Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

Wow...um...

You are really good at that.

The condescending, dismissive um, that you use time and time again. If I had a dollar every time you used that, I would be, um, rich.

You are the same guy trying to "prove" the theory of evolution?

A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain.

Scientific Method

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. —Albert Einstein[1]

You're assertion that there is no Creator

and that evolution is "proven" is a philosophy. You are entitled to that.

However it goes against the very principles that you say you believe.

In addition, if God reveals Himself, there will be a major adjustment to scientific theory.

Well, evolution could also be the result of Thor's hangover vomit from his wild night at the mead hall....but that doesn't mean that it's anywhere near probable or reasonable to think that.

I think Genesis lays it out pretty well.

It does repeat itself.

But for not being a scientific textbook it covers the basics.

Like anything in life, you can't please everybody.

Spaghetti monsters, Thor's vomit and unicorns, didn't lay out the beginning of the universe, and life on this planet.

They don't have a book that answers the questions of the human condition, who we are, why we are here, and what the future holds.

The interesting thing about scientific philosophy is you don't ever have to be certain about anything. Theories change and brilliant men are cast aside.

Someday science will find the Creator.

Until then, yes, there are things the Bible doesn't explain or address.

But I have learned that a gap in knowledge doesn't really mean anything.

I don't mean to be condescending or dismissive. Honestly the "Wow" is way more dismissive there.

It sort of does when the authorship claims to be directly inspired by all-knowing beings...
And outright falsehoods (Biblical creation account, Noah's flood, tower of Babel, etc) do mean something.

First of all, there isn't enough water on earth to cause a global flood, so the whole notion is complete nonsense. Of course LOCAL floods happen, all the time in fact, but a global flood as claimed in the bible is hogwash.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted.

Originally posted by dusty1
You are the same guy trying to "prove" the theory of evolution?

A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain.

Scientific Method

One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. — Albert Einstein[1]

You're assertion that there is no Creator and that evolution is "proven" is a philosophy. You are entitled to that.
However it goes against the very principles that you say you believe.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Oh no, not this excrement again

Take out North Pole ice melt and we would be at at least 70 Meters around the world, how much more livable ground space would be taken away from this planet...

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

I don't mean to be condescending or dismissive. Honestly the "Wow" is way more dismissive there.

OK, I misread you.

It sort of does when the authorship claims to be directly inspired by all-knowing beings...
And outright falsehoods (Biblical creation account, Noah's flood, tower of Babel, etc) do mean something.

Outright falsehoods?

Please.

When science doesn't have the answer, you reply that "we haven't found it yet !"

Or "conditions were different on earth back then !"

Flood legends exist around the earth.

There is evidence that great climatic events took place.

Science leans on the idea of glaciers, the Bible talks about a flood. Maybe God changed the axis of the earth just a bit.........

The tower of Babel, is said to have existed in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, hey, what a coincidence!

Civilizations spread out from one place. Which, harmonizes with the Bible.

Or, that the universe has a point of origin, or that life has a point of origin.

Science has also shown that humans can be traced back to one small group of humans or maybe even a first pair.

What a coincidence.

The height of Mt. Everest is 8,848 metres or 29,029 ft. How many melted icecaps would it take melt to cover that?

If Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth at 8,848 metres (29,029 ft), were set in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench, there would be 2,076 metres (6,811 ft) of water left above it.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

The height of Mt. Everest is 8,848 metres or 29,029 ft. How many melted icecaps would it take melt to cover that?

I believe that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans.

Scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas.

As to the present situation, it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic)

So, after the floodwaters fell,

but before the raising of mountains

and the lowering of seabeds

and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the bible says

So I don't believe Mt Everest was the height it is now when the flood fell.

1 US Gallon of water = approx. 8.35 lb. Multiply that out into billions of gallons suddenly put onto the earth crust and what happens?

You get some major upheavals(Mt Everest) and indentations(Mariana Trench) in the earth surface that never existed before.

It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch

Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth.

Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs;

others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice.

In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. Quick frozen.

If Mount Everest, the highest mountain on Earth at 8,848 metres (29,029 ft), were set in the deepest part of the Mariana Trench, there would be 2,076 metres (6,811 ft) of water left above it.

The above quote shows why it is believable that those flood waters are still with us on our Blue Planet,

nobody ever really knew any better, so why would they ever question it?

It is widely accepted that this is the way things have always been.

Even Noah and his immediate descendants probably didn't know just how much the oceans had expanded compared to the preflood times.

After all they restarted civilization from the highest parts of the Middle East.

If you have enough water to cover the entirety of the Earth, even the tallest mountains, in a system, why is that system not constantly submerged?

it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic)

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

---

If you have enough water to cover the entirety of the Earth, even the tallest mountains, in a system, why is that system not constantly submerged?

You asked this question repeatedly so I will answer in the simplest possible terms.

The "system" was changed by a Cataclysmic event, namely the flood.

So right now if the same amount of water fell minus the water suppose to already be here from the flood, you are correct the tallest mountain would not be covered.

However perhaps you missed this point.

it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic)

Indeed if mountains were lower and oceans a more shallow depth then the above would be possible in a Eco-system like that.

However that is not what we have today because of the Cataclysmic event.

You could say our world Eco-system evolved at and after the flood

Originally posted by edmc^2:
To this I say "falsum in uno falsum in toto".

Originally posted by edmc^2:
[...]we might get enlightened more if we understand clearly what were talking about.

Astyanax, I hope you don't mind me taking this one for you. It was just too good to pass up.

*

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message

Originally posted by Astyanax
The only question left then to ask would be: why would a supposedly good God indulge in such an orgy of slaughter?

God, in his infinite wisdom, created a flat earth. . . . no mountains, no valleys, no deep sea trenches, just a bit of a depression here and there for some salty puddles. Four thousand years back this good, kind, loving creator got awful pissed off with his creation, and drowned them all...

A flood covering the whole earth subsided? Where did it go?

Is it because, deep down, they find the claims of virgin birth, divine incarnation, walking on water, physically rising from the dead, and physical annunciation just too hard to believe if they allow themselves to question anything at all in the book which provides the only evidence of these beliefs? Are creationists being creationists because they live in fear of their subconcious disbeliefs surfacing? Do creationists sincerely believe in anything other than the hatred of a crazy, mad superbeing and the hell they believe he threatens them with?