Thin layer of silt proves flood

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You don't think it's a remarkable coincidence that you happened to be born into a time and place where the "correct" religion just happens to be one the dominant religions of our culture?

Isn't it logical that the correct religion would be the most influential and widespread?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Isn't it logical that the correct religion would be the most influential and widespread?

Not in the context of the history of the world's religions, no. Seems more like a case of survivorship bias.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, but qualified geologists who believe in a global flood say otherwise.

I don't care what anyone "says". It's the data that matters, and 0 of it supports a global flood.



Surely you can recognise a hypothetical situation.
But you have a problem.
Geologists believe there used to e only one continent, there would not have been high mountains on this continent, so it is very likely that the amount of water in the sea would have submerged that continent.
Can you say where all this water car from?

You what now? Have you thought about linking to your sources, because I'm now going to fall back to "that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
That is not what the qualified geologists who support a global flood say.
There are not such critters.

To be a "qualified geologist" one's work needs to go through real peer review. Do you have any examples of such articles that passed peer review in a well respected professional journal?

But since you failed to answer my question you refuted your claim that it is a theory. Theories have to be falsifiable.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Check out the geologists in creation.com and answersingenesis.

As for a global flood the final say all life died, and given the size and length of the flood it cannot be anything but a global flood.
To even work at such sites one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That means that what is posted there is not science.

It is a bad sign for an argument when the claimant cannot find any reliable sources for his claims.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That is not what the qualified geologists who support a global flood say.
There are no working geologists who use the flood model in their work. None. By "working geologists" I mean those who find oil and other minerals for a living. They all use conventional geological models because creationist models don't lead to the discoveries they need to make in order to earn their wages.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is the issue I have with the Deniars of the flood. There are hundreds of independent accounts, yet they are so smug and arrogant as to dismiss all of them.

Great.

There are also hundreds of independent accounts of magical, fairy-like creatures. Such stories are MORE commonplace in folklore than flood accounts.

Do you deny that fairy-like creatures exist?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Great.

There are also hundreds of independent accounts of magical, fairy-like creatures. Such stories are MORE commonplace in folklore than flood accounts.

Do you deny that fairy-like creatures exist?
Hey, leave the Tooth Fairy out of this!
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
This is the issue I have with the Deniars of the flood. There are hundreds of independent accounts, yet they are so smug and arrogant as to dismiss all of them.

There are hundreds of independent accounts of alien abductions. Are alien abductions real?

A bunch of stories, even hundreds of stories, is not a good standard for determining the veracity of something. Humans are imaginative story-tellers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
To adjust the world to your particular faith, we'd need to reject large swaths of modern science and the technology built on it - you know, in order to reconcile it with the facts you claim to "know". Seem like a lot of effort to go through for no good reason.
Not really. Modern science exerts enormous amounts of time, money, intelligence, technology and personnel in the futile attempt to disprove the reality of God. The false theory of evolution has done nothing for the benefit of mankind. For a time, it gave rise to some of the greatest evils we have ever witnessed. Most of the finest scientists prior to Darwin at least acknowledged the existence of God. Some were genuine Christians, others Deists. It did not hinder their scientific genius.

If the resources invested in evolutionary research was devoted to useful research, the world would be the better for it. But no, the scientific world pursues knowledge for the sake of it. How much money was spent on the Large Hadron Collider? And its updated versions? For what? To explain a bit of a mystery. And what benefit is there to humanity? Zero. None. Zip. Landing on Mars? Why? Much of India still lives in poverty, but they have a space program. Really?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Not really. Modern science exerts enormous amounts of time, money, intelligence, technology and personnel in the futile attempt to disprove the reality of God.
That is a false statement and highly offensive at that, especially to the large number of God-fearing men and women who work in scientific fields.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
To adjust the world to your particular faith, we'd need to reject large swaths of modern science and the technology built on it - you know, in order to reconcile it with the facts you claim to "know". Seem like a lot of effort to go through for no good reason.
I have no intention of changing the world. It is God's enemy. I may be able to help some doubters. That's all.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
That is a false statement and highly offensive at that, especially to the large number of God-fearing men and women who work in scientific fields.
Touchy, aren't we. I as talking about science in general, not the individual scientists.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Touchy, aren't we. I as talking about science in general, not the individual scientists.
The perhaps you could tell us exactly how science (in general) is working to disprove the existence of God. Individual scientists know it can't be done, because they all take a philosophy of science course as undergraduates in which they learn that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition and thus out of the reach of science. They know that nothing that scientists have discovered or could potentially discover in future can disprove the existence of God. I would be interested to hear your explanation as to how science (in general) is going about it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Not really. Modern science exerts enormous amounts of time, money, intelligence, technology and personnel in the futile attempt to disprove the reality of God. The false theory of evolution has done nothing for the benefit of mankind. For a time, it gave rise to some of the greatest evils we have ever witnessed. Most of the finest scientists prior to Darwin at least acknowledged the existence of God. Some were genuine Christians, others Deists. It did not hinder their scientific genius.

