Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

I have a lot of trouble believing in a god that evil.
​

I would prefer "Hell" to the eternal (or even temporal) presence of such a god.

From what I have heard, the religion of Judaism does not believe in the type of "hell" Christianity and Islam appear to view it as.

I could be mistaken tho........

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411036/
JEWS: Do You Believe in Hell?

I'm Christian but have two good friends who are Jewish. Both of them have told me that Jews don't believe in Hell.
I want to know if this is the general consensus amongst the Jewish community.

So, do you believe in Hell, or Satan, or Heaven for that matter? Why or why not?

Just curious.

Thanks!

-Brooke

View Poll Results: Do you, as a Jew, believe in Hell?

Yes, I believe in Hell.

1 10.00%

No, I do not believe in Hell.

6 60.00%

I believe in something like Hell, but not the traditional form accepted by most Christians.

3 30.00%



.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If God doesn't exist because of the Holocaust, does God exist because of Purim?

Perhaps the holocaust is evidence that God does exist. Perhaps he 'remembered' the 'remnant' of the Jews right after the holocaust. The punishments pronounced by Ezekiel were over and the last days prophecy of Genesis 49 began.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If God doesn't exist because of the Holocaust, does God exist because of Purim?

Why would He?

 

[USincognito]

This photo actually looks like rapid erosion on a large scale.

What sort of event would cause rapid erosion in a gooseneck shape like that?

 

[createdtoworship]

Very true. Saying dreadful things in ignorance is one thing, one can be excused that to a certain extent, but saying them repeatedly and deliberately after having chosen to remain ignorant of how shameful they are is quite another. If he ever does discover his error, his conscience will have a lot to deal with.

I asked if He would like explaination to some alleged Bible contradictions, and He said

" I am fine with the Bibles contradictions"

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFPisdo5-RvlhHz8X6riqjszKTl7g

meaning, He didn't want answers, He just wants to troll a humanist agenda onto a christian forum by accusing Christians of dishonesty, and lying- while at the same time refusing explaination.

That is considered trolling.

Is this your agenda? As well, are you accusing Christians of dishonesty and lying? While out to troll the humanistic evolutionary agenda on Christians in their own Christian forum? Without allowing them to answer your posts?

Secondly, Are you open to the Bibles view of evolution? After all this is a Christian forum!

I mean there is only so many times a christian wants to hear "Creationists are not scientific, and unintelligent"

on a Christian forum!

And some like "subduction zone" are not even open for discussion on the Bible!

Why be on a christian forum if you don't want answers from the Bible!

Thirdly, please refrain from calling others liars, dishonest etc. Or your posts will get reported as per forum rules. I don't care if you don't believe in the bible, and or have no interest in becoming Bible believers, That is your perogative, but please don't come onto another religions website, and call that person a liar.

IT's just rude, blaitant and errogant.

...flaming (trolling)

is not accepted in this forum.

Just show common courtesy, it's all we "Christians" want.

 

[createdtoworship]

​

This photo actually looks like rapid erosion on a large scale. Note the lack of significant wasting on the upper slopes. If the slopes had wasted away over time they would be rather smooth, lacking the definition seen here. They would have had to waste in a very uniform manner to preserve this sharp definition for millions of years.

Good Observation, I also notice that strata is usually if almost entirely tightly shaped and contrasted with no evidence of erosion between strata, implying a rapid formation.

thanks for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would prefer "Hell" to the eternal (or even temporal) presence of such a god.

unfortunately, most of the denominations are increasingly becoming annihilationists. However this is a liberal view of the Bible. The Bible mentions Hell many many times. Gehennah was a place to burn refuse. So to make the annalogy as Jesus did "the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" is to say that there is somewhere in the universe after death a real fire, just as the local gehennah. Only difference was that it was eternal, and would not go out when the kindling died out.

That is the most direct and literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

There are many of us still around who adhere to a fundamental literal interpretation (verbal plenary inspiration).

Even the parable of lazarus was a real story, as parables never once give names of individuals (lazarus), parables are typified by their abstract definitions such as, a farmer, a laywer, a shephard etc. And do not, I repeat do not give names. This would be the first occurance of such in all the parables in the scriptures, which is why many don't adhere that it is a parable and that it is a real event.

but this is another story, not really the "Creation/evolution" topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

What sort of event would cause rapid erosion in a gooseneck shape like that?

slurry on an ocean floor, turbidity.

and because it would have been under water (noahs flood),

the solvents of water would have softened and caused rapid erosion.

 

[createdtoworship]

Subduction Zone

A genetic bottleneck leaves evidence in the genome of a population.

here is a christian peer review society the focuses on Global flood topics, and they mention evidence of bottleneck:

Genetics of Coat Color I - Answers in Genesis

here is a quote:

"
the Bible indicates that terrestrial and flying animals underwent a severe genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood, estimated by Ussher to be 2348 BC (Genesis 6–8; Ussher 2003, pp. 19–21). The majority of the created kinds of terrestrial animals (that is, the unclean animals, which likely included all non-ruminants; Leviticus 11:1–8, 26–47) were represented by a single breeding pair on the Ark (Genesis 6:17–7:2). Humans also experienced a genetic bottleneck during the Flood when eight individuals were saved (Genesis 7:1, 7, 13; 1 Peter 3:20).

The creation model must be able to account for diversity observed today within created kinds (baramins) and the human population given this relatively recent bottleneck. Clearly animals have adapted to many different environmental conditions since the Flood. For example, there are foxes (genus Vulpes) which are adapted to arctic conditions (for example, V. lagopus) while others live in the desert (for example, V. zerda; Myers et al. 2008). There have been reports in the literature of rapid adaptation occurring in a variety of animals including lizards (Herrel et al. 2008), finches (Grant and Grant 2006), mosquitoes (Byrne and Nichols 1999), and guppies (Arendt and Reznick 2005). Rapid adaptation fits well within the creationist model since God is a provider who cares for His Creation (Psalm 147:8–9; Matthew 6:25–34) and intends the earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18)."

let me know if you need more evidence.

It shows up as a limitation of variation. For example you can take
almost any random Cheetah and use its skin in a skin graft operation
on another cheetah. You can't do that with people or very many other
species. Cheetahs had a genetic bottleneck not very long ago, it is
estimated to be about 10,000 years in their past. They had a very
small population, which was still much lager than two cheetahs. They
almost died out. They are recovering, but doing so slowly.

from the above quote:

"Historically, many creationists have limited explanations of intrabaraminic diversity to initial variability, degenerative random mutations, and natural selection. Given that baraminologic investigation has found that holobaramins tend to include whole families or even several families of animals, there is serious question as to how well the above mechanisms account for what we observe in the world around us. For example, the family Felidae (cats) is believed to represent a holobaramin as is the superfamily Physeteroidea (grouping of toothed whales) and the suborder Mysticeti (baleen whales) (Wood 2006). Given the degree of variability within these taxa, creationists should be asking what kind of genomic differences exist within a holobaramin and if current explanations truly account for these differences."

A species history can often be read in its genes. No evidence for a
recent extreme bottleneck for all animals means there was no flood.

addressed this above

It does not matter how "pure" the gene pool was. Genetic bottlenecks
are determined by measuring genetic diversity and rates of mutation.

already addressed

If the flood happened there would still have been a genetic bottleneck
since the gene pool was incredibly small.

there was

No, you do not understand the meaning of the term "circular reasoning".

Again, Google is your friend. We can observe annual snow layers
forming today. With trees we can observe the formation of annual tree
rings. That is not circular reasoning.

this was a different post regarding Ice cores
However you have shifted the burden of proof, I asked for proof of your
poitive statement of Ice Core dates and mentioned that they used a biased
mechanism, you in turn say they are done "by eye." I then state that
that is circular reasoning, then you say the Bible is circular? That is nonsequitor, and has nothing to do with ice core dating.

 

[createdtoworship]

All you needed to save was the Garden of Eden. The plants and the animals in Eden. In Chapter one God created the world. In Chapter two God planted a Garden in Eden and put Adam in the Garden. Along with the animals of course.

Thankyou for the discussion Joshua on the Garden of eden,

Not sure that you had time to respond before thread closure. I reposted. Again this is in context of you not adhering to the Bible's global flood, because you believe they were somehow saved in the Garden of eden, if I remember correctly.

one problem I might possible see with your theory that they were saved
in the Garden of eden is that:

they were banished from the entire Garden way before the Flood! Never
again to set foot in.
Genesis 3:23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

and to make sure, there was an angelic guard posted to make sure they
didn't sneek in:
Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

in addition to the above links to parallel Bibles, here are three more
conservative english translations proving Adam and Eve's expulsion
from the Garden:

Genesis 3:23-24
New King James Version (NKJV)
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till
the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He
placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword
which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:23-24
English Standard Version (ESV)
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work
the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at
the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming
sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:23-24
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to
cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man
out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim
and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to
the tree of life.


In Conclusion:

it is relatively impossible to be protected in a garden that they were
kicked out of!


