It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



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.


Hey..um...I...um...write the way I speak. I grew up with a minor stutter and have replaced parts of my stutter with an 'um', I happen to write like that sometimes. It's not condescension, it's me not really editing unnecessary utterances out of my posts before I write them.

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



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


Oh not this excrement again




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


Yes, no theory is ever considered 100% certain or infallible, but it is actionable. Theories are 'proven' by being able to use them. Are they predictive? Hells yes. The theory of evolution predicted a great many fossil findings.

Again, it's never 100%, for we can never have all the evidence, but you can use them. A good example is circuit theory. It's not 100% certain, but it's never been falsified.

A theory must be falsifiable to be science, both evolution and circuit theory have that in common. If you show me a bunny in the pre-Cambrian fossil record, evolution sort of goes away in a puff of confused profanities.


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]


Yes, but that doesn't mean that all scientific concepts are equal. There's a reason why there's a difference between a 'hypothesis' and a 'theory'.

And why is it that people who support a creator are always keen to quote an agnostic?



You're assertion that there is no Creator


I'm sorry, I had to take this in two parts because there are two separately incorrect clauses to the sentence.

I'm not asserting: "there is no creator", I do not see reason to believe it.
Think of it as an on/off switch. You are in the "on" position, signifying that you believe in a creator.
I'm in a position where I'm in the "off" position, signifying that I don't believe there is a creator.

The burden of evidence is upon you, so I would never make the assertion that there isn't a creator.



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


It is proven. Science has a different understanding of the word 'proof'. For science a theory is proven if you can apply it to the world.

My acceptance of the scientific fact of evolution is no more philosophical than my acceptance of circuit theory or germ theory.



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


No, it really doesn't. You're mixing up science, mathematics, and philosophy to simply make a mess.



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


Wow, that's the most unscientific statement I've seen all day. Congratulations!

You just posited the existence of something which currently has absolutely no evidence to support its existence. That is inherently against science.

And here's the crazy thing...if there is a deity, it might not even interfere with science as we know it.




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.


Again, plants before the sun, the moon is a light, birds before land animals, land plant life before sea animal life, geocentricism, etc.

Genesis gets it completely wrong



It does repeat itself.


And when it repeats itself it contradicts itself between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2....



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


Except for such basics as....the heliocentric model of the universe...evolution...that the moon isn't a light....so much more.



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


And all Genesis pleases are those who accept it prior to examining it.



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


And neither did Yahweh, Allah, or any other Earthly religion.



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.


Actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a book, unicorns are in the book you refer to, and having a damn book doesn't make a difference.

And none of the things that are laid out in that book speaks anything to the validity of its claims.

Humans are not that important, stop being so ego-centric



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.


...yes, but theories only change for good reason. As of right now we have 150 years of inquiry into evolution and the only thing that has happened is that science has become more and more certain of it



Someday science will find the Creator.


Hey look, another baseless claim. Let me guess, it'll be the exact one from your special book and not someone else's, right?



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


And there are just as many things that it gets wrong.



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


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.




posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1

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.



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.

How does the tower of Babel existing automatically validate the rest of the bible claims? In Harry Potter, they did a good job at describing one of the train stations that really exists, or Oxford Circus...but that doesn't mean people can fly on brooms.

And the fact that stuff generally has a "beginning" doesn't mean the bible is right on all the other claims. In fact, we don't even know if there was a beginning when it comes to the universe as we can't see what happened before the big bang. So again, you're filling a gap in knowledge with "god".

That "coincidence" is nothing but the bible mixing in real historic accounts with completely made up stuff like burning talking bushes or global floods that never happened.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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.


Are you sure?


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.


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. Would it surprise you to know the flood waters from the "Epic" flood are still with us, just frozen at the poles and gathered within the oceans at enormous depths, conditions that did not initially exist when the flood waters fell.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


I hope you realize there's PLENTY of places higher up than 70m above sea level


Also, we lack any data that would back up that even such a 70m flood happened. We have evidence for local floods at varying times...but no global flood. Nice try though



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


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

Circle, and circles, and circles again...

And after every patient explanation and setting-right the silence only lasts till it's time for the next visit to the potty.

This isn't ignorance, madness, it's deliberate misunderstanding with an agenda behind it. I say ignore the troll and move on. He doesn't have a clue, anyway. He's arguing from Bible-study class shibboleths and his prejudices.


edit on 29/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


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...

Oh, take a few more metres, Blue_Jay33. Be my guest. Take a hundred. Oh heck, why skimp, take two hundred if you like.

Since you're American, you won't be annoyed at my reminding you that 100 metres is a mere 320 feet. But, being a good Christian, you won't need reminding that the Biblical Flood is supposed to have covered the entire Earth (it says so right there in Genesis Seven, Verses Nineteen to Twenty-Three--read em! Remember the birds that Noah sent out that returned to the Ark because there was nowhere to perch, till finally the dove came back with the olive twig? The Bible says there was no land anywhere.

The height of Mt. Everest is 8,848 metres or 29,029 ft. How many melted icecaps would it take melt to cover that? Even the Rat Pack didn't get through so many ice cubes in their lifetime.

By the way, the world population in 2000BCE was about 27 million. In 1000BCE (King David's time) it was still only about 50 million. Source Plently of room for them all even with a 200m sea rise, I should think. Did you know the average height above sea level of the Earth's landmasses today? You can find out here. The answer may surprise you.


edit on 29/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 



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.


No problem, this is a text medium where tone is very difficult to convey.




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.


Yes, outright falsehoods.



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


Yes, and science makes either no claim or a very tentative hypothesis that it isn't too attached to. The Bible makes absolute claims.



Or "conditions were different on earth back then !"


Because they were. That's observable from evidence.



Flood legends exist around the earth.


Yes, because many early cultures moved themselves very close to water supplies and floods happened often enough for myths to arise of really big ones.

The prevalence of mythology is no argument for the prevalence of events. And the flood myths contradict each other heavily.



There is evidence that great climatic events took place.


Yes, but never global floods.



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


And somehow added a few billion gallons more water to the Earth that mysteriously vanished?



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


Yes, it is said by...people who aren't historians.

And there was civilization prior Mesopotamia and parallel to it. It was just the first place where certain key factors (like writing) originated.



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


Except that they didn't. People were widespread prior to civilization. I live in a country that has 7000-5000 year stone structures littered all over.



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


Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the universe or life had a point of origin. Animals, plants, birds, and fish are all flung fully formed into existence.



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


Please, don't prove the point of my 'Ignorance of Creationists' thread by misinterpreting this. Our last common male ancestor is actually separated from our last common female ancestor by thousands of years.

They are colloquially referred to as "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" for the simple mythical connotations, not because they lived together or even within a lifetime of each other. Several thousand years separate them



What a coincidence.


Yep, Adam and Eve must have existed thousands of years apart.

 


And why is it that creationists tend to abandon the majority of their points in responses to me?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





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.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


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


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.


Two words: Plate tectonics.



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.


Yes, over hundreds of millions of years. There is no evidence of (non-volcanic) formation of mountains in thousands of years.



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)


Until it all trickled back into the ocean basins....because they'd be empty...and water tends towards filling in those sorts of deep empty spaces...



So, after the floodwaters fell,


From where how quickly and how?



but before the raising of mountains


Hundreds of years ago.



and the lowering of seabeds


Um...always quite low....



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


Nope, still wouldn't be enough.

Here's the crazy thing about hydrodynamics: the basics aren't too hard to grasp.

A single question to refute the global flood argument: 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?

If you can answer that question, we can proceed with rational discourse



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


Well, if the flood happened (I'm only taking it as a matter of argument), and it happened several thousand years ago, you would be correct. The problem is that the differential in height wouldn't be significant enough to change the outcomes.



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?


Um...I thought it happened in a rain of 40 days and 40 nights...that isn't all too sudden, is it?



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


...ok, now you're really going to just outright give me some mathematics and science to back up these claims. Idle speculation is one thing, please give me some actual math to back it up.



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


Please, provide evidence that any of that is scientifically possible. Also, no citations?



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


Um...yes, because rhinos and mammoths didn't all live in one place. Of course, they've never been found too far from their respective natural habitats.

And again, citations?



Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs;


Citation which explains why exactly a mammoth in Siberia is crazy (hint, it isn't)



others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice.


Again, citation.



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


Here's something odd...a global flood of primarily salinated water would make something very difficult to 'quick freeze'.

Please, demonstrate how a global flood would allow for quick freezing.




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.



...yes, because things do deeper than higher on this planet. Of course, the water in the Mariana Trench would still tend towards lower land and eventually would not allow for the peaks to remain covered.



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


Again I ask: 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?



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


Because it's silly and goes against all conceptions of hydrodynamics.
Argument from tradition? That's a logical fallacy.



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


...Argumentum ad populum, also known as the 'bandwagon fallacy'



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


Once more I ask: 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?
(And don't worry, just answer it once)



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


Wow, random statement much? Citation needed.
edit on 29/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: More dramatic formating



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WfknSmth
What the fawk is going on in this thread??

I went off to work and when I came back this thread somehow became about some ridiculous questions about the meaning of "light" in the bible? Seriously - who cares?!

Originally postet by edmc^2
Q: what's your deffinition of Creation?

What?! I dont have a "personal definition" of Creation/-ism. I dont need one... I use the one already existing and so should you!

I thought this thread was about "Evolution compatible with Creation?" not "lets make up some personal definitions until my "facts" fit my point". This is ridiculous!



MrSmth - I was a bit preplex and surprised when I read this post of yours. I thought you were a mature person based on your past post - but I guess I was mistaken and thus my complements to you I take back. My apologies for it.

Now, you said:


I went off to work and when I came back this thread somehow became about some ridiculous questions about the meaning of "light" in the bible? Seriously - who cares?!


To this I say "falsum in uno falsum in toto". That's why it's not "ridiculous" to ask questions about the meaning of "light" or something. Besides we might get enlightened more if we understand clearly what were talking about. So my I suggest to cease/desist (on the curse words) and relax.


ty,
edmc2

will continue the discussion asap.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
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



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



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.


No, you clearly missed the point. Are you saying the water appeared in the system by magic and then was disappeared by this exact same mechanism? If there was ever enough water to cover the entire surface of our planet we would still be underwater.

It's very basic.
Unless you're saying that the oceans remained empty while Everest was covered till its peak in water...which would still leave the majority of the Earth dry.

What I'm saying is that there isn't enough water on Earth to both cover all the land and the oceans without there being any dry spots.

Could you please provide something to contradict this based in mathematical reasoning?





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.


...ok, but I asked for mathematics on this. You didn't provide any. Also, how much shallower? How much lower? There is absolutely no data to support any of the mountain ranges of Earth being much lower in the last thousand years, nor is there any evidence of the oceans being much shallower.

Quick question: How long ago did this supposedly happen?



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


Please, define this term. Please, explain to me exactly how it would have added water to the system, explain using physics, geology, and/or mathematics how it would have changed the terrain of the Earth in the manner it has, and finally explain where the physical evidence of this is.



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


...or I could say your argument, like others before it, is baseless. I could also realize that my refutations will be ignored in this case just as readily as they have been in others.

I asked for specific things, you have yet to provide any of them.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


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

Look who's talking...

You started this thread to point out that the evolution-theory would be compatible with creationism...
Then you went right on comparing the orders of genesis and the scientific theory about the origin of life (abiogenesis).
Not the same. Everyone told you this over and over again... still you go "la-la-la-la-la"

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

Yes! Go ahead, actually look up the terms you throw around for once.

You do that and I promise I will cease on my cursing



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


So now "god" dumped all land into water...suuuuuuure. And your evidence for that is?




edit on 29-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


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

Be my guest, madnessinmysoul, and take a star from me as well.

But you won't mind, I'm sure, if I add a little digestif of my own to the repast you have just laid out. As follows...

*


reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

My dear Blue_Jay33, your reply to my post simply does not, so to speak, hold water. Indeed, as madness has shown, it leaks like a sieve.

But why do you feel the need to explain all this scientifically, anyway? Don't you believe this Flood of yours was sent by God? Isn't God omnipotent? Well then, He could easily create or import from elsewhere in the cosmos all the water He wanted, flood the Earth to the rafters and drown every living thing apart from a few samples preserved in a floating tissue bank.

