Is the Great Flood of the Bible literal or symbolic.

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Sky
It's obvious Duane will never accept real science.

Maybe he will. I've seen quite a few people change their minds.

Chris

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Chris H
Maybe he will. I've seen quite a few people change their minds.

Chris

I agree.

And, I've seen many people take a new look on Christianity, in it's most basic form. That is, a simple belief and a willingness to let Christ into your heart. Hopefully, this wiil happen to many who participate in these discussions.

 

[Duane Morse]

Oh, I can accept real science.
What I have a hard time with is data that can be viewed in a different way that no one cares to examine.
So I am no scientist, and I have never been published. Big deal. The data is what I am trying to present so maybe one of you know-it-all big brains can maybe see something in it.
You do not want to, so oh well.
See ya

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Oh, I can accept real science.
What I have a hard time with is data that can be viewed in a different way that no one cares to examine.
So I am no scientist, and I have never been published. Big deal. The data is what I am trying to present so maybe one of you know-it-all big brains can maybe see something in it.
You do not want to, so oh well.
See ya

This is a huge misunderstanding, Duane. The published scientists have absolutely nothing to do with you or me. The implication was not that since you are not published, you are to be discounted in conversation. Far from it.

'Published scientists' is used as a reference point for this discussion. That's all.

I hope you will understand this.

John

 

[Duane Morse]

Sure, but what has that got to do with evaluating this data in this manner?
Why do not you or anyone else care to examine it to see if maybe I really have something?
You all just rant and rave that I am nuts, not in those words, but...

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Sauron
Ha.  The researcher in this article, Todtkopf?  That's German for "Deadhead".

 

It's Todkopf. Deadhead would be 'Totenkopf'


Hellman's is a popular mayonnaise in Toronto, do you think we eat mayonnaise from Hell?

 

[Sky]

lol

 

[TheBear]

What you don't understand is that all the points you bring up, have already been looked at, tested, and found wanting.

 

[Duane Morse]

The ice core data has been evaluated, tested, and found wanting?
By whom?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
The ice core data has been evaluated, tested, and found wanting?
By whom?

Who said that?



I'll give 100 blessing points to the first person who correctly states the chronological span of ice core analysis.

 

[Sky]

Duane Morse

 

[Sky]

5,000 years

 

[Duane Morse]

What you don't understand is that all the points you bring up, have already been looked at, tested, and found wanting.
Is what you said.
I have been trying to make the point that an ice core from Greenland, one which the scientists think has never gone through a melt cycle so therefore is a complete and unbroken ice record for the time it covers, is better shown on a 6000 year span than on a 110,000 year span.
And that it shows the most major events of both the Biblical account of history and of the history portrayed by the scientists of recent history.

By your last post you seem to agree with me that the time span of ice cores is somewhat questionable. So what is wrong with evaluating this data on a much shorter time scale than previously thought was correct?

This core graph clearly shows a huge spike at the time of Babel, and is probably the pole shift that is spoken of in the Bible.

I really think you are all too afraid to look at it that way because it will turn everything upside down in the scientific community.

 

[TheBear]

Time's up.

 

[TheBear]

 

[Duane Morse]

Time's up for what?

 

[Sky]

Answering his question.

 

[TheBear]

I'll try to get a better graphics.

 

[Duane Morse]

So is there a point to make with the graphic?

 

[TheBear]