• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

What Would Falsify the Flood?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Your sarcasm caught me off-guard.

I would have expected that from most others, but not you.

But as I said, however, the Bible says you will, and I didn't heed the Bible; did I?
No sarcasm was intended AV. You used a very strong word "Repugnant". Such strong wording was uncalled for. Anyway let us leave it at that.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,269
52,669
Guam
✟5,159,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No sarcasm was intended AV. You used a very strong word "Repugnant". Such strong wording was uncalled for. Anyway let us leave it at that.

Alright ... I apologize.

I'm poor in the area of synonyms anyway.

How about "goofy"?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,269
52,669
Guam
✟5,159,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Excuse me, but the ark was a containment vessel not a "ship." (thanks AVET ;))

You impress the [pine] tar outta me.

Do you have a photographic memory or something?

Yes ... the Ark was one of three containment vessels called "arks" in the Bible.

Noah's Ark, Moses' Ark and the Ark of the Covenant.

All containment vessels.
 
Upvote 0

freezerman2000

Living and dying in 3/4 time
Feb 24, 2011
9,525
1,221
South Carolina
✟46,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Ok, you are right, just 98% of them. The rest in amber and a few that got covered in volcanic eruptions, so 2% out of several billion fossils. Snicker.

Why Are Fossils Only Found in Sedimentary Rocks? - Ask.com

Some are found in metamorphic rock, which is just sedimentary rock subjected to high temperature after the fossil has already formed.

You need to study up on your geology bub. Your ignorance is showing.



Exactly, because they were not formed by the flood which deposited the fossils, and this is why they lack any fossils. You just proved flood theory and didn't even know it in your zeal to disprove it.

If you understood what you just said above, you would know flood theory is the only theory that fits. Sedimentary rock formed by processes other than water deposit, as you rightly pointed out, tend not to have fossils in them. But that corrolation has never crossed your mind because you like to ignore evidence that does not fit your fantasies. You just pointed out the best claim for flood theory, the fact that sedimentary rock formed by processes other than water deposit rarely have fossils in them.

Seems your scientists are saying you know nothing about what you speak

http://www.icrs2012.com/proceedings/manuscripts/ICRS2012_4C_1.pdf

"Linear extension, measured as change in length for individually tagged branches (or columns), was quantified for 394 branches, on 138 colonies from 6 genera. Of the 394 branches that were tagged in December 2010, 93.7% (369/394) were alive and growing in March 2011. Estimates of linear extension obtained using direct tagging were consistent between sites for all genera except Acropora where the linear extension at Horseshoe Reef was 14.76 ± 1.45 mm (mean ± SE) and North Bay was 18.53 ± 2.47 mm. The linear extension varied significantly within and among coral genera (Table 2). Acropora had the greatest mean linear extension (16.62 ± 1.43 mm) (Fig. 2). The slowest growing coral was Pocillopora with a branch mean linear extension of 2.15 ± 0.27 mm."

So in 3 months they grew anywhere from 1/2 inch or more. In 20 years? Add it up. Acropora cervicornis grows over 10 inches per year. That's 16 feet in 20 years. 83 feet every 100. How thick are your coral beds? Snicker, snicker.

Roth, A. A. --- Coral Reef Growth

Here is a telephone pole nearly buried in water deposited sediment, more specifically the lahars produced by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo:

fig18f.jpg


As far as I know, there were no telephone poles during Noah's time. Therefore, simply pointing at water born sediments does not indicate that there was a recent global flood since we observe sediments being produced now which are not from a global flood.

Secondly, you are completely ignoring the challenge. You need to describe what features a geologic formation would need in order to falsify a recent global flood. From what I have seen, no matter what features a formation has a creationist will find some excuse of how a global flood will produce it. From what I have seen, the creationist arguments are ad hoc rationalizations that are completely unfalsifiable. Prove me wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
We call them "miracles."

Is that like in Star Trek when they realise they can save the person with some gadget of the week which would be handy to have again next week but they conveniently forget about it?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You do not know that Mount Everest was there at that time, at that height. You are assuming current conditions.

You are also assuming an open deck which the Ark did not have. The way in was in the side of the ship. It was also made of gopher wood. Do you know what that is?

No, we are not "assuming" current conditions. There is no reason to claim there were other conditions. Other conditions are easily debunked leaving only current ones.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,269
52,669
Guam
✟5,159,647.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.