norse creationism

Mechanical Bliss · Jun 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Why don't you just buy a broken record. NOTHING was PROVEN 200 years ago. The ONLY thing that happened was that assumptions were expressed and considered about what was viewed. NOTHING was tested. They used "logic," and that logic was founded in then awakening HUMANISTIC movement. Has any experiment ever been done to see how any given plant might survive through such a flood? NO!

Wrong as always and unable to back up your assertions.

The notion of a global flood was disproved by Christian geologists searching for evidence of that event. That occurred two centuries ago despite your denial.

It had nothing to do with humanism, with bias, or any other meaningless excuse you can come up with. It had everything to do with the evidence.

Now considering you have not been able to show ANY disproof of a global flood to be false and considering you have not been able to show ANY evidence of a global flood occurring by answering basic questions that have been presented to you previously, there is no respectable or credible basis for your statements.

BeamMeUpScotty · Jun 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The salt content of the oceans has been increasing over time.

Boy this gets repetitive, but, proof?

LittleNipper said:
The first experiment would be to submerge a plant in fresh water for 1 day and then 2 and then three and so on. It rained for 40 days but everything would not be under water until logically the 40th day.

Don't creationists claim that the highest mountain was submerged by X number of feet of water? If so, they would have been covered well before the 40th day. Even then it wouldn't have mattered much as even a relatively small mountain, like Mt. Fuji, has no major plant life above the tree line. So take a plant and submerge it for well over a year in water (salted to taste), and see how it comes out.

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

caravelair said:
i think we should teach norse mythology along with evolution. hey, it's only fair to present both sides, right?

Aaah, that one. I saw it linked to in a newsgroup some time ago.

They say that if you can't laugh about yourself anymore you really need some vacation urgently. In that sense, I guess I'm quite healthy. Technically, this is an "anti-faith" cartoon to the Asatruar who I am, so maybe I should feel insulted, if only slightly... but I'll be damned if I don't find it hilariously funny. A wonderful comparison, showing nicely the utter absurdity of the "controversy" between science and creationism.

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

Daegor said:
I'll end with a part of my favorite hymn

"I will lead the charge my sword into the wind
Sons of Odin fight to die and live again
Viking ships cross the sea, in cold wind, and rain
Sail into the black of night magic stars our guiding light..."

Place my body on a ship and burn it in the sea
Let my spirit rise, Valkyries carry me
Take me to Valhalla
Where my brothers wait for me
Fire burning to the sky, my spirit will never die...

It feels good to meet a true brother of steel... and of faith.

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Just WHAT could they do TWO HUNDRED years ago to prove the Flood happened or not? AND what exactly are uniformitarians doing today to prove the Flood never happened? I feel strongly that you will find the answer to both to be the same------N O T H I N G. They were/are simply coming to their OWN conclusions and deductions through what they observe(d) and miss(ed) the point....

Alrighty, as you are obviously convinced that The Flood(TM) is a fact, explain to us how angular unconformities came to be (we gotta start somewhere). Remember that you need to do this without invoking any supernatural influence, or else everyone can just claim that some deity did this-or-that.

I'm not holding my breath (you'd be the very first to even try to give an explanation), but I'll give it a try. I'm waiting.

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
You got it! If all they did was look and think, they obviously saw and thought wrong. How could someone miss out on a discovery that was already common knowledge? To make a NAME for ONE'S SELF one must come up with a counter claim. Charles Lyell was not a wonderful person. He practiced law and was enthusiastically a secularist, as was James Hutton. They were NOT interesed in finding the truth. Their aim was to become spokesmen for THEMSELVES and their counter secular claims. Does Satan love Jesus? What is the honest answer to that question?

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

walking with christ said:
This probably wont make much sense because I don't remember it very well but I was watching a program on discovery about a massive lake of some sort which somehow managed to burst (I think it was because of an earthquake) around the same time as the flood apparently happened, the ammount of water that was released would have covered a vast ammount of area and may have seemed like a global flood but it was actually just a bloody big flood, but not by any means global.

After all the whole "world" would have seemed much smaller at the time of the flood because at that time much of the world wasn't explored yet. People also seem to have a nack for exaggerating things...

Quite right. There have been plenty of local flood catastrophes in known history. The flooding of the Black Sea was one of them (at least, as far as I understand, scientists have discovered so much evidence supporting this hypothesis that it's hard to honestly say that it didn't happen).
Of course, even a million local floods don't prove a global flood.

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

ChrisS said:
Except no one believes in him anymore, except for Age of mithology geeks maybe, or was it greeks?

Careful sir. Odin might not be my personal favorite, but you are reading a posting of a follower of the High Gods of the North right now.

tocis · Jun 8, 2005

LittleNipper said:
No, actually all of that is the result of man rejecting GOD and trying to make a way for himself. The responsibility lies clearly in the court of the agnostics. However, they do enjoy pointing the finger at either everyone else and/or GOD.

Okay, that does it.

PLONK

Welcome to my ignore list.

The thinker · Jun 9, 2005

ChrisS · Jun 9, 2005

tocis said:
Okay, that does it.

PLONK

Welcome to my ignore list.

Lol, I wonder how many I'm on right now, in the christian section... j/k.

Nathan Poe · Jun 9, 2005

ChrisS said:
Lol, I wonder how many I'm on right now, in the christian section... j/k.

Soon you will cross over completely to the Dark Side... *evil laugh*

LittleNipper · Jun 9, 2005

BeamMeUpScotty said:
Boy this gets repetitive, but, proof?

