# Breaking News from Genesis 1:9



## Weatherman2020

Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.

Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.


----------



## Mac1958

Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Just a matter of time as science adjusts its timeline.


----------



## JGalt

Mac1958 said:


> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?



Our time is not God's time...

2 Peter 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day _is_ with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4 For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night.


----------



## TNHarley

So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
This should be in the conspiracy section


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
> This should be in the conspiracy section



As usual, the evidence doesn't fit your thinking.  We have underwater civilizations all over the world, dinosaur fossils found underwater, and marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas.  I'm glad you admit that evolution should be in the conspiracy section.

ETA:  That said, the waterworld evidence does fit circa 2458 BC.


----------



## irosie91

Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies


----------



## james bond

irosie91 said:


> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies



You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.


----------



## toobfreak

Weatherman2020 said:


> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.




glug . glug . glug


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.
Click to expand...

Many people today treat science like they treat the Bible, they pick and choose what to believe based on their preconceived ideas.


----------



## irosie91

james bond said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.
Click to expand...


coffee grounds were invented in Ethiopia and further developed in Yemen----in the
15th century--------ever watch a Yemeni make coffee?     It's like a MYSTICAL
experience-------but only something like 500 years old


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people today treat science like they treat the Bible, they pick and choose what to believe based on their preconceived ideas.
Click to expand...


Not I.  I go by the scientific evidence.  It's interesting you reply to me and not Trader Harley nor the OP.  It makes me wonder what are your _preconceived_ ideas?

Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?


----------



## irosie91

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people today treat science like they treat the Bible, they pick and choose what to believe based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not I.  I go by the scientific evidence.  It's interesting you reply to me and not Trader Harley nor the OP.  It makes me wonder what are your _preconceived_ ideas?
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
Click to expand...



true----science does  "back up.."   the bible------just as much as science 
"backs up..."     the  Bhagavad Gita.        not really much more


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?


Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.


How is that silly claim relevant to this thread?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Also worth noting:

The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.


Triggered.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
Click to expand...

Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the Religion section.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
Click to expand...

Science and Genesis are one in the same.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
Click to expand...

Haha....sure.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
Click to expand...

Which do you ignore when they disagree?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
Click to expand...


Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?

ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Which do you ignore when they disagree?



It's not a matter of which does one ignore.  It's a matter of what the scientific method shows.  This is what is the truth as one can demonstrate it.

In this case, I would think there are more questions for the evolutionary timeline.  It wasn't based on a waterworld.


----------



## ReinyDays

The world's oceans appear to have been frozen over just a short billion years ago ... a blink of the eye as it were ... why would God hide this from us? ...

The Bible does give number of years in Genesis ... when these were added up it came to 4,500 years ... I've not done the math myself so if you have and you come up with 4.5 billion years ... that's as good as any number I suppose ... 

Keep in mind that in Roman Empire days, the largest digit was M = 1,000 ... I'm imagining some poor fella having carved four of these into hard ass granite thinking "that's close enough, just add a D and we're fine" ... human nature being as it is ...


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
Click to expand...

*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
*Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
*How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
*Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
*What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
*What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
*It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
*Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.

*The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.


----------



## TNHarley

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people today treat science like they treat the Bible, they pick and choose what to believe based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not I.  I go by the scientific evidence.  It's interesting you reply to me and not Trader Harley nor the OP.  It makes me wonder what are your _preconceived_ ideas?
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
Click to expand...

Aww triggered by reality


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
Click to expand...


>>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<

How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?

>>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<

If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?

>>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<

What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.







Darwin's:

*Years
ago* *Event*


*130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
*4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
*65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
*130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
*225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
*248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
*250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
*360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
*420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
*450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
*500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
*555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
*3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
*3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
*4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.

Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.

I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?

Important events in the history of life

More questions in regards to waterworld.

What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?

Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf

*Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.

*How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
*Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
*What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
*What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
*It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
*Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.

*The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
Click to expand...

"What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?"  I don't follow you, you seem to have the correct answer.

"Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up."  Darwin had only a vague notion of the age of the earth so you needn't be concern about him.  Was the entire ocean frozen solid to the very bottom?  Were there no thermal vents?

"Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?"  That's how much water there is?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.


^^

Bugged out of his own troll thread


----------



## Weatherman2020

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
Click to expand...




james bond said:


> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented



Whoever’s quote that is:
First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> Bugged out of his own troll thread
Click to expand...

Not my job to spend all day laughing at your triggered rants.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
Click to expand...

I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.
Click to expand...

I find it consistent that those who don’t believe are always ignorant of the facts.

I’ve seen them with my own eyes.

2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scroll deciphered, revealing 2nd Temple power struggles

Everything in every copy found after is the same.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.
Click to expand...

And a little Bible trivia for you: Many scholars believed the book of Daniel was written after the events that it lists. Daniel was too accurate. 

Then they found fragments of the book dating to before those events occurred.


----------



## JLW

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
Click to expand...

Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Johnlaw said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
Click to expand...

Do you believe time is constant?


----------



## JLW

Weatherman2020 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also worth noting:
> 
> The "suggested" claim in the thread title is actually just one hypothesis to explain the results of the study. In other words, the science to support this hypothesis (and to exclude others) has just begun.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
Click to expand...

That may be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Johnlaw said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered.
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.


----------



## JLW

Weatherman2020 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triggered ..how? The hypothesis may end up being strongly supported. Considering your egregious misrepresentation of the standing of this hypothesis in your OP, it was worth noting. Remember, this is the Science section, not the sky daddy section.
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
Click to expand...

I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Johnlaw said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.
Click to expand...

Great start. Assume nothing and investigate all possibilities to draw your own conclusions.  That’s how I got to where I’m at.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Johnlaw said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.
Click to expand...

And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world. 

Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering.  Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere. 



 

 

 
BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period.  Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a little Bible trivia for you: Many scholars believed the book of Daniel was written after the events that it lists. Daniel was too accurate.
> 
> Then they found fragments of the book dating to before those events occurred.
Click to expand...

So what? So some guys wrote some stuff down. Is that supposed to impress us? Alchemists and voodoo priests also write stuff down.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> "*What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?"*  I don't follow you, you seem to have the correct answer.
> 
> "*Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up."*  Darwin had only a vague notion of the age of the earth so you needn't be concern about him.  Was the entire ocean frozen solid to the very bottom?  Were there no thermal vents?
> *
> "Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?"*  That's how much water there is?



Waterworld would mean you couldn't see the supercontinent because it was underwater.  A global flood meant it was underwater for a year until the water receded and Noah's family and the animals were able to repopulate again.  The Bible explains it again.

It means Darwin was wrong whether waterworld or not.  Like I keep saying atheists are usually wrong.

According to the few evos, the comets and meteors that hit Earth around 4.5 B years ago had ice on it which eventually melted and that's how the Earth now has 3/4 water.  Nobody believes that BS lol.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement. I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ. In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same. Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.



Listen to Weatherman2020 and not _David Strauss_.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? So some guys wrote some stuff down. Is that supposed to impress us?



It's the Book of Daniel which describes the end of the world and what happens.  It should make you take stock of your_ no Jesus position_.  TBH, it is allegory and metaphor.  People in the past talked about it and discuss what was true and all that.  It talks about the dead rising from the grave again and reuniting with the bodies.  Today,we find zombie stories and movies are popular.  My hero, Blaise Pascal might've just shrugged his shoulders and said...


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a little Bible trivia for you: Many scholars believed the book of Daniel was written after the events that it lists. Daniel was too accurate.
> 
> Then they found fragments of the book dating to before those events occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? So some guys wrote some stuff down. Is that supposed to impress us? Alchemists and voodoo priests also write stuff down.
Click to expand...

Who accurately wrote down the rise and fall of civilizations of the future?  Be specific.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Who accurately wrote down the rise and fall of civilizations of the future?


I'm not your assistant. Make your point.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before we get to the Bible, let's discuss the _settled science. _ Is that from Bill Nye?  Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?  Who was it?  How did he do it?  What does a _waterworld_ do to it?  Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.  How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest?  Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.  What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant?  What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?  It doesn't mention any _waterworld_.  Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?
> 
> ETA:  Oops, I didn't answer your question.  What happens when the science does not back up the Bible?  Nothing.  The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.  This was the case when scientists and people believed in an eternal universe for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it consistent that those who don’t believe are always ignorant of the facts.
> 
> I’ve seen them with my own eyes.
> 
> 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scroll deciphered, revealing 2nd Temple power struggles
> 
> Everything in every copy found after is the same.
Click to expand...

I don't think I could have been more clear.  It is the NT that has been changing since its inception and what I said about the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have   from before the printing press, is exactly true, NONE of them are exactly the same. 

I find it amazing that people who consider the Bible, OT and/or NT, to be the word of God have often never read studied it.  Talk about ignorance.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay
> *Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development
> *What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>*Do you know how they determined Earth is 4.5 billion years old?*  - Settled science: radioisotope decay<<
> 
> How can it be settled if the creation scientist and I disagree?  One would have to make assumptions on daughter to parent ratios.  Furthermore, what I was getting at who was what the scientist and what did he measure?  This was in 1956.  He measured a meteorite.  Why would he do that?
> 
> >>*Who was it?  How did he do it?*  - I doubt it was a single scientist but more of a continuous development<<
> 
> If you don't know, then it's better to say something like your answer.  It was Clair Patterson and he used a meteorite.  He also had to build a clean room to avoid contamination.  Prior to this, the Earth was measured at 3 billion years old.  Why wasn't that enough time for Darwin?
> 
> >>*What does a waterworld do to it? * - Nothing that I can see<<
> 
> What do the Antibibalists or evolutionists have in regards to time?  Geologic timescale.  Wouldn't they need something such as this to explain their science?  I think what you will find is the Christians had their science first and then the Antibibalists/evos made up stuff to contradict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's:
> 
> *Years
> ago* *Event*
> 
> 
> *130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Thus, Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up.
> 
> I'll stop here and we can continue our discussion.  Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> More questions in regards to waterworld.
> 
> What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?
> 
> Darwin's problem of geological timeline explained in detail - http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/449/Soft Inhertance/Burchfield - Darwin and Geol. Time.pdf
> 
> *Next, there was no life whatsoever 3.2 billion years ago.*  - You know that how?
> I've read about Darwin's evolution.  You can quibble about it.
> 
> *How do you explain the buried and underwater civilizations and marine fossils in the Himalayas and Mt. Everest? * - Settled science: sea level rise and plate tectonics
> *Moreover, how do you explain most of the fossil record are from marine animals.*  - Settled science: fossils form when something gets buried, generally land is eroding and those sediments are being deposited in the sea
> *What about the fountains of the deep Bill Nye accidentally found and had no idea what it meant? * - No clue what that is.  Link?
> *What about the evolution timeline based on older layers on the bottom and younger layers on top?*  - Settled science.  What is your problem with this?
> *It doesn't mention any waterworld.*  - Why do you think it should?
> *Furthermore, we have the uniformitarianism theory that the present is the key to the past.  This shows just what exactly?* - Settled science: we should believe our eyes.
> 
> *The Bible can't change.  It remains the same.* - Untrue.  The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever’s quote that is:
> First question is why you need to make such an outlandish lie. We’ve got copies going back to the time of Christ and every copy is identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was the one who wrote "The Bible has been changing since it's inception, it only stopped when the printing press was invented" and I stand by that statement.  I also know that we have have nothing in writing from the time of Christ.  In fact, of the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have from before the printing press, NONE of them are exactly the same.  Most differences are scribe errors but some are intentional changes to the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find it consistent that those who don’t believe are always ignorant of the facts.
> 
> I’ve seen them with my own eyes.
> 
> 2,000-year-old Dead Sea Scroll deciphered, revealing 2nd Temple power struggles
> 
> Everything in every copy found after is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think I could have been more clear.  It is the NT that has been changing since its inception and what I said about the thousands of fragments of the Gospels we have   from before the printing press, is exactly true, NONE of them are exactly the same.
> 
> I find it amazing that people who consider the Bible, OT and/or NT, to be the word of God have often never read studied it.  Talk about ignorance.
Click to expand...

We have an NT from 300AD. 
It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who accurately wrote down the rise and fall of civilizations of the future?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not your assistant. Make your point.
Click to expand...

It’s your claim voodoo folks are prophetic. 
Why can’t you back that up?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> It’s your claim voodoo folks are prophetic


No, I said they wrote things down. Pay attention.

But, you just got a millimeter closer to making a point! Now, all you have to do is show us all the fulfilled Bible prophecies, then state clearly your implied claim that the Bible is unique in stating things that later happened.

Then, we can examine your claim.

And...go!


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s your claim voodoo folks are prophetic
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said they wrote things down. Pay attention.
> 
> But, you just got a millimeter closer to making a point! Now, all you have to do is show us all the fulfilled Bible prophecies, then state clearly your implied claim that the Bible is unique in stating things that later happened.
> 
> Then, we can examine your claim.
> 
> And...go!
Click to expand...

Man, you’re extra stuck on stupid today. Your desperate lack of understanding of basic theology is hysterical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s your claim voodoo folks are prophetic
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said they wrote things down. Pay attention.
> 
> But, you just got a millimeter closer to making a point! Now, all you have to do is show us all the fulfilled Bible prophecies, then state clearly your implied claim that the Bible is unique in stating things that later happened.
> 
> Then, we can examine your claim.
> 
> And...go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you’re extra stuck on stupid today. Your desperate lack of understanding of basic theology is hysterical.
Click to expand...

Cool whining! But you don't really want to turn yet another one of your own threads into a thread about me, do you?

Let me continue to provide guidance and encouragement. You were about to make some sort of point about the Bible being unique or special, and it was going to have something to do with prophecies.

And, go!


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.


I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happened and were seen as metaphysical thingies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still doing the narrow brained thinking.  The new evidence is ocean water that covered the entire Earth based on the oxygen-18.  The scientist said that it was analyzing the coffee grounds to see what kind of water flowed through it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many people today treat science like they treat the Bible, they pick and choose what to believe based on their preconceived ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not I.  I go by the scientific evidence.  It's interesting you reply to me and not Trader Harley nor the OP.  It makes me wonder what are your _preconceived_ ideas?
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww triggered by reality
Click to expand...


It would seem your reality and mine are different, but what has happened in the past can be verified with mine.  Not yours tho.

What about the future reality?  Mine is an allegorical end of the world by Jesus.  Is yours an end of the world by large asteroid?  What's strange to me is yours contradicts mine in that mine says we won't die by flooding again.  Yours is a large asteroid causing a tsunami or tidal wave and causing much death and destruction.  I assume people die by flooding.  Who has time for worrying about such nonsense?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*What happened to the supercontinent that was broken up to seven continents (plate tectonics)?"*  I don't follow you, you seem to have the correct answer.
> 
> "*Darwin needed more than 3 billion years to explain evolution.  A waterworld 3.2 B yrs ago screws it up."*  Darwin had only a vague notion of the age of the earth so you needn't be concern about him.  Was the entire ocean frozen solid to the very bottom?  Were there no thermal vents?
> *
> "Can you answer why the Earth is 3/4 covered by ocean water?"*  That's how much water there is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waterworld would mean you couldn't see the supercontinent because it was underwater.  A global flood meant it was underwater for a year until the water receded and Noah's family and the animals were able to repopulate again.  The Bible explains it again.
> 
> It means Darwin was wrong whether waterworld or not.  Like I keep saying atheists are usually wrong.
> 
> According to the few evos, the comets and meteors that hit Earth around 4.5 B years ago had ice on it which eventually melted and that's how the Earth now has 3/4 water.  Nobody believes that BS lol.
Click to expand...

"A global flood meant it was underwater for a year until the water receded and Noah's family and the animals were able to repopulate again."
Where did you get the one year timetable?  If the Earth was completely underwater I'd think that would take a long time to happen and a long time to disappear.  Where did the water go?  The Flood was a miraculous event, right?  It didn't adhere to natural law so discussing it scientifically is silly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Where did the water go?


And where did it come from?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Where did you get the one year timetable? If the Earth was completely underwater I'd think that would take a long time to happen and a long time to disappear. Where did the water go? The Flood was a miraculous event, right? It didn't adhere to natural law so discussing it scientifically is silly.



From Weatherman2020.  How do I know I can use what he said?

The waters receded to what we have today.  Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11.  Psalm 104.  

>>It didn't adhere to natural law so discussing it scientifically is silly.<<

What makes you state this?  

Noah's flood was a supernatural event, but caused naturally; I wouldn't call it a miracle exactly.  Forensic science and now scientific evidence backs the Bible up.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s your claim voodoo folks are prophetic
> 
> 
> 
> No, I said they wrote things down. Pay attention.
> 
> But, you just got a millimeter closer to making a point! Now, all you have to do is show us all the fulfilled Bible prophecies, then state clearly your implied claim that the Bible is unique in stating things that later happened.
> 
> Then, we can examine your claim.
> 
> And...go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you’re extra stuck on stupid today. Your desperate lack of understanding of basic theology is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool whining! But you don't really want to turn yet another one of your own threads into a thread about me, do you?
> 
> Let me continue to provide guidance and encouragement. You were about to make some sort of point about the Bible being unique or special, and it was going to have something to do with prophecies.
> 
> And, go!
Click to expand...

Cool whining?  From someone who rebuts the Book of Daniel by saying people write things down?

See a shrink.


----------



## Weatherman2020

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get the one year timetable? If the Earth was completely underwater I'd think that would take a long time to happen and a long time to disappear. Where did the water go? The Flood was a miraculous event, right? It didn't adhere to natural law so discussing it scientifically is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Weatherman2020.  How do I know I can use what he said?
> 
> The waters receded to what we have today.  Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11.  Psalm 104.
> 
> >>It didn't adhere to natural law so discussing it scientifically is silly.<<
> 
> What makes you state this?
> 
> Noah's flood was a supernatural event, but caused naturally; I wouldn't call it a miracle exactly.  Forensic science and now scientific evidence backs the Bible up.
Click to expand...

They’re desperate and they know it.


----------



## irosie91

what line by Daniel is being  "rebutted"?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
Click to expand...

Maybe you should list the errors that you think change the meaning. 

But read the link first. 

Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore? | CARM.org


----------



## Weatherman2020

irosie91 said:


> what line by Daniel is being  "rebutted"?


The entire book. Because’voodoo people wrote things down too’


----------



## james bond

irosie91 said:


> what line by Daniel is being "rebutted"?



I had trouble understanding Daniel, but I think the_ flood_ referred to in it isn't an actual flood by water.  It tells us how fast and violent the end will come. 

If you have a verse, then we can look at it to discuss.


----------



## TNHarley

How does this prove the biblical flood when it happened billions of years before biblical humans?


----------



## Weatherman2020

TNHarley said:


> How does this prove the biblical flood when it happened billions of years before biblical humans?


You should trouble yourself with a Bible study on the verse stated in the subject line.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> From someone who rebuts the Book of Daniel by saying people write things down?


Oops, more silly whiny fantasy. I didn't rebut anything. I said that the fact that it was written down doesn't make it special. Dude, try to focus, you are rabid and making stupid errors.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From someone who rebuts the Book of Daniel by saying people write things down?
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, more silly whiny fantasy. I didn't rebut anything. I said that the fact that it was written down doesn't make it special. Dude, try to focus, you are rabid and making stupid errors.
Click to expand...

Are you on crack?  Your logic says yes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From someone who rebuts the Book of Daniel by saying people write things down?
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, more silly whiny fantasy. I didn't rebut anything. I said that the fact that it was written down doesn't make it special. Dude, try to focus, you are rabid and making stupid errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on crack?  Your logic says yes.
Click to expand...

Oh look, the troll again turns his own thread into a thread about me. This must be a Saturday.


Do you have anything else, other than your childlike wonder that someone wrote something down and --hey look at that! -- it is still written down, to argue for the book of Daniel being uniquely special?

If so, bring it. Or just whine all day. Your call.


----------



## TNHarley

Weatherman2020 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this prove the biblical flood when it happened billions of years before biblical humans?
> 
> 
> 
> You should trouble yourself with a Bible study on the verse stated in the subject line.
Click to expand...

That was directed at james bond. He referred to the flood on page 1.
But considering genesis, it also states plants were made before the sun. So im not sure that is a good go to for anything scientific.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

TNHarley said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this prove the biblical flood when it happened billions of years before biblical humans?
> 
> 
> 
> You should trouble yourself with a Bible study on the verse stated in the subject line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was directed at james bond. He referred to the flood on page 1.
> But considering genesis, it also states plants were made before the sun. So im not sure that is a good go to for anything scientific.
Click to expand...

It's painfully obvious that Genesis was just a first and worst attempt by abjectly ignorant, superstitious people to explain the world.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From someone who rebuts the Book of Daniel by saying people write things down?
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, more silly whiny fantasy. I didn't rebut anything. I said that the fact that it was written down doesn't make it special. Dude, try to focus, you are rabid and making stupid errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on crack?  Your logic says yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh look, the troll again turns his own thread into a thread about me. This must be a Saturday.
> 
> 
> Do you have anything else, other than your childlike wonder that someone wrote something down and --hey look at that! -- it is still written down, to argue for the book of Daniel being uniquely special?
> 
> If so, bring it. Or just whine all day. Your call.
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your logic that because people write things down makes the Bible illegitimate.


----------



## aaronleland

Weatherman2020 said:


> Science and Genesis are one in the same.



Who told you that? A talking snake?


----------



## Weatherman2020

aaronleland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
Click to expand...

You don’t even know which bathroom to use.


----------



## aaronleland

Weatherman2020 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
Click to expand...


Weird deflection...


----------



## Weatherman2020

aaronleland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
Click to expand...

Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.


----------



## aaronleland

Weatherman2020 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
Click to expand...


Do you believe in talking snakes?


----------



## Weatherman2020

aaronleland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science and Genesis are one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
Click to expand...

Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Weatherman2020 said:


> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.



Love to see anything scientific you have suggesting the earth is 6000 years old.


----------



## aaronleland

Weatherman2020 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
Click to expand...


Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Weatherman2020 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that? A talking snake?
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
Click to expand...

Do you believe America is a free society with equal representation for all?

Those are equivalent fallacies.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

aaronleland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
Click to expand...


I think I'm missing a rib!?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## Weatherman2020

aaronleland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
Click to expand...

You first.


----------



## miketx




----------



## Weatherman2020

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t even know which bathroom to use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe America is a free society with equal representation for all?
> 
> Those are equivalent fallacies.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with anyone thinking a rock may one day write a bestselling novel.


----------



## aaronleland

Weatherman2020 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> 
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first.
Click to expand...


No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.

Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?


----------



## miketx

aaronleland said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.
> 
> Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?
Click to expand...


----------



## aaronleland

miketx said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.
> 
> Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the s-word. You'd have a point if I was talking about the c-word.


----------



## miketx

aaronleland said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.
> 
> Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the s-word. You'd have a point if I was talking about the c-word.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weird deflection...
> 
> 
> 
> Just reminding you that your level of science is < 2 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in talking snakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe the rock in your front planter may one day write a concerto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe America is a free society with equal representation for all?
> 
> Those are equivalent fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with anyone thinking a rock may one day write a bestselling novel.
Click to expand...

Evocative of Don Jr's "book" and the staged bulk purchases that made up his "sales".


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

miketx said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just answer. It's a very simple question. Do you believe that a snake talked at any time in history?
> 
> 
> 
> You first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.
> 
> Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the s-word. You'd have a point if I was talking about the c-word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 310931
Click to expand...



Stormy told the entire world about that little mushroom of Don's that he payed her to service.


----------



## miketx

Bo Didleysquat said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.
> 
> Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the s-word. You'd have a point if I was talking about the c-word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 310931
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormy told the entire world about that little mushroom of Don's that he payed her to service.
Click to expand...

I see you think about it.


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> How does this prove the biblical flood when it happened billions of years before biblical humans?



What you bring up is a valid question even though we have differences about the timelines.  I don't think the new evidence does so conclusively, but the new evidence for waterworld does backup the biblical explanation in some ways.  It's a lot to go into, but the explanations are here:

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

As for _conclusive_ evidence that what Moses wrote in Genesis took place is arguable, too.  I think the waterworld argument helps back what Moses wrote.

Moses reports on things that happened around 2500 years before his time.  Would people in his day be able to believe what he wrote?  I would think they could go back a few hundred years with some accuracy, but anything over a thousand becomes more difficult.  I think they could believe what happened in regards to a global flood from that period of time before.  However, there was a mythological story regarding a large flood as the Epic of Gilgamesh and Moses wrote something similar of Noah's flood in Genesis.  This was much later, but I think he explained much more in detail.  Thus, I would think there were people who did not believe Moses about it during that time as we have people who dismiss it as myth and use the Epic of Gilgamesh for their argument.  Here are the differences between the two from a Christian pov -- The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh.


----------



## james bond

I posted this already, but the billions of years people have some explaining to do with the new evidence as it affects what Darwin wrote and the evolutionary timeline based on geology.

Darwin's timeline:
*Years
ago* *Event
130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
*4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
*65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
*130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
*225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
*248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
*250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
*360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
*420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
*450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
*500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
*555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
*3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
*3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
*4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.

Waterworld would screw up Darwin's unicellular life.  Furthermore, how do you explain today's 3/4 surface water?  In the past, it was meteors and comets of ice that brought them (dumb hypothesis ).

Important events in the history of life


----------



## aaronleland

Anyways, my question to Weatherman. Is it scientifically possible that a talking snake existed?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Weatherman2020 said:


> Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your logic that because people write things down makes the Bible illegitimate.


Which, of course, wasn't my argument at all. So you are either an amateurish troll or a true moron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

aaronleland said:


> Weird deflection...


Yeah, he has a very bad habit of playing stupid and saying very stupid things as a result. It makes one wonder if he is actually "playing" stupid, given the frequency of such stupid comments from him.


----------



## james bond

aaronleland said:


> Anyways, my question to Weatherman. Is it scientifically possible that a talking snake existed?








The answer is based on can you keep the Ten Commandments above?

If the answer is no, then it means you are doomed for hell and there was no talking serpent.  Serpents can't talk.

If the answer is yes, then it means you're still an innocent fetus, baby, child, and will go to heaven and there was no talking serpent.  Jesus will look into their heart and know.

So you still haven't gotten a full answer.  Where is your answer?  In hell.  There you go.

If you don't like that, then God gave us a workaround, but Weatherman2020 and I are keeping it to ourselves.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your logic that because people write things down makes the Bible illegitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, wasn't my argument at all. So you are either an amateurish troll or a true moron.
Click to expand...

Says troll girl ranting about voodoo doctors writing things down.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol..Now that’s a first..So explain how you reconcile  the earth being 6000 years old according to Genesis with science?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.
> 
> Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering.  Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
> View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
> BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period.  Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.
Click to expand...

Of course you could always ask a geologist.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Noah's flood was a supernatural event, but caused naturally; I wouldn't call it a miracle exactly.


What would you call it?



james bond said:


> Forensic science and now scientific evidence backs the Bible up.


Nope.  Science clearly show there was no natural, global flood as told in the Bible.  Science can't study supernatural events so they can't back up the Bible.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah's flood was a supernatural event, but caused naturally; I wouldn't call it a miracle exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> They’re desperate and they know it.
Click to expand...

Who's desperate?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I posted this already, but the billions of years people have some explaining to do with the new evidence as it affects what Darwin wrote and the evolutionary timeline based on geology.
> 
> Darwin's timeline:
> *Years
> ago* *Event
> 130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Waterworld would screw up Darwin's unicellular life.  Furthermore, how do you explain today's 3/4 surface water?  In the past, it was meteors and comets of ice that brought them (dumb hypothesis ).
> 
> Important events in the history of life



It’s dishonest to attribute a timeline to Charles Darwin that he never proposed. 

Your preferred timeline of 6,000 years and events described by supernaturalism is much more plausible than the rational science that has evidence to the contrary.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah's flood was a supernatural event, but caused naturally; I wouldn't call it a miracle exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call it?
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forensic science and now scientific evidence backs the Bible up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Science clearly show there was no natural, global flood as told in the Bible.  Science can't study supernatural events so they can't back up the Bible.
Click to expand...


A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.

You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.


You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.

I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah's flood was a supernatural event, but caused naturally; I wouldn't call it a miracle exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call it?
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forensic science and now scientific evidence backs the Bible up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Science clearly show there was no natural, global flood as told in the Bible.  Science can't study supernatural events so they can't back up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.
Click to expand...


There’s no evidence for any of the gods saving anyone.

ID’iot creationists refuse to publish in peer reviewed journals so it’s misleading to try and claim they have evidence for anything,


----------



## LuckyDuck

Weatherman2020 said:


> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.


The pesky problem with that is that if you are trying to equate that with the fable of the ARK in the bible, it won't work.  Not only were humans not around 3.2 billion years ago, neither were dinosaurs.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this already, but the billions of years people have some explaining to do with the new evidence as it affects what Darwin wrote and the evolutionary timeline based on geology.
> 
> Darwin's timeline:
> *Years
> ago* *Event
> 130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Waterworld would screw up Darwin's unicellular life.  Furthermore, how do you explain today's 3/4 surface water?  In the past, it was meteors and comets of ice that brought them (dumb hypothesis ).
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s dishonest to attribute a timeline to Charles Darwin that he never proposed.
> 
> Your preferred timeline of 6,000 years and events described by supernaturalism is much more plausible than the rational science that has evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


I provided my source, but you do not have a source.  All you have is a collection of news articles.  You just cannot accept the falseness of evolution nor the truth of Jesus and creation science.  It's like you're going through life as a zombie.


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky problem with that is that if you are trying to equate that with the fable of the ARK in the bible, it won't work.  Not only were humans not around 3.2 billion years ago, neither were dinosaurs.
Click to expand...


There was no 3.2 billion years ago and how can Earth have that much water back then?  No one can prove it.  What this shows is evidence of a global flood in 2458 BC and science backs up the Bible once again.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.
> 
> I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.
Click to expand...


The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again? 

2007
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood

Here's something from 1992 and different source:
Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com

I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.

I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.

To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.
> 
> I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again?
> 
> 2007
> Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> 
> Here's something from 1992 and different source:
> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.
> 
> I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.
> 
> To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.
Click to expand...

Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?

Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?

What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this already, but the billions of years people have some explaining to do with the new evidence as it affects what Darwin wrote and the evolutionary timeline based on geology.
> 
> Darwin's timeline:
> *Years
> ago* *Event
> 130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
> *4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
> *65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
> *130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
> *225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
> *248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
> *250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
> *360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
> *420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
> *450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
> *500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
> *555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
> *3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
> *3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
> *4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.
> 
> Waterworld would screw up Darwin's unicellular life.  Furthermore, how do you explain today's 3/4 surface water?  In the past, it was meteors and comets of ice that brought them (dumb hypothesis ).
> 
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s dishonest to attribute a timeline to Charles Darwin that he never proposed.
> 
> Your preferred timeline of 6,000 years and events described by supernaturalism is much more plausible than the rational science that has evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided my source, but you do not have a source.  All you have is a collection of news articles.  You just cannot accept the falseness of evolution nor the truth of Jesus and creation science.  It's like you're going through life as a zombie.
Click to expand...

Your source is someone's personal blog. As I noted, Charles Darwin never suggested the timeline that was falsely attributed to him. You cut and pasted a fraud. Why do you choose to be an accomplice to fraud?

There is no truth in bias and falsehood as promoted by creation ministries. They have a singular agenda: to press literalist, fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.
> 
> I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again?
> 
> 2007
> Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> 
> Here's something from 1992 and different source:
> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.
> 
> I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.
> 
> To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?
> 
> Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?
> 
> What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?
Click to expand...


The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your _cherry picked_ forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution.  Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.  The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils.  These were found on mountain tops all over the world.  The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.  The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works.  It doesn't take millions of years.  There can be no experiment for millions of years.

Try to find fine tuning evidence.  These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang.  We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017.  Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first.  It follows the cell coming first.  The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find.  Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common.  DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA.  Those are difficult to find now.

I already provided Darwin's timeline.  The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.


Can you define what you'd consider a transitional fossil?  Science says that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs (see photo for an early theropod).  What kind of transitional fossil would we expect to find if this is true?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.
> 
> I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again?
> 
> 2007
> Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> 
> Here's something from 1992 and different source:
> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.
> 
> I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.
> 
> To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?
> 
> Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?
> 
> What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your _cherry picked_ forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution.  Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.  The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils.  These were found on mountain tops all over the world.  The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.  The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works.  It doesn't take millions of years.  There can be no experiment for millions of years.
> 
> Try to find fine tuning evidence.  These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang.  We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017.  Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first.  It follows the cell coming first.  The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find.  Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common.  DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA.  Those are difficult to find now.
> 
> I already provided Darwin's timeline.  The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.
Click to expand...


There are large numbers of transitional fossils.

CC200:  Transitional fossils


Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define what you'd consider a transitional fossil?  Science says that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs (see photo for an early theropod).  What kind of transitional fossil would we expect to find if this is true?
Click to expand...


.  Just give us your stock of artists' drawings.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define what you'd consider a transitional fossil?  Science says that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs (see photo for an early theropod).  What kind of transitional fossil would we expect to find if this is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Just give us your stock of artists' drawings.
Click to expand...



CC214:  Transitional Birds

.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> A miracle would be God saving someone.  Death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event.
> 
> You continue to disagree when the creation scientists and I have the evidence.  You didn't even know why 3 B yrs wasn't enough time for Darwin.  OTOH, I had the knowledge of how billions of year old Earth was determined.  Shouldn't that be something you would know like the back of your hand?  One of the things that bothered me about a 4.5 B yrs old Earth was if it was fact, then why did NYT and other MSM keep repeating it when discussing evolutionary science?  Now, we have the waterworld science evidence (which I believe took over a decade to get published) now screws up Darwin's timeline.  Yet, no word of it.  We had no word about the fine tuning facts when the CMB was discovered.  We also had no word about the chicken coming before the egg.  It's really weird how the MSM controls your brain.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.
> 
> I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again?
> 
> 2007
> Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> 
> Here's something from 1992 and different source:
> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.
> 
> I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.
> 
> To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?
> 
> Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?
> 
> What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your _cherry picked_ forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution.  Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.  The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils.  These were found on mountain tops all over the world.  The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.  The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works.  It doesn't take millions of years.  There can be no experiment for millions of years.
> 
> Try to find fine tuning evidence.  These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang.  We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017.  Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first.  It follows the cell coming first.  The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find.  Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common.  DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA.  Those are difficult to find now.
> 
> I already provided Darwin's timeline.  The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are large numbers of transitional fossils.
> 
> CC200:  Transitional fossils
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?
Click to expand...



First, you could not rebut anything that I posted, so it means you lost, lost, lost.  I am the CHAMPION once again.

Instead, you insult me with more evolutionism which does not hold WATER.  The topic is waterworld and it is clear you could not explain how Darwinism survives in a waterworld.  Just much more straw men in order to show your lack of any credible answer.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define what you'd consider a transitional fossil?  Science says that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs (see photo for an early theropod).  What kind of transitional fossil would we expect to find if this is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .  Just give us your stock of artists' drawings.
Click to expand...

If you prefer the raw data:


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the creation scientists *don't* have the evidence, that is the point.  You obviously think you do since you think it confirms the Bible, but to science it is unconvincing.  Also you're confused on the role of science.  Science is the study of the natural world, if death for everyone and everything in the whole world except for the inhabitants of the Ark would be a catastrophe and supernatural event, then science can neither refute nor support your theory.
> 
> I think it's really weird how the Bible controls your brain yet you don't seem to even want to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again?
> 
> 2007
> Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> 
> Here's something from 1992 and different source:
> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.
> 
> I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.
> 
> To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?
> 
> Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?
> 
> What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your _cherry picked_ forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution.  Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.  The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils.  These were found on mountain tops all over the world.  The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.  The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works.  It doesn't take millions of years.  There can be no experiment for millions of years.
> 
> Try to find fine tuning evidence.  These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang.  We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017.  Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first.  It follows the cell coming first.  The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find.  Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common.  DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA.  Those are difficult to find now.
> 
> I already provided Darwin's timeline.  The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are large numbers of transitional fossils.
> 
> CC200:  Transitional fossils
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, you could not rebut anything that I posted, so it means you lost, lost, lost.  I am the CHAMPION once again.
> 
> Instead, you insult me with more evolutionism which does not hold WATER.  The topic is waterworld and it is clear you could not explain how Darwinism survives in a waterworld.  Just much more straw men in order to show your lack of any credible answer.
Click to expand...


Well actually, I did rebut your strident, hand-wringing appeals to ID'iot creationist (religious) doctrine with facts. You can deny the facts all you wish but you obviously can't "rebut" them. 

No need to feel insulted by evolutionism. You have already discovered that hiding behind religionism is not going to shield you from the facts. Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful. 

Drowning in your waterworld of religious extremism? Reason and rationality is the lifesaver.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence was presented years ago.  Do I have to post my source again?
> 
> 2007
> Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
> 
> Here's something from 1992 and different source:
> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> I think the creation scientists are more honest as they keep up their articles while atheist scientists end up hiding their articles when it goes against evolution.
> 
> I think I have it explained this better than you.  You have no explanation to explain a waterworld nor how it screws up Darwin's timeline.  What really is telling is you do not provide dates; it goes to show you do not know your own evolution.
> 
> To the contrary, it's strange how Satan's Antibible of evolution goes against something God started to write around 1445 BC.
> 
> 
> 
> Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?
> 
> Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?
> 
> What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your _cherry picked_ forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution.  Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.  The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils.  These were found on mountain tops all over the world.  The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.  The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works.  It doesn't take millions of years.  There can be no experiment for millions of years.
> 
> Try to find fine tuning evidence.  These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang.  We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017.  Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first.  It follows the cell coming first.  The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find.  Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common.  DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA.  Those are difficult to find now.
> 
> I already provided Darwin's timeline.  The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are large numbers of transitional fossils.
> 
> CC200:  Transitional fossils
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, you could not rebut anything that I posted, so it means you lost, lost, lost.  I am the CHAMPION once again.
> 
> Instead, you insult me with more evolutionism which does not hold WATER.  The topic is waterworld and it is clear you could not explain how Darwinism survives in a waterworld.  Just much more straw men in order to show your lack of any credible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually, I did rebut your strident, hand-wringing appeals to ID'iot creationist (religious) doctrine with facts. You can deny the facts all you wish but you obviously can't "rebut" them.
> 
> No need to feel insulted by evolutionism. You have already discovered that hiding behind religionism is not going to shield you from the facts. Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful.
> 
> Drowning in your waterworld of religious extremism? Reason and rationality is the lifesaver.
Click to expand...


First, you did not address the topic of the thread.  Second, all you was link something with no explanation in your own words.  It does not tell me that you understood the material and can provide your own argument in the future.  Thus, in that sense I won the argument for waterworld but in overall terms you and another lost something more precious and that was another chance to begin salvation.  What is telling to me is that it is the exact same sin that Adam and Eve did.  You think that it had to do with eating a fruit.  That is the ultimate loss.

Maybe waterworld or the global flood claimed two more victims.  Tsk.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your sources cherry-pick what supports the Flood and ignore any and all contrary evidence.  For example, how could a single flood event create hundreds or thousands of individual rock layers?
> 
> Do you have an example of atheist scientists hiding their articles when it goes against evolution?
> 
> What is it about a waterworld that requires an explanation in view of evolution?  What dates are you looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The forensic evidence is better for a global flood than your _cherry picked_ forensic fossil evidence to fit evolution.  Your fossil evidence is supposed to be the mountain of facts of evolution.  One of its largest weaknesses is no transitional fossils.  The fossil record itself is mostly marine fossils.  These were found on mountain tops all over the world.  The individual rocks layers are due to the catastrophism that was explained in the rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.  The scientific method of Guy Berthault has led to many experiments showing how sedimentary layering works.  It doesn't take millions of years.  There can be no experiment for millions of years.
> 
> Try to find fine tuning evidence.  These were discovered by atheist scientists trying to explain the big bang.  We had the chicken come before the egg finding in 2017.  Evolutionists want to keep claiming the egg came first.  It follows the cell coming first.  The scientific finding for chicken coming before the egg is more difficult to find.  Many science articles came out against evolution from 2007 - 2011 time period such as common ancestry was not common.  DNA similarity didn't necessarily mean same species. Junk DNA doesn't mean its junk DNA.  Those are difficult to find now.
> 
> I already provided Darwin's timeline.  The 3.2 B years old waterworld would have screwed up the cell formation and development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are large numbers of transitional fossils.
> 
> CC200:  Transitional fossils
> 
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
> 
> Can you provide data from a Christian ministry that has been submitted for peer review that refutes the above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First, you could not rebut anything that I posted, so it means you lost, lost, lost.  I am the CHAMPION once again.
> 
> Instead, you insult me with more evolutionism which does not hold WATER.  The topic is waterworld and it is clear you could not explain how Darwinism survives in a waterworld.  Just much more straw men in order to show your lack of any credible answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well actually, I did rebut your strident, hand-wringing appeals to ID'iot creationist (religious) doctrine with facts. You can deny the facts all you wish but you obviously can't "rebut" them.
> 
> No need to feel insulted by evolutionism. You have already discovered that hiding behind religionism is not going to shield you from the facts. Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful.
> 
> Drowning in your waterworld of religious extremism? Reason and rationality is the lifesaver.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you did not address the topic of the thread.  Second, all you was link something with no explanation in your own words.  It does not tell me that you understood the material and can provide your own argument in the future.  Thus, in that sense I won the argument for waterworld but in overall terms you and another lost something more precious and that was another chance to begin salvation.  What is telling to me is that it is the exact same sin that Adam and Eve did.  You think that it had to do with eating a fruit.  That is the ultimate loss.
> 
> Maybe waterworld or the global flood claimed two more victims.  Tsk.
Click to expand...


First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.

Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.
> 
> Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind



It doesn't matter that much anymore Hollie as I am done with atheists.  All they want to do is convince you of their atheism and false science of evolutionism.  Declaring myself a winner is just a _politically correct_ way of not calling out the opposite.  By turning over a new leaf, I can be more nicer instead of having to bring out St. George's sword or something.

ETA:  Here is another way to look at it.  Wouldn't it be more productive for you and alang1216 to learn from fellow atheists and evolutionists about evolutionism?  It would be the same way with me.  I would get more out learning about the Bible from others interested in the Bible.  It's not like I know what I need to know.


----------



## LuckyDuck

james bond said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.
> 
> 
> 
> The pesky problem with that is that if you are trying to equate that with the fable of the ARK in the bible, it won't work.  Not only were humans not around 3.2 billion years ago, neither were dinosaurs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no 3.2 billion years ago and how can Earth have that much water back then?  No one can prove it.  What this shows is evidence of a global flood in 2458 BC and science backs up the Bible once again.
Click to expand...

Per various independent scientific measurements, 3.2 billion years ago, the earth was already 1.34 billion years old.  As such, the earth is 4.54 billion years old.  I'll believe the various scientific studies, versus the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written by a primitive superstitious people, around the 3rd Century BCE.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.
> 
> Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that much anymore Hollie as I am done with atheists.  All they want to do is convince you of their atheism and false science of evolutionism.  Declaring myself a winner is just a _politically correct_ way of not calling out the opposite.  By turning over a new leaf, I can be more nicer instead of having to bring out St. George's sword or something.
Click to expand...


Might I suggest you abandon the "evilutionism" slogans? When you ruthlessly cut and paste from creation ministries, you tend to further weaken your attempt at argument.

When evil atheists counter your false claims with links to science journals / websites, you do youself no favors by retreating to emotional outbursts.

I don't know what evolutionism is. I understand you use the term as a slur toward science and learning but your childish, emotional outbursts are time wasting.


----------



## Thunk

One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?


----------



## james bond

LuckyDuck said:


> Per various independent scientific measurements, 3.2 billion years ago, the earth was already 1.34 billion years old. As such, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. I'll believe the various scientific studies, versus the Dead Sea Scrolls that were written by a primitive superstitious people, around the 3rd Century BCE.



So you can do math, but it still doesn't explain how waterworld and Darwin's timeline can coexist.  His single cell gets destroyed.  BTW, he was given the single cell so it doesn't really count in my book.

Darwin's timeline:
*Years
ago* ............................................................................................. *Event
130,000* Anatomically modern humans evolve. Seventy thousand years later, their descendents create cave paintings — early expressions of consciousness.
*4* million In Africa, an early hominid, affectionately named "Lucy" by scientists, lives. The ice ages begin, and many large mammals go extinct.
*65* million A massive asteroid hits the Yucatan Peninsula, and ammonites and non-avian dinosaurs go extinct. Birds and mammals are among the survivors.
*130* million As the continents drift toward their present positions, the earliest flowers evolve, and dinosaurs dominate the landscape. In the sea, bony fish diversify.
*225* million Dinosaurs and mammals evolve. Pangea has begun to break apart.
*248* million Over 90% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life go extinct during the Earth's largest mass extinction. Ammonites are among the survivors.
*250* million The supercontinent called Pangea forms. Conifer-like forests, reptiles, and synapsids (the ancestors of mammals) are common.
*360* million Four-limbed vertebrates move onto the land as seed plants and large forests appear. The Earth's oceans support vast reef systems.
*420* million Land plants evolve, drastically changing Earth's landscape and creating new habitats.
*450* million Arthropods move onto the land. Their descendants evolve into scorpions, spiders, mites, and millipedes.
*500* million Fish-like vertebrates evolve. Invertebrates, such as trilobites, crinoids, brachiopids, and cephalopods, are common in the oceans.
*555* million Multi-cellular marine organisms are common. The diverse assortment of life includes bizarre-looking animals like _Wiwaxia_.
*3.5* billion Unicellular life evolves. Photosynthetic bacteria begin to release oxygen into the atmosphere.
*3.8* billion Replicating molecules (the precursors of DNA) form.
*4.6* billion The Earth forms and is bombarded by meteorites and comets.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I addressed your comments which were false and misleading. Your lack of a science vocabulary is not my issue to address.
> 
> Your need to declare yourself some kind of "winner" when you have failed to refute my posts is a pattern of behavior you hide behind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that much anymore Hollie as I am done with atheists.  All they want to do is convince you of their atheism and false science of evolutionism.  Declaring myself a winner is just a _politically correct_ way of not calling out the opposite.  By turning over a new leaf, I can be more nicer instead of having to bring out St. George's sword or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might I suggest you abandon the "evilutionism" slogans? When you ruthlessly cut and paste from creation ministries, you tend to further weaken your attempt at argument.
> 
> When evil atheists counter your false claims with links to science journals / websites, you do youself no favors by retreating to emotional outbursts.
Click to expand...


Where do I say it's evilutionism?  Was it a typo?  That's the good way to describe the Antibible tho.  Is using Antibible okay since evolution contradicts everything stated in the Bible?  I doubt it's me with the emotional outbursts and you were the one who keeps getting upset and have to reply to my posts.


----------



## james bond

Thunk said:


> One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?



It means the sky.

What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

miketx said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I don't own a rock, or a front planter.
> 
> Do you believe a snake talked even once in history?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking about the s-word. You'd have a point if I was talking about the c-word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 310931
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stormy told the entire world about that little mushroom of Don's that he payed her to service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you think about it.
Click to expand...


As are you, defensively.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> 
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.
> 
> Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering.  Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
> View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
> BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period.  Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you could always ask a geologist.
Click to expand...

That hasn't worked out well for the climate change denialists.


----------



## Thunk

james bond said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the sky.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?
Click to expand...


So there are waters above the sky?  That doesn't work in context.


----------



## Andylusion

Mac1958 said:


> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?



Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.

For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.

Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.

Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.

Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.

Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.

Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.

Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.

The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.

In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.

With that problem in mind:
Radio-Dating in Rubble

The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.

There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.

Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.

So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.


----------



## james bond

Thunk said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the sky.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are waters above the sky?  That doesn't work in context.
Click to expand...


What context are you referring to?

It could have referred to the clouds.  Or the sky may have been different in the past with a water canopy.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means the sky.
> 
> What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are waters above the sky?  That doesn't work in context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What context are you referring to?
> 
> It could have referred to the clouds.  Or the sky may have been different in the past with a water canopy.
Click to expand...

I wonder why the gods, in their science text of the Bible, didn’t give us a comprehensive explanation of thermal heating, evaporation, condensation, the action of water molecules and water surface tension... you know, science stuff. 

Instead, we get nonsense stuff about firmaments.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I wonder why the gods, in their science text of the Bible, didn’t give us a comprehensive explanation of thermal heating, evaporation, condensation, the action of water molecules and water surface tension... you know, science stuff.



I've explained this countless number of times.

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." Galatians 6:7-8 

What I think happens is _you will reap what you sow_ in the afterlife.  I'm sure someone will explain all of this to you and make you write on the board many times over if you miss something.  You also like to claim getting too emotional, so that should come into play for you, as well.  I would toss in creation science to your evolutionary studies and make you determine which is the real science and which is the fake one.  Lather, rinse, and repeat ad infinitum.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder why the gods, in their science text of the Bible, didn’t give us a comprehensive explanation of thermal heating, evaporation, condensation, the action of water molecules and water surface tension... you know, science stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained this countless number of times.
> 
> "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." Galatians 6:7-8
> 
> What I think happens is _you will reap what you sow_ in the afterlife.  I'm sure someone will explain all of this to you and make you write on the board many times over if you miss something.  You also like to claim getting too emotional, so that should come into play for you, as well.  I would toss in creation science to your evolutionary studies and make you determine which is the real science and which is the fake one.  Lather, rinse, and repeat ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


That was more of your usual heavy-handed, street corner proselytizing but it does nothing to address the lack of science in your claimed science text of the Bible. 

You should avoid tossing in “creation science” as the charlatans who promote that fraud have a predefined agenda.


----------



## alang1216

Andylusion said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
Click to expand...

All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.

Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.


----------



## Andylusion

alang1216 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?

I like your own links statement:

"*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"

If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.

Because here's the reality.  We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is.  That's the whole point.

Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not.   Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years?   And the answer is, of course not.

That's the whole point of radio dating.   Dr Austin is right.   And it's not a scam... it's science.

The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.

You can't do that.  So it's not science.

They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon.  They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts.  Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs.   Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.

This is because again... they have to make assumptions.  That's a fact.   It just is.  If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science.  It's your opinion creating a result.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
Click to expand...


Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.


----------



## Andylusion

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that explain why his counter argument didn't seem to have much substance.


----------



## alang1216

Andylusion said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
Click to expand...

Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.



Andylusion said:


> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.


If you understood the science you'd know the answer.  The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another.  If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately.  This is a known.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Thunk said:


> One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?


They simply misspelled "figment", as in, "a figment of their imagination".


----------



## Andylusion

alang1216 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood the science you'd know the answer.  The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another.  If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately.  This is a known.
Click to expand...


*Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.*

"The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"

Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Andylusion said:


> "The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"
> 
> Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.


Have you bothered first to look it up yourself?

No?

Then stop wasting other people's time with your dishonest questions.


----------



## Andylusion

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"
> 
> Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you bothered first to look it up yourself?
> 
> No?
> 
> Then stop wasting other people's time with your dishonest questions.
Click to expand...


It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim... then magically when you can't provide any proof to a claim, suddenly it's my job to provide proof of your claim.

Thank you, but you are dismissed.


----------



## Hollie

Andylusion said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Because here's the reality.  We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is.  That's the whole point.
> 
> Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not.   Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years?   And the answer is, of course not.
> 
> That's the whole point of radio dating.   Dr Austin is right.   And it's not a scam... it's science.
> 
> The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.
> 
> You can't do that.  So it's not science.
> 
> They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon.  They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts.  Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs.   Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.
> 
> This is because again... they have to make assumptions.  That's a fact.   It just is.  If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science.  It's your opinion creating a result.
Click to expand...


The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.



*CD013.1:  K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite*

*Claim CD013.1:*
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
*Source:*
Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano.  _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
*Response:*

Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date. 


Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Andylusion said:


> It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...


Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.

Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up. 

But, to answer your questions:

The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth

What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.
Click to expand...


As was expected, the Austin charade did not publish their charade in peer reviewed journals.

The reasons are obvious:

Foundational Principles (of religious extremists at the ICR)


The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.


There’s more but you know the fraud these charlatans perpetuate by self-proclaiming to be “scientists”


----------



## Andylusion

Hollie said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Because here's the reality.  We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is.  That's the whole point.
> 
> Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not.   Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years?   And the answer is, of course not.
> 
> That's the whole point of radio dating.   Dr Austin is right.   And it's not a scam... it's science.
> 
> The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.
> 
> You can't do that.  So it's not science.
> 
> They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon.  They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts.  Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs.   Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.
> 
> This is because again... they have to make assumptions.  That's a fact.   It just is.  If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science.  It's your opinion creating a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.
> 
> 
> 
> *CD013.1:  K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite*
> 
> *Claim CD013.1:*
> The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
> *Source:*
> Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano.  _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
> *Response:*
> 
> Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
> 
> 
> Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.​
Great.  So all we need to do is determine which rocks are less, and which are more, than 2 million years old.

Go outside, and pick up a rock.  How do you determine if that rock is younger or older, than 2 million years?

Do tell... how do you verify any given rock, is older or younger than 2 million years?   What are you going to do... radio date it?   

Countering the Critics

Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano

The claims that samples were bad, or contaminated, are simply made up, and not backed by facts.  Dr Austin went to great lengths, even superior lengths than requested by the carbon dating labs, to ensure that the samples were processed exactly and as purely as request by the labs, or better.

One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. *The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.*

A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, *even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.*

Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.

*Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination.* The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:


Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),
Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,
Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),
Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,
Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,
Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and
Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.

Everything was done to scientific standards or better.

The bottom line is, your claims that he did anything improper are flat out lies.


----------



## Andylusion

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.
> 
> Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.
> 
> But, to answer your questions:
> 
> The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth
> 
> What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.
Click to expand...


You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.

So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.

My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.

Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline.    Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago.   The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.

And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this.  That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:

As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,

‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’

In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth

_Geophysical Research Letters_
Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80​So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.

Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.

And others as well:

Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,

‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’

J. Geophysical Research *68*:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.​So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred.  Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.

Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.

Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.

So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.

Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document.  What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.


----------



## Hollie

Andylusion said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Because here's the reality.  We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is.  That's the whole point.
> 
> Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not.   Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years?   And the answer is, of course not.
> 
> That's the whole point of radio dating.   Dr Austin is right.   And it's not a scam... it's science.
> 
> The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.
> 
> You can't do that.  So it's not science.
> 
> They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon.  They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts.  Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs.   Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.
> 
> This is because again... they have to make assumptions.  That's a fact.   It just is.  If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science.  It's your opinion creating a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.
> 
> 
> 
> *CD013.1:  K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite*
> 
> *Claim CD013.1:*
> The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
> *Source:*
> Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano.  _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
> *Response:*
> 
> Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
> 
> 
> Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.​
> Great.  So all we need to do is determine which rocks are less, and which are more, than 2 million years old.
> 
> Go outside, and pick up a rock.  How do you determine if that rock is younger or older, than 2 million years?
> 
> Do tell... how do you verify any given rock, is older or younger than 2 million years?   What are you going to do... radio date it?
> 
> Countering the Critics
> 
> Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano
> 
> The claims that samples were bad, or contaminated, are simply made up, and not backed by facts.  Dr Austin went to great lengths, even superior lengths than requested by the carbon dating labs, to ensure that the samples were processed exactly and as purely as request by the labs, or better.
> 
> One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. *The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.*
> 
> A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, *even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.*
> 
> Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.
> 
> *Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination.* The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:
> 
> 
> Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),
> Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,
> Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),
> Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,
> Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,
> Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and
> Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.
> 
> Everything was done to scientific standards or better.
> 
> The bottom line is, your claims that he did anything improper are flat out lies.
Click to expand...


The problem you won’t address is that the charlatans from the ICR refuse to submit their work for peer review. They announce their bias toward a predefined outcome so it is not surprising that their methods support that outcome.

There’s a reason why peer review is critical: it allows a non-biased examination of the data.

You apparently have a vested interest in uncritically accepting the statements of charlatans. Not everyone accepts such fraud.

Your statement: “Everything was done to scientific standards or better.”, is nonsense. There was no peer review and having a predefined bias that requires an outcome match a predefined conclusion does not meet a scientific standard.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.


You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?
*Kevin R. Henke* is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​


----------



## Hollie

Andylusion said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.
> 
> Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.
> 
> But, to answer your questions:
> 
> The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth
> 
> What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.
> 
> So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.
> 
> My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
> Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.
> 
> Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline.    Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago.   The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.
> 
> And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this.  That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:
> 
> As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,
> 
> ‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’
> 
> In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth
> 
> _Geophysical Research Letters_
> Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80​So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.
> 
> Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.
> 
> And others as well:
> 
> Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,
> 
> ‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’
> 
> J. Geophysical Research *68*:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.​So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred.  Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.
> 
> Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.
> 
> Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.
> 
> So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.
> 
> Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document.  What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.
Click to expand...



“My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.”

Religious fundamentalist “facts” tend to be contrary to a reality based worldview. What “facts” do you have that the recession of the moon has been constant over timeframes of billions of years? In the worldview of the fundamentalist, there is no earthly timeframe of billions of years so you seem to be arguing a point you can’t defend. 


“Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.”

Another canard of the religious extremist. You have presented no facts to conclude the existence of your gods. You further conclude that by concluding your version of partisan gods, you can then conclude those gods created the moon and the earth. 

Your conclusions rely on unsupported presumptions.


----------



## alang1216

Andylusion said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood the science you'd know the answer.  The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another.  If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately.  This is a known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.*
> 
> "The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"
> 
> Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.
Click to expand...

The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:

Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]
Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.


----------



## jillian

Weatherman2020 said:


> Just a matter of time as science adjusts its timeline.


The Bible is not science, deluded little wacko


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?
> *Kevin R. Henke* is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​
Click to expand...


Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it.  It's not scientific; it's opinion.  If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.

Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk.  Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.  Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying.  Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you.  Who has the evidence to back up what they state?  The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs.  They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out.  Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer.  Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science.  Get a life.



alang1216 said:


> Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.



Best atheist model.  Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review.  Put them back in.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying.  Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you.  Who has the evidence to back up what they state?  The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs.  They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out.  Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer.  Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science.  Get a life.


I've been studying the evidence all my life and find the scientific evidence for creationism to be lacking.  it is just as simple as that.  You, yourself has failed to bring forward any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?
> *Kevin R. Henke* is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it.  It's not scientific; it's opinion.  If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.
> 
> Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk.  Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.  Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying.  Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you.  Who has the evidence to back up what they state?  The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs.  They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out.  Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer.  Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science.  Get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best atheist model.  Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review.  Put them back in.
Click to expand...


Religious fundamentalists have no business in science when their conclusions are required to support a predefined conclusion.

Religious fundamentalists (who you falsely label as creationist scientists) have chosen to remove themselves from the relevant sciences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Andylusion said:


> You are arguing against something,


I answered your questions. An appropriate response would be, "thank you", if you were asking the questions honestly. Of course, you weren't. As evidenced by the fact that you completely ignored the answers. 



Andylusion said:


> we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.


Actually, that's 100% wrong. It's not constant. As such, I didn't read the rest of your nonsense, which was predicated on your false claim.


----------



## james bond

Andylusion said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood the science you'd know the answer.  The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another.  If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately.  This is a known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.*
> 
> "The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body"
> 
> Please verify this, and use a scientifically repeatable method for doing so.
Click to expand...


And then the moon just happened to fall into the right place.  The Antibiblists cannot even explain how the Earth looked like Saturn.  Here is a graph of Darwin's timeline.  They do not want to associate it with Darwin anymore as he's been proven to be wrong about all his theses.  It is called "Important events in the history of life" now.

Graph:





Important events in the history of life

Text (shows Darwin's timeline of billions of years):
Important events in the history of life

ETA:  I've asked several times how the Earth was covered with 3/4 water now and still no answers.  The answer is supposed to be in Darwin's timeline.  See text timeline.


----------



## Andylusion

Hollie said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  We believe that the claims about age, are false.   There are number of reasons for this conclusion.
> 
> For example the moon is moving farther away from the Earth every year.  If the Earth was billions of years old, that means the Moon would have been inside the Earth's atmosphere.
> 
> Another example, is the fact the Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  That means that if the Earth was billions of years old, the magnetic field would have been so strong, that it would have pulled the lead out of the blood of living animals.
> 
> Another example, is that if the moon was billions of years old, there should be so much dust on the surface, that when people landed on the moon in 1959, that people should have sank many feet into a layer of fine dust.
> 
> Comets shouldn't still exist after billions of years.
> 
> Aside from these directly scientifically observable facts, the science of long-age earth, is built around ignorance, or just flat out lies.
> 
> Take for example radio dating....  the typical dating method used by geologists is entirely crap.  Take the most popular potassium-argon method of radio-dating.  Potassium occurs naturally in 3 isotopes, one of which decays into Argon.
> 
> Thus, based on how much potassium, and how much argon are in a given sample, you can determine based on the known decay speed, how much time has passed for a given amount of potassium to be left, and given amount of argon remains.
> 
> The logical problem to this, is the same problem with every single dating method.  You don't know how much potassium was in the sample to begin with.  You don't know how much argon was in the sample to begin.  You don't know how much potassium or argon leaked into the sample over time, or how much leaked out of the sample over time.
> 
> In short, you have absolutely no idea what you are really dealing with, unless you were there at the begin, to test the samples when they were created, or to verify their integrity over time.
> 
> With that problem in mind:
> Radio-Dating in Rubble
> 
> The radio dating facility in Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, was given several samples from a single 15 lbs rock, and asked to date the rock.    The result was a range from 350K Years, to 2.8 Million Years.
> 
> There is just one problem.  The rock sample given to the lab, was from mount St. Helens.  The rock was from the 1980 eruption, and thus was only 10 years old.
> 
> Speaking rather generally, if our dating methods are so fallible, that a 10 year old rock can be dated at 2.8 Million years,  then it doesn't seem to be out of proportion that a 6,000 year old rock, can be dated at 3.8 Billion years.
> 
> So while we do believe that their assumptions about age are wrong, it's ironic that their conclusion the Earth was covered with water, are right.
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Because here's the reality.  We have no idea how old, or young, any sample is.  That's the whole point.
> 
> Beyond a few hundred years, or possibly a few thousand years, we have no idea if a rock sample is young or not.   Is there any rock anywhere, that you can verify it's existence empirically, as being over 10,000 years?   And the answer is, of course not.
> 
> That's the whole point of radio dating.   Dr Austin is right.   And it's not a scam... it's science.
> 
> The whole point of science is to empirically test, replicate, and demonstrate something is true.
> 
> You can't do that.  So it's not science.
> 
> They did the same thing with samples from the grand canyon.  They got 3 samples, split each sample into 3 parts.  Sent one part of each sample, to three different radio-dating labs.   Each lab, got widely different results, from the other labs.
> 
> This is because again... they have to make assumptions.  That's a fact.   It just is.  If if you have to make assumptions that can change the results by hundreds of millions, or even billions of year... then it isn't science.  It's your opinion creating a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fraud committed by Steve Austin has been known for almost a decade. There was never any reason to expect a credible or honest assessment from a religious extremist associated with the ICR.
> 
> 
> 
> *CD013.1:  K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite*
> 
> *Claim CD013.1:*
> The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
> *Source:*
> Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano.  _Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_10(3): 335-343. Home | The Institute for Creation Research
> *Response:*
> 
> Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
> 
> 
> Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old.​
> Great.  So all we need to do is determine which rocks are less, and which are more, than 2 million years old.
> 
> Go outside, and pick up a rock.  How do you determine if that rock is younger or older, than 2 million years?
> 
> Do tell... how do you verify any given rock, is older or younger than 2 million years?   What are you going to do... radio date it?
> 
> Countering the Critics
> 
> Argon In Mineral Concentrates from Mount St Helens Volcano
> 
> The claims that samples were bad, or contaminated, are simply made up, and not backed by facts.  Dr Austin went to great lengths, even superior lengths than requested by the carbon dating labs, to ensure that the samples were processed exactly and as purely as request by the labs, or better.
> 
> One kilogram of dacite groundmass with phenocrysts (without gabbroic inclusions) was removed from the sample for potassium-argon analysis. The technique began by crushing and milling the dacite in an iron mortar. Particles were sieved through the 80 mesh (0.18 mm) screen and collected on top of the 200 mesh (0.075 mm) screen. *The 80–200 mesh (0.18–0.075 mm) particles were specified by the argon lab to be the optimum for the argon analysis.*
> 
> A second, one-kilogram sample of dacite groundmass was subsequently processed to concentrate more of the pyroxene. This separate preparation utilized crushed particles sieved through a 170 mesh (0.090 mm) screen and collected on a 270 mesh (0.053 mm) screen. These finer particles (0.053–0.090 mm) were found to allow more complete concentration of the mineral phases, *even though these particles were finer than the optimum requested by the lab.*
> 
> Because of the possibility of particles finer than 200 mesh absorbing or releasing a larger portion of argon, particles passing through the 200-mesh screen were rejected. The only exception was the single preparation made from particles passing through 170 mesh and collected on the 270-mesh screen.
> 
> *Throughout the crushing, milling, sieving and separation processes, great care was taken to avoid contamination.* The specific steps used to stop or discover contamination of the samples included:
> 
> 
> Sawing of rock from the interior of the collected block of dacite (used to remove particles adhering to the sample),
> Washing all surfaces and screens that were to contact directly the sample,
> Final wet sieving of particles on the 200-mesh screen (or 270-mesh screen) to insure removal of finer particles (including possible contaminant lab dust introduced during milling),
> Filtration of heavy liquids to remove contaminants,
> Microscopic scanning of particle concentrates for foreign particles,
> Preparation of the second concentrate from the raw dacite sample involving completely separate milling and screening (in order to discover if contamination had occurred in one of the concentrates), and
> Sealing of samples in vials between preparation steps.
> 
> Everything was done to scientific standards or better.
> 
> The bottom line is, your claims that he did anything improper are flat out lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem you won’t address is that the charlatans from the ICR refuse to submit their work for peer review. They announce their bias toward a predefined outcome so it is not surprising that their methods support that outcome.
> 
> There’s a reason why peer review is critical: it allows a non-biased examination of the data.
> 
> You apparently have a vested interest in uncritically accepting the statements of charlatans. Not everyone accepts such fraud.
> 
> Your statement: “Everything was done to scientific standards or better.”, is nonsense. There was no peer review and having a predefined bias that requires an outcome match a predefined conclusion does not meet a scientific standard.
Click to expand...


Can you prove that claim?


----------



## Andylusion

Hollie said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.
> 
> Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.
> 
> But, to answer your questions:
> 
> The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth
> 
> What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.
> 
> So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.
> 
> My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
> Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.
> 
> Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline.    Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago.   The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.
> 
> And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this.  That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:
> 
> As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,
> 
> ‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’
> 
> In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth
> 
> _Geophysical Research Letters_
> Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80​So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.
> 
> Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.
> 
> And others as well:
> 
> Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,
> 
> ‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’
> 
> J. Geophysical Research *68*:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.​So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred.  Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.
> 
> Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.
> 
> Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.
> 
> So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.
> 
> Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document.  What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> “My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
> Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.”
> 
> Religious fundamentalist “facts” tend to be contrary to a reality based worldview. What “facts” do you have that the recession of the moon has been constant over timeframes of billions of years? In the worldview of the fundamentalist, there is no earthly timeframe of billions of years so you seem to be arguing a point you can’t defend.
> 
> 
> “Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.”
> 
> Another canard of the religious extremist. You have presented no facts to conclude the existence of your gods. You further conclude that by concluding your version of partisan gods, you can then conclude those gods created the moon and the earth.
> 
> Your conclusions rely on unsupported presumptions.
Click to expand...


It's always funny that even though I posted non-christian scientists on this post, you still claim that I ignored facts.  So even when I quote your own people, that's still not facts.   So basically anyone anywhere that disagrees with your bigotry, is therefore ignoring facts.

Back to your point.... Then you end up destroying your own position.

If you claim that known empirical constants are now variable, then you have to question all the fundamentals of historical science.

For example, there is no more, or less, reason to assume that the moons orbital decay changed in the passed without any known empirical cause... than we could assume the decay rate of Potassium 40K may have been different in the past.

There are scientists who have even claimed, that perhaps the radioactive decay of Potassium may have been much higher in the past, than today.

And correctly on the other side, scientists have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.

I agree.

Yet here you are, making just as unsupportable a claim, that because the moons orbital decay doesn't fit with your dogma, that perhaps the rate of recession was lower in the past.

Well... there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.

Doesn't that make you no better than the religious zealots you claim to be against?


----------



## Andylusion

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are arguing against something,
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your questions. An appropriate response would be, "thank you", if you were asking the questions honestly. Of course, you weren't. As evidenced by the fact that you completely ignored the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, that's 100% wrong. It's not constant. As such, I didn't read the rest of your nonsense, which was predicated on your false claim.
Click to expand...


Well thanks for stopping by.  If you it makes your ego feel better to claim victory while ignoring everything you dismiss out of hand, then more power to you.


----------



## Andylusion

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?
> *Kevin R. Henke* is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it.  It's not scientific; it's opinion.  If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.
> 
> Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk.  Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.  Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying.  Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you.  Who has the evidence to back up what they state?  The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs.  They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out.  Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer.  Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science.  Get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best atheist model.  Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review.  Put them back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious fundamentalists have no business in science when their conclusions are required to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists (who you falsely label as creationist scientists) have chosen to remove themselves from the relevant sciences.
Click to expand...


It's too bad we're all throughout the sciences.   I personally know of two scientists who work for the Federal government right now.   I've met one of them first hand.

But whatever makes you feel better about your position.  Who am I to steal away your happy illusion?

After posting that, I remember a 3rd guy I know with 4 Ph.Ds, working for the Federal Government on instant blood tests. Avowed Creationist.   Multimillionaire too.  And possibly a 4th guy, at a major university.


----------



## Andylusion

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying.  Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you.  Who has the evidence to back up what they state?  The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs.  They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out.  Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer.  Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science.  Get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been studying the evidence all my life and find the scientific evidence for creationism to be lacking.  it is just as simple as that.  You, yourself has failed to bring forward any evidence that stands up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...


So you tell me... which came first.... RNA, or DNA?


----------



## DOTR

TNHarley said:


> So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
> This should be in the conspiracy section



    Your denying the world was flooded billions of years before “biblical humans”?


----------



## Hollie

Andylusion said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how in any other context, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I assure you, it's not "his" claim. It's the leading hypothesis on how the Moon formed.
> 
> Yes, the leading scientific hypothesis is a bit different than a claim of an esoteric fact for which a link is expected. You are a fool, if you rely on anonymous, nonscientists on a message board to spoonfeed you the information on the leading scientific hypothesis. But that is what you appear to be doing. The rational person goes and reads up.
> 
> But, to answer your questions:
> 
> The isotopic composition of the Moon matches earth in many respects, unlike any other body in the solar system. And no two planets have such similar composition, and it's not even close. How to repeat this? Study a sample of the moon, and a sample of the Earth. Then do it again, thousands of times. This shows us the material in the Moon came together very near to and at the same time as the earth
> 
> What leads scientists to believe the material in the moon was once part of the Earth is its orbit. How is this repeatable? You measure the orbit every day, and you run models thousands of times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are arguing against something, I'm not even debating.
> 
> So let me explain the problem, and then you can put up at least a strawman that fits the argument.
> 
> My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
> Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.
> 
> Now that blows up the entire evolution timeline.    Whatever event you want to believe created the moon, from some foreign object hitting the Earth, would have completely wiped out 2 billion years worth of evolution, just a billion years ago.   The entire theoretical process of evolution would have to start over from a planet level catastrophe that created the moon, just 1 Billion+ years ago.
> 
> And even your own long-age evolution scientists admit this.  That is why they have just made up that something must have been different in the past:
> 
> As Mignard has observed, unless the moon had a slower recession rate in the past than it does now, the moon’s age is only 1.3 Ga, the maximum age computed above. He continues,
> 
> ‘Such a time scale has now been proved to be unrealistic. … what is wrong in the computation of the time scale and how can it be corrected? The solution to this problem is thought to be a reduced rate of dissipation of [tidal] energy in the past … .’
> 
> In this view, it is therefore ‘necessary to make an empirical adjustment for the tidal acceleration’. This is tantamount to saying that the proportionality constant k in equations (1) and (2) is actually variable,Lunar orbital evolution: a synthesis of recent results, and must be adjusted to bring lunar chronology in line with that of the earth
> 
> _Geophysical Research Letters_
> Mignard, F., Long time integration of the moon’s orbit. Page 80​So in other words, what we can measure and test and replicate with actual science, we simply have to assume is not a historical fact, and therefore must adjust it to fit the chronology we believe about the Earth.
> 
> Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.
> 
> And others as well:
> 
> Slichter, one of the earliest investigators to suggest a slower rate of terrestrial energy dissipation in the distant past, remarked that if ‘for unknown reasons’ this occurred, the dilemma of lunar chronology would be resolved, and Goldreich searched for possible causes. Lambeck concluded,
> 
> ‘… unless the present estimates for the accelerations are vastly in error, only a variable energy sink can solve the time-scale problem and the only energy sink that can vary significantly with time is the ocean.’
> 
> J. Geophysical Research *68*:4281–4288, 1963; p. 4287.​So now we just are making up... for unknown reasons, this must have occurred.  Not exactly the empirical science, that the left-wing claims to support.
> 
> Never the less, even this non-christian scientist concludes with an energy sink like say... the ocean.
> 
> Now that's fascinating, given the Bible talks about the world was initial covered with water entirely, and then there was the flood of Noah, which is what this thread is about.
> 
> So even the most staunch of long-age supporters end up accidentally circling back to the truths of the Bible.
> 
> Regardless of that theory.... it isn't something you can demonstrate, or repeatably document.  What we can document and repeatably demonstrate, is that based on the empirical data on the moons orbital decay, a little over 1 billion years ago, the moon would have been touching the planet, which means the long age view doesn't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> “My point is this... we know that the moon is moving away from the Earth, at a constant rate of orbital decay.
> Thus, using this constant rate, we can tell that merely 1 billion years ago, the moon would be inside the atmosphere of the planet.  And just several hundred million before that, it would be touching the surface.”
> 
> Religious fundamentalist “facts” tend to be contrary to a reality based worldview. What “facts” do you have that the recession of the moon has been constant over timeframes of billions of years? In the worldview of the fundamentalist, there is no earthly timeframe of billions of years so you seem to be arguing a point you can’t defend.
> 
> 
> “Now of course for a Christian, we simply look at the facts, and conclude... yes G-d created the moon and the Earth, and likely the moons decay has been on going since the fall.   So that constant rate of orbital decay does not pose a problem for a Christian believe.  Only to those who believe in evolution.”
> 
> Another canard of the religious extremist. You have presented no facts to conclude the existence of your gods. You further conclude that by concluding your version of partisan gods, you can then conclude those gods created the moon and the earth.
> 
> Your conclusions rely on unsupported presumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always funny that even though I posted non-christian scientists on this post, you still claim that I ignored facts.  So even when I quote your own people, that's still not facts.   So basically anyone anywhere that disagrees with your bigotry, is therefore ignoring facts.
> 
> Back to your point.... Then you end up destroying your own position.
> 
> If you claim that known empirical constants are now variable, then you have to question all the fundamentals of historical science.
> 
> For example, there is no more, or less, reason to assume that the moons orbital decay changed in the passed without any known empirical cause... than we could assume the decay rate of Potassium 40K may have been different in the past.
> 
> There are scientists who have even claimed, that perhaps the radioactive decay of Potassium may have been much higher in the past, than today.
> 
> And correctly on the other side, scientists have pointed out, there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> Yet here you are, making just as unsupportable a claim, that because the moons orbital decay doesn't fit with your dogma, that perhaps the rate of recession was lower in the past.
> 
> Well... there is no empirical evidence supporting such a hypothesis.
> 
> Doesn't that make you no better than the religious zealots you claim to be against?
Click to expand...

YEC'ers tend to rail against challenges to their specious opinions. It was your claim that the constant separation rate of the earth and moon required that the moon was within the earth's atmospher at a point in the past. That is totally unsupported and nothng you offered would suggest that was ever the case.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
Click to expand...


  No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe time is constant?
> 
> 
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.
> 
> Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering.  Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
> View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
> BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period.  Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you could always ask a geologist.
Click to expand...


  Here’s one you could email. 

https://nypost.com/2017/07/07/christian-geologist-wins-battle-to-study-grand-canyon-rocks/


----------



## Hollie

Andylusion said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Henke is a biased anticreationist.  There are several of these nutjobbers around and most of their criticisms are just assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean he is a trained scientist who doesn't accept YEC?
> *Kevin R. Henke* is an American geochemist and former instructor at the University of Kentucky's department of Geology.[3] He currently works as a senior research scientist at the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research.[4] He is well known for his criticism of young earth creationism and the scientific arguments they make for a young earth. In particular, he has been critical of the RATE project's results, which claim to show that zircons contain too much helium to be billions of years old, and has argued that Russell Humphreys, a young-earth creationist who was involved in the project, has made errors in his research. These flaws include that, according to Henke, "The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[5][6] Henke has also accused Humphreys of misidentifying his specimens, fudging his data, and not considering the possibility of helium contamination in this research.[7] He has also criticized John Woodmorappe for arguing that radiometric dating is unreliable.[8] On one occasion, Henke called Kent Hovind on the phone regarding Hovind's $250,000 challenge to "prove" evolution. Hovind told Henke that in order to win the money he would have to recreate the Big Bang in a laboratory. Henke responded by proposing several alternative "proofs" that pertained to geology (his field of expertise), but Hovind refused, saying that the project must be chosen by him and it must not pertain to the area in which Henke has scientific expertise. Hovind therefore required Henke to prove that dogs and bananas had a common ancestor, and lowered the award to only $2,000 should he succeed. Henke accepted the challenge, and later drafted a contract, which was then posted on Talk.origins. However, one of Henke's requirements was that the judges be unbiased, and Hovind rejected the challenge for this reason, insisting that he should be the only one who can choose the judges.[9][10]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the kind of stuff he writes and how he writes it.  It's not scientific; it's opinion.  If he used facts, reasoning, and historical truths to make his arguments, then more people would consider it more that feces.
> 
> Only you and people like you jump on his bandwagon and fall for his junk.  Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies.  Instead, use your brain and compare what the two sides are saying.  Actually, get the science if that is what is important to you.  Who has the evidence to back up what they state?  The creation side didn't just get their accomplishments writing blogs.  They even created God of the gaps so that they do not take the easy way out.  Science isn't just about relying on God as the answer.  Instead, of using atheism of the gaps, get over it and find some actual science.  Get a life.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best atheist model.  Creation scientists have been eliminated from peer review.  Put them back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious fundamentalists have no business in science when their conclusions are required to support a predefined conclusion.
> 
> Religious fundamentalists (who you falsely label as creationist scientists) have chosen to remove themselves from the relevant sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's too bad we're all throughout the sciences.   I personally know of two scientists who work for the Federal government right now.   I've met one of them first hand.
> 
> But whatever makes you feel better about your position.  Who am I to steal away your happy illusion?
> 
> After posting that, I remember a 3rd guy I know with 4 Ph.Ds, working for the Federal Government on instant blood tests. Avowed Creationist.   Multimillionaire too.  And possibly a 4th guy, at a major university.
Click to expand...

I have no way of knowing if any of the above is true. I do know that the more excitable of the religious extremists tend to be relegated to the few fundamentalist Christian ministries where they spend their time populating fundamentalist websites will lots of silly pointless claims that appeal to fear and superstition.


----------



## DOTR

Thunk said:


> One thing I never figured out...what exactly was the "*firmament*" that divided the waters below from the waters above?



  Earth. Water comes up from wells and, just as mysterious to them, from above in rain.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood the science you'd know the answer.  The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another.  If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately.  This is a known.
Click to expand...


  Your views on the Bible are opinion.


----------



## Weatherman2020

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That my be your best argument.  Does the Bible indicate anywhere where time is relative?
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I know of. It’s not likely that has anything to do with our salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admit there are things in the world that defy explanation. I discount nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And to the question of the age of the earth, investigate geology. Look at every cut and the layers from all over the world.
> 
> Precise and distinct layers with a key feature always missing - no rivers or streams are seen in any layering.  Odds are you’d see a stream cut somewhere.
> View attachment 310772 View attachment 310773 View attachment 310774
> BTW - the top photo is layers formed over just a 2 month period.  Mt St Helens. It could pass off as being millions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you could always ask a geologist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here’s one you could email.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2017/07/07/christian-geologist-wins-battle-to-study-grand-canyon-rocks/
Click to expand...

Now why would the government be concerned with 30 pounds of rocks being removed from the Grand Canyon for scientific study?  We know why.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.





At least you try to answer my questions.  I'll give you mucho credit for that.  I can accept your evolutionist beliefs and have no need nor motive to try to disprove it in order to believe in the Bible theory.  Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.

I just think the liberals and evolutionists are rebellious in nature and personality and that's why they cannot accept a God although they do not know they have accepted a "god of the world and prince of the power of the air."  Their use of lower case 'god' and 'sky fairy' is such a coincidence.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.
Click to expand...

Right where, in the KJV?  That was not the language of the NT.  I think you are blissfully ignorant.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the questions you raised about dating were raised as the science developed and procedures and theories were developed to deal with them to the satisfaction of skeptical scientists.  The St. Helens example you cite was a con job by YECs.
> 
> Your other issues display an ignorance of the science behind those issues too.  The moon was likely the result of a collision between Earth and another body and how do you know how much dust it should have accumulated?  The Earth's magnetic field is decaying year over year.  Sometime soon it will drop to zero and north will be south as the field begins increasing again.  The cycle is highly variable but on average takes a few hundred thousand years.  You can see the changes in the rocks that form and is one of the ways of dating the Earth and proving plate tectonics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you can prove? Or is this speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing I wrote is opinion, all of it is verifiable and repeatable by anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your own links statement:
> 
> "*'One critic said that Dr Austin should not have sent young samples to the dating laboratory because it potentially puts "large error-bars on the data." By this reasoning, the method could not be used on any rocks, since, if we did not see the rocks form, how would we know whether they are young?'*"
> 
> If the K-Ar dating method was accurate, then it should not matter how old the rocks are.  You should be able to make a calculation based on the K-Ar ratio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood the science you'd know the answer.  The dating measures the proportion of one isotope to another.  If one measure is too small it will not be measured accurately.  This is a known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your views on the Bible are opinion.
Click to expand...

Some are, some are not but nothing I wrote in this post is opinion


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I just think the liberals and evolutionists are rebellious in nature and personality and that's why they cannot accept a God


I like to think I'm skeptical and will believe my eyes before I believe what I'm told.  Do you believe in the Koran or the Vedas?  Are you rebellious in nature and personality?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just think the liberals and evolutionists are rebellious in nature and personality and that's why they cannot accept a God
> 
> 
> 
> I like to think I'm skeptical and will believe my eyes before I believe what I'm told.  Do you believe in the Koran or the Vedas?  Are you rebellious in nature and personality?
Click to expand...

My story is I saw something that I could not explain that pointed directly to a God. But who’s God? Most of the planet feels they are certain of that answer so I spent years investigating them all until I was able to draw a conclusion.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right where, in the KJV?  That was not the language of the NT.  I think you are blissfully ignorant.
Click to expand...


  Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right where, in the KJV?  That was not the language of the NT.  I think you are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.
Click to expand...

If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right where, in the KJV?  That was not the language of the NT.  I think you are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
Click to expand...

I thought I linked to your ‘version’ theory?

There are no significant differences between any historical copies.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> There are no significant differences between any historical copies.


So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have an NT from 300AD.
> It’s identical to what you’ll buy in Barnes and Noble today.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd appreciate a link if you would.  What I know:
> Textual scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and *none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes*. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament...."[32]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No reconstruction necessary. The words are right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right where, in the KJV?  That was not the language of the NT.  I think you are blissfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhh...you’ve confused translation with reconstruction. Such ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
Click to expand...


  Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
Click to expand...

Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
Click to expand...


yeah...sure it did.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no significant differences between any historical copies.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
Click to expand...

Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed.  Got them?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
Click to expand...

Proof?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Andylusion said:


> you it makes your ego feel better to claim victory


What the fuck are you whining about, now? I specifically answered your questions. And you ignored every word, just as I said you would. You don't know what you are talking about, and you don't want any factual information. That's why you are in the corner with your fraudulent nonscientists, whining that nobody believes you.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
> The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]
> Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.



It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon.  It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more.  The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day.  For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon.  You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.




 

All you have is twisting facts to fit your theory.  It doesn't even make sense overall as there is no connection to the big bang, how Earth came to be, sun came to be, the sun, Earth, and moon relationship came to be, etc.  Look at the Darwin timeline (see graph) and Earth, sun, moon, relationship were already a given.  Besides, it's atheists peer reviewing another atheist.  

Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.  

Where else in our solar system have we witnessed this?  Then the Earth had a ring like Saturn of meteors.  Your theses do not even follow from big bang which was impossible according to physics.  It doesn't even follow Darwin's timeline.  Not enough detailed explanation and too much planetary bodies popping into existence to fit your false theory of no God.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.



Why was a virgin birth important?  What about Joseph, her husband?  If his beautiful wife wasn't a virgin, then it would be adultery.  Where is your brain?  Your explanations need to follow the times, the circumstances of Baby Jesus, and not just focus on criticizing the supernatural.  You have the Satan supernatural next to the natural, as well.

Even Jesus had recognized he would be maligned by many, 'He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”' Matthew 16:15

Before Jesus had to become the coming Savior, who was he?  Let's look at the forest and not just the trees.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The giant-impact hypothesis is currently the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon.[4] Supporting evidence includes:
> 
> Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.[5]
> Moon samples indicate that the Moon's surface was once molten.
> The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
> The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
> There is evidence in other star systems of similar collisions, resulting in debris discs.
> Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the Solar System.
> The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.[6]
> Not proof nor opinion, it is currently the best model we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon.  It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more.  The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day.  For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon.  You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.
> 
> View attachment 312250
> 
> All you have is twisting facts to fit your theory.  It doesn't even make sense overall as there is no connection to the big bang, how Earth came to be, sun came to be, the sun, Earth, and moon relationship came to be, etc.  Look at the Darwin timeline (see graph) and Earth, sun, moon, relationship were already a given.  Besides, it's atheists peer reviewing another atheist.
> 
> Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.
> 
> Where else in our solar system have we witnessed this?  Then the Earth had a ring like Saturn of meteors.  Your theses do not even follow from big bang which was impossible according to physics.  It doesn't even follow Darwin's timeline.  Not enough detailed explanation and too much planetary bodies popping into existence to fit your false theory of no God.
Click to expand...


You continue to lie about what you cut and paste. That is not Charles Darwin's timeline. Do your gods allow Taqiyya?


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no significant differences between any historical copies.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed.  Got them?
Click to expand...

Mark 9-20  Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah...sure it did.
Click to expand...

Your lack of curiosity to know the truth is hardly surprising.  I find most Christians have no real interest in understanding the Bible and how it came to be.  Ignorance is bliss as they say.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...

Proof is for math.  I only have logic, reason, and evidence.  That is usually enough for me.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no significant differences between any historical copies.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed.  Got them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 9-20  Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.
Click to expand...

OK. So let’s skip the issue of its originality right now. 

“_So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth_.”

How exactly does that change anything within the faith?  It doesn’t.


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof is for math.  I only have logic, reason, and evidence.  That is usually enough for me.
Click to expand...

No, you have _faith_.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon.  It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more.  The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day.  For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon.  You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.


What fine tuning.  Are you saying that life could not exist on Earth if the day was 20 or 30 hours long?  You look at the only planet we really know about and say everything here is absolutely critical for life.  I doubt that is true but it's likely I'll never know for sure.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.


Probably true today.  Probably not true 4.5 billion years ago.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah...sure it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your lack of curiosity to know the truth is hardly surprising.  I find most Christians have no real interest in understanding the Bible and how it came to be.  Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Click to expand...



   Like most anti-Christians you are an expert on christianity. Weird that. Its your puritan upbringing which leads to your bible thumping.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof is for math.  I only have logic, reason, and evidence.  That is usually enough for me.
Click to expand...


  You have gullibility. And a rigid marxist worldview. And yes thats enough to kill a mind.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably true today.  Probably not true 4.5 billion years ago.
Click to expand...



  Then why did it happen only once? So at the very least we now it is a slim chance. Basically unique. In 4.5 billion years. Like life itself.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no significant differences between any historical copies.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed.  Got them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 9-20  Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. So let’s skip the issue of its originality right now.
> 
> “_So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth_.”
> 
> How exactly does that change anything within the faith?  It doesn’t.
Click to expand...

So now you're moving the goalposts?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> Then why did it happen only once?


Who says it did?


----------



## Weatherman2020

alang1216 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no significant differences between any historical copies.
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed.  Got them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 9-20  Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. So let’s skip the issue of its originality right now.
> 
> “_So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth_.”
> 
> How exactly does that change anything within the faith?  It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're moving the goalposts?
Click to expand...

Addressing your original goalpost of the Bible being altered. Claiming a meaningless verse was altered validates my point.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?



Wasn't Darwin an expert?  Wasn't Sagan an expert?  Wasn't Hawking an expert?  Isn't Dawkins an expert?  3/4 have died and it's my creatopm scientific opinion that they were wrong.

Darwin - wrong about ToE.
Sagan - wrong about aliens
Hawking - wrong about multiverses
Dawkins - wrong about Christianity and God; won't repent

It's my religious opinion that they will suffer the most in Hades like it is said Lazarus is suffering.  Most of the wrong will be sleeping, but these guys won't have any rest.  Horrible.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Darwin an expert?  Wasn't Sagan an expert?  Wasn't Hawking an expert?  Isn't Dawkins an expert?  3/4 have died and it's my creatopm scientific opinion that they were wrong.
> 
> Darwin - wrong about ToE.
> Sagan - wrong about aliens
> Hawking - wrong about multiverses
> Dawkins - wrong about Christianity and God; won't repent
> 
> It's my religious opinion that they will suffer the most in Hades like it is said Lazarus is suffering.  Most of the wrong will be sleeping, but these guys won't have any rest.  Horrible.
Click to expand...


Why project your vindictive religious perspectives on others?


----------



## Vandalshandle

I am here to tell you that the flood happened, just like it said in the Bible. It happened in 2005 in New Orleans, It was just a little time line error.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It just goes to show you do not know the science of the relationship between the sun, Earth, and moon.  It accounts for our day, night, hemispheres, tilt, season, and more.  The best model is God created the sun, Earth, planets, and moon on the 4th day.  For Earth to support life, it had to be in the proper position.with the sun and moon.  You completely ignore the fine tuning parameters.


We know of exactly one system with life, it seems premature to say this is the only type that could ever support life.  If we find life on other planets or other solar systems would that falsify your belief in God.  I'm sure it wouldn't so without being falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.



james bond said:


> Chances of a space rock hitting the Earth and then putting the moon into orbit is slim and none.


This is true today but probably not true for the early solar system when the planets were being assembled.


----------



## alang1216

Weatherman2020 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite.  I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked I asked you for specific verses you think are changed.  Got them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 9-20  Most scholars agree that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but are a later addition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK. So let’s skip the issue of its originality right now.
> 
> “_So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth_.”
> 
> How exactly does that change anything within the faith?  It doesn’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're moving the goalposts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Addressing your original goalpost of the Bible being altered. Claiming a meaningless verse was altered validates my point.
Click to expand...

I may be been unclear but if you followed the link you'd have seen that I was referring to Mark 16, verses 9-20.  Many Christians considered, e.g., Paul, considered the resurrection to be the most important fact about Jesus.  These added verses reinforce His resurrection having been witnessed by more people than just a few women.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not so ignorant as I am you should be able to tell me why the two versions of Jesus' birth have him born of a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof is for math.  I only have logic, reason, and evidence.  That is usually enough for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have gullibility. And a rigid marxist worldview. And yes thats enough to kill a mind.
Click to expand...

I'm a capitalist thank you very much.  It is ignorance that's enough to kill a mind.  Show your knowledge of your own holy scripture by answering my question.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, but I quoted an expert in the field and he says exactly the opposite. I'm wondering if you have any back up to your statement or do you just assume it is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Darwin an expert?  Wasn't Sagan an expert?  Wasn't Hawking an expert?  Isn't Dawkins an expert?  3/4 have died and it's my creatopm scientific opinion that they were wrong.
> 
> Darwin - wrong about ToE.
> Sagan - wrong about aliens
> Hawking - wrong about multiverses
> Dawkins - wrong about Christianity and God; won't repent
> 
> It's my religious opinion that they will suffer the most in Hades like it is said Lazarus is suffering.  Most of the wrong will be sleeping, but these guys won't have any rest.  Horrible.
Click to expand...

Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean everything they've done is wrong.  Even the founding fathers of Christianity, Jesus and Paul made mistakes.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who confuses translation with “reconstruction” is ignorant. And I have no idea what you are asking now. Two versions have him born a virgin? So?
> 
> 
> 
> Since you obviously require a hint: the story of the virgin birth came from a mis-translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof is for math.  I only have logic, reason, and evidence.  That is usually enough for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have gullibility. And a rigid marxist worldview. And yes thats enough to kill a mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm a capitalist thank you very much.  It is ignorance that's enough to kill a mind.  Show your knowledge of your own holy scripture by answering my question.
Click to expand...


  You are right.  It’s mine. I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything.  It’s opaque to non-believers. 

   Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything.  It’s opaque to non-believers.
> 
> Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.


Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone.  It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.

The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology.  It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.  

What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> We know of exactly one system with life, it seems premature to say this is the only type that could ever support life. If we find life on other planets or other solar systems would that falsify your belief in God. I'm sure it wouldn't so without being falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.



No, it won't change our faith but it will cause problems for the Bible as God did not send his only son Jesus to save aliens.  In terms of science it would show that life is rare but could still exist in another place in our galaxy or universe.  It may mean we could be multi-planetary.

That said, the evidence is for no aliens as enough time has passed despite the search.  Will you admit there are no aliens if none is discovered by 2025?



alang1216 said:


> Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean everything they've done is wrong. Even the founding fathers of Christianity, Jesus and Paul made mistakes.



No, but in science it means they failed in one of the major things they were working on.  The multiverse scientists have wasted their lives on it.  Likely, the string, superstring, and multi-dimension scientists will have wasted their careers, too.

It's just like if the Bible was contradicted.  Disproving Jesus' resurrection would destroy the religion.  Aliens not as much, but it would put a blemish on the Bible.  The same with the other things Antibiblists believe in such as evolution, abiogenesis, old Earth and universe, an so on.

In terms of religion, if one fails then it means they disobeyed God's one commandment like Adam and Eve, but this time end up in the wrong final destination.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything.  It’s opaque to non-believers.
> 
> Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone.  It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.
> 
> The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology.  It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.
> 
> What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?
Click to expand...


   So if you really wanted to study It you would be reading Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Turtullian. Try the Didache for an opening. It’s short. 

    Just bible thumping is getting you nowhere in your attacks on Christianity. 

    And in your shallowness and conformity you all think yourself original.  So bounce over to Justin Martyr and read his first century destruction of the already ancient argument about Isaiahs prophesy. 


  Study your bible all you like.  You have been taught by puritans and sadducees well. But when it comes to Christianity the Bible reflects and results from what we believe. It came second.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything.  It’s opaque to non-believers.
> 
> Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone.  It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.
> 
> The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology.  It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.
> 
> What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if you really wanted to study It you would be reading Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Turtullian. Try the Didache for an opening. It’s short.
> 
> Just bible thumping is getting you nowhere in your attacks on Christianity.
> 
> And in your shallowness and conformity you all think yourself original.  So bounce over to Justin Martyr and read his first century destruction of the already ancient argument about Isaiahs prophesy.
> 
> 
> Study your bible all you like.  You have been taught by puritans and sadducees well. But when it comes to Christianity the Bible reflects and results from what we believe. It came second.
Click to expand...

Or, just ditch the Bible entirely. I am sure that any of your beliefs worth having can be derived without it.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything.  It’s opaque to non-believers.
> 
> Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone.  It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.
> 
> The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology.  It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.
> 
> What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?
Click to expand...



  Well did you get started? Being a bible scholar and all and "studying the people who wrote it" I would think you have been hard at. What do you think Of Justin Martyr's response to Trypho's question about misinterpreting Isaiah? (something that had already been under discussion...and satisfactorily answered... for at least 350 years by 150 AD when this was written). 

  Youve got one source. Ehrman. Talk about a late source! Hes made a living from attacking the Bible. You should expand your horizons and weigh the words of people who wrote contemporaneously and were intimately familiar with the language and culture.

  How about a quote from an even earlier writer who personally knew the Apostle John...

_"But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin..."_
Ignatius

  (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve never believed that you atheist bible thumpers should allowed to use it for anything.  It’s opaque to non-believers.
> 
> Read Justyn Martyr you barbarian oaf. Then get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Bible is a very important book and belongs to everyone.  It's influence, both positive and negative, have been immense here in the West.
> 
> The Bible is opaque to anyone who will not study it and that includes studying the people who wrote it, their worldviews, and their theology.  It also means studying how it has evolved over its' formative years.
> 
> What problem do you think I have with Justin Martyr or he'd have with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well did you get started? Being a bible scholar and all and "studying the people who wrote it" I would think you have been hard at. What do you think Of Justin Martyr's response to Trypho's question about misinterpreting Isaiah? (something that had already been under discussion...and satisfactorily answered... for at least 350 years by 150 AD when this was written).
> 
> Youve got one source. Ehrman. Talk about a late source! Hes made a living from attacking the Bible. You should expand your horizons and weigh the words of people who wrote contemporaneously and were intimately familiar with the language and culture.
> 
> How about a quote from an even earlier writer who personally knew the Apostle John...
> 
> _"But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin..."_
> Ignatius
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
Click to expand...


alang1216 still uses those believers who became unbelievers as his sources, so he's never been a believer.  Yet, he answered what was God's greatest commandment?  What I was thinking was for him the first commandment.  Two negatives make a positive.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Or, just ditch the Bible entirely. I am sure that any of your beliefs worth having can be derived without it.



We can't.  See the above discussion on commandments.  However, nothing against you ditching the Antibible of evolution.  It won't affect your life in the slightest; it may improve it.

Maybe it will help you with that large asteroid falling on your head or from drowning in the tsunami it causes.


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know of exactly one system with life, it seems premature to say this is the only type that could ever support life. If we find life on other planets or other solar systems would that falsify your belief in God. I'm sure it wouldn't so without being falsifiable it is not a scientific theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it won't change our faith but it will cause problems for the Bible as God did not send his only son Jesus to save aliens.  In terms of science it would show that life is rare but could still exist in another place in our galaxy or universe.  It may mean we could be multi-planetary.
> 
> That said, the evidence is for no aliens as enough time has passed despite the search.  Will you admit there are no aliens if none is discovered by 2025?
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean everything they've done is wrong. Even the founding fathers of Christianity, Jesus and Paul made mistakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but in science it means they failed in one of the major things they were working on.  The multiverse scientists have wasted their lives on it.  Likely, the string, superstring, and multi-dimension scientists will have wasted their careers, too.
> 
> It's just like if the Bible was contradicted.  Disproving Jesus' resurrection would destroy the religion.  Aliens not as much, but it would put a blemish on the Bible.  The same with the other things Antibiblists believe in such as evolution, abiogenesis, old Earth and universe, an so on.
> 
> In terms of religion, if one fails then it means they disobeyed God's one commandment like Adam and Eve, but this time end up in the wrong final destination.
Click to expand...


  There is no life outside of earth. But from alang1216 comments above you can see why they have such a deep abiding faith in the idea. They think alien life would destroy Christianity. Why they think that I don’t know. It’s just one of the tenets  of their religion and you know how hard blind faith is to argue through. To them “it just must be true”


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

DOTR said:


> There is no life outside of earth.


Shaman DOTR has spoken!



DOTR said:


> They think alien life would destroy Christianity.


What is this crap? That wouldn't destroy Christianity anymore than finding out the creation story was garbage destroyed christianity. Christianity is a magical myth, you can snap-fit it to anything we know.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no life outside of earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Shaman DOTR has spoken!
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think alien life would destroy Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is this crap? That wouldn't destroy Christianity anymore than finding out the creation story was garbage destroyed christianity. Christianity is a magical myth, you can snap-fit it to anything we know.
Click to expand...


How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?  You just ignore science unless it fits the circumstantial fairy tale of the sky fairy Satan and mythological tale of Antibible evolution.

Where are your links to the evidence of aliens ?

Are you going to call Mulder and Scully now?  At least you're good for comic relief.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?


Because that is not conclusive evidence, or even evidence at all, that there is no life outside of earth.

thanks for the stupid fucking question.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not conclusive evidence, or even evidence at all, that there is no life outside of earth.
> 
> thanks for the stupid fucking question.
Click to expand...


See, you still have no evidence for aliens.  DOTR and I are laughing are asses off at you.  You had so many chances to provide it, but it's all sky fairy tale of atheists and evolution.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)


What Constantine did was establish the church of Rome as THE orthodox Christian church.  All other flavors of Christianity became heretical. 

It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not conclusive evidence, or even evidence at all, that there is no life outside of earth.
> 
> thanks for the stupid fucking question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you still have no evidence for aliens.  DOTR and I are laughing are asses off at you.  You had so many chances to provide it, but it's all sky fairy tale of atheists and evolution.
Click to expand...


Not surprisingly, your comment is another display of profound ignorance. Neither atheism nor biological evolution as we know it on this planet have any connection to alien life whether it exists or not.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not conclusive evidence, or even evidence at all, that there is no life outside of earth.
> 
> thanks for the stupid fucking question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you still have no evidence for aliens.  DOTR and I are laughing are asses off at you.  You had so many chances to provide it, but it's all sky fairy tale of atheists and evolution.
Click to expand...

While you're laughing, remember you have provided no evidence for your partisan version of gods. 

It's not polite to point and laugh..... but you bring it upon yourself.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
> 
> 
> 
> What Constantine did was establish the church of Rome as THE orthodox Christian church.  All other flavors of Christianity became heretical.
> .
Click to expand...


   The Arminian, Coptic, Syriac and a dozen other ancient churches were never under the sway of Rome or Byzantium and are not considered heretical. 
   Church councils defined heresy. Not the Emperor.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
Click to expand...


   He most certainly was never rejected by His family. 
  Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it. 

“They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”

Pliny 112 AD


   As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> Church councils defined heresy. Not the Emperor.


True enough but I find it highly coincidental that the Christian church of Rome, the city of the Emperor, emerged from those councils as preeminent.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He most certainly was never rejected by His family.
> Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it.
> 
> “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
> 
> Pliny 112 AD
> 
> 
> As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see?  He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He most certainly was never rejected by His family.
> Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it.
> 
> “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
> 
> Pliny 112 AD
> 
> 
> As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see?  He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
Click to expand...


  Not not by everyone. Is that supposed to be news? Eventually they killed Him.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not conclusive evidence, or even evidence at all, that there is no life outside of earth.
> 
> thanks for the stupid fucking question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you still have no evidence for aliens.  DOTR and I are laughing are asses off at you.  You had so many chances to provide it, but it's all sky fairy tale of atheists and evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you're laughing, remember you have provided no evidence for your partisan version of gods.
> 
> It's not polite to point and laugh..... but you bring it upon yourself.
Click to expand...


I have.  It's just your religion of atheism won't allow you to accept it.  It's Satan's Antibible at work as you are tricked and deceived.  Otherwise, you'd have the explanations, links, youtubes, books, and more.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He most certainly was never rejected by His family.
> Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it.
> 
> “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
> 
> Pliny 112 AD
> 
> 
> As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see?  He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not not by everyone. Is that supposed to be news? Eventually they killed Him.
Click to expand...

Mark 3:20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (NIV)


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see? He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)



You're acting just the Jews in Jesus' hometown.  Are you a Jew without faith or one without faith?



alang1216 said:


> When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.








smh.  The unforgiven.

"So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.  In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up.  Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.  Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” Mark 3:23-29

Why did you bring this up???!!!???!!!  Is this you?


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Church councils defined heresy. Not the Emperor.
> 
> 
> 
> True enough but I find it highly coincidental that the Christian church of Rome, the city of the Emperor, emerged from those councils as preeminent.
Click to expand...


   The Roman Church was already preeminent when Constantine's gggg grandparents were babies. 

see Clement writing in 80AD LINK
Ignatius in 110AD LINK 
Irenaeus in 180 AD LINK


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> (That ought to also preempt any nonsense about Constantine making Jesus into God. Christians knew Jesus was God when He walked the Earth)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He most certainly was never rejected by His family.
> Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it.
> 
> “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
> 
> Pliny 112 AD
> 
> 
> As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see?  He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not not by everyone. Is that supposed to be news? Eventually they killed Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 3:20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (NIV)
Click to expand...


Yeah who knows who was meant by His "relatives" or why they said that. Maybe to save Him in their minds.However you didnt read far enough. His family hadn't arrived yet. Later in the narrative...

Mark 3:31 His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
32A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers* [and your sisters] are outside asking for you.”

But as per usual this is running far afield. From the original claim that the Bible was "reconstructed" you have wormed your way to quoting it a an authority. Always ends up this way.


----------



## james bond

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear that very few people who knew Jesus believed he was God.  I seem to recall He was rejected by his family, including his mother.  Odd since she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly was never rejected by His family.
> Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it.
> 
> “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
> 
> Pliny 112 AD
> 
> 
> As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see?  He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not not by everyone. Is that supposed to be news? Eventually they killed Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 3:20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (NIV)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah who knows who was meant by His "relatives" or why they said that. Maybe to save Him in their minds.However you didnt read far enough. His family hadn't arrived yet. Later in the narrative...
> 
> Mark 3:31 His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
> 32A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers* [and your sisters] are outside asking for you.”
> 
> But as per usual this is running far afield. From the original claim that the Bible was "reconstructed" you have wormed your way to quoting it a an authority. Always ends up this way.
Click to expand...


I'm reminded of what goes around comes around.  Matthew is one of the hardest to read and deal with.  I still haven't gotten through it as it relates to my life.  It's Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, but alang1216 wants us Christians to get it full blast.  Why he chose that out of the others I have no idea?  Is he the unforgiven?


Listen to what James Hatfield wrote about his Christian family.  Does he want that upon us?


----------



## DOTR

james bond said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> He most certainly was never rejected by His family.
> Anyone who didn’t know he was God ignored His plain statements as to the fact. The Jews tried to stone him for it.
> 
> “They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn _*to Christ as to a god,*_ and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”
> 
> Pliny 112 AD
> 
> 
> As far back as we can see He was worshipped as God.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see?  He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not not by everyone. Is that supposed to be news? Eventually they killed Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mark 3:20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (NIV)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah who knows who was meant by His "relatives" or why they said that. Maybe to save Him in their minds.However you didnt read far enough. His family hadn't arrived yet. Later in the narrative...
> 
> Mark 3:31 His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
> 32A crowd seated around him told him, “Your mother and your brothers* [and your sisters] are outside asking for you.”
> 
> But as per usual this is running far afield. From the original claim that the Bible was "reconstructed" you have wormed your way to quoting it a an authority. Always ends up this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm reminded of what goes around comes around.  Matthew is one of the hardest to read and deal with.  I still haven't gotten through it as it relates to my life.  It's Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, but alang1216 wants us Christians to get it full blast.  Why he chose that out of the others I have no idea?  Is he the unforgiven?
> 
> 
> Listen to what James Hatfield wrote about his Christian family.  Does he want that upon us?
Click to expand...



Yes. The obsession has a reason. And Jesus spoke in parables for a reason. Im always careful not to get into Bible quoting with these puritan atheist Bible thumpers. It wasnt intended for them and it cant be grasped by them. Their obsession comes because they know there is truth there...but the only understanding they have of it is that they stand condemned before it. Basically its a long loud yell of " please dotn be true please dont be true"

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast
ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


----------



## james bond

Metallica - The Unforgiven Lyrics Meaning

alang1216, did you want to be old before your time?  I'm aghast.  Torn up.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see? He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're acting just the Jews in Jesus' hometown.  Are you a Jew without faith or one without faith?
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 313070
> 
> smh.  The unforgiven.
> 
> "So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.  In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up.  Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.  Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” Mark 3:23-29
> 
> Why did you bring this up???!!!???!!!  Is this you?
Click to expand...

It's not clear what you're trying to say?  It seems the Jews Jesus preached to were not convinced by his message and the ones in his family and home town were also not convinced by him.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he a shaman when there has been no aliens for over one's lifetime?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is not conclusive evidence, or even evidence at all, that there is no life outside of earth.
> 
> thanks for the stupid fucking question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you still have no evidence for aliens.  DOTR and I are laughing are asses off at you.  You had so many chances to provide it, but it's all sky fairy tale of atheists and evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you're laughing, remember you have provided no evidence for your partisan version of gods.
> 
> It's not polite to point and laugh..... but you bring it upon yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  It's just your religion of atheism won't allow you to accept it.  It's Satan's Antibible at work as you are tricked and deceived.  Otherwise, you'd have the explanations, links, youtubes, books, and more.
Click to expand...


Your ".... because I say so" arguments made on behalf of your gods are similar to the " ... because I say so" arguments made by others on behalf of their gods. That might suggest it is you who has the wrong gods.

Other than supported science that has no evidence of magic and supernaturalism extant in nature, what youtubes can you offer as evidence of your version of the gods?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see? He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're acting just the Jews in Jesus' hometown.  Are you a Jew without faith or one without faith?
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 313070
> 
> smh.  The unforgiven.
> 
> "So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.  In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up.  Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.  Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” Mark 3:23-29
> 
> Why did you bring this up???!!!???!!!  Is this you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not clear what you're trying to say?  It seems the Jews Jesus preached to were not convinced by his message and the ones in his family and home town were also not convinced by him.
Click to expand...


You didn't read the entire verse.  Why did you happen to choose _that one_ to make your stand?  Those Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah were doomed.  Many still believe it to this day.  

Anyway, I'm moving on.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're only looking as hard as you want to see? He certainly wasn't worshiped by everyone he met, otherwise it's curious that he would say: "Prophets are not without honour, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house." (Mark 6:1-6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're acting just the Jews in Jesus' hometown.  Are you a Jew without faith or one without faith?
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 313070
> 
> smh.  The unforgiven.
> 
> "So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come.  In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up.  Then he can plunder the strong man’s house.  Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter,  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” Mark 3:23-29
> 
> Why did you bring this up???!!!???!!!  Is this you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not clear what you're trying to say?  It seems the Jews Jesus preached to were not convinced by his message and the ones in his family and home town were also not convinced by him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the entire verse.  Why did you happen to choose _that one_ to make your stand?  Those Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah were doomed.  Many still believe it to this day.
> 
> Anyway, I'm moving on.
Click to expand...

My only point was that many of those that knew Jesus best didn't follow him.  Moving on...


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? So some guys wrote some stuff down. Is that supposed to impress us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Book of Daniel which describes the end of the world and what happens.  It should make you take stock of your_ no Jesus position_.  TBH, it is allegory and metaphor.  People in the past talked about it and discuss what was true and all that.  It talks about the dead rising from the grave again and reuniting with the bodies.  Today,we find zombie stories and movies are popular.  My hero, Blaise Pascal might've just shrugged his shoulders and said...
> 
> View attachment 310787
Click to expand...

That's called "Pascal's wager."  The problem with it?  What if you worship the wrong god?


----------



## james bond

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? So some guys wrote some stuff down. Is that supposed to impress us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Book of Daniel which describes the end of the world and what happens.  It should make you take stock of your_ no Jesus position_.  TBH, it is allegory and metaphor.  People in the past talked about it and discuss what was true and all that.  It talks about the dead rising from the grave again and reuniting with the bodies.  Today,we find zombie stories and movies are popular.  My hero, Blaise Pascal might've just shrugged his shoulders and said...
> 
> View attachment 310787
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's called "Pascal's wager."  The problem with it?  What if you worship the wrong god?
Click to expand...


You get Final Judgement and cast into the Lake of Fire.  The rest isn't clear as it is allegory.  I think you reap what you sow and relive moments like in the movie Groundhog Day, but don't have a chance to correct.  That would be frustrating, i.e. gnashing of teeth..


----------



## Hollie

*"Breaking News from Genesis 1:9"*

Breaking news? Is there another new bible with a revised version of the Genesis fable?


----------



## Newtonian

JGalt said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our time is not God's time...
> 
> 2 Peter 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day _is_ with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 
> Psalm 90:4 For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night.
Click to expand...


That is true - we actually do not know exactly how long each creative day was or even if they are all the same length of time.   In the second equation in Psalms 90:4 if the watch during the night was 3 hours, this would then equate to 1 day = 8,000 years.   We used to believe they were 7,000 years long - but actually the Bible does not say.  

But the question is moot as to primordial earth being covered with water (and in darkness) since Genesis 1:2 is BEFORE the first creative day.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
Click to expand...


We (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in both the Bible and science - both are sources of truth when the observations are accurately interpreted.  The Bible does not say how old planet earth is.   Genesis 1:1 is BEFORE the first creative day (whose length of time is also not specified in the Bible).   From our literature:






						How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




Excerpt:

"Scientists estimate that the earth is about 4 billion years old and that the universe was born some 13 to 14 billion years ago. The Bible sets no date for the creation of the universe. In no place does it affirm that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The very first verse in the Bible reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) That general statement allows scientists to determine the age of the physical world according to sound scientific principles."


----------



## james bond

Newtonian said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our time is not God's time...
> 
> 2 Peter 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day _is_ with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 
> Psalm 90:4 For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true - we actually do not know exactly how long each creative day was or even if they are all the same length of time.   In the second equation in Psalms 90:4 if the watch during the night was 3 hours, this would then equate to 1 day = 8,000 years.   We used to believe they were 7,000 years long - but actually the Bible does not say.
> 
> But the question is moot as to primordial earth being covered with water (and in darkness) since Genesis 1:2 is BEFORE the first creative day.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't true as described in Genesis.  In Genesis, one day = 24 hours.  Peter is discussing the _prophecy_ of the return of Jesus the Lord.  Remember, I said that prophecies are described as allegory and metaphor such as the narrow gate and door referring to Jesus.  It means the time described is allegorical.  During Jesus' second coming, the believers know it is to  deliver His people.   Thus, Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.

The atheists and scoffers will say Jesus has been gone a long time; Is he ever coming back ? Thus, Peter says it to the believers the way he does. Remember prophecy is allegorical and metaphor. The rest of the Bible should be read literally. The atheists mix things up and are wrong as they usually are. Atheists are usually wrong.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.


I don't know if he'll come back but he certainly was wrong about when.  He told people of his own time that many would not taste death before the end times.  Not surprising since he was an apocalyptic Jew who believed he was living in the end of this time.  A belief he shared with Paul.


----------



## Newtonian

james bond said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis describes the Earth 3.2 billion years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our time is not God's time...
> 
> 2 Peter 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day _is_ with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
> 
> Psalm 90:4 For in Your sight a thousand years are but a day that passes, or a watch of the night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true - we actually do not know exactly how long each creative day was or even if they are all the same length of time.   In the second equation in Psalms 90:4 if the watch during the night was 3 hours, this would then equate to 1 day = 8,000 years.   We used to believe they were 7,000 years long - but actually the Bible does not say.
> 
> But the question is moot as to primordial earth being covered with water (and in darkness) since Genesis 1:2 is BEFORE the first creative day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't true as described in Genesis.  In Genesis, one day = 24 hours.  Peter is discussing the _prophecy_ of the return of Jesus the Lord.  Remember, I said that prophecies are described as allegory and metaphor such as the narrow gate and door referring to Jesus.  It means the time described is allegorical.  During Jesus' second coming, the believers know it is to  deliver His people.   Thus, Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.
> 
> The atheists and scoffers will say Jesus has been gone a long time; Is he ever coming back ? Thus, Peter says it to the believers the way he does. Remember prophecy is allegorical and metaphor. The rest of the Bible should be read literally. The atheists mix things up and are wrong as they usually are. Atheists are usually wrong.
Click to expand...


First of all, it is scientifically proven the creative days could not be 24 hours each - for example the deposition of earth's crustal carbonates by the geologic carbon cycle. 

Moses wrote both Genesis and the 90th Psalm - the latter shows God's concept of time compared with that of us earthlings:

Psalms 90:4
For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past,+Just as a watch during the night.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he'll come back but he certainly was wrong about when.  He told people of his own time that many would not taste death before the end times.  Not surprising since he was an apocalyptic Jew who believed he was living in the end of this time.  A belief he shared with Paul.
Click to expand...

You are both misquoting and ignoring the context wherein they saw Jesus in the kingdom in the transfiguration vision.

Matthew 16:28-17:9
Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”+
*17 *Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.+ 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant* as the light.+ 3 And look! there appeared to them Moses and E·liʹjah conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.+ Listen to him.”+ 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid. 7 Then Jesus came near, and touching them, he said: “Get up. Have no fear.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one but Jesus himself. 9 As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”+


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he'll come back but he certainly was wrong about when.  He told people of his own time that many would not taste death before the end times.  Not surprising since he was an apocalyptic Jew who believed he was living in the end of this time.  A belief he shared with Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both misquoting and ignoring the context wherein they saw Jesus in the kingdom in the transfiguration vision.
> 
> Matthew 16:28-17:9
> Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”+
> *17 *Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.+ 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant* as the light.+ 3 And look! there appeared to them Moses and E·liʹjah conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.+ Listen to him.”+ 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid. 7 Then Jesus came near, and touching them, he said: “Get up. Have no fear.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one but Jesus himself. 9 As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”+
Click to expand...

I think it is you who are taking Jesus out of his 1st century context.  Apocalypticism was a popular belief back then and Jesus was almost certainly a believer, as was John the Baptist and Paul.  As for misquoting Jesus, just about everyone does it since he wrote nothing and his teaching were not written down until well after his death, almost certainly by people who never met or heard him speak.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I think it is you who are taking Jesus out of his 1st century context. Apocalypticism was a popular belief back then and Jesus was almost certainly a believer, as was John the Baptist and Paul. As for misquoting Jesus, just about everyone does it since he wrote nothing and his teaching were not written down until well after his death, almost certainly by people who never met or heard him speak.




Do you know about the inspired word of God?






Bart Ehrman is a well known blasphemer and needs to bow down face first before the Lord for his words.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he'll come back but he certainly was wrong about when.  He told people of his own time that many would not taste death before the end times.  Not surprising since he was an apocalyptic Jew who believed he was living in the end of this time.  A belief he shared with Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both misquoting and ignoring the context wherein they saw Jesus in the kingdom in the transfiguration vision.
> 
> Matthew 16:28-17:9
> Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”+
> *17 *Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.+ 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant* as the light.+ 3 And look! there appeared to them Moses and E·liʹjah conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.+ Listen to him.”+ 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid. 7 Then Jesus came near, and touching them, he said: “Get up. Have no fear.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one but Jesus himself. 9 As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is you who are taking Jesus out of his 1st century context.  Apocalypticism was a popular belief back then and Jesus was almost certainly a believer, as was John the Baptist and Paul.  As for misquoting Jesus, just about everyone does it since he wrote nothing and his teaching were not written down until well after his death, almost certainly by people who never met or heard him speak.
Click to expand...

I gave references.   Where are  your references?  I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.

There is no gap in the history.  The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman.   The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.



			https://www.theopedia.com/polycarp
		


"A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D., connecting him to both the biblical apostles and the age of the early church fathers."






						Quartodecimans | Encyclopedia.com
					

QUARTODECIMANS The term "Quartodecimans" refers to those Christian communities in the early Church which celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nisan (die quarta decima ), the day of the Jewish Passover (Ex 12.6). Prevalent in Asia Minor and Syria in the second century, Quartodecimans emphasized the...




					www.encyclopedia.com
				




"Roman efforts to induce the Quartodecimans to abandon their practice were unsuccessful. On a visit to Rome (c. 155), St. polycarp of smyrna amicably discussed the question with Pope anicetus without, however, reaching agreement. Pope victor (189–198) sought unity through a series of synods held in both East and West; all accepted the Roman practice except the Asiatic bishops. When Victor attempted coercion by excommunication, St. irenaeus of lyons intervened to restore peace (eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.23–25). During the third century Quartodecimanism waned; it persisted in some Asiatic communities down to the fifth century."

Jehovah's Witnesses also follow the apostolic teaching of Polycarp and the Quartodecimans, which latter name means "14th-ers" because we/they observed the last supper on Nisan 14.  In fact it is our only holy day.
I


----------



## james bond

Newtonian said:


> I gave references. Where are your references?



I suspect alang1216 's references are Ouchy I got a huge California redwood in my eye.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> I gave references.   Where are  your references?  I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.
> 
> There is no gap in the history.  The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman.   The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.


per your request:
*Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?*
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 31, 2019

The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references. Where are your references?
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect alang1216 's references are Ouchy I got a huge California redwood in my eye.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong then:
*About Dr. Carrier*
*Richard Carrier* is a world-renowned author and speaker. As a professional historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement, Dr. Carrier has appeared across the U.S., Canada and the U.K., and on American television and London radio, defending sound historical methods and the ethical worldview of secular naturalism. His books and articles have received international attention. With a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Bart Ehrman is a well known blasphemer and needs to bow down face first before the Lord for his words.


I don't think anyone can be a blasphemer if they explicitly state they are discussing history and not theology.  Ehrman speaks from the viewpoint of an historian and says often that things like miracles are beyond the scope of historians to say yes they happened or no they didn't happen.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bart Ehrman is a well known blasphemer and needs to bow down face first before the Lord for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can be a blasphemer if they explicitly state they are discussing history and not theology.  Ehrman speaks from the viewpoint of an historian and says often that things like miracles are beyond the scope of historians to say yes they happened or no they didn't happen.
Click to expand...


The guy asked a loaded question in order to start his blasphemy.  Dr. Craig took notice and rebutted him down in no uncertain terms.  You should avoid blasphemers as they will drag you down to their level.  Bart Ehrman should be one who is punished hardest.  He has gotten progressively worse and I think you found a vid of him at his worst.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references. Where are your references?
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect alang1216 's references are Ouchy I got a huge California redwood in my eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would be wrong then:
> *About Dr. Carrier*
> *Richard Carrier* is a world-renowned author and speaker. As a professional historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement, Dr. Carrier has appeared across the U.S., Canada and the U.K., and on American television and London radio, defending sound historical methods and the ethical worldview of secular naturalism. His books and articles have received international attention. With a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire.
Click to expand...


I think its from his blog so it's self-promoting.  It doesn't seem atheists like him.









						Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD – A creepy, dishonest hypocrite
					

In a recent blog post, entitled “Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue”, the esteemed Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, discusses his “coming out” as polyamorous, an “orientation” that he jus…




					theyetisroar.wordpress.com
				








__





						Nonreligious Questions
					

Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer.




					friendlyatheist.patheos.com


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bart Ehrman is a well known blasphemer and needs to bow down face first before the Lord for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can be a blasphemer if they explicitly state they are discussing history and not theology.  Ehrman speaks from the viewpoint of an historian and says often that things like miracles are beyond the scope of historians to say yes they happened or no they didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy asked a loaded question in order to start his blasphemy.  Dr. Craig took notice and rebutted him down in no uncertain terms.  You should avoid blasphemers as they will drag you down to their level.  Bart Ehrman should be one who is punished hardest.  He has gotten progressively worse and I think you found a vid of him at his worst.
Click to expand...

