Halleluja, I have seen the light

[pianistimo]

i am curious myself what hydrogen will say about itself.  you know way more about this than i would ever hope to - and i don't think mr. hovind is the last word on the subject.  it is my suspicion that it might be what caused everything to be everwhere in the universe at once as it makes up what we think is 90% of the universe.  a sort of instant carrier.  so a 'bang' didn't cause it - nor even one atom.  perhaps it was bound up in God Himself and God says that He is in every place.  there is no place that He cannot be.  how is this so?  i don't know.  i can't explain God.  i never saw Him.  but, i feel His presence and He says He is not far from each one of us - as we exist by and through Him.  an interesting feature is it's lightness and ability to instantly ignite.  when the heavens 'go' - it will be a melting (according to II peter 3:12). 'looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat...but according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.'

another verse mentions the earth 'tottering.'  isaiah 24:18-20 - where suddenly 'the windows above are opened, and the foundations of the earth shake, the earth is broken assunder, the earth is split through, the earth is violently shaken.  the earth reels to and fro like a drunkard, and it totters like a shack, for its transgression is heavy upon it, and it will fall, never to rise again.  so it will happen in that day, that the Lord will punish the host of heaven (satan and his demons), on high, and the kings of the earth, on earth - and they will be gathered together like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be confined in prison; and after many days they will be punished.  then the moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mt. Zion ...

now before this - we see that the environment of the earth becomes hot.  isaiah 24:6 'therefore, a curse devours the earth, and those who live in it are held guilty.  therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left...'  it is said that the two 'witnesses' in jerusalem will cause it to not rain on the earth for a period of three years or 1260 days - and in rev. 7 'a third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up.  with all the fires that have recently destroyed huge portions of australia, the mid-west, and other places around the world - we can see the possiblity that we might be living in the exact times the bible foretells.  that is seeing the future!  reading of it first and then living it.

but, the ending is much different than the 'birth pains.'  a whole new world is being born.  the kingdom of heaven.  rev. 6:14 mentions 'the sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.  i take this to mean at Jesus Christ's return.  it is said that 'every eye will see Him' - and like when He left - many will be amazed that the physical universe is not what has been sustaining us - only - but God.  we can live without an earth - without elements - only the Spirit of God.  it is said there will be 'neither day nor night' for God will be our light - and those 'who come out of the great tribulation have washed their robes (repented) and made them white int he blood of the Lamb.  for this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple (they end up being the closest to God!  that is God's mercy to show the most love to the 'prodigal son.')  they shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore; neither shall the sun beat down on them nor any heat...'

now, some believe that those who already believe right now will be raptured.  in any case, i believe they will have supernatural protection from the elements.  but, those who endure the tribulation will repent during the tribulation itself.  in matthew 24 - it mentions those saints who watch the times and are protected - and 'flee jerusalem' when the 'abomination of desolation' is set up in jerusalem.  also, armies will surround it.  this is AFTER the gospel of the kingdom is preached to the entire world.  'then let those who are in judea (jerusalem) flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak...pray that your flight is not in the winter or on the Sabbath; for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.  and unless those days had been cut short (by the return of Christ), no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short.' 

'immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory, and He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.  (why the sky?  they are ressurrected!  no longer involved in the destruction below).

[ahinton]

i tend to agree that there is no 'ism' that is better.  it's all relative in the sense of 'created by man.'  if we had a government created by God - it would be fair!

And how do you suppose that this would happen in practice?

noone would be starving or mutilated while others looked on.

How would this be guaranteed to come about and remain sustainable under such a régime? - and, when contemplating your answer here, do please bear in mind that we are both talking economics here, at least in part (see your use of the word "starving").

the only thing is there used to be a respect for freedom - but now we take our freedom forgranted and some use it for evil against those who are weak.

See my observations above on the definitional variabilities of the entire concept of "freedom" and its possible policing.

as i read the bible - it says we should put first the weak - fatherless, homeless, widows, abandoned children - and they should get #1 care.  from the government!  what else are our taxes REALLY supposed to be doing?  not making someone fat. 

There are several immediately obvious flaws in what you write here. Who do you mean by "we" in this context? The "government"? in which case, which and whose particular "government"? Or do you mean everyone who happens not to fit into one of your specified categories, i.e. "fatherless, homeless, widowed, abandoned children"? If so, this in turn is flawed, for there are plenty of fatherless and widowed people who are financially well off as well as plenty more of each that are not. "#1 care...from the government"? Again, which and whose government? Who defines that care? Who dispenses it? Who funds it and how? Who polices it? Who judges how good it is and whether, when, how and to what extent it needs to be improved? Who sues - and how - if and when things go wrong? Do also bear in mind that, in a capitalist society, governments do not, in general terms, have any money - they are merely supposed custodians of the tax revenues that they collect from members of the taxpaying public - i.e., their shareholders. Different capitalist countries have entirely different taxation régimes and there are, inevitably, many different views on their respective fairness or otherwise - and those taxation régimes are in constant states of flux, as are the efficiencies or otherwise of their administrative processes of collection and distribution. Are you talking about national governments or local government organisations or both? As for taxes making anyone fatter, one may presume that if any tax revenue is directed at helping starving people, it will make hopefully them fatter, otherwise it will have been misused ("tax revenue being misused? whoeverheard of such a preposterous thing!...). Bear in mind also that governments in so-called democratic countries are voted in and out, so there will inevitably be differences of emphasis and approach when governments change and these may reasonably be expected to be greater than those that occur during the term of any one government in office.

But, of course, you seem to be talking about a "government created by God" - a pianistemic concept which one may resonably suppose most people living in "democratic" countries would likely regard as a form of dictatorship, to the extent that it would presumably not be subject to being voted in or out of office by an electorate made up from those people under its governance who would otherwise be entitled to vote. So - let's get back to the beginning of this one, then - and once more pose the question as to how you would envisage the foundation and continued administration of such a government?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

i am curious myself what hydrogen will say about itself.

So you're now envisaging hydrogen participating in a conversation?

God says that He is in every place.  there is no place that He cannot be.  how is this so?  i don't know.  i can't explain God.  i never saw Him.

Hey, wait abit; you were talking about seeing Him quite a lot not so long ago! Which is true, then?...

He says He is not far from each one of us

So are we to assume that, even if you can't see Him after all, you can at least hear Him?

- as we exist by and through Him.  an interesting feature is it's lightness and ability to instantly ignite.

Which, God or hydrogen? You're going too fast for me (and for yourself, too, methinks - you're probably safer on that bicycle...).

when the heavens 'go'

"Go" where?

- it will be a melting (according to II peter 3:12). 'looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat...but according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.'

OK, but do please bear in mind that Peter was unfamiliar with the periodic table of elements, so the statement with which you credit him here clearly emerged far more from his imagination than from his scientific knowledge and should therefore be taken as such, rather than (here we go again) "literally".

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

God inspired him to use the word elements, i believe.  God created the world after all, so He would know about his own 'elements.' 

ahinton, i know you want answers - unfortunately, i am a spectator.  i read the bible and then i say - ok. this must be true because God says it.  so, i wait for the answers, too.  the law of God is said to be the first 'change' in the government.  from the laws of man to the laws of God.  so we will be learning 'how to live according to His ways - which include agricultural laws - like land rests and things like that.  perhaps it will allow for the soil to regenerate and be better.  zechariah - mentions this 'new earth - as a place (zech14) where people go up to jerusalem to worhsip the Lord of Hosts - so we know that people will change from worshipping money and goods to worshipping God.  also, anyone who doesn't worship God will be cursed with no rain.  they will not be able to grow things.

as it has been explained to me - those who are in the first ressurrection will never see death again - so we will be able to make ourselves observable and not observable (spirit) just like Christ.  but, those who are left (who are not yet baptized and not yet called) will be ressurrected to their physical bodies to live out the rest of their lives under the government of God.  otherwise there would be no purpose for ezekiel 37 (valley of dry bones - where all the bones come together - sinew, flesh- and they live again!)

revelations is a difficult book because we have a regeneration of the earth - miraculously by God at the time He comes - where the surface is completely burned - and then - a regeneration of the earth (otherwise it wouldn't say 'the meek will INHERIT the earth.')  and also, after the milleneum - a completely NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH.  rev. 21 'and i saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea!...'

in the interum period - the thousand year reign of Christ - or the millenium - isaiah 2 says 'now it will come about inthe last days, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains (governments)...and many peoples will come and say, 'come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us His ways, and we will walk in His paths.'  for the law will go forth from zion, and the word of the Lord from jerusalem.  and He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.'

i may be confused, but this is how i read it:
#1 tribulation
#2 return of Christ at 'first ressurrection' - millenium or thousand year reign.
rev. 20:6 'blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first ressurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.'
#3 then - all the dead will be ressurrected at the judgement (rev. 20:12) 'and i saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things that were written in the books, according to their deeds.  and the sea gave up it's dead which were in it, and death and hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
#4 new heavens and earth

the reason they are judged according to their deeds is that they did not accept Christ's atoning sacrifice.  and, therefore - they cannot be judged by grace as they did not accept it. 

[ahinton]

God inspired him to use the word elements, i believe.  God created the world after all, so He would know about his own 'elements.'

But did He teach Peter all about them before Peter made that statement?

ahinton, i know you want answers

I asked you a series of questions specifically because you raised some matters, but I do not necessarily expect you to be able to answer them all.

- unfortunately, i am a spectator.

Is that necessarily "unfortunate"?

i read the bible and then i say - ok. this must be true because God says it.  so, i wait for the answers, too.

I expressly did not ask you about that.

the law of God is said to be the first 'change' in the government.  from the laws of man to the laws of God.  so we will be learning 'how to live according to His ways - which include agricultural laws - like land rests and things like that.  perhaps it will allow for the soil to regenerate and be better.

Different people can try to agree to live by different principles - indeed, such changes happen all the time but, if you are seeking to define "God's government" as nothing more specific than some kind of government in absentia and by example, all the questions I asked about what you mean by "government" in practice remain unanswered.

zechariah - mentions this 'new earth

I wasn't asking Zechariah; I was asking you - because it was you and not he who wrote about this "government created by God" here. Why do you persist in trying to have recourse to and hide behind biblical people and events two millennia ago when it is you personally that has made a statement today which is being questioned?

as a place (zech14) where people go up to jerusalem to worhsip the Lord of Hosts - so we know that people will change from worshipping money and goods to worshipping God.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there are already very many people in all kinds of societies on this planet who do not actually "worship" money and goods - and we don't all live near Jerusalem, either (although I do happen to live nearer to that place than you do - not that this fact proves anything...).

also, anyone who doesn't worship God will be cursed with no rain. they will not be able to grow things.

Now you're really talking rubbish. Are you genuinely seeking to persuade us that all existing deserts are populated (insofar as they are populated at all) only by atheists and that this is the only reason why the areas that they inhabit have little or no rain? There's plenty of rain and more here, but I'm equally certain that you'd also find millions of people here that don't worship God so, if He's offended by that fact, why has He not already turned UK and other parts of northern Europe into a desert? - although, if He had, wouldn't that be grossly unfair to God-worshipping people living in the same area? People would in any case have simply blamed it on another casualty of "climate change" and go elsewhere - which reminds me that your ideas here ought perhaps to be taken up by the climate watchers in governments - you can just see it, can you not? "you over there - you worship God to get more rain and you over there stop worshipping God quite so much and then we can normalise the rainfall levels...". Is this nonsense or is it nonsense?

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

  you know way more about this than i would ever hope to

You? Who is this "you"? Are you aware that you are the only person respnding to this topic!?

[pianistimo]

dear mephisto,  if you see thread #1, you'll see that counterpoint and asyncopated asked some more questions.  i am responding to questions and the challenge made at the start of this thread.  i have never started a religious topic thread - and am only answering what i understand when i read the bible.  nothing more.  i am not trying to get anyone to come to  a certain church or do something exactly the way i do.  but, as scientists are curious - so are average podunk people.  they (scientists) may not have the last word - as death seems to be the finality for everyone.  what is beyond?  what is before?  the bible does give some clues.  and, it isn't evolutionary theory at all - it is a philosophy of love and of family.  God IS a family.  there is a purpose and reason for everything He does.  it's not RANDOM.   people sometimes say 'everything's relative.'  relative to what?  probably God.  because He makes things relative to loving your neighbor as yourself.  that isn't saying 'do anything you want because in the end it doesn't matter.  you will die.'  God gives hope for a ressurrection and reward for doing good and believing in Christ in this life.  if we did not do at least some good - we would not be 'children of light.'  there are many places in the bible that compare 'children of light' with 'children of darkness.'  these analogies, to me, mean that our actions do speak louder than words.  if we are keeping the 10 commandments - it is a small light in a dark world.  even if we are not 100% perfect - at least we can try to uphold God's laws.  they are simple, really - and not that hard.  they benefit the entire community.

the government of God, as i see it alistair, is really based on things that all kingdoms have.  a king, subjects, laws, land, purpose.  i think God has it pretty well planned out - and if we are the co-heirs - as many places call us that - then we have to make some sort of preparation.  this life is that preparation.  just like the parable of the talents - more are given to those that make use of their talents.  just as you have done with composing.  your life is a song - and you can make it beautiful with music and with yourself by just doing what you already do (encouraging people and being kind and joyful/humorous).  i think the 'evil' that is spoken of in the bible - is towards people who harbor malice, deceit, fraud - etc. in their hearts and seek to do other people harm. 

as i read the bible - the real purpose is not that we should 'lord it over' one another - but that if we have a position of leadership - that we should serve the others.  Christ came to serve us - so really - we're asking for a job instead of luxury.  luxury is nice- and i'm sure that there will be beautiful crowns and places to be - but i don't think God is all about relaxing.  He genuinely likes to work and make things better.  i say this - because i believe he created everything, sustains it, and probably keeps on creating (as witnessed b y the vastness of the universe).

so - we too -if we are 'like' Him will be mini - me's or whatever you want to call it.  He wants to give us 'all things.'  what are these 'things?'  probably everything that He owns.  He owns the universe!  He wants to share it.  as parents do an inheritance.  why?  i don't know.  maybe He doesn't like being alone?

[ahinton]

i am curious myself what hydrogen will say about itself.  you know way more about this than i would ever hope to

You? Who is this "you"? Are you aware that you are the only person respnding to this topic!?

I think that she was referring to this

Chemical evolution.
If the big bang theory is true the big bang produced hydrogen (inaccurate)

so, whilst this reference was not especially easy to track down as the source for her remark, it seems that she is not "the only person responding to this topic"; it's just that her responses are greater in number and often more copious than most other posts here...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

the government of God, as i see it alistair, is really based on things that all kingdoms have.  a king, subjects, laws, land, purpose.  i think God has it pretty well planned out - and if we are the co-heirs - as many places call us that - then we have to make some sort of preparation.  this life is that preparation.

That's all very well, but, as I understood it, you seemed to be proposing that, if only God's government were in charge on earth (by apparent implication instead of those that are in charge here), all would be well; I therefore understood you to be seeking to prescribe what you advocate for the here and now rather than for the hereafter...

just like the parable of the talents - more are given to those that make use of their talents.  just as you have done with composing.  your life is a song - and you can make it beautiful with music and with yourself by just doing what you already do (encouraging people and being kind and joyful/humorous).

Well, thanks for the compliment; I do try...

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Do you really think God would have the audacity not to exist when people are so riled up by this topic and argue over it indefinitely?

*edit* you know what I think? I think believer or non-believer, we all WANT him to exist, deep down. Deny it all you like.

[pianistimo]

that's well placed question.  i tend to wonder that myself - but of course - it is hard to prove to someone else.  thus, the continued debate.  but, i rather tend to think that Christ was persecuted and killed for actually bringing peace into the world.  His ways are peaceful ways and His names are Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

what i find interesting, is that he has a NEW name for each of us, too.  perhaps something we are known for in this life?  i don't know!  it's just a curious thought.  or, perhaps it is God's new name that is one our foreheads.  rev. 22:4 'and they shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.  and there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp or of the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever.'

a similar passage of our 'destiny' is rev. 21:7 'he who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son....'  He is said to wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.  God is always in a mode where he says 'come...  that means He is already there.  He's asking us to join him.  'come ye blessed - into the kingdom i have prepared for you FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.'  that's a long long time.  He must have a lot of love.

[Derek]

Something just occurred to me. Since God by definition is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, he could, if he willed it so, NOT EXIST, for any period of time he wished. Then, he could come back into existence whenever or however he wished.  Therefore, if there ever was a nothing, there was also a God, hence, the universe was created.

Just kidding

[prometheus]

Something just occurred to me. Since God by definition is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, he could, if he willed it so, NOT EXIST

She can't. These properties contradict with each other and with existing. By definition god is always everywhere. Also, god can do anything.

...for any period of time he wished. Then, he could come back into existence whenever or however he wished.

She can't. Because she would not exist nur have omnipotency.

[pianistimo]

but, if he is the alpha and omega - that would imply He was here first - and will end with a family of 'gods.'  in the psalms he distinctly says 'ye are gods.'  we know we aren't right now - but we will be 'like' Him.  not - Him exactly - but like - meaning as children to a Father.  why else does He use this terminology?  He could say He's our uncle - or worse yet, not even related. 

nothingness IS actually a state of being that is mentioned in the bible.  it is the second death.  after the judgement.  rev. 20:14 'and death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  this is the second death, the lake of fire.  and if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.'

this to me, implies that hell is not a torturous place - but an ending.  a finality.  we would be no more - without God's grace. 

[counterpoint]

If god did not exist, it was even more staggering.

The universe would be a        real wonder   

[maul]

I enjoy pouring acid into my ear. I like to let it flow into my brain and work its magic on my neural connections. The sizzling sound it makes is most enjoyable. My mom started pouring the delicious substance into my cranium as a child, and I always enjoyed it... and I've been doing it every since!!!! Plan to do it to my kids as well!!!

[pianistimo]

oh joy!

as i see it - that is what mother's do. they hope for the best - despite all appearances of their children completely tuning them out.  i really haven't a clue what my children believe.  at least i know they know what i believe. 

i think God is pro-life.  everything He does has to do with LIFE.  not death.  that is why He died for us.  (wait - i think i am not a very good explainer)  ok.  other people killed Him - and He didn't stop them - because He was dying to take our place for sin and death for all time.  so, in effect - by his death we have life everlasting. 

now, if the hindu religion - and other religions before in egypt could believe in a reincarnation and a rebirth - why is the Christian religion looked down upon?  we are providing a hope of a ressurrection from the dead.  this isn't a dead end philosophy.  in evolution - you evolve to just die?  and be dead forever and become particles of oil so someone can put you in their gas tank?

[maul]

I enjoy staring at the wall in front of me. Everywhere I turn there's that wall, and I love looking at it! I think it loves me too!!! It keeps that piercing light out and keeps me warm with its insulated shielding!!! THANK YOU WALL.

[counterpoint]

  in evolution - you evolve to just die?  and be dead forever

Yes, that's what I want - die and be dead forever 

Not lying in the grave with the constant fear of resurrection and all the trouble begins again...

Die and be dead forever  - that's wonderful !

[pianistimo]

i understand - but what if there are no more worries or troubles?  what if you're missing out?  what if...what if there ARE 20 virgins waiting for you?  well, that's carrying it a bit far - as i don't think we'll be ressurrected any sex at all.  thinking about that does kinda scare me.  but, it must be better than here.  i mean - there is trouble for you either way on earth if you are born male - you die working  and female - in the olden days of having children and nowdays - job, too.  what if - nothing is really that much work in the ressurrection.  what if you just 'say the word.'

[thalbergmad]

at least i know they know what i believe. 

Who doesn't?

[ahinton]

Who doesn't?

All those who don't yet subscribe to PianoStreet and don't happen to know Susanistimo personally.

While we're about it, I wouldn't ming seeing susanistimo's male God and prometheus's female one getting together; the prospect of them making whoopee would surely be delightful, even if the corollarial prospect of two parallel Bibles from which our male God worshipper par excellence may quote incesantly could be seen as abit of a potential downside...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

ahinton,  God's bride is the Church.  they are getting married when Jesus returns.  and making woopee in a different way.  'pleasures forever more...'  could mean something better than sex.  that's all we know right now - that seems to be the best pleasure - but if God made adam and eve and sex within a day - - if He's been working on our dwelling places and David could say 'a day in your courts is better than a thousand (outside)'  then - He must live in a decent abode and have exciting things to do. 

[ahinton]

ahinton,  God's bride is the Church.  they are getting married when Jesus returns.  and making woopee in a different way.  'pleasures forever more...'  could mean something better than sex.  that's all we know right now - that seems to be the best pleasure - but if God made adam and eve and sex within a day - - if He's been working on our dwelling places and David could say 'a day in your courts is better than a thousand (outside)'  then - He must live in a decent abode and have exciting things to do. 

Well, then, all would appear to be as well as it can be up there (or wherever). Do they have to wait until Jesus returns (you don't disclose where or when, but one presumes you to mean earth somewhere and at a time to be advised) before they get married? And will it be a "civil ceremony" like those that increasingly take place between same sex partners, or not? Who's providing the music for the ceremony? (by which I mean who's writing the music and who's to perform it?).

To be more serious, "pleasures forever more" could almost suggest that the music for the ceremony might be by J S Bach, who sought to compose for the glory of God and for the ultimate pleasure of humankind - but has anyone thought to commission him for this?

As to all your comments about sex and David and dwelling places and courts and exciting things to do, you should be careful of your expressions here, lest people start jumbling them up to the point at which some of them might start suing David in those courts for illicit sexual practices and doing other exciting things in dwelling places various and so on...

No, Susan; I know you believe all this but, with the best will in the world, I simply cannot take most of it. J S Bach, yes (not that you mentioned him - I did) - but the rest? No. Sorry...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

handel was a hands down with the angels.  they're going to sing the hallelujah chorus and several will blow trumpets.  if all goes well, you'll be lifted off your feet.  a sort of self propulsion upwards to the clouds.  i expect that you'll be as surprised as the rest of us.  being that - well, it's hard to imagine you being up to no good - and i think God kind of just blends in the anonymous folk with the folk that profess to understand things - because giving anonymous people to the other side just wouldn't make sense.  in other words, unless you do something really bad - God has got you by the hand and won't let you down.

now, don't take this the wrong way - i still think when He comes you should appear to look surprised.   

[volodya]

Regarding something said earlier in this thread, that you can't actually 'disprove anyththing in the bible'.....um, has anything in the bible ever actually been PROVEN? Let's start with Christ for example...

[prometheus]

Sure you can disprove claims made in the bible.

For example if the bible claims that after Jesus was born in the last day of 1 BC King Herodus ordered the killing of all born babies in the country it is quite easy to prove this claim does not match reality.

King Herodus died in 4 BC. Another example, there is no record of all the born babies being killed anywhere around 1 BC. Surely, even if a king ordered all the just-born babies to be killed there would be a lot of resistance and it would be written down somewhere. It would be quite something.

But if the bible claims 'God threw Lucifer out of the heavens' then this claim is totally meaningless. It isn't falsifiable.

A claim like 'there was a global flood' is somewhere inbetween.

[ahinton]

Do you really think God would have the audacity not to exist when people are so riled up by this topic and argue over it indefinitely?

I have no idea whether God would have audacity of any kind, really...

