F
Farsight001
Guest
Your idea violates several laws of physics and nature.
- Status
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
I’m and engineer and a Bible scholar, tell me which laws of physics and nature they violate?
You might well check my article for some supporting arguments.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
F
Farsight001
Guest
Why you think being an engineer and a bible scholar makes you an expert on the laws of physics is beyond me, but whatever.
As for your article, frankly, it is absolutely ridiculous. You provide no evidence, no supporting argument whatsoever. You performed no experiments, did not tests, and collected no data. It’s little more than an essay made in the format of a journal article.
For example, you say there was a probable pole shift. Did you test this? Did you study the magnetic pattern of the iron in the sea floor and detect such a shift? No mention of you doing this. You imply rather strongly that pole shifts always accompany changes in climate, but why? By what reason did you conclude this? You sourced to worldnetdaily instead of any sort of scholarly article. You claim a pole shift could happen in less than a day when they actually take centuries. To take a day would cause so much gravitational fluctuations that it would likely rip the entire planet apart.
You started with the conclusion and clawed and scraped together anything you could to support your conclusion. Not very scientific.
As for the laws of physics and nature that your ideas violate - the conservation of matter, the first law of thermodynamics, and two of the three laws of motion come to mind.
If I tried to turn in a paper like that, even in high school, I would have gotten a failing grade, even in my theology classes. You don’t have a supporting argument. All you have is wishful thinking.
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
Because I received a degree in engineering, I know that that engineering involves a considerable amount of physics. And as one who studied physics and uses the principals derived from those laws every days allows one to become well acquainted.
Many historical events cannot be tested scientifically, but I did cite a particular work demonstrating a 500m asteroid would be large enough to cause a pole shift. But in this case, we also have God’s Word so we have a strong basis to hang our trust and theorize. So unless you do not believe the flood or that Joshua had a day that was double length or that the shadow of the sun went back in the days of Hezekiah then we are coming from a completely different position and no reasonable amount of discussion will reconcile our positions.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
These theories do not propose that water covered all land. These are scientific theories based on scientific evidence of an asteroid or comet strike in the deep ocean, causing tidal waves, torrential rainstorms, and severe climate changes. The theories examine the flood myths from cultures around the world and explain their content in terms of science.
The basic approach here is that Noah and the Ark existed, and a literal great flood occurred, but some elements in the description of the Flood in the Bible are figurative. The water did not cover all land; that expression is figurative. The Ark did not contain all species of animals, nor were all humans and animals outside the Ark killed. Those expressions again are figurative. But a literal great Flood did occur.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Engineering is applied physics. I hate to sound rude, but engineers learn the basics of physics and learn how to apply it to real life. They don’t learn the advanced, hundred variable dynamic equations that would be necessary to precisely calculate the effects of an asteroid on the earth.
I would disagree with that. You cited something, but it wasn’t any sort of scholarly paper.
God’s Word is great and all, but it can be interpreted multiple ways and any positing of God’s influence on events makes your musings automatically non-scientific.
I believe you mean if I do not believe those things. And really, whether I do believe those things or not is irrelevant to the veracity of your paper and whether or not the ideas your purport are actually scientific.
B
bilop
Guest
But, the Old Testament is also not history in the sense we understand it. The New Testament is heavily historical, but the Old Testament is a mix of many writing styles and types.
The point is not to convey events exactly as they happened, but to convey moral and theological truths.
Our faith does not depend at all on a global flood, or an actual serpent tempting Adam and Eve.
God Bless
E
edwest2
Guest
You’ll have to cite some Church document to support ant of your assertions. I believe the entire world was covered with water. If science says no, no reason to bring it up here.
Peace,
Ed
B
Bruce_Killian
Guest
You have yet to demonstrate or mention even one law of physics that my proposal violates,
It appears that you do not believe that a worldwide flood is even possible, am I misinterpreting what you are saying? Since Jesus believed in it, you are on shaky sand. Matthew 24:37 as in the days of Noah… If there was not destruction before, presumably there will be no future destruction.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
T
tabycat
Guest
Old saying: The Bible tells how to go to heaven, not how the heaven goes. 
E
edwest2
Guest
Actually, it does. And the constant, ongoing attempts to use what cannot be studied by science to disprove any part of the Bible are illogical. The truth of what God did is very important.
Peace,
Ed
F
Farsight001
Guest
I mentioned several because you asked me what some were. I did exactly what you asked. You have no right to complain. You want more, ask for more. Don’t complain that I did not provide what you never even asked for in the first place.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
Farsight001, where did you get your PhD in physics?
F
Farsight001
Guest
Where did you get the idea that I had one?
Z
Zenkai
Guest
You were making a fuss over another poster’s education, degree, and understanding of physics.
What type of education do you have in physics then?
F
Farsight001
Guest
Don’t have one. Don’t need one to know that engineers don’t learn the super advanced stuff in school. Just have to know a few engineers.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
Well, did you learn any of the “super advanced stuff”?
F
Farsight001
Guest
I already said I didn’t have a PhD in physics, so why don’t you lose the charade and just say what you really want to say?
Z
Zenkai
Guest
I’m trying to show you that you shouldn’t judge his understanding and education, as you do not have the education either.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Which is silly because there’s no logical reason I would need the education to know and understand that he doesn’t have it either.I’m trying to show you that you shouldn’t judge his understanding and education, as you do not have the education either.
- Status