Scientific proof of flood.

[Asimov]

Nature is HIS creation. For GOD to protect HIS creation the way you suspect, GOD would have had to destroy Adam the moment he sinned. GOD is also a merciful GOD. GOD loves man more then the rest of HIS creation.

Or he could have just talked to Adam about what he did.

 

[Vastavus]

That is why YOU need to be willing to have an intimate relationship with GOD. GOD then begins a work from the inside out, rather than as you suppose outside in. People who claim to speak for GOD can have the very same selfish motives as those who claim to be "scientific." That is why you need to consider GOD in everything you do and not just those areas that seem convenient.

I do have the willingness to have a relationship with God, and in a sense, I have a great relationship with God. I am not an Atheist. I am a Deist. :: points at icon!::

Also, how do "scientific" people have selfish motives? In my expirience, they just want to seek only the clearest, most truthful way to understand the universe.

 

[LittleNipper]

I do have the willingness to have a relationship with God, and in a sense, I have a great relationship with God. I am not an Atheist. I am a Deist. :: points at icon!::

Also, how do "scientific" people have selfish motives? In my expirience, they just want to seek only the clearest, most truthful way to understand the universe.

They may want to impress. They may want to be accepted. They may want an A. They may want to be asked on talk shows. They may want to have a television special. They may want to write a book. They may want notoriety. It could also be that they don't want it to seem that their studies and research was all a big waste...

 

[AirPo]

Nature is HIS creation. For GOD to protect HIS creation the way you suspect, GOD would have had to destroy Adam the moment he sinned. GOD is also a merciful GOD. GOD loves man more then the rest of HIS creation.

Yet he let Satan taint his man.

 

[Tomk80]

So both the north pole and south pole have tropical fossils indicating that the continents floated from the equator.

The north pole is not a continent. If you are going to comment on these things, at least get your facts straight.

But where did the continents on the poles float to?

Admit it, you can not accept anything that disproves your theory and so your ideas are not based on science but you are twisting science to meet your preferences.

Not quite. It might be that the continents at the pole at this point were just closer to the equator at one time, but not on it. Furthermore, the plates might have moved under another plate (submerged) or pushed together to form mountains. I don't know. There is no real reason why a particular continent (for example around the equator) should have been on the poles perse. You assert that, but you should at least back that assertion up with continental movement estimates.

The continents were formed recently and have not traveled far

The fossils are the result of a pre-flood atmosphere condition which maintained the Earth a tropical conditions everywhere.

And the "you don’t have evidence" argument is getting old.

I have tropical fossils every where..

Well, then present some evidence. You don't have any, it's simple as that. You make a lot of assertions, but don't back them up. You do nothing with criticism accept handwaving it away. You want to have a discussion? Than at some point you'll have to give adequate answers to criticism in stead of handwaving it away.

Oh, I forgot the first commandment of current theory.

"Thou shalt have no unique thought"

Oh please.

But we are moving closer to the sun due to the energy absorbed by tidal conditions not away from it.

I find it very interesting when a supporter of a proponent of a consistent Earth which has remained for billions of years must resort to a "changing" Earth to explain the geological record.

So your solution is that the Earth was all tropical at one time.
Hmm....
Why is it Ok for you to suggest it, but not Ok for me to suggest it?

As far as I know, the distance to the sun has been intermittantly closer and bigger. I'll try to dig up some references. However, we know that the average mean temperature has been higher in the past, for whatever reason. We know this from ice-core studies. If the average mean temperature is higher, the result will be a tropical atmosphere all over the earth.

There is no scientist saying that the earth has always been the same. Where did you get that crazy idea?

So for your theory to work there can not have been continents at the poles... ever.

Even though there just happens to be continents on both poles now.

Your faith is great.

No, some continents (namely the middle ones) might never have reached the poles. Don't go twisting my words there, it's dishonest. Besides, again, the north pole is not a continent. It's just a lot of ice. You can dive across it in a submarine (and yes, that has been done by the American Navy).

The run off and magma/crust condition causes the Earth surface to form a wave of thick and thin areas with cracks at the break points.

Something the size of a continent is not governed by a single mountain range.

By the way, I did not say the tectonic plates do not move.

This has been proven and measured.

I only said the plates have not have time to slide all over the planet.

It is a time and distance question that we are debating.

Duane

No, not by a single mountain range. Where did I say that it was a singe mountain range? I named the himalaya's as an example of a mountain range that is pushed upward by plate tectonics. There are others. For example, the mediterranean sea (sea between Europe and Africa) is closing with a speed of 4 cm a year. A mountain will be the result of this continued push (just not in our time). The Grand Canyon is the result of being lifted up by plate tectonics. And so on, and so on. Again, water run-off alone cannot account for mountains in any way, you need plate tectonics.

 

[Girl_4_God]

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"

This is not a lie.
Jenny

 

[Girl_4_God]

So if you lie to your mother and she believes you, you haven't lied?

I could not lie to or about somthing or someone I love and belive in.