What did he say that was untrue?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references. Where are your references?
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect alang1216 's references are Ouchy I got a huge California redwood in my eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would be wrong then:
> *About Dr. Carrier*
> *Richard Carrier* is a world-renowned author and speaker. As a professional historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement, Dr. Carrier has appeared across the U.S., Canada and the U.K., and on American television and London radio, defending sound historical methods and the ethical worldview of secular naturalism. His books and articles have received international attention. With a Ph.D. from Columbia University in ancient history, he specializes in the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, particularly ancient philosophy, religion, and science, with emphasis on the origins of Christianity and the use and progress of science under the Roman empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think its from his blog so it's self-promoting.  It doesn't seem atheists like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD – A creepy, dishonest hypocrite
> 
> 
> In a recent blog post, entitled “Coming Out Poly + A Change of Life Venue”, the esteemed Dr. Richard Carrier PhD, discusses his “coming out” as polyamorous, an “orientation” that he jus…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theyetisroar.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonreligious Questions
> 
> 
> Whether you’ve been turned off by religion in the past or have a question about one of the world’s religions, check out what Patheos has to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> friendlyatheist.patheos.com
Click to expand...

What did he say that was untrue?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bart Ehrman is a well known blasphemer and needs to bow down face first before the Lord for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can be a blasphemer if they explicitly state they are discussing history and not theology.  Ehrman speaks from the viewpoint of an historian and says often that things like miracles are beyond the scope of historians to say yes they happened or no they didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy asked a loaded question in order to start his blasphemy.  Dr. Craig took notice and rebutted him down in no uncertain terms.  You should avoid blasphemers as they will drag you down to their level.  Bart Ehrman should be one who is punished hardest.  He has gotten progressively worse and I think you found a vid of him at his worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did he say that was untrue?
Click to expand...


First, you never answer my questions, so I know you are lying.  I asked you if you knew about the inspired word of God?

You are a liar like Bart Ehrman and we know Ehrman is...







One has to be accountable for their words and actions.

It is blasphemy to ask how many in his class believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and then contradict it.

He cites the death of Judas where Judas hanged himself.  He said Judas “_somehow_” fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. That “can’t be reconciled.”  It's ridiculous.

What does Matthew say?  Do you know?

Matthew says that Judas died by hanging.  Here is the account in Matthew’s Gospel:  "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left.  Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’  So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day" (Matthew 27:5–8). 

Luke says that Judas fell into a field and that his body ruptured.  Here is the account in Acts: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong,  his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.  Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" (Acts 1:18–19).


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> What did he say that was untrue?



Let's face it, if you knew the answers to my question and it helped your cause, then you would be all over me like a rash.  Instead, I was inspired to think Bart Ehrman was the Falling Man.  Now we are discussing how Judas died.  Don't you think it is ironic that Ehrman is the Falling Man just like Judas and will have his guts spilled out when he hits the ground?  I think it's Jesus guiding me here.

ETA:  Don't get me wrong.  I wasn't wishing ill will towards Ehrman, but was upset that he would ask such an important _loaded_ question and then go into his contradiction. My first thought was what would make an atheist fall on their face worshiping the Lord and begging for forgiveness. I told you mine if I was an atheist and that is the story of the greatest thing I ever heard an atheist say.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bart Ehrman is a well known blasphemer and needs to bow down face first before the Lord for his words.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone can be a blasphemer if they explicitly state they are discussing history and not theology.  Ehrman speaks from the viewpoint of an historian and says often that things like miracles are beyond the scope of historians to say yes they happened or no they didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy asked a loaded question in order to start his blasphemy.  Dr. Craig took notice and rebutted him down in no uncertain terms.  You should avoid blasphemers as they will drag you down to their level.  Bart Ehrman should be one who is punished hardest.  He has gotten progressively worse and I think you found a vid of him at his worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did he say that was untrue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you never answer my questions, so I know you are lying.  I asked you if you knew about the inspired word of God?
> 
> You are a liar like Bart Ehrman and we know Ehrman is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One has to be accountable for their words and actions.
> 
> It is blasphemy to ask how many in his class believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and then contradict it.
> 
> He cites the death of Judas where Judas hanged himself.  He said Judas “_somehow_” fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. That “can’t be reconciled.”  It's ridiculous.
> 
> What does Matthew say?  Do you know?
> 
> Matthew says that Judas died by hanging.  Here is the account in Matthew’s Gospel:  "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left.  Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’  So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day" (Matthew 27:5–8).
> 
> Luke says that Judas fell into a field and that his body ruptured.  Here is the account in Acts: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong,  his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.  Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" (Acts 1:18–19).
Click to expand...

So how did Judas die and who bought the field?

A larger question is what did Judas say that got him the silver?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> First, you never answer my questions, so I know you are lying.  I asked you if you knew about the inspired word of God?


Biblical *inspiration* is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by *God* with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the *word of God*. 

I know what it means but neither of can prove or disprove it.  It is a matter of faith.  You have it I don't.  Simple as that.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did he say that was untrue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it, if you knew the answers to my question and it helped your cause, then you would be all over me like a rash.  Instead, I was inspired to think Bart Ehrman was the Falling Man.  Now we are discussing how Judas died.  Don't you think it is ironic that Ehrman is the Falling Man just like Judas and will have his guts spilled out when he hits the ground?  I think it's Jesus guiding me here.
> 
> ETA:  Don't get me wrong.  I wasn't wishing ill will towards Ehrman, but was upset that he would ask such an important _loaded_ question and then go into his contradiction. My first thought was what would make an atheist fall on their face worshiping the Lord and begging for forgiveness. I told you mine if I was an atheist and that is the story of the greatest thing I ever heard an atheist say.
Click to expand...

He did ask another question after he asked who thought the Bible was the inspired word of God and that was, which of those believers had actually read it?  Apparently very few.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> So how did Judas die and who bought the field?
> 
> A larger question is what did Judas say that got him the silver?



I gave you the verses and the Falling Man (ironic).  Ehrman looks like an idiot now, doesn't he?  What a blasphemer! 

I can see you're not getting the picture.  Judas committed suicide.  He didn't want his pieces of silver anymore so donated it.  The priests of the temple didn't want blood money.  Yow.

So Judas killed himself via hanging in the potter's field and his body started to rot and become the falling man.  The priests used Judas' money to buy the field and bury him.  Ehrman doesn't get it, do you?  Hard way to demonstrate what happened.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> So Judas killed himself via hanging *in the potter's field and his body started to rot and become the falling man*.


The highlighted text is not in the Gospels or Acts.  It appears you have added or altered the text.  Are you divinely inspired?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> The highlighted text is not in the Gospels or Acts. It appears you have added or altered the text. Are you divinely inspired?



What does your leader Ehrman say?  Apparently, you follow the Falling Man instead of the Lord.

Myself, I don't want to kill myself by hanging and rot.

You're just like Ehrman . You didn't know how Judas got the 30 pieces of silver. Man, you follow a blasphemer, you're a blasphemer, but are ignorant of it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
> This should be in the conspiracy section
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, the evidence doesn't fit your thinking.  We have underwater civilizations all over the world, dinosaur fossils found underwater, and marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas.  I'm glad you admit that evolution should be in the conspiracy section.
> 
> ETA:  That said, the waterworld evidence does fit circa 2458 BC.
Click to expand...

3.2 billion years vs. 2458 BC requires a rather substantial fudge factor to fit biblical tales and fables.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The highlighted text is not in the Gospels or Acts. It appears you have added or altered the text. Are you divinely inspired?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does your leader Ehrman say?  Apparently, you follow the Falling Man instead of the Lord.
> 
> Myself, I don't want to kill myself by hanging and rot.
> 
> You're just like Ehrman . You didn't know how Judas got the 30 pieces of silver. Man, you follow a blasphemer, you're a blasphemer, but are ignorant of it.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to appreciate is that calling me a blasphemer is like calling me a leprechaun.  It is not scary or an insult, it is meaningless to me.

Did I miss your answer as to what information about Jesus was worth 30 pieces of silver?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> What you don't seem to appreciate is that calling me a blasphemer is like calling me a leprechaun. It is not scary or an insult, it is meaningless to me.
> 
> Did I miss your answer as to what information about Jesus was worth 30 pieces of silver?



I hope you explain your first sentence to Jesus at final judgement.  Blasphemers go to the lowest level.  That's why I warned you against following Bart Ehrman.  His loaded question would be troubling to any Christian.

You need to answer my questions first.  Those would have helped you.  Instead, you were caught lying in your responses.  You are a fake Christian and it's getting embarrassing.  Even if you were a researcher, it would be embarrassing as one being so biased.  

What was Judas' claim to fame, or more correctly, infamy?  What was he?  It starts with an "A?"  What did he say during dinnertime?


----------



## ding

The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice


Oops, stated the lie again, like I predicted you would.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, stated the lie again, like I predicted you would.
Click to expand...

It’s not a lie. It happened.

why else do you believe every major ancient culture has an account of a major flood?  Do you think they all got together and decided to create a conspiracy?


----------



## ding

These accounts were told as stories or fables to make them easier to remember and pass down. That’s how they did it 10,000 years ago. You would think that people today would be intelligent enough to understand this concept but apparently not.


----------



## Death Angel

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
Click to expand...

There is no conflict except in YOUR understanding


----------



## james bond

Death Angel said:


> There is no conflict except in YOUR understanding



If there's a conflict with yours, then I _know_ I am right. Otherwise, you would have provided an explanation instead of opinion.

Usually, I am right about these matters.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.



Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You need to answer my questions first.  Those would have helped you.  Instead, you were caught lying in your responses.  You are a fake Christian and it's getting embarrassing.  Even if you were a researcher, it would be embarrassing as one being so biased.


What questions are you asking about?  

I am not a FAKE Christian, I am not any kind of Christian, theologically speaking.  My only interest is in Christian history.


----------



## alang1216

Death Angel said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I help it if science backs up the Bible once again?
> 
> 
> 
> Science often backs up the Bible but what happens when it does not?  Geologists consider it a settled matter that the Earth is billions of years old because that is what the evidence points to.  Do you believe them or do you believe the Bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict except in YOUR understanding
Click to expand...

I have no conflicts.  The problem is for those that read the Bible literally as a history book.  There are historical events in the Bible but the focus should be on the theology of the writers, not their historical accuracy.  

For example, Matthew and Luke give very different birth narratives that are in conflict with each other if taken literally.  Read theologically they are not in conflict.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
Click to expand...

Yes. It was a climate altering event.  

Rain and flooding all around the globe. But it didn’t cause the whole surface of the earth to flood. Just regular old floods like we still have now. Just a shit ton more of them and much much worse than what we ordinarily experience.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It was a climate altering event.
> 
> Rain and flooding all around the globe. But it didn’t cause the whole surface of the earth to flood. Just regular old floods like we still have now. Just a shit ton more of them and much much worse than what we ordinarily experience.
Click to expand...


First, you have not the faintest idea of the weather 3.2 billions years ago.  Second, there was no 3.2 B yrs ago.  Instead, I have multiple witnesses who were there.  The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.  They said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and then there was an earthquake from under the sea and that mountains came up out of the water and the land was raised.  A tremendous amount of water came up from the seas.  There were also land that sank due to the earthquakes and water gushed into the valleys that were formed.  That happened around 2458 BC.  Like you said, the myths back up the people experiencing it during that time.  There wouldn't be any myths from 3.2 billion years ago.  No one would know about it.

If you like geology, meteorology, or climatology so much, then study the last 100 years.  We've had massive changes during this time.  If the present is the key to the past, then you would know that tremendous amounts of change happens in a short period of time.  How much has entropy changed?  How much has climate changed?  You would come to the conclusion we aren't bound for this world very long.  Thus, you couldn't possibly have a 3.2 billion years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Read theologically


Meaning, whatever way you like that results in it fitting the myth.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to answer my questions first.  Those would have helped you.  Instead, you were caught lying in your responses.  You are a fake Christian and it's getting embarrassing.  Even if you were a researcher, it would be embarrassing as one being so biased.
> 
> 
> 
> What questions are you asking about?
> 
> I am not a FAKE Christian, I am not any kind of Christian, theologically speaking.  My only interest is in Christian history.
Click to expand...


Haha.  Let's see if you can answer my questions because you were either lying or hiding something before.

*What does the inspired word of God mean?  Asked when you posted Bart Ehrman vid.*

We talked about the death of Judas since Ehrman brought it up as an example and it fits the crucifixion of Jesus which just passed.  *What does Matthew say about Judas?  Where else is Judas' death explained in the Bible?  Acts?

What did Ehrman say in his argument that Judas' death contradicts the inspired word?*

Instead, you asked me for the answers and had other questions.  Do you have those answers now?



alang1216 said:


> *So how did Judas die and who bought the field?
> 
> A larger question is what did Judas say that got him the silver?*


*
What was Judas' claim to fame, or more correctly, infamy?  What was he?  It starts with an "A?"  What did he say during dinnertime?*

If you would find your own answers to your questions or read about the Bible and what it means, then your arguments would be much better.  You would give me an informed opinion and then back it up with your sources.  Instead, you expect me to provide the answers for you and you just link your source to make your argument that I would have to read and figure out.

It just tells me that you are either lying or hiding something or that it is something that you do not even know and understand let alone know your own argument.

Now, I have a new question and it's probably my final one in regards to what you brought up with Ehrman.

*This topic you brought up isn't in Genesis 1-9.  Why did you have a need to bring up what you did?*


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.


So Noah and his family were the only 'innocent' people on the entire planet?


----------



## gipper

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
Click to expand...

It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read theologically
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, whatever way you like that results in it fitting the myth.
Click to expand...

No, I think stories can be true even if they are made up.  To show the character of GW someone invented a story of a cherry tree.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read theologically
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, whatever way you like that results in it fitting the myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I think stories can be true even if they are made up.  To show the character of GW someone invented a story of a cherry tree.
Click to expand...

Well, surely you see the difference between the mundane claim that a guy named george washington once existed and did stuff, versus the claim that a magical god performed miracles.

Have you considered the idea that Mary lied, and got a little side action? Or is that whole story made up as well? Is any of it NOT made up?


----------



## james bond

gipper said:


> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.



There's not enough evidence for that to be certain it happens.  I can show you an experiment that explains it and not have the poles reverse.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Haha.  Let's see if you can answer my questions because you were either lying or hiding something before.
> 
> *What does the inspired word of God mean?  Asked when you posted Bart Ehrman vid.*


I'm pretty sure I answered this but:
Biblical *inspiration* is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by *God* with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the *word of God*. 



james bond said:


> We talked about the death of Judas since Ehrman brought it up as an example and it fits the crucifixion of Jesus which just passed.  *What does Matthew say about Judas?  Where else is Judas' death explained in the Bible?  Acts?*


Matthew says that Judas died by hanging.  Here is the account in Matthew’s Gospel:  "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left.  Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’  So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day" (Matthew 27:5–8). 

Luke says that Judas fell into a field and that his body ruptured.  Here is the account in Acts: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong,  his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.  Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" (Acts 1:18–19). 



james bond said:


> *What did Ehrman say in his argument that Judas' death contradicts the inspired word?*
> 
> Instead, you asked me for the answers and had other questions.  Do you have those answers now?


He never mentioned the 'inspired' word, only that the two accounts don't support each other, historically.



james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So how did Judas die and who bought the field?
> 
> A larger question is what did Judas say that got him the silver?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What was Judas' claim to fame, or more correctly, infamy?  What was he?  It starts with an "A?"  What did he say during dinnertime?*
Click to expand...

He 'betrayed' Jesus, that is all I know.



james bond said:


> If you would find your own answers to your questions or read about the Bible and what it means, then your arguments would be much better.  You would give me an informed opinion and then back it up with your sources.  Instead, you expect me to provide the answers for you and you just link your source to make your argument that I would have to read and figure out.
> 
> It just tells me that you are either lying or hiding something or that it is something that you do not even know and understand let alone know your own argument.
> 
> Now, I have a new question and it's probably my final one in regards to what you brought up with Ehrman.
> 
> *This topic you brought up isn't in Genesis 1-9.  Why did you have a need to bring up what you did?*


There are many examples of why the Gospels are not historically or scientifically accurate.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> So Noah and his family were the only 'innocent' people on the entire planet?
Click to expand...


They were the only remaining witnesses.  What do you think?  Bad timing, but did you ever have an itch to go on a cruise ?


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, surely you see the difference between the mundane claim that a guy named george washington once existed and did stuff, versus the claim that a magical god performed miracles.
> 
> Have you considered the idea that Mary lied, and got a little side action? Or is that whole story made up as well? Is any of it NOT made up?


Same difference.

I find the history of Christianity, like all history, to be facinating and Mary's virginity is a great example.  The Gospels were written by non-Jewish, Greek speakers.  The Hebrew bible they used was the Septuagint.  In it is a miss-translation of a passage where the word 'virgin' was used instead of the 'young woman' found in the Hebrew versions of the passage.  The virgin birth likely came from that but it may also have come from pagan myths of demi-gods, such as Hercules, being fathered by gods.  Or both.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> So Noah and his family were the only 'innocent' people on the entire planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were the only remaining witnesses.  What do you think?  Bad timing, but did you ever have an itch to go on a cruise ?
Click to expand...

I never considered a baby or a puppy NOT to be an innocent but then again, I'm not God.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's not enough evidence for that to be certain it happens.  I can show you an experiment that explains it and not have the poles reverse.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence it happens regularly but it has never been linked to an extinction event.  I suspect it will be catstrophic for our electric or communications grid but I doubt animals or plants will even notice.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha.  Let's see if you can answer my questions because you were either lying or hiding something before.
> 
> *What does the inspired word of God mean?  Asked when you posted Bart Ehrman vid.*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I answered this but:
> Biblical *inspiration* is the doctrine in Christian theology that the human authors and editors of the Bible were led or influenced by *God* with the result that their writings may be designated in some sense the *word of God*.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We talked about the death of Judas since Ehrman brought it up as an example and it fits the crucifixion of Jesus which just passed.  *What does Matthew say about Judas?  Where else is Judas' death explained in the Bible?  Acts?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matthew says that Judas died by hanging.  Here is the account in Matthew’s Gospel:  "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left.  Then he went away and hanged himself.  The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’  So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.  That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day" (Matthew 27:5–8).
> 
> Luke says that Judas fell into a field and that his body ruptured.  Here is the account in Acts: "With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong,  his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.  Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" (Acts 1:18–19).
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What did Ehrman say in his argument that Judas' death contradicts the inspired word?*
> 
> Instead, you asked me for the answers and had other questions.  Do you have those answers now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He never mentioned the 'inspired' word, only that the two accounts don't support each other, historically.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So how did Judas die and who bought the field?
> 
> A larger question is what did Judas say that got him the silver?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What was Judas' claim to fame, or more correctly, infamy?  What was he?  It starts with an "A?"  What did he say during dinnertime?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He 'betrayed' Jesus, that is all I know.
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would find your own answers to your questions or read about the Bible and what it means, then your arguments would be much better.  You would give me an informed opinion and then back it up with your sources.  Instead, you expect me to provide the answers for you and you just link your source to make your argument that I would have to read and figure out.
> 
> It just tells me that you are either lying or hiding something or that it is something that you do not even know and understand let alone know your own argument.
> 
> Now, I have a new question and it's probably my final one in regards to what you brought up with Ehrman.
> 
> *This topic you brought up isn't in Genesis 1-9.  Why did you have a need to bring up what you did?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are many examples of why the Gospels are not historically or scientifically accurate.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  Yes, you did answer, but I wanted to point out and emphasize what it means to a Christian.  What is nice is that your answer to the first and last question sums up Ehrman's argument nicely.  Ehrman, in the vid you posted, asks the students in his class (it's UNC at Chapel Hill which he says is the buckle of the Bible belt), "How many do you think the Bible is the inspired word of God?" and everyone raises their hands.  Then he points out these people didn't read the entire Bible even though God wrote it.  It's not an easy book to read.  Who has read Darwin's book Origin of Species completely?  Who can even tell us the entire title?  What about the stuff that Dawin was wrong on?  He was wrong on every one of those points except natural selection.  Yet, he still gets credit for explaining the theory of evolution.  Anyway, the creationists are criticized for being trivial and misleading.  Not so.  However, in this case, it is Ehrman who is trivial and misleading.  Did you watch the entire vid?  I couldn't.  Ehrman gets to one of his contradictions later that we discussed.  Maybe you had other examples of his points related to Genesis 1-9, but you didn't present them.  Would they be from Ehrman?  What time in the vid?  So I have no clue why you state _the Gospels_ are not historically or scientifically accurate.  You do know the Gospels are not all that's in the Bible?

My point is every Christian who believes the creed will believe the Bible is the inspired word of God even though no one has the entire originals or some parts may be several translations down.  We know what has been verified.  We know how different writers verified what was said.  Not one Christian should question this because they'll know through the Holy Spirit.  We can have different interpretations, but there is only one right one.  It's up to us to find the right one.  So, right off the bat, Ehrman is wrong and enrage people like those in his audience, me, or Dr. William Lane Craig who probably felt he had to respond.  Thus, his vid popped right up.  Mostly, we have been arguing creation science vs evolution, i.e. the science arguments instead of history.  Each sides uses history when there is a point that helps their scientific argument.

Since Ehrman brings history into his arguments, we are breaking into new ground for arguments.  Much of Ehrman's comments have been rebutted by Christians, but they do not get into the media as well as Ehrman's because he can get his comments published.

You copy and pasted what we discussed, but what is your interpretation of what happened?  Ehrman thinks there is a contradiction in the way Judas died.  I don't see a contradiction.  Do you?

I finally watched The Passion of the Christ over the weekend.  Only had seen the ending on youtube before.  It is about bloody beatings of Jesus from the time he was betrayed by Judas (which is why I bring it up).  It doesn't really describe Jesus' life much but through flashbacks.  Instead, it gives us an unhealthy and distorted picture of what happened to Jesus.  I was surprised it made a lot of money, but I guess I shouldn't be.  Jesus haters would've got a sadistic pleasure out of it I suppose.  Anyway, Judas made an unholy deal with the rich Jews to let them have Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.  Maybe Ehrman has an explanation of Judas and why he did it since he wrote a book on it.  I think he turned Judas into a martyr or something haha.  Ehrman should've know what killed Judas and why the different descriptions.  I hope you do now and maybe do some investigation into Ehrman's book and what he thinks happened and why Judas is a hero in his eyes.

Robot Check

ETA:  I was hoping the link would take you to the Look Inside.  It gives a fascinating background to what was found.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

alang1216 said:


> In it is a miss-translation of a passage where the word 'virgin' was used instead of the 'young woman' found in the Hebrew versions of the passage.


Haha. You must be joking. So all the Christians have it all wrong? Other parts of the bible state that jesus was born of a virgin. They gospels all got it wrong, too? Wow.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
Click to expand...

Why would a pole shift wipe out any living creatures at all?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I never considered a baby or a puppy NOT to be an innocent but then again, I'm not God.



I'm not God either, but fine with COVID-19 killing a lot of atheists and liberals for Satan in exchange for not killing a fetus, baby, or puppy.  The atheists don't believe in him anyway and I guess death comes fast.  Give the patient a choice of anesthesia or ventilator.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I'm not God either, but fine with COVID-19 killing a lot of atheists and liberals for Satan in exchange for not killing a fetus, baby, or puppy.


Well that makes you morally repugnant and nauseating. And if your fake sky daddy were real and benevolent ( he's just a fairy tale for children), he would feed you your own nuts for saying that, you disgusting puke.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a pole shift wipe out any living creatures at all?
Click to expand...

A pole shift could be a catastrophic. Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet. There is an enormous amount of research on the topic, but beware. It’s not a happy subject. Here’s a couple sources. 
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41m8RNJ24pL.jpg

Massive Pole Shifts are Cyclic according to Declassified CIA Document


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.


Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven’t done any research. Ever heard of a fellow named Einstein?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly haven’t done any research. Ever heard of a fellow named Einstein?
Click to expand...

I am not your assistant. make your point.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly haven’t done any research. Ever heard of a fellow named Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not your assistant. make your point.
Click to expand...

I already did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly haven’t done any research. Ever heard of a fellow named Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not your assistant. make your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did.
Click to expand...

no, sorry. You made no point. In fact, i very seriously doubt you could argue, in your own words, why a pole shift is dangerous, if your life depended on it.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly haven’t done any research. Ever heard of a fellow named Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not your assistant. make your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, sorry. You made no point. In fact, i very seriously doubt you could argue, in your own words, why a pole shift is dangerous, if your life depended on it.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. Now you’re just making an ass of yourself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some think previous pole shifts wiped out nearly all humans and animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one credible scientist who makes that claim based on any research. One.  See you in ...never, because this is total nonsense. Fun to talk about, but its just hype.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly haven’t done any research. Ever heard of a fellow named Einstein?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not your assistant. make your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, sorry. You made no point. In fact, i very seriously doubt you could argue, in your own words, why a pole shift is dangerous, if your life depended on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh brother. Now you’re just making an ass of yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what i thought. Are you done?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not God either, but fine with COVID-19 killing a lot of atheists and liberals for Satan in exchange for not killing a fetus, baby, or puppy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that makes you morally repugnant and nauseating. And if your fake sky daddy were real and benevolent ( he's just a fairy tale for children), he would feed you your own nuts for saying that, you disgusting puke.
Click to expand...


We feel the same way when fetuses are killed.  There are over 600,000 abortions now per year.  Look at it this way.  Libs and atheists can wear masks and use preventative techniques to avoid COVID-19.  Why can't they do that for making babies?  Life begins at conception is the scientific method now.  The fetus has no choice but to die.  Killing fetuses has been made legal.  It's not fair, so your people have some fairness if they get it and die.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never considered a baby or a puppy NOT to be an innocent but then again, I'm not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not God either, but fine with COVID-19 killing a lot of atheists and liberals for Satan in exchange for not killing a fetus, baby, or puppy.  The atheists don't believe in him anyway and I guess death comes fast.  Give the patient a choice of anesthesia or ventilator.
Click to expand...

What data do you have to identify that corona virus is killing a lot of atheists?

I'm presuming you have no data so feel free to post what you have.

How really amazing to see just how vile people can become as a result of religious extremism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not God either, but fine with COVID-19 killing a lot of atheists and liberals for Satan in exchange for not killing a fetus, baby, or puppy.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that makes you morally repugnant and nauseating. And if your fake sky daddy were real and benevolent ( he's just a fairy tale for children), he would feed you your own nuts for saying that, you disgusting puke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We feel the same way when fetuses are killed.  There are over 600,000 abortions now per year.  Look at it this way.  Libs and atheists can wear masks and use preventative techniques to avoid COVID-19.  Why can't they do that for making babies?  Life begins at conception is the scientific method now.  The fetus has no choice but to die.  Killing fetuses has been made legal.  It's not fair, so your people have some fairness if they get it and die.
Click to expand...

Who is the “we” you have decided to speak on behalf of?

You should know that Americans overwhelmingly support Roe vs, Wade. You were fired as the spokes-fundie for Americans but apparently you never got the email









						Catholics are just as likely to get an abortion as other U.S. women. Why?
					

Compared with other religious groups, Catholic women choosing abortion are more likely to be older and married—and most want to have children in the future.




					www.americamagazine.org
				



.

Those xtians - real baby killers. You should cheer on the xtians getting corona virus.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It was a climate altering event.
> 
> Rain and flooding all around the globe. But it didn’t cause the whole surface of the earth to flood. Just regular old floods like we still have now. Just a shit ton more of them and much much worse than what we ordinarily experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you have not the faintest idea of the weather 3.2 billions years ago.  Second, there was no 3.2 B yrs ago.  Instead, I have multiple witnesses who were there.  The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.  They said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and then there was an earthquake from under the sea and that mountains came up out of the water and the land was raised.  A tremendous amount of water came up from the seas.  There were also land that sank due to the earthquakes and water gushed into the valleys that were formed.  That happened around 2458 BC.  Like you said, the myths back up the people experiencing it during that time.  There wouldn't be any myths from 3.2 billion years ago.  No one would know about it.
> 
> If you like geology, meteorology, or climatology so much, then study the last 100 years.  We've had massive changes during this time.  If the present is the key to the past, then you would know that tremendous amounts of change happens in a short period of time.  How much has entropy changed?  How much has climate changed?  You would come to the conclusion we aren't bound for this world very long.  Thus, you couldn't possibly have a 3.2 billion years ago.
Click to expand...

I’m addressing the OP. Not you. 

12,000 years ago one or more asteroids struck a glacier that vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which altered the planets climate and extended the last ice age. It triggered global rains and localized flooding all around the globe. This is the source of all ancient flood accounts and lends veracity to their claims. Their accounts were told as stories because that’s how important information was passed down because it made it easier to remember. 

If you want to believe the universe and earth are 6000 years old, that’s fine. I don’t. Your beliefs make no sense to me.


----------



## ding

gipper said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
Click to expand...

From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It was a climate altering event.
> 
> Rain and flooding all around the globe. But it didn’t cause the whole surface of the earth to flood. Just regular old floods like we still have now. Just a shit ton more of them and much much worse than what we ordinarily experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you have not the faintest idea of the weather 3.2 billions years ago.  Second, there was no 3.2 B yrs ago.  Instead, I have multiple witnesses who were there.  The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.  They said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and then there was an earthquake from under the sea and that mountains came up out of the water and the land was raised.  A tremendous amount of water came up from the seas.  There were also land that sank due to the earthquakes and water gushed into the valleys that were formed.  That happened around 2458 BC.  Like you said, the myths back up the people experiencing it during that time.  There wouldn't be any myths from 3.2 billion years ago.  No one would know about it.
> 
> If you like geology, meteorology, or climatology so much, then study the last 100 years.  We've had massive changes during this time.  If the present is the key to the past, then you would know that tremendous amounts of change happens in a short period of time.  How much has entropy changed?  How much has climate changed?  You would come to the conclusion we aren't bound for this world very long.  Thus, you couldn't possibly have a 3.2 billion years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m addressing the OP. Not you.
> 
> 12,000 years ago one or more asteroids struck a glacier that vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which altered the planets climate and extended the last ice age. It triggered global rains and localized flooding all around the globe. This is the source of all ancient flood accounts and lends veracity to their claims. Their accounts were told as stories because that’s how important information was passed down because it made it easier to remember.
> 
> If you want to believe the universe and earth are 6000 years old, that’s fine. I don’t. Your beliefs make no sense to me.
Click to expand...


That's fine, you can address the OP.

This is R&E, so that is why I have to tell you that Jesus taught the truth.  He said, "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32  That said, when Jesus was put on trial by the Sanhedrin (Jewish elders and top rabbis of his day) it was anything but.  I think it was about a week after Jesus, the foretold Messiah, arrived that they turned against him.  They ended up hating Jesus as the Truth.  And I mean really hating down to the marrow.  I think we've all experienced hating something or someone so that our minds and judgement were clouded, but their hate for Jesus went right down to the core.  Nothing would satisfy them but his blood death on the cross.  It really was hard to fathom.  They even chose to free Barabbas into their midst again, a convicted murderer, than let Jesus escape.  Thus, Jesus was doomed to his fate by his own people.  What Jesus teaches is that you have to find a way to the Truth.  What you believe in I suppose it's _science_ to you, but it isn't. What more can I say in the R&E forum?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. It was a climate altering event.
> 
> Rain and flooding all around the globe. But it didn’t cause the whole surface of the earth to flood. Just regular old floods like we still have now. Just a shit ton more of them and much much worse than what we ordinarily experience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, you have not the faintest idea of the weather 3.2 billions years ago.  Second, there was no 3.2 B yrs ago.  Instead, I have multiple witnesses who were there.  The chief witness and the others testify that God caused the global flood in order to kill everybody for their sins and becoming so evil that innocent people weren't safe anymore.  They said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and then there was an earthquake from under the sea and that mountains came up out of the water and the land was raised.  A tremendous amount of water came up from the seas.  There were also land that sank due to the earthquakes and water gushed into the valleys that were formed.  That happened around 2458 BC.  Like you said, the myths back up the people experiencing it during that time.  There wouldn't be any myths from 3.2 billion years ago.  No one would know about it.
> 
> If you like geology, meteorology, or climatology so much, then study the last 100 years.  We've had massive changes during this time.  If the present is the key to the past, then you would know that tremendous amounts of change happens in a short period of time.  How much has entropy changed?  How much has climate changed?  You would come to the conclusion we aren't bound for this world very long.  Thus, you couldn't possibly have a 3.2 billion years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m addressing the OP. Not you.
> 
> 12,000 years ago one or more asteroids struck a glacier that vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which altered the planets climate and extended the last ice age. It triggered global rains and localized flooding all around the globe. This is the source of all ancient flood accounts and lends veracity to their claims. Their accounts were told as stories because that’s how important information was passed down because it made it easier to remember.
> 
> If you want to believe the universe and earth are 6000 years old, that’s fine. I don’t. Your beliefs make no sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fine, you can address the OP.
> 
> This is R&E, so that is why I have to tell you that Jesus taught the truth.  He said, "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32  That said, when Jesus was put on trial by the Sanhedrin (Jewish elders and top rabbis of his day) it was anything but.  I think it was about a week after Jesus, the foretold Messiah, arrived that they turned against him.  They ended up hating Jesus as the Truth.  And I mean really hating down to the marrow.  I think we've all experienced hating something so that our minds and judgement were clouded, but their hate for Jesus went right down to the core.  Nothing would satisfy them but his blood death on the cross.  It really was hard to fathom.  They even chose to free Barabbas into their midst again, a convicted murderer, than let Jesus escape.  Thus, Jesus was doomed to his fate by his own people.  What Jesus teaches is that you have to find a way to the Truth.  What you believe in I suppose it's _science_ to you, but it isn't. What more can I say in the R&E forum?
Click to expand...

I know Jesus taught the truth. He was born into this world to testify to the truth. He also taught us how to see the truth.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> He also taught us how to see the truth.



How is that?

I was going to say 2/3 is 66.67% which isn't good, but you may know.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> that vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice


Ooops, there it is again. You just can't help yourself.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> that vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops, there it is again. You just can't help yourself.
Click to expand...

That’s because their are a couple of craters that prove it. The team of scientists that discovered them understand it was a global climate altering event. 

Most intelligent people understand that large asteroid strikes that strike with the energy of 700 gigatons of TNT are climate altering events.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> that vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice
> 
> 
> 
> Ooops, there it is again. You just can't help yourself.
Click to expand...

It seems that you are the one who can’t help himself when it comes to arguing against science.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also taught us how to see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that?
> 
> I was going to say 2/3 is 66.67% which isn't good, but you may know.
Click to expand...

To die to self.


----------



## gipper

ding said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
Click to expand...

LOL. Then you haven’t read much.


----------



## gipper

Read this...


----------



## ding

gipper said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
Click to expand...

The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.


----------



## gipper

ding said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.
Click to expand...

Oh please, it’s not my claim. It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified.

They are not talking about the magnetic poles, as you seem to be. They are talking about the geographic poles moving dramatically, resulting in a cataclysmic event.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Who has read Darwin's book Origin of Species completely?  Who can even tell us the entire title?  What about the stuff that Dawin was wrong on?  He was wrong on every one of those points except natural selection.  Yet, he still gets credit for explaining the theory of evolution.


Darwin is to evolution as Columbus is to exploration.  Both were pioneers but certainly didn't have all the answers.  No one would use Columbus' maps to travel from Spain to the Americas, he is only of interest historically.  Same for Darwin.  He first put forward a theory to explain the world we see and how it came about.  Like Columbus' maps it was crude, inaccurate, and filled with gaps but it was the first of its kind.



james bond said:


> Anyway, the creationists are criticized for being trivial and misleading.  Not so.  However, in this case, it is Ehrman who is trivial and misleading.  Did you watch the entire vid?  I couldn't.  Ehrman gets to one of his contradictions later that we discussed.  Maybe you had other examples of his points related to Genesis 1-9, but you didn't present them.  Would they be from Ehrman?  What time in the vid?  So I have no clue why you state _the Gospels_ are not historically or scientifically accurate.  You do know the Gospels are not all that's in the Bible?


I confess I never watched any of the video but in my defense I read the book.  And a bunch of other Ehrman books.  Ehrman is not a scientist but a historian but anyone with even a slightly open mind could see the Gospels are not historically accurate.  For example, the Roman census described in the birth narrative never happened.  Period.



james bond said:


> You copy and pasted what we discussed, but what is your interpretation of what happened?  Ehrman thinks there is a contradiction in the way Judas died.  I don't see a contradiction.  Do you?


Yes.  They contradict how Judas died and who bought the field.  Trivial, but contradictory.  You can write your own scripture (he hung himself then the body rotted) but the versions in the Gospels are subtly different.



james bond said:


> Maybe Ehrman has an explanation of Judas and why he did it since he wrote a book on it.  I think he turned Judas into a martyr or something haha.  Ehrman should've know what killed Judas and why the different descriptions.  I hope you do now and maybe do some investigation into Ehrman's book and what he thinks happened and why Judas is a hero in his eyes.


Ehrman has his theories about Judas but never considers him a hero.  Ehrman considers the different descriptions to be a contradiction so he and I are still unclear about the how and why.


----------



## MAGAman

Or this


----------



## alang1216

gipper said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, it’s not my claim. It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified.
> 
> They are not talking about the magnetic poles, as you seem to be. They are talking about the geographic poles moving dramatically, resulting in a cataclysmic event.
Click to expand...

To change the rotation of the Earth would take a collision with something the size of the moon.  Never happened in the past few billion years and unlikely to happen in the future.  Try and flip a toy gyroscope and you'll see how hard it is to do.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Darwin is to evolution as Columbus is to exploration. Both were pioneers but certainly didn't have all the answers. No one would use Columbus' maps to travel from Spain to the Americas, he is only of interest historically. Same for Darwin. He first put forward a theory to explain the world we see and how it came about. Like Columbus' maps it was crude, inaccurate, and filled with gaps but it was the first of its kind.



You know that's interesting.  There are people here that are dumb enough to believe the billions of years Earth and life thesis even though no rock (meteor) could last that long.  It's a slick lie as people (even scientists, mind you) use to believe the universe was eternal; That turned out pseudoscience .



alang1216 said:


> I confess I never watched any of the video but in my defense I read the book. And a bunch of other Ehrman books. Ehrman is not a scientist but a historian but anyone with even a slightly open mind could see the Gospels are not historically accurate. For example, the Roman census described in the birth narrative never happened. Period.





alang1216 said:


> Yes. They contradict how Judas died and who bought the field. Trivial, but contradictory. You can write your own scripture (he hung himself then the body rotted) but the versions in the Gospels are subtly different.




I told you of the dangers of following a blasphemer.  Did he ever figure out what happened to Judas?  I mean _in his mind_ was he able to conclude what actually happened, i.e. die from hanging or from falling  ? What was the word he used? Irreconcilable. The answer is in the movie The Passion of Christ which I unfortunately watched over the weekend. Jesus haters would probably think it's Judas p0rn.



alang1216 said:


> Ehrman has his theories about Judas but never considers him a hero. Ehrman considers the different descriptions to be a contradiction so he and I are still unclear about the how and why.



I agree.  I don't think a hero dies from hanging himself and bursts open at the seams.  Wonder if they found the grave?  I think they found the field.  No grave?  It would be awesome for Mr. Ehrman to find out the answers one day as the fallen man.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> He also taught us how to see the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To die to self.
Click to expand...


Hokay...


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You know that's interesting.  There are people here that are dumb enough to believe the billions of years Earth and life thesis even though no rock (meteor) could last that long.  It's a slick lie as people (even scientists, mind you) use to believe the universe was eternal; That turned out pseudoscience .


Exactly what do you base "no rock (meteor) could last that long" on if not pseudoscience?



james bond said:


> I told you of the dangers of following a blasphemer.  Did he ever figure out what happened to Judas?  I mean _in his mind_ was he able to conclude what actually happened, i.e. die from hanging or from falling  ? What was the word he used? Irreconcilable. The answer is in the movie The Passion of Christ which I unfortunately watched over the weekend. Jesus haters would probably think it's Judas p0rn.


Erhman concluded only that there was a contradiction since he doesn't consider the movie The Passion of Christ to be scriptural.  I wonder which version of the Gospels was used in the movie?  Or were they mashed together to form yet another version?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Yes. They contradict how Judas died and who bought the field. Trivial, but contradictory. You can write your own scripture (he hung himself then the body rotted) but the versions in the Gospels are subtly different.



Coincidence?

"Akeldama, where *Judas Iscariot* died, is in Jerusalem’s Hinnom Valley — a picturesque setting whose infamous history of child sacrifices caused it to be identified with the hell of unquenchable fire and punishment.

The Greek Orthodox Monastery of *St Onuphrius* now stands on the place where Judas is believed to have hanged himself. The monastery occupies a narrow terrace on the southern face of the valley, facing Mount Zion and the Old City walls.

Akeldama (also spelt Aceldama, Hekeldama and Hakeldama) comes from Aramaic words meaning *Field of Blood*."






						Akeldama (Field of Blood) «  See The Holy Land
					






					www.seetheholyland.net
				




"The name of the field in which Judas was buried was the Potters Field.  It was a plot of land outside of Jerusalem, "on the southern slope of the Valley of Hinnon near the Kidron Valley"1.  The chief priests bought the land so that they could bury strangers there if no one claimed their bodies."

"This verse is a reference to Zechariah 11:12-13 which says,

"I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD."
After Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, he threw the money back at them and went out and hung himself (Matthew 27:3-5). But because it was blood money, money that was used for the life of a person, it could not be put back into the temple treasury. Therefore, the Jews used it to buy that plot of land.

Matthew 27:6-8, "The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."

Some scholars suspect that the reason it is called the "potters field" is that it was either bought from a potter or it was a place where potters would dump their clay refuse.

"Matthew’s reference to this event as the fulfillment of “the prophecy of Jeremiah” has provoked much discussion. Several OT allusions seem to be mixed here: Jeremiah’s visit to the potter’s house (Jer. 18:1–5; cf. 19:1–13), his purchase of a field from his cousin for seventeen silver pieces (32:9), and Zechariah’s contribution to the treasury of his wages—thirty shekels—according to God’s command (Zec. 11:12f.)."2"









						What was the name of the field in which Judas was buried?
					

The name of the field in which Judas was buried was called the Potter's Field. It was bought from a potter or was where potters would dump their refuse.




					carm.org


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Exactly what do you base "no rock (meteor) could last that long" on if not pseudoscience?



What makes you think that is pseudoscience oh ignorant one?  

How fast does the Earth travel in space?  67,000 mph.  What happens when a meteor enters the Earth's atmosphere?  Much of it burns up due to friction.

What else happens?  There's something called a retardation point which you should learn about.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what do you base "no rock (meteor) could last that long" on if not pseudoscience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that is pseudoscience oh ignorant one?
> 
> How fast does the Earth travel in space?  67,000 mph.  What happens when a meteor enters the Earth's atmosphere?  Much of it burns up due to friction.
> 
> What else happens?  There's something called a retardation point which you should learn about.
Click to expand...

It is pseudoscience because you have no evidence as to how or theory as to why. 

I have no idea why you think a 'retardation point' supports anything you've written.


----------



## ding

gipper said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, it’s not my claim. It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified.
> 
> They are not talking about the magnetic poles, as you seem to be. They are talking about the geographic poles moving dramatically, resulting in a cataclysmic event.
Click to expand...

Actually you are the one making that claim and as near as I can tell you only have one source. Not many. 

What I am saying is that if that claim is true one ought to be able to correlate extinction events to polarity changes, right?

And the poles flipping or polarity reversing is exactly what they are talking about.

The magnetic field never goes away.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what do you base "no rock (meteor) could last that long" on if not pseudoscience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that is pseudoscience oh ignorant one?
> 
> How fast does the Earth travel in space?  67,000 mph.  What happens when a meteor enters the Earth's atmosphere?  Much of it burns up due to friction.
> 
> What else happens?  There's something called a retardation point which you should learn about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is pseudoscience because you have no evidence as to how or theory as to why.
> 
> I have no idea why you think a 'retardation point' supports anything you've written.
Click to expand...


You need to present some substance.  Your weak arguments were destroyed in my last post.  You burned up like most meteors that enter Earth's atmosphere.

I think one can use common sense and scientific method to demonstrate that meteors do not last millions of years.  I probably can't convince you because you do not possess either.

With Earth it was a 4.5 billion years old meteorite.  Darwin was long dead before he was able to get the long time he craved.  There's just too much that you do not have in regards to science for you to understand.  I'm sorta _reconciling_ this in regards to your history arguments and past posts in regards to science. You posted a vid of Ehrman that you didn't even watch . Hello... Jesus taught us that one reaps what they sow. It's not good to just use conjecture and other people's works just to weasel and cobble your arguments .


----------



## gipper

ding said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, it’s not my claim. It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified.
> 
> They are not talking about the magnetic poles, as you seem to be. They are talking about the geographic poles moving dramatically, resulting in a cataclysmic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one making that claim and as near as I can tell you only have one source. Not many.
> 
> What I am saying is that if that claim is true one ought to be able to correlate extinction events to polarity changes, right?
> 
> And the poles flipping or polarity reversing is exactly what they are talking about.
> 
> The magnetic field never goes away.
Click to expand...

That’s illogical. I haven’t made the claim. I have enlightened you to those who have. Don’t shoot the messenger.


----------



## gipper

ding said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, it’s not my claim. It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified.
> 
> They are not talking about the magnetic poles, as you seem to be. They are talking about the geographic poles moving dramatically, resulting in a cataclysmic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one making that claim and as near as I can tell you only have one source. Not many.
> 
> What I am saying is that if that claim is true one ought to be able to correlate extinction events to polarity changes, right?
> 
> And the poles flipping or polarity reversing is exactly what they are talking about.
> 
> The magnetic field never goes away.
Click to expand...

There are numerous sources. Do some research.


----------



## ding

gipper said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The polarity has flipped quite a few times over the earth’s history. So if what you claim is true, can you tell me how life has survived through all of the previous reversals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh please, it’s not my claim. It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified.
> 
> They are not talking about the magnetic poles, as you seem to be. They are talking about the geographic poles moving dramatically, resulting in a cataclysmic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the one making that claim and as near as I can tell you only have one source. Not many.
> 
> What I am saying is that if that claim is true one ought to be able to correlate extinction events to polarity changes, right?
> 
> And the poles flipping or polarity reversing is exactly what they are talking about.
> 
> The magnetic field never goes away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are numerous sources. Do some research.
Click to expand...

I have.


----------



## ding

gipper said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you saying 1500 gigatons of ice melting caused it?  No one knows a weather report from 3.2 billions years ago haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was probably caused by a pole shift. Earth has them on a regular basis. We’re due for another one, which might wipe out almost all living things, and time will start anew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From everything I have read on polarity reversal it’s not threatening to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Then you haven’t read much.
Click to expand...

It’s the only way to see objective truth.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Erhman concluded only that there was a contradiction since he doesn't consider the movie The Passion of Christ to be scriptural. I wonder which version of the Gospels was used in the movie? Or were they mashed together to form yet another version?



Oh, I didn't know Ehrman was a movie critic.  Where does he say that or are you making up stuff again?

Second, did you even watch the video of Ehrman describing what he _*reconciled*_ as to what happened?  Why does he describe things like I did with the Falling Man from the twin towers?  I just thought the Falling Man was a descriptive photo to describe Bart Ehrman for some reason and how atheists should bow down face first to Jesus for repentance.  How else could they change their ways?  I even said if I was an atheist that I would bow down face first if I found God had already answered the greatest point an atheist ever made.  That would push me to repent, repent, repent my atheist ways.







Finally, I don't think it is a coincidence that Judas died where he did and it turned out to be the place where Jesus describes as Gehenna.  This is hell as in the Bible.  The potter's field, in this case, was a refuse dump.  People brought their dead animals there.  Furthermore, what is really telling is God really, really, really hated the Canaanites for their false idol worship and sacrificing of babies.  They had excess sexual deviations and practices, too.  It was in the same valley as potter's field.  These people lived in what is Palestine, Libya, Syria, and Jordan today.

What about now?  Is it coincidence that Satan has covered up the atrocities and God's wrath there?  It's a tourist destination with a sordid past.  This is all part of Biblical history, too.






						Akeldama (Field of Blood) «  See The Holy Land
					






					www.seetheholyland.net


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Hello... Jesus taught us that one reaps what they sow. It's not good to just use conjecture and other people's works just to weasel and cobble your arguments


You don't really know how long different types of rock can last do you, that is just conjecture on you part isn't it?  Has God ever spoken directly to you or do you rely on other people's words from your Bible?

It's not good to just use conjecture and other people's works just to weasel and cobble your arguments.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified


And which even more have debunked and diacarded.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erhman concluded only that there was a contradiction since he doesn't consider the movie The Passion of Christ to be scriptural. I wonder which version of the Gospels was used in the movie? Or were they mashed together to form yet another version?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I didn't know Ehrman was a movie critic.  Where does he say that or are you making up stuff again?
> 
> Second, did you even watch the video of Ehrman describing what he _*reconciled*_ as to what happened?
Click to expand...

I've read enough Erhman to know he'd say that no movie can be scriptural since it must include things not described in scripture, including dress, actions, language, phrasing, etc.

In Erhman's books he has never even attempted to reconcile such contradictions as the two stories of how Judas died.  I think you are mistaken.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified
> 
> 
> 
> And which even more have debunked and diacarded.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified
> 
> 
> 
> And which even more have debunked and diacarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






__





						No, a pole shift won't cause global superstorms
					

No, a pole shift won't cause global superstorms




					www.discovermagazine.com
				












						Is Earth overdue a catastrophic magnetic field flip?
					

In the early months of 2018, a news story began doing the rounds claiming the Earth’s magnetic poles were “overdue” for a reversal.




					www.independent.co.uk
				












						Why You (Probably) Shouldn't Worry About Earth's Magnetic Poles Flipping
					

Earth's magnetic poles, whatever they're doing, are not going to spark chaos and kill us all — a scenario making the rounds online right now.




					www.livescience.com


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I have.



Wait.  15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible   ?

We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.





Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.

We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.

Scientific method

We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle.  For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean.  You need to move on.  People have been laughing at you for weeks.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You don't really know how long different types of rock can last do you, that is just conjecture on you part isn't it? Has God ever spoken directly to you or do you rely on other people's words from your Bible?
> 
> It's not good to just use conjecture and other people's works just to weasel and cobble your arguments.





No, I have worked with synthetic rock as well as found rock in river streams, hillsides, and stuff as gold panning.  Have you?  You don't believe fake scientists as big dumb people as above do you?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin is to evolution as Columbus is to exploration. Both were pioneers but certainly didn't have all the answers. No one would use Columbus' maps to travel from Spain to the Americas, he is only of interest historically. Same for Darwin. He first put forward a theory to explain the world we see and how it came about. Like Columbus' maps it was crude, inaccurate, and filled with gaps but it was the first of its kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that's interesting.  There are people here that are dumb enough to believe the billions of years Earth and life thesis even though no rock (meteor) could last that long.  It's a slick lie as people (even scientists, mind you) use to believe the universe was eternal; That turned out pseudoscience .
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I confess I never watched any of the video but in my defense I read the book. And a bunch of other Ehrman books. Ehrman is not a scientist but a historian but anyone with even a slightly open mind could see the Gospels are not historically accurate. For example, the Roman census described in the birth narrative never happened. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. They contradict how Judas died and who bought the field. Trivial, but contradictory. You can write your own scripture (he hung himself then the body rotted) but the versions in the Gospels are subtly different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I told you of the dangers of following a blasphemer.  Did he ever figure out what happened to Judas?  I mean _in his mind_ was he able to conclude what actually happened, i.e. die from hanging or from falling  ? What was the word he used? Irreconcilable. The answer is in the movie The Passion of Christ which I unfortunately watched over the weekend. Jesus haters would probably think it's Judas p0rn.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ehrman has his theories about Judas but never considers him a hero. Ehrman considers the different descriptions to be a contradiction so he and I are still unclear about the how and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  I don't think a hero dies from hanging himself and bursts open at the seams.  Wonder if they found the grave?  I think they found the field.  No grave?  It would be awesome for Mr. Ehrman to find out the answers one day as the fallen man.
Click to expand...


“There are people here that are dumb enough to believe the billions of years Earth and life thesis even though no rock (meteor) could last that long.”

There are actually places we call “colleges and universities” where research is done to study what is shown to be an ancient universe and planet. 

Did you know that outside of fundamentalist christianity and Islam, there really isn’t a fully developed anti-science, anti-learning agenda?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible   ?
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.
> 
> We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.
> 
> Scientific method
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle.  For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean.  You need to move on.  People have been laughing at you for weeks.
Click to expand...


“Scientific method”

It’s actually comical that a fundie Christian would reference the Scientific Method.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erhman concluded only that there was a contradiction since he doesn't consider the movie The Passion of Christ to be scriptural. I wonder which version of the Gospels was used in the movie? Or were they mashed together to form yet another version?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I didn't know Ehrman was a movie critic.  Where does he say that or are you making up stuff again?
> 
> Second, did you even watch the video of Ehrman describing what he _*reconciled*_ as to what happened?  Why does he describe things like I did with the Falling Man from the twin towers?  I just thought the Falling Man was a descriptive photo to describe Bart Ehrman for some reason and how atheists should bow down face first to Jesus for repentance.  How else could they change their ways?  I even said if I was an atheist that I would bow down face first if I found God had already answered the greatest point an atheist ever made.  That would push me to repent, repent, repent my atheist ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I don't think it is a coincidence that Judas died where he did and it turned out to be the place where Jesus describes as Gehenna.  This is hell as in the Bible.  The potter's field, in this case, was a refuse dump.  People brought their dead animals there.  Furthermore, what is really telling is God really, really, really hated the Canaanites for their false idol worship and sacrificing of babies.  They had excess sexual deviations and practices, too.  It was in the same valley as potter's field.  These people lived in what is Palestine, Libya, Syria, and Jordan today.
> 
> What about now?  Is it coincidence that Satan has covered up the atrocities and God's wrath there?  It's a tourist destination with a sordid past.  This is all part of Biblical history, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Akeldama (Field of Blood) «  See The Holy Land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seetheholyland.net
Click to expand...

“Furthermore, what is really telling is God really, really, really hated the Canaanites for their false idol worship and sacrificing of babies.”

Sacrificing livestock is OK, though.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really know how long different types of rock can last do you, that is just conjecture on you part isn't it? Has God ever spoken directly to you or do you rely on other people's words from your Bible?
> 
> It's not good to just use conjecture and other people's works just to weasel and cobble your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have worked with synthetic rock as well as found rock in river streams, hillsides, and stuff as gold panning.  Have you?  You don't believe fake scientists as big dumb people as above do you?
Click to expand...

I can't currently view the videos, maybe later, so I can't tell if you answered my questions.  

I'm not sure what a synthetic rock is?  Concrete?  Natural rocks and minerals I do have some knowledge of and I know of no reason they couldn't last a few billion years.


----------



## alang1216

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erhman concluded only that there was a contradiction since he doesn't consider the movie The Passion of Christ to be scriptural. I wonder which version of the Gospels was used in the movie? Or were they mashed together to form yet another version?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I didn't know Ehrman was a movie critic.  Where does he say that or are you making up stuff again?
> 
> Second, did you even watch the video of Ehrman describing what he _*reconciled*_ as to what happened?  Why does he describe things like I did with the Falling Man from the twin towers?  I just thought the Falling Man was a descriptive photo to describe Bart Ehrman for some reason and how atheists should bow down face first to Jesus for repentance.  How else could they change their ways?  I even said if I was an atheist that I would bow down face first if I found God had already answered the greatest point an atheist ever made.  That would push me to repent, repent, repent my atheist ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I don't think it is a coincidence that Judas died where he did and it turned out to be the place where Jesus describes as Gehenna.  This is hell as in the Bible.  The potter's field, in this case, was a refuse dump.  People brought their dead animals there.  Furthermore, what is really telling is God really, really, really hated the Canaanites for their false idol worship and sacrificing of babies.  They had excess sexual deviations and practices, too.  It was in the same valley as potter's field.  These people lived in what is Palestine, Libya, Syria, and Jordan today.
> 
> What about now?  Is it coincidence that Satan has covered up the atrocities and God's wrath there?  It's a tourist destination with a sordid past.  This is all part of Biblical history, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Akeldama (Field of Blood) «  See The Holy Land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.seetheholyland.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Furthermore, what is really telling is God really, really, really hated the Canaanites for their false idol worship and sacrificing of babies.”
> 
> Sacrificing livestock is OK, though.
Click to expand...

I recall reading somewhere that God likes the smell of charred flesh.  I may be sacrificing a few burgers tonight, gotta keep those plagues away.  He's not so big on offerings of grain though.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I've read enough Erhman to know he'd say that no movie can be scriptural since it must include things not described in scripture, including dress, actions, language, phrasing, etc.
> 
> In Erhman's books he has never even attempted to reconcile such contradictions as the two stories of how Judas died. I think you are mistaken.



Now, you're making up stuff again by moving the goal posts.  This is the S&T forum so you need to back up your Ehrman statements.  No links whatsoever of his discussing The Passion of Christ movie.  So now, my question becomes in which book did Ehrman discuss The Passion of Christ movie?  Instead of Ehrman, it's you who we have to discuss.  Where is your evidence that The Passion of Christ wasn't scriptural?

I'm thinking you are lying again as you won't be able to answer my two questions above about Ehrman and you.  If you can't watch an Ehrman vid that you posted, then you're certainly not going to watch The Passion of Christ movie.

OTOH, I have good authority on the subject:

"*Question: "Is the movie "The Passion of the Christ" biblically accurate?"

 Answer: * The movie _The Passion of the Chris_ was, for the most part, biblically accurate. There are a few scenes in which "artistic license" was taken, but it was within the scope of the biblical account. Examples of this "artistic license" were the demonic baby Satan was carrying, the demonic children tormenting Judas, and the woman wiping the blood off of Jesus’ face on the way to the crucifixion site. Mary’s role was overemphasized beyond what the Bible describes. As with any film based on the Bible, we should always compare what we see and hear with what the Bible actually says. Overall, if you see the movie "The Passion of the Christ" and read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) - you will find that the movie follows the Bible very closely."

Another article




__





						Questions and Answers: The Passion of the Christ—Biblically Accurate? - Apologetics Press
					

Q. Is the Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ, biblically accurate? A. Hollywood rarely, if ever, represents the Bible accurately when it ventures into the arena of biblical history. Its depictions of Bible events usually are adjusted and supplemented with extrabiblical details...




					www.apologeticspress.org
				




It was such a brutal movie about the bloody beatings of Jesus as Christ that I could not watch it all the way through.  However, I had seen then ending on youtube years before though.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a theory many experts, scientists, cultures have identified
> 
> 
> 
> And which even more have debunked and diacarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, a pole shift won't cause global superstorms
> 
> 
> No, a pole shift won't cause global superstorms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.discovermagazine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Earth overdue a catastrophic magnetic field flip?
> 
> 
> In the early months of 2018, a news story began doing the rounds claiming the Earth’s magnetic poles were “overdue” for a reversal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why You (Probably) Shouldn't Worry About Earth's Magnetic Poles Flipping
> 
> 
> Earth's magnetic poles, whatever they're doing, are not going to spark chaos and kill us all — a scenario making the rounds online right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com
Click to expand...


Good for you. Now how about this?

Charles Hapgood, a Harvard-educated professor and author of books like Earth’s Shifting Crust, Path of the Pole, and Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, was an early proponent of the crustal displacement theory – that a catastrophic POLE SHIFT periodically moves the entire surface of our planet in a single piece over the core below.

Albert Einstein corresponded with Hapgood about pole shifts, supported the theory, and wrote the foreword to Earth’s Shifting Crust.Albert Einstein and Charles Hapgood on Pole Shifts – The Path of the Pole







Robert M. Schoch: Publications


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I'm not sure what a synthetic rock is? Concrete? Natural rocks and minerals I do have some knowledge of and I know of no reason they couldn't last a few billion years.



Sounds like another wrong answer of an antiChristian.  

Else where is your scientific evidence  ? Can you show me a 100 yr-old rock, 1000 yr-old rock, 10,000 yr-old rock, 1 million yr-old rock, 100 million yr-old rock, 1 billion yr-old rock, and 4.5 billion yr-old rock to compare? Where were these rocks found to see their environment and compare it with other rocks there.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read enough Erhman to know he'd say that no movie can be scriptural since it must include things not described in scripture, including dress, actions, language, phrasing, etc.
> 
> In Erhman's books he has never even attempted to reconcile such contradictions as the two stories of how Judas died. I think you are mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you're making up stuff again by moving the goal posts.  This is the S&T forum so you need to back up your Ehrman statements.  No links whatsoever of his discussing The Passion of Christ movie.  So now, my question becomes in which book did Ehrman discuss The Passion of Christ movie?  Instead of Ehrman, it's you who we have to discuss.  Where is your evidence that The Passion of Christ wasn't scriptural?
> 
> I'm thinking you are lying again as you won't be able to answer my two questions above about Ehrman and you.  If you can't watch an Ehrman vid that you posted, then you're certainly not going to watch The Passion of Christ movie.
> 
> OTOH, I have good authority on the subject:
> 
> "*Question: "Is the movie "The Passion of the Christ" biblically accurate?"
> 
> Answer: * The movie _The Passion of the Chris_ was, for the most part, biblically accurate. There are a few scenes in which "artistic license" was taken, but it was within the scope of the biblical account. Examples of this "artistic license" were the demonic baby Satan was carrying, the demonic children tormenting Judas, and the woman wiping the blood off of Jesus’ face on the way to the crucifixion site. Mary’s role was overemphasized beyond what the Bible describes. As with any film based on the Bible, we should always compare what we see and hear with what the Bible actually says. Overall, if you see the movie "The Passion of the Christ" and read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) - you will find that the movie follows the Bible very closely."
> 
> Another article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Questions and Answers: The Passion of the Christ—Biblically Accurate? - Apologetics Press
> 
> 
> Q. Is the Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ, biblically accurate? A. Hollywood rarely, if ever, represents the Bible accurately when it ventures into the arena of biblical history. Its depictions of Bible events usually are adjusted and supplemented with extrabiblical details...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.apologeticspress.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was such a brutal movie about the bloody beatings of Jesus as Christ that I could not watch it all the way through.  However, I had seen then ending on youtube years before though.
Click to expand...


What significance is there in a Hollywood movie being biblically accurate? That has nothing to do with whether the bibles are true or accurate. 

Lots of Hollywood movies are based on books. That doesn’t mean either the book or the movie is “holy”.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what a synthetic rock is? Concrete? Natural rocks and minerals I do have some knowledge of and I know of no reason they couldn't last a few billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like another wrong answer of an antiChristian.
> 
> Else where is your scientific evidence  ? Can you show me a 100 yr-old rock, 1000 yr-old rock, 10,000 yr-old rock, 1 million yr-old rock, 100 million yr-old rock, 1 billion yr-old rock, and 4.5 billion yr-old rock to compare? Where were these rocks found to see their environment and compare it with other rocks there.
Click to expand...










						Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered
					

Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old




					www.nsf.gov


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Where is your evidence that The Passion of Christ wasn't scriptural?


What color were Jesus' eyes in the movie?  Which scriptural source did that come from?

I never said the movie wasn't based on the Gospels, only that (and I didn't see it) it was necessarily a mash up of all the Gospels, including some things and ignoring others.  For example, what day was the crucifixion?  The movie contradicted either Mark or John.

Compare the movie to the full story and get back to me.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what a synthetic rock is? Concrete? Natural rocks and minerals I do have some knowledge of and I know of no reason they couldn't last a few billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like another wrong answer of an antiChristian.
> 
> Else where is your scientific evidence  ? Can you show me a 100 yr-old rock, 1000 yr-old rock, 10,000 yr-old rock, 1 million yr-old rock, 100 million yr-old rock, 1 billion yr-old rock, and 4.5 billion yr-old rock to compare? Where were these rocks found to see their environment and compare it with other rocks there.
Click to expand...

Go to Egypt and check the monuments there.  The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years.  The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> What color were Jesus' eyes in the movie? Which scriptural source did that come from?
> 
> I never said the movie wasn't based on the Gospels, only that (and I didn't see it) it was necessarily a mash up of all the Gospels, including some things and ignoring others. For example, what day was the crucifixion? The movie contradicted either Mark or John.
> 
> Compare the movie to the full story and get back to me.



It's weird we are way off Genesis 1:9.  Maybe Satan has led you to Bart Ehrman who was led by him to Judas Iscariot.

I didn't notice Jesus' eye color in the movie.  He had the flesh and blood body though and was an innocent man.  He did not deserve the bloody beatings nor crucifixion.  Yet, this is what was prophecized.  Maybe the atheists will get beat up like this in the afterlife, but it would be overkill.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what a synthetic rock is? Concrete? Natural rocks and minerals I do have some knowledge of and I know of no reason they couldn't last a few billion years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like another wrong answer of an antiChristian.
> 
> Else where is your scientific evidence  ? Can you show me a 100 yr-old rock, 1000 yr-old rock, 10,000 yr-old rock, 1 million yr-old rock, 100 million yr-old rock, 1 billion yr-old rock, and 4.5 billion yr-old rock to compare? Where were these rocks found to see their environment and compare it with other rocks there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to Egypt and check the monuments there.  The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years.  The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.
Click to expand...


Oh, have you been there?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What color were Jesus' eyes in the movie? Which scriptural source did that come from?
> 
> I never said the movie wasn't based on the Gospels, only that (and I didn't see it) it was necessarily a mash up of all the Gospels, including some things and ignoring others. For example, what day was the crucifixion? The movie contradicted either Mark or John.
> 
> Compare the movie to the full story and get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's weird we are way off Genesis 1:9.  Maybe Satan has led you to Bart Ehrman who was led by him to Judas Iscariot.
> 
> I didn't notice Jesus' eye color in the movie.  He had the flesh and blood body though and was an innocent man.  He did not deserve the bloody beatings nor crucifixion.  Yet, this is what was prophecized.  Maybe the atheists will get beat up like this in the afterlife, but it would be overkill.
Click to expand...

You need to let go of your hate. Your hate / self-hate is unhealthy. Come to terms with the fact that there are those who don’t believe in your gods. Magic, miracles and ancient superstitions are not for everyone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> that a catastrophic POLE SHIFT periodically moves the entire surface of our planet in a single piece over the core below.


Hahahahaha

Oh man, thats hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle. You know this guy turned himself into a laughingstock over this, right?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible   ?
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.
> 
> We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.
> 
> Scientific method
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle.  For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean.  You need to move on.  People have been laughing at you for weeks.
Click to expand...

No. The account of  Catastrophic flooding is in the Bible. The asteroid strike or strikes explains the flooding.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible   ?
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.
> 
> We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.
> 
> Scientific method
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle.  For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean.  You need to move on.  People have been laughing at you for weeks.
Click to expand...

Trust me. I understand Archimedes. I’m an engineer. 

There’s a big difference between water being melted and raising sea level which the asteroid didn’t do and water being vaporized into the stratosphere and causing catastrophic rain and flood events around the world which the asteroid striking a glacier did do.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> that a catastrophic POLE SHIFT periodically moves the entire surface of our planet in a single piece over the core below.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahahaha
> 
> Oh man, thats hilarious. Thanks for the chuckle. You know this guy turned himself into a laughingstock over this, right?
Click to expand...

Smart people know science is never settled. Thinking you know the truth, just makes you a fool.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Smart people know science is never settled.


Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.

Haha, got it!


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
Click to expand...

Yes we know you’re a fool.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
Click to expand...

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Click to expand...

Then burn that dumb book you posted.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible   ?
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.
> 
> We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.
> 
> Scientific method
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle.  For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean.  You need to move on.  People have been laughing at you for weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trust me. I understand Archimedes. I’m an engineer.
> 
> There’s a big difference between water being melted and raising sea level which the asteroid didn’t do and water being vaporized into the stratosphere and causing catastrophic rain and flood events around the world which the asteroid striking a glacier did do.
Click to expand...


You can believe what you want to .  It's too wacko for me.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
Click to expand...

That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.
Click to expand...

I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Egypt and check the monuments there.  The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years.  The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you been there?
Click to expand...

Actually no but there are more than enough obelisks outside of Egypt and I've seen many of them in various cities around the world.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> He did not deserve the bloody beatings nor crucifixion.  Yet, this is what was prophecized.


No one deserved bloody beatings nor crucifixion but it was not prophesied before his death, only after.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Egypt and check the monuments there.  The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years.  The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you been there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no but there are more than enough obelisks outside of Egypt and I've seen many of them in various cities around the world.
Click to expand...


I was thinking these monuments you mention help my case more than yours.  Many of them are ruins.

As for oldest rocks in the Earth, they need to be checked through radiocarbon dating because basically what the atheist scientists do is radiometric dating.  RATES would be their opposition as they will use radiocarbon dating if C-14 is remaining.  All of the atheist measurements are very biased evidence.  It's an insult to common sense.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Egypt and check the monuments there.  The granite they used is unchanged in 5,500 or so years.  The inscriptions are still crisp and readable.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, have you been there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no but there are more than enough obelisks outside of Egypt and I've seen many of them in various cities around the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was thinking these monuments you mention help my case more than yours.  Many of them are ruins.
> 
> As for oldest rocks in the Earth, they need to be checked through radiocarbon dating because basically what the atheist scientists do is radiometric dating.  RATES would be their opposition as they will use radiocarbon dating if C-14 is remaining.  All of the atheist measurements are very biased evidence.  It's an insult to common sense.
Click to expand...

Anyone who uses C-14 to date anything older than 60,000 or so years old is not a scientist.

Doesn't look like a ruin to me.  I hope I look this good when I'm 3,300 years old.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.
Click to expand...

Yes you’re closed minded. We know.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you’re closed minded. We know.
Click to expand...

Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.

So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Anyone who uses C-14 to date anything older than 60,000 or so years old is not a scientist



Wrong and you are using biased science as I pointed out.  If there is plenty of C-14 left, then it can and should be radiocarbon dated.  Millions of years would mean no C-14 left.



alang1216 said:


> Doesn't look like a ruin to me. I hope I look this good when I'm 3,300 years old.



You still don't get it haha.  Thousands of years old favors Jesus, creation science, and me.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you’re closed minded. We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.
> 
> So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.
Click to expand...

Can’t fix stupid.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who uses C-14 to date anything older than 60,000 or so years old is not a scientist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong and you are using biased science as I pointed out.  If there is plenty of C-14 left, then it can and should be radiocarbon dated.  Millions of years would mean no C-14 left.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like a ruin to me. I hope I look this good when I'm 3,300 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still don't get it haha.  Thousands of years old favors Jesus, creation science, and me.
Click to expand...

Actually, haha, nothing favors religious dogma (you call it creation science, haha), because creation science is not science, haha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you’re closed minded. We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.
> 
> So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can’t fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. You already realize that your pole shift pseudoscience is horseshit, so you stopped talking about it. See? I fixed stupid.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  15 gigatons of ice is in the Bible   ?
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago, but you couldn't answer Archimedes Principle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your 15 gigatons of ice claim.
> 
> We get hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles with the warming trend now, but no flooding.
> 
> Scientific method
> 
> We discussed this weeks ago and you couldn't even answer Archimedes Principle.  For flooding to occur, we need the water on land to runoff into the ocean.  You need to move on.  People have been laughing at you for weeks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trust me. I understand Archimedes. I’m an engineer.
> 
> There’s a big difference between water being melted and raising sea level which the asteroid didn’t do and water being vaporized into the stratosphere and causing catastrophic rain and flood events around the world which the asteroid striking a glacier did do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can believe what you want to .  It's too wacko for me.
Click to expand...

The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart people know science is never settled.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, pseduscence is a okay.
> 
> Haha, got it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who just embarrassed himself with a crackpot pseudoscience theory in a science thread....sure, son. Sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then burn that dumb book you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s right burn books. That works. That’s real science...for dummies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont need to burn the book, because i am not gullible enough to get sucked in by it. That was advice tailored to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you’re closed minded. We know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha, you 'spiracy nutters always get that backwards. No, i am the definition of open minded, as i go where the evidence leads. You guys make your mind up at square one on some nutty horseshit on bad evidence, and no new information ever dislodges you from that position.
> 
> So , once again, the utter opposite of what you say is true. You're the close minded nutter, and i am the open mined, evidence based thinker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can’t fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you can. You already realize that your pole shift pseudoscience is horseshit, so you stopped talking about it. See? I fixed stupid.
Click to expand...

If you weren’t so dumb, you’d know what the word theory means.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?


No. You see, there was a mistranslation. The original Hebrew word "shananay" actually means, "jiffy". So it actually rained for approximately 23 seconds. Craziest thing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> If you weren’t so dumb, you’d know what the word theory means.


And if you knew anything about science, you would know that there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis, in science.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?



That's not all.  Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai, for example.  Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert.  The number 40 is repeated several times in the Bible.  What is the significance?  There may not be any significance, but its repeated several times.  It refers to testing and judging you.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you weren’t so dumb, you’d know what the word theory means.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you knew anything about science, you would know that there is a difference between a theory and a hypothesis, in science.
Click to expand...

Hey check out Crust Displacement THEORY but look up the definition of theory first, it might help. The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed. 

It will blow your tiny closed mind.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The account in the Bible said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all.  Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai, for example.  Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights in the desert.  The number 40 is repeated several times in the Bible.  What is the significance?  There may not be any significance, but its repeated several times.  It refers to testing and judging you.
Click to expand...

My point is it is your “scientific” explanation of the account that doesn’t match the biblical account.

mine does. It rained.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> My point is it is your “scientific” explanation of the account that doesn’t match the biblical account.
> 
> mine does. It rained.



It rained fits your wacktard theory, huh?

Does anybody know which wacktard theory of yours that the Bible has matched?

You only use the Bible when it happens to match your wacktard theories.

You have no clue about Noah's Ark or how God saved Noah and his family.  What do you think about Dr. Ken Ham?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered
> 
> 
> Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsf.gov



Do the simple experiment.  Take some chunks and freeze it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered
> 
> 
> Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsf.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the simple experiment.  Take some chunks and freeze it.
Click to expand...

I did that. 

Do this experiment. Support an argument without your predefined “statement of faith”.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Millions of years would mean no C-14 left.


Untrue.  If you understood the science you know that there will always be some C-14 left.  That is why they are called half-lives, take 1/2 away and that still leaves 1/2.  Repeat forever and there will always be some tiny amount



james bond said:


> You still don't get it haha.  Thousands of years old favors Jesus, creation science, and me.


Unchanged in 3,500 years.  Why do you assume they won't last another 3,500?  or 350,000?  or 350,000,000?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is it is your “scientific” explanation of the account that doesn’t match the biblical account.
> 
> mine does. It rained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It rained fits your wacktard theory, huh?
> 
> Does anybody know which wacktard theory of yours that the Bible has matched?
> 
> You only use the Bible when it happens to match your wacktard theories.
> 
> You have no clue about Noah's Ark or how God saved Noah and his family.  What do you think about Dr. Ken Ham?
Click to expand...

I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?

Again, I believe it is an allegorical account.  I don't read it literally like you.  But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water  but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth.  Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.    

Ken is a good guy.  I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered
> 
> 
> Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsf.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the simple experiment.  Take some chunks and freeze it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did that.
> 
> Do this experiment. Support an argument without your predefined “statement of faith”.
Click to expand...


What happened?  The scientific method tells us the rocks crack, break, and eventually crumble.

It means that your purported estimate of rocks of 4.28 billion years old are wrong.  Maybe not in the methodology used in measurement, but in the assumptions.  It means all of your measurements of billions of years are wrong.  The rocks.  The fossils.  The sedimentary layers.  The time chronology of evolution.  It means Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes.  It means Genesis 1:9 is right and science backs up the Bible.  It means you have been wrong for how old are you now?  Well, let's just say a good amount of time .


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Untrue. If you understood the science you know that there will always be some C-14 left. That is why they are called half-lives, take 1/2 away and that still leaves 1/2. Repeat forever and there will always be some tiny amount



Let's not quibble about trace amounts of C-14.  What RATES has found is that the rocks, coals, diamonds, fossils, and others objects of millions and billions of years old have much C-14 remaining as that of a young Earth.  Thus, they were able to measure and get young dating.  Anyway, your monuments are on my side of the evidence now and what other evidence do you have?



alang1216 said:


> Unchanged in 3,500 years. Why do you assume they won't last another 3,500? or 350,000? or 350,000,000?



No, that's why I asked you if you've seen it in person.  They are guarded against the elements as much as possible but still have weathered and decayed.

OTOH, what has happened to Judas' potter's field that which Jesus called Gehenna.  Translates to hell.  Look up the history of the valley's name.  It's a scenic tourist destination.  Don't you think Satan wants to make it as inviting as possible for you?  It's history now, but the Christians know better.

The science tells us rocks and fossils decay due to weathering, chemical, and mechanical processes.  Our planet cannot possibly last millions or billions of years with the catastrophism of earthquakes, tidal waves, plate tectonics, flooding, volcanoes, the asteroid and metoeor hits, and the like.  Now, we have supervolcanoes and tsunamis.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?



It's in Genesis 1:9.  The topic of the OP.  I guess you missed that key point.  It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do.  We've had newer member Newtonian recently.



ding said:


> Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.



Yes, I get what you said, but where is your source for these explanations of 1500 gigatons?  Is it tied to the waterworld?  Where are those links that state 1500 gigatons of ice?



ding said:


> Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.



He may be a good guy, but you don't support nor listen to anything he says.  He has a museum and tourist attraction now.  Don't you think he got some help from God to finally be able to put it together with use of atheist scientist Bill Nye?

To the contrary, what upsets you about a 6,000 years old Earth?  Most think the old Earth creationists are wrong and don't have leg to stand on, but they have their sources.  You don't.

Nobody can argue against someone who take bits and pieces of science and cobbles their own wacky theories.  They won't be able to present anything of interest.  We have a place for that as pseudoscience.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.


Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.

We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.
> 
> We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.
Click to expand...

Oh I’m glad you’re back. I really wanted your thoughts on this next THEORY. I’m certain it’s going to blow your little mind.

It’s about the sun.  It micro novas on the clock cycle (look it up). When it does this every roughly 13,000 years, it causes a geomagnetic pole reversal on earth, resulting in a biblical cataclysm.

Any thoughts?
Solar Micro-Nova in 2046?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Weatherman2020 said:


> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.



Your bible is bullshit.  See also the Koran and Torah.  The 3 male dominator god religions vomited up in the middle east are nothing any more important than any other cultural creation mythos.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldest Known Rock on Earth Discovered
> 
> 
> Bedrock in Canada is 4.28 billion years old
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nsf.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the simple experiment.  Take some chunks and freeze it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did that.
> 
> Do this experiment. Support an argument without your predefined “statement of faith”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened?  The scientific method tells us the rocks crack, break, and eventually crumble.
> 
> It means that your purported estimate of rocks of 4.28 billion years old are wrong.  Maybe not in the methodology used in measurement, but in the assumptions.  It means all of your measurements of billions of years are wrong.  The rocks.  The fossils.  The sedimentary layers.  The time chronology of evolution.  It means Satan has pulled the wool over your eyes.  It means Genesis 1:9 is right and science backs up the Bible.  It means you have been wrong for how old are you now?  Well, let's just say a good amount of time .
Click to expand...


You’re not understanding science. The process of weathering or plate tectonics will cause rock to break and crumble. 

Invoking magical gods as the cause for natural processes simply adds an unnecessary layer of fear and superstition to processes well understood by science. 

Similarly, adding Satans, boogeymen and irrational fears to your argument does nothing to address the peer reviewed data that documents ancient rock structures on an ancient planet. 

Cutting and pasting bible verses in the hope that will add credibility to bible verses is a viciously circular argument.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> What happened? The scientific method tells us the rocks crack, break, and eventually crumble.
> 
> It means that your purported estimate of rocks of 4.28 billion years old are wrong. Maybe not in the methodology used in measurement, but in the assumptions. It means all of your measurements of billions of years are wrong.


Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years. 



james bond said:


> What RATES has found is that the rocks, coals, diamonds, fossils, and others objects of millions and billions of years old have much C-14 remaining as that of a young Earth.


What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible. 

Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The THEORY goes that earths crust is displaced during a pole shift, which explains how coral reefs, rain forests, and mastodons have been found perfectly preserved at latitudes where they couldn’t have existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.
> 
> We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.
Click to expand...

LOL. That’s funny.

Mastodons don’t end up in Siberia flash frozen with completely intact food in their mouths, from the extremely slow movements of continental drift.  I thought you knew that. Damn!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in Genesis 1:9.  The topic of the OP.  I guess you missed that key point.  It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do.  We've had newer member Newtonian recently.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I get what you said, but where is your source for these explanations of 1500 gigatons?  Is it tied to the waterworld?  Where are those links that state 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He may be a good guy, but you don't support nor listen to anything he says.  He has a museum and tourist attraction now.  Don't you think he got some help from God to finally be able to put it together with use of atheist scientist Bill Nye?
> 
> To the contrary, what upsets you about a 6,000 years old Earth?  Most think the old Earth creationists are wrong and don't have leg to stand on, but they have their sources.  You don't.
> 
> Nobody can argue against someone who take bits and pieces of science and cobbles their own wacky theories.  They won't be able to present anything of interest.  We have a place for that as pseudoscience.
Click to expand...


“It's in Genesis 1:9.  The topic of the OP.  I guess you missed that key point.  It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do.  We've had newer member Newtonian recently.”

Interestingly, three different versions of Christianity and three differing (and hostile), opinions, all claiming with 100% certainty (and 0% facts), to be the deliverers of “true” Christianity. 

Would guns and knives allow you folks to settle your differences?


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.



That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.



Wuwei said:


> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.



That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
Click to expand...

Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”. 

The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references.   Where are  your references?  I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.
> 
> There is no gap in the history.  The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman.   The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.
> 
> 
> 
> per your request:
> *Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?*
> BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 31, 2019
> 
> The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.
Click to expand...


My main point was that there is no gap in history.  Also that Polycarp was a quartodeciman,   Since the Bible clearly teaches Jesus observed the last supper on passover night, it is clear Polycarp followed apostolic teachings.  Passover was on Nisan 14.  You ignore this.

Also  you ignored the manuscript evidence I posted.   The oldest ms. of the book of John dates about 150 CE which is about 50 years after John wrote his gospel account, his 3 letters and the book of Revelation. 

But I will research more in depth the claim that Polycarp was taught by the apostle John - though Carrier's claim John did not live when Polycarp was taught is false since John wrote c. 96 CE and Polycarp was born c. 70 CE which makes Polycarp about 26 years old when John wrote those Bible books.

Your own link says:

"Polycarp was a Christian Bishop in what is now Turkey during the mid-2nd century—born around 69 and died around 155 A.D. We have one letter and some quotations from him in other authors, and a ridiculous hagiography. Legend was he studied under John the Disciple and met others who had “seen Jesus.” But there’s no evidence that’s true; and it’s highly unlikely."

So there was no gap in history.  

As for the claims he makes, note that he is biased against the historicity of Jesus as well - but I will research more in depth the claim that Polycarp was a student of the apostle John.


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
Click to expand...


I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings.   Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken.   You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.

You also fail to document your assertions.   From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> That's illogical fallacious reasoning. Look at how diamond forms. We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating. I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.


I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.



james bond said:


> That's a lie. Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis. What you called established science is fake science. The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.


A lie?  RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.
.


----------



## Newtonian

ding said:


> The allegorical account of a flood in Genesis was not describing the earth being covered in water 3.2 billion years ago. It was describing an event that happened ~12,000 years ago when one or more asteroids struck the earth in the northern polar region and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which disrupted weather patterns around the globe which led to flooding events around the globe. The globe was not covered in water but it was enough of a major disruption of weather patterns that legends of it were created around the world.



Genesis 1:2 is likely referring to millions if not billions of years ago when earth was initially covered with primordial waters (still in darkness then).   The Noachian flood was much more recent.   You are ignoring how earth accreted its water - don't feel bad - most anti-flood writers ignore this- they simply argue against the last condensation catastrophe but fail to give a tenable alternative.

The vast carbonate deposits in earth's crust are mostly below the deposits caused by the flood - in fact the rate that the geologic carbon cycle proceeds is evidence that earth has had oceans for a very long time - perhaps over 1 billion years!

Remember that the carbonate deposits by the geologic carbon cycle required much water, a vast CO2 atmosphere causing carbonate (CO3) and bi-carbonate (HCO3) ions in earth's primordial waters, and also Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), and Calcium (Ca) ions which combined with carbonates by chemical reaction and precipitated out as carbonate deposits.   By far the majority of this very long time period was before the Noachian flood which occurred 2370 BCE.

How do you explain aqueous deposits on top of Mt. Everest?


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.


RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE

I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements. 
.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings.   Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken.   You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.
> 
> You also fail to document your assertions.   From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.
Click to expand...

It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly _require _that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma. 

The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning. 


The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:



			https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/
		


There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.


----------



## Newtonian

ding said:


> These accounts were told as stories or fables to make them easier to remember and pass down. That’s how they did it 10,000 years ago. You would think that people today would be intelligent enough to understand this concept but apparently not.


 
I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet.   Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study.   The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.

A few links on the many flood accounts:






						Noah’s Faith Condemns the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Anthropologists have collected as many as 270 flood legends from nearly all tribes and nations. “The flood story is found throughout the world,” says scholar Claus Westermann. “Like the creation narrative, it is part of our basic cultural heritage. It is truly astonishing: everywhere on earth we find stories of a great primeval flood.” The explanation? Says expositor Enrico Galbiati: “The insistent presence of a flood tradition in different and widely separated peoples is a sign of the historical reality of the fact that lies at the base of such traditions.”

From our Bible dictionary:






						Deluge — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. _The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia _(Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982."






						A Whole World Destroyed! — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"*[Chart on page 4]*


(For fully formatted text, see publication)


*Flood Legends Worldwide*


Country         Correspondencies 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10


Greece                         7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆  *◆*


Rome                           6 ◆  ◆  ◆     ◆  ◆        ◆


Lithuania                      6 ◆  ◆  ◆     ◆  ◆        ◆


Assyria                        9    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆


Tanzania                       7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆

Lithuania                      6 ◆  ◆  ◆     ◆  ◆        ◆


Assyria                        9    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆


Tanzania                       7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆


India - Hindu                  6    ◆     ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆  ◆


New Zealand - Maori            5 ◆  ◆        ◆  ◆           ◆


Micronesia                     7 ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆


Washington U.S.A. - Yakima     7 ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆


Mississippi U.S.A. - Choctaw   7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆


Mexico - Michoacan             5    ◆        ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆


South America - Quechua        4    ◆     ◆  ◆     ◆


Bolivia - Chiriguano           5    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆


Guyana - Arawak                6 ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆

1: God angered by wickedness


 2: Destruction by a flood


 3: Ordered by God


 4: Divine warning given


 5: Few of mankind survive


 6: Saved in a vessel


 7: Animals saved


 8: Bird or other creature sent out


 9: Finally comes to rest on a mountain


10: Sacrifice offered"


----------



## Newtonian

F


Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings.   Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken.   You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.
> 
> You also fail to document your assertions.   From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly _require _that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.
> 
> The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.
> 
> 
> The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/
> 
> 
> 
> There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.
Click to expand...


False.  My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point.   I did cite Britannica though.   You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.

Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.

Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years. 

But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.


----------



## Newtonian

Wuwei said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference? Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE
> 
> I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.
> .
Click to expand...

True that is false.


----------



## Wuwei

Newtonian said:


> I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.


If there were flood accounts from all parts of the planet who wrote those accounts? There had to have been many survivors other than just Noah and family.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> F
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings.   Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken.   You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.
> 
> You also fail to document your assertions.   From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly _require _that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.
> 
> The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.
> 
> 
> The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/
> 
> 
> 
> There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point.   I did cite Britannica though.   You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.
> 
> Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.
> 
> But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.
Click to expand...


My excuse for not accepting an encyclopedia over peer reviewed science journals / studies has to do with credibility. Selectively cutting out a Britannica article about carbonates does nothing to support an argument for supernatural design. 

One of the classical arguments of religionists is to:

A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place

only to

B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.

The Bible’s speak to days. If you want to re-write that to something else, that’s fine. 

Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bible alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. 

Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> F
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings.   Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken.   You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.
> 
> You also fail to document your assertions.   From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly _require _that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.
> 
> The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.
> 
> 
> The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/
> 
> 
> 
> There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point.   I did cite Britannica though.   You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.
> 
> Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.
> 
> But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My excuse for not accepting an encyclopedia over peer reviewed science journals / studies has to do with credibility. Selectively cutting out a Britannica article about carbonates does nothing to support an argument for supernatural design.
> 
> One of the classical arguments of religionists is to:
> 
> A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place
> 
> only to
> 
> B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.
> 
> The Bible’s speak to days. If you want to re-write that to something else, that’s fine.
> 
> Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bible alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.
> 
> Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.
Click to expand...


So now you doubt Britannica because it is not peer reviewed????

Did you even try to read the Britannica article I linked to?   I am not about to cut and paste the entire article - it is up to you to examine the facts Britannica states.   I did post the chart on earth's crustal carbon content.

So, again, how did earth's crust end up with over 64 million petagrams of carbon in carbonates?  

Are you willing to address the scientific evidence?   

Oh, and I will not bite on your bait and switch debate tactics.


----------



## Newtonian

Wuwei said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> If there were flood accounts from all parts of the planet who wrote those accounts? There had to have been many survivors other than just Noah and family.
Click to expand...


That goes back to the scattering of the descendants of Noah at Babel.   And the table of nations in Genesis chapter 10. Remember, though, that Shem lived 600 years and was still alive when Abraham lived - long after those at Babel babbled on!


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> F
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds, if not thousands of radiological dating was done on long lived isotopes completely embedded in diamond or zirconium dioxide. They are not the sort of thing that would "crack, break, and eventually crumble" within 6000 years. Those dating methods give ages in the billions of years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's illogical fallacious reasoning.  Look at how diamond forms.  We got the source already at thousands of years with the radiocarbon dating.  I hope you're not actually saying diamond and rock are equivalent like the unbelievers here who want to grasp at any straws, but that sounds exactly like what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> What RATES found was such a small trace of remaining C-14 that it was beyond the limit of the instrument sensitivity, and not a credible measurement. That limit, even if correct, would give an age of 80 to 100 thousand years. That is a far cry from the 6,000 years that you hypothesize from the bible.
> 
> Your interpretation of the Genesis does not live up to well established science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.  Furthermore, we found science backs up Genesis.  What you called established science is fake science.  The creation scientists are the ones who created and founded science, not the wrong atheist scientists with their consensus science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are these creation scientists you reference?  Creation science is nothing more than a relatively recent relabeling of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christians have changed the name of “biblical creationism” to “scientific creationism” to “Intelligent design creationism”.
> 
> The fundie creation ministries are clearly not science institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the Creation Research Quarterly many years ago and found that its information is based on scientific study though obviously biased towards creationist teachings.   Some of their conclusions are correct or likely correct - other conclusions are mistaken or likely mistaken.   You would have to specify which points you disagree with from them for me to respond point by point.
> 
> You also fail to document your assertions.   From past conversation with you about the fine tuning of planet earth I know you ignored the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a simple matter to look at the webpages of the primary fundamentalist ministries: creation.com, the ICR, Discovery Institute to name a few. They all have “statements of faith” which explicitly _require _that conclusions about the world around us agree with biblical dogma.
> 
> The conversation about “fine tuning” of the planet was, from your point, largely volumes of cut and paste material from the JW website. As we discussed, the “fine tuning” argument ignores the fact of a planet often hostile to life. Your argument presupposes one or more gods who supernaturally created a fine tuned planet yet you made no argument at all for the gods required to supernaturally create such fine tuning.
> 
> 
> The JW’s are very similar to any of the other creation ministries:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/science-and-the-bible/
> 
> 
> 
> There is a predefined bias toward a version of Christianity with little to distinguish between the various versions of some claimed “true” Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.  My first example involved carbonates in earth's crust and I did not cite any links to our literature on that point.   I did cite Britannica though.   You have no excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence I posted.
> 
> Also, to belong to the Creation Research Society one must believe in the trinity - Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the trinity -neither did Isaac Newton.
> 
> Most creationists believe the creative days in Genesis chapter 1 were 24 hours each - we do not believe this - the rate of the geologic carbon cycle removing CO2 from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters could not have occurred in a week - or even in 10,000 years.
> 
> But you do have to go to our website to find out what we actually believe - there are many lies and deceptions about our beliefs on the internet - but we know what we believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My excuse for not accepting an encyclopedia over peer reviewed science journals / studies has to do with credibility. Selectively cutting out a Britannica article about carbonates does nothing to support an argument for supernatural design.
> 
> One of the classical arguments of religionists is to:
> 
> A. Use the bible as the source from where you heard about Jesus and God (or god(s) of your choosing) and salvation in the first place
> 
> only to
> 
> B. Dismiss what the bible says about Jesus and God in the first place in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says it is.
> 
> The Bible’s speak to days. If you want to re-write that to something else, that’s fine.
> 
> Finally, lest anyone think I am focusing on the Bible alone, the above also holds true for the koran, The Bhagavad-Gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on. A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.
> 
> Although now, we may be edging into that really bizarre world of Theism where some things you believe as literal, others not, which is really your garden variety of pick-and-choose what you want to believe. If you can say, "Well, Genesis is true but Pauline rules on women is not" (or whatever), well, then I can -- with equal "authority" -- by your own standards, say "Well, the siege of Jericho is true, but the resurrection is not". Such game playing with one's beliefs is certainly your right to do, but it only strips your argument of credibility, it doesn't support your case at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you doubt Britannica because it is not peer reviewed????
> 
> Did you even try to read the Britannica article I linked to?   I am not about to cut and paste the entire article - it is up to you to examine the facts Britannica states.   I did post the chart on earth's crustal carbon content.
> 
> So, again, how did earth's crust end up with over 64 million petagrams of carbon in carbonates?
> 
> Are you willing to address the scientific evidence?
> 
> Oh, and I will not bite on your bait and switch debate tactics.
Click to expand...


Yes. I doubt Britannica because it is not peer reviewed. Without knowing the background of the author(s) and their sources, I’m under no obligation to uncritically accept an article as true. 

If, as you claim, the earth’s crust has over 64 million petagrams of carbon in carbonates, in what way does that support a claim to gods?

Are you willing to contribute scientific evidence? Linking to articles from the JW’s predefines a bias. I’ll be glad to review any scientific evidence you might have but I’m not going to spend time refuting religious dogma.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet. Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study. The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> If there were flood accounts from all parts of the planet who wrote those accounts? There had to have been many survivors other than just Noah and family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes back to the scattering of the descendants of Noah at Babel.   And the table of nations in Genesis chapter 10. Remember, though, that Shem lived 600 years and was still alive when Abraham lived - long after those at Babel babbled on!
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that any human, ever, lived for 600 years? Something other than “the Bibles say so, so it must be true”.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.



We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.  It shows young Earth.  I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.



Wuwei said:


> A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.



What you claim now is a lie.



Wuwei said:


> RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE
> 
> I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.



RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.  

Instead, you have wrong and racist pseudoscientist Darwin and his family (at least father and cousin).  What do you call the evolutionist group who tried to claim millions and then billions of years up to 3 billion years and it still wasn't good enough for Darwin?  They had to wait until 1956 for their lies to be good enough.  They had to make the facts fit their Darwin's lie.  Darwin was in the ground by then.  I would call that being a zealot to make the facts fit the hypothesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> When it does this every roughly 13,000 years, it causes a geomagnetic pole reversal on earth, resulting in a biblical cataclysm.


Total bullshit. Hilarious, too.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Newtonian said:


> That goes back to the scattering of the descendants of Noah at Babel.


You know that didnt actually happen, right?


----------



## james bond

Where's ding?  I'm still waiting how he explains Noah and still think he just uses the Bible to back up his fallacious weird science.

Does he support Ken Ham and what he has built?

The other weird part is he seems to know nothing about the prophecies.  I wouldn't call him a Catholic as it isn't what he is.  Maybe he's a deist.  I think that's a close description of him with his belief in nature.  What do others think?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.  It shows young Earth.  I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you claim now is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE
> 
> I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.
> 
> Instead, you have wrong and racist pseudoscientist Darwin and his family (at least father and cousin).  What do you call the evolutionist group who tried to claim millions and then billions of years up to 3 billion years and it still wasn't good enough for Darwin?  They had to wait until 1956 for their lies to be good enough.  They had to make the facts fit their Darwin's lie.  Darwin was in the ground by then.  I would call that being a zealot to make the facts fit the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

To claim you proved something you call “creation scientists” founded science and the scientific method is, you know, kinda’ silly.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Where's ding?  I'm still waiting how he explains Noah and still think he just uses the Bible to back up his fallacious weird science.
> 
> Does he support Ken Ham and what he has built?
> 
> The other weird part is he seems to know nothing about the prophecies.  I wouldn't call him a Catholic as it isn't what he is.  Maybe he's a deist.  I think that's a close description of him with his belief in nature.  What do others think?


I think both of you should not breed.


----------



## james bond

Newtonian said:


> True that is false.



No, RATE is true.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Weatherman2020 said:


> Earth may have been a waterworld covered by global ocean 3.2 billion years ago, study suggests.
> 
> Science always ends up proving what was written thousands of years ago is true.


Uhm, there is no "Breaking News" from the book of Genesis.

I got some "Breaking News"!


----------



## luchitociencia

ding said:


> I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?
> 
> Again, I believe it is an allegorical account.  I don't read it literally like you.  But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water  but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth.  Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.
> 
> Ken is a good guy.  I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.



The land was only one in Noah's time. The known Pangaea.

This sole continent was totally different to what you see today. Mountains were different and not necessarily high as the new mountains of today. The current chains of mountains seem to be formed by the crushing of the plates causing flat land to be elevated.

And more to aggregate. Satellites detected solar activity causing waves strong enough to cut off a tangent in our atmosphere and taken it to outer space. The rest of our atmosphere patched  up the lost part and we ended with a lesser atmosphere volume.

Who knows how many times this event has happened in the past.  

You are calculating the amount of water in base of our current status, but you must read the bible and notice that the narration is telling you a complete different status of the earth in those years.


----------



## luchitociencia

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.
> 
> We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.



In the 1960s, the measurement made -not by satellite- was the separation distance between America and Europe/Africa as 5 meters per year.

Today such a separation is merely inches per year. This is telling you that it is slowing. 

When the continents separated one from another in Noah's time, the speed of the separation of lands was faster. This event created several catastrophes and peoples confronted strong oceanic perturbations but were more capable at the same time to visit one to the other.

The tectonic plate theory was not validated until the 50s/60s, and apparently not many people today know how simple was the method used to verify such a continued separation. Lol.


----------



## Newtonian

james bond said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> True that is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, RATE is true.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you.   You missed my sense of humor!

Another example:

the rate is true only if the rate is true!

i will have to go offline soon - getting tired and hungry which makes me get silly!


----------



## Newtonian

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, give one single example of this things being found where they "could not have existed". One.
> 
> We have a comprehensive theory for the movement of the earth's crust: tectonic plate theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1960s, the measurement made -not by satellite- was the separation distance between America and Europe/Africa as 5 meters per year.
> 
> Today such a separation is merely inches per year. This is telling you that it is slowing.
> 
> When the continents separated one from another in Noah's time, the speed of the separation of lands was faster. This event created several catastrophes and peoples confronted strong oceanic perturbations but were more capable at the same time to visit one to the other.
> 
> The tectonic plate theory was not validated until the 50s/60s, and apparently not many people today know how simple was the method used to verify such a continued separation. Lol.
Click to expand...

lol = lots of love!

Yes, I think the plates are slowing also, and that the motion was catastrophic at the Noachian flood:

Psalms 104:6-8
You covered it with deep waters as with a garment.+
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At your rebuke they fled;+
At the sound of your thunder they ran away in panic
8 —Mountains ascended+ and valleys descended—
To the place you established for them.

I am going offline for awhile.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Newtonian said:


> Yes, I think the plates are slowing also


Haha...is that what your "gut feeling" tells you?


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it does this every roughly 13,000 years, it causes a geomagnetic pole reversal on earth, resulting in a biblical cataclysm.
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit. Hilarious, too.
Click to expand...

Yes of course you know it’s bullshit because you’re so smart, yet you know nothing about the subject.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. It shows young Earth. I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.


Yes we discussed that, and it ended with you making personal attacks.
Here is an excerpt of the link you cited. 
_"The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument."_

Here is the back story. The UC scientists were measuring the background of their instrument for calibration purposes using diamonds. The creationists used the UC data and purposefully misinterpreted the background as actual data.
I will believe the UC scientists over creationists.   


james bond said:


> What you claim now is a lie.


Oops. Nope, just a typo. I meant to type 80 to 100 thousand years old. I had too many zeros. The 80 - 100 numbers came from later creationists "analyzing" background data from newer MS instruments .



james bond said:


> RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.


You are right in a narrow sense, but that statement is quite vacuous. You are referring to a time when the age of the universe was not known. Almost everyone was a young earther at that time. Hubble and radiological dating became the science that supplanted those beliefs. As you know a large majority of scientists no longer believe the young earth theory.

The rest of your post about Darwin is likewise vacuous. 
.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> My main point was that there is no gap in history.  Also that Polycarp was a quartodeciman,   Since the Bible clearly teaches Jesus observed the last supper on passover night, it is clear Polycarp followed apostolic teachings.  Passover was on Nisan 14.  You ignore this.


I didn't ignore it but I don't see it as particularly relevant.  There were many views on Christianity in the early church.  Most seem much bigger than this one.



Newtonian said:


> Also  you ignored the manuscript evidence I posted.   The oldest ms. of the book of John dates about 150 CE which is about 50 years after John wrote his gospel account, his 3 letters and the book of Revelation.


You must know that we don't know who wrote the Gospels.  They never say and only later did they become attributed to apostles or disciples of apostles.  There are plenty of texts that claim an apostolic source that are clearly false and never made it into the cannon.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Yes of course you know it’s bullshit because you’re so smart, yet you know nothing about the subject.


Actually, i have read a lot about geology and tectonics, from good sources. You know LESS than nothing about it. You know nothing factual, and the things you do know are all wrong. You actually have net negative knowledge on the subject.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> Yes we discussed that, and it ended with you making personal attacks.
> Here is an excerpt of the link you cited.
> _"The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument."_
> 
> Here is the back story. The UC scientists were measuring the background of their instrument for calibration purposes using diamonds. The creationists used the UC data and purposefully misinterpreted the background as actual data.
> I will believe the UC scientists over creationists.



So butthurt if you remember what I called you.  It probably was _you are wrong_ or _you are lying_.

You are quote mining and taking things out of context  Their conclusion was:
"Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young."



james bond said:


> What you claim now is a lie.





Wuwei said:


> Oops. Nope, just a typo. I meant to type 80 to 100 thousand years old. I had too many zeros. The 80 - 100 numbers came from later creationists "analyzing" background data from newer MS instruments .



Haha.  I'm not a mind reader.



james bond said:


> RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.





Wuwei said:


> You are right in a narrow sense, but that statement is quite vacuous. You are referring to a time when the age of the universe was not known. Almost everyone was a young earther at that time. Hubble and radiological dating became the science that supplanted those beliefs. As you know a large majority of scientists no longer believe the young earth theory.
> 
> The rest of your post about Darwin is likewise vacuous.



RATE are top creation scientists while you're just a technician with no college degree.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes of course you know it’s bullshit because you’re so smart, yet you know nothing about the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, i have read a lot about geology and tectonics, from good sources. You know LESS than nothing about it. You know nothing factual, and the things you do know are all wrong. You actually have net negative knowledge on the subject.
Click to expand...

Geology. Really?  Then you should know something about theories and all the evidence of pole shifts.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to recall you saying something about the water that flooded the earth came from underground. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's in Genesis 1:9.  The topic of the OP.  I guess you missed that key point.  It's why you don't discuss things like other believers do.  We've had newer member Newtonian recently.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I believe it is an allegorical account. I don't read it literally like you. But I am trying to understand where you think the water came from that flooded the entire surface of the planet. As I have already explained I don't think the account meant the entire surface of the planet was covered in water but I do believe catastrophic flooding did happen around the globe and that the cause was an asteroid strike in the northern polar region which vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and altered the climate of the earth. Not sure why my confirming the account in the Bible would be so upsetting to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I get what you said, but where is your source for these explanations of 1500 gigatons?  Is it tied to the waterworld?  Where are those links that state 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken is a good guy. I doubt he would take offense at anyone who had a different understanding of biblical accounts than he did like you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He may be a good guy, but you don't support nor listen to anything he says.  He has a museum and tourist attraction now.  Don't you think he got some help from God to finally be able to put it together with use of atheist scientist Bill Nye?
> 
> To the contrary, what upsets you about a 6,000 years old Earth?  Most think the old Earth creationists are wrong and don't have leg to stand on, but they have their sources.  You don't.
> 
> Nobody can argue against someone who take bits and pieces of science and cobbles their own wacky theories.  They won't be able to present anything of interest.  We have a place for that as pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question.  Where do YOU believe the water came from to cover the whole earth?  Let's hear your scientific explanation.

The source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.  The estimate is from the size of the crater and the energy required to create the crater and the amount of ice that would have vaporized.  1500 gigatons of TNT will vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice.  It's simple math.  You can do it yourself.  

What does Ken Ham have to do with this anyway?  I'm not having a conversation with Ken Ham.  But if you want to get Ken Ham into this conversation I am all for that.  Because I suspect he would appreciate scientific confirmation of the account of the flood in Genesis.

I'm pretty sure you are in the minority for your belief that the earth and universe are 6000 years old.  You do believe God created the universe, right?  How old do you believe that is?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> he source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.


Oops, there's the shameless lie again.

Poor, poor ding.


----------



## ding

Newtonian said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> These accounts were told as stories or fables to make them easier to remember and pass down. That’s how they did it 10,000 years ago. You would think that people today would be intelligent enough to understand this concept but apparently not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure how you are dating the various flood accounts in most ancient writings from all parts of the planet.   Many are similar on various key points but only the Biblical account can be confirmed by scientific study.   The other stories are too similar to be coincidence.
> 
> A few links on the many flood accounts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noah’s Faith Condemns the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Anthropologists have collected as many as 270 flood legends from nearly all tribes and nations. “The flood story is found throughout the world,” says scholar Claus Westermann. “Like the creation narrative, it is part of our basic cultural heritage. It is truly astonishing: everywhere on earth we find stories of a great primeval flood.” The explanation? Says expositor Enrico Galbiati: “The insistent presence of a flood tradition in different and widely separated peoples is a sign of the historical reality of the fact that lies at the base of such traditions.”
> 
> From our Bible dictionary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deluge — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "These folklore accounts of the Deluge agree with some major features of the Biblical account: (1) a place of refuge for a few survivors, (2) an otherwise global destruction of life by water, and (3) a seed of mankind preserved. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Druids of Britain, the Polynesians, the Eskimos and Greenlanders, the Africans, the Hindus, and the American Indians—all of these have their Flood stories. _The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia _(Vol. 2, p. 319) states: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 . . . The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”—Edited by G. Bromiley, 1982."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Whole World Destroyed! — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*[Chart on page 4]*
> 
> 
> (For fully formatted text, see publication)
> 
> 
> *Flood Legends Worldwide*
> 
> 
> Country         Correspondencies 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10
> 
> 
> Greece                         7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆  *◆*
> 
> 
> Rome                           6 ◆  ◆  ◆     ◆  ◆        ◆
> 
> 
> Lithuania                      6 ◆  ◆  ◆     ◆  ◆        ◆
> 
> 
> Assyria                        9    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> Tanzania                       7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> Lithuania                      6 ◆  ◆  ◆     ◆  ◆        ◆
> 
> 
> Assyria                        9    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> Tanzania                       7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> India - Hindu                  6    ◆     ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> New Zealand - Maori            5 ◆  ◆        ◆  ◆           ◆
> 
> 
> Micronesia                     7 ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆
> 
> 
> Washington U.S.A. - Yakima     7 ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆        ◆
> 
> 
> Mississippi U.S.A. - Choctaw   7    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> Mexico - Michoacan             5    ◆        ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> South America - Quechua        4    ◆     ◆  ◆     ◆
> 
> 
> Bolivia - Chiriguano           5    ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 
> Guyana - Arawak                6 ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆  ◆
> 
> 1: God angered by wickedness
> 
> 
> 2: Destruction by a flood
> 
> 
> 3: Ordered by God
> 
> 
> 4: Divine warning given
> 
> 
> 5: Few of mankind survive
> 
> 
> 6: Saved in a vessel
> 
> 
> 7: Animals saved
> 
> 
> 8: Bird or other creature sent out
> 
> 
> 9: Finally comes to rest on a mountain
> 
> 
> 10: Sacrifice offered"
Click to expand...

I'm not dating them.  I believe the date of the event precedes them all and allegorical accounts were passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years so dating when they were recorded is meaningless.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> he source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's the shameless lie again.
> 
> Poor, poor ding.
Click to expand...

The research team of scientists say otherwise. 

I can tell how much this bothers you though.  It really rocks your belief system that the flood account in Genesis has a scientific explanation.

You aren't really bothered by JB's young earth explanation, but this one really rocks you.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> Where's ding?  I'm still waiting how he explains Noah and still think he just uses the Bible to back up his fallacious weird science.
> 
> Does he support Ken Ham and what he has built?
> 
> The other weird part is he seems to know nothing about the prophecies.  I wouldn't call him a Catholic as it isn't what he is.  Maybe he's a deist.  I think that's a close description of him with his belief in nature.  What do others think?


I still work, dude.  Take it easy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

So, of the only 3 posts in the last week of ding's I have taken him off ignore to read -- without any idea what the content would be -- all contained the same, debunked, shameless lie. I showed him a little while back how his own article showed him he was lying when telling this lie, and I predicted he would continue to repeat the lie ad nauseum anyway, ESPECIALLY once he realized he got exposed and embarrassed.

I must be Miss Cleo. Or Nostradamus.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically mentioned diamonds and zirconium because they don't crumble and the long-lived isotopes trapped inside those minerals are protected from contamination. They found no C-14 on the outside of the diamonds that were within the instrument error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already discussed this, so will just post the link -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.  It shows young Earth.  I don't think you understood what they did from what you claim today.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lie? RATE scientists are the ones who think they established that diamonds presumably are 80 to 1000 thousand years old. You are the one who gave me the references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you claim now is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> RATE stands for "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" They are a group of zealots, some with science degrees, who try to twist radiological dating conclusions by sometimes denying basic laws of nuclear physics and sometimes denigrating scientific techniques. They have a website here: RATE
> 
> I do not consider them as scientists in this regard: They assume the bible tells them the age of the universe, and then they attempt to distort legitimate science to agree with them. That is backwards. Scientists should start with an open mind and draw conclusions from their measurements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RATE aren't a group of zealots and I already proven that creation scientists founded science and the scientific method.
> 
> Instead, you have wrong and racist pseudoscientist Darwin and his family (at least father and cousin).  What do you call the evolutionist group who tried to claim millions and then billions of years up to 3 billion years and it still wasn't good enough for Darwin?  They had to wait until 1956 for their lies to be good enough.  They had to make the facts fit their Darwin's lie.  Darwin was in the ground by then.  I would call that being a zealot to make the facts fit the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

It’s comical when creationist hacks such as the ICR pretend to do research.

The AIG RATE fiasco with Andrew Snelling.

*Andrew A. Snelling* is an Australian geologist and young-Earth creationist. He is also the first, only, and hopefully last, editor of the _Answers Research Journal_.[1] He is the founder of the _Journal of Creation_ and author of the two-volume _Earth's Catastrophic Past_ — 1100 pages of creationist twaddle.






						Andrew Snelling
					

Andrew A. Snelling is an Australian geologist and young-Earth creationist.  He is also the first, only, and hopefully last, editor of the Answers Research Journal.[note 1] He is the founder of the Journal of Creation and author of the two-volume Earth's Catastrophic Past — 1100 pages of...




					rationalwiki.org


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, of the only 3 posts in the last week of ding's I have taken him off ignore to read -- without any idea what the content would be -- all contained the same, debunked, shameless lie. I showed him a little while back how his own article showed him he was lying when telling this lie, and I predicted he would continue to repeat the lie ad nauseum anyway, ESPECIALLY once he realized he got exposed and embarrassed.
> 
> I must be Miss Cleo. Or Nostradamus.


You didn’t but that’s ok.  I know you need to believe it.






						Science | AAAS
					






					advances.sciencemag.org


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> So butthurt if you remember what I called you. It probably was _you are wrong_ or _you are lying_.


I think it was because I was pressing you that your creation scientists were claiming diamonds were 50,000 years or older and you claim 6,000 years. You guys are an order of magnitude apart. You can't have it both ways.


james bond said:


> You are quote mining and taking things out of context Their conclusion was:


It was in my context that I just mentioned. You never addressed my point that you are an order of magnitude off.  

As far as coal see this site. 





						Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits
					

Short Description of page




					www.talkorigins.org
				



They give a number of reasons why coal has a higher level of C-14. I have no opinion on that paper except that the subject is still open for research and there is no reason to think that the measurements validate a young earth.
.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU believe the water came from to cover the whole earth? Let's hear your scientific explanation.



Not scientific explanation.  With the global flood, it is a Biblical explanation; And science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  Yours is an obvious question to any Christian.  I thought I answered your satirical (?) question with the bringing up Noah as well as Ken Ham.  The answer is in the Bible so any Christian would know that.  Ken Ham has Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum.  He teaches what is taught in the Bible.

I said you were a deist b/c you do not even mention Noah and his family in your posts.  There really is no reason for you to ask me where the water came from.  Why ask something which you already know the answer to?  It came from above and below.  First, we had the rain for 40 days and 40 nights and the rest came up through the Fountains of the Deep.  There was earthquake below the sea floor and the magma and the plate tectonics moved and the oceans in the core of Earth came rising up.  The rock below came rising up like monoliths.  It raised our land of Pangea, the supercontinent.  What else happened due to the fountains of the deep?  The continents split into 7 and formed our seven continents.  It raised our mountains higher like the Himalayas and the valleys it formed had water gush into them.  The proof is the difficulty of humans to reach the tops of our highest peaks as well as dive deep into our deepest oceans.  There is no scientific explanation for that, is there?  Comets and meteors from billions of years ago don't do that.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> he source for the 1500 gigatons of ice is from the research team of scientists that discovered the crater.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, there's the shameless lie again.
> 
> Poor, poor ding.
Click to expand...

Okay Mr Geologist, let’s see if we can get you to understand and accept this theory.

How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude? How does science explain ancient forests perfectly preserved at latitudes too cold for them to exist? Or, how does science explain the evidence of coral reefs that cross cross the planet in numerous babut at depths and latitudes where there couldn’t have survived?

Answer: 
_Only a pole shift – a displacement of the entire crust of the earth – explains how one region gets much warmer and another gets much colder at the same time.  This is what Ivan Sanderson concluded in “Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” in the Saturday Evening Post in which he suggested that “the part of the earth where their corpses are found today was somewhere else in warmer latitudes at the time of their death.”[41]  Yet they were quickly frozen, with eyeballs and skin and stomach contents frozen intact and remained frozen ever since.  Hmmmm._

Pg. 42 Pole Shift: Evidence Will Not Be Silenced, by David Montaigne.

Compelling theory, no?


----------



## beautress

TNHarley said:


> So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
> This should be in the conspiracy section


Mysteries of God are no conspiracy, dahlin'.


----------



## TNHarley

beautress said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that would mean the worldwide flood happened billions of years before biblical humans. Including Noah.
> This should be in the conspiracy section
> 
> 
> 
> Mysteries of God are no conspiracy, dahlin'.
Click to expand...

Why would god do a wordlwide flood for ounishment of humans before humans existed?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?


Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.

"Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
Click to expand...

Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”  


*The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
10/13/2018
36 Comments

A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought



Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?





https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
Click to expand...

Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> I think it was because I was pressing you that your creation scientists were claiming diamonds were 50,000 years or older and you claim 6,000 years. You guys are an order of magnitude apart. You can't have it both ways.



I can't speak for the old Earth Christians and others, but the Earth is young.  My UC scientists found the diamonds could be radiocarbon dated, but then came up with excuses.  It was the same when Mary Schweitzer in 2005 found soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils.  Others have found the same throughout the world.  This is being hidden by the atheist scientists.  They know that science and religion come together.  That's why they try so hard to avoid it.  Isn't this what Satan wants?  He wants to hide, but through his evolution he wants God to hide.  However, that is impossible.





"The RATE Group - Creation scientists         at the Institute for Creation Research and the       Creation Research Society are collaborating on a project to study factors that might affect radioisotope dating. Specialists in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics are actively engaged in this line of research."

Locations where it has been found by others





						Unfossilized dinosaur bone - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
					






					www.creationwiki.org
				




Explanation and Mary Schweitzer





						Soft tissue in fossils - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
					






					www.creationwiki.org
				




With Genesis 1:9, we have Noah's Flood or the global flood.  The evidence is overwhelming that there was a global flood.  However, the atheist scientists can't admit that of else they would have to let, the creation scientists, like the RATE scientists back into their peer reviews.  Then they won't be able to hide their findings nor use science by consensus.

As for your coal ages, here is a better and more truthful article.

"*Too Much Coal?*

Another argument used against the Bible time-line is that the pre-Flood world could not have produced enough vegetation to make all the coal.[23] But again, this argument is based on wrong assumptions.  The pre-Flood land area was almost certainly greater before all the Floodwaters were released onto the surface of the earth.  Also, the climate was probably much more productive before the Flood.[24]   Furthermore, it has been discovered that much coal was derived from forests which floated on water.[25]   So, calculations based only on the area of land would be wrong.  And finally, the estimates of how much vegetation is needed are based on the wrong idea that coal forms slowly in swamps and that most of the vegetation rots.  The Flood would have buried the vegetation quickly, producing a hundred times more coal than from a swamp.[22]"



			- Geology and the Young Earth -


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> Why would god do a wordlwide flood for ounishment of humans before humans existed?








						buried ancient civilizations around the world - YouTube
					

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.




					www.youtube.com
				




Wrong assumption, but there was a whole world of evil ancient peoples before the global flood.  They are now buried under water, under forests, under deserts, and more all throughout the world.  We also find they didn't live in caves like your Flintstones.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
Click to expand...

I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”


*The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
10/13/2018
36 Comments

A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought



Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?




https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377


Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
- Gothenburg Event
- Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
- Laschamp Event
- Vostok Event

This should be great fun!


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references.   Where are  your references?  I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.
> 
> There is no gap in the history.  The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman.   The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.
> 
> 
> 
> per your request:
> *Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?*
> BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 31, 2019
> 
> The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.
Click to expand...



I thought I sent you packing already and find you skulking around again with your Christianity obsession.

  Your articles proof is basically..and I quote...
"No one really trusts them anymore." 

  Why would anyone bookmark that?


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter tells the persecuted believers, i.e. Christians, that the scoffers will come and mock the idea that the Lord will return.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if he'll come back but he certainly was wrong about when.  He told people of his own time that many would not taste death before the end times.  Not surprising since he was an apocalyptic Jew who believed he was living in the end of this time.  A belief he shared with Paul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are both misquoting and ignoring the context wherein they saw Jesus in the kingdom in the transfiguration vision.
> 
> Matthew 16:28-17:9
> Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.”+
> *17 *Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and his brother John along and led them up into a lofty mountain by themselves.+ 2 And he was transfigured before them; his face shone as the sun, and his outer garments became brilliant* as the light.+ 3 And look! there appeared to them Moses and E·liʹjah conversing with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, it is fine for us to be here. If you wish, I will erect three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for E·liʹjah.” 5 While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and look! a voice out of the cloud+ said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.+ Listen to him.”+ 6 At hearing this, the disciples fell facedown and became very much afraid. 7 Then Jesus came near, and touching them, he said: “Get up. Have no fear.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one but Jesus himself. 9 As they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.”+
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it is you who are taking Jesus out of his 1st century context.  Apocalypticism was a popular belief back then and Jesus was almost certainly a believer, as was John the Baptist and Paul.  As for misquoting Jesus, just about everyone does it since he wrote nothing and his teaching were not written down until well after his death, almost certainly by people who never met or heard him speak.
Click to expand...



The sayings of Jesus were preserved by the Church and written down by the Apostles. You Pharisees will never grasp that. The Bible isnt for you.


----------



## gipper

Dear Dr Indiana, while you are preparing your amazing response to my post above, could you please find it in the kindness of your big heart and your enormous brain to address the lowly Albert Einstein’s comment below?  


“…Albert Einstein, who wrote the preface to Hapgood’s 1958 book, believed that the accumulation of ice at the North and South poles would be the trigger for a crustal displacement (geophysical pole shift). Einstein explained the triggering mechanism as follows:

In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth’s crust over the rest of the earth’s body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.”

_“…In contrast to Hapgood, Thomas believed the explanation was that something in the Earth’s interior was occurring that was the triggering mechanism.”

Dr. Michael Salla: “Massive Pole Shifts are Cyclic according to Declassified CIA Document”_


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> I think it was because I was pressing you that your creation scientists were claiming diamonds were 50,000 years or older and you claim 6,000 years



You're not ding's sock puppet are you?  You haven't been around since 2019 and suddenly, you show up and he's not around anymore to answer to the Bible.  However, he's a deist so it is what it is.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references.   Where are  your references?  I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.
> 
> There is no gap in the history.  The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman.   The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.
> 
> 
> 
> per your request:
> *Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?*
> BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 31, 2019
> 
> The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I sent you packing already and find you skulking around again with your Christianity obsession.
> 
> Your articles proof is basically..and I quote...
> "No one really trusts them anymore."
> 
> Why would anyone bookmark that?
Click to expand...

Proof is for math and booze.  It is evidence that is confusing you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was because I was pressing you that your creation scientists were claiming diamonds were 50,000 years or older and you claim 6,000 years. You guys are an order of magnitude apart. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for the old Earth Christians and others, but the Earth is young.  My UC scientists found the diamonds could be radiocarbon dated, but then came up with excuses.  It was the same when Mary Schweitzer in 2005 found soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils.  Others have found the same throughout the world.  This is being hidden by the atheist scientists.  They know that science and religion come together.  That's why they try so hard to avoid it.  Isn't this what Satan wants?  He wants to hide, but through his evolution he wants God to hide.  However, that is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The RATE Group - Creation scientists         at the Institute for Creation Research and the       Creation Research Society are collaborating on a project to study factors that might affect radioisotope dating. Specialists in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics are actively engaged in this line of research."
> 
> Locations where it has been found by others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfossilized dinosaur bone - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explanation and Mary Schweitzer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soft tissue in fossils - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Genesis 1:9, we have Noah's Flood or the global flood.  The evidence is overwhelming that there was a global flood.  However, the atheist scientists can't admit that of else they would have to let, the creation scientists, like the RATE scientists back into their peer reviews.  Then they won't be able to hide their findings nor use science by consensus.
> 
> As for your coal ages, here is a better and more truthful article.
> 
> "*Too Much Coal?*
> 
> Another argument used against the Bible time-line is that the pre-Flood world could not have produced enough vegetation to make all the coal.[23] But again, this argument is based on wrong assumptions.  The pre-Flood land area was almost certainly greater before all the Floodwaters were released onto the surface of the earth.  Also, the climate was probably much more productive before the Flood.[24]   Furthermore, it has been discovered that much coal was derived from forests which floated on water.[25]   So, calculations based only on the area of land would be wrong.  And finally, the estimates of how much vegetation is needed are based on the wrong idea that coal forms slowly in swamps and that most of the vegetation rots.  The Flood would have buried the vegetation quickly, producing a hundred times more coal than from a swamp.[22]"
> 
> 
> 
> - Geology and the Young Earth -
Click to expand...

I think it's beyond naive to assume anyone but a fundamentalist Christian would accept science related matters coming from charlatans at the Institute for Creation Research or the creation research society.

Oh, and, there is no reliable evidence for a global flood a few thousand years ago.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> The sayings of Jesus were preserved by the Church and written down by the Apostles. You Pharisees will never grasp that. The Bible isnt for you.


Sorry but no one knows who wrote the Gospels but it was almost certainly not the people whose names were later associated with them.

"The Bible isnt for you."  Is that Jesus speaking or you speaking for him?


----------



## alang1216

gipper said:


> Dear Dr Indiana, while you are preparing your amazing response to my post above, could you please find it in the kindness of your big heart and your enormous brain to address the lowly Albert Einstein’s comment below?
> 
> 
> “…Albert Einstein, who wrote the preface to Hapgood’s 1958 book, believed that the accumulation of ice at the North and South poles would be the trigger for a crustal displacement (geophysical pole shift). Einstein explained the triggering mechanism as follows:
> 
> In a polar region there is continual deposition of ice, which is not symmetrically distributed about the pole. The earth’s rotation acts on these unsymmetrically deposited masses, and produces centrifugal momentum that is transmitted to the rigid crust of the earth. The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum produced in this way will, when it has reached a certain point, produce a movement of the earth’s crust over the rest of the earth’s body, and this will displace the polar regions toward the equator.”
> 
> _“…In contrast to Hapgood, Thomas believed the explanation was that something in the Earth’s interior was occurring that was the triggering mechanism.”
> 
> Dr. Michael Salla: “Massive Pole Shifts are Cyclic according to Declassified CIA Document”_


Einstein was probably right but did he mean millimeters or miles?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I must be Miss Cleo. Or Nostradamus.



Just curious.  Do you or other atheists here think he's Catholic (I think you know who are Catholics around here (not me))?  Or does he talk more like a deist?

I don't think he goes to church nor read the Bible much, but I want to give him a chance to explain his claims.  He doesn't even talk like an old Earth Christian.  I can accept people misusing the word, _Gospel_.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I still work, dude. Take it easy.



And that's the reason for not answering my questions?  I can wait.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would god do a wordlwide flood for ounishment of humans before humans existed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buried ancient civilizations around the world - YouTube
> 
> 
> Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.youtube.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong assumption, but there was a whole world of evil ancient peoples before the global flood.  They are now buried under water, under forests, under deserts, and more all throughout the world.  We also find they didn't live in caves like your Flintstones.
Click to expand...

I can’t think of a single ancient society that has a legend of a global flood just a few thousand years ago. 

I can’t think of any reliable evidence being found for whole worlds of ancient peoples now buried under water, under forests, under deserts, and more all throughout the world.

Odd that none of your claims are supportable.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I can tell how much this bothers you though. It really rocks your belief system that the flood account in Genesis has a scientific explanation.



It's not the scientific explanation that is important.  It is God's explanation of what happened.  Science only backs up what he said, but it isn't everything.  God was the only witness.  He described it in a way everyone understands, so the peoples in ancient times and we still talk about it to this day.  You do not want to give up the Bible because of science or it is my belief that one will be misled.  Satan is too powerful as he took over Adam's domain.  I believe it is why God had to send his only son to save us.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave references.   Where are  your references?  I will be glad to constructively critique them if you post them.
> 
> There is no gap in the history.  The apostle John was taught by Jesus, and Polycarp was a student of the apostle John and a Quartodeciman.   The oldest papyrus manuscript fragment for the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) is dated to early in the second century - the copy was made about 50 years after the book of John was written.
> 
> 
> 
> per your request:
> *Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?*
> BY RICHARD CARRIER ON OCTOBER 31, 2019
> 
> The claim comes up a lot that Polycarp met John—the original Apostle, Disciple of Jesus, Brother to James, the “Pillar” of Galatians 2, He of The Twelve. Enough to warrant a response you can bookmark. The short answer to the question, “Did he?” is no. It’s not likely at any rate. Later legends claimed this. But so far as we can tell, Polycarp himself conspicuously never did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I sent you packing already and find you skulking around again with your Christianity obsession.
> 
> Your articles proof is basically..and I quote...
> "No one really trusts them anymore."
> 
> Why would anyone bookmark that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof is for math and booze.  It is evidence that is confusing you.
Click to expand...



  You presented no evidence. None. Zero. I read the article. What a waste of bytes. Other than "no one really trusts them anymore" i mean.


----------



## DOTR

alang1216 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sayings of Jesus were preserved by the Church and written down by the Apostles. You Pharisees will never grasp that. The Bible isnt for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but no one knows who wrote the Gospels but it was almost certainly not the people whose names were later associated with them.
> 
> "The Bible isnt for you."  Is that Jesus speaking or you speaking for him?
Click to expand...



Oh yeas we know and it was most certainly the Apostles.


  What do you care what jesus said? You arent a Christian.


----------



## alang1216

DOTR said:


> Oh yeas we know and it was most certainly the Apostles.
> 
> 
> What do you care what jesus said? You arent a Christian.


How do we know?  Their names are never mentioned in the Gospels and they are not even written in the first person.  They probably were not Jews and didn't even know each other.

Jesus was an important historical figure but he wasn't a Christian either, he was a Jew.  Christianity was only invented after his death.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Proof is for math and booze.



Some days are difficult with shelter in place.  I'll drink to that.  My hero, Blaise Pascal, would agree!


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Jesus was an important historical figure but he wasn't a Christian either, he was a Jew. Christianity was only invented after his death.



No need to put the cart before the horse.  Jesus became the Christ or chosen one.  You miss what is key  .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
Click to expand...

"Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
Click to expand...

You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.




CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
*Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.

Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
Click to expand...

Repeating a claim is not support if it. 

You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.

"Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
Click to expand...

That’s see what we have learned so far. 

1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.

2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.

3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.

4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.

5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there. 

Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
Click to expand...

Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:

"Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists

"Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence


Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
Click to expand...

We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
Click to expand...

Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
Click to expand...

Do you really think you’re smarter than Einstein?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was because I was pressing you that your creation scientists were claiming diamonds were 50,000 years or older and you claim 6,000 years. You guys are an order of magnitude apart. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for the old Earth Christians and others, but the Earth is young.  My UC scientists found the diamonds could be radiocarbon dated, but then came up with excuses.  It was the same when Mary Schweitzer in 2005 found soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils.  Others have found the same throughout the world.  This is being hidden by the atheist scientists.  They know that science and religion come together.  That's why they try so hard to avoid it.  Isn't this what Satan wants?  He wants to hide, but through his evolution he wants God to hide.  However, that is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The RATE Group - Creation scientists         at the Institute for Creation Research and the       Creation Research Society are collaborating on a project to study factors that might affect radioisotope dating. Specialists in Geology, Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Physics are actively engaged in this line of research."
> 
> Locations where it has been found by others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfossilized dinosaur bone - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explanation and Mary Schweitzer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soft tissue in fossils - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.creationwiki.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With Genesis 1:9, we have Noah's Flood or the global flood.  The evidence is overwhelming that there was a global flood.  However, the atheist scientists can't admit that of else they would have to let, the creation scientists, like the RATE scientists back into their peer reviews.  Then they won't be able to hide their findings nor use science by consensus.
> 
> As for your coal ages, here is a better and more truthful article.
> 
> "*Too Much Coal?*
> 
> Another argument used against the Bible time-line is that the pre-Flood world could not have produced enough vegetation to make all the coal.[23] But again, this argument is based on wrong assumptions.  The pre-Flood land area was almost certainly greater before all the Floodwaters were released onto the surface of the earth.  Also, the climate was probably much more productive before the Flood.[24]   Furthermore, it has been discovered that much coal was derived from forests which floated on water.[25]   So, calculations based only on the area of land would be wrong.  And finally, the estimates of how much vegetation is needed are based on the wrong idea that coal forms slowly in swamps and that most of the vegetation rots.  The Flood would have buried the vegetation quickly, producing a hundred times more coal than from a swamp.[22]"
> 
> 
> 
> - Geology and the Young Earth -
Click to expand...

The following link is an analysis of John Baumgardner's carbon dating of diamonds and coal. The author, Dr. Kirk Bertsche is very respectful and very complete. He is not an atheist and in fact has a theological degree. He is an expert on AMS machines with 13 patents. The article is long, but has a concise summary and bio at the end. I read it completely. If you haven't already, I hope you do too. 



			RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?
		

.


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
Click to expand...

Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject. 

*Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.

The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*

Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you really think you’re smarter than Einstein?
Click to expand...

Do you really think your idiotic bait and switch supports your hilarious crackpot horseshit?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.


uh, no it isnt. Where do you find these idiotic articles? You are really embarrassing yourself. 










						A new study reveals how the last woolly mammoths died out 4,000 years ago. That's after the Egyptians had built the pyramids.
					

The last of the woolly mammoths died on an Arctic island 4,000 years ago, meaning these animals went extinct much later than scientists once thought.




					www.businessinsider.com
				













						The last mammoths died on a remote island
					

Isolation, extreme weather, and the possible arrival of humans may have killed off the holocene herbivores just 4,000 years ago.



					www.sciencedaily.com
				












						The New Siberian Islands: A disappearing archipelago
					

Most people have heard something about the mysterious Sannikov Land, which has fired up the imagination of explorers and travelers for two centuries. Few of us know, however, that legend places this mythical island north of the New Siberian Islands. Arctic.ru looks at the origin of the Sannikov...




					arctic.ru
				




Damn son, you will believe ANYTHING.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Where do YOU believe the water came from to cover the whole earth? Let's hear your scientific explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not scientific explanation.  With the global flood, it is a Biblical explanation; And science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.  Yours is an obvious question to any Christian.  I thought I answered your satirical (?) question with the bringing up Noah as well as Ken Ham.  The answer is in the Bible so any Christian would know that.  Ken Ham has Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum.  He teaches what is taught in the Bible.
> 
> I said you were a deist b/c you do not even mention Noah and his family in your posts.  There really is no reason for you to ask me where the water came from.  Why ask something which you already know the answer to?  It came from above and below.  First, we had the rain for 40 days and 40 nights and the rest came up through the Fountains of the Deep.  There was earthquake below the sea floor and the magma and the plate tectonics moved and the oceans in the core of Earth came rising up.  The rock below came rising up like monoliths.  It raised our land of Pangea, the supercontinent.  What else happened due to the fountains of the deep?  The continents split into 7 and formed our seven continents.  It raised our mountains higher like the Himalayas and the valleys it formed had water gush into them.  The proof is the difficulty of humans to reach the tops of our highest peaks as well as dive deep into our deepest oceans.  There is no scientific explanation for that, is there?  Comets and meteors from billions of years ago don't do that.
Click to expand...

If Ken Ham believes the earth and the universe are 6000 years old his beliefs are as nutty as yours. Science doesn’t back up anything you believe.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell how much this bothers you though. It really rocks your belief system that the flood account in Genesis has a scientific explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the scientific explanation that is important.  It is God's explanation of what happened.  Science only backs up what he said, but it isn't everything.  God was the only witness.  He described it in a way everyone understands, so the peoples in ancient times and we still talk about it to this day.  You do not want to give up the Bible because of science or it is my belief that one will be misled.  Satan is too powerful as he took over Adam's domain.  I believe it is why God had to send his only son to save us.
Click to expand...

God didn’t write the Bible. Men did.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still work, dude. Take it easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the reason for not answering my questions?  I can wait.
Click to expand...

I answered them prior to answering your post about my not replying.

personally I find arguing with you about a 6000 year old earth to be a waste of time.

I couldn’t care less what foolish thing you believe.


----------



## Hollie

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
Click to expand...

David Montaigne is a loon. 









						Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
					

<p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...




					www.unilad.co.uk


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
Click to expand...

Ya think


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> If Ken Ham believes the earth and the universe are 6000 years old his beliefs are as nutty as yours. Science doesn’t back up anything you believe.



You were _supporting_ him earlier foo .  I don't think you know what you are talking about.  All the other posters here don't think you know either.

At least, if you are a deist, then it explains the different posts you make.  Maybe you just use the Bible to back up your fake science.  That's not the way the Bible should be used, but you're not the only one to misuse it.



ding said:


> God didn’t write the Bible. Men did.



You don't understand how this works either .



ding said:


> I answered them prior to answering your post about my not replying.
> 
> personally I find arguing with you about a 6000 year old earth to be a waste of time.
> 
> I couldn’t care less what foolish thing you believe.



Why would real science be foolish?  There is more scientific evidence for it than against it.  Just admit Wuwei is your sock puppet.  I can just ignore him.


----------



## gipper

Hollie said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
Click to expand...

Is Einstein a loon too?


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no it isnt. Where do you find these idiotic articles? You are really embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study reveals how the last woolly mammoths died out 4,000 years ago. That's after the Egyptians had built the pyramids.
> 
> 
> The last of the woolly mammoths died on an Arctic island 4,000 years ago, meaning these animals went extinct much later than scientists once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last mammoths died on a remote island
> 
> 
> Isolation, extreme weather, and the possible arrival of humans may have killed off the holocene herbivores just 4,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Siberian Islands: A disappearing archipelago
> 
> 
> Most people have heard something about the mysterious Sannikov Land, which has fired up the imagination of explorers and travelers for two centuries. Few of us know, however, that legend places this mythical island north of the New Siberian Islands. Arctic.ru looks at the origin of the Sannikov...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arctic.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn son, you will believe ANYTHING.
Click to expand...

Yes we know you’re smarter than Eienstein. Where was it you got your PhD again?


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> My main point was that there is no gap in history.  Also that Polycarp was a quartodeciman,   Since the Bible clearly teaches Jesus observed the last supper on passover night, it is clear Polycarp followed apostolic teachings.  Passover was on Nisan 14.  You ignore this.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ignore it but I don't see it as particularly relevant.  There were many views on Christianity in the early church.  Most seem much bigger than this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also  you ignored the manuscript evidence I posted.   The oldest ms. of the book of John dates about 150 CE which is about 50 years after John wrote his gospel account, his 3 letters and the book of Revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must know that we don't know who wrote the Gospels.  They never say and only later did they become attributed to apostles or disciples of apostles.  There are plenty of texts that claim an apostolic source that are clearly false and never made it into the cannon.
Click to expand...


The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]

As to who authored the 4 gospels (there is also evidence of who authored other early christian documents) see the following for starters:

1. Gospel of John - 






						Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"*Writership. *Though the book does not name its writer, it has been almost universally acknowledged that it was written by the hand of the apostle John. From the beginning, his writership was not challenged, except by a small group in the second century who objected on the ground that they considered the book’s teachings unorthodox, but not because of any evidence concerning writership. Only since the advent of modern “critical” scholarship has John’s writership been challenged anew."






						Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Christians of the early second century accepted John as the writer of this account and also treated this writing as an unquestioned part of the canon of the inspired Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, all of whom were of the late second and early third centuries, testify to John’s writership. Moreover, much internal evidence that John was the writer is to be found in the book itself."

The writership of the other 3 gospels in my next post.


----------



## Newtonian

2.  The gospel of Matthew -






						Matthew, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"External evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (_The Ecclesiastical History, _III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (_The Ecclesiastical History, _VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work _De viris inlustribus _(Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9."






						Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"While the Gospel credited to Matthew does not name him as the writer, the overwhelming testimony of early church historians stamps him as such. Perhaps no ancient book has its writer more clearly and unanimously established than the book of Matthew. From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.) onward, we have a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew wrote this Gospel and that it is an authentic part of the Word of God. McClintock and Strong’s _Cyclopedia _states: “Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin Martyr, by the author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto’s _Justin Martyr, _vol. ii), by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change.”" [1981 Reprint, Vol. V, page 895.]

3.  The gospel of Mark - 






						Mark—‘Useful for Ministering’ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Analysts of Mark’s Gospel believe that he wrote for Gentile readers; he provided helpful explanations of Jewish practices. (Mark 7:3; 14:12; 15:42) Mark translates Aramaic terms that might otherwise have been lost on a non-Jewish audience. (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22, 34) He uses many Latin terms and even explains common Greek words by using Latin ones. He gives the value of Jewish coins in Roman money. (Mark 12:42, ftn.) All of this seems to harmonize with the long-standing tradition that Mark penned his Gospel in Rome."






						Gems From Mark’s Gospel — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Though this Gospel does not say that Mark was its writer, there is evidence of this in the works of Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and others whose writings span the first four centuries of our Common Era."






						Mark, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"According to Origen, Mark composed his Gospel “in accordance with Peter’s instructions.” (_The Ecclesiastical History, _Eusebius, VI, XXV, 3-7) In his work, “Against Marcion” (IV, V), Tertullian says that the Gospel of Mark “may be affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was.” (_The Ante-Nicene Fathers, _Vol. III, p. 350) Eusebius gives the statement of “John the presbyter” as quoted by Papias (c. 140 C.E.): “And the Presbyter used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. . . . Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.’”—_The Ecclesiastical History, _III, XXXIX, 12-16."

The gospel of Luke in my next post:


----------



## Newtonian

4.   The gospel of Luke 






						Luke, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Although not named therein, the physician Luke (Col 4:14) has generally been credited with the writership of this account. There is written evidence to this effect from as early as the second century C.E., the Gospel being attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.)."






						Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"The Gospel is attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) and was accepted by such second-century writers as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.'









						Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts?
					

BLOG ? READ ? SHARE? COMMENT ?




					crossexamined.org
				




" Externally, the early church is unanimous that Dr. Luke wrote the Third Gospel and the book of Acts. Irenaeus (c. 130-202) writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”[4] Often, Irenaeus will add “Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles”[5] before quoting Luke’s Gospel. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), before quoting from the Gospel of Luke and the other Gospels, notes that “the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[6] Since the Gospel of Luke was written by a Gentile, Marcion, the ancient heretic, only allowed an abbreviated form of Luke’s Gospel in his canon. Irenaus notes that “Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.”[7] From the evidence by the early church, Dr. Luke is the only valid candidate for authorship of the Third Gospel."

References 4-7 -

[4] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies” 3.1.1., in _The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus_, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 414.


[5] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.10.1., 423.


[6] Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” 66, in _The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus_, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 185.


[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” 3.11.7, 428.


----------



## Newtonian

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
Click to expand...


Thank you for the research gipper!

Our literature concurs - for example:






						Insight on the News — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Just how thousands of great mammoths came to be frozen in Siberia’s ice has perplexed scientists for decades. In considering one new theory, Britain’s “New Scientist” magazine noted that the frozen mammoths “are evidence that the last ice age came upon the Earth very suddenly.” Professor Fred Hoyle of University College, Cardiff, and Elizabeth Butler of Oxford University “suggest that if the last ice age . . . had taken thousands of years to take hold on the Earth, the mammoths would have had time to migrate south to a warmer climate. Their excellent state of preservation is also evidence that they were quickly frozen after death—otherwise they would have begun to decompose.”"






						Watching the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




“In Siberia’s northernmost reaches . . . , the changing temperature is thawing out the permafrost to reveal the bones of prehistoric animals like mammoths, woolly rhinos and lions,” says a Reuters news report from Cherskiy, Sakha, in Russia. Since collectors and scientific institutes are willing to pay huge sums for good specimens, prospectors, helped by local tribesmen, are scouring the tundra for valuable ones. Says the report: “The permafrost is thawing and breaking up so rapidly that in certain places . . . every few meters bones poke out through the soil.”






						Watching the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"When elephants were put on the endangered-species list, the bottom dropped out of the world’s ivory market. Rather than face extinction themselves, though, those who deal in ivory have found another source of the material: the woolly mammoth. This great hairy beast abounded in northern climes until it was wiped out of existence thousands of years ago. But according to _The Wall Street Journal, _experts guess that some ten million mammoths remain frozen in the ice and permafrost of Siberia; it is not uncommon for them to roll free, still intact, from eroding river banks and shifting Arctic ice."






						Watching the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"*Scientists Scan Baby Mammoth*

Russian scientists have obtained detailed images of a mammoth’s internal organs. The animal—three to four months old when it died—was found intact in the ice of the Yamalo-Nenets region of Arctic Russia. “This is the best preserved specimen not only of the mammoth but of any prehistoric animal,” said Alexei Tikhonov, deputy director of the Russian Academy of Science’s Zoological Institute. Computer tomography, similar to that used to scan human patients, showed no injuries. That the mammoth’s airways and digestive system were “clogged” with what appears to be silt leads scientists to the conclusion that the animal “must have drowned.”"






						“Nature’s Wisdom” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"In a refrigerated display adjacent to the Expo’s theme pavilion were the remains of a mammoth unearthed in the permafrost of Siberia, Russia, in 2002. Named the Yukagir Mammoth, after its discovery site, this example of an extinct species of elephant had two huge, curved tusks, and its eyes were partially open. Its head was still covered with skin and tufts of hair."






						Flood of Noah’s Day — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




*"[Picture on page 328]*
Reconstruction of a frozen mammoth uncovered in Siberia in 1901. After thousands of years, vegetation was still in its mouth."






						Deluge — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See _The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, _by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62....

Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 328) In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously."






						Watching the World — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"Soviet scientists were elated when a well-preserved frozen baby mammoth was discovered in Siberia during the summer of 1977. (See _Awake! _of 11/22/77, p. 30.) Now the official Tass news agency reports that scientists believe the cause of the mammoth’s death was blood poisoning from a leg infection. However, they also noted that it had been buried by a mud flood shortly after death. “Such flooding in northern Siberia was quite a surprise to geologists,” said Tass. Just as perplexing is why, after flooding, there was a sudden deep freeze that preserved the little creature so well."

I should add that not only was there a sudden deep freeze but also a permanent one - as these animals were frozen in the permafrost until the current global warming.


----------



## Newtonian

The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:









						New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".

The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"

Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.

Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?


----------



## Newtonian

removed duplicate post


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Ken Ham believes the earth and the universe are 6000 years old his beliefs are as nutty as yours. Science doesn’t back up anything you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were _supporting_ him earlier foo .  I don't think you know what you are talking about.  All the other posters here don't think you know either.
> 
> At least, if you are a deist, then it explains the different posts you make.  Maybe you just use the Bible to back up your fake science.  That's not the way the Bible should be used, but you're not the only one to misuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> God didn’t write the Bible. Men did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how this works either .
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I answered them prior to answering your post about my not replying.
> 
> personally I find arguing with you about a 6000 year old earth to be a waste of time.
> 
> I couldn’t care less what foolish thing you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would real science be foolish?  There is more scientific evidence for it than against it.  Just admit Wuwei is your sock puppet.  I can just ignore him.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I’m sure Ken is a nice guy, but his belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago is unfounded.


----------



## Hollie

gipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Einstein a loon too?
Click to expand...


Did Einstein present himself as a loon?









						David Montaigne
					

Historian, investigator, and author of prophecy books like End Times and 2019, and Antichrist 2016-2019




					endtimesand2019.wordpress.com


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".
> 
> The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"
> 
> Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.
> 
> Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?


Why would the gods make the effort to design the Mammoth, have Noah here them onto the Ark and then kill them all just a short while later?

The above is notwithstanding the fact, (phact) of a 6,000 year old planet and Mammoth which died out as recently as 4,000 years ago.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]


The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper may be important to your church but it certainly wasn't the first major schism.  That appeared in the first decades after Jesus' death and hinged on whether converts to Christianity first had to become Jews.  I believe James and his followers in Jerusalem insisted they did, others, like Paul, disagreed.  The Romans made the decision by destroying Temple and enslaving the Jews there.  Paul won by default and Christianity spread throughout the pagan Roman world.  Had he lost, Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> 4.   The gospel of Luke


This dispute has been raging anew for quite awhile, I see no reason to rehash is here.  Google 'bart ehrman who wrote the gospels' for more than you'll ever need to see.  The early Christians fought over dogma and used the names of the apostles to support their positions.  Many early Christian texts were written under the name of apostles and are now recognized as frauds.


----------



## gipper

Hollie said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Einstein a loon too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Einstein present himself as a loon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Montaigne
> 
> 
> Historian, investigator, and author of prophecy books like End Times and 2019, and Antichrist 2016-2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> endtimesand2019.wordpress.com
Click to expand...

So to you, it’s about presentation and not the evidence backing the theory. It could be some considered Einstein a loon during his time, based on his presentation. One would have to conclude those people are the real loons, like Dr Indiana, for instance.

Montaigne’s book is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein. The evidence of the sun micro nova, geo-magnetic pole shifts, earth crust displacement all causing catastrophic death and destruction, is strong. But remember, it’s a theory that hasn’t been accepted by all. This might be because it leads to very dire consequences humans refuse to accept or the theory may be legitimately lacking.  It’s a theory after all, a concept Dr Indiana is unfamiliar with. 

However only idiots like Dr Indiana, consider theories dumb...based on the establishment’s refusal to accept them and lies he’s made up.

Oh...almost forgot. I’m betting the world that he’s never heard of Earth Crust Displacement Theory.  Add this term to the long list of terms he’s completely unaware of.  LOL.


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".
> 
> The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"
> 
> Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.
> 
> Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods make the effort to design the Mammoth, have Noah here them onto the Ark and then kill them all just a short while later?
> 
> The above is notwithstanding the fact, (phact) of a 6,000 year old planet and Mammoth which died out as recently as 4,000 years ago.
Click to expand...


The rainbow covenant assures us that will never happen again on earth.   In fact, in the next destruction at Armageddon the animals are invited to the great evening meal of God.

You keep forgetting that I am not a creationist - we don't believe earth is just 6,000 years old.

The mammoths went extinct over 4,000 hyers ago in 2370 BCE.   However, the elephant "kind" survived on Noah's ark - this is true of other animal kinds as well - some varieties of horses and bison also went extinct, but horses and bison survived the flood.


----------



## Hollie

gipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Einstein a loon too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Einstein present himself as a loon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Montaigne
> 
> 
> Historian, investigator, and author of prophecy books like End Times and 2019, and Antichrist 2016-2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> endtimesand2019.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So to you, it’s about presentation and not the evidence backing the theory. It could be some considered Einstein a loon during his time, based on his presentation. One would have to conclude those people are the real loons, like Dr Indiana, for instance.
> 
> Montaigne’s book is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein. The evidence of the sun micro nova, geo-magnetic pole shifts, earth crust displacement all causing catastrophic death and destruction, is strong. But remember, it’s a theory that hasn’t been accepted by all. This might be because it leads to very dire consequences humans refuse to accept or the theory may be legitimately lacking.  It’s a theory after all, a concept Dr Indiana is unfamiliar with.
> 
> However only idiots like Dr Indiana, consider theories dumb...based on the establishment’s refusal to accept them and lies he’s made up.
> 
> Oh...almost forgot. I’m betting the world that he’s never heard of Earth Crust Displacement Theory.  Add this term to the long list of terms he’s completely unaware of.  LOL.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that Einstein’s work was within an academic community that peer reviewed his theories. 

Montaigne self-entitles himself a “historian” and “researcher”. 
If, as you claim, his work is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein, please identify Montaigne’s thoroughly documented endtimes predictions, (4 of them which, oh, I don’t know, may not be accurate), and how those are thoroughly documented, even by Einstein.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4.   The gospel of Luke
> 
> 
> 
> This dispute has been raging anew for quite awhile, I see no reason to rehash is here.  Google 'bart ehrman who wrote the gospels' for more than you'll ever need to see.  The early Christians fought over dogma and used the names of the apostles to support their positions.  Many early Christian texts were written under the name of apostles and are now recognized as frauds.
Click to expand...


Obviously you did not check the references I posted for accuracy.   For example, the Muratorian fragment c. 170 CE.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".
> 
> The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"
> 
> Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.
> 
> Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods make the effort to design the Mammoth, have Noah here them onto the Ark and then kill them all just a short while later?
> 
> The above is notwithstanding the fact, (phact) of a 6,000 year old planet and Mammoth which died out as recently as 4,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rainbow covenant assures us that will never happen again on earth.   In fact, in the next destruction at Armageddon the animals are invited to the great evening meal of God.
> 
> You keep forgetting that I am not a creationist - we don't believe earth is just 6,000 years old.
> 
> The mammoths went extinct over 4,000 hyers ago in 2370 BCE.   However, the elephant "kind" survived on Noah's ark - this is true of other animal kinds as well - some varieties of horses and bison also went extinct, but horses and bison survived the flood.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence of a global flood or Noah’s Ark.

Aside from that little dalliance, why didn’t Mammoth survive Noah’s pleasure cruise? There are supported theories about the Mammoth being victims of climate change and humankind causing their demise and those theories don’t rely on supernaturalism. There is also solid evidence that they went extinct about 10,000 years ago which clashes with biblical timelines.


----------



## gipper

Hollie said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Einstein a loon too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Einstein present himself as a loon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Montaigne
> 
> 
> Historian, investigator, and author of prophecy books like End Times and 2019, and Antichrist 2016-2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> endtimesand2019.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So to you, it’s about presentation and not the evidence backing the theory. It could be some considered Einstein a loon during his time, based on his presentation. One would have to conclude those people are the real loons, like Dr Indiana, for instance.
> 
> Montaigne’s book is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein. The evidence of the sun micro nova, geo-magnetic pole shifts, earth crust displacement all causing catastrophic death and destruction, is strong. But remember, it’s a theory that hasn’t been accepted by all. This might be because it leads to very dire consequences humans refuse to accept or the theory may be legitimately lacking.  It’s a theory after all, a concept Dr Indiana is unfamiliar with.
> 
> However only idiots like Dr Indiana, consider theories dumb...based on the establishment’s refusal to accept them and lies he’s made up.
> 
> Oh...almost forgot. I’m betting the world that he’s never heard of Earth Crust Displacement Theory.  Add this term to the long list of terms he’s completely unaware of.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that Einstein’s work was within an academic community that peer reviewed his theories.
> 
> Montaigne self-entitles himself a “historian” and “researcher”.
> If, as you claim, his work is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein, please identify Montaigne’s thoroughly documented endtimes predictions, (4 of them which, oh, I don’t know, may not be accurate), and how those are thoroughly documented, even by Einstein.
Click to expand...

I don’t concern myself with his end Times philosophy. My only interest is in the evidence that supports catastrophic geomagnetic pole shifts. Many experts going back 200 years have concluded they happen regularly and often in Earth’s history. Montaigne merely presented their evidence in his book.  His predictions are of no interest to me. 

You will have to purchase his book to find out.


----------



## Hollie

gipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Einstein a loon too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Einstein present himself as a loon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Montaigne
> 
> 
> Historian, investigator, and author of prophecy books like End Times and 2019, and Antichrist 2016-2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> endtimesand2019.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So to you, it’s about presentation and not the evidence backing the theory. It could be some considered Einstein a loon during his time, based on his presentation. One would have to conclude those people are the real loons, like Dr Indiana, for instance.
> 
> Montaigne’s book is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein. The evidence of the sun micro nova, geo-magnetic pole shifts, earth crust displacement all causing catastrophic death and destruction, is strong. But remember, it’s a theory that hasn’t been accepted by all. This might be because it leads to very dire consequences humans refuse to accept or the theory may be legitimately lacking.  It’s a theory after all, a concept Dr Indiana is unfamiliar with.
> 
> However only idiots like Dr Indiana, consider theories dumb...based on the establishment’s refusal to accept them and lies he’s made up.
> 
> Oh...almost forgot. I’m betting the world that he’s never heard of Earth Crust Displacement Theory.  Add this term to the long list of terms he’s completely unaware of.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that Einstein’s work was within an academic community that peer reviewed his theories.
> 
> Montaigne self-entitles himself a “historian” and “researcher”.
> If, as you claim, his work is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein, please identify Montaigne’s thoroughly documented endtimes predictions, (4 of them which, oh, I don’t know, may not be accurate), and how those are thoroughly documented, even by Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t concern myself with his end Times philosophy. My only interest is in the evidence that supports catastrophic geomagnetic pole shifts. Many experts going back 200 years have concluded they happen regularly and often in Earth’s history. Montaigne merely presented their evidence in his book.  His predictions are of no interest to me.
> 
> You will have to purchase his book to find out.
Click to expand...

After four failed predictions of the endtimes, I’ll wait a bit before ordering his book.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper may be important to your church but it certainly wasn't the first major schism.  That appeared in the first decades after Jesus' death and hinged on whether converts to Christianity first had to become Jews.  I believe James and his followers in Jerusalem insisted they did, others, like Paul, disagreed.  The Romans made the decision by destroying Temple and enslaving the Jews there.  Paul won by default and Christianity spread throughout the pagan Roman world.  Had he lost, Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared.
Click to expand...


It was the governing body in Jerusalem that settled the disagreement over the circumcision issue.  And that was not what I meant by schism.   Read Acts chapter 15.

Excerpt:

"Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses,+ you cannot be saved.” 2 But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem+ regarding this issue.

3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia+ and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.+ 5 But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.”+

6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe.+ 8 And God, who knows the heart,+ bore witness by giving them the holy spirit,+ just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them,+ but purified their hearts by faith.+.....

After they finished speaking, James+ replied: “Men, brothers, hear me.+ 14 Symʹe·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,+ 18 known from of old.’+ 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,+ 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols,+ from sexual immorality,+ from what is strangled, and from blood."

Notice that the governing body in Jerusalem showed Amos 9:11,12 was fulfilled by people of the nations coming in.  And it was the pharisees, not Christians as a whole, that were causing the dissension - that was a sect of the Jews.

However, the schism between Polycarp (and the quartodecimans) and Victor (& the Roman churches) was not settled by appeal to Scripture because Victor refused to follow Jesus example of observing on passover night.   In fact Victor chose to excommunicate the quartodeciman churches.

The schism is not important to us except as a detail of history.  However, the Memorial of Christ's death by observance of the last supper is the only day directed his followers to observe:

Luke 22:19
Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+

The Memorial is our only holy day and it falls on Nisan 14 (after sundown).


----------



## gipper

Hollie said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does science explain mammoths flash frozen and their carcasses found as far north as 63 degrees north latitude?
> 
> 
> 
> Whats the mystery? The mammoth died, it froze, it was buried under precipitation that packed to ice.
> 
> "Flash frozen" is a meaningless term you made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you have proven you aren’t informed. I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsensical term, madeup for emotional effect. Nothing was "flash frozen", ya gullible goober.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think I’m a genius, but I really can’t take credit for inventing the phrase “flash frozen.”
> 
> 
> *The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought*
> 10/13/2018
> 36 Comments
> 
> A publisher has asked me to assemble a proposal for a short book on the myths and legends associated with the Giza Pyramids, notably the medieval legends of the Muslim world, so I am going to be taking some time today to work on this. In the meantime, I wanted to share something interesting I ran across in reading about Graham Hancock’s new book, _America Before_. Do you remember the popular claim that there were wooly mammoths flash-frozen in the Arctic as a result of a catastrophic change in climate, perhaps due to a shifting of the poles? It turns out that this claim is much older than I had imagined.
> The Claim of Flash-Frozen Mammoths Is Older Than I Thought
> 
> 
> 
> Look where they have found perfectly intact mammoth remains.  With perfectly preserved food still in their months and undigested food in their mouths. This means, my son, these animals where frozen almost instantaneously. Cool yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://endtimesand2019.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/mammoths-map_siberia_and_alaska.jpg?w=536&h=377
> 
> 
> Mr Geologist...let me know your opinion on the following events. I’m certain as an accredited geologist of amazing renown, you know all about them.
> - Gothenburg Event
> - Mono Lake/Lake Mungo
> - Laschamp Event
> - Vostok Event
> 
> This should be great fun!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Flash frozen" = nonsense. Posting links of people relaying this silly claim is not support of it. You just embarrassed yourself, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really are amazing. Apparently even super intellects like you, don’t know everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATASTROPHE, EXTINCTION, ICE AGE, MAMMOTHS, OTHER, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT
> *Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS*
> POSTED BY DAVID MONTAIGNE ⋅ SEPTEMBER 22, 2018        ⋅ 5 COMMENTS
> FILED UNDER  ARCTIC, BEREZOVKA, CRUSTAL DISPLACEMENT, DIMA, EVIDENCE, FLASH FROZEN, GEOLOGY, ICE AGE, MAMMOTH, POLE SHIFT, POLESHIFT, SIBERIA, VEGETATION
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths provide some of the best evidence of previous pole shifts, as the carcasses are found very well preserved – which means they were frozen fast, with no time to decompose after death – yet the mammoths are generally fat and healthy, with newborn young, and often with unchewed and undigested warm-climate vegetation in their mouths and stomachs – indicating a very sudden interruption of warm climate conditions in which they were eating about 500 pounds of vegetation per day right up until the moment they were suddenly frozen to death.
> 
> Flash-Frozen Mammoths are Evidence of POLE SHIFTS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating a claim is not support if it.
> 
> You believe all manner of goofy nonsense. This pole shift garbage is just the latest example.
> 
> "Flash frozen"....hahaha, what nonsense....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s see what we have learned so far.
> 
> 1. You think you’re smarter than Albert Einstein.
> 
> 2. You weren’t aware of thousands of mammoths frozen completely intact.
> 
> 3. You never heard the phrase Flash Frozen.
> 
> 4. You don’t know anything about prior poles shifts.
> 
> 5. You weren’t aware that evidence of past coral reefs and ancient forests have been founds at latitudes too cold for them to have existed there.
> 
> Somehow your amazing education failed to teach you anything. Do you mind if I continue to educate you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tjats an adorable little batch of whining. Lets check the scoreboard and see if it helped:
> 
> "Flash frozen": still silly nonsense from the brains of pseudoscientists
> 
> "Cataclysmic pole shifts": still a fringe pseudo scientific theory with exactly zero empirical evidence to support it and which is contradicted by all the actual evidence
> 
> 
> Nope , it appears the whining did not change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We bow to your vast knowledge, but how could it be you know nothing about geology? Did you lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whining wont get your crackpot fringe nonsense anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Check this out. You are exactly like the closed minded fake geologists. It’d be nice if you could impart your vast knowledge on this subject.
> 
> *Mammoths of the Last Polar Age*
> So how could horses and mammoths live on the New Siberian Islands during the very height of the North American Ice Age? *This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.* It doesn’t fit in with the dogmas of mainstream Science, so it is simply ignored. The main reason it is ignored is because this evidence utterly destroys the idea of a global ice age, involving a lowering of global temperatures; and it leaves all conventional theories on the cause of Ice Ages in tatters, such as the farcical idea that they are caused by Milankovitch Cycles.  Put simply, it is _physically impossible_that mammoths could have lived near the North Pole during times when ice sheets formed in almost subtropical latitudes. It violates the laws of thermal physics, and can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense.
> 
> The only plausible explanation is that the rise and fall of Ice Ages is caused by successive pole shifts, and that the North Pole was in Canada when mammoths were living on the Arctic’s island archipelagos. *But geologists prefer to live in a virtual reality, where they ignore the facts and mislead the public about the true history of Ice Ages.*
> 
> Mammoths of the Last Polar Age - World Mysteries Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Montaigne is a loon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Predicted End Of The World Four Times Says 2019 Will Finally Be It For Humanity
> 
> 
> <p>Right guys, I’m sorry to have to break the news to you so early on in the year when expectations are high and we’re still sticking to our resolutions, but 2019 will be our last year on Earth. Well, that’s according to some man who’s already predicted the end of the world four times before <a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.unilad.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Einstein a loon too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Einstein present himself as a loon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Montaigne
> 
> 
> Historian, investigator, and author of prophecy books like End Times and 2019, and Antichrist 2016-2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> endtimesand2019.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So to you, it’s about presentation and not the evidence backing the theory. It could be some considered Einstein a loon during his time, based on his presentation. One would have to conclude those people are the real loons, like Dr Indiana, for instance.
> 
> Montaigne’s book is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein. The evidence of the sun micro nova, geo-magnetic pole shifts, earth crust displacement all causing catastrophic death and destruction, is strong. But remember, it’s a theory that hasn’t been accepted by all. This might be because it leads to very dire consequences humans refuse to accept or the theory may be legitimately lacking.  It’s a theory after all, a concept Dr Indiana is unfamiliar with.
> 
> However only idiots like Dr Indiana, consider theories dumb...based on the establishment’s refusal to accept them and lies he’s made up.
> 
> Oh...almost forgot. I’m betting the world that he’s never heard of Earth Crust Displacement Theory.  Add this term to the long list of terms he’s completely unaware of.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you will find that Einstein’s work was within an academic community that peer reviewed his theories.
> 
> Montaigne self-entitles himself a “historian” and “researcher”.
> If, as you claim, his work is thoroughly documented with research performed by experts, including Einstein, please identify Montaigne’s thoroughly documented endtimes predictions, (4 of them which, oh, I don’t know, may not be accurate), and how those are thoroughly documented, even by Einstein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t concern myself with his end Times philosophy. My only interest is in the evidence that supports catastrophic geomagnetic pole shifts. Many experts going back 200 years have concluded they happen regularly and often in Earth’s history. Montaigne merely presented their evidence in his book.  His predictions are of no interest to me.
> 
> You will have to purchase his book to find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After four failed predictions of the endtimes, I’ll wait a bit before ordering his book.
Click to expand...

That’s certainly your prerogative. You might get Charles Hapgood’s book. Einstein did the forward.


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".
> 
> The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"
> 
> Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.
> 
> Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods make the effort to design the Mammoth, have Noah here them onto the Ark and then kill them all just a short while later?
> 
> The above is notwithstanding the fact, (phact) of a 6,000 year old planet and Mammoth which died out as recently as 4,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rainbow covenant assures us that will never happen again on earth.   In fact, in the next destruction at Armageddon the animals are invited to the great evening meal of God.
> 
> You keep forgetting that I am not a creationist - we don't believe earth is just 6,000 years old.
> 
> The mammoths went extinct over 4,000 hyers ago in 2370 BCE.   However, the elephant "kind" survived on Noah's ark - this is true of other animal kinds as well - some varieties of horses and bison also went extinct, but horses and bison survived the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence of a global flood or Noah’s Ark.
> 
> Aside from that little dalliance, why didn’t Mammoth survive Noah’s pleasure cruise? There are supported theories about the Mammoth being victims of climate change and humankind causing their demise and those theories don’t rely on supernaturalism. There is also solid evidence that they went extinct about 10,000 years ago which clashes with biblical timelines.
Click to expand...


Typical debate tactic - saying the other side presented no evidence as an excuse to not examine the evidence the other side presents (e.g. evolutionists vs. creationists).  As usual, you fail to examine the evidence - in this case of the quick freezing of many animals in the Arctic permafrost including mammoths.  

Noah only brought 2 or 7 of each kind of animal onto the ark.   The elephant kind survived - the mammoth variety went extinct; bison survived, but certain varieties of bison went extinct; horses survived but certain varieties of horses went extinct - etc.  The evidence is consistent with the Biblical account - but certain theories (interpretation of the evidence) are faulty - usually on some but not all points btw.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I think you are confusing me with someone else. I’m sure Ken is a nice guy, but his belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago is unfounded.



No.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> Obviously you did not check the references I posted for accuracy.   For example, the Muratorian fragment c. 170 CE.


I'm not sure what I was supposed to check:
The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th- or 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century​
If you're wondering about its accuracy, it has some obvious mistakes.  Several forged Pauline letters are included in its cannon, Titus for instance.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]



>>Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared<<

Is that just your opinion, Bart Ehrman's, or do you have a ?

Schism refers to something else.  If you're going to rub our noses with history, then use the terms correctly.  How about _disagreement_ as to when it was? Instead of Last Supper, what is another event that has more significance?


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper may be important to your church but it certainly wasn't the first major schism.  That appeared in the first decades after Jesus' death and hinged on whether converts to Christianity first had to become Jews.  I believe James and his followers in Jerusalem insisted they did, others, like Paul, disagreed.  The Romans made the decision by destroying Temple and enslaving the Jews there.  Paul won by default and Christianity spread throughout the pagan Roman world.  Had he lost, Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the governing body in Jerusalem that settled the disagreement over the circumcision issue.  And that was not what I meant by schism.   Read Acts chapter 15.
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses,+ you cannot be saved.” 2 But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem+ regarding this issue.
> 
> 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia+ and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.+ 5 But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.”+
> 
> 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe.+ 8 And God, who knows the heart,+ bore witness by giving them the holy spirit,+ just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them,+ but purified their hearts by faith.+.....
> 
> After they finished speaking, James+ replied: “Men, brothers, hear me.+ 14 Symʹe·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,+ 18 known from of old.’+ 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,+ 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols,+ from sexual immorality,+ from what is strangled, and from blood."
> 
> Notice that the governing body in Jerusalem showed Amos 9:11,12 was fulfilled by people of the nations coming in.  And it was the pharisees, not Christians as a whole, that were causing the dissension - that was a sect of the Jews.
> 
> However, the schism between Polycarp (and the quartodecimans) and Victor (& the Roman churches) was not settled by appeal to Scripture because Victor refused to follow Jesus example of observing on passover night.   In fact Victor chose to excommunicate the quartodeciman churches.
> 
> The schism is not important to us except as a detail of history.  However, the Memorial of Christ's death by observance of the last supper is the only day directed his followers to observe:
> 
> Luke 22:19
> Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+
> 
> The Memorial is our only holy day and it falls on Nisan 14 (after sundown).
Click to expand...

Acts was written at a time the schism was already decided in favor of Paul's faction and attempts to put the debate in the past.  It describes actions by Paul that are different from what Paul himself describes in his letters.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> >>Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared<<
> Is that just your opinion, Bart Ehrman's, or do you have a ?


That is my *opinion *based on Ehrman and many other historical sources.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing me with someone else. I’m sure Ken is a nice guy, but his belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago is unfounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

No, he’s not a nice guy?


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing me with someone else. I’m sure Ken is a nice guy, but his belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago is unfounded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, he’s not a nice guy?
Click to expand...


I think he's a nice guy, but he would rebuke you on your unfounded beliefs.  The Earth _was_ created around 6000 years ago.  It's ridiculous to think your old ages.  What evidence do you have?

Ken has besides radiocarbon dating of items claimed to be millions and billions of years old:
 1.  Not enough sediment on the sea floor.  Sands of time, you know.
 2.  We have bent rock layers.   Rocks can only bend like that through chemical reaction when forming.
 3.  Soft tissue still remains in the dinosaur fossils.  That's very strong evidence and makes things pretty obvious.
 4.  Faint sun.  If the universe was that old, then the sun wouldn't be as bright.
 5.  Rapidly decaying magnetic field.  Same idea as the faint sun.
 6.  Helium in radioactive rocks.  Ken would have to explain.
 7.  Lots of C-14 still remaining in fossils, coal, and diamonds.  RATE was able to use radiocarbon dating.
 8.  Short lived comets.  He would have to explain.
 9.  Very little salt in the seas.  Ditto.
10.  DNA in ancient bacteria.  Ditto.

I can explain to you six of ten of his pieces of evidence.  Would have to research his other four.

Again, what other evidence do you have?


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".
> 
> The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"
> 
> Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.
> 
> Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods make the effort to design the Mammoth, have Noah here them onto the Ark and then kill them all just a short while later?
> 
> The above is notwithstanding the fact, (phact) of a 6,000 year old planet and Mammoth which died out as recently as 4,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rainbow covenant assures us that will never happen again on earth.   In fact, in the next destruction at Armageddon the animals are invited to the great evening meal of God.
> 
> You keep forgetting that I am not a creationist - we don't believe earth is just 6,000 years old.
> 
> The mammoths went extinct over 4,000 hyers ago in 2370 BCE.   However, the elephant "kind" survived on Noah's ark - this is true of other animal kinds as well - some varieties of horses and bison also went extinct, but horses and bison survived the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence of a global flood or Noah’s Ark.
> 
> Aside from that little dalliance, why didn’t Mammoth survive Noah’s pleasure cruise? There are supported theories about the Mammoth being victims of climate change and humankind causing their demise and those theories don’t rely on supernaturalism. There is also solid evidence that they went extinct about 10,000 years ago which clashes with biblical timelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical debate tactic - saying the other side presented no evidence as an excuse to not examine the evidence the other side presents (e.g. evolutionists vs. creationists).  As usual, you fail to examine the evidence - in this case of the quick freezing of many animals in the Arctic permafrost including mammoths.
> 
> Noah only brought 2 or 7 of each kind of animal onto the ark.   The elephant kind survived - the mammoth variety went extinct; bison survived, but certain varieties of bison went extinct; horses survived but certain varieties of horses went extinct - etc.  The evidence is consistent with the Biblical account - but certain theories (interpretation of the evidence) are faulty - usually on some but not all points btw.
Click to expand...

My comment about evidence was in regard to the Noah fable. Of course this is your belief. You have no choice. That is a part of your fundamental dogma. There is no archeological or documentary evidence to support the events. Your agreement or disagreement with the archeologists matters not one bit. All that matters is that they have evidence for their version. You do not.

Every other significant archeological event on the planet has left behind archeological evidence of its occurrence, measurable to within a few centuries or so of the event. Christianity is the only faith that has claims to gods which inundated the planet a few thousand years ago yet there is no evidence of such a flood or an Ark carrying humans and animals. There does not exist the tiniest scrap of evidence for some claimed Ark. 

Further, the argument for "kinds" is not an argument at all. To claim that an event with no archeological history; the biblical flood, was preceded by a man who herded animals on a boat, again with no archeological history and that some of these animals later went extinct when we do have archeological evidence long before this claimed flood is, candidly, ridiculous. There is archeological evidence that Mammoth existed as long ago as 5 million years.


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not check the references I posted for accuracy.   For example, the Muratorian fragment c. 170 CE.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what I was supposed to check:
> The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th- or 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century​
> If you're wondering about its accuracy, it has some obvious mistakes.  Several forged Pauline letters are included in its cannon, Titus for instance.
Click to expand...


See our article on the Muratorian fragment - e.g. why the original is dated to c. 170 CE






						Early Confirmation of the Bible Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




Excerpt:

"You might wonder, though, when the information in the Muratorian Fragment was originally written. It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the _Shepherd, _and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ _Shepherd _between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E....

The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It also comments on the books and their respective writers. If you read the text, you would see that the first lines of the manuscript are missing, and it also seems to end abruptly. It starts by mentioning the Gospel of Luke, and the document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14) It states that Luke’s is the third Gospel, so you can see that the missing initial part likely made reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If that is your conclusion, you would find support in the Muratorian Fragment, which says that the fourth Gospel is that of John.


The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two). The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired.

It is significant that the Fragment mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.” The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the _Shepherd _of Hermas, or because they were written to support heresies.

You may have observed from the foregoing that the letter to the Hebrews, Peter’s two letters, and that of James are not mentioned in this catalog of authentic Bible books. However, noting the workmanship of the scribe who copied the manuscript, Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”_—The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon."_


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie - I posted mammoth evidence which you have so far ignored (pun intended).


----------



## Newtonian

alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper may be important to your church but it certainly wasn't the first major schism.  That appeared in the first decades after Jesus' death and hinged on whether converts to Christianity first had to become Jews.  I believe James and his followers in Jerusalem insisted they did, others, like Paul, disagreed.  The Romans made the decision by destroying Temple and enslaving the Jews there.  Paul won by default and Christianity spread throughout the pagan Roman world.  Had he lost, Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the governing body in Jerusalem that settled the disagreement over the circumcision issue.  And that was not what I meant by schism.   Read Acts chapter 15.
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses,+ you cannot be saved.” 2 But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem+ regarding this issue.
> 
> 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia+ and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.+ 5 But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.”+
> 
> 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe.+ 8 And God, who knows the heart,+ bore witness by giving them the holy spirit,+ just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them,+ but purified their hearts by faith.+.....
> 
> After they finished speaking, James+ replied: “Men, brothers, hear me.+ 14 Symʹe·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,+ 18 known from of old.’+ 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,+ 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols,+ from sexual immorality,+ from what is strangled, and from blood."
> 
> Notice that the governing body in Jerusalem showed Amos 9:11,12 was fulfilled by people of the nations coming in.  And it was the pharisees, not Christians as a whole, that were causing the dissension - that was a sect of the Jews.
> 
> However, the schism between Polycarp (and the quartodecimans) and Victor (& the Roman churches) was not settled by appeal to Scripture because Victor refused to follow Jesus example of observing on passover night.   In fact Victor chose to excommunicate the quartodeciman churches.
> 
> The schism is not important to us except as a detail of history.  However, the Memorial of Christ's death by observance of the last supper is the only day directed his followers to observe:
> 
> Luke 22:19
> Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+
> 
> The Memorial is our only holy day and it falls on Nisan 14 (after sundown).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acts was written at a time the schism was already decided in favor of Paul's faction and attempts to put the debate in the past.  It describes actions by Paul that are different from what Paul himself describes in his letters.
Click to expand...

That is false.

And the issue was answered by quoting the prophecy in Amos 9:11, 12.  All Bible writers aceepted all of the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired by God - see 2 Timothy 3:16 for example.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ivory Islands, renamed the New Siberian Islands, are in the arctic ocean north of Siberia.  Originally named Ivory Islands because of the abundance of ivory found in its permafrost - but other animals which would not live there in the current climate are also found in the permafrost:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Siberian Islands - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As noted by Baron Eduard V. Toll in his account of the New Siberian Islands,[16] sizeable and economically significant accumulations of fossil ivory occur within them. The ivory, along with mammoth and other bones, are found in recent beaches, drainage areas, river terraces and river beds. The New Siberian Islands are unique in the burial and preservation of fossil ivory "in such a wonderful state of preservation that the tusks so found cannot be distinguished from the very best and purest ivory".
> 
> The abundant bones, even skeletons, of mammoth, rhinoceros, musk-ox, and other megafauna along with the mammoth ivory found in these islands are preserved by permafrost, in which they are encased.[2][11][14][17]"
> 
> Note: theories that some of these animals were frozen before the last catastrophe are impossible because the climate which these animals lived in would have thawed any permafrost.   Cyclic sedimentation during the Noachian flood is likely the cause.
> 
> Anyone have a more complete list of the fauna and flora found in the permafrost?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the gods make the effort to design the Mammoth, have Noah here them onto the Ark and then kill them all just a short while later?
> 
> The above is notwithstanding the fact, (phact) of a 6,000 year old planet and Mammoth which died out as recently as 4,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rainbow covenant assures us that will never happen again on earth.   In fact, in the next destruction at Armageddon the animals are invited to the great evening meal of God.
> 
> You keep forgetting that I am not a creationist - we don't believe earth is just 6,000 years old.
> 
> The mammoths went extinct over 4,000 hyers ago in 2370 BCE.   However, the elephant "kind" survived on Noah's ark - this is true of other animal kinds as well - some varieties of horses and bison also went extinct, but horses and bison survived the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence of a global flood or Noah’s Ark.
> 
> Aside from that little dalliance, why didn’t Mammoth survive Noah’s pleasure cruise? There are supported theories about the Mammoth being victims of climate change and humankind causing their demise and those theories don’t rely on supernaturalism. There is also solid evidence that they went extinct about 10,000 years ago which clashes with biblical timelines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical debate tactic - saying the other side presented no evidence as an excuse to not examine the evidence the other side presents (e.g. evolutionists vs. creationists).  As usual, you fail to examine the evidence - in this case of the quick freezing of many animals in the Arctic permafrost including mammoths.
> 
> Noah only brought 2 or 7 of each kind of animal onto the ark.   The elephant kind survived - the mammoth variety went extinct; bison survived, but certain varieties of bison went extinct; horses survived but certain varieties of horses went extinct - etc.  The evidence is consistent with the Biblical account - but certain theories (interpretation of the evidence) are faulty - usually on some but not all points btw.
Click to expand...

My comment about the presentation of evidence was in regard to the Noah fable.


Newtonian said:


> Hollie - I posted mammoth evidence which you have so far ignored (pun intended).


Yes. We have archeological evidence of Mammoth. I’m not sure if you’re contesting that evidence as false or a conspiracy. 

No. We have no archeological evidence that Mammoth ever sailed with Noah on an Ark which we similarly have no evidence for.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not check the references I posted for accuracy.   For example, the Muratorian fragment c. 170 CE.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what I was supposed to check:
> The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th- or 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century​
> If you're wondering about its accuracy, it has some obvious mistakes.  Several forged Pauline letters are included in its cannon, Titus for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See our article on the Muratorian fragment - e.g. why the original is dated to c. 170 CE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Confirmation of the Bible Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "You might wonder, though, when the information in the Muratorian Fragment was originally written. It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the _Shepherd, _and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ _Shepherd _between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E....
> 
> The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It also comments on the books and their respective writers. If you read the text, you would see that the first lines of the manuscript are missing, and it also seems to end abruptly. It starts by mentioning the Gospel of Luke, and the document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14) It states that Luke’s is the third Gospel, so you can see that the missing initial part likely made reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If that is your conclusion, you would find support in the Muratorian Fragment, which says that the fourth Gospel is that of John.
> 
> 
> The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two). The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired.
> 
> It is significant that the Fragment mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.” The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the _Shepherd _of Hermas, or because they were written to support heresies.
> 
> You may have observed from the foregoing that the letter to the Hebrews, Peter’s two letters, and that of James are not mentioned in this catalog of authentic Bible books. However, noting the workmanship of the scribe who copied the manuscript, Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”_—The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon."_
Click to expand...


“Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”_—The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon."_

That’s quite a reach. The entire paragraph is wishful thinking, conjecture and “may have”, “reasonable to suggest”, speculation. 

The same folks who deride archeological evidence will accept “may have”, when it comes to assumptions about the supernatural. Really astonishing.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not check the references I posted for accuracy.   For example, the Muratorian fragment c. 170 CE.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what I was supposed to check:
> The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th- or 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century​
> If you're wondering about its accuracy, it has some obvious mistakes.  Several forged Pauline letters are included in its cannon, Titus for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See our article on the Muratorian fragment - e.g. why the original is dated to c. 170 CE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Confirmation of the Bible Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "You might wonder, though, when the information in the Muratorian Fragment was originally written. It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the _Shepherd, _and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ _Shepherd _between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E....
> 
> The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It also comments on the books and their respective writers. If you read the text, you would see that the first lines of the manuscript are missing, and it also seems to end abruptly. It starts by mentioning the Gospel of Luke, and the document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14) It states that Luke’s is the third Gospel, so you can see that the missing initial part likely made reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If that is your conclusion, you would find support in the Muratorian Fragment, which says that the fourth Gospel is that of John.
> 
> 
> The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two). The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired.
> 
> It is significant that the Fragment mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.” The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the _Shepherd _of Hermas, or because they were written to support heresies.
> 
> You may have observed from the foregoing that the letter to the Hebrews, Peter’s two letters, and that of James are not mentioned in this catalog of authentic Bible books. However, noting the workmanship of the scribe who copied the manuscript, Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”_—The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon."_
Click to expand...

So by 100 years after Jesus' death, long after anyone who knew Jesus or an apostle, the four Gospels had come to be associated with specific figures.  I have no problem with that but it in no way changes what I wrote.


----------



## alang1216

Newtonian said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper was the first major schism (mid 2nd century CE) and it actually divided the eastern (quartodecimans/polycarp) and western churches (Roman/Victor).  Note that some sources claim the disagreement was over the date of observance of Easter - but this is false information.   Those who followed the apostolic/Biblical practice observed the last supper on passover (pascha(l)) night and had nothing to do with the later observance of the pagan holiday of Easter.  The Bible clearly shows Jesus observed the last supper on passover night which only rarely falls on a Sunday on our calendar. [probability: 1 in 7]
> 
> 
> 
> The schism over the date of the observance of the last supper may be important to your church but it certainly wasn't the first major schism.  That appeared in the first decades after Jesus' death and hinged on whether converts to Christianity first had to become Jews.  I believe James and his followers in Jerusalem insisted they did, others, like Paul, disagreed.  The Romans made the decision by destroying Temple and enslaving the Jews there.  Paul won by default and Christianity spread throughout the pagan Roman world.  Had he lost, Christianity would be a minor Jewish cult and probably have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the governing body in Jerusalem that settled the disagreement over the circumcision issue.  And that was not what I meant by schism.   Read Acts chapter 15.
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses,+ you cannot be saved.” 2 But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem+ regarding this issue.
> 
> 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia+ and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 4 On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.+ 5 But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.”+
> 
> 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe.+ 8 And God, who knows the heart,+ bore witness by giving them the holy spirit,+ just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them,+ but purified their hearts by faith.+.....
> 
> After they finished speaking, James+ replied: “Men, brothers, hear me.+ 14 Symʹe·on+ has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.+ 15 And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After these things I will return and raise up again the tent of David that is fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, 17 so that the men who remain may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,+ 18 known from of old.’+ 19 Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,+ 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols,+ from sexual immorality,+ from what is strangled, and from blood."
> 
> Notice that the governing body in Jerusalem showed Amos 9:11,12 was fulfilled by people of the nations coming in.  And it was the pharisees, not Christians as a whole, that were causing the dissension - that was a sect of the Jews.
> 
> However, the schism between Polycarp (and the quartodecimans) and Victor (& the Roman churches) was not settled by appeal to Scripture because Victor refused to follow Jesus example of observing on passover night.   In fact Victor chose to excommunicate the quartodeciman churches.
> 
> The schism is not important to us except as a detail of history.  However, the Memorial of Christ's death by observance of the last supper is the only day directed his followers to observe:
> 
> Luke 22:19
> Also, he took a loaf,+ gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body,+ which is to be given in your behalf.+ Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”+
> 
> The Memorial is our only holy day and it falls on Nisan 14 (after sundown).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acts was written at a time the schism was already decided in favor of Paul's faction and attempts to put the debate in the past.  It describes actions by Paul that are different from what Paul himself describes in his letters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is false.
> 
> And the issue was answered by quoting the prophecy in Amos 9:11, 12.  All Bible writers aceepted all of the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired by God - see 2 Timothy 3:16 for example.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are calling false but citing a letter that is generally accepted to be forged is very unconvincing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This question is simply avoided by the geologists who have studied these islands.
> 
> 
> 
> uh, no it isnt. Where do you find these idiotic articles? You are really embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study reveals how the last woolly mammoths died out 4,000 years ago. That's after the Egyptians had built the pyramids.
> 
> 
> The last of the woolly mammoths died on an Arctic island 4,000 years ago, meaning these animals went extinct much later than scientists once thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last mammoths died on a remote island
> 
> 
> Isolation, extreme weather, and the possible arrival of humans may have killed off the holocene herbivores just 4,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Siberian Islands: A disappearing archipelago
> 
> 
> Most people have heard something about the mysterious Sannikov Land, which has fired up the imagination of explorers and travelers for two centuries. Few of us know, however, that legend places this mythical island north of the New Siberian Islands. Arctic.ru looks at the origin of the Sannikov...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arctic.ru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn son, you will believe ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we know you’re smarter than Eienstein. Where was it you got your PhD again?
Click to expand...

Haha, poor little guy is sitting in his Alamo, with no good evidence or argument, having a tourettes bout.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gipper said:


> That’s certainly your prerogative. You might get Charles Hapgood’s book


..if you run out of toilet paper.


----------



## Newtonian

d


alang1216 said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not check the references I posted for accuracy.   For example, the Muratorian fragment c. 170 CE.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what I was supposed to check:
> The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th- or 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century​
> If you're wondering about its accuracy, it has some obvious mistakes.  Several forged Pauline letters are included in its cannon, Titus for instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See our article on the Muratorian fragment - e.g. why the original is dated to c. 170 CE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Confirmation of the Bible Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
> 
> 
> This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wol.jw.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> "You might wonder, though, when the information in the Muratorian Fragment was originally written. It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the _Shepherd, _and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ _Shepherd _between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E....
> 
> The text is not merely a list of the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It also comments on the books and their respective writers. If you read the text, you would see that the first lines of the manuscript are missing, and it also seems to end abruptly. It starts by mentioning the Gospel of Luke, and the document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14) It states that Luke’s is the third Gospel, so you can see that the missing initial part likely made reference to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. If that is your conclusion, you would find support in the Muratorian Fragment, which says that the fourth Gospel is that of John.
> 
> 
> The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two). The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired.
> 
> It is significant that the Fragment mentions an Apocalypse of Peter but states that some felt that it should not be read by Christians. The writer warns that counterfeit writings were already circulating in his day. The Muratorian Fragment explains that these should not be accepted, “for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey.” The document also mentions other texts that were not to be included among the holy writings. That was either because they were written after the apostolic period, as was the _Shepherd _of Hermas, or because they were written to support heresies.
> 
> You may have observed from the foregoing that the letter to the Hebrews, Peter’s two letters, and that of James are not mentioned in this catalog of authentic Bible books. However, noting the workmanship of the scribe who copied the manuscript, Dr. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman observed that it is “reasonable to suggest that the Fragment may have contained other references now lost, and that James and Hebrews (and 1 Peter) may have been among them.”_—The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by 100 years after Jesus' death, long after anyone who knew Jesus or an apostle, the four Gospels had come to be associated with specific figures.  I have no problem with that but it in no way changes what I wrote.
Click to expand...

 
The writership of the 4 gospels was never doubted back then - but note that the book of John was written about 63 years after Jesus death and John was an apostle of Jesus.   The oldest manuscript copy fragment of this gospel is from only about 25 years after that:






						Why You Can Trust the Biblical Gospels — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
					

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.




					wol.jw.org
				




"A valuable fragment of John’s Gospel was found in Egypt at the turn of the 20th century and is now known as the *Papyrus Rylands 457 (P52). *It contains what is John 18:31-33, 37, 38 in the modern Bible and is preserved at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. This is the oldest manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures in existence. Many scholars believe that it was written about 125 C.E., a mere quarter of a century or so after John’s death. The amazing thing is that the text of the fragment agrees nearly exactly with that in later manuscripts. The fact that a copy of John’s Gospel of such antiquity had already circulated to Egypt, where the fragment was discovered, supports the conclusion that the good news according to John was really recorded in the first century C.E. and by John himself, as the Bible indicates. The book of John is therefore the work of an eyewitness."


----------



## gipper

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s certainly your prerogative. You might get Charles Hapgood’s book
> 
> 
> 
> ..if you run out of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

Typical.


----------



## Newtonian

Genesis 1:6-9
Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven.* And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”+ And it was so. 

So, while before the first creative day the earth was covered with water in darkness (Genesis 1:2) perhaps billions of years ago (compare the rate of carbonate deposition by the geologic carbon cycle), by the first creative day light reached the surface of these primordial waters (note the Hebrew imperfect verb state = action in progress not yet complete).

Then on the second creative day (likely well over 7,000 years long each) the waters separated from above the atmospheric expanse and below it.   And on the 3rd creative day dry land appeared and then land plants were created.

But what caused the waters to separate and were the upper waters mostly rotating like Saturn's rings  rather than supported by the atmosphere as on Venus where atmospheric pressure is very high?

Were there condensation catastrophes involved when earth's crustal temperatures reached the higher boiling point due to the higher atmospheric pressure due to the much higher CO2 atmospheric pressure before said CO2 was gradually removed from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters and the geologic carbon cycle?

Since the primordial waters would have been hot (perhaps above the current boiling point) and in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure - does this environment correspond to that in deep ocean thermal vents also hot and under great pressure where different forms of life that do not require light flourish?

Were luminescent animals the first forms of life on earth's surface?

Were extremophiles the first form of life created on earth?

How much time did it take for earth's crust to cool to water's condensation point?

Since the crust was thinner - did the water pressure cause volcanic activity which put some CO2 back into the atmosphere raising the boiling point and stopping condensation in repeating cycle?

Did volcanic activity decrease in numbers but increase in violence due to the thickening of earth's crust?

Did the wrinkling of earth's crust during thickening plus volcanic activity cause dry land to first appear?

Was the Noachian flood the last/final condensation catastrophe perhaps initiated by the effects of a comet on the rotating water belts around the earth - perhaps a near miss?

Bottom line - how did God cause earth's accretion of water which ended with the Noachian flood?  I.e. not simply Goddidit - but how God did it?


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Genesis 1:6-9
> Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven.* And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
> 
> 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”+ And it was so.
> 
> So, while before the first creative day the earth was covered with water in darkness (Genesis 1:2) perhaps billions of years ago (compare the rate of carbonate deposition by the geologic carbon cycle), by the first creative day light reached the surface of these primordial waters (note the Hebrew imperfect verb state = action in progress not yet complete).
> 
> Then on the second creative day (likely well over 7,000 years long each) the waters separated from above the atmospheric expanse and below it.   And on the 3rd creative day dry land appeared and then land plants were created.
> 
> But what caused the waters to separate and were the upper waters mostly rotating like Saturn's rings  rather than supported by the atmosphere as on Venus where atmospheric pressure is very high?
> 
> Were there condensation catastrophes involved when earth's crustal temperatures reached the higher boiling point due to the higher atmospheric pressure due to the much higher CO2 atmospheric pressure before said CO2 was gradually removed from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters and the geologic carbon cycle?
> 
> Since the primordial waters would have been hot (perhaps above the current boiling point) and in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure - does this environment correspond to that in deep ocean thermal vents also hot and under great pressure where different forms of life that do not require light flourish?
> 
> Were luminescent animals the first forms of life on earth's surface?
> 
> Were extremophiles the first form of life created on earth?
> 
> How much time did it take for earth's crust to cool to water's condensation point?
> 
> Since the crust was thinner - did the water pressure cause volcanic activity which put some CO2 back into the atmosphere raising the boiling point and stopping condensation in repeating cycle?
> 
> Did volcanic activity decrease in numbers but increase in violence due to the thickening of earth's crust?
> 
> Did the wrinkling of earth's crust during thickening plus volcanic activity cause dry land to first appear?
> 
> Was the Noachian flood the last/final condensation catastrophe perhaps initiated by the effects of a comet on the rotating water belts around the earth - perhaps a near miss?
> 
> Bottom line - how did God cause earth's accretion of water which ended with the Noachian flood?  I.e. not simply Goddidit - but how God did it?


A presumptive claim to the gods causing earth's accretion of water without first supporting your clam to the existence of the gods is a variation of one of many fallacious cosmological arguments.

What Noachian flood are you referring to? What evidence can you present to support the claim to a global flood a few thousand years ago?


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1:6-9
> Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven.* And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
> 
> 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”+ And it was so.
> 
> So, while before the first creative day the earth was covered with water in darkness (Genesis 1:2) perhaps billions of years ago (compare the rate of carbonate deposition by the geologic carbon cycle), by the first creative day light reached the surface of these primordial waters (note the Hebrew imperfect verb state = action in progress not yet complete).
> 
> Then on the second creative day (likely well over 7,000 years long each) the waters separated from above the atmospheric expanse and below it.   And on the 3rd creative day dry land appeared and then land plants were created.
> 
> But what caused the waters to separate and were the upper waters mostly rotating like Saturn's rings  rather than supported by the atmosphere as on Venus where atmospheric pressure is very high?
> 
> Were there condensation catastrophes involved when earth's crustal temperatures reached the higher boiling point due to the higher atmospheric pressure due to the much higher CO2 atmospheric pressure before said CO2 was gradually removed from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters and the geologic carbon cycle?
> 
> Since the primordial waters would have been hot (perhaps above the current boiling point) and in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure - does this environment correspond to that in deep ocean thermal vents also hot and under great pressure where different forms of life that do not require light flourish?
> 
> Were luminescent animals the first forms of life on earth's surface?
> 
> Were extremophiles the first form of life created on earth?
> 
> How much time did it take for earth's crust to cool to water's condensation point?
> 
> Since the crust was thinner - did the water pressure cause volcanic activity which put some CO2 back into the atmosphere raising the boiling point and stopping condensation in repeating cycle?
> 
> Did volcanic activity decrease in numbers but increase in violence due to the thickening of earth's crust?
> 
> Did the wrinkling of earth's crust during thickening plus volcanic activity cause dry land to first appear?
> 
> Was the Noachian flood the last/final condensation catastrophe perhaps initiated by the effects of a comet on the rotating water belts around the earth - perhaps a near miss?
> 
> Bottom line - how did God cause earth's accretion of water which ended with the Noachian flood?  I.e. not simply Goddidit - but how God did it?
> 
> 
> 
> A presumptive claim to the gods causing earth's accretion of water without first supporting your clam to the existence of the gods is a variation of one of many fallacious cosmological arguments.
> 
> What Noachian flood are you referring to? What evidence can you present to support the claim to a global flood a few thousand years ago?
Click to expand...


You fail to attempt to answer even one of the questions I posted.  What valuable scientific points are you posting - for example, how do you think earth accreted its water and what does the over 64 million petagrams of carbon in the carbonate in earth's crust deposited by the geologic carbon cycle indicate to you?

Or are you just posting your repeated accusations without any desire to add scientific input?   Remember which forum section this is.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1:6-9
> Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven.* And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
> 
> 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”+ And it was so.
> 
> So, while before the first creative day the earth was covered with water in darkness (Genesis 1:2) perhaps billions of years ago (compare the rate of carbonate deposition by the geologic carbon cycle), by the first creative day light reached the surface of these primordial waters (note the Hebrew imperfect verb state = action in progress not yet complete).
> 
> Then on the second creative day (likely well over 7,000 years long each) the waters separated from above the atmospheric expanse and below it.   And on the 3rd creative day dry land appeared and then land plants were created.
> 
> But what caused the waters to separate and were the upper waters mostly rotating like Saturn's rings  rather than supported by the atmosphere as on Venus where atmospheric pressure is very high?
> 
> Were there condensation catastrophes involved when earth's crustal temperatures reached the higher boiling point due to the higher atmospheric pressure due to the much higher CO2 atmospheric pressure before said CO2 was gradually removed from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters and the geologic carbon cycle?
> 
> Since the primordial waters would have been hot (perhaps above the current boiling point) and in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure - does this environment correspond to that in deep ocean thermal vents also hot and under great pressure where different forms of life that do not require light flourish?
> 
> Were luminescent animals the first forms of life on earth's surface?
> 
> Were extremophiles the first form of life created on earth?
> 
> How much time did it take for earth's crust to cool to water's condensation point?
> 
> Since the crust was thinner - did the water pressure cause volcanic activity which put some CO2 back into the atmosphere raising the boiling point and stopping condensation in repeating cycle?
> 
> Did volcanic activity decrease in numbers but increase in violence due to the thickening of earth's crust?
> 
> Did the wrinkling of earth's crust during thickening plus volcanic activity cause dry land to first appear?
> 
> Was the Noachian flood the last/final condensation catastrophe perhaps initiated by the effects of a comet on the rotating water belts around the earth - perhaps a near miss?
> 
> Bottom line - how did God cause earth's accretion of water which ended with the Noachian flood?  I.e. not simply Goddidit - but how God did it?
> 
> 
> 
> A presumptive claim to the gods causing earth's accretion of water without first supporting your clam to the existence of the gods is a variation of one of many fallacious cosmological arguments.
> 
> What Noachian flood are you referring to? What evidence can you present to support the claim to a global flood a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to attempt to answer even one of the questions I posted.  What valuable scientific points are you posting - for example, how do you think earth accreted its water and what does the over 64 million petagrams of carbon in the carbonate in earth's crust deposited by the geologic carbon cycle indicate to you?
> 
> Or are you just posting your repeated accusations without any desire to add scientific input?   Remember which forum section this is.
Click to expand...

It’s a simple matter to research the evidence that points to cometary bombardment of the planet as a major source of water.

In terms of “scientific input”, are you trying to make a point about 64 million petagrams? What point would that be?


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1:6-9
> Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven.* And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
> 
> 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”+ And it was so.
> 
> So, while before the first creative day the earth was covered with water in darkness (Genesis 1:2) perhaps billions of years ago (compare the rate of carbonate deposition by the geologic carbon cycle), by the first creative day light reached the surface of these primordial waters (note the Hebrew imperfect verb state = action in progress not yet complete).
> 
> Then on the second creative day (likely well over 7,000 years long each) the waters separated from above the atmospheric expanse and below it.   And on the 3rd creative day dry land appeared and then land plants were created.
> 
> But what caused the waters to separate and were the upper waters mostly rotating like Saturn's rings  rather than supported by the atmosphere as on Venus where atmospheric pressure is very high?
> 
> Were there condensation catastrophes involved when earth's crustal temperatures reached the higher boiling point due to the higher atmospheric pressure due to the much higher CO2 atmospheric pressure before said CO2 was gradually removed from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters and the geologic carbon cycle?
> 
> Since the primordial waters would have been hot (perhaps above the current boiling point) and in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure - does this environment correspond to that in deep ocean thermal vents also hot and under great pressure where different forms of life that do not require light flourish?
> 
> Were luminescent animals the first forms of life on earth's surface?
> 
> Were extremophiles the first form of life created on earth?
> 
> How much time did it take for earth's crust to cool to water's condensation point?
> 
> Since the crust was thinner - did the water pressure cause volcanic activity which put some CO2 back into the atmosphere raising the boiling point and stopping condensation in repeating cycle?
> 
> Did volcanic activity decrease in numbers but increase in violence due to the thickening of earth's crust?
> 
> Did the wrinkling of earth's crust during thickening plus volcanic activity cause dry land to first appear?
> 
> Was the Noachian flood the last/final condensation catastrophe perhaps initiated by the effects of a comet on the rotating water belts around the earth - perhaps a near miss?
> 
> Bottom line - how did God cause earth's accretion of water which ended with the Noachian flood?  I.e. not simply Goddidit - but how God did it?
> 
> 
> 
> A presumptive claim to the gods causing earth's accretion of water without first supporting your clam to the existence of the gods is a variation of one of many fallacious cosmological arguments.
> 
> What Noachian flood are you referring to? What evidence can you present to support the claim to a global flood a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to attempt to answer even one of the questions I posted.  What valuable scientific points are you posting - for example, how do you think earth accreted its water and what does the over 64 million petagrams of carbon in the carbonate in earth's crust deposited by the geologic carbon cycle indicate to you?
> 
> Or are you just posting your repeated accusations without any desire to add scientific input?   Remember which forum section this is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a simple matter to research the evidence that points to cometary bombardment of the planet as a major source of water.
> 
> In terms of “scientific input”, are you trying to make a point about 64 million petagrams? What point would that be?
Click to expand...


I already posted that.

Hint: the geologic carbon cycle.

Sample question - how long did it take for the deposition of earth's crustal carbonates?


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1:6-9
> Then God said: “Let there be an expanse+ between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.”+ 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.+ And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven.* And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
> 
> 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”+ And it was so.
> 
> So, while before the first creative day the earth was covered with water in darkness (Genesis 1:2) perhaps billions of years ago (compare the rate of carbonate deposition by the geologic carbon cycle), by the first creative day light reached the surface of these primordial waters (note the Hebrew imperfect verb state = action in progress not yet complete).
> 
> Then on the second creative day (likely well over 7,000 years long each) the waters separated from above the atmospheric expanse and below it.   And on the 3rd creative day dry land appeared and then land plants were created.
> 
> But what caused the waters to separate and were the upper waters mostly rotating like Saturn's rings  rather than supported by the atmosphere as on Venus where atmospheric pressure is very high?
> 
> Were there condensation catastrophes involved when earth's crustal temperatures reached the higher boiling point due to the higher atmospheric pressure due to the much higher CO2 atmospheric pressure before said CO2 was gradually removed from the atmosphere via earth's primordial waters and the geologic carbon cycle?
> 
> Since the primordial waters would have been hot (perhaps above the current boiling point) and in darkness and under great atmospheric pressure - does this environment correspond to that in deep ocean thermal vents also hot and under great pressure where different forms of life that do not require light flourish?
> 
> Were luminescent animals the first forms of life on earth's surface?
> 
> Were extremophiles the first form of life created on earth?
> 
> How much time did it take for earth's crust to cool to water's condensation point?
> 
> Since the crust was thinner - did the water pressure cause volcanic activity which put some CO2 back into the atmosphere raising the boiling point and stopping condensation in repeating cycle?
> 
> Did volcanic activity decrease in numbers but increase in violence due to the thickening of earth's crust?
> 
> Did the wrinkling of earth's crust during thickening plus volcanic activity cause dry land to first appear?
> 
> Was the Noachian flood the last/final condensation catastrophe perhaps initiated by the effects of a comet on the rotating water belts around the earth - perhaps a near miss?
> 
> Bottom line - how did God cause earth's accretion of water which ended with the Noachian flood?  I.e. not simply Goddidit - but how God did it?
> 
> 
> 
> A presumptive claim to the gods causing earth's accretion of water without first supporting your clam to the existence of the gods is a variation of one of many fallacious cosmological arguments.
> 
> What Noachian flood are you referring to? What evidence can you present to support the claim to a global flood a few thousand years ago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to attempt to answer even one of the questions I posted.  What valuable scientific points are you posting - for example, how do you think earth accreted its water and what does the over 64 million petagrams of carbon in the carbonate in earth's crust deposited by the geologic carbon cycle indicate to you?
> 
> Or are you just posting your repeated accusations without any desire to add scientific input?   Remember which forum section this is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a simple matter to research the evidence that points to cometary bombardment of the planet as a major source of water.
> 
> In terms of “scientific input”, are you trying to make a point about 64 million petagrams? What point would that be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already posted that.
> 
> Hint: the geologic carbon cycle.
> 
> Sample question - how long did it take for the deposition of earth's crustal carbonates?
Click to expand...

How long?

As this is the Genesis 1:9 thread, I’m guessing no more than 6 days, right?


----------