I await your Biblical reply, and thank you for the comment.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I asked if He would like explaination to some alleged Bible contradictions, and He said

" I am fine with the Bibles contradictions"

Redirecting

meaning, He didn't want answers, He just wants to troll a humanist agenda onto a christian forum by accusing Christians of dishonesty, and lying- while at the same time refusing explaination.

Using a capital for 'He' is used when referring to God. This makes what you have just written slightly difficult to decipher. After it became clear you weren't talking about God, I thought you must be referring to AV1611VET as my post was about him, and I was quite surprised to see you taking him to task too. Then on further investigation you were not referring to God or AV1611VET but someone else who has tried to debate with you on this forum. Why you launched into this confusing attack isn't clear.

That is considered trolling.

Glass houses and all that...

Is this your agenda? As well, are you accusing Christians of dishonesty and lying?

No, he is quite open and straight about deliberately remaining ignorant of his own errors. He has said he won't read the Rogers Commission Report.

While out to troll the humanistic evolutionary agenda on Christians in their own Christian forum?

In the Creationism versus Evolution subforum you mean? You don't approve of pro-evolution posts in the Creationism versus Evolution sub forum?

Without allowing them to answer your posts?

How could anyone stop them? By the way, did you ever get round to an answering the temperature problem for the amount of rain associated with a global flood?

Secondly, Are you open to the Bibles view of evolution? After all this is a Christian forum!

If it has one.

I mean there is only so many times a christian wants to hear "Creationists are not scientific, and unintelligent"

on a Christian forum!

They aren't usually accused of being unintelligent, just uninformed, sometimes wilfully.

And some like "subduction zone" are not even open for discussion on the Bible!

I'm not sure that's what he said, but I'll let him answer.

Why be on a christian forum if you don't want answers from the Bible!

On the Creationism versus Evolution subforum you mean?

Thirdly, please refrain from calling others liars, dishonest etc. Or your posts will get reported as per forum rules. I don't care if you don't believe in the bible, and or have no interest in becoming Bible believers, That is your perogative, but please don't come onto another religions website, and call that person a liar.

Now, now, you want to be careful with accusations like that. You don't want to start saying that I have accused someone of being a liar when I haven't. That may not turn out well for you. Forum rules you know.

IT's just rude, blaitant and errogant.

your spelling has gone to pot.

...flaming (trolling)

is not accepted in this forum.

Maybe you should remind AV1611VET of that the next time he tries to conflate science, satan and the Challenger tragedy.

Just show common courtesy, it's all we "Christians" want.

Strangely, non-Christians appreciate it too.

 

[USincognito]

slurry on an ocean floor, turbidity.

and because it would have been under water (noahs flood),

the solvents of water would have softened and caused rapid erosion.

Really? Would you care to explain the details using geology and physics... or is this yet another example of Creationists making stuff up?

Tell us. How would slurry on the ocean floor and turbidity grind through sandstone, limestone, bedrock, etc. with nearly vertical walls in a goosenecked pattern? Details please.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What sort of event would cause rapid erosion in a gooseneck shape like that?

The topography of the area influences the course of runoff.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

The topography of the area influences the course of runoff.

Geology Quiz: What kind of gradient is the surface at that usually forms river meanders like this?

Just curious if any of our esteemed Floodists know basic geology.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

slurry on an ocean floor, turbidity.

How Geologists differentiate TURBIDITE flow channels from RIVER MEANDERS

(LINK)

OK, so there's a sciencefor that. Who would have thought it?

and because it would have been under water (noahs flood),

the solvents of water would have softened and caused rapid erosion.

Why would the "solvents of water" need to "soften" loose sediment?

 

[Strathos]

Secondly, Are you open to the Bibles view of evolution? After all this is a Christian forum!

The Bible doesn't have a "view of evolution". Evolution isn't mentioned in the Bible because it has nothing to do with the message of the Bible. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Bible is not a science textbook, and it was never meant to be. It's about God's relationship with man and the salvation of our souls.

Jesus didn't teach biology, chemistry, or geology, that wasn't His job. The Bible and the messages of Jesus and the prophets deal with spiritual, not scientific matters.

In the Creationism versus Evolution subforum you mean? You don't approve of pro-evolution posts in the Creationism versus Evolution sub forum?

Well when threads in this forum get hijacked with topics like whether God exists, whether Jesus existed, whether the message of Jesus was moral or not, how to interpret the doctrine of Hell, whether the belief in Hell makes God immoral... I'd say all of those topics are not relevant to this forum.

 

[George95]

MODERATOR HAT ON
Right, regarding the old thread of this topic. A thread cleanup was performed, and all flaming posts were removed. If any flaming is found in this topic, the topic will be closed.

The CF Moderation Team

MODERATOR HAT OFF​

 

[createdtoworship]

I thank you, George for cleaning up the thread!

Also if you guys want to talk to me, I am taking a break from Cf for a while. I will message you my email where we can talk if you want. I am focussing on school right now (programming). And do not have time to devote to this. Maybe later. As for now please reference below:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

also answers in genesis peer review sections
Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal


other science here: (peer reviewed)
More on How We Can Know Intelligent Design Is Science - Evolution News & Views

etc and also some info on basic debate and logical fallacy

1. Exploring the Many Fallacies of Evolution | Creation Moments
   
2. LOGICAL FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation Moments
   
3. Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question - Answers in Genesis
   
4. Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101: Argumentum Ad Populum | Creation Moments

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thank you, George for cleaning up the thread!

Also if you guys want to talk to me, I am taking a break from Cf for a while. I will message you my email where we can talk if you want. I am focussing on school right now (programming). And do not have time to devote to this. Maybe later. As for now please reference below:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

also answers in genesis peer review sections
Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal


other science here: (peer reviewed)
More on How We Can Know Intelligent Design Is Science - Evolution News & Views

etc and also some info on basic debate and logical fallacy

1. Exploring the Many Fallacies of Evolution | Creation Moments
   
2. LOGICAL FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation Moments
   
3. Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question - Answers in Genesis
   
4. Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101: Argumentum Ad Populum | Creation Moments

I don't think you understand what "peer reviewed" means. Your link to a so called peer reviewed article definitely was not. A group of creationists agreeing with each other is not "peer review".

There are a few creationist scientists that can do peer reviewable quality work. They have published papers, they know how the system works. They do not ever submit their "creation science" for peer review. That shows they know deep down inside that their work is fatally flawed and would not get published.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thank you, George for cleaning up the thread!

Also if you guys want to talk to me, I am taking a break from Cf for a while. I will message you my email where we can talk if you want. I am focussing on school right now (programming). And do not have time to devote to this. Maybe later. As for now please reference below:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

also answers in genesis peer review sections
Answers Research Journal - Creation, Evolution, Scientific Research - Answers Research Journal


other science here: (peer reviewed)
More on How We Can Know Intelligent Design Is Science - Evolution News & Views

etc and also some info on basic debate and logical fallacy

1. Exploring the Many Fallacies of Evolution | Creation Moments
   
2. LOGICAL FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation Moments
   
3. Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question - Answers in Genesis
   
4. Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101: Argumentum Ad Populum | Creation Moments

Now let's deal directly with some of the articles you listed.

On "flood geology". The main problem with it is that there is no unified whole and when any aspect of it is inspected in depth the claim of creationists fall apart. Take the fossil record as an example. If you want to claim that the sedimentary rocks formed during the flood you have to explain how many millions of years of coral grew in one year. How millions of years worth of chalk were deposited in months. Why the fossils are sorted the way they are, and no claims of size or density given yet can explain that. Why we can see different environments of deposition in the middle of a flood ranging from deep water to shoreline to wind blown terrestrial sediments, including evaporites which showed that the flood had totally dried up.

Answers in Genesis as I already told you has no peer reviewal.


On Martin Gaskell, it is disputable why he was not hired. He managed to get a law suit started and he was offered a small sum for the lawsuit to go away. The university must have been fairly confident since the amount offered was definitely less than what their lawyer fees alone would have been.

Here is an article that explains why he had nothing:

Martin Gaskell was not expelled – Pharyngula


In your article number 2 it was pointed out that it would take 5 miles of water to cover the Earth and the lame excuse that if the Earth were flat It would not take 5 miles. Of course no creationist can explain in a satisfactory way why or how the Earth could have been flat 4,500 years ago. All "creation science" has been busted at some time or another, yet creationists keep ignoring this. They say "if the Earth was flat" and then reason from that, forgetting that the so called reasons the Earth was flat had been debunked long ago. And by "flat" I mean topographically, not spherically.

Let's see article 3. It seems to make the mistake that there is only one form of evidence that shows the Earth is billions of years old and that it is "begging the question" when you base your results on that. The problem is that there are many different indicators of an old Earth and no indicators of a young Earth. To reject an old Earth and Solar System you have to ignore all science since and including Isaac Newton.

And to claim number 4. When all but a very small group of experts agree it is usually best to go with the majority. I doubt if the creationists here can name one well accepted theory that was accepted by over 99% of all qualified scientists for over 100 years that was ever shown to be false. To even attempt to do so they have to bend the meaning of the word
"theory" past the breaking point.

Too bad you are leaving since all of these could be discussed further. The short answer is that it is all a bunch of fail.