My Unoffensive Challenge

[Astrophile]

As I understand it, sea water contains almost every element found on the Periodic Table.

Seawater contains a lot more chlorine (1.94%) than either silicon, which forms 27.7% of the Earth's crust, or iron, which forms about 30% of the total mass of the Earth. Also you are ignoring the fact that the mass of the solid Earth is more than 4000 times that of all the oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, and glaciers and ice caps put together.

 

[Paul Finch]

What data?

I'm a literal Genesis 1 creationist, and I say data can take a hike.

For creationists ignorance is a winning formula in fact ignorance actually personifies a creationist, the more ignorant, fact free and data free a person is the better the creationist they will make.
Be alert, your country needs lerts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seawater contains a lot more chlorine (1.94%) than either silicon, which forms 27.7% of the Earth's crust, or iron, which forms about 30% of the total mass of the Earth.

So?

Isn't God capable of selective extraction and element mining?

Also you are ignoring the fact that the mass of the solid Earth is more than 4000 times that of all the oceans, seas, rivers, lakes, and glaciers and ice caps put together.

So what?

That mass of sea water* could have been the size of the solar system while it was in the hollow of God's hand for all we know.

* For lack of a better term, I like to call it Terra Aqua.

 

[AV1611VET]

For creationists ignorance is a winning formula in fact ignorance actually personifies a creationist, the more ignorant, fact free and data free a person is the better the creationist they will make.
Be alert, your country needs lerts.

Speekna igninse yew nead tew git wan ov them spel chekors;

 

[Paul Finch]

For creationists ignorance is a winning formula in fact ignorance actually personifies a creationist, the more ignorant, fact free and data free a person is the better the creationist they will make.
Be alert, your country needs lerts.

Speekna igninse yew nead tew git wan ov them spel chekors;

I rest my case, you decide.

 

[Jimmy D]

So?

Isn't God capable of selective extraction and element mining?

Translated:
I'll make up any old ad hoc rubbish to handwave away any actual facts posted.

So what?

That mass of sea water* could have been the size of the solar system while it was in the hollow of God's hand for all we know.

* For lack of a better term, I like to call it Terra Aqua.

Translated:
I'll make up any old ad hoc rubbish to handwave away any actual facts posted.

Who are you trying to convince with this nonsense?

 

[AV1611VET]

I rest my case, you decide.

Fair enough.

I'm ignorant of science, you're ignorant of punctuation.

That makes us both ignorant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Translated:
I'll make up any old ad hoc rubbish to handwave away any actual facts posted.

Do you have a better explanation?

If so, I'm all ears.

Creationism is my forté.

Who are you trying to convince with this nonsense?

You, for one.

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you have a better explanation?

Natural processes.

That mass of sea water* could have been the size of the solar system while it was in the hollow of God's hand for all we know.

I'm glad that you're admitting the bible doesn't furnish us with such information. So what's more sensible, making up "could have's" or actually studying the Earth to find answers to such questions?

You, for one.

Sorry, but it's not working.

 

[AV1611VET]

Natural processes.

Natural processes doesn't cut it.

Natural processes is an explanation based on uniformitarianism, which rules out MAJOR miracles that God performed.

I'm glad that you're admitting the bible doesn't furnish us with such information.

I've only been saying that for 10½ years now.

So what's more sensible, making up "could have's" or actually studying the Earth to find answers to such questions?

I'd rather get my primary answers from the Bible, and my secondary answers from the Earth (see Psalm 19).

Sorry, but it's not working.

I know.

You're still an atheist.

I'll ask you something I've asked here more than once:

If evidence from the Earth is supposed to be so convincing that I should jettison my faith in a literal Genesis 1 creation, why isn't it convincing enough to get atheists to believe in God?

Science alone drags you down, it does not pull you up.

 

[Jimmy D]

Natural processes doesn't cut it.

Natural processes is an explanation based on uniformitarianism, which rules out MAJOR miracles that God performed.

When you've convinced me that there's a God we can consider it's miracles, until then they're ruled out as far as I'm concerned.

I've only been saying that for 10½ years now.

Fair enough.

I'd rather get my primary answers from the Bible, and my secondary answers from the Earth (see Psalm 19).

That would be why you are so often wrong then.

I know.

You're still an atheist.

