Science Agrees With The Bible:Earth's Water

Author: ethang5
atheists
Water
early earth

Posts

Total: 81
#61
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret

EtHAMg5, the Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs,

ADDRESSING YET ANOTHER MENTALLY CHALLENGED POST #50 OF YOURS RELATIVE TO MY POSTS #45, 46, AND 47:  "I knew you'd run. Not to worry, no one takes you seriously anyway."

Tell the membership in how I allegedly ran away when you set the rules that I cannot discuss Christianity with you anymore, let alone I accomplished the following relative to your Bible stupidity and your ineptness outside of your faith.

READY?

POST 45:  I proved you are a "fumbler" in "trying" to post a simple link, and that you NEVER did give me the link for Harikrish where he mentioned me easily owning you and your faith! Why? Didn’t want the membership to see me Bible Slapping you Silly again®️?   Furthermore, Harikrish posted the said link I was looking for that you couldn’t find, and now you are taking credit in finding it? NOT!  Is Harikrish on your payroll now to help you at DEBATEART, where can you spell E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-I-N-G?  Yeah, you can. 

POST 46:   I proved against your weak statement that I allegedly ran way from me not citing my citations, whereas I did before and did it again for you, and of which  made you the greater Bible fool!  Speaking of which, the only one running away from direct biblical axioms is YOU as explicitly shown in the links that I had given you! Furthermore, I proved that you went to Tradesecrets school of "How to runaway from biblical axioms and to “try” and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath"   EtHAMg5, now, wipe the egg from your face again.

 POST 47: I proved that how can I run away from your total Bible stupidity when you stated specifically that YOU DO NOT want to discuss Christianity with me anymore as factually shown in this post!   H-E-L-L-O, anybody home today, NOT!  Then I proved that you were a HYPOCRITE along with your other disgusting misgivings, therefore, take a bow in front of the membership in you being one of the most Bible stupid and ignorant members this Religion Forum has ever seen, barring Tradesecret of course!  Applause sign is on in your behalf, look, you're getting a standing ovation relative to your Bible stupidity, praise! 



EtHAMg5, seriously, because of your Satanic mentally challenged presence within this forum, you can't  realize in how your runaway post #50 to me is so wanting and drastically weak. This is a sign that you are accepting the fact that you bit off more than you can chew with your topic of this thread, whereas to save the modicum of face you have left within this esteemed forum, you should close this thread down before I and others make it unbelievably worse for you, do you understand? Yeah, as shown thus far in you being bludgeoned on your topic, you do. 



Topic's author
#62
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
The bible states the earth was created in 7 days. It was not.
The term "day" has multiple meanings as to length of time, some of which are not 24 hours. You are insisting that the passage be according to your limited understanding.

The bible states that the trees, fruits, seeds, and a variety of plant life, land and sea was created on the third day.
I see no contradiction.

The bible also states on the fourth day that the lights in the sky, including sun moon and stars were created on the fourth day.
No Sir. The very first sentence of Genesis tells us that the "Heavens" (Stars) were created before the Earth. On the 4th "day" the already existing sun became luminous, and was able to penetrate the thick cloudy atmosphere of the early Earth.

The bible also states that on the fifth day animals, fish, etc were all created.
Because the Bible is not using your taxidermy. God is not an evolutionists.

...these things cannot have been specially created
I haven't a clue what "specially created" means, but as it is not my claim, there is no need for me to address it.

...the earth has to put out 1400 times the power we receive from the sun in order to get rid of all that steam condensation heat.
Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,
1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.
2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.
3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.

The chronology of the flood is based on two things: modern humans have only existed in societies for a few tens of thousand years; and there is no evidence of any meaningful civilization prior much before that.
What is a "meaningful" civilization to a man in the 21st century? And how much of a civilization tens of thousands of years ago would remain from a tropical climate?

We have evidence of habitation, but no point in time at which there was any massive flood of any kind in the few hundred thousands years of hominids.
As science's estimation f dates and processes change all the time, people who are familiar with science know not to be overly dogmatic.

This makes the maximum time of the flood a few thousand years, and minimum of 5-6000
As Noah lived much earlier than that, your conditions are obviously ad-hoc and incorrect.

The second aspect is biblical lineages which describe descendants of Noah down; with around 10 generations between Noah and the Abraham who is historically placeable to ~4000  years ago
Trying to estimate geological times using human generations is certainly not science. The Bible doesn't do that. And not every person in Noah's line is mentioned in his geneology.

...despite there being no physical way it could come out without destroying the planet, and no way to get rid of it in 130 dayson the one hand.
This is like a theist dismissing evolutionary biology because how nonliving matter becomes alive is not presently known. The water is there. Facts are discovered and established one at a time.

This is the issue you seem to ignore; it’s still impossible that the water can get out:...
All I'm trying to establish here is that the water is there. That is something we did not previously know. You want to disprove the flood when my claim is that the Earth has enough water. You believe abiogenesis even though it’s still impossible that non-living matter comes to life. There are many things science believes long before it knows the exact mechanism of how those things work. It isn't cherry picking, it's just science.

note: the lower bound estimate of how much water there is, is still too low to cover the planet - a point you ignore.
The water from underground augmented the water in the oceans, rivers, lakes and atmosphere. That certainly is enough water.

