Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Mahora Academy. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Dark Side Of Philosophy; ~~Feel the evil~~
Topic Started: Sep 10 2007, 03:39 AM (769 Views)
frodowise
Uber Soldant
[ *  * ]
Haven't been able to post in this thread for a while..cursed web blocker program.

Dang...where do I start? >.<

I'll begin with Dystant I guess...

ism caused by religion you say. I agree 150%. It is caused by people who hide behind a religion (Islam especially) and claim that they can thousands "because God said so". In actuality, the Muslim holy book goes on and on about treating the "people of the Book" (Christians and Jews) with respect and dignity. In other words, there is nothing about "They are not your religion, BURN THEM LIKE THE INFIDELS THEY ARE!" in there. Ditto with Christianity. Christians are told to love their enemies and to help them (though not to do so in a manner that is sinful, such as stealing, etc). Any ist that claims to be acting in the name of -religion- is a liar. Period.

I believe you realize that many medical (or semi-medical, such as early cytology and the study of bacteria) discoveries were the result of Christians? I believe I have already said things about Christians and science. They can go together. In fact, they work quite well together.

I am afraid that I cannot go to the web link you provided (Cyberstitter be thrice cursed!) so I'll have to leave that alone for now.

What method of dating was used on those core samples? Carbon-dating (the most common method I am aware of) is ineffective past roughly 3,000 years. For example, there are cases in which reliably dated documents and artifacts were said to be millions of years old!

How in blazes in the Bible contradicted by the existence of dinosaurs?! In Job a "behemoth" and a "leviathan" (sp?) are both mentioned as being creatures readily observable. The behemoth is described as having a tail like that of a cedar trunk. What land animal in all the world has such a tail save for a dinosaur? The leviathan is said to be uncatchable by human spear and hook. A massive creature.

No mass extinction during the time humankind has been on this earth? According to the dating used by certain scientists, maybe. But many others (A Dr. J. L. Wile for one) do not accept those as valid past a few thousand years. For another, the La Brea Tar Pits, plus the new mass grave that was discovered (saw a commercial for it on the Discoverey Channel) often have animals piled on top of one another, or in a cave, all bunched together. What would an animal do in the event of rapidly rising water? Rush into a "safe" area. Eventually, of course, the land would begin to run out, leaving hundreds of animals contained in a rapidly diminishing island. The rapid burial needed to fossilize such a large amount of animals would also occur if the "fountains of the deep" and the "sluicegates of heaven" coupled with storms and the like swirled massive amoutns of silt and sediments.

I concede the point of the Red sea vs. Reed Sea, unless I find information contradicting that which you have provided.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dystant
Member Avatar
In a galaxy far far away...
[ *  * ]
Ok, where to start my response:

frodowise
 

I am afraid that I cannot go to the web link you provided (Cyberstitter be thrice cursed!) so I'll have to leave that alone for now.


The web link I provided was to a site listing contradictions in the bible. How an erroneous book can have contradictions is beyond me.

frodowise
 

Christians are told to love their enemies


In the new testament, I agree.

Read the old testament, the testament most Christian fundamentals tend to refer too. The god of the old testament is (to quote Richard Dawkins in his book 'the God Delusion'):
Richard Dawkins
 
Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully.


The worlds three main monotheistic religions were based on this text. It's amazing the worlds not a more dangerous place than it is.

Noah's ark is a great example: god decides that the world hasn't gone quite the way he planned it, so he drowns virtually everyone. As anyone who's narrowly escaped death from drowning will tell you, it is a horific experience, yet the god of the old testament was willing to inflict it on every land dwelling creature on the earth. Doesn't that strike you as counter to the teachings to love your neighbour?

That said, as far as Noah's ark goes as a compelling piece of writing, there is no evidence for it.

Let's start with the tar pits and you wildly eroneous conclusion. You believe that tar pits with dinosaurs stack up is proof of a flood? Surely if they all ran for safty the dinsaurs would be found side by side? No, the tar pits were a trap. Dinosaur walks across was simply apears to me muddy or boggy ground, finds the ground more viscus than first anticipated but is unable to pull itself free, sinks and drowns. Second dinosaur stumbles on the tar pits later, gets stuck, sinks and drowns. Thus the dinosaur carcases stack up.

In addition, tar pits aren't going to be high ground. In fact they're likely to be low ground. In the case of a flood, animals will run for the hills, not for tar pits.

To be honest I'm getting a bit annoyed with the use of Noah's ark as a premise for explaining fosils and mass extinction, but to save me time i'll simply paste in some information gathered by a man named Anglagard on the EvC forums (which I'm not a member of, I just came across it).

For reference the orginal can be found here: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?act...&f=17&t=198&m=1

Anglagard
 

100 Categories of Evidence Opposing Noah’s Flood
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood
Geoscience – I have some familiarity with this area of study. In fact, I would say that virtually every geologic formation, virtually every rock, is evidence against Noah’s flood. However, I am far from expert due to both time and content so I’m sure this list can be improved.

1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.

3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

4. Varves – How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal of pollen grains found in the layers?

5. Sedimentation rates – Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.

6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows – How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?

7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can’t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.

8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events – Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.

9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed.

10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

11. Volcanism – According to ‘flood geology’ every igneous rock layer that overlays sedimentary rock would have to be less than 4500 years old. Yet, historical records indicate this tremendous amount of simultaneous volcanic activity could not have occurred in recent times because someone would have noticed, becoming extinct and all when the atmosphere becomes unbreathable. Such a position directly contradicts the existence of the Deccan Traps which are up to 2 km thick and 500,000 square km in extent, yet supposedly erupted in India despite any historic evidence, after such a flood.

12. Ore deposit formation rates – Most ore deposits require a longer period of time to separate their constituent elements and then cool to create an economically viable source of minerals.

13. Evaporites – The existence of evaporate deposits thousands of feet thick are incompatible with any global flood as they are formed through evaporation rather than through the addition of fresh water.

14. Carbonates – The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.

15. Microfossil deposits - Thick deposits of microfossils in limestone, diatomaceous chert, and chalk that could not settle to such a degree of thickness in the time allotted for any global flood.

16. Thick deposits of sand - Sand is the result of weathering and working of formally solid formations, requiring long long times to form and accumulate.

17. Aeolian sand deposits – Wind deposited sandstone is found above and below water deposited limestone. One example is the Cococino formation which is both overlain and overlies limestone.

18. Overthrust formations – the time and pressure required to cause overthrust formations is far greater than can occur in any post-flood historic time.

19. Formation of geologic features such as mountains and valleys – How did something like the Himalaya Mountains form without anyone noticing all those earthquakes? How were valleys cut between such mountains in less than 4500 years?

20. Heat of formation – I can’t explain this topic any better than has already been done.
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
quote:
________________________________________

• If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.
• Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 10E24 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 10E27 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
• Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 10E23 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 10E26 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
• Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 10E26 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
• Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.
5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 10E27 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.
Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.
________________________________________

21. River meanders – River meanders incised in rock can only be caused by gradual uplift, not through a year’s worth of soft sediment deposition.

22. Large and extensive river potholes – As this is one of Iceage’s, I will defer the explanation to him, although I wouldn’t mind his input on others he brought up as well.

23. Glacial weathering – glacial deposits and weathering such as U-shaped valleys require longer than 4500 years to form.

24. Independent dating correlations – See Correlations Correlations Correlations (Message 1 of Thread Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 in Forum Proposed New Topics) enjoy!

25. Batholith formation – Why isn’t the Sierra Nevada granitic batholith still hot as it would have taken several million years to cool?

26. Differential weathering – How could the Sierra Nevada and the Appalachians show such different weathering if each are the exact same age of only 4500 years old?

27. Banded iron formations and red beds – Banded iron formations can’t form in the presence of significant oxygen. Yet they were supposedly deposited in a flood which supposedly allowed animals to breathe both before and after.

28. Water in confined aquifers – The chemistry of water may be measured as to its constituents, as any municipal water authority already knows. Under flood conditions, the water chemistry in a confined aquifer would have changed as lower elevation aquifers would contain more salt than higher aquifers as the flood waters diluted the salt content in the recharge zone. Not only is this behavior not shown by any known confined aquifer, but the age of such water according to the laws of physics is vastly older than any flood may have deposited.

29. Worldwide iridium layer – Although any worldwide flood evidence is lacking, there is a worldwide iridium layer at the K-T boundary where it exists. How could this iridium layer have been deposited among all those swirling waters in a flood?

30. Deformed structures in metamorphosed sediments – There are areas in metamorphic rock where pebbles and even fossils have been stretched and deformed in processes that would have taken several times any 4500 years since a global flood.

31. Compression of all fossil life into too short a time period – If all species represented by fossils, coal, and petroleum from throughout the geologic record lived simultaneously, they would have been standing on each other, an ecological impossibility.

32. Differential mineralization of fossils – Remains of buried humans in historic times show minimal mineralization. This increases overall with extinct mammals, then extinct dinosaurs, then extinct trilobites and ammonites.

33. Surface features buried throughout geologic column – Examples include: rain drops, river channels, wind-blown dunes, beaches, glacial deposits, burrows, in-place trees, soils, desiccation cracks, footprints.

34. Pollen sorting – Why is pollen sorted according to evolutionary principles instead of hydrodynamic principles in the geologic record?

35. Inconsistent worldwide geologic formations – Any flood would have left a single layer of similar sediment worldwide, not the tremendous amount and variety of layers that exist in each of the thousands of boreholes and outcrops in geology.

36. Existence of soil after flood – Soil is a delicate mixture of organic and inorganic materials. How could any soil exist after an environment that was supposedly turbulent enough to destroy all the earth’s crust?

37. Tectonic spreading rates – Observed tectonic spreading rates indicate that there is no evidence of any disturbance due to any global flood 4500 years ago.

38. Tar pits – If all petroleum was caused by some global flood, how can there be tar pits filled with land fossils that have not become coal or oil?

39. Caverns – Caverns carved from dolomite such as exist in West Texas can’t form in as little as 4500 years.

40. Oklo and other natural reactors – Such natural reactors could not have been formed a mere 4500 years ago unless the laws of physics involving radioactive decay are violated.

41. Multiple glaciations – There are at least four major separate evidences of glaciations in the geologic record separated by eons. How could all four occur during a flood while supposedly underwater?

42. Meteoric impacts – For the evidence of meteoric impacts to be buried under sediments indicate that such impacts all occurred in the span of one year. Such a bombardment would allow for no life due to a lack of sun.

43. Hydrocarbon formation – The amount of hydrocarbon deposits in the ground from organic causes represent a greater biomass than is possible to have formed within 4500 years.

44. Conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates within conglomerates – Conglomerates are made up of diverse weathered rock that is eroded then recemented. In order to have a 4th level conglomerate there needs to be four episodes of weathering and recementation of rocks which are often impossible to form and erode in 4500 years such as when some within the conglomerate matrix are igneous or metamorphic rock.

45. Change in physical properties of rock correlated with age and fossil content – The older the sedimentary rock under current scientific models, in most cases the greater its compaction. How would near-simultaneous deposition explain this observation?

46. Delicate structures preserved in supposed turbulence – Delicate structures such as insect wings and feathers are preserved in rock. How could a turbulence that supposedly weathers miles of consolidated rock simultaneously preserve delicate structures?

47. Coprolites – Coprolites, which are fossilized turds, are preserved throughout the fossil record. How does a flood have animals constantly crapping in the midst of a flood after they are exterminated?

48. Meteoric dust accumulation – Both ice cores and evaporates indicate meteoric dust accumulates at a roughly steady rate over time. How can this dust remain constant under contracted meteoric bombardment?

49. Desert varnish – Desert varnish is created by microorganisms in arid conditions over a period of hundreds of years. How could such varnish be created throughout the geologic record in flood conditions?

50. Multiple layers of fossil forests – How can a single flood explain multiple fossil forest layers such as can be seen at Joggins, Nova Scotia or Yellowstone?

51. Detailed layering – How could a global flood create thousands of layers seen in several geologic formations, each of which requires a different depositional environment?

52. Lack of any geologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah’s Flood, I know of no single piece of geologic evidence in favor of Noah’s Flood.

Bioscience – I have little familiarity with this subject so I am sure that the number and quality of categories here could be improved and even increased by those with more expertise. Sorry about appropriating some dual categories under geoscience, perhaps a new dual meta-category would be appropriate.

53. Observed genetic diversity – The genetic diversity in all animals indicate that there was no genetic bottleneck.

54. Non-viable size of genetic population – A parent population of one or even seven pairs of animals is not genetically viable. Such inbreeding quickly causes fatal mutations.

55. Food requirements of animals – Some animals such as Koalas require very specific diets. How could these dietary requirements been provided, and who could keep up with such variable requirements on a ship?

56. Mobility considerations – How did sloths or other slow-moving animals get to any ark and how did they migrate from any ark without a trace in the time allotted?

57. Symbiotic relationships – Several species have a sole source of nutrition. How did these creatures exist during or after a global flood?

58. Parasites – Parasites require hosts in order to survive. Were all creatures on any ark hosts and how did they survive such parasitism?

59. Diseases – Diseases that exist today require hosts to survive. How did all the infected animals survive simultaneously being hosts to every disease currently around?

60. Social Insects – one pair of ants, bees or termites do not constitute a viable unit for survival.

61. Short-lived life forms – Mayflies only live a few days. How could they reproduce in a barge in a non-riparian environment?

62. Life forms older than flood – The oldest bristlecone pines are 5700 years old, they can’t survive underwater for any appreciable amount of time.

63. Vegetation – Neither most vegetation nor their seeds can survive under salt water. Nor can such vegetation root and thrive in salt encrusted ‘soil’ (which also largely didn’t exist immediately after any flood).

64. Food requirements subsequent to a flood - If a flood wiped out all but a pair of animals and plants, there would be insufficient food for any survivors.

65. Aquatic life - There are fresh water fish, salt water fish, and brackish fish, how could all survive in the same environment?

66. Tree ring data – Rings on currently living trees that indicate they are older than 4500 years do not indicate that they were drowned and died at the time of any proposed global flood.

67. Coral clocks – Annual coral growth is correlated to the number of days per year in the deep past. Such clocks indicate a slowing of Earth’s rotation consistent with physics and not a 4500 year maximum age of coral reefs.

68. Population growth subsequent to any flood – The population growth of humans necessary to produce pyramids, great walls, and great empires is insufficient to have a bottleneck of under a dozen individuals 4500 years ago. The population growth of prey species would be insufficient to support a 90-10 prey-predator ratio immediately after any devastating flood.

69. Coccolithophores – How could these creatures that bloom, oversaturate their environment and then die off have created so many and such thick deposits in the geologic record in so little time during a turbulent flood? (credit to Lithodid-Man)

70. Interdependent ecosystems – How were interdependent ecosystems where life requires a complex web of relationships preserved during and after a global flood?

71. Food pyramid – how could the predation relationship be preserved with only a pair of creatures at the bottom of the chain?

72. Difference between clean/unclean genome – Why do the seven pairs of clean animals not show any greater genetic diversity than the single pairs of unclean animals?

73. Aquatic fossils – Why are fossils from shallow marine environments far more common than all others if there was more land than water prior to any global flood?