I'll ask you something I've asked here more than once:

If evidence from the Earth is supposed to be so convincing that I should jettison my faith in a literal Genesis 1 creation, why isn't it convincing enough to get atheists to believe in God?

Science alone drags you down, it does not pull you up.

To be honest, I'd describe myself as more agnostic than atheist but I was too hasty when I joined up and I can't change it now.

My doubts about the existence of a God came about before I had any understanding of science (probably towards the end of primary school) so I don't think you can blame science for that one.

I don't really follow your question though. If the evidence is so strong why would it cause atheists to believe in God?

 

[Paul Finch]

Natural processes is an explanation based on uniformitarianism, which rules out MAJOR miracles that God performed.

Are you all reading this? it doesn't take a degree in psychiatry to see that this man has got problems.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you've convinced me that there's a God we can consider it's miracles, until then they're ruled out as far as I'm concerned.

Ya ... your brand of science can go [back] to Hell.

As we speak, my wife is wearing a heart monitor, care of those who do real (Godly) science.

Your (plural) particular brand of science, based on naturalism and uniformitarianism, has given us Thalidomide, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, L'Aquila, the Deepwater Horizon, the Exxon Valdez, Pluto demoted, polluted streams, toxic shock syndrome (remember Rely products? nice name), the Titanic, the Hindenburg, slavery, WW2, racism, Y2K, the Harmonic Convergence, killer bees, the Bible out of school, the Ten Commandments off of public property, and a host of other stuff.

To be honest, I'd describe myself as more agnostic than atheist but I was too hasty when I joined up and I can't change it now.

Which brings up another point you guys don't have the guts to address:

Why do you guys harp on our differences being a stumbling block to you believing in God, but won't touch the fact that EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD?

If our differences hold weight, what about our similarities?

I don't really follow your question though.

That's because it's a good one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you all reading this? it doesn't take a degree in psychiatry to see that this man has got problems.

Get a degree in basic doctrine, Paul.

You know ... like catastrophism?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So?

Isn't God capable of selective extraction and element mining?So what?

Why would He want to?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Natural processes doesn't cut it.

Natural processes is an explanation based on uniformitarianism, which rules out MAJOR miracles that God performed.

You mean MAJOR miracles you claim God performed... including a few doozies the Bible doesn't mention.

Come to think of it, as long as we have you, what do we need a Bible for?

 

[Jimmy D]

Ya ... your brand of science can go [back] to Hell.

What a weird thing to say, I haven't got a brand of science, I'm just a regular man in the street.

As we speak, my wife is wearing a heart monitor, care of those who do real (Godly) science.

Your (plural) particular brand of science, based on naturalism and uniformitarianism, has given us Thalidomide, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, L'Aquila, the Deepwater Horizon, the Exxon Valdez, Pluto demoted, polluted streams, toxic shock syndrome (remember Rely products? nice name), the Titanic, the Hindenburg, slavery, WW2, racism, Y2K, the Harmonic Convergence, killer bees, the Bible out of school, the Ten Commandments off of public property, and a host of other stuff.

I can't be bothered bickering with you about it but half those things have got nothing to do with science, you sound like a petulant child who can't get their own way.

Which brings up another point you guys don't have the guts to address:

Why do you guys harp on our differences being a stumbling block to you believing in God, but won't touch the fact that EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN believes IN THE BEGINNING, GOD?

If our differences hold weight, what about our similarities?

Your 'differences' have got nothing to do with my agnosticism, they're an amusing diversion, don't kid yourself that anyone takes you seriously. Also, I'm sure that christians do believe 'in the beginning God', I would think that's obvious.
Why won't you touch the fact that most of them don't hold your weird idea that bronze age stories offer a factual account of the history of the Earth?

That's because it's a good one.

Yes, when a question makes no sense it's obviously a good one.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I can't be bothered bickering with you about it but half those things have got nothing to do with science, you sound like a petulant child who can't get their own way.

Maybe he is going through his second childhood.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Come to think of it, as long as we have you, what do we need a Bible for?

People need the Bible to show them the error of their ways.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You know ... like catastrophism?

I can name that tune in two notes:
Punctuated Equilibrium

My insurance company does not believe in catastrophism. They say everything is the result of slow gradual change over time and they do not cover that.