Jenny

 

[raphael_aa]

This is not a lie.
Jenny

I appreciate that you're very young. Do you think its wise to make such brave pronouncements from a position of relative ignorance? I would suggest that you research a little. Even on this forum there have been many examples of the useful outcomes of evolution.

 

[Girl_4_God]

You didnt take into consideration the GOD FACTOR....
2+2=4 is doomed, DOOMED I tell you!

Without GOD there are not any numbers and without GOD there are no leaves, no trees, no language so, nothing to talk about, and without GOD there are no people, no world, no planet or planets, Without GOD there is nothing.

Jenny

 

[Arikay]

Jenny,
how long have you been studying evolution?
What resources have you used?
Can you explain what evolution is?

 

[Girl_4_God]

Jenny,
how long have you been studying evolution?
What resources have you used?
Can you explain what evolution is?

Well I have been studying evolution since I could read so about 10 years.
A lot so many I could not list them all here are some the Bible, Kent Hovinds stuff and a lot of others from the creationists point of view. Then a lot from the evolutionists view too. I have loved archeology since I can remember so I would get all the books I could at the library. Evolution is a lie.

Jenny

 

[Arikay]

I'm glad to hear that you enjoy reading.

Kent Hovind:
One post of many, a bit harsh but some information you should know about his claims,
http://www.christianforums.com/t796091

The usefulness of evolution:
A post by Winace providing a couple examples of how evolution is useful,
http://www.christianforums.com/t97010-real-world-applications-of-evolutionary-biology.html

I would be very interested to know why you say evolution is a lie, perhaps in another thread.

Well I have been studying evolution since I could read so about 10 years.
A lot so many I could not list them all here are some the Bible, Kent Hovinds stuff and a lot of others from the creationists point of view. Then a lot from the evolutionists view too. I have loved archeology since I can remember so I would get all the books I could at the library. Evolution is a lie.

Jenny

 

[Electric Skeptic]

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"

This is not a lie.
Jenny

It might not be a lie (ie., a falsehood knowingly told); it is certainly false.

Well I have been studying evolution since I could read so about 10 years.
A lot so many I could not list them all here are some the Bible, Kent Hovinds stuff and a lot of others from the creationists point of view. Then a lot from the evolutionists view too. I have loved archeology since I can remember so I would get all the books I could at the library.

Well, if you've read so many, you're surely able to name a few titles? Science texts, I'm talking about - not creationist literature. If you've studied evolution, surely you can tell us SOME of the books you have read on the subject?

Evolution is a lie.

Yes, so you keep repeating. We're waiting for any evidence that you even understand it.

 

[Girl_4_God]

I'm glad to hear that you enjoy reading.
I would be very interested to know why you say evolution is a lie, perhaps in another thread.

I love to read! Have you ever read the bible?
I would like to tell you. What Thread?

Jenny

 

[Girl_4_God]

It might not be a lie (ie., a falsehood knowingly told); it is certainly false.
Well, if you've read so many, you're surely able to name a few titles? Science texts, I'm talking about - not creationist literature. If you've studied evolution, surely you can tell us SOME of the books you have read on the subject?
Yes, so you keep repeating. We're waiting for any evidence that you even understand it.

Okay maybe its not a lie but it certanly IS false.
Okay, okay i'll go look at my books and come post again.

Jenny

 

[Arikay]

Yes I have.

This one shall do,
http://www.christianforums.com/t144...use-split-from-scientific-proof-of-flood.html

I love to read! Have you ever read the bible?
I would like to tell you. What Thread?

Jenny

 

[mmadison777]

I believe everything the Bible says. It has never lied to me. Every prophecy has come to pass (except Revelations). If God inspired the writings to say that He sent a flood that wiped out man and animals, I believe it. I know that human nature wants to prove everything, but isnt that what the Pharisees wanted Jesus to do? God wants us to have Faith.

 

[mmadison777]

I agree ---Evolution is a lie!!! I believe in the Bible. I believe God. I can not change a person's thinking. I can only state what I think and I think Evolution is a lie from God's enemy, the evil one, the father of all lies. Evolution is merely a theory. They have no proof.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I agree ---Evolution is a lie!!! I believe in the Bible. I believe God. I can not change a person's thinking. I can only state what I think and I think Evolution is a lie from God's enemy, the evil one, the father of all lies. Evolution is merely a theory. They have no proof.

Yup, its' just a theory. Just like germ theory, relativity, gravity...all just theories. If you can dismiss evolution because it's "just a theory", then I suppose you'll dismiss all the others, too?

 

[gluadys]

I agree ---Evolution is a lie!!! I believe in the Bible. I believe God. I can not change a person's thinking. I can only state what I think and I think Evolution is a lie from God's enemy, the evil one, the father of all lies. Evolution is merely a theory. They have no proof.

Evolution is not atheism. Many Christians here accept evolution as a good description of how God created diverse species.

Science does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence. If evidence falsifies a scientific theory, then the theory is revised or abandoned for a better explanation of the evidence.

Evolution has not been falsified by any line of evidence.