74. Lack of any biologic evidence for a global flood – While there are dozens of categories representing millions of data points of evidence against Noah’s Flood, I know of no single piece of biologic evidence in favor of Noah’s Flood.

Engineering – Have some familiarity, but once again, it was a long time ago that it was a part of formal instruction.

75. Loading the ark – Animals and plants would have to enter the Ark in pairs within the space of a few seconds apart.

76. Amount of space – The amount of space provided by the Ark would not come near to enough to hold all species, genus, or even families observed today.

77. Construction – The construction of an object the supposed size of the ark using the tools available at the time is far greater than the size of the construction crew within the time allotted.

78. Materials – The Ark was supposedly constructed of ‘gopherwood’ which shows no evidence of having ever existed. Also, wood as a sole construction material would not be able to withstand the stresses on any ship and would likely capsize at the first opportunity.

79. Ventilation – Animals require air to survive. A single window would provide insufficient ventilation for the body heat and fresh air produced by wall-to-wall biomass.

80. Leakage – A wooden ship of this size would flex due to stress to such a degree that no tar type sealant would work to prevent leakage and eventual sinking within a few days.

81. Waste removal – The crew of the Ark would be insufficient to clear the ship of body waste. The stinking hulk would probably kill all life aboard before a few months had past.

82. Humidity – Many animals and plants, particularly those adapted to deserts, would quickly die in an environment of 100% humidity.

83. Food storage – How could Noah preserve food in 100% humidity among all those microorganisms, mold, and disease causing agents without modern refrigeration for nearly a year?

Addendum - Problems with ‘kinds’ – Many of the above objections are limited through the introduction of the undefined concept of ‘kinds.’ The ‘kinds’ argument fails however because to create the present diversity of life, biologic forms would have to undergo superhyperfragalisticmicromacro evolution, an absurd concept with no evidence and completely void of common sense such as demanding that housecats give birth to lions. It also supposedly is designed to show that evolution does not occur because of greater past evolution, a clear logical contradiction of unbelievable magnitude.
Archeology – Open to suggestions, no training here.

84. Ancient nature of most civilizations – Most civilizations have precursors that indicate a clear evolution of culture and technology through time without any bottleneck. The time allotted for such cultural development is most likely insufficient under any Noah Flood scenario.

85. Oetzi – Oetzi provides an example of a ‘pre-flood’ mummified individual dated and correlated by multiple methods. Where is the water damage?

86. No human activity in deeper layers – There are no indications of human activity, or even humans, in any geologic layers prior to the Pleistocene.

Linguistics - Open to suggestions, no training here.

87. Language variation – Because languages diverge by a set amount over time, and these have been reasoned to have diverged considerably prior to Noah’s Flood, linguistics represents another element of evidence against Noah’s Flood.

History – Please suggest and supplement my haphazard studies.

88. Egyptian history – Why did the Egyptians not mention a flood during their monument building period?

89. Sargon and the Akkadian Empire – How could Sargon conquer Sumeria and create the Akkadian Empire either underwater or immediately after a global flood with no troops?

90. Mohenjo Daro – Why does this ‘pre-flood’ city show no evidence of a global flood?

91. Chinese civilization – Why were the Chinese building canals during a flood?

92. Differential technology level between cultures – If all cultures started at the same level of technological skill 4500 years ago how could most cultures have advanced or deteriorated so quickly relative to each other?

93. Independent primary food sources between cultures – As cited in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond different cultures depended upon different food sources. For example the Aztecs had corn, the Incas had potatoes, the Egyptians had wheat, and the Chinese had rice. If these cultures and their foodstuffs were all in contact 4500 years ago, why did they not show a greater diversity in food sources such as we have today?

94. Inconsistency of flood myths – The prevalence of flood myths among diverse cultures is often cited as evidence for Noah’s Flood. However, the vast difference in the details of nearly each culture’s flood myth actually provides evidence against a single global event.

Biblical Scripture – I’m sure many could add here as they are much better versed in the Bible. (False gods in lowercase)

95. Use of parables in the Bible – If Jesus explicitly taught in parables why do some believe that can’t ever be applied to the OT as well? Are they better informed about god’s intentions than Jesus?

96. Why use a flood? – Instead of wiping out all animals and children along with ‘his’ creation, why didn’t god just punish the unrighteous?

97. Why punish those who use their god-created minds - Why would a just god reward those who hate science and show it by attacking it via the literal interpretation of Noah’s story and punish those who use science to save lives?

Miscellaneous Categories

98. No plausible mechanism to explain where water came from – Overhead ‘vapor canopies’ and underground ‘fountains’ violate the most basic principles of physics. There is no explanation of where the water came from.

99. No plausible mechanism to explain where water went – No remotely valid or rational explanation has been propounded to explain where such flood waters retreated to.

100. Dubious motives of many who seek to conflate religion and science – Many of the well-known originators and staunch defenders of the war against science are proven liars and even convicted criminals, usually for using religion to line their pockets. Why should any thinking and/or moral person accept their rants as gospel?


I think that's enough for one evening. I look forward to comments and arguments.

