Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
With all of the world wide drilling into the Earth for oil, water, gas and what not, "IF" such a layer were to be found it would have been found by now. There's no way a Biblical flood layer could be hidden. There simply is not any evidence for a Biblical world wide flood.And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?
I gave what I think is two concrete evidences of the Flood, and both were either dismissed immediately on principle, or micro-ridicule-questioned into oblivion.With all of the world wide drilling into the Earth for oil, water, gas and what not, "IF" such a layer were to be found it would have been found by now. There's no way a Biblical flood layer could be hidden. There simply is not any evidence for a Biblical world wide flood.
Yes, He cleaned up after the flood so well that the only trace remaining is a dubious interpretation of an ancient religious text.I gave what I think is two concrete evidences of the Flood, and both were either dismissed immediately on principle, or micro-ridicule-questioned into oblivion.
As far as a Flood layer is concerned though, I don't know.
I like to think that God so "cleaned up after Himself" that, like when He removed one of Adam's ribs, He left no trace of an operation.
With all of the world wide drilling into the Earth for oil, water, gas and what not, "IF" such a layer were to be found it would have been found by now. There's no way a Biblical flood layer could be hidden. There simply is not any evidence for a Biblical world wide flood.
Understood. But which I tend to understand then as God lying to us. Which God is unable to do.I like to think that God so "cleaned up after Himself" that, like when He removed one of Adam's ribs, He left no trace of an operation.
Probably because he knew his peers would reject it, as they would anything unexplainable by thier scientific method.You try to claim that this is "science" an important part of science is peer review. Why didn't he publish his findings in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal? I can think of one very good reason not to.
Yes ... I realize that, in academy-think, cleaning up after oneself is tantamount to lying.Understood. But which I tend to understand then as God lying to us. Which God is unable to do.
Last night my wife asked me:But your pal is advancing a false hypothetical , not least because of belief that God hid the evidence,
When you study it you will find out - the answer will surprise even you."Several".
What tests were actually performed?
Are you saying there was DNA?
"Impossible" might apply, but certain ifs are involved.
A lot of ifs. Could you identify any?
A related " if" being that if this is valid, it is a scientific
marvel of the first order.
Why do you suppose no researchers seem to be all over
it, competing for the Nobel, potentially the greatest
scientific demonstration of all time?
It's not academy-think. It's a spiritual knowing that God does not lie. And what God does/or not to this Earth is not hidden and can not be hidden. There is absolutely no reason for God to clean up anything, unless He's hiding something, or lying. Which God can not do. Or, perhaps a person's need to work around/spin the obvious to make it work.Yes ... I realize that, in academy-think, cleaning up after oneself is tantamount to lying.
Scientists do not have the flaws of creationists. If evidence was found for the flood they would change their minds. You see most scientists are honest. They have to be. In the sciences being wrong is bad, but it is expected. No one is going to be right all of the time. Being dishonest is not acceptable, being dishonest will cost someone their career. I can name examples of creation "scientist" that openly lied and nothing was done to them because they lied for the Bible. With creation "scientist" the opposite appears to be the case. Being honest hurts your career. Lying for the stories of Genesis is perfectly okay.And what if it was found tomorrow? what then?
In my opinion, it would just widen the gap between science and the Bible; making things worse, not better.
There are some things I don't think were meant to be found, else Satan would use it to his advantage.
Moses' body is a prime example:
Deuteronomy 34:5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
So why did God bury Moses, and not Joshua or Caleb? guess who went looking for it?
Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
When he had a cow when how the Shroud was shown to be fraud is also a tell. @Mountainmike is not looking for the "truth" he is only looking for reasons to believe.One can find all sorts of Amazing Science
in the woo woo press, complete with
experts with degrees, for Bigfoot, Bermuda
Triangle, homeopathy, etc.
A source other than one like "reasons to
believe" or "flying saucer news" is needed
for any emhanced credibility.
That no credible journal, Lancet, say,
will touch this statue- blood thing is a tell.
A conspiracy theory advanced as the
reason is probable as an explanation
for this oddity.
There is only one reason to reject articles in peer review. That is if the evidence does not hold up. Are you old enough to remember Cold Fusion? That was not put through peer review. It was hyped by the press because they do not understand the sciences. So scientists worldwide checked it out. If true it would have led to new energy sources and a lot of money. It was found to be a pipe dream. It was not rejected because no one like it. It was rejected because it was wrong.Probably because he knew his peers would reject it, as they would anything unexplainable by thier scientific method.
Or for sanitary and safety reasons.There is absolutely no reason for God to clean up anything, unless He's hiding something, or lying.
Only to a point.If evidence was found for the flood they would change their minds.
Probably because he knew his peers would reject it, as they would anything unexplainable by thier scientific method.
Again, that leads us in a circle. If it can't be verified by the scientific method and the scientific method and is all we have... it can't be verified, even if it happens to be reality.If the work being done isn't explainable by the scientific method, then why should anyone accept it as scientifically verified?
Not everything fits with in the scientific method, but the things that don't fit aren't called science.
That's not what he said.Again, that leads us in a circle. If it can't be verified by the scientific method and the scientific method and is all we have... it can't be verified, even if it happens to be reality.
When he had a cow when how the Shroud was shown to be fraud is also a tell. @Mountainmike is not looking for the "truth" he is only looking for reasons to believe.
How strong can one's faith be if one has to rely on known fakes for one's belief? In the sciences when fakes are found the person that discovered them gets more credit than the faker ever did. Creationists are merely looking for excuses to believe something that they appear to know is false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?