Don't creationists claim that the highest mountain was submerged by X number of feet of water? If so, they would have been covered well before the 40th day. Even then it wouldn't have mattered much as even a relatively small mountain, like Mt. Fuji, has no major plant life above the tree line. So take a plant and submerge it for well over a year in water (salted to taste), and see how it comes out.

Well, see we Creationists also understand that the mountains we presently see, are either post Flood or do not appear as they existed prior to the Flood. The indication is that the world of Adam was smoother than the one Noah found when he left the ark... In fact Genesis Chapter 7:19 seems to indicate that there were once only high HILLS. There is no mention of mountains until after the FLOOD. Read the first 8 Chapters of Genesis with an open mind. GOD says a lot with the little HE compiled for us.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 9, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Well, see we Creationists also understand that the mountains we presently see, are either post Flood or do not appear as they existed prior to the Flood. The indication is that the world of Adam was smoother than the one Noah found when he left the ark... In fact Genesis Chapter 7:19 seems to indicate that there were once only high HILLS. There is no mention of mountains until after the FLOOD. Read the first 8 Chapters of Genesis with an open mind. GOD says a lot with the little HE compiled for us.

But don't you also use those mountains to sort the fossil record either by ecological zoning or differential escapability? How do you sort fossils through thousands of feet of sediments by these mechanisms with "high hills"?

FB

Mechanical Bliss · Jun 9, 2005

tocis said:
Alrighty, as you are obviously convinced that The Flood(TM) is a fact, explain to us how angular unconformities came to be (we gotta start somewhere). Remember that you need to do this without invoking any supernatural influence, or else everyone can just claim that some deity did this-or-that.

I'm not holding my breath (you'd be the very first to even try to give an explanation), but I'll give it a try. I'm waiting.

Indeed, angular unconformities like the one at Siccar Point, Scotland (that's the picture below) were one of the features early European geologists observed that led them to the conclusion that a singular global flooding event could not be responsible for earth's geology:

Mechanical Bliss · Jun 9, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Well, see we Creationists also understand that the mountains we presently see, are either post Flood or do not appear as they existed prior to the Flood.

Considering we already know that's false on the timeline you need it to occur, that doesn't get you anywhere. But you already know that because it's been explained to you in detail before, and you obviously ignored it.

Loudmouth · Jun 9, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Well, see we Creationists also understand that the mountains we presently see, are either post Flood or do not appear as they existed prior to the Flood. The indication is that the world of Adam was smoother than the one Noah found when he left the ark... In fact Genesis Chapter 7:19 seems to indicate that there were once only high HILLS. There is no mention of mountains until after the FLOOD. Read the first 8 Chapters of Genesis with an open mind. GOD says a lot with the little HE compiled for us.

How do you know that the Genesis account is accurate? Our contention is that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not accurate. You have to present extra-biblical evidence for this "hills only" earth.

Ozymandius · Jun 9, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Well, see we Creationists also understand that the mountains we presently see, are either post Flood or do not appear as they existed prior to the Flood. The indication is that the world of Adam was smoother than the one Noah found when he left the ark... In fact Genesis Chapter 7:19 seems to indicate that there were once only high HILLS. There is no mention of mountains until after the FLOOD. Read the first 8 Chapters of Genesis with an open mind. GOD says a lot with the little HE compiled for us.

Nice ad hoc. Have you any evidence in the form of geological surveys or fossil evidence or ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THIS?!

Or is it all your off the cuff interpretation of a book that was written by, yes, men? Sorry to burst your bubble, but GOD didn't FAX the BIBLE from HEAVEN. I was written by court scribes ca 1000 BC.

LittleNipper · Jun 9, 2005

Ozymandius said:
Nice ad hoc. Have you any evidence in the form of geological surveys or fossil evidence or ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THIS?!

Or is it all your off the cuff interpretation of a book that was written by, yes, men? Sorry to burst your bubble, but GOD didn't FAX the BIBLE from HEAVEN. I was written by court scribes ca 1000 BC.

Just what to you HAVE to prove it wrong. You cannot apply what we presently see and assume it was always so. You are building on your observations but those observations are being fabricated on what seems to BE and not what actually was...

Actually, if you read the first Chapter of REVELATIONS, you will find that John (the beloved of Jesus) seems to have been teleported to heaven. Sorry, to hit you with the pie...

Loudmouth · Jun 9, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Just what to you HAVE to prove it wrong.

BEEEEP, wrong answer. If you make a claim YOU have to support it.

If you want to play that game, try and prove that leprechauns DIDN'T create life on earth. Until you can prove that they didn't, then I can continue to claim that they did.

You cannot apply what we presently see and assume it was always so.

Why not? Do we then assume that water was not H2O in the past? Why or why not? If atoms have always been the same, why wouldn't the reactions between and within atoms have been the same?

You are building on your observations but those observations are being fabricated on what seems to BE and not what actually was...

You mean, for instance, the Hebrews intending Genesis to be read literally and for Genesis to supply an accurate history of the Earth?

Actually, if you read the first Chapter of REVELATIONS, you will find that John (the beloved of Jesus) seems to have been teleported to heaven. Sorry, to hit you with the pie...

And the Heaven's Gate people seemed to have been teleported to the Halle-Bopp comet. Anymore fairy tales before I go to bed?

norse creationism

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Senior Veteran

Warrior of Thor

Warrior of Thor

Warrior of Thor

Warrior of Thor

Warrior of Thor

Warrior of Thor

Warrior of Thor

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency