some dance moves in "fix" stars as well, not just limited to constellations, but also including those known to Heliocentrics as "aberration, parallax, proper movement" and a few fireworks known as novas.



              No. I said they take into account that people like you will neglect angelic movers and due to counting only on mechanistic causation will deduce that - just as they take into account that astrologers will deduce improper deductions from horoscopes about character and fates of people born under certain horoscopes.

              I never admitted that either one or other false deducction was their main motivation for their movements.
              One doesn't have to say that. Part of your problem Hans is that your ignorance of science and mathematics and astronomy leave you blissfully unaware of the fact there is not other possible motivation for the millions of motions measured in the heavens. Every place one looks are motions, from parallax to orbits to gasses ejected and modified over time, direct observations of dynamic physical processes whose 'simulation' on a sphere 1 light day wide can only be one thing: The purposed deception of any and all earth-bound observers. There is not side step, no feigned wave of a hand, not alternative justification that can account for what is observed. Your theory makes God a willful deceiver. Aquinas could hold his view with impunity, for he did not have the evidence you have which makes the concept ludicrous. But you have that data, or at least access to it. So you can't justify your position theologically. It is 100% contrary to the revelation of the God of scripture, a God of truth.




              You are once again confusing "mankind" with heliocentric scientists and their believers. That is once again like confusing mankind with astrologers and their believers (or did I make this parallel just now?).
              There is no legitimate parallel between those who presume to foretell the future based on a mystical presumed connection between the motions of the star and the destinies of men with those who study the physical structure of the universe we observe from the Earth.

              I have also never admitted that it is "for the express purpose", see next.
              Nor will you ever, regardless of its truth. That is the nature of those in your position.



              And fourth, as to people who act like you, you might deserve being fooled as a by product of these things, according to Isaiah 40:[23] He that bringeth the searchers of secrets to nothing, that hath made the judges of the earth as vanity.
              This verse is not talking about the scientific endeavor, but those mystics who seek out magical power and knowledge through the black arts.


              Jim
              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                One doesn't have to say that. Part of your problem Hans is that your ignorance of science and mathematics and astronomy leave you blissfully unaware of the fact there is not other possible motivation for the millions of motions measured in the heavens. Every place one looks are motions, from parallax to orbits to gasses ejected and modified over time, direct observations of dynamic physical processes whose 'simulation' on a sphere 1 light day wide can only be one thing: The purposed deception of any and all earth-bound observers. There is not side step, no feigned wave of a hand, not alternative justification that can account for what is observed. Your theory makes God a willful deceiver. Aquinas could hold his view with impunity, for he did not have the evidence you have which makes the concept ludicrous. But you have that data, or at least access to it. So you can't justify your position theologically. It is 100% contrary to the revelation of the God of scripture, a God of truth.






                There is no legitimate parallel between those who presume to foretell the future based on a mystical presumed connection between the motions of the star and the destinies of men with those who study the physical structure of the universe we observe from the Earth.



                Nor will you ever, regardless of its truth. That is the nature of those in your position.





                This verse is not talking about the scientific endeavor, but those mystics who seek out magical power and knowledge through the black arts.


                Jim
                BTW: Hans has quoted Isaiah 40:23 in a form found in the Latin Vulgate, which is in fact not a correct representation of the Hebrew. A much better translation is:

                Source: NASB


                He it is who reduces rulers to nothing,
                Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Nothing in the Hebrew references secrets or knowledge, but rather princes, judges, rulers.

                The actual context here is neither the illegitimate access to knowledge through mysticism nor any legitimate search for knowledge, but rather a rebuke to the proud and powerful who do not recognize their need to be submitted to God in their rule. Who think they themselves are great. There is no legitimate translation from the actual Hebrew that can be twisted into some sort of excuse for God to willfully deceive mankind, proud or not.

                And - in fact - in this passage several times the author appeals to the majesty of the heavens as evidence of the greatness of God and His creation and the human need to recognize His greatness over their own. And concept contradicted violently by the idea God has created the heavens as an instrument of deception.

                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 12-28-2016, 08:31 PM.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  One doesn't have to say that. Part of your problem Hans is that your ignorance of science and mathematics and astronomy leave you blissfully unaware of the fact there is not other possible motivation for the millions of motions measured in the heavens. Every place one looks are motions, from parallax to orbits to gasses ejected and modified over time, direct observations of dynamic physical processes whose 'simulation' on a sphere 1 light day wide can only be one thing: The purposed deception of any and all earth-bound observers. There is not side step, no feigned wave of a hand, not alternative justification that can account for what is observed. Your theory makes God a willful deceiver. Aquinas could hold his view with impunity, for he did not have the evidence you have which makes the concept ludicrous. But you have that data, or at least access to it. So you can't justify your position theologically. It is 100% contrary to the revelation of the God of scripture, a God of truth.
                  You are presuming an ignorance, because you refuse to use your knowledge to debate me and measure my knowledge. Last time you actually tried that, you failed. That every place one looks there is motion, well so what? There are lots of angels, and they can be expressing their bliss in lots of dance moves ("parallax, proper movement, aberration"), and in lots of fire works. You do not directly observe that the processes need more than one light day. You also have no evidence that angels could not do these things. You most certainly don't have access to the conclusions reasonably taken by ALL earthbound observers.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  There is no legitimate parallel between those who presume to foretell the future based on a mystical presumed connection between the motions of the star and the destinies of men with those who study the physical structure of the universe we observe from the Earth.
                  You can study the physical structure of things you observe on earth. Studying the physical structure of the universe, precisely like astrology, is overstepping the bounds of your evidence.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  Nor will you ever, regardless of its truth. That is the nature of those in your position.
                  It is also in the nature of my position that I have a good alternative to it, to that admission. It is also in the nature of my position that if so it is NOT the one you tried to paint it out as. I e, you strawmanned it.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  This verse is not talking about the scientific endeavor, but those mystics who seek out magical power and knowledge through the black arts.
                  Such "mystics" (the word has quite another connotation in Catholic theology!) most certainly think of themselves as making a scientific endeavour.

                  How can you guarantee God thinks differently of you?

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  BTW: Hans has quoted Isaiah 40:23 in a form found in the Latin Vulgate, which is in fact not a correct representation of the Hebrew. ...
                  Vulgate represents the Hebrew accessible to St Jerome in 400 AD. NASB represents the Hebrew of the Masoretic version, accessible since 1000 AD or so.

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  The actual context here is neither the illegitimate access to knowledge through mysticism nor any legitimate search for knowledge, but rather a rebuke to the proud and powerful who do not recognize their need to be submitted to God in their rule. Who think they themselves are great. There is no legitimate translation from the actual Hebrew that can be twisted into some sort of excuse for God to willfully deceive mankind, proud or not.
                  God is most certainly not a deceiver. But He can most definitely make the proud ridiculous - which is what I think "reduce to nothing" means here, as I think it does when Pharisees in the early carreer of Jesus decided to do that to Him, and failed.

                  Making someone ridiculous may involve giving someone enough rope to hang himself in. Metaphorically. This is what I think awaits the scientists whom you think of as representing mankind - which also makes them kind of powerful, these days. How long have Heliocentrics been ruling in Western astronomy? Since 1750, perhaps?

                  266 years of Heliocentric astronomy, earlier half of it not very socially dominant either, out of 7215 years, that is 3.6 or 3.7% of the history of mankind, and you think THAT represents mankind in God's eyes?

                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  And - in fact - in this passage several times the author appeals to the majesty of the heavens as evidence of the greatness of God and His creation and the human need to recognize His greatness over their own. And concept contradicted violently by the idea God has created the heavens as an instrument of deception.
                  God has no more tried to actively deceive you than He has actively tried to deceive astrologers.

                  God has most probably given both them and you "enough rope to hang yourself", if you refuse to listen to sense.

                  1 light day is VERY huge and majestic, there is really no need for billions of light years in order for the verses to be true.

                  Also, the part of "proclaim God's glory" quite certainly concords very well with angels doing a choreography. Especially one which next year will lead up to an "astrological" equivalent of Apocalypse 12.
                  http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                  Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                    The proportion between actual discoveries and what are unwarranted changes of paradigm has been overrated.
                    Sayeth some-one who has very little idea of the extent of the discoveries, and very little grasp of the paradigms either.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                      ... Vulgate represents the Hebrew accessible to St Jerome in 400 AD. NASB represents the Hebrew of the Masoretic version, accessible since 1000 AD or so. ...
                      Why not look at earlier witnesses to the text at Qumran and in the LXX?
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        Why not look at earlier witnesses to the text at Qumran and in the LXX?
                        Qumran - beyond me. Totally.

                        LXX comp. to Vulgate:

                        23 ὁ διδοὺς ἄρχοντας εἰς οὐδὲν ἄρχειν, τὴν δὲ γῆν ὡς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν.
                        23 qui dat secretorum scrutatores quasi non sint iudices terrae velut inane fecit

                        Who giveth the rulers into ruling nothing and earth as if He hadn't made it (? My Greek is rusty)
                        Who giveth the scrutinisers of secrets as if they were not judges of earth, He made as if vain. (Either my Latin is rustier than I thought, or there is a problem in the text - a problem which could be due to a calque on Hebrew*).

                        * Who has not moaned over the Latin of "cuius participatio eius in idipsum"! That is an over literal rendering of some Hebrew phrase, word for word.
                        http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                        Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                          Qumran - beyond me. Totally.

                          LXX comp. to Vulgate:

                          23 ὁ διδοὺς ἄρχοντας εἰς οὐδὲν ἄρχειν, τὴν δὲ γῆν ὡς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν.
                          23 qui dat secretorum scrutatores quasi non sint iudices terrae velut inane fecit

                          Who giveth the rulers into ruling nothing and earth as if He hadn't made it (? My Greek is rusty)
                          Who giveth the scrutinisers of secrets as if they were not judges of earth, He made as if vain. (Either my Latin is rustier than I thought, or there is a problem in the text - a problem which could be due to a calque on Hebrew*).

                          * Who has not moaned over the Latin of "cuius participatio eius in idipsum"! That is an over literal rendering of some Hebrew phrase, word for word.
                          So, the implied answer to my question seems to be there is no good reason not to look at earlier witnesses to the text.

                          I'm not sure the Greek says what you want it to say. What is it that you want the Vulgate to mean here?
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
                            BY soil I suppose you mean humus - it is forming very rapidly and no one who digs up humus in his garden will ever be told by any scientist the humus took billions of years to form.
                            By soil I mean the weathered regolith that forms by the weathering of bedrock where biologic activity takes place. Humus is soil organic matter and only is a small percentage of the surface horizons. It is the weathered soil regolith that takes tens of thousands of years to form

                            The limestone deposits in caves ... will you give me a source saying there are annual actual RINGS?
                            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalactite


                            An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by a constant supply of slow dripping water rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), which can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year.[6][7] The drip rate must be slow enough to allow the CO2 to degas from the solution into the cave atmosphere, resulting in deposition of CaCO3 on the stalactite. Too fast a drip rate and the solution, still carrying most of the CaCO3, falls to the cave floor where degassing occurs and CaCO3 is deposited as a stalagmite.

                            All limestone stalactites begin with a single mineral-laden drop of water. When the drop falls, it deposits the thinnest ring of calcite. Each subsequent drop that forms and falls deposits another calcite ring. Eventually, these rings form a very narrow (≈4 to 5 mm diameter), hollow tube commonly known as a "soda straw" stalactite. Soda straws can grow quite long, but are very fragile. If they become plugged by debris, water begins flowing over the outside, depositing more calcite and creating the more familiar cone-shaped stalactite. The same water drops that fall from the tip of a stalactite deposit more calcite on the floor below, eventually resulting in a rounded or cone-shaped stalagmite. Unlike stalactites, stalagmites never start out as hollow "soda straws." Given enough time, these formations can meet and fuse to create pillars of calcium carbonate known as a "column".

                            © Copyright Original Source




                            The flowstones, anyway, we do have pictorial evidence it can form very rapidly.
                            No we do not. Still, what are flowstones?

                            You failed to notice, perhaps, that the limestone we talk about is CaCO3 - just as the end product of cement.
                            By the way this is how limestone forms

                            CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) → Ca(HCO3)2(aq)

                            Ca(HCO3)2(aq) → CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq)

                            This is not how cement nor concrete is made.


                            In other words, it is not a chemical impossibility for limestone to form rapidly.

                            Obviously, in the aftermath of a huge Flood, certain areas would look like gigantic magnifications of, for instance, cement being put in place and left to harden in a building.
                            No the chemical makeup and formation of concrete is not the same as limestone.

                            Calcium Carbonate + H2O is heated to form CaO+CO2 and Ca(OH)2

                            Tricalcium silicate + Water--->Calcium silicate hydrate+Calcium hydroxide + heat

                            2 Ca3SiO5 + 7 H2O ---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + 3 Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              I'm not sure the Greek says what you want it to say. What is it that you want the Vulgate to mean here?
                              I was not wanting either to say anything in particular, I was quoting both verses in isolation doing my best with remains of Greek and a Latin I thought more fluent than this passage. Hence my guess that the Vulgate is mirroring some Hebrew syntagm which muddles the Latin here.
                              http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                              Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                By soil I mean the weathered regolith that forms by the weathering of bedrock where biologic activity takes place. Humus is soil organic matter and only is a small percentage of the surface horizons. It is the weathered soil regolith that takes tens of thousands of years to form
                                In that case, weathered regolith would be an initial requirement of agriculture, right?

                                If so, God had provided material of that quality before Adam started ploughing.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalactite


                                An average growth rate is 0.13 mm (0.0051 inches) a year. The quickest growing stalactites are those formed by a constant supply of slow dripping water rich in calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and carbon dioxide (CO2), which can grow at 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year.[6][7] The drip rate must be slow enough to allow the CO2 to degas from the solution into the cave atmosphere, resulting in deposition of CaCO3 on the stalactite. Too fast a drip rate and the solution, still carrying most of the CaCO3, falls to the cave floor where degassing occurs and CaCO3 is deposited as a stalagmite.

                                All limestone stalactites begin with a single mineral-laden drop of water. When the drop falls, it deposits the thinnest ring of calcite. Each subsequent drop that forms and falls deposits another calcite ring. Eventually, these rings form a very narrow (≈4 to 5 mm diameter), hollow tube commonly known as a "soda straw" stalactite. Soda straws can grow quite long, but are very fragile. If they become plugged by debris, water begins flowing over the outside, depositing more calcite and creating the more familiar cone-shaped stalactite. The same water drops that fall from the tip of a stalactite deposit more calcite on the floor below, eventually resulting in a rounded or cone-shaped stalagmite. Unlike stalactites, stalagmites never start out as hollow "soda straws." Given enough time, these formations can meet and fuse to create pillars of calcium carbonate known as a "column".

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Note that your source is saying "an average growth rate", not "the average growth rate". Growth rates are variable due to water flow and due to acidity.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                No we do not. Still, what are flowstones?
                                Stalagmites and stalactites. I already told you, just because it is dialectal and not scientific terminology doesn't mean the word doesn't exist.

                                Actually, when looking up, I found this wiki on the precise term:

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowstone

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                By the way this is how limestone forms

                                CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) → Ca(HCO3)2(aq)

                                Ca(HCO3)2(aq) → CaCO3(s) + H2O(l) + CO2(aq)

                                This is not how cement nor concrete is made.
                                One kind of cement is.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                No the chemical makeup and formation of concrete is not the same as limestone.

                                Calcium Carbonate + H2O is heated to form CaO+CO2 and Ca(OH)2

                                Tricalcium silicate + Water--->Calcium silicate hydrate+Calcium hydroxide + heat

                                2 Ca3SiO5 + 7 H2O ---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + 3 Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ
                                That would be another kind of cement, the one which is used in concrete and for building under water structures.

                                Note I said cement (I think) and not concrete. Even if it was some time back.
                                http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

                                Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X