Afterwards, whenever it suited Him, He could dispose of the water by simply making it all vanish, or teleporting it into the Sun, or by any other means He fancied. Surely such acts would lie within the power of the Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible?

The only question left then to ask would be: why would a supposedly good God indulge in such an orgy of slaughter? The Bible has an answer to this, I believe; a somewhat nauseating one. Would you like to repeat it here, so we can see just how good and moral is this God you worship?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I give you answers, yet you say they are wrong, and say I have to try again....well I don't, because they are correct from my perspective, so I have nothing left to add. The only reason I even respond to your posts is so people that have spirituality and faith can understand.
There is another to blame for your inability to see all these things.

2 Corinthians 4:4

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

That's why I feel pity for you.
End of Discussion.(On the flood anyway)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Now I understand how the flood covered the entire earth.
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, except for one family and two of each creature.

Just wondering, re Noah and his family, how good and pure were they? Between them, did they have every STD known to man, or did God create STDs later?

So there had been huge sheets of ice at the poles, and god melted these, evaporated them, and made them fall down over the next month-and-a-bit. Why the rain? Doesn't it seem odd that these ice sheets melted, but the story is not about a huge tidal wave, it's about rain falling down? Seems a rather round-about way of drowning all the naughty wee manikens you've made, if you ask me.

Now everything was under water, so the first poor birdie sent out to look for land never returned. abut gradually the flood subsided ....
A flood covering the whole earth subsided? Where did it go? And it did this quickly enough for everyone on the ark to survive? There's nowhere for the water to run off to, because the water is already everywhere. It takes a lot of time to rebuild the massive ice sheets this flood supposedly came from. If it was evaporating it would just keep falling down again; the clouds cant hold that amount of water.There's no plug hole in the ocean depths to let the water out . . . unless you believe in the Hollow Earth notion.

As Sherlock Holmes said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Well, we've eliminated everything else, so the only other possibility must be the answer.
Noah and his family got really, really thirsty and drank up enough of the excess sea water to reval Mount Ararat..

Now a second bird is released, and finds Mt Ararat. Which isn't really a mountain back then, it's more of a hill. And there Noah's family disembark, and settle, children marrying cousins for generations, which we know causes terrible genetic defects.

I always wondered why bible historians look for Noah's ark. In that situation the wood would be a precious resource. Houses would have to be built; what would you build them from?
What was not used in building houses or animal pens would be burnt for fuel.

All the animals are released, all apparently finding the food they need to survive there. Sadly, many of them could only survive by eating the other animals. Bye bye dinosaurs. - No more riding on the back of Brachiosaurus for Noah and his descendants. Bye bye unicorns. The remainder, well, study the fates of endangered species, and you'll discover a single breeding pair is not considered enough for the continuence of a species. Once the population drops below a certain number, they tend to all die out.

I gather the creationists in this thread allow for a 4.5 billion year old earth, by ignoring the evening and morning specifications given to days in the first creation account. So you guys believe the surface of the Earth was quite flattish for the first 4.5 billion years of the history of this Earth, and then in the 4,000 years you claim has passed since this great flood, god invented plate tectonics and pushed the plates around to create mountains, and water suddenly dug holes in the sea floor, creating trenches. So why does the bible, which you claim correctly delineates history, not document a single one of these amazing events? Why have they only happened so recently? Why have they slowed down now?


All cultures have Myths. Jews and other Semites, being the most direct descendants of the culture which documented the Hebrew myths, accept that these are myths. Most Christians accept that these are myths.
Yet one small group of Christians wants to believe every word is the literal truth, even if they have to rewrite Genesis to make it fit in with their uneducatiod notion of what happened.

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?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Then why are you on this thread arguing with us in the first place?

Shouldn't you be over in that corner there, praying mightily for our souls?

Or are you preaching to us? I believe that is against the T&C. But just so long as you are, how about answering this?


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?



edit on 30/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


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...

You meant 'pissed' literally, didn't you? Bad girl.


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

Down the plughole at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, obviously. God always flushes.


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?

By George, Pickering, I think she's got it!



edit on 29/11/10 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join