# Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?



## ding

Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans

Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


----------



## night_son

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?



I_ Sphinx_ you could be on to something . . .


----------



## ReinyDays

Locally ... yes ... the high water mark in the Columbia Gorge is still obvious after 15,000 years ... 800 feet above flood stage ... although the flooding of the Black Sea basin might be a better match for the Biblical account ... or perhaps the Biblical account is a combination of many stories of such floods ... they're not as uncommon as history suggests ...

All the sons and daughters of Cain were destroyed ... leaving only Noah and his descendants, who carried on the seed of Seth ...


----------



## petro

As the glaciers retreated north after the last ice age. The water flowage and flooding would have been massive. Biblical. The scars of it shaped the very landscape we take for granted today. Carving the many lakes to the north and the huge river valleys such as the Mississippi. The massive erosion can be seen as one travels all over the Northern Hemisphere. 
Our human ancestors witnessed this great climate event.
This event was a significant benefit to the evolution of humanity.
The great flood legends may have very well passed down oracally for hundreds of generations until the written word.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The linestone foundation stones at Baalbek, Lebanon are eroded from being submerged.


----------



## waltky

Are any of the rocks on Everest...

... showing signs of water erosion?


----------



## bripat9643

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


No.


----------



## 007

But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.

Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.


----------



## ding

bripat9643 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?


----------



## ding

007 said:


> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.


They are wrong.


----------



## Hollie

007 said:


> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.



They’re also desperate. Without the biblical flood, much of Christianity devolves into just more myth and legend. 

I do find it a bit creepy that the gods would allow for incestuous and familial relations as the means for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet, all in the timeframe of a few thousand years.

It’s just so silly.


----------



## Meathead

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


The Black Sea Inundation Theory is pretty interesting and may have given rise to Atlantis, Noah's Ark and even the spread of the Indo-European langues.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They’re also desperate. Without the biblical flood, much of Christianity devolves into just more myth and legend.
> 
> I do find it a bit creepy that the gods would allow for incestuous and familial relations as the means for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet, all in the timeframe of a few thousand years.
> 
> It’s just so silly.
Click to expand...

Try to stay on topic. Address the article or leave.


----------



## Hollie

ding said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They’re also desperate. Without the biblical flood, much of Christianity devolves into just more myth and legend.
> 
> I do find it a bit creepy that the gods would allow for incestuous and familial relations as the means for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet, all in the timeframe of a few thousand years.
> 
> It’s just so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to stay on topic. Address the article or leave.
Click to expand...


I addressed the article, thumpy. Pay attention or leave.


----------



## OldLady

ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.


----------



## bripat9643

ding said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
Click to expand...

Of what relevance is that question?

Sea level might go up by about 20 feet.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


To me, it seems more reasonable that the global flood in myth is the rise in sea level that took place about 10,000 years ago.  Anyone living by the sea would have had their environment radically changed.  Slowly but dramatically.  Some areas inhabited by humans, e.g., Doggerland, totally disappeared and may have given rise to oral traditions.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.


It would have been a world wide climate altering event with world wide rain. Flooding would have occurred everywhere until the water ran off.


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They’re also desperate. Without the biblical flood, much of Christianity devolves into just more myth and legend.
> 
> I do find it a bit creepy that the gods would allow for incestuous and familial relations as the means for Noah and his immediate family to repopulate the planet, all in the timeframe of a few thousand years.
> 
> It’s just so silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to stay on topic. Address the article or leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed the article, thumpy. Pay attention or leave.
Click to expand...

I didn’t see it. And it’s my OP so I’m not going anywhere.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it seems more reasonable that the global flood in myth is the rise in sea level that took place about 10,000 years ago.  Anyone living by the sea would have had their environment radically changed.  Slowly but dramatically.  Some areas inhabited by humans, e.g., Doggerland, totally disappeared and may have given rise to oral traditions.
Click to expand...

Again, 1500 gigatons of ice being instantly vaporized would have made a global wide climate impact.


----------



## ding

bripat9643 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of what relevance is that question?
> 
> Sea level might go up by about 20 feet.
Click to expand...

The relevance is that it explains the flood accounts of ancient civilizations.  It’s an event that put 1500 gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere instantly.

all that water had to come out of the atmosphere as rain.


----------



## OldLady

ding said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a world wide climate altering event with world wide rain. Flooding would have occurred everywhere until the water ran off.
Click to expand...

Is that even possible?

I think the 40 days and 40 nights of rain was the way to explain the rising waters that they didn't understand had come from melting glaciers so far to the north that they didn't even dream of their existence.  Just as Noah's ark was an explanation for how humans and all the animals managed to survive.  These people had logic.  They asked questions.  There had to be an explanation, even though they didn't have the knowledge base, yet, to actually explain it.
The floods, though?  Oh yeah, we know the floods really happened.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> It’s an event that put 1500 gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere instantly.


This is not what the article says. It says this much ice was possibly melted, while talking about the effects of the melt runoff into the ocean. Clearly they are not stating or implying that this much water was vaporized into the atmosphere. In fact, with their focus on the runoff into the ocean, it would appear they are implying that most of it was not vaporized, but rather just melted and then ran off into the ocean.

" The impact would have melted 1500 gigatons of ice, the team estimates—about as much ice as Antarctica has lost because of global warming in the past decade. The local greenhouse effect from the released steam and the residual heat in the crater rock would have added more melt. Much of that freshwater could have ended up in the nearby Labrador Sea, a primary site pumping the Atlantic Ocean's overturning circulation. "That potentially could perturb the circulation," says Sophia Hines, a marine paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty"


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it seems more reasonable that the global flood in myth is the rise in sea level that took place about 10,000 years ago.  Anyone living by the sea would have had their environment radically changed.  Slowly but dramatically.  Some areas inhabited by humans, e.g., Doggerland, totally disappeared and may have given rise to oral traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, 1500 gigatons of ice being instantly vaporized would have made a global wide climate impact.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would have.  According to your link it may have cooled the Earth but I saw nothing in the article indicating a flood.  You're just cherry-picking the science that supports the Bible and denying the science that contradicts your literal interpretation of it.  Very dishonest to science and the Bible.


----------



## bripat9643

ding said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of what relevance is that question?
> 
> Sea level might go up by about 20 feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The relevance is that it explains the flood accounts of ancient civilizations.  It’s an event that put 1500 gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere instantly.
> 
> all that water had to come out of the atmosphere as rain.
Click to expand...

The meteor hit "in the last 100,000 years."  Unless it hit within the last 10,000, I doubt there would be any memory of it.


----------



## ding

OldLady said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a world wide climate altering event with world wide rain. Flooding would have occurred everywhere until the water ran off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that even possible?
> 
> I think the 40 days and 40 nights of rain was the way to explain the rising waters that they didn't understand had come from melting glaciers so far to the north that they didn't even dream of their existence.  Just as Noah's ark was an explanation for how humans and all the animals managed to survive.  These people had logic.  They asked questions.  There had to be an explanation, even though they didn't have the knowledge base, yet, to actually explain it.
> The floods, though?  Oh yeah, we know the floods really happened.
Click to expand...

No. If an asteroid vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice that water is put into the atmosphere. It would affect global weather patterns. That moisture would come back as rain and would cause flooding on land until it ran off into the oceans.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s an event that put 1500 gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere instantly.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not what the article says. It says this much ice was possibly melted, while talking about the effects of the melt runoff into the ocean. Clearly they are not stating or implying that this much water was vaporized into the atmosphere. In fact, with their focus on the runoff into the ocean, it would appear they are implying that most of it was not vaporized, but rather just melted and then ran off into the ocean.
> 
> " The impact would have melted 1500 gigatons of ice, the team estimates—about as much ice as Antarctica has lost because of global warming in the past decade. The local greenhouse effect from the released steam and the residual heat in the crater rock would have added more melt. Much of that freshwater could have ended up in the nearby Labrador Sea, a primary site pumping the Atlantic Ocean's overturning circulation. "That potentially could perturb the circulation," says Sophia Hines, a marine paleoclimatologist at Lamont-Doherty"
Click to expand...

Asteroid strikes are global events. If you vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice it will affect the globe.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it seems more reasonable that the global flood in myth is the rise in sea level that took place about 10,000 years ago.  Anyone living by the sea would have had their environment radically changed.  Slowly but dramatically.  Some areas inhabited by humans, e.g., Doggerland, totally disappeared and may have given rise to oral traditions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, 1500 gigatons of ice being instantly vaporized would have made a global wide climate impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  According to your link it may have cooled the Earth but I saw nothing in the article indicating a flood.  You're just cherry-picking the science that supports the Bible and denying the science that contradicts your literal interpretation of it.  Very dishonest to science and the Bible.
Click to expand...

Where do you believe the water vapor went?


----------



## ding

bripat9643 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of what relevance is that question?
> 
> Sea level might go up by about 20 feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The relevance is that it explains the flood accounts of ancient civilizations.  It’s an event that put 1500 gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere instantly.
> 
> all that water had to come out of the atmosphere as rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The meteor hit "in the last 100,000 years."  Unless it hit within the last 10,000, I doubt there would be any memory of it.
Click to expand...

The timing is uncertain. It could have been as early as 12,800 years ago. That’s what they are investigating.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?”_

No.

The flood myth is predicated on the seasonal flooding that occurred in the Fertile Crescent.

Floods were the most powerful force known to ancient man, hence their use as cataclysmic events in literature – such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and flood myth in the bible.


----------



## ChemEngineer

007 said:


> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.



Super atheists think the universe(s) made itself (themselves) from "a quantum vacuum".

I know they're nuts.


----------



## fncceo

Speaking as someone with deeply held religious beliefs ... no, it's not possible or true. 

Like most scripture ... it remains folklore and allegory.  Still useful as an object lesson, but not factual or accurate.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Asteroid strikes are global events. If you vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice it will affect the globe.


Neato! But your article -- that you clearly did not really read -- does not say anything about that much water being vaporized.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Like most scripture ... it remains folklore and allegory.


Which you have the luxury of saying, since science came along and taught us that. 

18th century fncceo would have deemed every word to be a fact.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

OldLady said:


> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.








List of impact craters in North America - Wikipedia






List of impact craters in South America - Wikipedia

What makes you think that the Greenland crater is the only impact site at that time frame?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> What makes you think that the Greenland crater is the only impact site at that time frame?


Probably because scientists have not discovered any other large craters from that time frame.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 18th century fncceo would have deemed every word to be a fact.



Jews were a major influence in the 18th Century enlightenment.   In Judaism,  rational criticism of scripture is not only condoned,  it is actively encouraged.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Jews were a major influence in the 18th Century enlightenment. In Judaism, rational criticism of scripture is not only condoned, it is actively encouraged.


 And every single religious jew in the 18th century  took the word of the Noah myth as a fact. Remember, the "rational" criticism at the time was within the framework of knowledge that the earth was a few thousand years old, and that nobody had heard of evolution.


----------



## idb

Whatever happened to "Faith"?
Isn't trying to prove that The Bible is literal the very opposite of faith?


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And every single jew in the 18th century believed took word of the Noah myth as a fact.



You met them all?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And every single jew in the 18th century believed took word of the Noah myth as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You met them all?
Click to expand...

No. But I know not a single one of them argued for an older earth, or for evolution, using any actual evidence.  Look, you can be just as cute as you like, but you know you agree with me 100%. You religious folks have the luxury of calling your holy texts "allegory", because of the genetic accident of where and when you were born. Namely, in a place and time where science has taught us that all of the magical stuff in the iron aged handbooks is almost certainly madeup, magical nonsense.


----------



## fncceo

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> And every single jew in the 18th century believed took word of the Noah myth as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You met them all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. But I know not a single one of them argued for an older earth, or for evolution, using any actual evidence.  Look, you can be just as cute as you like, but you know you agree with me 100%. You religious folks have the luxury of calling your holy texts "allegory", because of the genetic accident of where and when you were born. Namely, in a place and time where science has taught us that all of the magical stuff in the iron aged handbooks is almost certainly madeup, magical nonsense.
Click to expand...


In fact, a recognized exeges movement in Judaism referred to by the acronym PARDES dates back to the 13th Century.  

You should make yourself familiar with the writings of Moses de Leon and Baruch Spinoza.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

fncceo said:


> In fact, a recognized exeges movement in Judaism referred to by the acronym PARDES dates back to the 13th Century.




Could you point me to Spinoza's writings that said the bible myths were all allegory?  Or was it just some?  Thanks.

regardless, you know my point, no matter how cute you feel like being.  People were generally ignorant of all things scientific, and they generally took the bible literally. Until they didn't, thanks generally to scientific knowledge. Pointing out the most brilliant philosophers of a given time had different viewpoints doesn't really make your point.  Imagine an archaeologist, assuming we are all experts in quantum mechanics. That would sure be silly.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that the Greenland crater is the only impact site at that time frame?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because scientists have not discovered any other large craters from that time frame.
Click to expand...