Now there *may* be enough water present. However; it is physically impossible for that water to escape into the planet - or return in a few years - because of basic principles of physics. 
In fact, it hasn’t validated the bible - it actually makes it more unlikely for the reasons above
Now imagine what you would be saying if no water had been found in the Earth. Wouldn't that have made the Genesis account more unlikely? Wouldn't you be pointing out the lack of water? Wouldn't you be correctly asking where the water the Bible says came from within the Earth comes from?

The fact that there is a very large amount of water within the Earth makes it more likely that the Genesis account is correct.
Topic's author
#63
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey village idiot, 

You are still dodging. You said you were not a racist, but Jesus was.

So I pointed out to you how you disagreed with your Lord Jesus, asking you if true Christians followed their Lord. You agreed that all true Christians follow Jesus.

I then told you that you denied following Jesus. You asked me to cite where you did that. I posted the citation, the link, the thread title, the thread page, and the post number.

You ran away.

When I pressed you, you first lied and said you didn't have to talk religion with me because I "didn't" matter. When pressed further, you pretended that the link I sent didn't work.

Now, with egg on your face, you're just blatantly dodging. You are a fake and a fraud DeeDee. I'm surprised that it bothers you enough for you to lie and dodge. Your running means that more reaches your fetid brain than it seems. I didn't know you could feel shame.

Jesus must be so disappointed in you. Perhaps if you let Jesus know you think all black people like Hari are cursed by God, Jesus might accept you back as a true racist like the self-hating Hari.

It's worth a shot. Don't you want to be more than just the board's village idiot?
#64
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5


EtHAMg5, the "masked" Ham  Cursed king of non sequiturs,

REGARDING YOUR "YOU FORGOT WHAT YOU SAID" POST #63:  Listen up Bible fool, what part of your following statement to me shown below don't you understand bird-brained, GET IT?!

"Why would I discuss Christian religion with a fake Christian who has admitted he doesn't follow Jesus?" 

You made your bed, now sleep in it, whereas you should be thanking me where I am following in what you want to save yourself further embarrassment, in NOT talking about Christianity with you, as your quote above explicitly states!   Because if I did, I would once again Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership again, and again, and again, and again! LOL!
 

Now, hide your running shoes and at least "TRY" to address my post #61 that you are blatantly RUNNING AWAY from in total embarrassment!

BEGIN:



AGAIN, please think about following this statements outcome: 

EtHAMg5, seriously, because of your Satanic mentally challenged presence within this forum, you can't  realize in how your runaway post #50 to me is so wanting and drastically weak. This is a sign that you are accepting the fact that you bit off more than you can chew with your topic of this thread, whereas to save the modicum of face you have left within this esteemed forum, you should close this thread down before I and others make it unbelievably worse for you, do you understand? Yeah, as shown thus far in you being bludgeoned on your topic, you do. 
#65
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,
1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.
2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.
3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.

Earth’s mantle, the layer just beneath the crust, is the source of most of the magma that erupts at volcanoes. Minerals that make up the mantle contain small amounts of water, not as a liquid, but as individual molecules in the mineral’s atomic structure.  Mid-ocean ridges, volcanic undersea mountain ranges, are formed when these mantle minerals exceed their melting point, become partially molten, and produce magma that ascends to the surface. As the magmas cool, they form basalt, the most-common rock on Earth and the basis of oceanic crust. In these oceanic ridges, basalt can be three to four miles thick.
Topic's author
#66
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Off topic. My argument has nothing to do with magma. Let the one who brought it up, explain or defend it.
Topic's author
#67
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You're still running village idiot.

Even your Hindu pal saw your confession and posted about it.

You are now running away from your own confession. You let your mouth write a check your schtick couldn't cash.

Your posts are still basically gibberish. I guess they must represent the scattered mess in your mind.

No matter, I will continue to highlight your fraud and fakery, and you will continue in your moron schtick.

You must have no ambition higher than village idiot. Fortunately for you, I like idiots.
#68
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5


.
EtHAMg5, the "masked" Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs,

YOUR QUOTE THAT YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND AGAIN!!!!:  
"Why would I discuss Christian religion with a fake Christian who has admitted he doesn't follow Jesus?" 

As your quote above so states, you DO NOT want to discuss with me ANYTHING to do with the Christian Religion, STOP!  Therefore I cannot address your continued statements to me relative to the Christian religion, STOP!  Therefore you are a hypocrite when you try in vain to discuss the Christian religion with me. STOP!

Therefore, to help you with your total lack of reading comprehension, join this Children's Reading Comprehension Class post haste, because this forum cannot take anymore of your lack of the English language skills, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE take advantage of the following link's class herewith:

Again, the membership laughs at you for not having reading comprehension skills and your outright Bible stupidity LOL!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krTAzjoTuuY


EtHAMg5, seriously, because of your Satanic mentally challenged presence within this forum, you can't  realize in how your runaway posts  #50, 63, and 67 to me is so wanting and drastically weak. This is a sign that you are accepting the fact that you bit off more than you can chew with your topic of this thread, whereas to save the modicum of face you have left within this esteemed forum, you should close this thread down before I and others make it unbelievably worse for you, do you understand? Yeah, as shown thus far in you being bludgeoned on your topic, you deep down do understand..
#69
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ethang5
So; the scientifically established order of creation, was the heavens, the stars, the sun, the earth, the moon, water/land, bacteria, sea creatures, some land plants, land animals, trees, flowering plants/trees/fruits etc.


Despite you’re weird denials considering that Genesis 1 is literally public domains, the order in the bible is:

Heaven and earth.
Light, day/night (day 1)
Weird firmament (day 2)
Grass, plants and trees (day 3)
Day 4: stars, sun and moon - seriously the Bible is pretty explicit:

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also”

Day 5: all animals
Day 6: cattle and humans 


So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.


Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.



Finally; you don’t seem to be actually attacking any points. So let’s go back.

There is no evidence of any global flood at any point where humans existed. Period.

There is no evidence of any global flood at any period of geological time.

The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers - the flood can be chronologically placed at 4600 BC; geological time of the flood cannot be estimated - as there is no geological evidence of a global flood....




Lol. No wonder you are so invested in steam. Let the record show that,
1. The water in the Earth's mantle is not in magma. Magma comes from below the mantle. Magma is your claim.
2. Neither magma or steam has anything to do with the Genesis flood story. Those are your claims.
3. The water never became steam. Liquids cannot significantly be compressed. It came out in liquid form. Steam is your claim.


Actually - these are all your claims. They are all the necessary physical implications of what you said.

If you claim the water in the mantle came out as liquid water: then you must claim that it was carried by rising magma. The mantle is at tremendous temperature and pressure. If any of it begins to rise containing water - it melts: becomes magma - due to physics.

If you claim that water in the mantle came out as liquid water - then sufficient magma at 3% water by volume) must be moving upward; and must depressurize; otherwise the water remains dissolved and contain with the molten rock. As magma is over a thousand degrees; when this happens; the water is able to spontaneously flash to steam (it’s only not steam because it’s under massive pressure in the magma and mantle). To then condense to water releases the vast quantities of energy I suggested. This is a product of the physical relationship between temperature, pressure, and volume.

All these things are physically required to happen for your claim to be correct - whether you want to admit it or not.

What you’re doing is like declaring that you can pick up a Boeing 747 with your bare hands unassisted - then suggesting “superhuman strength is your claim, not mine.”

Frankly - it’s idiotic.


Like I said: your fixating only on the existence of water. Water which cannot leave where it is.

So the absence or presence of water here does not make the flood any more or less likely - it’s impossible both ways.

However - if there was no water - people would simply argue (as they have) that it doesn’t matter as the earth was flatter than it is now; or that it came from a firmament and drained away.

Reality is unimportant for those who wish to believe their fairytales.


Indeed, the whole point here, is that you claiming the water in the flood was the deep earth water, makes the flood even less likely than it was before. Because of all the physical implications of that water coming out. Pretending that those implications don’t exist is not the best argument
#70
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5


.
EtHAMg5, the “masked” Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs, 

EtHAMg5, since you cannot directly address the following question to me because of your revealing post #9, then the godly drill is for me to address the following biblical axiomatic question to the membership instead relative to my post #6, and that you are to answer for them. Don’t be SCARED again, okay?

QUESTION:  ”Where did all of the food and water come from to accommodate 19.2 million animals, 16 pairs of insects, birds and fish species that are not counted, and most importantly, 16 pairs of 1670 ton Argentinosaurus dinosaurs and 16 6 ton African Bush elephants. Now remember, as biblically shown, Noah’s Ark was only 450 long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, and was upon Jesus’ Great Flood waters for over a year subsequent to Him killing innocent zygotes, fetus’ and babies as their mothers watched in horror their offspring drown an horrific death. Respond to this question for the membership, thank you.

Now, as embarrassingly shown once again in your behalf, YOU HAVE RAN AWAY 6 TIMES TO DATE from my godly inspired biblical axioms regarding Noah’s Ark in my post #6, which is part and parcel to your threads topic to begin with, get it?! The irony of which,  you perceive yourself as a Christian, huh, surely you jest you "kidder"against  facts!  







EtHAMg5, BEGIN:



#71
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ethang5
Again, though the Bible AND science silences and shames atheists, they can only dismiss the Bible while claiming to uphold science which says the same thing!
So I take it you’re saying that genesis got the order right?
Topic's author
#72
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Of course Genesis got the order correctly. But before we run down your escape route rabbit hole, please acknowledge that the water is there.

For the record, I do not use science to validate the Bible. The Bible does not need validation. I think the Bible can validate science.

Do any of you know how many times the "order" of evolution has changed? How many times evolution has had to "correct" or backtrack something it previously insisted was ironclad truth?

On one level, that is commendable, for that shows evolution is willing to change to be more correct, and IS becoming more correct, but then it can't be insisting anything it says is unassailable truth. Evolution cannot have it both ways.

If everything it states is just our current running idea of truth, then nothing it says is reliable as truth.

The Bible is not a science book. By that I mean the authors were not trying to explain any scientific truth. They were not trying to convince anyone of the Bible's scientific insight. The Bible does not, and should not use Darwinian classification. The Bible does not operate within a framework set up by Darwin, or any 21st century standard. It could not be true if it did.

The scope of this thread is Earth's water. Here are some facts.
Scientists are perplexed by how Earth got so much water. Compared to other Rocky planets, the Earth has amazing amount of liquid water. We have found many other planets similar to Earth in size and location from their sun's, no planet with free flowing water so far. The Earth is not relatively arid. That is simply untrue.

Scientists proposed that water came to Earth with icy comets that smashed into Earth, but are now rethinking that theory. The water found in Earth's mantle appears to be very old(Google dating h2O)

Some have now proposed an Earth that has always had water. Of course, that would move science closer to the Bible's narrative. How and why the Earth has so much water is one of science's biggest mysteries.

Dispute Ram's contention, I think it's amazing that there is not a single thing anyone can point to out of a 2,000 year old book that gets science wrong. Some will insist they have examples, but examine the claims and you'll find the are attacking
1. Claims the Bible doesn't make
2. Claims science doesn't make, or
3. Their own unwarranted assumtions.

For the last 500 years, our scientific knowledge has grown tremendously, and every new discovery in science has been consistent with the Bible's narrative. This pattern will continue.
#73
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why are you putting my name on here? 
Topic's author
#74
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
No one is engaging him and he desperately needs attention, so he just @s people in hopes that someone will talk to him.

Like Hari and Stephen, it will never dawn on him that it's his borish behavior that causes no one to want to talk to him.
Topic's author
#75
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
So; the scientifically established order of creation,
The Bible is not attempting to be a science book. Science is inferior to the Bible. When the Bible deviates from science, science is wrong. Just as in the case of the thread's topic.

was the heavens, the stars, the sun,
The sun is a star.

So even if we assume this nonsense of days/indeterminate age - this Bible has the completely wrong order. Science clearly refutes the bible.
You still are being dishonest. Observe:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights;...
How could verse 15 be talking about lights if God doesn't create the sun till verse 16?

You try to take common linguistic techniques and spin them into contradictions. When describing an event, one can flit back and forth between the beginning and ending within the description of the entire event. Do you get confused when movies have flashbacks? 

I know why atheists have to pretend stupidity when they argue against the Bible, but is murdering your credibility with public stupidity worth the shot on the Bible? Really?

Or;

Weird firmament (day 2)
If your case was as good as you claim, you wouldn't need to add in your side comments to color the narrative. The word "firmament" is a perfectly normal word used in Genesis. It is a translation done  in the 15th century, but completely normal. You have no case, you you must build one with your personal  impressions presented as part of the bible's narrative.

Special creation; is what the Bible said - that animals, plants and living organisms were created directly by God. That is your claim, and definitely did not happen. Don’t be obtuse.
The phrase "special creation" is not used in the Bible. And I still don't know how it differs from ordinary creation. Please take ownership of your concepts.

The bible is explicit about the ages of individuals when they had their children, and their genealogy: using these numbers
Was the bible using the calendar you're using today? Please use some common sense. Also, the Bible does not mention every person in the gyneology. Counting people to figure geological timelines is only done by scientifically ignorant people.
 
Actually - these are all your claims. They are all the necessary physical implications of what you said.
You are just scientifically ignorant. They are not implications, they are your assumptions based on  poor knowledge of science and arrogance.

On Earth, we can compress water enough for it to cut steel and it still doesn't become steam. Because you don't know geology, you assumed because magma comes out of the Earth, it must contain water, and that must be how the water in the mantle gets to the surface. You didn't even know that magma is generally below the Earth's mantle and must travel up to be in volcanos. You were using magma synonymously with mantle.

You need them to be my implications because your science illiterate objections need them to float.

If you claim the water in the mantle came out as liquid water: then you must claim that it was carried by rising magma.
If I was illiterate I might.

The mantle is at tremendous temperature and pressure.
Not necessarily and not in all places.

If any of it begins to rise containing water - it melts: becomes magma - due to physics.
Lol!! If the mantle is pushed up, pressure is released and it cools. Below the mantle is the core of hot molten rock. Water cannot be in molten rock genius.
Magma and mantle are not the same thing.

All these things are physically required to happen for your claim to be correct - whether you want to admit it or not
I am not limited in any way by your ignorance of science. We have a 3 mile deep tunnel in the Earth. One of the problems with it is that water seeps in and must be pumped out. Where is the steam? Where is the magma? It's amazing you can be both so ignorant and so arrogant at the same time!

So the absence or presence of water here does not make the flood any more or less likely - it’s impossible both ways.
No Sir. That is just your bias showing itself.

It is possible we do not yet know the mechanism by which the water came to the surface, but because it's there, the possibility exists, as opposed to if it wasn't there. You do not know it is impossible, you just hope it is.

However - if there was no water...
You would be insisting the Bible was wrong and that there is not enough water on Earth, as you have in the past before science validated the Bible's narrative.

Indeed, the whole point here, is that you claiming the water in the flood was the deep earth water...
It's the Bible's claim, and the water in the flood was only augmented by deep Earth water.

You can fume and rage, and demand that we ignore the fact that the water is there because we don't yet know how it came up, but the fact remains. The Earth has enough water. On this fact, between you and the Bible, you were the one who was wrong. The Bible was correct.

You were sure you were correct, till science caught up. And now, you have been beaten back to, "ok, the water is there, but it could not come up." But you are once again sure you are right, till science discovers some mechanism by which the water could have come up. Then you'll beat a hasty retreat to, "but where did all that water go?"

I hope I'm around then to see an atheist who once insisted that the Earth didn't have enough water, now object because the Earth has too much water!
#76
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ethang5
The Bible is not attempting to be a science book. Science is inferior to the Bible. When the Bible deviates from science, science is wrong. Just as in the case of the thread's topic.

“Science proves the Bible, except where it doesn’t - in which case science is wrong”

This is the cherry picking I am talking about and you were strongly objecting to.  Thank you for Conceding my point 


was the heavens, the stars, the sun,
The sun is a star.
Any, rational, honest, coherent or minimally intelligent human should be able to understand that By “sun” and “stars” I mean “the sun” and other stars that are not our sun”

It seems you’re just trying to object - rather than trying to figure out whether the objection is coherent or relevant.

I’d love to focus on your thought process here: on what basis did you think this was a meaningful argument?


How could verse 15 be talking about lights if God doesn't create the sun till verse 16?

The bible doesn’t say every single last light that is in the sky does it? Again, it seems you’re just trying to say anything just so you can say something. This makes no sense, and you don’t appear to bother to explain it.


What you seem to omit, though, is that everything mentioned in day 4 existed before the things in day 3. 


When describing an event, one can flit back and forth between the beginning and ending within the description of the entire event.

Got it: so when there is a conflict between what the bible said and what science says, when the bible is obviously false, you insert interpretation to change the meaning of what it explicitly says, even though the Bible didn’t say any such thing...


The phrase "special creation" is not used in the Bible. And I still don't know how it differs from ordinary creation. Please take ownership of your concepts.

Not my concept - it’s what you refer to as biblical creation - where God created animals - which you’re still ignoring, fixating on this bizarre side issue 

The very first sentence of Genesis tells us that the "Heavens" (Stars) were created before the Earth.

It doesn’t say it created the stars - that’s you inserting meaning. It says it created stars on the 4th day

On the 4th "day" the already existing sun became luminous, and was able to penetrate the thick cloudy atmosphere of the early Earth.

Well we know that didn’t happen...



You are just scientifically ignorant. They are not implications, they are your assumptions based on  poor knowledge of science and arrogance.

On Earth, we can compress water enough for it to cut steel and it still doesn't become steam.
Methinks you need to review some high school physics. Temperature turns water to steam, pressure changes the temperature at which that happens.




Because you don't know geology, you assumed because magma comes out of the Earth, it must contain water, and that must be how the water in the mantle gets to the surface. You didn't even know that magma is generally below the Earth's mantle and must travel up to be in volcanos. You were using magma synonymously with mantle.

You need them to be my implications because your science illiterate objections need them to float.
Lol!! If the mantle is pushed up, pressure is released and it cools. Below the mantle is the core of hot molten rock. Water cannot be in molten rock genius.

Magma and mantle are not the same thing.

I am not limited in any way by your ignorance of science. We have a 3 mile deep tunnel in the Earth. One of the problems with it is that water seeps in and must be pumped out. Where is the steam? Where is the magma? It's amazing you can be both so ignorant and so arrogant at the same time!

Oh my Good lord; wtf. I can’t event... I think there is a level of total ignorance that no amount of explanation is going to correct this level of stupidity. 

So the earths outer core is molten nickel/iron (not rock). This is followed by upper and lower mantle. These are made up high temperature solid rocks - and melted rock - magma. Magma is not from below the mantle - lol. Magma comes from the mantle melting.

They are high temperature due to the head conducted from the code via first law of thermodynamics and radioactive decay of various isotopes they contain. Whether an area is rock or magma depends on whether the temperature exceeds the melting point of the rock - which is dependent on the pressure it’s under, and what the rock contains. Melting point of rock goes down as the pressure drops; (it has to overcome or reduce the interaction forces that keeps the particles together in solid state. As the pressure of substance increases, particles tends to remains compacted, increasing of pressure during melting hindering in melting process, makes it difficult to overcome the strong force of attraction, i.e. more thermal energy is required.) 

The rock is being pulled to the center of the planet; but is less dense than the outer core, and more dense than the upper mantle, so it’s buoyancy forces with respect to the liquid below is in equilibrium with gravity.

The rock is required to undergo a change in density in order to overcome the force of gravity - increase itsBouyancy with respect to the rock pushing down on it. In addition, it must have the viscosity to allow the rock above it to flow around it.

One of the key ways it does this; is through melting into magma. This can be achieved as a result of lowering the boiling point through impurities in the rock (the same reasons that salt drops the melting point of water), a drop in pressure or a rise in temperature. Water molecules trapped in the rock (not liquid water - you colossal numpty), increases the average distance between rock molecules through displacement and drops the melting point enough for the rock to turn to magma.

This is how this water was detected: by observing the melt in the magma caused by the presence of sufficient pockets of water to drop the melting point enough for the mantle to melt...

If the rock in the mantle moves upwards due to Bouyancy forces, and contains water - it will melt.

Without moving - the water is trapped. The pressure from gravity; allows the water molecules to remain dissolved in the magma or trapped as hydroxyl molecules in the rock. They move with the rock. Again - not liquid water you colloidal numpty.

So the rock has to move; which means it has to melt and rises as a result, or rises and melts as a result. 

When it does this, the water remains dissolved in the rising magma due to the pressure of the solid rocks above pushing down. Typically the 25 miles of continental crust (lol wtf are you talking about no magma found in a hole 3 miles below the surface, and 4 miles of oceanic crust preventing a solid barrier preventing the dissolved gasses from escaping the rising liquid rock.

So the rock has to be super hot - due to thermodynamics of having a molten hot core and requiring viscosity to move.  It has to melt as it rises due to physics, and remains at high pressure and temperature with dissolved gasses present. I don’t what laws of physics you’re using to suggest that magma can’t contain water -  but it isn’t ours. A can of coke shows you that gasses can dissolve in liquids; and remains so under pressure.

If the magma reaches the surface; or a region of the magma is exposed to atmospheric pressure - the gasses dissolved will degas; and the water will expand into steam, as it’s held at a high temperature with only the pressure keeping it within the magma. 

If the magma remains under pressure; the water is held in. That’s what pressure is. It’s not going to bubble out, because it’s under pressure; it remains within the magma.

If the magma cools enough to drop below the boiling of water; the water still has to condense out (it’s dissolved gas), so the issue of energy generated is still an issue; but you also have the additional issue that the water is now trapped within solid rock.


In fact the only way to avoid condensation energy is if the entire mantle (where this water is) is less than the boiling point of water.


That’s the laws of physics I’m afraid: the basic laws of thermodynamics, buoyancy, temperature/pressure relationship of electrostatic forces renders it impossible.



What you’re doing, is just throwing out wild and nonsensical claims; and suggesting a set of completely impossible scenarios that can be ruled out by physics; interspersed with a bunch of nonsense about me not understanding science - which I absolutely do.

So while you fixate in this mantle/magma nonsense (which you don’t appear to understand), you’re left with multiple issues.

  • It’s only an estimate. There may not be enough water; the lower bound of water is completely insufficient to cover the water.
  • Huge volumes of water must be transported from this layer to the surface. The laws of physics, and how this water is trapped mean that the only way is as part of moving molten rock.
  • Huge volumes of molten rock must move. To produce enough water, impossible amounts of magma has to move.
  • Thermodynamics, and Bouyancy mean that the mantle must be above the boiling point of water in order for water to actually be moved.
  • The energy released is impossible ; and would make earth glow...

The whole nonsensical mess is just utterly ridiculous pseudoscientific nonsense; it violates the laws of physics and, as I said, renders the flood story less likely.


Saying that, it doesn’t even really matter; if there wasn’t enough water, you’d find some way to account for it - the earth was less flat meaning less water would have been needed to cover the earth.

It is silly to suggest the biblical account is confirmed when the volume of water present is unnecessarily to the flood myth.





#77
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

. 



.

.
TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a woman to a man, and then to unknown, and then back to a man, and then went to unknown again,  the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she/unknown follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT, and obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, an embarrassed LIAR of their true gender, and goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, has turned into a HYPOCRITE, and a LIAR, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, has now changed genders 5 TIMES in their profile page, and now has reading comprehension problems, 


YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "Why are you putting my name on here? "

Why? Because even if you "glanced" at my post #61, I mentioned your pseudo-christian stupidity and presence within this thread, of which I always do this for the member in question to give them a chance to "try" and refute what I truthfully said about them, understood Bible fool?  

Remember the times I gave you links in your behalf to take a Children's Reading Comprehension Class? If you followed my requests, then I wouldn't have to take the time to answer your child like questions again, and again, and again, get it Bible stupid fool?

You are dismissed for now, that is, until you once again make a Bible fool of yourself where Jesus and I will correct you once again at your expense!


NEXT?
Topic's author
#78
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No one is talking to you again DeeDee. I suggested to you that you @ the entire membership. Surely someone here besides the troll whisperer wants to deal with your turd schtick posts.

Aren't you embarrassed as the threads conversation flows right around you like water in a river flowing past a country stone? What am I saying? Only sentient beings can be embarrassed.

Keep trying DeeDee. We can always use your turd posts as door stops.

Lol!
#79
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5

.
EtHAMg5, the “masked” Ham Cursed king of non sequiturs and a runaway from Jesus' inspired words,

Whoopsie AGAIN! LOL!  As if anyone didn't notice that you RAN AWAY once again from addressing the topic of your thread in my post #70 relative to Noah's ark, in where did all the food and fresh water come from in feeding 19.2 million animals for over one year upon the waters? This also includes 16 pairs of 1670 ton Argentinosaurus dinosaurs and 16 6 ton African Bush elephants!  SCARED to discuss these FACTS little runaway boy EtHAMg5? 

EtHAMg5, your inept intellect outside of your Bible stupidity doesn't allow you to realize that this is a Religion Discussion Forum, and NOT a Runaway from Discussion Forum by using your childish non sequiturs as a little wussy boy pseudo-christian like you represent!   Tell us, just how much embarrassment are you willing to take from Jesus, myself, and others that are easily handing your ass to you in this thread, and  in front of the membership, huh?

Here are the following posts that are DIRECTLY relative to your topic of Noah's Flood and the Ark, and that you are peeing in your pants and running away from because of your complete Bible stupidity in not being able to address them in your own thread!!!









The following posts to you are regarding your “removing one foot to insert the other” all the time, and are equally embarrassing to you, again in your own thread, because you have to run away from them as well! LOL! 





Which of the above posts that are shown above that you ran away from like a little "girly boy" do you want to talk about with the membership first? Wait a minute, are you peeing in your pants again because you are too SCARED to engage actual FACTS? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krTAzjoTuuY
#80
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@ethang5
@Ramshutu
Ancient meteorites reveal that our planet had plenty of water, right from the start.
Oops! There goes the atheist counter that the Earth does not have enough water to have fed Noah's flood.
What relevance does how early the water came on earth have ? As far as I know the biblical flood is supposed to have happened after the earth was fully formed. According to the Bible even humans were around then.
The Bible also says that Noah was 600 years old. Science has made much progress since that was written and discovered that 600 year olds are dead.

....Geologic evidence suggests that over Earths history, the fluxes of water between the interior and the surface - have been large.
The Bible notes that Noah's flood was augmented by water gushing from underground. How did the author know this fact so long before science did?
The webpage does not say what your quote suggests and it has a registration wall.
Your fallacy of choice is the loaded question. You are assuming that Physics Today and Genesis are describing the same process. Please demonstrate that.

"This discovery can help scientists create new, more accurate models of what's going on inside the Earth,..."
"...new, more accurate models..." means, closer to the narrative in the Bible.[1]
The webpage you linked to does not say what you attribute to it.
[1] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
Recently probes have visited both asteroids and comets and scientists now think asteroids made a bigger contribution to the earth's water than comets. What does the Bible say about that ?

"We"re not sure how it got there. Maybe it"s been stuck there since early in Earth"s history...."
Science now agrees again with the Bible, this time that there has always been water on the Earth, and lots of it.

Again, though the Bible AND science silences and shames atheists, they can only dismiss the Bible while claiming to uphold science which says the same thing!
The webpage you attribute that claim to does not mention it.
That seems like a good explanation of why, when atheists point out some science fiction in the Bible, Christians like to pull the excuse : “The Bible is not a science book.”
So you found something in the Bible that is true. God can be proud to have been able to inspire a collection of books that are not complete baloney. No wonder he is worshipped by two billion people.

ethang5 27 to Ramshutu :
Atheists first said there was not enough water on Earth for Noah's flood to be true. Science has proven that claim wrong.

Atheists then said, there was no way for the water in the Earth's mantle to come to the surface. Science again proved them wrong.[2]

Atheists calculated that 40 days of rain would not produce enough water to cover the Earth to the depth indicated in Noah's story. The Bible says the water did not only come from rain, but from under the ground too.

Science just verified that there is more than 3 times as much water in the Earth's mantle as in all it's oceans! How am I cherry picking?[3]
[2] What evidence can you present that atheists said these things ? I have said neither and it is since long known that volcanoes emit water.
[3] What source can you provide for that information ?

Did such a flood happen? No: science can rule that one out.
ethang5 32 :
Science once "ruled out" enough water on Earth to cover every peak.
Suppose it did. So what ?

Is it possible for it to happen? No: this water is not free water; and is locked up in magma hundreds of miles beneath the surface - not as water, but as OH Hydroxyl molecules bound to magma.
ethang5 32 :
You've back paddled. You use to say there was simply not enough water on Earth. But sorry, science has found that under certain conditions, this water can be brought to the surface.
What mechanism does science give for the water for the biblical flood to rise to the surface ?

You pointed to individual cases of data that seem to confirm your position...
ethang5 32 :
I pointed to an individual case of data that is consistent with my position. That is how science works.
You are mistaken. That is how confirmation bias and cherry-picking work.

