Child dies of cancer

[SemperFiDawg]

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.

Sniff. Sniff. I smell a biased opinion. You got any peer reviewed data to back that up?

 

[atlashunter]

The creationist moon dust argument was disproven a long time ago. Anyone who uses it is just showing their own ignorance.

 

[atlashunter]

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.

The deep Earth holds about the same amount of water as our oceans. That’s the conclusion from experiments on rocks typical of those in the mantle transition zone, a global buffer layer 410 to 660 kilometres beneath us that separates the upper from the lower mantle.
“If our estimation is correct, it means there’s a large amount of water in the deep Earth,” says Hongzhan Fei at the University of Bayreuth in Germany. “The total amount of water in the deep Earth is nearly the same as the mass of all the world’s ocean water.”
The results add to mounting evidence that there is much more water than expected beneath us, mostly locked up within the crystals of minerals as ions rather than liquid water.

And your evidence that all of that water got locked up within those crystallized minerals in a short time span is... what exactly?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

I see this is new info to you and has sent you into a straw man frenzy.
‘Bible friendly source that denies the flood’ huh. Talk about contradictions.

 

[atlashunter]

I see this is new info to you and has sent you into a straw man frenzy.
‘Bible friendly source that denies the flood’ huh. Talk about contradictions.

When the bible contradicts the facts christians will often retreat into metaphor. We see it all the time on this forum.

 

[WaltL1]

The creationist moon dust argument was disproven a long time ago. Anyone who uses it is just showing their own ignorance.

Wow!
Even answersingenesis gave up on it.

on September 1, 1993
Originally published in Creation 15, no 4 (September 1993): 22.

The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, it has been found to be an invalid argument for creationists.

For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

And your evidence that all of that water got locked up within those crystallized minerals in a short time span is... what exactly?

Hasn’t been studied as far as I know. Never implied it had, but again it answers the question of where the additional water came from and went, the latter which is an answer to bullets question. Not to mention , the presence of this water is alluded to several times in Genesis alone and something Athiest and Athiestic scientist have long used it to ridicule “gullible” believers over. Now lookie here what we found.

 

[j_seph]

Here is a source that is Bible friendly, yet says there was no global flood.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

I may have asked once, how ould petrified palm tree end up in the middle of no where in the Tennessee Mountains?

 

[ky55]

I may have asked once, how ould petrified palm tree end up in the middle of no where in the Tennessee Mountains?

Well, if we use Pappy’s short-term fossilization theory, it could have fallen off a landscaper’s truck last month.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

When the bible contradicts the facts christians will often retreat into metaphor. We see it all the time on this forum.

I get that, now are you going to reply to my question in 86

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Lot of people believe Nazis existed. Doesn’t make you one of them.

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.[/QUOTE]

Really! So you were actually saved by the Blood of Christ, filled by the Holy Spirit, made it a point to dedicate your life to Christ after your life changing conversion and not just a nominal Christian who grew up in church and attended because his parents/wife did?

BTW I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who this new format is taking some adjusting to.

 

[atlashunter]

Hasn’t been studied as far as I know. Never implied it had, but again it answers the question of where the additional water came from and went, the latter which is an answer to bullets question. Not to mention , the presence of this water is alluded to several times in Genesis alone and something Athiest and Athiestic scientist have long used it to ridicule “gullible” believers over. Now lookie here what we found.

It's been studied enough for us to know those deep layers of rock are millions of years old. If you're going to suggest that the water from a worldwide flood that supposedly happened within the past 5 or 6 thousand years is now encased in that rock I'd like to know how you think the water got there in such a short time span. Otherwise your theory doesn't hold water.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Well, if we use Pappy’s short-term fossilization theory, it could have fallen off a landscaper’s truck last month.

That's funny, but Pappy has a point. It's commonly accepted that increased heat/pressure speeds many chemical reactions. Might even be a law or two in physics regarding this.

 

[atlashunter]

Well, if we use Pappy’s short-term fossilization theory, it could have fallen off a landscaper’s truck last month.

 

[Tmpr111]

...curious to know OP's thoughts here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[bullethead]

I see this is new info to you and has sent you into a straw man frenzy.
‘Bible friendly source that denies the flood’ huh. Talk about contradictions.

Straw Man Frenzy ..

That source in this instance uses the bible, in it's original text to correct the mistranslations that has you woefully underinformed.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

It's been studied enough for us to know those deep layers of rock are millions of years old. If you're going to suggest that the water from a worldwide flood that supposedly happened within the past 5 or 6 thousand years is now encased in that rock I'd like to know how you think the water got there in such a short time span. Otherwise your theory doesn't hold water.

Nice pun. See above post. Again, are you going to respond to my question in 86?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Straw Man Frenzy ..

That source in this instance uses the bible, in it's original text to correct the mistranslations that has you woefully underinformed.

I would suggest it doesn't.

 

[atlashunter]

Nice pun. See above post. Again, are you going to respond to my question in 86?

Already did in post 98.

 

[atlashunter]

Nice pun. See above post. Again, are you going to respond to my question in 86?

Notice that sfd responded to bullets issue with the missing water by suggesting it’s deep in the earth but no explanation nor even a shred of concern with how it would have gone from the surface to deep in the earth in such a short time. This is what we get with people who start with their conclusion and try to cherry pick facts to support their conclusion without the least bit concern of whether their conclusion is true or curiosity as to why so many facts don’t comport with their conclusion.

Do Christians really genuinely care if their beliefs are true? If they weren’t true would they want to know? Would they have the honesty to change their view in light of the facts. More often than not the answer to those questions is a resounding “No”.