If the resources invested in evolutionary research was devoted to useful research, the world would be the better for it. But no, the scientific world pursues knowledge for the sake of it. How much money was spent on the Large Hadron Collider? And its updated versions? For what? To explain a bit of a mystery. And what benefit is there to humanity? Zero. None. Zip. Landing on Mars? Why? Much of India still lives in poverty, but they have a space program. Really?

I'll never stop being amazed at the irony of those disparaging scientific inquiry on a global super-network connecting millions of computers around the world.

If creationists *really* practiced what they preached when it came to their purported anti-science positions most of them wouldn't have technology beyond the 1800's. Yet, here they all are for some reason.

Isn't there some passage in the Bible about being a hypocrite? :p
 
  • Winner
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
The perhaps you could tell us exactly how science (in general) is working to disprove the existence of God. Individual scientists know it can't be done, because they all take a philosophy of science course as undergraduates in which they learn that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition and thus out of the reach of science. They know that nothing that scientists have discovered or could potentially discover in future can disprove the existence of God. I would be interested to hear your explanation as to how science (in general) is going about it.
First and foremost by shutting God out of the realm of science. Most of the pioneers of science believed in God at least to some degree. Some were Deists, some were Christians and others were of other religions. Evolutionary theory is used as an attempt to make God unnecessary. Science turns the argument around. It demands that Christians prove that God exists. Since that is not possible to the philosophy of science, it's an unwinnable proposition. All you have to do is check out the vitriolic responses to someone like James Tour, Stephen Meyer, and anyone else who disputes evolution. Professor Tour advises his students not to state that they reject evolution. It will be the end of their careers.

I'm not against science as such. I do have a problem with the concept that science can solve all the problems of the human race. That is patently nonsense. I take issue with the idea that God and science are mutually exclusive. When I was in high school, evolution and creation were taught as equally plausible and I was permitted to make up my own mind. That is no longer the case.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
First and foremost by shutting God out of the realm of science. Most of the pioneers of science believed in God at least to some degree. Some were Deists, some were Christians and others were of other religions.
Many still are. For instance Georges Lemaitre, the originator of "Big Bang" cosmology, was a devout Christian.
Evolutionary theory is used as an attempt to make God unnecessary.
It doesn't do that. It only makes a literal interpretation of Genesis highly unlikely, which is by no means the same thing as making God unnecessary. Is that your beef with it?
When I was in high school, evolution and creation were taught as equally plausible and I was permitted to make up my own mind. That is no longer the case.
And now we know that they are not. God is still author of our being but we now know that a literal reading of Genesis is not an adequate account of how He did it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I'll never stop being amazed at the irony of those disparaging scientific inquiry on a global super-network connecting millions of computers around the world.

If creationists *really* practiced what they preached when it came to their purported anti-science positions most of them wouldn't have technology beyond the 1800's. Yet, here they all are for some reason.

Isn't there some passage in the Bible about being a hypocrite? :p
Who said that I am anti science? I am anti the worship of science as some kind of lofty, infallible, answer-to-every-human-problem endeavour. You know full well that most of the pioneers of science were believers. I was taught the "science as god" idea in the 1950's. Yes, some good has come out of it and that's fine. At the same time, Darwinism gave rise to extreme racism and was the basis for Hitler's attempt to exterminate all that was not Aryan. Let's not forget the shameful period of slavery, and later the Klu Klux Klan, that blighted US culture.
 
Upvote 0