...Demonstrate evolution,
ethang5 32 :
Evolution has never been demonstrated.
You can defend that position over here : www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6327-evolution-ation

...demonstrate the local nature of various flood around the world, and explicitly rule out a cataclysmic global flood as described in Genesis.
ethang5 32 :
Untrue. Science can only "rule out" a global flood within a time frame if in the relatively recent past. Noah's flood has never been "ruled out" by science, it is scientists with agendas that do so.
Given that according to the Bible the earth is young and the biblical flood allegedly happened after the birth of the earth, science never confirmed the biblical flood. Moreover, the existence of humans during the biblical flood also excludes it having happened in a distant past.

Erm - yes? That’s why “It just moves between the mantle and the surface” is what “earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable” means. Did you lose track of what you were arguing?
ethang5 35 :
Ah, lol! That's why you keep saying magma. You really should look up magma and bone up on geology before you post again. The water is in the Earth's mantle, not in magma.
Again, how can water from the earth's mantle reach the surface ?

Pretty sure that Cataclysmic volcanic activity overturning billions of square kilometres of magma to release its water; would not be described as water spurting from the ground, but a burning hellfire that vaporized every ocean on the planet
ethang5 35 :
And that doesn't clue you in that your "magma" idea is loony? Any water in Rock would be squeezed out under the tremendous pressure needed to make it hot enough to melt, and any water would immediately vaporize out as soon as the pressure dropped long before the magma reached the surface.
Lol. Funny how new scientific revelations always confirm the Bible's narrative.
Since the Bible was written, scientists have discovered that water from the mantle reaches the surface as vapour and not as springs.
Funny how old scientific revelations always refute the Bible's narrative.

Using the ones that Agree with you, and ignoring all the ones that do not - is cherry picking.
ethang5 35 :
I have "ignored" nothing, unless you mean that my OP did not contain  hundreds of thousands of studies.

This thread is about the water on Earth, not about evolution, or age of the Earth, or common ancestors. You wish to deflect to those topics because you know atheists have lost the "enough water on Earth" topic.
You cherry-picked the topic. You chose to start a thread on a topic about which some atheists apparently said something that turned out to be wrong.

Ramshutu 34 to ethang5 :
Please block quote this whole thing and reply to it in one go; you just went line by line and completely lost any semblance of a point lol.
No. That could provide clarity, the Christian's enemy.

You are cherry picking the science that agrees with the bible; ignoring all the other science that does not; and then claiming science validates the bible. Cherry picking
ethang5 41 :
No Sir. I said science validates one claim of the Bible, that there is enough water on Earth for Noah's flood. You are trying to insert an argument for me...
You are mistaken. ethang5 : “Lol. Funny how new scientific revelations always confirm the Bible's narrative.“

We can rule out a global flood 5-6 thousand years ago by various means
ethang5 41 :
Noah's flood did not happen 5 to 6 thousand years ago. It is a much older event.
When is it supposed to have happened ?

If water in rock is squeezed out under pressure as it melts - then where the hell did all this water you claim was on the surface go?
ethang5 41 :
I did not say rocks (or magma) came out. I said water. You brought out the magma clunker.
You missed the point. Ramshutu's question did not assume the water on the surface was inside rock or magma.

ethang5 41 to Ramshutu :
In this case, we do not currently know the mechanics of Noah's flood, but we are getting clues.[2]
- There IS enough water on Earth [3]
- the rainfall was augmented by water from below the surface [4]
these are consistent with our current running theories.

You want to make this about the larger Noah's flood so you can escape having to concede the limited point of this thread, that there is enough water on the Earth to be consistent with a global flood of the kind mentioned in Genesis.[5]
[2] In this case, we do not currently know Noah's flood happened and we have gotten clues.
[3] That is like saying that the fact there there are enough grapes on earth is a clue that a massive grape poisening happened.
[4] That is not a clue as so far no one has been able to demonstrate that.
[5] There is also enough water on earth to be consistent with no such flood happening. On the other hand there does not seem to be enough sufaceable water on earth for Noah's flood to have happened.

By all means share these other studies; I wasn’t able to find more than the single study after a brief search...
ethang5 49 :
Well that certainly proves there is only one.
Are those other studies secret ? You have offered none.

The Bible makes all sorts of claims we can invalidate[a] - but there are some where it’s able to by right by accident. Like this one.[b]
ethang5 49 :
[a] We who? You mean the "experts" you have faith in?
[b] Lol. You say, "by accident", and that is speculation. But that is fine by me. You admit the Bible was correct WHEN NOBODY ELSE KNEW, not even scientists.

...but there are some where it’s able to by right by accident. Like this one
It is easy to be right by accident when no one else knows when guessing gives a 50% chance of being right. Most lottery winners managed to be right when no one else knew despite terrible odds.

332 days later

#81
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Science Agrees With The Bible:Earth's Water

Science agrees with the Bible that water causes floods.

Bible says God uses floods to punish his creation.

Twenty-one Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened