Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2015, 09:45 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,926,084 times
Reputation: 1010

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
It doesn't matter. The absurd exhibition our pal Eusebius is putting on is probably doing more to help the cause of Bibledoubt than all the posting we can do.

I loved the ...hang on...'The land was submerged by water. I don't know what else to call it other than a flood.'

Of course he does - the Biblical flood. The Flood of Noah. The Flood of Genesis. Evidence of a flood that was not total is evidence that the Biblical flood in NOT true.

To clarify the apologetics opportunity for crafty equivocation, the Biblical flood may describe an evidence - supported global (but not total) flood (1). But the evidence- supported global (but not total) flood does not support the Biblical one.

The discussion about God's light is of course light years from the Genesis -refuting day and night before the sun was made argument, which is itself light years from transitional Hominid fossils. I would guess that Mensa and June are letting the thread go on because Eusebius in denial -mode is worth two divisions to atheism.



Evey one of the dozens you have produced has turned out to be no reason at all. I doubt that the others are any better.

Badlander will find out that the ONLY argument you have is 'It's in the Bible, so it must be true'. All the rest is admittedly ingenious explanation to get around problems. They eventually run into further problems and then you revert to evasion and denial.

But let your latest opponent find out for himself.

If only. There was a comic strip showing how an alien invasion would be particularly easy here if Fundies ran the world. They would simply deny that it was happening, and anyway, God would save them (2).



Faith - based denial of everything, problems, doubts, facts, evidence, being wrong. You can't beat it..literally.


(1) though I don't think it does. I think Noah's flood is based on the Babylon flood story which is based on purely local floods in the Mesopotamian valley

(2)..in fact. If a hostile race who wanted to enslave the world played their cards right, they would simply announce that they were all fervent Fundy Christians on their home planet. The Fundies would love it and eagerly collaborate in their plan to enslave and exploit us all for their own benefit.....in fact...
*yawn*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2015, 11:24 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
*yawn*
You're running out of even pitiful responses. But none of that was really intended for your edification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 12:49 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,301,683 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
It

Badlander will find out that the ONLY argument you have is 'It's in the Bible, so it must be true'. All the rest is admittedly ingenious explanation to get around problems. They eventually run into further problems and then you revert to evasion and denial.

...
I was in on one of the threads about the proof of a global flood, in summary there are sediments on the ground and the only way that sediments get there is by flood and hence the Bible is correct (Coles Notes or are they Cliffs Notes). Oh and all the geologists and geomorphologists do not know what they are doing. I might have missed a couple of details.

Its just that he makes statements that I really do not know what he trying to say or mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,788,315 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
I was in on one of the threads about the proof of a global flood, in summary there are sediments on the ground and the only way that sediments get there is by flood and hence the Bible is correct (Coles Notes or are they Cliffs Notes). Oh and all the geologists and geomorphologists do not know what they are doing. I might have missed a couple of details.

Its just that he makes statements that I really do not know what he trying to say or mean.
Oh yeah, Cliffs Notes. Too funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 02:48 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,926,084 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You're running out of even pitiful responses. But none of that was really intended for your edification.
That's okay, I still think you are a swell guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,513 posts, read 37,061,236 times
Reputation: 13985
If the Noah's ark story were true, then there would be no rabbits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 06:13 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
I was in on one of the threads about the proof of a global flood, in summary there are sediments on the ground and the only way that sediments get there is by flood and hence the Bible is correct (Coles Notes or are they Cliffs Notes). Oh and all the geologists and geomorphologists do not know what they are doing. I might have missed a couple of details.

Its just that he makes statements that I really do not know what he trying to say or mean.
The only way you can make the Biblical flood -story look credible is to show that it fits the evidence better than the floodless geological/ Palaeontological explanation.

If you ..or rather the apologist...can make it fit as an alternative theory, that doesn't make it right, or true, but an equally valid explanation. But, the more discussion goes on, the less they have. They had polystrates, but there was an alternative explanation. Now it seems that some 'growing' on top of others means that polystrates disprove the flood theory. Eat your heart out Kent Hovind.

The experiment showing that precipitation can lay down strata was useful in explaining why the flood doesn't show one layer full of all creation, fossilized. But, even accepting that, the types of fossils in the various layers fit exactly the evolutionary scenario and do not at all fit a Flod -destruction scenario. The attempt to explain that as 'some could escape better' does not even get off the ground.

