|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You know we all think that's wrong, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But you know we think it's wrong, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I have to keep coming back to this basic fact that being buried in mud describes all the fossils... Just a quick correction: being buried in mud only describes a subset of fossils. The vast majority, all the fossils in the strata. But the others are formed how and where? Most fossils are NOT "animals that were buried in mud".
quote: There simply isn't enough time in between what would be the tides in your Flood scenario for the animals to decompose before the next tide came in to fill the cavities with sediment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wha? All that has to happen is that they be buried in mud/wet sediments, decomposition before burial is unnecessary. The decomposition occurs during burial and then the hard parts are fossilized. No, not when the fossil requires the animal to decompose first, and then get filled in with sediment. These are different than the mineralization of the hard parts of animals, that's just one type of fossil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Forget saying anything is impossible that the Bible says happened. You don't get to say what is impossible and argue with God. Sorry. Such hubris; you don't speak for God, Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I certainly can speak for God, any Bible believer can. Wow That's, like, the craziest thing I've read today. That's a really big problem, in multiple ways, and I don't think I can talk to you anymore*. I can't believe you actually think that. Well, I mean, I can believe that you believe it, but I'm surprised at how conceited you are. Pride is an abomination - check yourself. *I'll still point out the errors and mistakes you are making, but I don't think I can relate to someone so deluded that they think they can speak for God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The record of people who say they speak for God is not very impressive. Well, we know that they are literally unable to be speaking for God - I mean, they're contradicting the known scientific fact that the planet has never been covered in water since humans have been here. There's no way God is that stupid
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I have never understood why an omnipotent god would go to the trouble of a flood, with all of the collateral damage and pointless geological problems, to punish a single reprobate species. I mean, it only took 6 days to create the entire universe, so why spend a year with one simple task, leaving behind and entire planet of questionable evidence? Yeah, the Flood story is a weird one... For one, it talks about God having regret. That has ramifications for omnipotence and omniscience that you're just not going to solve. And it talks about killing all of the life that wasn't on the ark, but it turns out that it's not really all of it. And like you said, what a weird solution for the perceived problem. I think there was an event in the distant past that the Flood was based on, that it didn't really cover the whole planet, and that a bunch of different cultures have straggling myths that stem from the same event. The story in the Bible is a re-telling of that tale by smooshing together multiple sources in a, fairly poor, attempt at making it one cohesive story. Also, Biblicans today are stupid for thinking it was real like it is described. It's literally impossible as interpreted by those christians. Too, assuming it's literally true as interpreted, and then trying to shoehorn some of the facts into it has got to be one of the biggest wastes of time. And I'm completely baffles as to why they would try to come up with scientific explanations for a magic Flood while simultaneously relying on magic explanations in lieu of the scientific one for the diversity of species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I became a Bible believer on the basis of the evidence that God inspired it. That means any evidence that contradicts it is wrong. That, or your belief is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, you DO believe in evolution. I don't say that I believe in evolution. I know that species evolve because they are not static. It is not something that I simply believe in like my religious beliefs.
How they evolve is a different question, tho. I believe that the Theory of Evolution properly explains how species evolve and I know that it is the best explanation that we currently have.
Some people might believe in something " in spite of invalidating evidence" but that does not invalidate any of the other definitions. I reserve the word "belief" for things that I don't know, and I know that the animals are evolving. I don't just believe it, it is blatantly obvious that they do. Now, whether or not the ToE is correct does take some belief - but it's not much...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
What we actually see is MICROEVOLUTION. Yeah, that's evolution. Animals obviously evolve - they are not unchanging. And there is no magic arbitrary limit to how much micro-evolutionary change can accumulate that would prevent it from being macroevolution.
I bet you haven't even read any of my threads about how evolution defeats evolution, have you? I dunno, I don't know off the top of my head - and I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. But, given your track record - it is fair to assume that you are wrong. Plus, a lone delusional True Christian versus countless scientists? Yeah, no contest.
The ToE can't be shown it can only be believed. Nonsense. It's confirmed every day and has never been falsified. It's here to stay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you could see the past you'd see the Flood. We know for a fact, without a doubt, that the entire planet has not been covered in water since humans have been here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Strata. Enormous range, enormous depth. Fossils, bazillions of them. Billions of years.
The whole point of the Flood was to kill things. The point of it is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The first thing you would need to know to make such a conclusion is how much water are you talking about. What was the land elevation at the time of the Biblical Flood?Was there any mountains, if so how high were they? The Biblical Flood story took place while there were humans on Earth, and during that time there were mountains and they were as high as they are today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Couldn't be that you have the wrong idea about how the laws of physics work in such a situation. That is utter nonsense. The thing about laws is that they're not situational. He's right: You're proposing breaking the laws of physics in order to maintain the possibility of your conception.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024