When the level of bravado dies down a bit, please read in full.....

http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html

Ah, another person who assumes they're going to be a revolutionary just because they can find examples of someone else who was... How quaint

(August 4, 2011 at 7:33 am)theVOID Wrote: Ah, another person who assumes they're going to be a revolutionary just because they can find examples of someone else who was... How quaint

Just highlighting the meat-head attitudes that meant a great theory was kept from the world by seventy years. More about you than me.

Problem is there's no evidence, you cannot use the "holey scriptures" to an account of any being whose ontology is, at best, on questionable and unsupported foundations.

To be honest there's more weight behind the theory that the Great Sphinx was originally a lion, the first idol ever made by humankind worshipped as a god, as lions were in ancient civilizations revered and feared for their strength and ferocity.

I was taught Plate Tectonics in school in the 70's Hannah... 40 years ago. Yes Wegener's theory was abandoned until the 60's, where the causal mechanisms were described.
What's the problem with acknowledging the fact?

(August 4, 2011 at 7:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I was taught Plate Tectonics in school in the 70's Hannah... 40 years ago. Yes Wegener's theory was abandoned until the 60's, where the causal mechanisms were described.
What's the problem with acknowledging the fact?

You know the point I was trying to make assehole.

(August 4, 2011 at 7:44 am)Hannah Wrote:

(August 4, 2011 at 7:33 am)theVOID Wrote: Ah, another person who assumes they're going to be a revolutionary just because they can find examples of someone else who was... How quaint

Just highlighting the meat-head attitudes that meant a great theory was kept from the world by seventy years. More about you than me.

Oh sure, everyone who rejected his hypothesis must have been a 'meat-head', just like everyone who rejects your hypothesis right?

Oh, wait, it was because his hypothesis had no compelling mechanism! From your own link;

"New theories do not always arrive with all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Wegener did not have an explanation for how continental drift could have occurred. He proposed two different mechanisms for this drift, one based on the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth and a 'tidal argument' based on the tidal attraction of the sun and the moon. These explanations could easily be proven inadequate and opened Wegener to ridicule because they were orders of magnitude too weak"

While his hypothesis could explain the distribution of animals and fossils, as well as other geological features, the mechanisms he proposed by which it could happen were rather absurd and poorly supported by evidence - It took the proposal of an entirely new mechanism, plate tectonics, to provide a reasonable explanation for how the drift occurred - without a reasonable mechanism it would have been foolish to accept his hypothesis at face value.

Your explanation can explain some of the language used to describe YHWH but the problems with your idea are much worse than lacking a mechanism, you are trying to argue based on the psychology of fictional group of people taking a fictional journey and experiencing fictional events.

Look, Hannah. Exodus isn't the revealed word, and it isn't a historical account. It doesn't have to be one or the other. People are capable of fiction, always have been. It's almost an insult to those people when you assume they just couldn't write fiction. However, if you want the description of god to be a Volcano, that's fine, but source the description of god farther back. Hebrews were Canaanites, they didn't steal pharoah's gold and flee through the Saudi Desert. Mt. Sinai is not somewhere else, etc etc etc.

(August 4, 2011 at 8:18 am)theVOID Wrote:

(August 4, 2011 at 7:44 am)Hannah Wrote:

(August 4, 2011 at 7:33 am)theVOID Wrote: Ah, another person who assumes they're going to be a revolutionary just because they can find examples of someone else who was... How quaint

Just highlighting the meat-head attitudes that meant a great theory was kept from the world by seventy years. More about you than me.

Oh sure, everyone who rejected his hypothesis must have been a 'meat-head', just like everyone who rejects your hypothesis right?

Oh, wait, it was because his hypothesis had no compelling mechanism! From your own link;

"New theories do not always arrive with all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Wegener did not have an explanation for how continental drift could have occurred. He proposed two different mechanisms for this drift, one based on the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth and a 'tidal argument' based on the tidal attraction of the sun and the moon. These explanations could easily be proven inadequate and opened Wegener to ridicule because they were orders of magnitude too weak"

While his hypothesis could explain the distribution of animals and fossils, as well as other geological features, the mechanisms he proposed by which it could happen were rather absurd and poorly supported by evidence - It took the proposal of an entirely new mechanism, plate tectonics, to provide a reasonable explanation for how the drift occurred - without a reasonable mechanism it would have been foolish to accept his hypothesis at face value.

Your explanation can explain some of the language used to describe YHWH but the problems with your idea are much worse than lacking a mechanism, you are trying to argue based on the psychology of fictional group of people taking a fictional journey and experiencing fictional events.

Stop cherry picking! The article says his goals were humble. He just wanted to open up the debate. Just like me...I just wanted to do some brains storming. I didn't realise this place was so full of closed minded people totally incapable of thinking outside the box. He probably thought the same thing and wondered why everyone was so vitriolic when all he wanted to do was tell them what he envisioned.

There is an open debate, one with physical evidence attached, and that physical evidence excludes your theory in the list of possible explanations. Am I clear?