So good for those who try to produce a case, but on just about every point I can think of, there is no convincing evidence FOR a flood, plenty of good evidence against a flood, and the attempt to make a valid equally good alternative theory does not work.

It's the same with DNA. The best they have is 'the same maker'. But that doesn't address the varying similarity of DNA that exactly matches the tree of Life. It does not fit anything in the Creation idea.

The same with morphology. The modifies land -animal features of sea -mammals and birds fit the evolution idea. A design from scratch would surely have some design that looked like it derived from arm -bones.

So we get 'God just did it that way'. And appeal to Bible authority. Ok - they can do that if they must. But to then claim that the evidence supports Creationism is totally false.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 06:55 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,301,683 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
The only way you can make the Biblical flood -story look credible is to show that it fits the evidence better than the floodless geological/ Palaeontological explanation.

If you ..or rather the apologist...can make it fit as an alternative theory, that doesn't make it right, or true, but an equally valid explanation. But, the more discussion goes on, the less they have. They had polystrates, but there was an alternative explanation. Now it seems that some 'growing' on top of others means that polystrates disprove the flood theory. Eat your heart out Kent Hovind.

The experiment showing that precipitation can lay down strata was useful in explaining why the flood doesn't show one layer full of all creation, fossilized. But, even accepting that, the types of fossils in the various layers fit exactly the evolutionary scenario and do not at all fit a Flod -destruction scenario. The attempt to explain that as 'some could escape better' does not even get off the ground.

So good for those who try to produce a case, but on just about every point I can think of, there is no convincing evidence FOR a flood, plenty of good evidence against a flood, and the attempt to make a valid equally good alternative theory does not work.

It's the same with DNA. The best they have is 'the same maker'. But that doesn't address the varying similarity of DNA that exactly matches the tree of Life. It does not fit anything in the Creation idea.

The same with morphology. The modifies land -animal features of sea -mammals and birds fit the evolution idea. A design from scratch would surely have some design that looked like it derived from arm -bones.

So we get 'God just did it that way'. And appeal to Bible authority. Ok - they can do that if they must. But to then claim that the evidence supports Creationism is totally false.
It is not that difficult, all you need is to not understand the evidence or perhaps what evidence is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,108,889 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
I was in on one of the threads about the proof of a global flood, in summary there are sediments on the ground and the only way that sediments get there is by flood and hence the Bible is correct.
It would appear you have misquoted me.

I was quoting several different geological journals regarding the location of unusual sediments, such as sand deposits in the Andes Mountains.

Those deposits were made by tsunamis, not a flood.

There was no "Flood," but there was a "Deluge." The Hebrew word is mabbuwl which means deluge and not flood.

Evidence is mounting that a comet/comet swarm exploded over Canada ~12,900 years ago, creating crater impacts over Canada, and along the US Eastern Seaboard, and possibly elsewhere.

Impactors landing in the oceans would have generated tsunamis that devastated coastal areas where human settlements would have been located.

A tsunami could have been responsible for the total destruction of the western Antarctic ice sheet, which is why its age is not greater than ~8,000 years.

The comet/swarm explosion left evidence all over North America, and was the most likely factor leading to the extinction of large mammals in North America.

Extraterrestrial Impact Likely Source Of Sudden Ice Age Extinctions

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0924172959.htm

Exploding Asteroid Theory Strengthened By New Evidence Located In Ohio, Indiana


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0702160950.htm


Quote:
Was the course of life on the planet altered 12,900 years ago by a giant comet exploding over Canada? New evidence suggests the answer is affirmative. The timing attached to this theory of about 12,900 years ago is consistent with the known disappearances in North America of the wooly mammoth population and the first distinct human society to inhabit the continent, known as the Clovis civilization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2015, 08:44 PM
 
371 posts, read 337,004 times
Reputation: 207
Crikey all you guys debating this. Can't y'all be excited by this incredible new find? Instead of trying to bury it or reason it away(rest assured that peer review was busy trying to tear this apart and it survived them)


Mass extinctions are neat. I have to wonder what the world looked like after the Permian-90% of species disappearing-oceans anoxic. A few organisms went to dominate the world for the next few million years...masses of lumbering Lystrosaurus for example.



and it took another 10-100million more years before ecosystems reach former complexity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top