[geocentrism] Re: Pre-Flood rain
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
I don't usualy comment on my misspelling and such but this one made me laugh
..alot..... spell check did a auto corection and i did not catch it untill i
sent it..i thougt it was so funny it was worth mentioning......"condemnation in
the upper atmosphere" should have read "condensation in the upper
atmosphere"......................LOL :)
----- Original Message ----
From: "allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 2:13:41 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pre-Flood rain
You are away on one of your rants again.
If you say so....:)
Your claims are based upon the Bible being God's written word and therefore
absolute truth. This is a fair position, but when I previously tried to
highlight your position on the Bible being 100% truth, you claimed that had
nothing to do with your argument. Yet in this posting again we see that it is
vital to your argument.
Neville, those were two entirely different Discussions that have nothing to do
each other with two different context and subjects altogether..???
1. The first one was just my observation on your comments about there being
28000 different divisions due to selective approach to scripture and how that
affects truth whatever truth is .....I show that 28000 does not have any
justification for what truth is or is not... secondly i point out that if it is
due, as you said, to selective/ ignoring certain scriptures...... then your own
approach contributes to the very thing you protest.....even if you disagree
which you did.......This and that posting has nothing to do with my arguments
for the conditions of the pre-flood world..??????
2. The last postings i made on the pre-flood world were on your assertions that
there was no indication about a change in water cycles.. I address that issue
and your arguments from scripture OR Science ..either way.....
how do those postings relate again......???
There is "no indication" from the natural processes that we all observe all
around us every day. Can I spell it out any clearer for you?
the only real difference in our position is. Where You stated in your last post
that "There is no indication that the water cycle was not designed to operate
as it now operates right from the beginning,"...........where I would say that
..."the underlying mechanics of .what causes the water cycle has not changed
from the beginning but the conditions for that cycle to operate in have changed
most significantly.
If you bother to look at the info i gave you will see that there is clear
indication of a change in the size of the earth that evidence is independent of
the water cycle.........i show how and why scientifically and Scripturally...
if it is true that the natural process we observe all around us every day
"clearly spell it out for us" then please tell what the natural process is that
we can observe everyday is that explains how for 1650 years with the water
cycle and such there was no rainbow IN THE SKY...if you claim ther was then
based on what,scritpure..that is not how scripture explains things and if you
don't appeal to scripture then what makes you think there ever was a
flood?......if you are going to claim a miracle cause the rainbow, then what is
the problem with all my "assumptions" (that actually fit scientific data)as a
"scientific miracle". .......and if you are going to claim a natural processes
then what is wrong with my scientific answer
based on observable processes and correlation of water cycles and such? .How
are my "assumptions", that fit scientific data, more subjective then claiming
some change in the molecular structure of the water molecule to cause a
rainbow?.........on what observable cycle are you basing that on?...if you
don’t claim that then please tell us what you are arguing for........your
objections have no bases in scripture or science that I can see?.... take your
pick...we could debate the science but then you are only looking at the parts
of the science you like (water cycle) while ignoring much of it ( what causes/
the mechanical causes of the water cycle in the first place)......The rivers
flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. Why is this? Because is
evaporates, condenses and falls as rain, back onto the land. If you believe in
a global flood then what makes you think there was as much water before the
flood as after.......why would there have to be in
light of the scripture & or science..? A very nice design, I would say, and I
repeat that there is no reason that I can see, nor that you have supplied, why
this has not happened since the first week of Creation. Are you arguing this
from scripture or science?........if scripture then there is most defiantly a
reason ..(for one a difference in the amount of water available for the cycle
you observe today the fact that scripture describes a world that did not
rain).....if you are arguing this from science then the scientific evidence is
in favor of a smaller earth which would have a most significant and
demonstratable effect on the water cycle ..why?... the water cycle is based on
evaporation but also condemnation in the upper atmosphere, due to cosmic rays
and the sun cycle this has been demonstrated over and over again by NASA and
other weather folk.....on a smaller world that is consistent with the geology,
a stronger denser magnetic field would be
expected and in fact MS even supports the notion of a stronger magnetic field
in the past that would affect seeding in the upper atmosphere due to those
comic rays.... that in turn would directly affect wether or not there are any
clouds and rain........if you are going to suggest clouds in the past because
we see clouds now well we observe large areas of the sky that do not have any
clouds so why could that not have been the initial "natural" state
?....................I have outlined scientific and scriptural reasons for no
rain ..however, ......for you to say " I repeat that there is no reason that I
can see, nor that you have supplied, why this has not happened since the first
week of Creation" is a feeling based on how you choose to "see it" in spite of
what you have been shown...?
That you have "outlined" a scientific reason to support your contention that it
did not rain for 1,650 years from Creation to Flood, is nothing more than that,
an "outline." Based upon assumption after assumption: size of the World, cosmic
radiation, lack of impurities, people having no influence over the environment,
...