Is it wrong to find this kind of conversation fun?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
I wanna just side track this a little and discuss FELIX CULPA, the idea that satan's fall from grace and the creation of hell was a good thing.

since god is all-knowing, he thusly knew that satan would rebel, creating hell. then this means that, since god doesn no evil, the creation of evil through satan was in fact a good thing.

by the way, this theory is dogmatic, and is only debatable by those who study the bible (or John Milton)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
frodowise
Uber Soldant
[ *  * ]
I also very much enjoy this :).

God is the Lord of all things. He is more powerful than anything that is, was, or will be. He also created the world and all that is in it. Now, he originally created the earth and it was "very good" until humankind messed up His plan. They followed the advice of the serpent and ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil rather than following the commands of the all-knowing, all powerful Creator. Before they had ever touched the fruit, He had warned them was the penalty and that is what they and anyone else who disobeys God deserves. Thus, if God gives you anything beyond a firey, eternal torment of pain and suffering you are being blessed beyond what you deserve.

You know, if everyone followed the Bible we would have...lets see...
1. No
2. No robbery
3. No ry
4. A day in which to rest from work and whatnot

Not seeing how this would make the world a more dangerous place....


"Not the way He planned it?" The people He had created had compleley forsaken all that was good. All of humankind(save Noah and his family) were evil to the core. Evil to the point of having demons marry their women! Every foul and horrible thing possible was being done by these immoral, perverted, sick, twisted people. And there was no Jesus Christ to offer them redemption. God can't just look and say "oh, yeah, no problem guys. I forgive you" The price for your sins must be paid by someone. And so, this evil civilization was destroyed by the greatest flood the world has ever known. These people were merely reaping the reward for evil and sinful behaivor. And that includes the children. Kids are not saints, you know?

You are getting tired? If I have to hear 100 billion years ago such and such happened my head might asplode >.<. Let's go through these one at a time, shall we....
1. Maybe because of massive tidal waves/tsunamies that resulted from the "fountains of the deep" (which many feel to be underwater volcanoes and underground rivers) would continuously remove then add then remove silt, sediment etc.
2. I have no reason to accept this date. There is no reason why I should accept a radiometric date, because it is so often misused and I have no reason to assume that this situation is any different. There is also the fact that scientists base the dates upon the fact that isotopes used in the process have not had their breakdown slowed or accelerated in any way. Nor can they possibly know how much of the material was present at the time the isotope began to "decay". To quote Dr. J. L. Wile..
"The best way of examining the strengths and weaknesses of radioactive dating is to examine one of the radioactive dating methods in detail. Since 14 C is probably the best known radioactive dating technique, I will discuss that one. As I have already mentioned, 14 C decays by beta decay with a half-life of 5,730 years. It turns out that all living organisms contain a certain amount of 14 C, making all living organisms somewhat radioactive.

Interestingly enough, living organisms continually exchange 14 C with their surroundings. Human beings, for example, exhale carbon dioxide, some of which contains 14 C. In addition, human beings eat other organisms (plant and animals), which contain 14 C as well. Finally, as you learned way back in Module #2, part of the air that we inhale is made up of carbon dioxide, some of which contains 14 C. Thus, organisms are continually exchanging 14 C with their environment. The practical result of all of this exchange is that, at any time when an organism is alive, it contains the same amount of 14 C as does the atmosphere around the organism.

This changes when the organism dies, however. At that point, the 14 C exchange ceases. Thus, the organism cannot replenish its supply of 14 C, and the amount of 14 C in the organism begins to decrease. Every 5,730 years, half of the 14 C in the organism will decay away. In general, then, organisms that have been a long time tend to have less 14 C in them as compared to those that have been for only a short time.

Now if you think about it, this fact can be used to measure the length of time that an organism has been . After all, if we know how much 14 C was in an organism when it died, and if we measure the amount of 14 C in it now, the difference will be the amount of 14 C that has decayed away. Since we know how quickly 14 C decays, this can tell us how long the organism has been . Pretty simple, right?

Well, it would be simple, if we knew how much 14 C was in the organism when it died. The problem is , how do we figure that out? After all, no one was around to measure the amount of 14 C in the organism when it died; thus, we must make an assumption about how much 14 C would have been measured if someone had been there to measure it. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with making assumptions in science. The trick is that we have to know our assumptions are accurate.

In the case of 14 C dating, scientists assume that, on average, the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere has never really changed that much. They assume that the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere today is essentially the same as it was 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, etc. Thus, when the age of a organism is being measured with 14 C dating, we assume that the amount of 14 C it had when it died was the same as the amount of 14 C that is in the atmosphere now. That gives us a value for how much 14 C was initially in the organism. We can measure the amount of 14 C that is in the organism now and then determine how long the organism has been .

Notice, however, that the age we get from this process is completely dependent on the assumption that we made about how much 14 C was in the organism when it died. If that assumption is good, the age we calculate will be accurate. If that assumption is bad, the age we calculate will not be accurate. So the question becomes, “Is the assumption accurate?” In short, the answer is “no.”

Through a process involving tree rings, there is a way we can measure the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere in years past. When a tree is cut down, the rings in the tree's trunk can be counted to determine how old the tree is. Each ring represents a year in the life of the tree. We know which ring corresponds to which year by simply counting the rings from the outside of the trunk to the inside. Well, it turns out that through a rather complicated process, we can actually measure the amount of 14 C in a tree ring and use it to determine how much 14 C was in the atmosphere during the year in which the tree ring was grown. As a result, scientists have determined the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere throughout a portion of the earth's past.

Scientists have studied the 14 C content in tree rings that are as many as 3,000 years old. From these measurements, scientists have determined the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere over the past 3,000 years. What they have seen is that the amount of 14 C has varied by as much as 70% over that time period. The variation is correlated to certain events that occur on the surface of the sun. As a result, we know that the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere has not stayed constant. Instead, it has varied greatly. Thus, we know that the initial assumption of 14 C dating is wrong. Thus, one must take most 14 C dates with a grain of salt. After all, we know that the assumption used in making those dates is wrong. Consequently, we cannot put too much trust in the results!

Notice that I said we must take “most” 14 C dates with a grain of salt. Why “most?” Why not “all?” It turns out that since we can determine the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere during the past using tree rings, we can actually use that data to help us make our initial assumption. As a result, the assumption becomes much more accurate. The problem is, however, that we don't have 14 C measurements for tree rings that are older than 3,000 years. Thus, we can only make an accurate assumption for organisms that have died within the last 3,000 years. As long as the organism died in that time range, we can use tree ring data to help us make an accurate assumption of how much 14 C was in the organism when it died. For organisms that have died longer than 3,000 years ago, we have no tree ring data, so we have no way to make an accurate assumption. As a result, we cannot really believe the 14 C date.

In the end, then, the 14 C dating method can be believed for organisms that have been for 3,000 years or less. Thus, it is a great tool for archaeology. If an archaeologist finds a manuscript or a piece of cloth (both cloth and paper are made from plants), the archaeologist can use 14 C dating to determine its age. As long as the result is about 3,000 years or younger, the date can be believed. If the date turns out to be older than 3,000 years, it is most likely wrong.

So you should see that radioactive dating involves a pretty important assumption. If the assumption is good, the date obtained from radioactive dating is good. If the assumption is bad, the result obtained from radioactive dating will be bad. Now there are a lot of other radioactive dating techniques besides 14 C dating. Unfortunately, they all suffer from a similar malady. In every radioactive dating technique, we must make assumptions about how much of a certain substance was in the object originally. Such assumptions are quite hard to make accurately."


3. Ah, the geologic collumn...total fabrication. There is no place on earth where such a thing is present. The fact is, a creature with a shell (trilobites for example) would settle closer to the bottom before being buried due to the shape of their shells. They would also tend to be the best preserved due to their hard shell, thus why they make up an immensely large portion (above 90%) of the fossil record. The rest of the record does NOT indicate that creatures fall into a timeline with the earliest at the bottom with the more recent in succesively higher strata. There are also no mid evolution forms. Also, liquefaction liekly had an effect on the fossil record. Liquefaction is described below.
"Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. "http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/what/what1.html
How does this apply to the ofssil record? In terms of a Great Flood, the whole earth would have soil that is totally saturated by water. The earthquakes, volcanoes and bursting underground rivers would provide the necessary vibration.
"Liquefaction has even lifted empty tanks up through asphalt pavement1 and raised pipelines and logs out of the ground.2 In other words, buried objects that are less dense than surrounding soil rise buoyantly when that soil liquefies. What causes liquefaction? What would happen to buried animals and plants in temporarily liquefied sediments? http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction.html

That would cause lighter creatures (plants, mammals and birds) to rise above the heavier dinosaurs in this liquefied mud. The shells of the trilobites and other shelled creatures would likely have filled with mud and sunk due to their shapes. Thus why this apparant "geologic time scale" appears. In addition, though I doubt anyone would admit it, there have been several cases in which an older creature has been found in "newer" layers of strata.
4. Ever heard of the Mount St. Helens eruption? When that single volcanoe erupted, it created a small canyon in rapid order. It also set down many, many layers of strata when ordinarily it would have taken thousands/millions of years. Imagine multiple volcanoes erupting added to the effect of tons of water. You could lay down quite a bit of stuff all over the world.
5. The flood was quite a lot of water that was moving quite vigorously. It is entirely possible for the Flood to in one place hit the Canadian Shield just right and strip it of layers of rock (if such "later" rock layers were even there to begin with). The flood raised y mountains!! How hard would it be to move a few tons of earth from one place to another with that kind of force?
6. Because the Flood would pick up a great deal of soil (I grow tired of saying this) and fling it about randomly. The erupting volcanoes (your lava flows) combined with the free floating tons of earth (ancient soil deposits) would allow for such a thing. Given that the Flood waters did eventually recede, there would be plenty of mud/dirt stuck all over the lava flows that would create your interbedded deposits between paleosils.
7. Can't? If I stick some hundreds of thousands of gallons of water in the arctic it can't freeze up into a glacier? I often hear this said about fossils too...turns out you can fossilize a water wheel in about 60 years or so. And no, they did not pourposefully attempt to fossilize it, they simply left it near sediments and what have you in an area where it was possible for it to be fossilized. Somehow believing your claim becomes...difficult.
8. 9.
I'm gonna loop these both together. Both because they are based on nothing more than the assumption that (in the case of #8) their dating method is reliable to any age and that (#9) everything would work exactly they way they think it would. During the chaos of a Global Flood, such assumptions have to be taken with a grain of salt.
10. The last one until I get more time to type :).
This is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp
In the 1970s, the creationist physics professor Dr Thomas Barnes noted that measurements since 1835 have shown that the field is decaying at 5% per century1 (also, archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000 than today2). Barnes, the author of a well-regarded electromagnetism textbook,3 proposed that the earth’s magnetic field was caused by a decaying electric current in the earth’s metallic core (see side note). Barnes calculated that the current could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its original strength would have been large enough to melt the earth. So the earth must be younger than that.

Evolutionist responses
The decaying current is obviously incompatible with the billions of years needed by evolutionists. So their preferred is a self-sustaining dynamo (electric generator). The earth’s rotation and convection is supposed to circulate the molten nickel/iron of the outer core. Positive and negative charges in this liquid metal are supposed to circulate unevenly, producing an electric current, thus generating the magnetic field. But scientists have not produced a workable despite half a century of research, and there are many problems.4

But the major criticism of Barnes’ young-earth argument concerns evidence that the magnetic field has reversed many times—i.e. compasses would have pointed south instead of north. When grains of the common magnetic mineral magnetite in volcanic lava or ash flows cool below its Curie point (see side note) of 570°C (1060°F), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite’s alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth’s field through time.

Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that, because of them, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth.


A ‘force-field’ around the earth.
The earth’s magnetism is running down. This world-wide phenomenon could not have been going on for more than a few thousand years, despite swapping direction many times. Evolutionary theories are not able to explain properly how the magnetism could sustain itself for billions of years.

Creationist counter-response
The nuclear physicist Dr Russell Humphreys believed that Dr Barnes had the right idea, and he also accepted that the reversals were real. He modified Barnes’ to account for special effects of a liquid conductor, like the molten metal of the earth’s outer core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection—hot fluids rise, cold fluids sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.5,6 Now, as discussed in Creation 19(3), 1997, Dr John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of tectonic plates was a cause of the Genesis Flood (see online version). Dr Humphreys says these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.7 This means that most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern—rather, the total field energy would decay even faster (see graph above).8

This also explains why the sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo , the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his : magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ . (See also Dr Humphreys’ online article The Earth’s magnetic field is young.)

Conclusion
The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.


Sorry, I jut noticed number 76 as I was reading, gotta deal with this promptly.
76. Please understand that God didn't need to send two of literally every animal we know on this earth. Two Husky's, Wolves, Cyotes, and Dobermans, for example. He only needed one pair, such as a wolf, because from their MICROevolution could do its work. Microevolution (for anyone who doesn't know) is the changes within a species, such as a Golden Retriever giving birth to a Puglike pup for various environmental reasons. That evolution I accept because it is observeable and makes perfect sense. It is only the evolution of different kinds (reptile-bird or ape-human) That Creation opposes. There was plenty of room for each kind(species) of animal.

Twilight, I'll be happy to discuss the Felix Cupla when I have more time but I felt that dealing with Dystant's claims was a more profitable use of my time for now. I'll go into detail about that too, later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
mah~! you guys are lucky im interested in philosophy, otherwise id never bother reading all this.

@frodo: as you say, God made the world good, and told humans not to eat the fruit of the tree... but if he is all-knowing, then he would've known that they would eat it...

there we go, FELIX CULPA~! the fall of man was necessary so that Jesus Christ could step foreward and remove original sin during the passion and allow us entry into the eternal kingdom of heaven.

thus, also, the creation of hell is following God's divine plan for it acts to counterbalance the kingdom of heaven and provide a place for all souls who dwell in sin.

Felix culpa's philosphy isnt anti-clerical. it acts to support the power of god absolutely, showing that even the creation of the greatest evil serves a purpose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DeathkaiserG
Member Avatar
8D
[ *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
@frodo: as you say, God made the world good, and told humans not to eat the fruit of the tree... but if he is all-knowing, then he would've known that they would eat it...


I have a teeny little bit question...

There's a serpent there right? the one who push adam and eve to eat the apple right??

then God created the serpent right??

does that mean God Created Evil too??

this Felix Culpa?

I thought God didn't know that Adam and Eve eaten the apple??

then you say this Felix Culpa thingy??

Quote:
 
the fall of man was necessary so that Jesus Christ could step foreward and remove original sin during the passion and allow us entry into the eternal kingdom of heaven.


Does that mean Destiny/Fate is more powerful than God??

This Questions all runs in my head for a week now





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Victor Delacroix
Member Avatar
Type-Mercury
School Board Members
DeathkaiserG,Dec 21 2007
05:30 AM

I have a teeny little bit question...

There's a serpent there right? the one who push adam and eve to eat the apple right??

then God created the serpent right??

does that mean God Created Evil too??

The serpent is Satan. This whole thing occurred after Satan had been cast out of Heaven. He was pissed, so he decided to go into the garden and fuck shit up for God's new toys.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
in response to the above question regarding god and fate, read the first post in this thread

also, God is all knowing, thus he obviously knew that Adam and Eve ate the apple

Felix Culpa means 'good fall' and refers to the fact that sin and hell and satan were deliberately created by God as part of his divine plan for humanity... and this plan is GOOD!

Anyone who is interested, read John Milton's Paradise Lost, or Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DeathkaiserG
Member Avatar
8D
[ *  *  *  * ]
Victor Delacroix,Dec 21 2007
11:42 PM
DeathkaiserG,Dec 21 2007
05:30 AM

I have a teeny little bit question...

There's a serpent there right? the one who push adam and eve to eat the apple right??

then God created the serpent right??

does that mean God Created Evil too??

The serpent is Satan. This whole thing occurred after Satan had been cast out of Heaven. He was pissed, so he decided to go into the garden and fuck shit up for God's new toys.

Wait a minute???

Satan is the serpent?? and he is also the one has been thrown out of heaven?? and that means Satan was an Archangel???

I know that....

Quote:
 
The most common catalyst considered to have driven Lucifer towards his unsuccessful coup was the Creation of Man, whereupon God ordered all his angels to bow down to Mankind. Lucifer considered this an insult, and rallied discontent amongst other angels who felt the act was degrading since they were God's first creation themselves


??? @_@

that makes me more confused more

Quote:
 
Felix Culpa means 'good fall' and refers to the fact that sin and hell and satan were deliberately created by God as part of his divine plan for humanity... and this plan is GOOD!


Hmm.. then you're that we're just characters in a book called Life created by God??

then the tragedies in this world (Killings and Sufferings) are GOOD since we are in his plan that is GOOD

That makes sense ^_^

also a bit harsh

that makes "Love Hurts" true


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
we need to be careful when we discuss the divine plan. no, killings and murders are not good... but they are necessary.

on this topic, please read Voltaire's 'Candide, ou l'Optisme'
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DeathkaiserG
Member Avatar
8D
[ *  *  *  * ]
TwilightElegy,Dec 24 2007
12:00 PM
we need to be careful when we discuss the divine plan. no, killings and murders are not good... but they are necessary.

on this topic, please read Voltaire's 'Candide, ou l'Optisme'

Remember It's already planned

it is planned to seperate the goats from the sheeps
and

where can you find this Voltaire's 'Candide, ou l'optimiste book

can you give me the site (please not the real book because i'm too lazy to read them)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
sorry, i have no idea where to get this on the internet~! just look Voltaire up in google, he is a pretty famous philosopher

(by the way, i read the book in french, and dont know if there are english translations)

you might also like to look up Leibnizian Philosphy while your at it

they both deal with the idea that everything happens for the greater good, but Voltaire criticizes it, saying that tho god is all-knowing and all-loving, bad is essential in this universe (hence satan)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DeathkaiserG
Member Avatar
8D
[ *  *  *  * ]
One more Question:

What is the purpose of this Divine Plan??

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TwilightElegy
Member Avatar
Middle Schooler
[ *  * ]
The Divine Plan is known only to God, it is His plan for the universe.

At this point id like to pint out, i am NOT a Christian, i am a student of philosphy who has an interest in Theology. I do not ENDORSE these opinions, i am merely stating them for the purpose of philosphical discourse.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Regalar
Member Avatar
Grade Schooler
[ * ]
TwilightElegy,Dec 21 2007
04:52 AM
mah~! you guys are lucky im interested in philosophy, otherwise id never bother reading all this.

@frodo: as you say, God made the world good, and told humans not to eat the fruit of the tree... but if he is all-knowing, then he would've known that they would eat it...

there we go, FELIX CULPA~! the fall of man was necessary so that Jesus Christ could step foreward and remove original sin during the passion and allow us entry into the eternal kingdom of heaven.

thus, also, the creation of hell is following God's divine plan for it acts to counterbalance the kingdom of heaven and provide a place for all souls who dwell in sin.

Felix culpa's philosphy isnt anti-clerical. it acts to support the power of god absolutely, showing that even the creation of the greatest evil serves a purpose.

This is frodo, signing under another name because I have forgotten my password >.<.

Evil is NOT essential to this world, else heaven/new heaven and new earth wouldn't be possible. There wil be NO evil nor will there ever be evil in the new heaven and earth. God's plan did not call for Adam and Eve to fall. God knew they would, of course, but if they hadn't God would now have servants who at one time had a choice:God or sin. Sin's "purpose" originally was merely to see if they were truely God's servants, or were good simply because they weren't evil. It's that old question, "Are you truely good if there is no evil?". However, once shown to have chosen God, sin would not have taken dominion over their lives as it did when they fell. I have no idea what God would have done, but I imagine He would have rewarded them in some fashion. Humankind is constantly messing up the good that we would receive (though, God knows we will mess it up before we get the gift He offers so...gah time paradox things hurt my brain!!!) because we chose sin over God.
Please note that all people after Adam and Eve had a sin nature. That is, they had a slant or lean towards sinning consistantly. Like a drug addict or a smoker, save that the only cure is Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

@DeathKaiserG: The purpose of the Divine Plan, as far as the man/God releationship goes, is to provide God with willing servants who would be able to rule and reign with Him for eternity. The purpose of man in general is simply to provide pleasure and honor and glory to God. He already glorifies and honors Himself, but chose to create Earth and Heaven to show His glory to those He would eventualy create. He was adding to the boundless glory and honor and power etc. that he possessed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Yue's Corner · Next Topic »
Add Reply