-->
@Seth
It doesn't, it is atheistic scientists that have made the claim
Stupid things atheists say.
Posts
Total:
43
-->
@ronjs
Well we know that in order for the noah flood myth to be true it would require 3times the amount of water on an in the Earth. What Mars has to do with that must be something biblical as well. Where's the water.
-->
@ronjs
Which scientist has said there is evidence of a "global flood" on Mars? No evidence of water, or of liquid water, but "a global flood."
-->
@Seth
Well we know that in order for the noah flood myth to be true it would require 3 times the amount of water on an in the Earth.
The Earth's mantle holds an ocean of water.
To see if the transition zone really is a deep reservoir for water, researchers conducted experiments on water-rich ringwoodite, analyzed seismic waves travelling through the mantle beneath the United States, and studied numerical models. They discovered that downward-flowing mantle material is melting as it crosses the boundary between the transition zone and the lower mantle layer.
"If we are seeing this melting, then there has to be this water in the transition zone," said Brandon Schmandt, a seismologist at the University of New Mexico and co-author of the new study published today (June 12) in the journal Science. "The transition zone can hold a lot of water, and could potentially have the same amount of H2O [water] as all the world's oceans." (Melting is a way of getting rid of water, which is unstable under conditions in Earth's lower mantle, the researchers said.)
Gen 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
...in order for the noah flood myth to be true...
Hmmmm.
287 days later
Hmmm. Seth ran away when the truth of the bible was irrefutable.
...in order for the noah flood myth to be true it would require 3 times the amount of water on and in the Earth.
And by coincidence, scientists say there is 3 times the water in the Earths mantle as in all the Earth's oceans! What do you want to bet that the atheist will find another reason why the Noah story can't be true?
-->
@ethang5
You don't need a Ph.D. in geology to know that desert dunes and other desert deposits do not form under roaring flood waters. These require not only time, but also dry land. The Flood of Noah supplies neither.
The Old Red Sandstone, which looks for all the world like a collection of fossilized desert dunes, was formed in Devonian times. It has outcrops extending from the British Isles to Poland and Russia's White Sea, and from Germany to Norway (Gilluly, Waters, and Woodford, 1968). Outcrops have even been found in Greenland and North America. In Devonian times, before North America and Europe drifted apart, these dunes covered an entire semi-arid continent.
Several lines of evidence derived from this great geologic formation create difficulties for the flood geology model. For instance, the interfingering of these sandstones with marine sediments shows that the shoreline of this continent advanced and retreated several times. Thus the desert rocks are entangled with rocks that the flood geology model says were formed within the one-year-long flood. Also, redbeds, consisting partly of rust formed above sea level, are also found in this formation. These would not have been formed in any catastrophic flood. The Old Red Sandstones also contain typical playas, complete with their characteristic cubic salt crystal deposits. These are desert salt-pan deposits formed after the rainy-season lakes evaporate. Today, in the Mojave Desert, playas can become lakes for a couple of weeks, only to dry out again, leaving a crust of salt deposits like those found in the Red Sandstone. Although a few freshwater ponds did exist on this ancient semi-arid continent, they dried up from time to time. So, we find fossil mud cracks in the shales that came from the dried-up pond bottoms, and we find fossil lungfish, a type of fish that can survive drought by building a mud cocoon in the pond bottom and breathing air. Hundreds of square miles of fossil sand dunes in these deposits contain cross-bedding and sand-blasted pebbles (ventifacts) of the sort found in modern desert sand dunes, and in no other kind of modern sediment. These different independent lines of evidence converge to show that the Old Red Sandstones almost certainly formed over thousands of years in a dry climate, not in any kind of flood catastrophe.
-->
@FLRW
Just like the other atheists yammering about there not being enough water on Earth for a flood, you are just ill informed. Allow me to educate you. And you will notice I can think without first having to have some "expert" do it for me.
You don't need a Ph.D. in geology to know that desert dunes and other desert deposits do not form under roaring flood waters. These require not only time, but also dry land. The Flood of Noah supplies neither.
But you do need to be able to think on your own. The flood lasted less than 3 years, a length of time insignificant for geological formations.
Several lines of evidence derived from this great geologic formation create difficulties for the flood geology model. For instance, the interfingering of these sandstones with marine sediments shows that the shoreline of this continent advanced and retreated several times.
And why should this create difficulties for the flood geology model? A "model" of your creation I might note.
Thus the desert rocks are entangled with rocks that the flood geology model says were formed within the one-year-long flood.
Not only is your "flood geology model" nonsense, one year would not be enough time for rocks to form, especially with moving water. Your "model" needs work.
Also, redbeds, consisting partly of rust formed above sea level, are also found in this formation. These would not have been formed in any catastrophic flood.
Why not? Exactly how long do you think the flooding lasted?
These different independent lines of evidence converge to show that the Old Red Sandstones almost certainly formed over thousands of years in a dry climate, not in any kind of flood catastrophe.
You are confused and overly pedantic. The flood did not cause a climate change, it did not last long enough. A "dry" climate is not broken by 3 years of water. Nothing about Noah's flood says or implies a climate change. Stop setting up strawmen to burn down.
I bet you were one of those atheists who gave the formula for how no intensity of rainfall could produce enough water to cover the peaks of mountains in 40 days until you learned that it was not just rainfall, huh?
And I just know you were one of those atheists who smugly asserted that there was not enough water on Earth for a global flood until science shamed you.
...desert deposits do not form under roaring flood waters.
First thing is, desert deposits do not form in a year. Think man. A one year flood is nothing to a 500,000 year geological formation.
Second, who told you there were "roaring flood waters"? Got that from your "model"?
While I have you, let me ask. Do you have any thoughts that are your own? Your entire discourse on Dart seems to be nothing but one citation after another, many of them just walls of text not really addressing the topic.
I've met this before, and while it makes the young and poorly read think you're really smart, it fails with people who can actually think and are not impressed that you can cut and paste a page from the NOVA website.
Just sayin'.
-->
@ethang5
Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think Noah's flood covered the whole planet?
-->
@ethang5
And why should this create difficulties for the flood geology model? A "model" of your creation I might note.
Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the global flood described in Genesis 6–8. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata.
-->
@FLRW
Why is what I think important to you? I don't go to atheist websites and challenge atheists there. I don't care what you believe, and I'm OK with you believing what you want. Why must you convert me to your way of belief?
Your beliefs about Christianity are all built on false information. You don't know the thing you oppose. Why am I saddled with the responsibility of first educating you and then convincing you? You approached me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I think you should be free to believe whatever you like.
I am a Christian. I believe the bible. I know why I believe it, and I can logically defend my beliefs. I am not the silly caricature in your mind of a theist. And I have no interest in correcting you.
We can discuss issues, but this atheist thing where you're supposed to be the great logical authority grilling the illiterate theist is not for me.
-->
@FLRW
Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the global flood described in Genesis 6–8.
Attempt by whom? Certainly not Christians.
In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata.
Then please go talk to a YEC.
The bible needs no reconciliation unless you first put up false expectations in the geological data and then claim the bible doesn't mesh with your false expectations. I see no reason that the bible must agree with science when science has been consistently wrong over time, and science only claims the best current knowledge anyway, not truth.
So then, telling me in 1970 that "science" had concluded that there was not enough water on Earth for a global flood, would have meant nothing as far as the truth was concerned. Just as your YEC link means nothing now.
The bible isn't YEC, and neither am I.
-->
@Dynasty
Hi Dynasty,
thanks for the thoughts. I agree that atheists tend to say stupid things.
And many of what is on your list are some of the stupidest.
1. If you were born in India, you would've been a Hindu!
Yes, that one is a cracker. While it may be true that being born in India is statistically likely that you might be born into a Hindi family, there is also quite likely to be many other arrangements as well. This one is simply a generalization that relies upon stats. I know many Indians who are Muslim. I know lots that are Christians. I know some who are atheists. The generalization proves nothing though.
2. Hitler was a Christian!
Yes that is another cracker. Hitler of course was also a Jew and a homosexual. And A witch. A fascist and a socialist. His grandmother was Jewish. His best friend and bedroom buddy was Maynard Keynes in London. Keynes was a reknown homosexual. And we know Hitler got married but refused to have sex with his wife - apparently her anatomy scared him off. But was he a Christian? Not in accordance with the bible. Perhaps under some weird state church in Germany - but not in accordance with any ordinary understanding of biblical Christianity.
3. Bible promotes rape, slavery, and killing!
yes - more information by the Atheists. The Bible condemns rape. It forbids kidnapping. And it has the sixth commandment which outlaws murder. But hey - rather than noticing these laws - atheists hypocritically lie.
Just think of America. Does it condone rape and murder and slavery? Its laws don't, that is for sure - and yet the anecdotal evidence is that these things exist all over the country. And we will find leaders in America who will condone these things - but is it fair to say that America condones it? Of course not. But consistently the Atheist ought to.