No, evidence of a smaller earth evidence of cosmic radiation on clouds and in
turn what that has on rain...evidence that shows the only observable man made
impurities to cause rain is high flying jets and seeding.. Unless they had
those things the, my "assumptions" are less assuming then yours..? because i
have outlined what is observed you have in essence taken a apple put it under a
microscope seeing the skin then say "ah ha but there is no evidence that a
apple is juicy"..the difference is you make your case on the observable water
cycle..and I make my case on the observable underlying causes of the water
cycle.............all based on the same kinda known & observable phenomena that
we can look at and evaluate even today ..just like your assertions that the
water cycle is observable today....?................the nessisary geology is
observable even today, 80% of vulcanism is water vapor.....The only difference
between our position is where you stop
looking at the observable cycles and such ..i look further and take into
consideration the fundamental causes of the water cycle not just the fact we
have one........????
Your argument about being unable to seed clouds is not too convincing. We have
plenty of rain almost every day, do we not? Without any need to seed clouds.
No, Clouds are seeded by cosmic rays and dust ..if you look into you will find
the suns interaction with the magnetic field that determines cloud cover via
cosmic rays/ dust... ..the only other Observable man made exceptions is high
flying jets and seeding....
Finally, for reasons already given, I completely disagree with your last
paragraph.
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:30:59 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pre-Flood rain
Allen,
You are away on one of your rants again.
Your claims are based upon the Bible being God's written word and therefore
absolute truth. This is a fair position, but when I previously tried to
highlight your position on the Bible being 100% truth, you claimed that had
nothing to do with your argument. Yet in this posting again we see that it is
vital to your argument.
There is "no indication" from the natural processes that we all observe all
around us every day. Can I spell it out any clearer for you? The rivers flow
into the sea, yet the sea is never full. Why is this? Because is evaporates,
condenses and falls as rain, back onto the land. A very nice design, I would
say, and I repeat that there is no reason that I can see, nor that you have
supplied, why this has not happened since the first week of Creation.
That you have "outlined" a scientific reason to support your contention that it
did not rain for 1,650 years from Creation to Flood, is nothing more than that,
an "outline." Based upon assumption after assumption: size of the World, cosmic
radiation, lack of impurities, people having no influence over the environment,
...
Your argument about being unable to seed clouds is not too convincing. We have
plenty of rain almost every day, do we not? Without any need to seed clouds.
Finally, for reasons already given, I completely disagree with your last
paragraph.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 09:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Neville,
Me in blue..
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Allen,
There is no indication..no indication?... from what?..from who? that the water
cycle was not designed to operate as it now operates right from the
beginning,?....I thought we were using God's descriptions of the world
then?..If we are using science, then I have already outlined the scientific
plausability of such a difference and why scientificaly.. just as the seasons
would have operated right from the beginning, and will go on unto the end.
That kinda missis that whole point...... God's decriptions of the world then
verse our assumtions about what the world was then..in any case if you are
going to appeal to assumtions ....on a smaler world things would have for very
practialy and scientifical reasons worked ver differntly particularly as it
relates to rain ...particulaly sice the water cycle is based in part on the
amount of availible water in the water cycle in the first place .....there is
for a fact more water now in the water cycle then there was before the
flood..."the fountins of the great deep opened" ....
1,650 years has plenty to do with the question, since mankind would have had an
influence on the environment and atmosphere during all of this time.
Ok so they did........ but in what way..did they have cars and powere plants
and jet plans as we do today?... did they produce enouph polutents to seed the
atmosphere...we cant even do that today without seninding up aircraft with
specaly made seeding particles...?
Since you accept that scripture does not preclude rain before the Flood, I
think it more realistic to assume this to be the case. but based on assumtions
that have no bases in the scritpureal; text nor do they have any nesesity
dicataed in science...so your assertion is at best more unfounded then the onw
This makes Philip's point about the rainbow then becoming a special sign all
the more pertinent. yes very special cause no rain no rainbow.. a water cycle
that had less water in it to cycle as well as a stonger more dense magfeild =
no natural or artifical seeding= no clouds= no rain....is far more
"scripturaly" and "scientificaly" consisntent with the evidence/ scripture, and
requires far far less assumtions then some imaginary universal change in the
molecular structure of the water molecule wich is itslef based on entirly
unsuportable and unessisary assumtions about the pre-flood world to begin
with......?
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Neville,
I donʼt know what the % of humidity would have been and there is no statement
to that effect but the indication is that it was high...... what I am claiming
that it is possible to have high humidity and no rain indefinitely, if there is
insufficient particle seeding . This issue of seeding would hold true even
today the only difference is the capacity of the mag field......As for pre
flood world, i examine the conditions nessisary for rain based on what we know
about clouds and rain even today. Within that body of knowledge there exist the
possibility of a pre flood world (a different world, smaller world with a
stronger magnetic field) that would preclude rain even with "to days physics"
..... The mechanisms I point out are considered observable even by MS
............Having said that, scripture nowhere states that it never rained
before the flood, however it certainly could be considered to strongly imply
that, particularly in the whole construct of
the context in Gen 2- Gen 7:11which is outlining the condition of the world up
to the flood ...in any case im just pointing out the feasability of that
scenario...........I do not think it rained......... nor do i see room for rain
in the context except that 1650 years passed by...but then the question becomes
"what does the fact that 1650 years passed before it rained have to do with
whether or not it rained if the conditions for rain did not exist for 1650
years....?
Listen & Record Music from Internet Radio - Get Free Radio & MP3 Player &
Recorder
Learn more at www.inbox.com/radio
Other related posts:
