The order of fossils in the geological column

[justlookinla]

Religion, much like technology, is neither good nor bad. It is how people use it that is good or bad.

True.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why anyone would even need to believe a myth is beyond me, why do they do it? I can understand a person who was raised and indoctrinated believing it but definitely not adults, who are they fooling? what are they clinging to and why would they need to cling to it? I am at a complete loss as to why anyone would do it or even want to do it, what is wrong with them to make them need to believe nonsense?

Why would someone say, you can't show that it's not true so I'm going to believe it, that's completely back to front and against all reason, perhaps I'm wrong and it's not about truth, only need, they need to believe in something.

Perhaps that's why there are countless cults and religions in this world? people are desperate to believe in something, anything just as long as they believe.

Sounds like you are confounded.

"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty..." (1 Corinthians 1:27)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

......people are desperate to believe in something, anything just as long as they believe.

The 'felt' need for religion is probably the least of the 'desperate' aspects of life on earth. I was able to put aside most of my 'desperate' needs (money, sex, smoking and drinking, carousing) when I was converted. Joining God's church was like homecoming for me. I was out of the moral wilderness and back into civilization. What you and others fail to recognize is the great moral value of the conversion in the lives of the converted. This value transcends the church, benefitting the greater society as well. You should be celebrating the repentance of sinners, not criticizing them.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Sounds like you are confounded.

I am confused totally confused, like the robot said, it does not compute.

It's as if millions of people have gone mad and the people living next to them are not doing anything to help them,
it's a collective delusion.

I have a feeling the people who allowed this to happen have achieved what they set out to achieve, 1% of Americans now own 35% of the wealth while the 40% at the bottom own only 4% of the wealth, as Desmond Tutu said, “When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.”

The rich gave the people at the bottom religion and while they were praying they salted the wealth away for themselves.

I have heard that the people at the bottom in the US want to give billionaires tax cuts, how can some people be so misguided? no it does not compute.

 

[Dusty Bin]

The 'felt' need for religion is probably the least of the 'desperate' aspects of life on earth. I was able to put aside most of my 'desperate' needs (money, sex, smoking and drinking, carousing) when I was converted. Joining God's church was like homecoming for me. I was out of the moral wilderness and back into civilization. What you and others fail to recognize is the great moral value of the conversion in the lives of the converted. This value transcends the church, benefitting the greater society as well. You should be celebrating the repentance of sinners, not criticizing them.

When you talk like that it almost makes me wish I had been born an American, (with the same brain I have now of course) is it true that there are millions like you? no wonder they call it the land of the free, if you can think without using religion everything there must be free.
Although I don't think I could con people to make a fortune like Kent Hovine and Ray Comfort the banana man,
but it must be tempting.

 

[Dusty Bin]

(money, sex, smoking and drinking, carousing)

I know what all of those things are, they are all things Christians like, churches just love money they can't get enough of it, sex is needed and had by 99% of all of us, (we wouldn't be here if people hadn't done it) smoking we can all do without, drinking alcohol we all like doing sometimes, (Jesus even made the stuff) but what is "carousing"?

I laugh when Christians talk about "lust", if it hadn't been for lust none of us would be here.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet the ice didn't get there until after the flood and as a result of the flood.

There are hundreds of thousands of annual layers in those ice records. You are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

What i mean is that the effect of the weight of a 5 miles high flood would have have the same kind of "sinking "effect ( Isostatic depression)on the continents that have happened during the last glaciation

Isostatic depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isostatic depression is the sinking of large parts of the Earth's crust into the asthenosphere. The sinking is caused by a heavy weight placed on the Earth's surface.
Often this is caused by the heavy weight of glacial ice due to continental glaciation. This is a process in which permanent ice places pressure on the Earth's crust, thereby depressing it with its weight.
After continental glaciation has receded, it is common for isostatic rebound to occur.



Post-glacial rebound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound, glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostasy. It affects northern Europe (especially Scotland, Estonia, Fennoscandia, and northern Denmark), Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada and the United States, the coastal region of the US state of Maine, parts of Patagonia, and Antarctica.

None of that would change the types of deposits we would expect to see from a recent global flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

It actually took months.