*edit* you know what I think? I think believer or non-believer, we all WANT him to exist, deep down. Deny it all you like.

Well, we know what you think now - but I'm afraid that I will deny it; whilst I am not personally denying God here, I remain disinclined to believe that everyone wants to believe that God - in some form or another - actually exists - if for no better reson than that I could not, hand on heart, say that "everyone" (without exception) wants anything at all...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

that's well placed question.  i tend to wonder that myself - but of course - it is hard to prove to someone else.  thus, the continued debate.  but, i rather tend to think that Christ was persecuted and killed for actually bringing peace into the world.  His ways are peaceful ways and His names are Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

It's a welcome relief to note you writing "I tend to wonder" rather than being more dogmatic. I don't know exactly why Christ was persecuted and killed, because I wasn't there at the time and it's therefore far harder to develop a reliable opinion about it; you might well be right, however - i just don't pretend to know.

what i find interesting, is that he has a NEW name for each of us, too.  perhaps something we are known for in this life?  i don't know!  it's just a curious thought.  or, perhaps it is God's new name that is one our foreheads.  rev. 22:4 'and they shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.  and there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp or of the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever.'

And now you've gone straight back into "taking the Bible literally" mode again...

a similar passage of our 'destiny' is rev. 21:7 'he who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son....'  He is said to wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.  God is always in a mode where he says 'come...  that means He is already there.  He's asking us to join him.  'come ye blessed - into the kingdom i have prepared for you FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.'  that's a long long time.  He must have a lot of love.

You're doing it again. These are but the fruits of the writer's imagination - and nothing wrong with that as such - but you always want to take it as gospel truth becuase it's in "that book". There are so many many other books, as I'm sure you know well!

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

just came back this morning and i'm surprised you would dare categorize time as an absolute.  there is NO time for God.  so, He's beyond time and space.

I never said that time was absolute.  Firstly time does not have 3 dimensions -past present and future.  They are not dimensions. It is encapsulated in 1 dimension.  You only require 1 number to describe a "position in time".   This is factually wrong. 

The modern theory of time is a relativistic one.  It's difficult to understand in the context of general relativity (I certianly can't understand all of it). 

But he does not claim this.  The statement is 'time has 3 dimensions', and states what they are and this is wrong.

I don't know if god lives in or outside of time.  If you can tell me how to measure god, I can try to find out for you.  I've got access to a reasonable amount of equipment including a number of class 4 lasers and a plasma generator.

secondly, matter does have three states to us - that are observable.

Plasma is perfectly observable.  The fact that you can't touch it doens't mean (because you will get yourself electricuted or burnt) that it is not observable.  There are also many other states of matter.  All know the man.  Many of these states require very cold or very hot temperatures --superfluids, superconductivity (type I and type II), bose einstein condensates, fermi liquids (one dimensional quantum fluid), metal insulator transitions (in cold atoms) and other strongly correlated states.  Even iron has seven (if I recall correctly) states of matter that we know of.   BTW, I should know this, this is very close to my area of research.  If I didn't I wouldn't be doing my job very well.

It's not 3.  The reason he does this is to try to mislead you to think that there is some association between "absolute truths" and the holy trinity, and this is clearly not correct. 

perhaps i did not give enough hope on the benefit of the Holy Spirit?  it is called a 'helper.'  why?  because at any time we have a direct line (because of showing humility to follow His guidelines of baptism - as Christ gave the example and was baptized by John) to God's THRONE.  the very throne of God.  where satan used to hang out.  we are now able to access a huge fountain of wisdom - that existed before the ages and will exist to eternity.  that is a lot more wisdom than any man /scientist/ whatever has - and yet we still are hungry to have knowledge - but we put that knowledge from man BELOW what God says. 

What exactly did god say? Did he tell you that directly?  You consider a book that man wrote, which has internal contradictions and inaccuracies, and is really a mess of an account of divinity and the word of god an absolute truth?  God must be imperfect in your eyes.  No book could be perfect, and if you say what is written in the bible are his exact words, god must therefore be imperfect.

as far as chemical 'evolution' - i don't think this fellow believes in evolution.  i think He believes that God created the world and the elements with great HEAT - similar to science - and that as they cooled - the various elements became observable.  in the same fashion- the earth will disappear - with GREAT HEAT.  i think it's in the book of timothy or someplace like that - it says 'the elements will dissolve with great heat.' 

He uses the word evolve very losely.  I'm not going to even try to find out what he means by evolve.  This is a dictionary meaning of evolve -- To develop or achieve gradually.

Actually, the scientific concept of heat, as you know, came around much later than the bible did.  Carnot was the first one to write about a scientific concept of heat (1796-1832).  I don't know if the bible means exactly the same thing.  But I have to say, it is likely that the bible is correct here on both accounts, if what you quote is correct.

now, about star formation - i tend to think you know best on that one.  having not seen it personally myself - but reading and listening to places that talk about it - it seems that the universe is kind of created to divide and multiply.  i don't doubt this for star births, etc.  God seems to enjoy setting something in motion and then just 'letting it go.'  perhaps hovind doesn't know everything - but every man is limited because the bible does not say exactly 'stars cannot be born of supernova.'  yet - our own galaxy - God created them first (as adam and eve were created).

I am not against the bible, but I really can't accept that he trys to spout lies.  It's two step backwards for mankind because of the likes of hovind.  I was educated in a catholic faith school for 14 years.  Most of the preachers/priest that I've met are really very learned people.  They read and even teach science as well as the bible.  I have the utmost respect for them. 

Hovind on the other hand I don't even know how to describe.  He should just devolve and crawl back under a rock.

[timothy42b]

My neighbor brought over one of Hovind's videos.

My child, then 8, happened to walk through the roomm while he was holding up a clay coffee cup with some artwork on it, a person riding a sloppily shaped animal.  Hovind had just announced that this pottery proved PROVED PROVED!!! that man had coexisted with dinosaurs and therefore all of science was wrong.  

My child said, "Daddy, why is that man riding a camel?"  Hmmh, pottery from the desert in the Middle East, man riding what really looks a lot more like a camel than the brontosaurus that Hovind had claimed, child of 8 with no preconceptions asks a pretty darned good question.  

And the same thing could be applied to every sentence he uttered.  Any 8 year old with common sense should see the flaws.

[prometheus]

Hovind on the other hand I don't even know how to describe.  He should just devolve and crawl back under a rock.

He thinks science proposes we evolved from rocks.

[pianistimo]

no.  he challenges textbooks, which i applaud.  i wish more were challenged.

the theory of evolution is still theory.  it is not fact.  why is taught as fact?  noone has yet explained fully how everything has come from nothing, or from one atom.

the fact hovind has a mind and is open to science (after studying it for 15 years) means he is not a slouch.  and yet - you picked him for a 'best example.'  there are other astrophysicists, scientists, et al that have doctoral degrees that are 'as we speak' studying the science of creation.  hovind is not the end all.

it's hush hush when a scientist discovers (in layers of sediment that should have only held dinosaurs) - dwellings (actual dwellings) of people who lived at great depth in what we consider the seas and ocean today.  that meant that the lower portions of their land either sunk or were covered completely with water and never receded back to the original places.  even the idea of atlantis proves this - and that would not be a creationist idea.  now - dr. robert ballard has discovered some things under the dead sea.  i will be interested to see why the DEPTH of these things included actual dwelling places of mankind.  houses, built of wood.

don't you think people should get the 'whole story?'  every bit of scientific information and not just bits that fit a particular viewpoint?  what about the grand canyon.  no textbook i've read ever mentions it - and yet it is proof positive of a worldwide flood, to me.  the enormity of the canyon.  explain that a river - over millions of years - carved this huge canyon - when the river enters at a low point.  it would have to have been a broken dam.  hovind isn't stupid.  scientists who claim the canyon was formed over eons of a trickle or even river of water - are ommitting the high points of the canyon's formation.

also, he proved, without a doubt - that it doesn't take 'millions' of years for things to fossilize. why is this not taught in school?  it doesn't 'fit the mold.'  wake up people.  you're being brainwashed.

[ahinton]

no.  he challenges textbooks, which i applaud.  i wish more were challenged.

...but not including your unchallengeable Bible, of course...

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

no.  he challenges textbooks, which i applaud.  i wish more were challenged.

Actually, so do I.  It if you are to challege textbooks, do it in a meaningful way -- explore and provide a better theory that can be tested and shown to work, don't lie out right.

the theory of evolution is still theory.  it is not fact.  why is taught as fact?  noone has yet explained fully how everything has come from nothing, or from one atom.

The theory of evolution simply states that living things are capable to continuously adapting (on a genomic level) to their environment.  If they manage to do so sucessfully they survive, if they don't the species dies out.

That is all, nothing more nothing less.  The evidence that we have which links species together seems to suggest that this is overwhelmingly true.  The reason why it is not as robust as theories in physics or chemistry is because it does not have quantitative predictive abilities.  I.e. it does not tell you how long it takes, or how likely a particular species is to survive or die out.

Nevertheless, there are so many pieces of evidence showing conclusively that this is correct.  Like i say, if you can convincing show that somehow, a living thing manages to avoid evolution and survive or if a livng thing springs into existence, you will likely win the nobel prize for exceptions to evolution theory.

the fact hovind has a mind and is open to science (after studying it for 15 years) means he is not a slouch.  and yet - you picked him for a 'best example.'  there are other astrophysicists, scientists, et al that have doctoral degrees that are 'as we speak' studying the science of creation.  hovind is not the end all.

That's where we disagree his mind is not open to science.  He pick out information that suits his purporses and disregards everything else.  We don't have the luxury of that in science. The reason we disregard his theories (btw, he has one , i find it quite funny ) is because it contradicts so much of the evidence that it sounds completely ridiculous.

[pianistimo]

the key is LIVING.  what caused things to 'live.'  science cannot create from nothing even ONE living thing.  prove to me the bible is wrong.

i don't doubt that hovind has some 'theories' of his own - but he does use that word when he is unsure of what he is saying.

and, for the record - - neither he nor i would argue that species have gone extinct.  but it wasn't because they were inferior quality.  that is a load of ***.  if adaptation were true - it would still be going on.  the only fast tract is bacteria and viruses and this is used over and over as if they were cellular.  try something living and breathing.

[asyncopated]

the key is LIVING.  what caused things to 'live.' 

We don't know. Just as we don't know what causes things to be conscious.  That is not what evolution is about.

prove to me the bible is wrong.

I'm not about to.  The bible in not a factual book for me.  I don't associate factual wrongs or rights with the bible.

i suppose you think the pyramids don't exist.  nor, the pharoahs of egypt.  nor, for that matter mesopotamia.  the cradle of civilization.  i think you guys just don't know history and are oblivious to what is out there.  you'd probably be amazed at what things are being found in iraq as we speak that confirm the bible.

Some of the stories do have a factual basis.  That's fine.  But, but the point for me is not about the fact, it's about being human.

did you know that the EXACT rivers are still there today as found in the beginning books of genesis.

Why is this surprising to you?  It's not surprising since when the bible was written, man has learnt to read and write, so names of places stick.

The names of many rivers in china has been the same since 3000 B.C., maybe even earlier.  Not surprising.

you say lies.  i say prove it!

I shouldn't really have to prove what hovind says is "true". They are that obvious.  Just open your eyes.  The truth is all around you.

...but it wasn't because they were inferior quality.

Science and evolution makes no claim about the 'quality' of a species.  Sometimes we use the word 'fitness' but this is an arbitrary quantitative measure that just helps with simulations in computers.  Species dies because of chance and because of changes in the environment, it's just the course of things.

then they go and say - with complete stupidity - we must have some connection with chimpanzees.

The explanation (not theory) from monkeys to humans very losely goes something like this.

Long, long ago, there were monkey.  They lived in trees and were quite happy.

After thousands and thousands of years, some of the forest died away, a group of them  were forced to come out of trees and onto the ground.

Slowly they adapted, and being learning to walk on two feet instead of using both their hands a feet.  Also, they were more prone to being eaten since they were on the ground and not in trees.

The fast ones survived, the smart ones did too.  their brians started slowly developing.  They learnt to run and hide.

They learnt to set traps and work in a group, and commnicate effectively.

The learn to use tools, and after a while use fire. 

By this time, they stood upright on two legs.  After this happened, it still took a long long time before we get to man as we know him today.

My 'closest relative' and i are seperated by a couple of million years of evolution (if not more).  How you think that is close I'm not too sure.  Even if you say we share about 99% of our genes (which is more or less accurate).  There is still a huge amount that is different (obviously -- we are not chimps).  Also, the parts that are different are VERY VERY important.  Chimps can't do what we can, like argue on the internet.

If you want had proof, bring a group of chimps to the ground, nurture them in some way.  Wait a couple of million years, and you can tell us if they turn into man.

[pianistimo]

i suppose you think the pyramids don't exist.  nor, the pharoahs of egypt.  nor, for that matter mesopotamia.  the cradle of civilization.  i think you guys just don't know history and are oblivious to what is out there.  you'd probably be amazed at what things are being found in iraq as we speak that confirm the bible.  did you know that the EXACT rivers are still there today as found in the beginning books of genesis.  WHY?  i want to know how someone could make up a story many years later and have it be exact names of rivers?  why?  you say lies.  i say prove it!

nasa has done satellite images and has proven that there WERE two other rivers - that went dry over time and can be mapped underground.  and yet, we still have the euphrates and tigris.  same names!

also, i want to be proven - without a doubt and without scientific evidence hidden - that noah's ark does not rest on mt. ararat.  and that there are not dwellings of MAN under quite a depth of the dead sea.  noone wants to discuss or put this on front page.  but, then of course, we have a recent confirmation in june that an early hominoid had been dna tested and found to be an ape.  no connection at all.  then they go and say - with complete stupidity - we must have some connection with chimpanzees.  what?  because there is more dna closeness?  what?  mitocondrially there isn't.

if you want to believe that your closest relative is a chimpanzee - why don't you all hang out at the zoo and enjoy each others company so you can prove some kind of connection.  you know - fill in the missing link.

[counterpoint]

the theory of evolution is still theory.  it is not fact.  why is taught as fact? 

Same applies to the creation story.

But you're right: evolution is theory. As scientists find new facts, they will adapt the theory to the facts.

noone has yet explained fully how everything has come from nothing, or from one atom.

That's the question, if there was a big bang, and what was before the big bang.
Really disturbing!

But the same with the creator. Where does he come from? Where was he and what did he do all the time, before he created the universe?

If we replace  the words BIG BANG and EVOLUTION with the word GOD, it doesn't change much. We don't understand anything better.

[pianistimo]

yet...God has given us the bible to understand Him by.  He may not tell us everything - but He certainly gives us a lot of clues.  did you realize that saddam hussein was rebuilding ancient babylon.  did you realize that there are many artifacts that go back to the ancient city that is spoken of in the bible.  where daniel resided?  the hanging gardens, i believe, are mentioned in the bible AND in history books.

if you ever research geneology, you'll find that names change slightly and people are given different names - as daniel was called 'belteshazzar.'  because God always seems to have a way of proving Himself through archeology - i'm waiting to find this name among the ruins of babylon.  and, also, some of the actual names of the rulers of babylon the bible have ALREADY been found.

btw, babylon was given it's name by the tower of babel.

[ahinton]

Same applies to the creation story.

But you're right: evolution is theory. As scientists find new facts, they will adapt the theory to the facts.

That's the question, if there was a big bang, and what was before the big bang.
Really disturbing!

I keep telling you people that the creation was by Haydn; if you don;t believe me and want some evidence, just look (or perhaps listen to) at the BIG BANG in his "Surprise" Symphony...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

cute, alistair.  you do have a way of lightening the situation.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, you are using two fallacies that I have personally already pointed out.

First, that evolution cannot be a fact because it is a theory. Actually, in science a theory is a higher level of understanding than a fact. A theory explains thousands of other facts, it unites facts.

All fields of science are called 'theory of X'.

Same applies to the creation story.

No. Creation isn't even a hypothesis. It is just 'God did it'. How? That's not explained. Creationism is not a theory. It is mythology.


Watch this video by a christian who is also a respected professor of cellular biology:

The second, that the bible must be the complete and inerrant world of god because there are things in it that are factual true and historical accurate.

Didn't I talk in depth about the Illiad? Troy? You never gave a response. Why?

Let me just requote myself:

The fact that some things in the bible are reliable doesn't mean it is all right. I have seen Pianistimo make this claim. Because of the nature of the bible it is based on actual stories and actual events. Just like the story of the Illiad. The story is fiction but Illium probably existed. These stories all get a life of their own and develop on their own. Illium may have existed, though some still doubt it. The event of the Troyan war is doubtful also. Maybe there have been many wars and the story doesn't tell the story of any of them. Maybe it does tell the story of a long siege. But then, does anyone believe that all words written down about Achilles his speech are totally correct?

Then two months later I had to repeat myself because still you used your fallacy.

It's just stupid. Let's take a very similar example. The Illiad, the story of Troy. Do you believe that everything in this story actually happened? That Athena came down from mount olympiad to help Achillis? I don't.

But at the same time there is all this archeological evidence. We have the city of Troy itself. We have the town of King Agamemnon, Mycenae.

Now, I know all these cities existed. But I don't know to what extent the story of the Illiad is true. There probably was a war between the greeks and the people living on the coast of present-day Turkey. There were probably many wars, involving many sieges.

You don't believe that the events of the Illiad are historical truth either. But if you apply the same logic you should. But you don't. You just cherry pick archeological facts, use fallacies to try to support your faith. And you know it. That is dishonest.

You don't care about archeological evidence at all. You already have your faith. Archelogy will not change it. If you find evidence in support of your faith you will slap it around our ears. But evidence against the bible you will just ignore. You can't use it to protect your delusion. Therefore it is of no use.

So even if the evidence is true, that's just abuse. Evidence should be use to find out the truth. Not to defend myth.

The question is: how likely is it that [thing X] in the bible is historical fact? You can not prove it. You can provide evidence that make it very probable, or nearly impossible.

Why? Why didn't you read them? Do it now. Or stop using your fallacy.

[ahinton]

yet...God has given us the bible to understand Him by.

Oh, please, not that again! The Bible has been handed down to us over two millennia or so, having been written by a number of different people who are the ones that "gave" it to us. I'll start lecturing you by waving the copyright banner in abit if you don't at least give each of the Bible's individual authors due credit for what they wrote! Next thing you'll be telling people is that God gave people my Sequentia Claviensis!

He may not tell us everything - but He certainly gives us a lot of clues.  did you realize that saddam hussein was rebuilding ancient babylon.  did you realize that there are many artifacts that go back to the ancient city that is spoken of in the bible.  where daniel resided?  the hanging gardens, i believe, are mentioned in the bible AND in history books.

I think that you'll find that the vast majority of people would say that Saddam Hussein was destroying rather than rebuilding anything. I have no problem with the rest of what you write here.

God always seems to have a way of proving Himself through archeology

From what I understand of your God, who is omniscient, omnipresent and all the rest, it would not have occurred to me that He'd feel any need to "prove" Himself..

- i'm waiting to find this name among the ruins of babylon.

I didn't know that you were actually conducting archćological research in Iraq.

and, also, some of the actual names of the rulers of babylon the bible have ALREADY been found.

Well, I don't suppose that this is so very surprising, really...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

cute, alistair.  you do have a way of lightening the situation.

Well, the thread includes the words "I have sen the light", so if the posts therein seem from time to time to explore darker territory (even if not "dark matter" in the literal sense), I guess that abit of lightening wouldn't come amiss.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Why didn't you read them? Do it now. Or stop using your fallacy.

She uses a fallacy because she's sad, you see (think about it!...)

Whilst I don't especially want this to get into a let's-all-tell-pianistimo-what-to-do-fest, might I suggest that, in addition to reading what you recommend here, she sing that well known George & Ira Gershwin song to which I have already twice drawn her attention on this forum every day when she gets up in the morning and then once again before going to bed each night, accompanying herself on the piano? I refer, of course, to It Ain't Necessarily So...

Best,

Alistair

[asyncopated]

If we replace  the words BIG BANG and EVOLUTION with the word GOD, it doesn't change much. We don't understand anything better.

This a ways of trying to explain the world around us as we see it today, (red-shift in stars and the complexity of life) through slow progression.  We may not be very accurate, but know that most of it is more than just a reasonable theory and gives us some clue to what is happening around us.

In contrast to creation, which is, everything was magiked into existence the way things are not so long ago. 

Ermmm.... yes sure. Not much difference.
 

[pianistimo]

dear prometheus,

you may find this odd, but i hope the location of atlantis and part of the illiad and odessy IS true.  do you know why?  because it would located under water!  the story itself as told by plato years earlier (with the idea of timaeus and criteas) were that the atlantans had defeated many european countries but the athenians drove them out of europe.  the evidence for this was destroyed and records lost due to A GREAT FLOOD!

www.contentmart.com/ContentMart/Content.asp?LinkID=30728&CatID=178&content=1

scroll down to find article.

dear asyncopated,

i do hear you and prometheus and grant you that the same type of 'faith' (excepting faith in science and faith in God are quite different) is needed to believe either EVERYTHING from science or EVERYTHING from God.  i believe they coexist together and always have.  God is either totally true - or his bible is rubbish.  i tend to think He is infallible.

my husband studied physics and although he is working with computers now, i asked him this morning what he thought dark matter was made of.  he said, 'well, we know it has tremendous gravity...'  so i asked - is it possible it holds photons?  he said 'because of the gravity, we don't know exactly what particles it could hold - but they wouldn't be visible...'   

[prometheus]

Maybe so(actually probably not). But that is not what I was talking about.


We know that things from the Illiad are historical fact.

We know things from the bible are historical fact.
Because of that you believe the bible is totally accurate. So the story of Jesus dying and being ressurected must be true for this reason.


But if you follow that logic then you also need to believe that Athena actually helped Achilles in his fight against the Troyans.


See. Your logic is flawed.



I sure hope Atlantis existed. As do many people. But it almost certainly doesn't. And it has been supposedly 'found' a dozen times. Just like the arch of Noah. And we can build a second arc of Noah with all the pieces of wood that are supposed to have been part of Jesus his cross.

[ahinton]

dear prometheus,

you may find this odd, but i hope the location of atlantis and part of the illiad and odessy IS true.  do you know why?  because it would located under water!  the story itself as told by plato years earlier (with the idea of timaeus and criteas) were that the atlantans had defeated many european countries but the athenians drove them out of europe.  the evidence for this was destroyed and records lost due to A GREAT FLOOD!

www.contentmart.com/ContentMart/Content.asp?LinkID=30728&CatID=178&content=1

scroll down to find article.

I know that I am not "prometheus" so I don't want to seem as though I am rudely replying on anyone else's behalf, but please let's get this into perspective; no one (at least as far as I am aware) is suggesting that this earth has never witnessed any major floods, land mass movements, ice ages, climate change and the like, but what you proposed only a few days back was the idea that the entire world was once under water a mere 6,000 years ago! You will doubtless recall that I took that apart and questioned it, pointing out that the changes to the world since would have been quite incredibly drastic in order for all those millions of cubic miles of water somehow to have evaporated off the face of the earth in so short a time; I also questioned why you would think that God would choose to create an earth with so much water on it and then get rid of the greater part of all that water. You didn't answer, however...

Best,

Alistair