4. Sky Daddy!
I have no idea what this is meant to mean. I suppose it is a generational thing.
5. God is evil!
Yes, one of the atheists biggest lies. But one that they continue to push on the vulnerable. The fact of the matter is that the God of the Bible is good and holy and perfect.
And anyone who can read intelligently knows this. Atheists call God's judgment evil. That is because they call good evil and evil good. They are about opposite in thinking and in morality. This is why they can say that killing the most vulnerable babies is justifiable and that killing murderers is bad.
6. Religious people are less intelligent!
Apart from the ridiculous view that so often the atheist determines intelligence by way of a piece of paper - academic qualification - there is simply no evidence for such a lie. Secondly, I would suggest that the two most intelligent civilizations in recent history are the Jews and the Protestant Christians. Not just the most intelligent - according to the number of Nobel Prizes but also the wealthiest.
7. Religion is a delusion!
Yes this one is a classic, isn't? Yet the atheist is not using the clinical definition of delusion - but a word that they make up and define themselves for people who disagree with them. Hence the atheistic definition for delusion - is a person who disagrees with atheism. The clinical definition used by real medically trained professionals would never use the word delusional in the same context as atheists do. And for good reason. Delusions as understood scientifically cannot account for the mass religions in the world.
8. It's writing in black and white!
I assume this is talking about the Bible - in black and white. As opposed to atheists textbooks which they believe blindly in faith. The next time I see an atheist challenge the findings in a textbook will be the first.
9. Jesus was a myth!
Yeah - gotta love this one. There is more substantial evidence for Jesus than Julius Caesar, Aristotle and a whole lot of other historical characters put together. Yet for the atheist - you know the one who says - his atheism is simply a non-belief in God, he places this highest of all hurdles onto Jesus - which if applied to any one else would fail the test. Blinkered is what I call it. Delusional as well. Bigoted. Prejudiced. Ignorant. And scared.
10. Christians have killed people!
Yeah this is a good one. Probably not worded the best but assuming this means - religion causes more wars than anything else. I think anyone who suggests that it is talking simply about Christians killing others is smoking wacky weed. Christians have killed people. Both lawfully and unlawfully. Hence, this must be talking about religions as a whole killing people.
The problem is - there are millions of people killed every year around the world - abortions in probably every nation and no one blinks an eye. Well apart from the Christians. And the 20th Century is a century which clearly had more wars that killed more people than any century before it. These wars were conducted by non-religious nations. Of course non-religion does not mean atheist. Even though communism is self-consciously atheistic. We don't want to go down the path of no true Scotsman, do we?
Nazism - killed of Jews. Killed of Christians. Killed of Cults. Killed of all of its competition. But not to many atheists. Cambodia - China - Cuba - Soviet Union - North Korea - Vietnam - and the list goes on and on. Of course no atheist believes the same thing as every other atheist - no worldview. Yet there is this common thread - none of them believe in God. Hence - none of them actually believe in ultimate accountability.
The world would be a much nicer place - a more peaceful place - a much more intelligent place - a kinder place - a much less crazy place if we just got rid of all of the atheists.
Atheism is without doubt the scourge of the earth. A scourge so rotten - so corrupt - so evil - that the world will never heal properly until it is removed.
But - again - atheism is simply a non-belief - it is not a reflection of people or humans. It is just the most primitive form of humanity - that has an ego problem - So let us not kill anyone of them - let us just continue to reveal that religion is better than non-religion and hopefully - all atheists will actually start to use their brains and intelligence. I am not holding out on this of course.
As Dynasty quite eloquently put it - atheists are pretty dumb.
-->
@Dynasty
Here is the list.1. If you were born in India, you would've been a Hindu!
While it may be accurate to some degree that where you're born will influence the religion you go into, religions aren't confined to their specific regions and places everywhere has benefited from missionaries spreading the gospel, India being no exception. The proclamation of Jesus' name has been the loudest since his arrival.
2. Hitler was a Christian!
The root of this view comes from the modern concept of identity... I say, therefore I am.
3. Bible promotes rape, slavery, and killing!4. Sky Daddy!
This may be accurate when it comes to Satan, who, the god of this world is the ruler of the air. God is above the sky.
5. God is evil!6. Religious people are less intelligent!7. Religion is a delusion!8. It's writing in black and white!9. Jesus was a myth!
But I'd say his teaching that the Spirit will come to convict the world is still in the works since Pentecost.
10. Christians have killed people!