Welcome Guest!
Child dies of cancer
- Thread starter atlashunter
- Start date
WaltL1
Senior Member
Dust with static cling.
Clinging to itself.
That static cling being recharged every night further bonding the dust together.
Would form what?
A. Loose dust?
B. A crust/solid type surface?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
What Pappy is arguing for was disproven back in the late 60s. Even a few mainstream creationists have abandoned it, but some still hang on to it despite the evidence
WaltL1
Senior Member
I have never heard this particular argument before.
Darn science always screwing up these wacky claims
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
To be honest it would be an easier task to explain the love of a mothers embrace or the beauty of a sunrise to an unborn child. Understanding this is not something you can do as an unbeliever. No one should expect you to. It's a dimension you can't see.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
I’m gonna regret asking this, I know, but if the above is true where does ones sense of injustice, any injustice, come from?
blood on the ground
Cross threading is better than two lock washers.
Who has all the answers? I sure dont! Life in general can be very cruel!
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
It evolved as our species evolved. They are learned traits.
Good, bad, right, wrong, justice, injustice all have taken on different meanings and levels from our earliest form and still do depending upon individual, family, society, culture, country or nation. There are so many factors that play into it that it cannot be narrowed down to a single source.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
In all truth, much of geology is based on assumptions based on linear equations. Example: We know x much water flow over y time causes z amount of erosion so based on that given any two variables we can determine the other. That type of stuff.
But, given the Biblical account of the flood all models go out the window. A model is very specific and very limited. The further one ventures outside of that scope the less reliable and less credible the results become.
Regardless of whether one believes in the flood or not, it’s fools errand to assume models based on today’s geology could either prove or disprove the account.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
If there was a world wide flood that had to have a level amount of water globally in order to cover the highest point, where did all the water recede to if everything is already covered?
There is nowhere for it to go, unless there are places where there is no water.
https://www.britannica.com/science/uniformitarianism
“Uniformitarianism, in geology, the doctrine suggesting that Earth’sgeologic processes acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity in the past as they do in the present and that such uniformity is sufficient to account for all geologic change. This principle is fundamental to geologic thinking and underlies the whole development of the science of geology.
When William Whewell, a University of Cambridge scholar, introduced the term in 1832, the prevailing view (called catastrophism) was that Earth had originated through supernatural means and had been affected by a series of catastrophic events such as the biblical Flood. In contrast to catastrophism, uniformitarianism postulates that phenomena displayed in rocks may be entirely accounted for by geologic processes that continue to operate—in other words, the present is the key to the past.
The expression uniformitarianism, however, has passed into history, because the argument between catastrophists and uniformitarians has largely died. Geology as an applied science draws on the other sciences, but in the early 19th century, geologic discovery had outrun the physics and chemistry of the day. As geologic phenomena became understandable in terms of advancing physics, chemistry, and biology, the reality of the principle of uniformity as a major philosophical tenet of geology became established, and the controversy between catastrophists and uniformitarians largely ended.”
*
Last edited:
WaltL1
Senior Member
The majority of us were believers.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
The majority of us were believers.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........[/QUOTE]
Big difference between what a person wants to see....which is often what a person Needs to see...and what is really going on.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........[/QUOTE]
Big difference between what a person wants to see....which is often what a person Needs to see...and what is really going on.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
If as
The majority of us were believers.
Do you think we forget what we use to believe?
Wait let me guess...... we were never really believers so we never really understood blah blah blah...........[/QUOTE]
Lot of people believe Nazis existed. Doesn’t make you one of them.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Lot of people believe Nazis existed. Doesn’t make you one of them.[/QUOTE]
Sfd, if you were raised as a Nazi. Joined the Nazi party. Attended Nazi rallies. And did all things Nazi....you were a Nazi.
Same goes for being a Christian or being a former Christian.
You stating that simply believing something existed does not make a person a part of it is not a good example or analogy. It would elsewhere in a different conversation, but not here.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...er-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/amp/
Wanna guess what ancient book actually stated this fact 2000 years ago? Give you a hint: Title of the chapter is Genesis. The more we know, the more we see science aligns with the Biblical Account. No surprise to any believer here.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
If that Mantle is filled with water now, it was filled with water then, and it was filled with water before the flood. Again...nowhere for the flood waters to recede to.
atlashunter
Senior Member
From your brain.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
No. See the following:
"Noah's Flood" was not world-wide
Where did all of this water come from to cover all the mountains on the planet? About 97.2% of all the water on earth, according to the United States Geological Survey, currently resides in the oceans. The remainder of the earth's water is in the lakes, rivers, glaciers, polar ice caps, underground water, and atmospheric moisture. All of this water could not cover the face of the earth.
If all the atmospheric moisture fell abruptly in a continuous worldwide rainfall, the level of the oceans would rise less than five centimetres; and if, at the same time, all the glaciers (and polar caps) in the world melted (as they did many times in the past), sea level would rise only about sixty meters, barely enough to drown low coastal plains.
There thus does not exist the water for a universal flood to occur. The total volume of water that exists on earth (and has for millions of years) is 1,359,843,000 cubic kilometres. If all of this water were to abruptly fall in a continuous worldwide rainfall, the level of the oceans would rise only about 75 meters (206 feet). It would take about 3½ times this amount of water (4,441,800,000 cubic kilometres) to completely cover the earth's surface.
It can be easily seen that it is impossible for a worldwide flood to exist since the water does not exist to accomplish the job. But creationists like to envision a mysterious water canopy in space and great reservoirs of water underground which contributed to the Flood. Yet they also say that these two water sources now make up "the present oceanic systems.” For this to mean anything the earth would have to be flooded today. So the question still remains, where did all the water come from to completely flood the earth?
This leads us to the other side of the equation, that being where did all the flood waters go to? The Genesis account states that after the flooding stopped (Gen. 8:1-2), the Ark rested in the 17th day of the 7th month. Then the "waters decreased continually until the tenth month," at which time some land could be seen (Gen. 8:5). This covers about 74 days. After another 54 days "the waters were abated from off the earth" (Gen. 8:11), and in another 36 days "the face of the ground was dry" (Gen. 8:13). It thus took only 164 days from the time the flooding ended for the water to recede and the ground to become dry. Clearly the waters of Noah's Flood could only recede or "abate from off the earth" if it were a localized flood on the earth.
Here we have all the evidence needed to prove that a universal flood did not occur, for if water covered the globe so that all of its mountains were covered, then where did the waters recede to? Did all of this water just evaporate into outer space? Water covering the entire planet could never drain off anywhere and give us dry ground in only 164 days. Not even in 100 years or 1000 years could this have happened. If such a worldwide flood did exist the water could never have drained off or evaporated—the earth would forever be water-covered, or a frozen ball of ice. The only reason the waters were able to recede from the land is because the Flood was confined to a limited area. Thus, the Flood was not of the worldwide magnitude creationists claim it was.
If all the atmospheric moisture fell abruptly in a continuous worldwide rainfall, the level of the oceans would rise less than five centimetres; and if, at the same time, all the glaciers (and polar caps) in the world melted (as they did many times in the past), sea level would rise only about sixty meters, barely enough to drown low coastal plains.
There thus does not exist the water for a universal flood to occur. The total volume of water that exists on earth (and has for millions of years) is 1,359,843,000 cubic kilometres. If all of this water were to abruptly fall in a continuous worldwide rainfall, the level of the oceans would rise only about 75 meters (206 feet). It would take about 3½ times this amount of water (4,441,800,000 cubic kilometres) to completely cover the earth's surface.
It can be easily seen that it is impossible for a worldwide flood to exist since the water does not exist to accomplish the job. But creationists like to envision a mysterious water canopy in space and great reservoirs of water underground which contributed to the Flood. Yet they also say that these two water sources now make up "the present oceanic systems.” For this to mean anything the earth would have to be flooded today. So the question still remains, where did all the water come from to completely flood the earth?
This leads us to the other side of the equation, that being where did all the flood waters go to? The Genesis account states that after the flooding stopped (Gen. 8:1-2), the Ark rested in the 17th day of the 7th month. Then the "waters decreased continually until the tenth month," at which time some land could be seen (Gen. 8:5). This covers about 74 days. After another 54 days "the waters were abated from off the earth" (Gen. 8:11), and in another 36 days "the face of the ground was dry" (Gen. 8:13). It thus took only 164 days from the time the flooding ended for the water to recede and the ground to become dry. Clearly the waters of Noah's Flood could only recede or "abate from off the earth" if it were a localized flood on the earth.
Here we have all the evidence needed to prove that a universal flood did not occur, for if water covered the globe so that all of its mountains were covered, then where did the waters recede to? Did all of this water just evaporate into outer space? Water covering the entire planet could never drain off anywhere and give us dry ground in only 164 days. Not even in 100 years or 1000 years could this have happened. If such a worldwide flood did exist the water could never have drained off or evaporated—the earth would forever be water-covered, or a frozen ball of ice. The only reason the waters were able to recede from the land is because the Flood was confined to a limited area. Thus, the Flood was not of the worldwide magnitude creationists claim it was.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
Similar threads