Not according to the Biblical account. The rain lasted 40 days. That is from no flood to fully flooded, 40 days. That is from sea level pre-flood to higher than the mountains on day 40.

Now, much of each continent is within 2,000 feet of sea level, well below the miles of water seen at the peak of the supposed flood. Just a few hundred feet would be enough to flood the US from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes. This water height would have been reached in just a few days. This would have created cross-continental tsunamis, especially with all of the tectonic activity that creationists require.

There is absolutely no geologic evidence that any of this happened. In fact, you are inventing a fantasy world where floods do not leave evidence in a feeble attempt to hold on to the mythical flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are hundreds of thousands of annual layers in those ice records. You are wrong.

Remind us again how many tens of thousands of years (by representation) of ice and snow covered the lost squadron?

Was it something like 253 feet down?

 

[[serious]]

Remind us again how many tens of thousands of years (by representation) of ice and snow covered the lost squadron?

Was it something like 253 feet down?

CD410: Airplanes Buried in Ice

 

[Loudmouth]

Remind us again how many tens of thousands of years (by representation) of ice and snow covered the lost squadron?

You first. Show us how they measured alternations in oxygen isotopes in the ice that covered the planes, and how they determined if it was ice that formed in place or was transported by moving glaciers.

 

[Queller]

That is not Noah who have told Moses about the Flood but God.
Jesus validated the account of the Flood given to Moses.

Jesus never said anything about the Flood being worldwide.

 

[Queller]

Right it was the imaginary mars sized planet they need to get the moon. The moon then started out at the earth in their dream scenario. By extrapolation backwards, then they have the moon all the way on earth starting out.

Right, which has nothing to do with the moon crashing into the earth as you originally claimed.

Try and tell us one in your own words and see who gets what!

Tell you one what in my own words?

Nope. Name one experiment that shows the rate was not different!? They believe nothing more. Pathetic religion.

Why stop at just one? EVERY experiment conducted using radioactive decay has the potential to show that radioactive decay rates were different in the past. They NEVER have.

EVERY experiment related to the physical constants of the universe has the potential to show that gravity, the speed of light, etc. have the potential to show changes over time. They NEVER have. Here's a specific one dealing with radiation absorption in a galaxy 7 BILLION light years away; Bagdonaite, 2012

Any time science claims creation of man or the universe happened another way that God says, they are lying through their teeth, whether they know it or not.

If they don't know it then it isn't lying, it's a mistake. Can you not even get simple principles correct?

The bible agrees. God's word doesn't misguide. No one made up fast plant growth, long lives, water and land separating in creation week, spirits marrying humans, or flood waters from heaven.

The problem is that Christians don't agree on what the Bible says. Just look at the debates between you, me, Aman777, and OldWiseGuy.

You cannot compare any of the thing the bible actually says with the billions of years you cite.

Meh, that's your opinion and everybody has one.

 

[Queller]

Not my idea. Ever heard of GAP theory?

Yes, I've heard of GAP theory. I've never heard anyone proclaim that at some point in the "gap" between Gen 1:1 and Gen. 1:2 there was cataclysm that destroyed some planet. What Biblical or scientific evidence do you have for this claim?

 

[Queller]

I'm guessing a high water mark above 16,000 feet would have been washed or worn away by now.

All over the world? Not hardly.

And you continue to ignore so many FACTS that prove your hypothesis is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Queller]

No. The ice caps are fused/frozen to the land. It would take longer than one year to loosen them. Any degrading of the surface would be concealed by normal weathering.

And you know this because....?

 

[dad]

Right, which has nothing to do with the moon crashing into the earth as you originally claimed.

False! If the moon was created by pixie dust coming together as a moon then the moon started on earth! If we want to be technical with the fable, the moon actually formed higher up, but it's origin was right here ON earth from the phoney little magic planet smash up!

Wake up, lurkers, so called science is a fraud.

Why stop at just one? EVERY experiment conducted using radioactive decay has the potential to show that radioactive decay rates were different in the past. They NEVER have.

No, name one such experiment. Looking at decay merely shows decay goes on! How long this holds true is not a matter of experiment, but assumption that all the forces and laws that cause decay used to exist also!

EVERY experiment related to the physical constants of the universe has the potential to show that gravity, the speed of light, etc. have the potential to show changes over time. They NEVER have. Here's a specific one dealing with radiation absorption in a galaxy 7 BILLION light years away; Bagdonaite, 2012

Let's look at your link


"Here we set a limit on a possible cosmological variation of the proton-to-electron mass ratio μ by comparing transitions in methanol observed in the early universe with those measured in the laboratory. From radio-astronomical observations of PKS1830-211, we deduced a constraint of ∆μ/μ = (0.0 ± 1.0) × 10−7 at redshift z = 0.89, corresponding to a look-back time of 7 billion years. This is consistent with a null result."

The experiment was here. In a lab. The silly assumptions of time in the far universe and distance and 'early' universe are bad religion.

If they don't know it then it isn't lying, it's a mistake. Can you not even get simple principles correct?

No, when a lie is echoed and repeated from the heart, even if people are not fully aware it is a lie, it still is. People coulld know better if they believed God, so what excuse is there?

The problem is that Christians don't agree on what the Bible says. Just look at the debates between you, me, Aman777, and OldWiseGuy.

OWG mostly is trying to do science loosely using the bible as a guide. I don't have big issues with him on bible details, just how he assumes science relates to it. Aman has nothing to do with the bible, except trying to use it as a launching pad to promote his cult ideas such as modern man came through bestiality with ancient beings with no intellect, more like apes it seems. Then there is the stuff about Noah bring people to this planet and the little world under the lake etc etc. He may appear to some on a forum to be quasi bible savvy, but not to sane informed believers.

Since science is not based on God's truth or reality of the universe or past, one MUST step out from just what is in the Bible in black and white, to be able to address the issues they raise! Naturally, bible believers, in trying to do that will do it in different ways. I allow for that, and indulge in that also of course. What I will not allow is wild eyed insane claims that are not really an honest look at what the Actual Scriptures teach.

 

[Queller]

According to my math there is plenty of water. Consider that,

70 per cent of the earth's surface is covered by water.

This water has an average depth of 14,000 feet.

The continents cover 30 per cent of the earth's surface, less than one-half of that covered by water.

This means that if the land's surface and the sea's surface were equal the average depth of the oceans would be more than 28,000 feet; more than enough to cover the Mountains of Ararat, especially if the continents sank even a little under the weight of the water.

Remember that my model has the sea floors bulging upward spilling their water onto the land i.e. the fountains of the great deep breaking up. The 28,000 feet figure is interesting isn't it (think Mt. Everest).

I would love to see how you arrived at this number because it isn't even close.

The total volume of the oceans is 1.3 billion cubic kilometers (Ocean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers (Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Dividing the volume by the surface area, we get a depth of 2.5 kilometers.
Source

The above assumes all of the continental plates have raised up as high as they can possibly go so that they distribute their water all over the planet. The total depth of the water would then be a little over 1.5 miles. Nowhere near deep enough to submerge the mountains of Ararat.

 

[Queller]

What i mean is that the effect of the weight of a 5 miles high flood would have have the same kind of "sinking "effect ( Isostatic depression)on the continents that have happened during the last glaciation

Isostatic depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isostatic depression is the sinking of large parts of the Earth's crust into the asthenosphere. The sinking is caused by a heavy weight placed on the Earth's surface.
Often this is caused by the heavy weight of glacial ice due to continental glaciation. This is a process in which permanent ice places pressure on the Earth's crust, thereby depressing it with its weight.
After continental glaciation has receded, it is common for isostatic rebound to occur.



Post-glacial rebound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound, glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostasy. It affects northern Europe (especially Scotland, Estonia, Fennoscandia, and northern Denmark), Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada and the United States, the coastal region of the US state of Maine, parts of Patagonia, and Antarctica.

It seems to me that the problem with the idea of isostatic depression and rebound is that during a global flood, all of the pressure is uniformly (more or less) distributed over the surface of the earth. Therefore there would be no specific area of high water pressure to cause depressions to begin with.

Think of an egg. If you apply uniform pressure all over the egg, you can't crack it. You can only crack it if you apply significantly more pressure at one point on the egg, which a global flood cannot do.