It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Akragon
What I don't understand is if one part is a story how do you know other parts are not. And who decides what is allegory and what is historically true?
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: TerryDon79
Lol I know you are being sarcastic but seriously. If you are a Christian and you believe Noah to be allegorical then what logic is there to believing Christ walked on water or rose from the dead.
I'm no fool I understand some things happened. I also understand that many of the things that did happened were exaggerated. Or that natural disasters such as the plagues of Egypt were attributed to supernatural means because they didn't know the things we know now.
Absolutely. And some things he taught were great. But he also failed to condemn slavery and speficially mentioned that slaves should obey their owners.
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: TheCretinHop
And please enlighten me on this agenda? What is the agenda and what is the goal. Who's in on this big conspiracy?
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: TerryDon79
Your stealing my fun Terry. I wanted to hear what he thinks the agenda is so I can see how illogical it is. Oh well.
I saw that. 'Twas funny lol
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: TerryDon79
Haha well there is evidence of a unicorn Luke creature as posted in another thread.
I think they think that if they say "God did it" or "proof God did it" enough times it will come true.
I think it's funny that the OP makes a couple posts with no substance and continues to ignore the scriptures that are in conflict with his premise.
originally posted by: edmc^2
I'm not promoting my faith - just offering a different perspective. A Biblical perspective back up by true science.
Actually, science is just catching up to what the Bible writers knew ahead of time.
originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2
If you actually need to ask that question then you've proven that you don't understand science.
The earth doesn't have pillars. Direct conflict with science and direct conflict with your precious Job verse.
The earth does not have foundations nor a cornerstone. Again direct conflict !
Thanks for playing take home the consolation prize.
The earth doesn't have pillars...
The earth does not have foundations..
The earth doesn't have pillars...or ...The earth does not have foundations..
Full Definition of pillar
1
a : a firm upright support for a superstructure : post
b : a usually ornamental column or shaft; especially : one standing alone for a monument
2
a : a supporting, integral, or upstanding member or part
b : a fundamental precept
3
: a solid mass of coal, rock, or ore left standing to support a mine roof
4
: a body part that resembles a column
Mountains, Airy said, exert less gravitational pull than they should do because they have roots. Their less dense material extends down into the planet, in whose denser interior they float like icebergs in water. Continental masses, Airy said, stand high above the ocean floor because they are buoyant; in their case, floating in a substrate of denser rock. They stand proud, but only because they have much larger roots below. Mountains are higher than plains for the same reason that big icebergs stand taller than small ones...
Determination of the age of the mantle part of continental roots is essential to our understanding of the evolution and stability of continents.
The Earth's rigid lithosphere varies laterally in thickness and strength. Areas of thicker, older lithosphere known as continental roots penetrate deeper into the mantle in some places under continents. Because these continental roots are in contact with deeper, more viscous mantle, the shear traction at the base of the lithosphere in those areas is increased by up to a factor of 4 compared with a model lithosphere without continental roots.
To study how those areas of increased traction affect patterns of lithospheric stress above, Naliboff et al. examined a model of mantle flow coupled to a model of the elastic lithosphere. The authors find that greater traction at the bottom of thicker areas of continental lithosphere raises elastic stress in the lithosphere above by at most a factor of 1.5.
Furthermore, greater lithospheric stress is not located simply in small areas directly above deep continental roots; instead, increased stress is spread out over a larger regional area.