That's probably because not all of them have been dated yet...

http://labmpg.sscc.ru/impact/index1.html

However looking at the known impacts there were a few between 10-50 thousand years ago.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## westwall

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?










Yes, the great flood occurred and cultures worldwide have legends and tales about it.

The reality is during the ice age the coastline was hundreds of feet lower, and when the ice began to melt, the villages along the coastline were inundated so the people had to leave.

Was there a Noah?  Maybe, but it doesn't matter.  The reality is the oceans rose hundreds of feet so any critter that couldn't travel, died.


----------



## ding

westwall said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the great flood occurred and cultures worldwide have legends and tales about it.
> 
> The reality is during the ice age the coastline was hundreds of feet lower, and when the ice began to melt, the villages along the coastline were inundated so the people had to leave.
> 
> Was there a Noah?  Maybe, but it doesn't matter.  The reality is the oceans rose hundreds of feet so any critter that couldn't travel, died.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone would confuse a sea level rise of 6 to 20 mm per year with a flood.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asteroid strikes are global events. If you vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice it will affect the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> Neato! But your article -- that you clearly did not really read -- does not say anything about that much water being vaporized.
Click to expand...

Sure it did. Where do you believe I got the number from?


----------



## ding

fncceo said:


> Speaking as someone with deeply held religious beliefs ... no, it's not possible or true.
> 
> Like most scripture ... it remains folklore and allegory.  Still useful as an object lesson, but not factual or accurate.


The Tower of Babel is the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. An actual historical event. 

just as the account of a great flood is the allegorical account of an actually historical event.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> That's probably because not all of them have been dated yet...
> 
> http://labmpg.sscc.ru/impact/index1.html
> 
> However looking at the known impacts there were a few between 10-50 thousand years ago.


Okay, so there is one leap. Now, the big leap: somehow connecting these possible impacts to a global flood.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Sure it did.


False, as was made clear when I posted the quote from the article that was the source of the number.

Ding, why are you like this?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> The reality is during the ice age the coastline was hundreds of feet lower, and when the ice began to melt, the villages along the coastline were inundated so the people had to leave.


That took hundreds of years, at a minimum. It would have been barely perceptible, if at all. Such an event would not have generated such myths.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Where do you believe the water vapor went?


Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.


----------



## westwall

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is during the ice age the coastline was hundreds of feet lower, and when the ice began to melt, the villages along the coastline were inundated so the people had to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> That took hundreds of years, at a minimum. It would have been barely perceptible, if at all. Such an event would not have generated such myths.
Click to expand...






Geologic evidence says otherwise.  When the melting began in ernest it was a few decades before significant flooding began.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Geologic evidence says otherwise.


No it doesn't.

Global sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age | National Oceanography Centre.

"Global sea level rose by a total of more than 120 metres as the vast ice sheets of the last Ice Age melted back. This melt-back lasted from about 19,000 to about 6,000 years ago, meaning that the average rate of sea-level rise was roughly *1 metre per century.*"


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

CrusaderFrank said:


> The linestone foundation stones at Baalbek, Lebanon are eroded from being submerged.



  Just like the island of Jamaica was mostly underwater.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?



Sea level would drop precipitately, at least a couple kilometers ... atmospheric pressure would rise some ... relative humidity would become undefined with temperatures over 100ºC ... most importantly, climate forcing would go negative, ending the climate change crisis ... 

Not sure just 700 megatons of TNT would vaporize that much ice ... maybe the entire 30,000 megaton inventory would ... sunny out today, math is for 'reiny' days ... ha ha ha ...


----------



## ReinyDays

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is during the ice age the coastline was hundreds of feet lower, and when the ice began to melt, the villages along the coastline were inundated so the people had to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> That took hundreds of years, at a minimum. It would have been barely perceptible, if at all. Such an event would not have generated such myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geologic evidence says otherwise.  When the melting began in ernest it was a few decades before significant flooding began.
Click to expand...


No offense ... but thawing isn't the mechanism for glacial lake outbursts ... liquid water under high pressure can work its way through the ice ... causing frictional heat which enlarges the microchannels in the ice dam ... eventually the whole ice dam is riddled with tunnels and the whole thing collapses at once ... thus we have Lake Superior volumes of water released in perhaps seconds ... 

Any prehistoric man that noted this event would be passing it on to his grandchildren generation after generation ... after 20,000 years in the oral tradition, what do we expect the tale to appear as in the first written records? ... just a thought ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

HereWeGoAgain said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The linestone foundation stones at Baalbek, Lebanon are eroded from being submerged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the island of Jamaica was mostly underwater.
Click to expand...

Except the Baalbek stones are only 2000 years old.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> thus we have Lake Superior volumes of water released in perhaps seconds ..


...into the ocean. That would not result in a cataclysmic flood event on land.


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus we have Lake Superior volumes of water released in perhaps seconds ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...into the ocean. That would not result in a cataclysmic flood event on land.
Click to expand...


Lake Superior is 1,000 miles from the ocean ... the land I used to own up north had well over ten solid feet of sediment deposits under the foot of pyroclastic material ... that's 500 feet above river level and 120 miles from the Columbia River ... _that_ kind of flood ... the high water mark is still obvious after 16,000 years and a Pliney eruption ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus we have Lake Superior volumes of water released in perhaps seconds ..
> 
> 
> 
> ...into the ocean. That would not result in a cataclysmic flood event on land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lake Superior is 1,000 miles from the ocean ... the land I used to own up north had well over ten solid feet of sediment deposits under the foot of pyroclastic material ... that's 500 feet above sea level and 120 miles from the Columbia River ... _that_ kind of flood ... the high water mark is still obvious after 16,000 years ...
Click to expand...

That's not a description of lake superior's history, though. Where is there evidence that what you describe has happened? It's interesting.


----------



## westwall

ReinyDays said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is during the ice age the coastline was hundreds of feet lower, and when the ice began to melt, the villages along the coastline were inundated so the people had to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> That took hundreds of years, at a minimum. It would have been barely perceptible, if at all. Such an event would not have generated such myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geologic evidence says otherwise.  When the melting began in ernest it was a few decades before significant flooding began.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense ... but thawing isn't the mechanism for glacial lake outbursts ... liquid water under high pressure can work its way through the ice ... causing frictional heat which enlarges the microchannels in the ice dam ... eventually the whole ice dam is riddled with tunnels and the whole thing collapses at once ... thus we have Lake Superior volumes of water released in perhaps seconds ...
> 
> Any prehistoric man that noted this event would be passing it on to his grandchildren generation after generation ... after 20,000 years in the oral tradition, what do we expect the tale to appear as in the first written records? ... just a thought ...
Click to expand...







Yes, the Channeled Scablands of Washington state are an example of that.  And local floods of that nature would no doubt have made a huge impression on primitive man.

The area's where those could happen are rare however.  The global flood happened.  Just not how people today think of it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The linestone foundation stones at Baalbek, Lebanon are eroded from being submerged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the island of Jamaica was mostly underwater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the Baalbek stones are only 2000 years old.
Click to expand...


   Most definitely glowbull warming.

It is generally accepted that the *Jamaican* landmass was completely submerged from the mid-Eocene to the late Oligocene or early Miocene (40-25 million years ago). The *island* reemerged by tectonic uplift of the Caribbean Plate and the geology stabilised at its present size 10-12 million years ago.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The linestone foundation stones at Baalbek, Lebanon are eroded from being submerged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the island of Jamaica was mostly underwater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the Baalbek stones are only 2000 years old.
Click to expand...







Baalbek has shown almost continual habitation for the last 8000 to 9000 years...

Baalbek - Wikipedia

Plenty of time to show weathering and if they're short on their calculations by 4000 to 5000 years making it round up to 12000 to 14000 years old just in time to catch some rain and flooding.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Some researchers believe the sphinx is a lot older than modern researcher are willing to admit and that it shows weathering that could only be caused by water.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ReinyDays

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> thus we have Lake Superior volumes of water released in perhaps seconds ..
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a description of lake superior's history, though. Where is there evidence that what you describe has happened? It's interesting.
Click to expand...


English can be tricky for non-native speakers ... we put the adjective before the noun /volumes/ ... here I'm using /Lake Superior/ to modify the meaning of /volumes/ ... just not any volume, but a volume equal to Lake Superior ... 

We .. that's us ... have ... at our disposal ... volumes of water [equal to the volume of Lake Superior] ... hope this clarifies ...


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


It is as possible as an imagined male dominator god.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> The global flood happened.


There is no evidence of any global flood.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> We .. that's us ... have ... at our disposal ... volumes of water [equal to the volume of Lake Superior] ... hope this clarifies ...


It clarifies that you are quite a fool, of you think that would cause an event leading to a global flood myth across the world's cultures.


Guess what other myths cultures share? Dragons. Wind gods. Fire gods who fly across the sky. But it's very easy for us to understand that what happened was a magical story that was made even more magical over time.

Now be a rational, funcitoning adult and apply this same, simple process to your overwrought and completely unsupported global flood myth ideas.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> We .. that's us ... have ... at our disposal ... volumes of water [equal to the volume of Lake Superior] ... hope this clarifies ...
> 
> 
> 
> It clarifies that you are quite a fool, of you think that would cause an event leading to a global flood myth across the world's cultures.
> 
> 
> Guess what other myths cultures share? Dragons. Wind gods. Fire gods who fly across the sky. But it's very easy for us to understand that what happened was a magical story that was made even more magical over time.
> 
> Now be a rational, funcitoning adult and apply this same, simple process to your overwrought and completely unsupported global flood myth ideas.
Click to expand...







Which suggests to any rational person that all those cultures share a common historical background.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Which suggests to any rational person that all those cultures share a common historical background.


No it doesn't. It only suggests that they shared the same environment  and the same ignorance. And the same desire to explain things they didn't understand. A common culture is not required to explain it.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which suggests to any rational person that all those cultures share a common historical background.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. It only suggests that they shared the same environment  and the same ignorance. And the same desire to explain things they didn't understand. A common culture is not required to explain it.
Click to expand...







So what you're saying is that all these cultures came up with stories about a great flood, god like beings (past kings & queens?), and such all on their own because they shared the same environment and it magically caused them too come up with similar legends.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> So what you're saying is that all these cultures came up with stories about a great flood


Well, first, it's not 'all cultures".

Second, yes, they all experienced floods. 

Third, yes, they attributed purpose to nature. The god of the wind... the fairy of the trees, etc etc, all because they were ignorant and superstitious. 

You know this too, which is why you are an atheist regarding all of their primitive gods. Try to keep that in mind.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that all these cultures came up with stories about a great flood
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first, it's not 'all cultures".
Click to expand...


And you know this because you've studied their legends extensively?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Second, yes, they all experienced floods.



Why would they have experienced such severe floods that it left a imprint on their culture?... Unless you're saying that it was worldwide?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Third, yes, they attributed purpose to nature. The god of the wind... the fairy of the trees, etc etc, all because they were ignorant and superstitious.



Many past cultures identified with the environment around them and identified their group with animals and such. As do many that we call more primitive and even today still do such as the Native Americans, Australian aborigines, and others.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You know this too, which is why you are an atheist regarding all of their primitive gods. Try to keep that in mind.








So sorry but you're wrong. I'm a pantheist. Therefore the spirit of the universe fills me and everything around me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> And you know this because you've studied their legends extensively?


And you know it is all cultures, because you have studied every culture ever?  I can play your dumb game. It's not hard.



Damaged Eagle said:


> Why would they have experienced such severe floods that it left a imprint on their culture?


You really aren't thinking this through. We didn't even have major cities 8,000 years ago. We had tiny pockets of nomadic peoples just learning how to grow crops. A "cataclysmic flood: in one of these tiny microcultures would have been about akin to what we see on the mississippi river every 50 or 60 years. If the euphrates valley had flooded, it would have been catacl
ysmic for tribes living near it..  Naturally, that was their "entire world". 

When someone alive 8000 years ago referred to "the whole world", what exactly do you think they meant? You need to think about that for a little bit.


Damaged Eagle said:


> Many past cultures identified with the environment around them and identified their group with animals and such. As do many, that we call more primitive, until recently and even today still do such as the Native Americans, Australian aborigines, and others.



Right, and it doesn't have to really be "taught". It is just something that humans did, with the environment around them, which is all they knew of everything.



Damaged Eagle said:


> So sorry but you're wrong. I'm a pantheist. Therefore the spirit of the universe fills me and everything around me.


And you are an atheist about every other god ever invented. It's a fact.  No, you don't believe in Apollo, or Zoroaster.  Don't play games. You have the god you prefer, and you describe it the way you prefer.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you know it is all cultures, because you have studied every culture ever?  I can play your dumb game. It's not hard.



I bet I've studied them more than you.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You really aren't thinking this through. We didn't even have major cities 8,000 years ago. We had tiny pockets of nomadic peoples just learning how to grow crops. A "cataclysmic flood: in one of these tiny microcultures would have been about akin to what we see on the mississippi river every 50 or 60 years. If the euphrates valley had flooded, it would have been catacl
> ysmic for tribes living near it..  Naturally, that was their "entire world".



Really?...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%Bbleki 6bekli_Tepe

If westwall is correct about sea level, and I personally think he is, then you might want to look for those major cities under 400 to 600 ft of water along the continental shelf.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When someone alive 8000 years ago referred to "the whole world", what exactly do you think they meant? You need to think about that for a little bit.



I think you're the one who needs to think about that for a bit. 

You appear to have very little faith in man's abilities and capabilities in the past.

Stonehenge is said to be only 5000 years old and a celestial tracker that keeps records of events that cover thousands of years. 

Gobekli Tepe is reported as at least 8000 years old, serves the same purpose, and shows far superior craftsmanship. Where did the people who made it learn their trade? Something that would have taken hundreds to thousands of years to develop. Funny...... Wouldn't that put the learning of those trades around the time that the glaciers were all melting and flooding the coastlines where most the major populations would congregate??? I do believe that it would.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, and it doesn't have to really be "taught". It is just something that humans did, with the environment around them, which is all they knew of everything.



How would you know what they knew?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you are an atheist about every other god ever invented. It's a fact.  No, you don't believe in Apollo, or Zoroaster.  Don't play games. You have the god you prefer, and you describe it the way you prefer.








I am kinda' partial to Crom.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?



What are you proposing -- a giant tsunami or wave from a large asteroid?

First, Genesis cannot be allegorical.  If it was, then we would not be able to come up with a biblical timeline and events.  God did not create humans from a cell.  What is allegorical in the Bible are the prophecies.  What does it mean because of the confusion?  It means many Christians will be misled.

As for your article, you'll have to explain how it caused a great flood.  It has nothing to do with a global flood.  All you are claiming is a great flood.  Do you mean a local flood?



ding said:


> They are wrong.



No, we're not.  It's you who are wrong.

The creation science theories cannot change while yours keep changing.  (I don't have any problems with that tho.)

Furthermore, your science eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews and it is the creation scientists who founded science and the scientific method.  The laws of nature you use are from them.


----------



## james bond

007 said:


> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.



We aren't nuts.  We base it on the Bible theory.  What I find are the evolutionists are _wrong_.  That's what happens when they believe in false science and have eliminated the creation scientists and their real science from peer review.  The evidence of the supernatural is right in front of your nose -- the life spirit or God's breath.  Life or even a living cell cannot spring up from nothing and once life is gone, then nothing cannot bring it back.

Are you Christian?  I have a simple way to determine what kind of Christian you are.  Do you believe in a loving God?  The answer is yes -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

What about after you die?  Do you believe in a loving God?  The answer is still yes, but one has to be ready for a wrathful God -- "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." John 3:36


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> What are you proposing -- a giant tsunami or wave from a large asteroid?


Neither of those.

Instant vaporization and super heating of 1500 gigatons of ice thrown high into the stratosphere.

Global disruption of all weather patterns.  Disruption of circulatory system. Disruption of global temps. 

Massive rain storms all around the globe.

but that doesn’t mean it rains every where at the same time.


----------



## ding

Bo Didleysquat said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> It is as possible as an imagined male dominator god.
Click to expand...

False question, bro. Try harder.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you believe the water vapor went?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did.
> 
> 
> 
> False, as was made clear when I posted the quote from the article that was the source of the number.
> 
> Ding, why are you like this?
Click to expand...

“...The resulting explosion packed the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs, and even an observer hundreds of kilometers away would have experienced a buffeting shock wave, a monstrous thunder-clap, and hurricane-force winds...”

“...The impact would have melted 1500 gigatons of ice, the team estimates—about as much ice as Antarctica has lost because of global warming in the past decade...”

it just goes to show you didn’t even read the article.

Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you proposing -- a giant tsunami or wave from a large asteroid?
> 
> First, Genesis cannot be allegorical.  If it was, then we would not be able to come up with a biblical timeline and events.  God did not create humans from a cell.  What is allegorical in the Bible are the prophecies.  What does it mean because of the confusion?  It means many Christians will be misled.
> 
> As for your article, you'll have to explain how it caused a great flood.  It has nothing to do with a global flood.  All you are claiming is a great flood.  Do you mean a local flood?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're not.  It's you who are wrong.
> 
> The creation science theories cannot change while yours keep changing.  (I don't have any problems with that tho.)
> 
> Furthermore, your science eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews and it is the creation scientists who founded science and the scientific method.  The laws of nature you use are from them.
Click to expand...

Biblical tales and fables are clearly allegorical at best, superstitions more often than not.

Fundamentalist christians falsely claiming to be "ID'iot creation scientists" never founded science and have eliminated themselves from the relevant sciences due to their own failure to be objective and to abide by the rigors of the Scientific Method.

From creation.com ministries

*About Us*
First time here? About Creation Ministries International


Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history

Did you miss the part where "ministries" is a part of their title?


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you believe the water vapor went?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.
Click to expand...

Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you proposing -- a giant tsunami or wave from a large asteroid?
> 
> First, Genesis cannot be allegorical.  If it was, then we would not be able to come up with a biblical timeline and events.  God did not create humans from a cell.  What is allegorical in the Bible are the prophecies.  What does it mean because of the confusion?  It means many Christians will be misled.
> 
> As for your article, you'll have to explain how it caused a great flood.  It has nothing to do with a global flood.  All you are claiming is a great flood.  Do you mean a local flood?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're not.  It's you who are wrong.
> 
> The creation science theories cannot change while yours keep changing.  (I don't have any problems with that tho.)
> 
> Furthermore, your science eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews and it is the creation scientists who founded science and the scientific method.  The laws of nature you use are from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biblical tales and fables are clearly allegorical at best, superstitions more often than not.
> 
> Fundamentalist christians falsely claiming to be "ID'iot creation scientists" never founded science and have eliminated themselves from the relevant sciences due to their own failure to be objective and to abide by the rigors of the Scientific Method.
> 
> From creation.com ministries
> 
> *About Us*
> First time here? About Creation Ministries International
> 
> 
> Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
> Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
> Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history
> 
> Did you miss the part where "ministries" is a part of their title?
Click to expand...


You should take your own postings of CMI to heart.  The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  If we are here because of creation, then our savior is Jesus.  As for me, it may be better to just discuss creation science with the believers.  There are many who have been misled by Satan's Antibible.  The atheists seem like a lost cause.  Good luck.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> “...The resulting explosion packed the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs, and even an observer hundreds of kilometers away would have experienced a buffeting shock wave, a monstrous thunder-clap, and hurricane-force winds...”
> 
> “...The impact would have melted 1500 gigatons of ice, the team estimates—about as much ice as Antarctica has lost because of global warming in the past decade...”
> 
> it just goes to show you didn’t even read the article.
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans



Yeah ... as soon as the article insulted my integrity, I quit reading ... you need to take a deep breath and focus a bit on what you're saying ... from now on, I'd like for you to start being suspicious of sources that use "megatons of TNT" as their unit of measure ... so often that's used to deceive the reader ... as it is in this case ...

"700 1-megaton bombs" is an obvious deceit ... yes, our bombs can be dialed back to 1 megaton, but their maximum yield is 10 megaton ... the largest bomb was 50 megaton, videos can be found by searching "tzar bomb" ... so why not use that?, 14 tzar bombs worth of energy ...

Next problem is *8th grade math *... if all the energy released by these 700 1 megaton bombs was used to vaporize ice ... we'd only melt 1 gigaton, not the crazy stupid 1,500 gigatons your article is claiming ... that was obvious at first glance ... I can forgive you not appreciating how much energy it takes to vaporize ice, fair to say 2,600 J/g is enormous?, hate to use the weasel word, but that's the number we're _dividing_ by ... thus enormous eh? ...

For homework ... I want you to use the density of water and calculate the volume that 1,500 gigatons would occupy ... then divide by the surface area of the world's ocean ... this should give you sea level rise this past decade from Antarctic melt only ... remember, we've only measured an inch, so please tell me how many kilometers your calculations differ from this measured value ...

Haven't even started on the physics mistakes ...


----------



## bripat9643

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you proposing -- a giant tsunami or wave from a large asteroid?
> 
> First, Genesis cannot be allegorical.  If it was, then we would not be able to come up with a biblical timeline and events.  God did not create humans from a cell.  What is allegorical in the Bible are the prophecies.  What does it mean because of the confusion?  It means many Christians will be misled.
> 
> As for your article, you'll have to explain how it caused a great flood.  It has nothing to do with a global flood.  All you are claiming is a great flood.  Do you mean a local flood?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're not.  It's you who are wrong.
> 
> The creation science theories cannot change while yours keep changing.  (I don't have any problems with that tho.)
> 
> Furthermore, your science eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews and it is the creation scientists who founded science and the scientific method.  The laws of nature you use are from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biblical tales and fables are clearly allegorical at best, superstitions more often than not.
> 
> Fundamentalist christians falsely claiming to be "ID'iot creation scientists" never founded science and have eliminated themselves from the relevant sciences due to their own failure to be objective and to abide by the rigors of the Scientific Method.
> 
> From creation.com ministries
> 
> *About Us*
> First time here? About Creation Ministries International
> 
> 
> Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
> Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
> Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history
> 
> Did you miss the part where "ministries" is a part of their title?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take your own postings of CMI to heart.  The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  If we are here because of creation, then our savior is Jesus.  As for me, it may be better to just discuss creation science with the believers.  There are many who have been misled by Satan's Antibible.  The atheists seem like a lost cause.  Good luck.
Click to expand...

Science does not backup the Bible.  In fact it eviscerates the Bible.

You're correct that atheists are a lost cause.  If they believed the Bible, they wouldn't be atheists.


----------



## ReinyDays

alang1216 said:


> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.



Take a swing through the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington State some time ... that would make it easier to envision such a scenario ... this is dry desert country so all the features of these floods have not been eroded away as they would be elsewhere ... human settlements are along the river, not on the hilltops, these folks would have had minutes to escape hundreds of feet of water moving fast ...


----------



## alang1216

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a swing through the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington State some time ... that would make it easier to envision such a scenario ... this is dry desert country so all the features of these floods have not been eroded away as they would be elsewhere ... human settlements are along the river, not on the hilltops, these folks would have had minutes to escape hundreds of feet of water moving fast ...
Click to expand...

ding claimed the water fell as rain so I'd think the warning would have been enough for, at least SOME people to make it to higher ground.  You're talking a global event here.  There were likely people living on the Tibetan plateau, the Rockies, etc.  In Norway or Alaska you'd think it would snow not rain.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you believe the water vapor went?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
Click to expand...

Again... an allegorical account that happened thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> “...The resulting explosion packed the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs, and even an observer hundreds of kilometers away would have experienced a buffeting shock wave, a monstrous thunder-clap, and hurricane-force winds...”
> 
> “...The impact would have melted 1500 gigatons of ice, the team estimates—about as much ice as Antarctica has lost because of global warming in the past decade...”
> 
> it just goes to show you didn’t even read the article.
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ... as soon as the article insulted my integrity, I quit reading ... you need to take a deep breath and focus a bit on what you're saying ... from now on, I'd like for you to start being suspicious of sources that use "megatons of TNT" as their unit of measure ... so often that's used to deceive the reader ... as it is in this case ...
> 
> "700 1-megaton bombs" is an obvious deceit ... yes, our bombs can be dialed back to 1 megaton, but their maximum yield is 10 megaton ... the largest bomb was 50 megaton, videos can be found by searching "tzar bomb" ... so why not use that?, 14 tzar bombs worth of energy ...
> 
> Next problem is *8th grade math *... if all the energy released by these 700 1 megaton bombs was used to vaporize ice ... we'd only melt 1 gigaton, not the crazy stupid 1,500 gigatons your article is claiming ... that was obvious at first glance ... I can forgive you not appreciating how much energy it takes to vaporize ice, fair to say 2,600 J/g is enormous?, hate to use the weasel word, but that's the number we're _dividing_ by ... thus enormous eh? ...
> 
> For homework ... I want you to use the density of water and calculate the volume that 1,500 gigatons would occupy ... then divide by the surface area of the world's ocean ... this should give you sea level rise this past decade from Antarctic melt only ... remember, we've only measured an inch, so please tell me how many kilometers your calculations differ from this measured value ...
> 
> Haven't even started on the physics mistakes ...
Click to expand...

You do realize you can do some math on this, right?

I seriously doubt they intended to insult your intelligence. It’s an expression of energy. No need to get worked up over it or not pick it.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> Next problem is *8th grade math *... if all the energy released by these 700 1 megaton bombs was used to vaporize ice ... we'd only melt 1 gigaton, not the crazy stupid 1,500 gigatons your article is claiming ...


Great. Show your math. I’d love to see it.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a swing through the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington State some time ... that would make it easier to envision such a scenario ... this is dry desert country so all the features of these floods have not been eroded away as they would be elsewhere ... human settlements are along the river, not on the hilltops, these folks would have had minutes to escape hundreds of feet of water moving fast ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ding claimed the water fell as rain so I'd think the warning would have been enough for, at least SOME people to make it to higher ground.  You're talking a global event here.  There were likely people living on the Tibetan plateau, the Rockies, etc.  In Norway or Alaska you'd think it would snow not rain.
Click to expand...

You are questioning the allegorical account not the science of an asteroid strike in a polar region.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take a swing through the Channeled Scablands in Eastern Washington State some time ... that would make it easier to envision such a scenario ... this is dry desert country so all the features of these floods have not been eroded away as they would be elsewhere ... human settlements are along the river, not on the hilltops, these folks would have had minutes to escape hundreds of feet of water moving fast ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ding claimed the water fell as rain so I'd think the warning would have been enough for, at least SOME people to make it to higher ground.  You're talking a global event here.  There were likely people living on the Tibetan plateau, the Rockies, etc.  In Norway or Alaska you'd think it would snow not rain.
Click to expand...

Claimed it fell as rain?

How do you believe it made its way back into the ocean after being vaporized?


----------



## ding

bripat9643 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you proposing -- a giant tsunami or wave from a large asteroid?
> 
> First, Genesis cannot be allegorical.  If it was, then we would not be able to come up with a biblical timeline and events.  God did not create humans from a cell.  What is allegorical in the Bible are the prophecies.  What does it mean because of the confusion?  It means many Christians will be misled.
> 
> As for your article, you'll have to explain how it caused a great flood.  It has nothing to do with a global flood.  All you are claiming is a great flood.  Do you mean a local flood?
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we're not.  It's you who are wrong.
> 
> The creation science theories cannot change while yours keep changing.  (I don't have any problems with that tho.)
> 
> Furthermore, your science eliminated creation scientists from peer reviews and it is the creation scientists who founded science and the scientific method.  The laws of nature you use are from them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Biblical tales and fables are clearly allegorical at best, superstitions more often than not.
> 
> Fundamentalist christians falsely claiming to be "ID'iot creation scientists" never founded science and have eliminated themselves from the relevant sciences due to their own failure to be objective and to abide by the rigors of the Scientific Method.
> 
> From creation.com ministries
> 
> *About Us*
> First time here? About Creation Ministries International
> 
> 
> Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
> Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
> Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history
> 
> Did you miss the part where "ministries" is a part of their title?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take your own postings of CMI to heart.  The Bible is not a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  If we are here because of creation, then our savior is Jesus.  As for me, it may be better to just discuss creation science with the believers.  There are many who have been misled by Satan's Antibible.  The atheists seem like a lost cause.  Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science does not backup the Bible.  In fact it eviscerates the Bible.
> 
> You're correct that atheists are a lost cause.  If they believed the Bible, they wouldn't be atheists.
Click to expand...

Different topic. I’ll make a different thread on it. 

but please try to stay on topic in this thread.


----------



## ReinyDays

alang1216 said:


> ding claimed the water fell as rain so I'd think the warning would have been enough for, at least SOME people to make it to higher ground.  You're talking a global event here.  There were likely people living on the Tibetan plateau, the Rockies, etc.  In Norway or Alaska you'd think it would snow not rain.



That's moving into the physics mistakes ... only a tiny portion of this energy would be needed to raise the atmosphere's temperature to over 100ºC ... water vapor would not condense or deposit in this environment ... with 30 to 50% water vapor content in the atmosphere, we'd see a greatly increased greenhouse effect ... the energy would bleed off slowly causing a mist or drizzle worldwide ... 

1,500 gigatons of ice vaporizing ... just think about that for a few minutes ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> For homework ... I want you to use the density of water and calculate the volume that 1,500 gigatons would occupy ... then divide by the surface area of the world's ocean


Im not claiming it raised the sea level. In fact I said I didn’t believe it did because I have done the math. It’s a big volume but the surface area of the earth is a bigger number. 

which is why I say the flooding was the result of rainfall on land like all the other flooding events in history.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding claimed the water fell as rain so I'd think the warning would have been enough for, at least SOME people to make it to higher ground.  You're talking a global event here.  There were likely people living on the Tibetan plateau, the Rockies, etc.  In Norway or Alaska you'd think it would snow not rain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's moving into the physics mistakes ... only a tiny portion of this energy would be needed to raise the atmosphere's temperature to over 100ºC ... water vapor would not condense or deposit in this environment ... with 30 to 50% water vapor content in the atmosphere, we'd see a greatly increased greenhouse effect ... the energy would bleed off slowly causing a mist or drizzle worldwide ...
> 
> 1,500 gigatons of ice vaporizing ... just think about that for a few minutes ...
Click to expand...

Actually I believe they are claiming it resulted in a cooling of the planet because the increased water vapor reduced the energy reaching the surface of the planet. 

water vapor works both ways. It can reduce the energy reaching the planet and act as a greenhouse gas.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next problem is *8th grade math *... if all the energy released by these 700 1 megaton bombs was used to vaporize ice ... we'd only melt 1 gigaton, not the crazy stupid 1,500 gigatons your article is claiming ...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Show your math. I’d love to see it.
Click to expand...


4.2 x 10^15 J/megaton of TNT * 700 mega tons of TNT = 2.9 x 10^18 J
2.9 x 10^18 J ÷ 2.6 x 10^6 J/kg = 1.1 x 10^12 kg = 1.1 gigatons of ice vaporized

1.5 x 10^18 kg ÷ 1 x 10^6 kg/m^3 = 1.5 x 10^12 m^3
1.5 x 10^12 m^3 ÷ 3.6 x 10^8 m^2 = 4.2 x 10^3 m ≈ 4 kilometers sea level drop

No Algebra involved ...


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you believe the water vapor went?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... an allegorical account that happened thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.
Click to expand...

You seem to be arguing both sides here, that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate AND that it is allegorical.  I can't be both so which is it?


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> water vapor works both ways. It can reduce the energy reaching the planet and act as a greenhouse gas.



Another physics mistake ... water vapor is transparent to the vast majority of incoming solar energy ... sometimes called shortwave radiation ... water vapor interferes only with the outgoing energy ... sometimes called longwave radiation ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> I bet I've studied them more than you.


Nah, you're just blowing smoke, As you always do.


Damaged Eagle said:


> Really?...


Yes, really. Do you realize how small that site was in 8000 years ago? Do you realize it was a monument then, and not a large settlement? The point, of course, is that the collections of humans were relatively quite small and did not do much communicating over large distances. If you want to be silly and argue with that, knock yourself out.




Damaged Eagle said:


> If westwall is correct about sea level, and I personally think he is


Which just makes you both wrong, as I already demonstrated.  



Damaged Eagle said:


> Where did the people who made it learn their trade?


A silly question.  Where did the people who taught them learn?  And the people before that?  Someone invented "the trade" (which was, cutting stones with other stones). Furthermore, you seem to have an awfully exaggerated version of what that site was like 8000 years ago. Again,. I suggest you read your own links.



Damaged Eagle said:


> How would you know what they knew?


Are you joking?  How would I know... what environment humans lived in? Because... it was on planet Earth. Stop being silly.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Instant vaporization and super heating of 1500 gigatons of ice thrown high into the stratosphere.


Ding, please stop lying. It has already been shown the article doesn't say anything like that.  Why are you like this?  Do you have ANY shame whatsoever?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> it just goes to show you didn’t even read the article.


Actually, ya shameless little liar, I posted that, but (unlike you),  in context.  Sorry, nowhere does it state or even imply that much water was vaporized.  In fact, it veryspecifically talks about it melting and running off into the ocean.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Im not claiming it raised the sea level.


Right, you're lying your ass off and claiming it all fell as rain.  because, well, you have to lie your ass off to maintain your already destroyed point.  Which should tell you something.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> Next problem is *8th grade math *... if all the energy released by these 700 1 megaton bombs was used to vaporize ice ... we'd only melt 1 gigaton, not the crazy stupid 1,500 gigatons your article is claiming ...
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Show your math. I’d love to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4.2 x 10^15 J/megaton of TNT * 700 mega tons of TNT = 2.9 x 10^18 J
> 2.9 x 10^18 J ÷ 2.6 x 10^6 J/kg = 1.1 x 10^12 kg = 1.1 gigatons of ice vaporized
> 
> 1.5 x 10^18 kg ÷ 1 x 10^6 kg/m^3 = 1.5 x 10^12 m^3
> 1.5 x 10^12 m^3 ÷ 3.6 x 10^8 m^2 = 4.2 x 10^3 m ≈ 4 kilometers sea level drop
> 
> No Algebra involved ...
Click to expand...

The article should have read 700 gigatons of TNT.

Here is the published paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland

Here is an excerpt from the published paper.


> "...The diameter of an impact crater constrains the kinetic energy of the impactor. The formation of a 31-km-wide impact crater in crystalline target rock requires ~3 × 10 ^21 J of energy (17)."



Here is the reference which was cited for the calculation.


> 17. G. S. Collins, H. J. Melosh, R. A. Marcus, Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program for calculating he regional environmental consequence of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 817–840 (2005)



The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain.  Glad to see you missed the forest for the trees.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you believe the water vapor went?
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... an allegorical account that happened thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be arguing both sides here, that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate AND that it is allegorical.  I can't be both so which is it?
Click to expand...

It only seems that way to you because you aren't interested in the truth.  So you look for things to nit pick.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember.  Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.  Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are at least 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning.  If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization.  That is not intended to be a criticism.  It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts which are at least 6,000 years old.  We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

So, a great flood did happen.  It was caused by an asteroid strike in the northern polar region.  It probably happened 12,000 years ago.  The energy released was equivalent to 700 gigatons of TNT and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice into the atmosphere which caused global wide disruptions in the weather patterns and caused massive amounts of rain around the globe.  The science is staring you in the face.  You just don't like it because it confirms the account of a great flood.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> it just goes to show you didn’t even read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, ya shameless little liar, I posted that, but (unlike you),  in context.  Sorry, nowhere does it state or even imply that much water was vaporized.  In fact, it veryspecifically talks about it melting and running off into the ocean.
Click to expand...

Here's the science.  You sound like a science denier.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not claiming it raised the sea level.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, you're lying your ass off and claiming it all fell as rain.  because, well, you have to lie your ass off to maintain your already destroyed point.  Which should tell you something.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you believe would happen when 1500 gigatons of ice are instantly vaporized?

Here's some more science for you.






(D) Bed topography based on airborne radar sounding from 1997 to 2014 NASA data and 2016 Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) data. Black triangles represent elevated rim picks from the radargrams, and the dark purple circles represent peaks in the central uplift. Hatched red lines are field measurements of the strike of ice-marginal bedrock structures. Black circles show location of the three glaciofluvial sediment samples described in table S1.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> water vapor works both ways. It can reduce the energy reaching the planet and act as a greenhouse gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another physics mistake ... water vapor is transparent to the vast majority of incoming solar energy ... sometimes called shortwave radiation ... water vapor interferes only with the outgoing energy ... sometimes called longwave radiation ...
Click to expand...

Water vapor forms clouds.  It blocks the energy from reaching earth.  You can experience this for yourself on a partly cloudy day as clouds pass over and block the sun's rays.  

At night cloud cover traps the heat leaving the earth.  It can be as much as 20 degrees warmer on mornings where there is cloud cover than on mornings which are cloud free.  You can experience this effect for yourself too.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> The article should have read 700 gigatons of TNT.



I'm afraid it didn't ... it said 700 one megaton bombs ... do you claim it should have said 700 one gigaton bombs ... no such thing ... 

Do you wish to retract your claims until you've had a chance to find the error in the article? ... 



ding said:


> Here is the published paper.
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the published paper.
> 
> 
> 
> "...The diameter of an impact crater constrains the kinetic energy of the impactor. The formation of a 31-km-wide impact crater in crystalline target rock requires ~3 × 10 ^21 J of energy (17)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the reference which was cited for the calculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 17. G. S. Collins, H. J. Melosh, R. A. Marcus, Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program for calculating he regional environmental consequence of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 817–840 (2005)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


How much of this energy was use to create the 31 km diameter crater? ... if none, we still only see 1,100 gigatons of ice vaporizing, but then we won't have found the crater ... now would we have? ... you got to do better in light of the _very_ serious mistake noted above ... let's see hard numbers excavating that much Earth ...



ding said:


> The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain.  Glad to see you missed the forest for the trees.



It would take a long while for this water vapor to condense and rain down ... we have the other half of the conservation laws, where does the energy go once the water vapor condenses? ... we can't just destroy it, we have to radiate out again and that will take some time ... water vapor is a greenhouse gas, outbound energy transfer is inhibited ... 

You've missed the ocean ... sea level's dropped 4 km ... that's going to play hell on Earth's energy budget ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article should have read 700 gigatons of TNT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid it didn't ... it said 700 one megaton bombs ... do you claim it should have said 700 one gigaton bombs ... no such thing ...
> 
> Do you wish to retract your claims until you've had a chance to find the error in the article? ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the published paper.
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the published paper.
> 
> 
> 
> "...The diameter of an impact crater constrains the kinetic energy of the impactor. The formation of a 31-km-wide impact crater in crystalline target rock requires ~3 × 10 ^21 J of energy (17)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the reference which was cited for the calculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 17. G. S. Collins, H. J. Melosh, R. A. Marcus, Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program for calculating he regional environmental consequence of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 817–840 (2005)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of this energy was use to create the 31 km diameter crater? ... if none, we still only see 1,100 gigatons of ice vaporizing, but then we won't have found the crater ... now would we have? ... you got to do better in light of the _very_ serious mistake noted above ... let's see hard numbers excavating that much Earth ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain.  Glad to see you missed the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take a long while for this water vapor to condense and rain down ... we have the other half of the conservation laws, where does the energy go once the water vapor condenses? ... we can't just destroy it, we have to radiate out again and that will take some time ... water vapor is a greenhouse gas, outbound energy transfer is inhibited ...
> 
> You've missed the ocean ... sea level's dropped 4 km ... that's going to play hell on Earth's energy budget ...
Click to expand...

I provided the published paper, bro.  Read it.

Here is an excerpt from the published paper.


> "...The diameter of an impact crater constrains the kinetic energy of the impactor. The formation of a 31-km-wide impact crater in crystalline target rock requires ~3 × 10 ^21 J of energy (17)."



Here is the reference which was cited for the calculation.


> 17. G. S. Collins, H. J. Melosh, R. A. Marcus, Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program for calculating he regional environmental consequence of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 817–840 (2005)



The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain.  Glad to see you missed the forest for the trees.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article should have read 700 gigatons of TNT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid it didn't ... it said 700 one megaton bombs ... do you claim it should have said 700 one gigaton bombs ... no such thing ...
> 
> Do you wish to retract your claims until you've had a chance to find the error in the article? ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the published paper.
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland
> 
> Here is an excerpt from the published paper.
> 
> 
> 
> "...The diameter of an impact crater constrains the kinetic energy of the impactor. The formation of a 31-km-wide impact crater in crystalline target rock requires ~3 × 10 ^21 J of energy (17)."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the reference which was cited for the calculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 17. G. S. Collins, H. J. Melosh, R. A. Marcus, Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program for calculating he regional environmental consequence of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 817–840 (2005)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much of this energy was use to create the 31 km diameter crater? ... if none, we still only see 1,100 gigatons of ice vaporizing, but then we won't have found the crater ... now would we have? ... you got to do better in light of the _very_ serious mistake noted above ... let's see hard numbers excavating that much Earth ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain.  Glad to see you missed the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would take a long while for this water vapor to condense and rain down ... we have the other half of the conservation laws, where does the energy go once the water vapor condenses? ... we can't just destroy it, we have to radiate out again and that will take some time ... water vapor is a greenhouse gas, outbound energy transfer is inhibited ...
> 
> You've missed the ocean ... sea level's dropped 4 km ... that's going to play hell on Earth's energy budget ...
Click to expand...

Would you like to argue with NASA too?







(D) Bed topography based on airborne radar sounding from 1997 to 2014 NASA data and 2016 Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) data. Black triangles represent elevated rim picks from the radargrams, and the dark purple circles represent peaks in the central uplift. Hatched red lines are field measurements of the strike of ice-marginal bedrock structures. Black circles show location of the three glaciofluvial sediment samples described in table S1.


----------



## Votto

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?



Na, it's all just one big conspiracy theory joke all the ancient cultures of the world were trying to play on us.

Sucker!!


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> What exactly do you believe would happen when 1500 megatons of ice are instantly vaporized?



Moving the goal posts? ... the article in the OP stated 1,500 *giga*tons of ice ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you believe would happen when 1500 megatons of ice are instantly vaporized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the goal posts? ... the article in the OP stated 1,500 *giga*tons of ice ...
Click to expand...

The article misstated the original published scientific paper. 

Read the paper.  It's been peer reviewed and published.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> Water vapor forms clouds.  It blocks the energy from reaching earth.  You can experience this for yourself on a partly cloudy day as clouds pass over and block the sun's rays.
> 
> At night cloud cover traps the heat leaving the earth.  It can be as much as 20 degrees warmer on mornings where there is cloud cover than on mornings which are cloud free.  You can experience this effect for yourself too.



*Wrong* ... clouds are liquid water or ice ... if you can see it, it's absolutely not water vapor ... all the energy absorbed to vaporize the water must be released again while it condenses or deposits ... thus the conservation law issues pointed out above ...

The atmosphere is 100ºC or better ... we still have some ocean left that would moderate the temperature ... you can work the gradient and figure the lapse rate under these circumstances ... I'm sorry, I can just glance at the problem and know it won't be pretty for you ... 

Only life in what remains in the oceans will survive ... and sparsely at that ... a billion years before life returns to land? ... not as bad as Venus, but bad enough ... the Bible never says God boiled all the lands and waters ... does it? ...


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> Would you like to argue with NASA too?



Link to NASA's claim that 1,500 gigatons of ice vaporized with this event? ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to argue with NASA too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to NASA's claim that 1,500 gigatons of ice vaporized with this event? ...
Click to expand...

Yes, it is 1500 gigatons of ice. The article misstated the amount of energy released to vaporize the ice. That should have been 700,000 megatons or 700 gigatons of TNT.

In fact, your own calculation proved it.  Start with the correct energy from the published paper.

"...The diameter of an impact crater constrains the kinetic energy of the impactor. The formation of a 31-km-wide impact crater in crystalline target rock requires ~3 × 10 ^21 J of energy (17)."


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to argue with NASA too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to NASA's claim that 1,500 gigatons of ice vaporized with this event? ...
Click to expand...

NASA's imaging of the crater is what led to the calculation of energy and the estimate of ice that was vaporized.  

You are literally arguing against a peer reviewed scientific paper.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> The article misstated the original published scientific paper.
> 
> Read the paper.  It's been peer reviewed and published.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland



I read the paper ... it doesn't substantiate any of the claims made by you or the article in the OP ...

You found some click-bait and posted it without checking the facts ... and you got burned ... "1,500 gigatons" sounds sciency and scary but it never crossed your mind just God-awful lot of water that is ... nor the immense amount of energy to vaporize that from ice ... just nuts ... 2.6 *mega*joules per kilogram (a little over a liter of water) ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article misstated the original published scientific paper.
> 
> Read the paper.  It's been peer reviewed and published.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the paper ... it doesn't substantiate any of the claims made by you or the article in the OP ...
> 
> You found some click-bait and posted it without checking the facts ... and you got burned ... "1,500 gigatons" sounds sciency and scary but it never crossed your mind just God-awful lot odf water that is ... nor the immense amount of energy to vaporize that from ice ... just nuts ... 2.6 *mega*joules per kilogram (a little over a liter of water) ...
Click to expand...

Again. you are literally arguing against a peer reviewed scientific paper.  You even have seen the imaging of the crater with your own eyes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

FWIW


Challenging facts that made me think and consider this subject from a different perspective.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The article misstated the original published scientific paper.
> 
> Read the paper.  It's been peer reviewed and published.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/public...neath_Hiawatha_Glacier_in_northwest_Greenland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the paper ... it doesn't substantiate any of the claims made by you or the article in the OP ...
> 
> You found some click-bait and posted it without checking the facts ... and you got burned ... "1,500 gigatons" sounds sciency and scary but it never crossed your mind just God-awful lot odf water that is ... nor the immense amount of energy to vaporize that from ice ... just nuts ... 2.6 *mega*joules per kilogram (a little over a liter of water) ...
Click to expand...

Maybe you could do some more 8th grade math to calculate the displacement of the crater


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> Yes, it is 1500 gigatons of ice.



4 km sea level drop ... sound bogus to me ... why do you think this is credible? ...


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> Maybe you could do some more 8th grade math to calculate the displacement of the crater



I'll guess I'll have to because you sure as hell can't ... but that's not my point to make ... your claim, your math ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is 1500 gigatons of ice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 km sea level drop ... sound bogus to me ... why do you think this is credible? ...
Click to expand...

Where did I state that exactly?  Are you confusing me with someone else?


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> 4 km sea level drop ... sound bogus to me ... why do you think this is credible? ...


*Where did I state that exactly?  Are you confusing me with someone else?*[/QUOTE]

You keep saying 1,500 gigatons of ice ... that's the mass of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans ... *8th grade math* ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you could do some more 8th grade math to calculate the displacement of the crater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll guess I'll have to because you sure as hell can't ... but that's not my point to make ... your claim, your math ...
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised what I can do.  I've already schooled you. 

BTW, did you go back and redo your math with the correct energy?  No.  Because you can't bear to admit the numbers add up when you use ~3 × 10^21 J of energy which is from the published paper.  Just move the decimal three places to the right.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> You'd be surprised what I can do.  I've already schooled you.
> 
> BTW, did you go back and redo your math with the correct energy?  No.  Because you can't bear to admit the numbers add up when you use ~3 × 10^21 J of energy which is from the published paper.  Just move the decimal three places to the right.



See post #111 ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> You keep saying 1,500 gigatons of ice ... that's the mass of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans ... *8th grade math*



Is this your calculation?

2.9 x 10^18 J ÷ 2.6 x 10^6 J/kg = 1.1 x 10^12 kg = 1.1 gigatons of ice vaporized

Yes.

Did you start with 2.9 x 10^18 J ?

Yes

Had you started with ~3 × 10^21 J, what would your answer have been?


----------



## ding

So clearly your bullshit calculation about sea level rise is wrong.


----------



## Ringtone

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?




I've never doubted that the Noahic flood occurred.  I just can't certain of the particulars, of course.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> So clearly your bullshit calculation about sea level rise is wrong.



I have shown my work ... point out the error ...


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is 1500 gigatons of ice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 km sea level drop ... sound bogus to me ... why do you think this is credible? ...
Click to expand...

I think you screwed up your 8th grade math.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So clearly your bullshit calculation about sea level rise is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown my work ... point out the error ...
Click to expand...

Is this your calculation?

2.9 x 10^18 J ÷ 2.6 x 10^6 J/kg = 1.1 x 10^12 kg = 1.1 gigatons of ice vaporized

Yes.

Did you start with 2.9 x 10^18 J ?

Yes

Had you started with ~3 × 10^21 J, what would your answer have been?

So clearly your bullshit calculation about sea level rise is wrong because by your own calculation you would have reached 1500 gigatons of ice vaporized had you used ~3 × 10^21 J. Tell me I am wrong.  Redo your calcs.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> I think you screwed up your 8th grade math.



Think away ... do the math yourself ...


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> Is this your calculation?
> 
> 2.9 x 10^18 J ÷ 2.6 x 10^6 J/kg = 1.1 x 10^12 kg = 1.1 gigatons of ice vaporized
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Did you start with 2.9 x 10^18 J ?
> 
> Yes
> 
> Had you started with ~3 × 10^21 J, what would your answer have been?
> 
> So clearly your bullshit calculation about sea level rise is wrong because by your own calculation you would have reached 1500 gigatons of ice vaporized had you used ~3 × 10^21 J. Tell me I am wrong.  Redo your calcs.



Again ... see post #111 ...


----------



## ding

how many pounds are in a gigaton - Google Search

2.2046 trillion pounds

The *gigatonne* is a metric unit of mass or weight equal to one billion metric tons (tonnes) or about 2.2046 trillion *pounds*.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you screwed up your 8th grade math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think away ... do the math yourself ...
Click to expand...

1500 gigatons = 2.2046 x 10^12 lbm/gigaton x 1500 gigatons = 3.3069 x 10^15 lbm of water

What volume would 1500 gigatons of water occupy?

Density of water is 62.37 lbm/cf

3.3069 x 10^15 lbm of water / 62.37 lbm/cf = 5.3021 x 10^13 cf of water

What depth would this volume occupy in the world's oceans?

Surface area of the oceans is 139.4 x 10^6 mi²

Converting mi² to ft² we get 139.4 x 10^6 mi² x 5280 ft/mi x 5280 ft/mi = 3.886 x 10^15 ft²

5.3021 x 10^13 cf of water / 3.886 x 10^15 ft² = 9.096 x 10^-6 ft

But you would like that in km, right?

So.... 9.096 x 10^-6 ft x 0.0003 km/ft = 2.729 x 10^-9 km


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is 1500 gigatons of ice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 km sea level drop ... sound bogus to me ... why do you think this is credible? ...
Click to expand...

I think it is hilarious that you have calculated that 1500 gigatons of ice would equal a 4 km drop in sea levels.

I don't know where you screwed up because I never looked but you were only off by 9 orders of magnitude.

Maybe you should ask FortFun to help you with your 8th grade math.


----------



## ding

I really do hate the metric system because it leads to idiots thinking 1500 gigatons of ice equals 4 km of sea level drop.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> 1.5 x 10^18 kg ÷ 1 x 10^6 kg/m^3 = 1.5 x 10^12 m^3
> 1.5 x 10^12 m^3 ÷ 3.6 x 10^8 m^2 = 4.2 x 10^3 m ≈ 4 kilometers sea level drop


So where do you believe you made your error?

Because I can't even begin to decipher what you are trying to do with this fucked up calculation.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> 4 km sea level drop ... sound bogus to me ... why do you think this is credible? ...


*


ding said:



			Where did I state that exactly?  Are you confusing me with someone else?
		
Click to expand...

*


ReinyDays said:


> You keep saying 1,500 gigatons of ice ... that's the mass of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans ... *8th grade math* ...


Let's calculate the mass of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans, shall we?  let's do some 8th grade math.

Surface area of the oceans is 139.4 x 10^6 mi²

Converting mi² to ft² we get 139.4 x 10^6 mi² x 5280 ft/mi x 5280 ft/mi = 3.886 x 10^15 ft²

What is the volume of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans?

1 km = 3280.8399 ft

4 km x 3280.8399 ft/km = 13,123.4 ft

3.886 x 10^15 ft² x 13,123.4 ft = 5.0997 x 10^19 CF

What is the mass of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans?

Density of water is 62.37 lbm/cf

5.0997 x 10^19 CF x 62.37 ibm/cf = 3.1807 x 10^21 lbm

How many gigatons is the mass of the top 4 km of all the world's oceans?

1 gigaton = 2.2046 x 10^12 lbm

3.1807 x 10^21 lbm / 2.2046 x 10^12 gigaton/lbm = 1.443 x 10^9 gigatons


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah, you're just blowing smoke, As you always do.



Looks to me like you're the one doing that.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, really. Do you realize how small that site was in 8000 years ago? Do you realize it was a monument then, and not a large settlement? The point, of course, is that the collections of humans were relatively quite small and did not do much communicating over large distances. If you want to be silly and argue with that, knock yourself out.



Really? How small was it? How many people would it have taken to build the monument of massive stones in the pre-pottery phase? Did they require any food, clothing, or tools, being made while they carved and moved those monument stones? Prove to me that they didn't communicate over large distances. Since you think you know please do share with us your massive intellectual abundance of knowledge.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If westwall is correct about sea level, and I personally think he is
> 
> 
> 
> Which just makes you both wrong, as I already demonstrated.
Click to expand...


Or that you're a idiot.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the people who made it learn their trade?
> 
> 
> 
> A silly question.  Where did the people who taught them learn?  And the people before that?  Someone invented "the trade" (which was, cutting stones with other stones). Furthermore, you seem to have an awfully exaggerated version of what that site was like 8000 years ago. Again,. I suggest you read your own links.
Click to expand...


I have read my link. Seems to me you're incapable of considering the magnitude of what it would take to create a monument such as this in a neolithic culture. But then that's not surprising considering who you are.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know what they knew?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you joking?  How would I know... what environment humans lived in? Because... it was on planet Earth. Stop being silly.
Click to expand...


Which doesn't address the question as usual since you're incapable of understanding the implications even if they're presented to you.







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming everything you said about the event actually happened, and the vapor fell as rain, how much do you think it would have raised the global sea level?  1 foot, 100 feet, 10,000 feet?  Even if it were 10,000 feet there are large portions of the earth that would not have been submerged.
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... an allegorical account that happened thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be arguing both sides here, that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate AND that it is allegorical.  I can't be both so which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only seems that way to you because you aren't interested in the truth.  So you look for things to nit pick.
> 
> The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.
> 
> Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.
> 
> The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.
> 
> So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember.  Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.  Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.
> 
> We have to keep in mind that these accounts are at least 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning.  If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization.  That is not intended to be a criticism.  It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts which are at least 6,000 years old.  We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.
> 
> So, a great flood did happen.  It was caused by an asteroid strike in the northern polar region.  It probably happened 12,000 years ago.  The energy released was equivalent to 700 gigatons of TNT and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice into the atmosphere which caused global wide disruptions in the weather patterns and caused massive amounts of rain around the globe.  The science is staring you in the face.  You just don't like it because it confirms the account of a great flood.
Click to expand...

So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical?  You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical?  Do I have that right?  You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.

What was God's role in all this?  Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?


----------



## ReinyDays

Oops ...

Your physics is still wrong ... [sticks tongue out] ...

Where does the 1,500 gigaton number come from? ... a source you've already admitted is wrong ...


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t believe it would have raised the sea level. It wasn’t the sea level rise that caused the flooding. It was the runoff of the rain that caused the flooding. Just as all other floods do. Too much rain over too short of a period is what causes floods.
> 
> 
> 
> Such floods usually occur in flat, low-lying areas, floodplains.  It's hard to envision a scenario where ALL living animals are destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again... an allegorical account that happened thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to be arguing both sides here, that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate AND that it is allegorical.  I can't be both so which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It only seems that way to you because you aren't interested in the truth.  So you look for things to nit pick.
> 
> The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.
> 
> Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.
> 
> The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.
> 
> So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an  actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning.  Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times.  Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations.   Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember.  Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.  Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.
> 
> We have to keep in mind that these accounts are at least 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years.  Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing.  We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world.  Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning.  If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization.  That is not intended to be a criticism.  It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts which are at least 6,000 years old.  We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.
> 
> So, a great flood did happen.  It was caused by an asteroid strike in the northern polar region.  It probably happened 12,000 years ago.  The energy released was equivalent to 700 gigatons of TNT and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice into the atmosphere which caused global wide disruptions in the weather patterns and caused massive amounts of rain around the globe.  The science is staring you in the face.  You just don't like it because it confirms the account of a great flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical?  You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical?  Do I have that right?  You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this?  Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
Click to expand...

C’mon man. Saying there was a great migration from Mesopotamia which happens to be called the cradle of civilization does not mean mankind began in the ME. 

What part of they used allegory to make it easier to remember and pass down information did you not understand?  Why are you trying to find something to not pick? Rather than reading these accounts critically, why aren’t you trying to discern what lessons and knowledge they were trying to pass down? Is it that important to you to know if there was an actual ark? And that people used a boat to save human and animal lives?  Because I’m sure some did. Wouldn’t you?  But instead you keep reading these passages literally to justify your biases. 

So it doesn’t appear that you have it right. Here’s a suggestion why don’t you ask me what I am saying instead of trying to guess what I am saying. It takes too long to correct your guesses. 

how much physical evidence are you expecting for events that occurred thousands of years ago?  Are you telling me that you don’t believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world?  C’mon man.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> Oops ...
> 
> Your physics is still wrong ... [sticks tongue out] ...
> 
> Where does the 1,500 gigaton number come from? ... a source you've already admitted is wrong ...


Says the guy who can’t do 8th grade math.

no, the physics is spot on. They used the measured size of the crater to determine the volume displaced and then they used the volume displaced to calculate the energy of the event that explained what I just wrote.

I even provided the excerpt from the peer reviewed scientific paper that was published on this that proves that was how they did it. 

now would you like to tell me the error you made when your answer was off by 9 orders of magnitude?


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> .. a source you've already admitted is wrong ...


The article that referenced the peer reviewed scientific paper was wrong about the energy not the volume of ice that was displaced. 

the published paper which was peer reviewed wasn’t wrong. They based the volume displaced on the measured size of the crater. Which calculated 1500 gigatons of displacement. The 1500 gigatons of displacement was used to calculate the 700 giga tons of tnt required to vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?



First, ding doesn't know science nor understand Archimedes Principle.  There are hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles due to warming cycles and no global flood.  It's evidence for God as he promised no more global floods.

Second, Noah's flood was real and it happened around 2458 BC.  None of Genesis is allegorical.  It happened the way the Bible is written.  Creation was in seven days.  While Noah and his family were building the ark as instructed by God, he tried to get people to repent, i.e. change their minds, but to no avail.  It's the same as with ding and others here.  They'll continue to believe what they want to believe.

With the global flood, it first rained for forty days and forty nights.  During that time, the fountains of the deep rose up as mountains underneath the seas rose up and the water inside the Earth came rising up quickly.  More evidence for God are the subterranean oceans that came forth.  There is also some who believe there was a canopy of water in the sky that was created on the second day.  This would add to the water.  Eventually, the water covered the mountain tops and highest peaks.  It covered Mt. Everest and the Himalayas because they weren't as high as today; they rose up as fountains of the deep.  More evidence that the past was different from the present.

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

Noah's ark drifted for 150 days while every plant, animal, and human were killed.  The fact is a flood is one of the natural disasters that will kill the most people.  More evidence for God.  The God sent a wind to the ark and then for another 150 days the water steadily went down.  Where did the water go?  It went here --  https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html.

Noah was instructed by God to send out a raven, which flew back and forth but could find no place to land.  How did Noah know?  It did not return.  Next, he sent out a dove, which came back.  A few days later, he sent it out again and the second time came back with an olive leaf in its beak. It symbolized peace.  A few more days and Noah sent it out a third time and this time it did not return. It had found a safe place to live and that is where Noah headed.  If you know about birds and their behaviors, then this is more evidence of God.  Look up how Vikings used to navigate their ships.

Noah and his family ended up on land, but waited until God commanded him to leave the ark, along with his family, and all the animals.  They had been on the ark over a year. As soon as he stepped on dry land, Noah built an altar of stones and offered sacrifices to God to give thanks.  God made a covenant with Noah to never send another flood to destroy the entire world and marked it with a rainbow.  Noah and his sons received the command from God to be fruitful and multiply.  Before the Flood, people ate only vegetables.  I suppose one could argue they were vegan, but not in the same context as today.  After the flood, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat from animals.  The water of the Flood symbolized baptism.  Just as the Flood washed away evil and gave the world a fresh start, baptism cleanses a person for entry into a new life.  This may hold to some who have repented, but sin remained and we are ending up like it was before.  Will people become so evil that innocent people are in danger?  I don't think so.  We have nuclear weapons and guns to protect ourselves now.  The danger will probably come from those who do not believe in God, i.e. without God, or end up being _like God_ in their thinking and attitude.  The last part is just my opinion.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, ding doesn't know science nor understand Archimedes Principle.  There are hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles due to warming cycles and no global flood.  It's evidence for God as he promised no more global floods.
> 
> Second, Noah's flood was real and it happened around 2458 BC.  None of Genesis is allegorical.  It happened the way the Bible is written.  Creation was in seven days.  While Noah and his family were building the ark as instructed by God, he tried to get people to repent, i.e. change their minds, but to no avail.  It's the same as with ding and others here.  They'll continue to believe what they want to believe.
> 
> With the global flood, it first rained for forty days and forty nights.  During that time, the fountains of the deep rose up as mountains underneath the seas rose up and the water inside the Earth came rising up quickly.  More evidence for God are the subterranean oceans that came forth.  There is also some who believe there was a canopy of water in the sky that was created on the second day.  This would add to the water.  Eventually, the water covered the mountain tops and highest peaks.  It covered Mt. Everest and the Himalayas because they weren't as high as today.  More evidence that the past was different from the present.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
> 
> Noah's ark drifted for 150 days while every plant, animal, and human were killed.  The fact is a flood is one of the natural disasters that will kill the most people.  More evidence for God.  The God sent a wind to the ark and then for another 150 days the water steadily went down.  Where did the water go?  It went here --  https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html.
> 
> Noah was instructed by God to send out a raven, which flew back and forth but could find no place to land.  How did Noah know?  It did not return.  Next, he sent out a dove, which came back.  A few days later, he sent it out again and the second time came back with an olive leaf in its beak. It symbolized peace.  A few more days and Noah sent it out a third time and this time it did not return. It had found a safe place to live and that is where Noah headed.  If you know about birds and their behaviors, then this is more evidence of God.  Look up how Vikings used to navigate their ships.
> 
> Noah and his family ended up on land, but waited until God commanded him to leave the ark, along with his family, and all the animals.  They had been on the ark over a year. As soon as he stepped on dry land, Noah built an altar of stones and offered sacrifices to God to give thanks.  God made a covenant with Noah to never send another flood to destroy the entire world and marked it with a rainbow.  Noah and his sons received the command from God to be fruitful and multiply.  Before the Flood, people ate only vegetables.  I suppose one could argue they were vegan, but not in the same context as today.  After the flood, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat from animals.  The water of the Flood symbolized baptism.  Just as the Flood washed away evil and gave the world a fresh start, baptism cleanses a person for entry into a new life.  This may to some who have repented, but sin remained and we are ending up like it was before.  Will people become so evil that innocent people are in danger?  I don't think so.  We have nuclear weapons and guns to protect ourselves now.  The danger will probably come from those who do not believe in God, i.e. without God, or end up being _like God_ in their thinking and attitude.
Click to expand...

Dude, I’ve been a practicing engineer for 35 years. Engineering is the commercial application of science, so I am pretty sure I am qualified to discuss science. 

you on the other hand are a religious nutjob who reads the Bible literally and believes the earth and universe were created 6000 years ago.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical?  You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical?  Do I have that right?  You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this?  Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
> 
> 
> 
> C’mon man. Saying there was a great migration from Mesopotamia which happens to be called the cradle of civilization does not mean mankind began in the ME.
> 
> What part of they used allegory to make it easier to remember and pass down information did you not understand?  Why are you trying to find something to not pick? Rather than reading these accounts critically, why aren’t you trying to discern what lessons and knowledge they were trying to pass down? Is it that important to you to know if there was an actual ark? And that people used a boat to save human and animal lives?  Because I’m sure some did. Wouldn’t you?  But instead you keep reading these passages literally to justify your biases.
> 
> So it doesn’t appear that you have it right. Here’s a suggestion why don’t you ask me what I am saying instead of trying to guess what I am saying. It takes too long to correct your guesses.
> 
> how much physical evidence are you expecting for events that occurred thousands of years ago?  Are you telling me that you don’t believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world?  C’mon man.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm being dense but I'm only trying to understand what you're saying and I don't.  What do you think the Bible is?  History, science, folklore, theology, ethical guidance, or something else?

Do I believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world?  If you mean the physical movement of people, no I don't.  The people of the ME look nothing like those of the Americas.   If you mean the culture of the ME then yes, to a degree, since every culture affects those that it touches.  China influenced the ME just as the ME influence China via trade.  The culture of the ME looked nothing like that of the Americas when first encountered by Europeans.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, ding doesn't know science nor understand Archimedes Principle.  There are hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles due to warming cycles and no global flood.  It's evidence for God as he promised no more global floods.
> 
> Second, Noah's flood was real and it happened around 2458 BC.  None of Genesis is allegorical.  It happened the way the Bible is written.  Creation was in seven days.  While Noah and his family were building the ark as instructed by God, he tried to get people to repent, i.e. change their minds, but to no avail.  It's the same as with ding and others here.  They'll continue to believe what they want to believe.
> 
> With the global flood, it first rained for forty days and forty nights.  During that time, the fountains of the deep rose up as mountains underneath the seas rose up and the water inside the Earth came rising up quickly.  More evidence for God are the subterranean oceans that came forth.  There is also some who believe there was a canopy of water in the sky that was created on the second day.  This would add to the water.  Eventually, the water covered the mountain tops and highest peaks.  It covered Mt. Everest and the Himalayas because they weren't as high as today.  More evidence that the past was different from the present.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
> 
> Noah's ark drifted for 150 days while every plant, animal, and human were killed.  The fact is a flood is one of the natural disasters that will kill the most people.  More evidence for God.  The God sent a wind to the ark and then for another 150 days the water steadily went down.  Where did the water go?  It went here --  https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html.
> 
> Noah was instructed by God to send out a raven, which flew back and forth but could find no place to land.  How did Noah know?  It did not return.  Next, he sent out a dove, which came back.  A few days later, he sent it out again and the second time came back with an olive leaf in its beak. It symbolized peace.  A few more days and Noah sent it out a third time and this time it did not return. It had found a safe place to live and that is where Noah headed.  If you know about birds and their behaviors, then this is more evidence of God.  Look up how Vikings used to navigate their ships.
> 
> Noah and his family ended up on land, but waited until God commanded him to leave the ark, along with his family, and all the animals.  They had been on the ark over a year. As soon as he stepped on dry land, Noah built an altar of stones and offered sacrifices to God to give thanks.  God made a covenant with Noah to never send another flood to destroy the entire world and marked it with a rainbow.  Noah and his sons received the command from God to be fruitful and multiply.  Before the Flood, people ate only vegetables.  I suppose one could argue they were vegan, but not in the same context as today.  After the flood, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat from animals.  The water of the Flood symbolized baptism.  Just as the Flood washed away evil and gave the world a fresh start, baptism cleanses a person for entry into a new life.  This may to some who have repented, but sin remained and we are ending up like it was before.  Will people become so evil that innocent people are in danger?  I don't think so.  We have nuclear weapons and guns to protect ourselves now.  The danger will probably come from those who do not believe in God, i.e. without God, or end up being _like God_ in their thinking and attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I’ve been a practicing engineer for 35 years. Engineering is the commercial application of science, so I am pretty sure I am qualified to discuss science.
> 
> you on the other hand are a religious nutjob who reads the Bible literally and believes the earth and universe were created 6000 years ago.
Click to expand...


I'm a computer scientist who is smarter and have a higher IQ than you.  I've read evolution (have a source for that) and believed it and then started comparing it with the Bible since 2012; I was baptized then and became a born-again Christian.  From 2007 -  2011, there were a lot of scientific articles that came out criticizing evolution.  This was not my motive for getting baptized.  It was coincidental.  These articles are more difficult to find now, but I think still there.

Furthermore I have a source for my beliefs -- the Bible -- and learned how to read it and understand how science backs it up.  

Anyway, I cannot convince you to change your worldview.  What I can argue is that you are wrong about this thread since we have much more ice melting at the poles than fifteen gigatons.  Read and learn -- Antarctica is Dumping Ice into the Ocean 630% Faster Than It Did the 1980s | Live Science

The Global Impacts of Rapidly Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice

What isn't happening is AGW.  It's just cyclical warming that we go through.  Besides, there are things we can do if you do not want excess CO2.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, ding doesn't know science nor understand Archimedes Principle.  There are hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles due to warming cycles and no global flood.  It's evidence for God as he promised no more global floods.
> 
> Second, Noah's flood was real and it happened around 2458 BC.  None of Genesis is allegorical.  It happened the way the Bible is written.  Creation was in seven days.  While Noah and his family were building the ark as instructed by God, he tried to get people to repent, i.e. change their minds, but to no avail.  It's the same as with ding and others here.  They'll continue to believe what they want to believe.
> 
> With the global flood, it first rained for forty days and forty nights.  During that time, the fountains of the deep rose up as mountains underneath the seas rose up and the water inside the Earth came rising up quickly.  More evidence for God are the subterranean oceans that came forth.  There is also some who believe there was a canopy of water in the sky that was created on the second day.  This would add to the water.  Eventually, the water covered the mountain tops and highest peaks.  It covered Mt. Everest and the Himalayas because they weren't as high as today; they rose up as fountains of the deep.  More evidence that the past was different from the present.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
> 
> Noah's ark drifted for 150 days while every plant, animal, and human were killed.  The fact is a flood is one of the natural disasters that will kill the most people.  More evidence for God.  The God sent a wind to the ark and then for another 150 days the water steadily went down.  Where did the water go?  It went here --  https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html.
> 
> Noah was instructed by God to send out a raven, which flew back and forth but could find no place to land.  How did Noah know?  It did not return.  Next, he sent out a dove, which came back.  A few days later, he sent it out again and the second time came back with an olive leaf in its beak. It symbolized peace.  A few more days and Noah sent it out a third time and this time it did not return. It had found a safe place to live and that is where Noah headed.  If you know about birds and their behaviors, then this is more evidence of God.  Look up how Vikings used to navigate their ships.
> 
> Noah and his family ended up on land, but waited until God commanded him to leave the ark, along with his family, and all the animals.  They had been on the ark over a year. As soon as he stepped on dry land, Noah built an altar of stones and offered sacrifices to God to give thanks.  God made a covenant with Noah to never send another flood to destroy the entire world and marked it with a rainbow.  Noah and his sons received the command from God to be fruitful and multiply.  Before the Flood, people ate only vegetables.  I suppose one could argue they were vegan, but not in the same context as today.  After the flood, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat from animals.  The water of the Flood symbolized baptism.  Just as the Flood washed away evil and gave the world a fresh start, baptism cleanses a person for entry into a new life.  This may hold to some who have repented, but sin remained and we are ending up like it was before.  Will people become so evil that innocent people are in danger?  I don't think so.  We have nuclear weapons and guns to protect ourselves now.  The danger will probably come from those who do not believe in God, i.e. without God, or end up being _like God_ in their thinking and attitude.  The last part is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.  Since the Flood was a supernatural event there is really nothing to refute.  The issues with the story, e.g., no evidence of a global flood or kangaroos only in Australia, are easily explained as supernatural machinations.  "Because God did it" is always the final answer.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> no, the physics is spot on. They used the measured size of the crater to determine the volume displaced and then they used the volume displaced to calculate the energy of the event that explained what I just wrote.
> 
> I even provided the excerpt from the peer reviewed scientific paper that was published on this that proves that was how they did it.



The paper doesn't mention rain ... this is the physics you have in error ... what are the new lapse rates? ... 



ding said:


> the published paper which was peer reviewed wasn’t wrong.



Do you think "peer review" means the paper is right? ... seriously? ... I'm not saying they're wrong ... I'm just saying _you're_ not conserving energy ... you're the engineer, how much energy to excavate the crater? ...

Takes more than just water vapor in the air to make rain ... some vital part that you seem blissfully unaware of ...


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Since the Flood was a supernatural event there is really nothing to refute. The issues with the story, e.g., no evidence of a global flood or kangaroos only in Australia, are easily explained as supernatural machinations. "Because God did it" is always the final answer.



I wouldn't just write it off like that.  The least you can do is learn from it.  God is a loving God who sacrificed his only son so that we could live on with our second lives.  Prior to it, we could not anymore due to Adam's sin.  Just like with Adam, he gives us one command and that is to believe and follow his son Jesus.  He is the way and the door to the narrow path.  This is in lieu of taking the path of the wide gate.  Many people mistake it for heaven's gate.  The other big takeaway from the flood is that Jesus is a wrathful God.  He will be coming again, probably after your and our deaths.  It's prophecized that this will happen and _all eyes will see_.  It means all of our differences will be settled on Earth.  Now, the prophecies of what happens is what is allegory and metaphor.  We do not know what all the symbolic happening mean including the Lake of Fire (hell) or even Hades, the place of the dead.  I think most of will be in a sleeping but conscious state.  A few will be suffering right away like Lazarus.

ETA:  Science discredits your no evidence for a global flood and kangaroos only in Australia.  I've said the Earth was not the same in the past as it is today.  Satan and his Antibible of evolution has clouded your mind into accepting uniformitarianism.  The Bible does not state that.  We had Pangaea the supercontinent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents.  The catastrophism changed our geology rapidly.  This is how I know that things happen rapidly on Earth.  One does not have to wait a lifetime or beyond it.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, the physics is spot on. They used the measured size of the crater to determine the volume displaced and then they used the volume displaced to calculate the energy of the event that explained what I just wrote.
> 
> I even provided the excerpt from the peer reviewed scientific paper that was published on this that proves that was how they did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The paper doesn't mention rain ... this is the physics you have in error ... what are the new lapse rates? ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> the published paper which was peer reviewed wasn’t wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think "peer review" means the paper is right? ... seriously? ... I'm not saying they're wrong ... I'm just saying _you're_ not conserving energy ... you're the engineer, how much energy to excavate the crater? ...
> 
> Takes more than just water vapor in the air to make rain ... some vital part that you seem blissfully unaware of ...
Click to expand...

So what do you believe will happen when 1500 gigatons of ice is instantly vaporized?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Since the Flood was a supernatural event there is really nothing to refute. The issues with the story, e.g., no evidence of a global flood or kangaroos only in Australia, are easily explained as supernatural machinations. "Because God did it" is always the final answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't just write it off like that.  The least you can do is learn from it.  God is a loving God who sacrificed his only son so that we could live on with our second lives.  Prior to it, we could not anymore due to Adam's sin.  Just like with Adam, he gives us one command and that is to believe and follow his son Jesus.  He is the way and the door to the narrow path.  This is in lieu of taking the path of the wide gate.  Many people mistake it for heaven's gate.  The other big takeaway from the flood is that Jesus is a wrathful God.  He will be coming again, probably after your and our deaths.  It's prophecized that this will happen and _all eyes will see_.  It means all of our differences will be settled on Earth.  Now, the prophecies of what happens is what is allegory and metaphor.  We do not know what all the symbolic happening mean including the Lake of Fire (hell) or even Hades, the place of the dead.  I think most of will be in a sleeping but conscious state.  A few will be suffering right away like Lazarus.
> 
> ETA:  Science discredits your no evidence for a global flood and kangaroos only in Australia.  I've said the Earth was not the same in the past as it is today.  Satan and his Antibible of evolution has clouded your mind into accepting uniformitarianism.  The Bible does not state that.  We had Pangaea the supercontinent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents.  The catastrophism changed our geology rapidly.  This is how I know that things happen rapidly on Earth.  One does not have to wait a lifetime or beyond it.
Click to expand...

Since this is the Science and Technology thread I'll try to focus on that and save the theology for another time.

So far as I know there is evidence for floods just about everywhere but no evidence for a single, global flood.  What did science say about why there are only kangaroos in Australia?  Yes, we had Pangaea the super-continent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents but those same processes are still going on today and you consider them catastrophic only because your literal reading of the Bible makes you a YEC.

Maybe Satan has clouded your mind into rejecting uniformitarianism?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Since the Flood was a supernatural event there is really nothing to refute. The issues with the story, e.g., no evidence of a global flood or kangaroos only in Australia, are easily explained as supernatural machinations. "Because God did it" is always the final answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't just write it off like that.  The least you can do is learn from it.  God is a loving God who sacrificed his only son so that we could live on with our second lives.  Prior to it, we could not anymore due to Adam's sin.  Just like with Adam, he gives us one command and that is to believe and follow his son Jesus.  He is the way and the door to the narrow path.  This is in lieu of taking the path of the wide gate.  Many people mistake it for heaven's gate.  The other big takeaway from the flood is that Jesus is a wrathful God.  He will be coming again, probably after your and our deaths.  It's prophecized that this will happen and _all eyes will see_.  It means all of our differences will be settled on Earth.  Now, the prophecies of what happens is what is allegory and metaphor.  We do not know what all the symbolic happening mean including the Lake of Fire (hell) or even Hades, the place of the dead.  I think most of will be in a sleeping but conscious state.  A few will be suffering right away like Lazarus.
> 
> ETA:  Science discredits your no evidence for a global flood and kangaroos only in Australia.  I've said the Earth was not the same in the past as it is today.  Satan and his Antibible of evolution has clouded your mind into accepting uniformitarianism.  The Bible does not state that.  We had Pangaea the supercontinent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents.  The catastrophism changed our geology rapidly.  This is how I know that things happen rapidly on Earth.  One does not have to wait a lifetime or beyond it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since this is the Science and Technology thread I'll try to focus on that and save the theology for another time.
> 
> So far as I know there is evidence for floods just about everywhere but no evidence for a single, global flood.  What did science say about why there are only kangaroos in Australia?  Yes, we had Pangaea the super-continent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents but those same processes are still going on today and you consider them catastrophic only because your literal reading of the Bible makes you a YEC.
> 
> Maybe Satan has clouded your mind into rejecting uniformitarianism?
Click to expand...


You're blind.  I already pointed out the mountains underneath the oceans and entire buried civilizations around the world.  We even have the oxygen-18 now in the rocks.  You can't just make the fossils are on top of mountains, and they're marine creatures, disappear.  Why should your fossils only show evolutionary layering?  That's BS.  There was a whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas.  Most of the fossil record is marine creatures.  Even the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum has been successful while evolution exhibits such as Lucy have been failures.  People do not want your Satanic Temple in the neighborhood.

I had to look up your kangaroos in Australia.  It means creation scientist Wallace was right about his observation of the Wallace line.  Isn't that enough evidence of God and science backs up the Bible?  Of course not.  It destroys you and your worldview, so the only way we'll know is after we die.  Guaranteed you will know and every eye will see.  All the contradictions of God's word and science by Satan's Antibible are not just coincidence.  When your science all contradict God's word, it means they are bad and it isn't a coincidence.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Since the Flood was a supernatural event there is really nothing to refute. The issues with the story, e.g., no evidence of a global flood or kangaroos only in Australia, are easily explained as supernatural machinations. "Because God did it" is always the final answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't just write it off like that.  The least you can do is learn from it.  God is a loving God who sacrificed his only son so that we could live on with our second lives.  Prior to it, we could not anymore due to Adam's sin.  Just like with Adam, he gives us one command and that is to believe and follow his son Jesus.  He is the way and the door to the narrow path.  This is in lieu of taking the path of the wide gate.  Many people mistake it for heaven's gate.  The other big takeaway from the flood is that Jesus is a wrathful God.  He will be coming again, probably after your and our deaths.  It's prophecized that this will happen and _all eyes will see_.  It means all of our differences will be settled on Earth.  Now, the prophecies of what happens is what is allegory and metaphor.  We do not know what all the symbolic happening mean including the Lake of Fire (hell) or even Hades, the place of the dead.  I think most of will be in a sleeping but conscious state.  A few will be suffering right away like Lazarus.
> 
> ETA:  Science discredits your no evidence for a global flood and kangaroos only in Australia.  I've said the Earth was not the same in the past as it is today.  Satan and his Antibible of evolution has clouded your mind into accepting uniformitarianism.  The Bible does not state that.  We had Pangaea the supercontinent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents.  The catastrophism changed our geology rapidly.  This is how I know that things happen rapidly on Earth.  One does not have to wait a lifetime or beyond it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since this is the Science and Technology thread I'll try to focus on that and save the theology for another time.
> 
> So far as I know there is evidence for floods just about everywhere but no evidence for a single, global flood.  What did science say about why there are only kangaroos in Australia?  Yes, we had Pangaea the super-continent and plate tectonics or underseas earthquakes formed our seven continents but those same processes are still going on today and you consider them catastrophic only because your literal reading of the Bible makes you a YEC.
> 
> Maybe Satan has clouded your mind into rejecting uniformitarianism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're blind.  I already pointed out the mountains underneath the oceans and entire buried civilizations around the world.  We even have the oxygen-18 now in the rocks.  You can't just make the fossils are on top of mountains, and they're marine creatures, disappear.  Why should your fossils only show evolutionary layering?  That's BS.  There was a whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas.  Most of the fossil record is marine creatures.  Even the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum has been successful while evolution exhibits such as Lucy have been failures.  People do not want your Satanic Temple in the neighborhood.
> 
> I had to look up your kangaroos in Australia.  It means creation scientist Wallace was right about his observation of the Wallace line.  Isn't that enough evidence of God and science backs up the Bible?  Of course not.  It destroys you and your worldview, so the only way we'll know is after we die.  Guaranteed you will know and every eye will see.  All the contradictions of God's word and science by Satan's Antibible are not just coincidence.  When your science all contradict God's word, it means they are bad and it isn't a coincidence.
Click to expand...


Christianity has its own version of the Taliban, just not as heavily armed.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> So what do you believe will happen when 1500 gigatons of ice is instantly vaporized?



Perpetual motion will be a reality and our energy worries are over ... do you have a citation for that number ... I can't find it in your paper ... just the bogus article ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain


Haha, dithering ding, wasting everyone's time again. 

Uh, you forgot your actual point, which was to argue that this caused a global flood. Is someone supposed to come along and do this for you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Really? How small was it?


This is described in your own link, you fraud.

If you read that book you keep bringing up, then I am the queen of England. Stop wasting my time and summarize the evidence you claim exists. Or, shut the fk up.

Before you continue to embarrass yourself:

Don't forget to account for the fact that the article very clearly states that much of that melted water just ran off into the ocean, and that the melt took quite a while (was not instant).

You know, I really shouldn't have to coach you with information from your own links.


----------



## skye

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?



Yes, it is possible.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How small was it?
> 
> 
> 
> This is described in your own link, you fraud.
Click to expand...


Well then why don't you post your evidence in opposition to what I've stated troll.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If you read that book you keep bringing up, then I am the queen of England. Stop wasting my time and summarize the evidence you claim exists. Or, shut the fk up.



Which book would that be?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Before you continue to embarrass yourself:



I think it's the other way around.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Don't forget to account for the fact that the article very clearly states that much of that melted water just ran off into the ocean, and that the melt took quite a while (was not instant).



Which article? 



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You know, I really shouldn't have to coach you with information from your own links.



Then present your non existent evidence instead of looking like the trollish idiot you are.







*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Satan has clouded your mind into rejecting uniformitarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> You're blind.  I already pointed out the mountains underneath the oceans and entire buried civilizations around the world.  We even have the oxygen-18 now in the rocks.  You can't just make the fossils are on top of mountains, and they're marine creatures, disappear.  Why should your fossils only show evolutionary layering?  That's BS.  There was a whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas.  Most of the fossil record is marine creatures.  Even the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum has been successful while evolution exhibits such as Lucy have been failures.  People do not want your Satanic Temple in the neighborhood.
> 
> I had to look up your kangaroos in Australia.  It means creation scientist Wallace was right about his observation of the Wallace line.  Isn't that enough evidence of God and science backs up the Bible?  Of course not.  It destroys you and your worldview, so the only way we'll know is after we die.  Guaranteed you will know and every eye will see.  All the contradictions of God's word and science by Satan's Antibible are not just coincidence.  When your science all contradict God's word, it means they are bad and it isn't a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Plate tectonics and uniformitarianism adequately explain whole whale skeleton found in the Himalayas and all your other examples without the need to resort to supernatural forces.  After all, the Himalayas are still growing, the Atlantic is still spreading just as predicted.

Wallace developed his theory of evolution independently of Darwin so I don't know why you say he was a creationist.  The root cause of *Wallace's line* is that the ancient supercontinent Gondwana was separated entirely from other parts of the world after Pangaea broke up. Australasia and its smaller islands were part of Gondwana, and that is why their fauna is so different from that of south-east Asia.

When science contradicts 'God's word', it means He either lied, He was wrong, or His words were not accurately recorded.


----------



## ReinyDays

alang1216 said:


> Wallace developed his theory of evolution independently of Darwin so I don't know why you say he was a creationist.



It may be true that Wallace developed his theory of evolution at the beginning ... but Wallace and Darwin were in regular communications, and Wallace was very encouraging of Darwin to publish and co-authored a few papers with him ... in many respects, the two gentlemen worked together in blessed co-operation ... 

Both were members of the Church of England, but that doesn't make either one a "creationalist" in the contemporary sense of the word ... 

I'm sorry *James Bond*, I agree that some parts of the Bible can be treated scientifically, but not all ... perhaps the single most important event in the Bible, the virgin birth, completely defies all known science ... that was a miracle, and miracles can't be tested in the lab ...


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical?  You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical?  Do I have that right?  You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this?  Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
> 
> 
> 
> C’mon man. Saying there was a great migration from Mesopotamia which happens to be called the cradle of civilization does not mean mankind began in the ME.
> 
> What part of they used allegory to make it easier to remember and pass down information did you not understand?  Why are you trying to find something to not pick? Rather than reading these accounts critically, why aren’t you trying to discern what lessons and knowledge they were trying to pass down? Is it that important to you to know if there was an actual ark? And that people used a boat to save human and animal lives?  Because I’m sure some did. Wouldn’t you?  But instead you keep reading these passages literally to justify your biases.
> 
> So it doesn’t appear that you have it right. Here’s a suggestion why don’t you ask me what I am saying instead of trying to guess what I am saying. It takes too long to correct your guesses.
> 
> how much physical evidence are you expecting for events that occurred thousands of years ago?  Are you telling me that you don’t believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world?  C’mon man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry if I'm being dense but I'm only trying to understand what you're saying and I don't.  What do you think the Bible is?  History, science, folklore, theology, ethical guidance, or something else?
> 
> Do I believe there was a migration from Mesopotamia to other parts of the world?  If you mean the physical movement of people, no I don't.  The people of the ME look nothing like those of the Americas.   If you mean the culture of the ME then yes, to a degree, since every culture affects those that it touches.  China influenced the ME just as the ME influence China via trade.  The culture of the ME looked nothing like that of the Americas when first encountered by Europeans.
Click to expand...

It's not that you are dense.  You aren't stupid.  You are being deliberately obtuse.   

What do I believe the Bible is? It depends on which book you are talking about.  There are several literary styles employed; allegorical, poetic, law, historical, prophetic, etc.  

Of course there were other migrations.  

The earliest Chinese dynasties worship Shangdi who is the God of Abraham.   The account of Genesis was used as symbols in the Chinese written language 4500 years ago.  They tell about the migration from the west in those symbols.  






The account of the flood was also captured as symbols in their written language.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what do you believe will happen when 1500 gigatons of ice is instantly vaporized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perpetual motion will be a reality and our energy worries are over ... do you have a citation for that number ... I can't find it in your paper ... just the bogus article ...
Click to expand...

The second law of thermodynamics says otherwise.

It requires you to do 8th grade math.   Which you can't do.  Have you already forgotten your fuck up that you have as of yet failed to own or admit owned?



ReinyDays said:


> 1.5 x 10^18 kg ÷ 1 x 10^6 kg/m^3 = 1.5 x 10^12 m^3
> 1.5 x 10^12 m^3 ÷ 3.6 x 10^8 m^2 = 4.2 x 10^3 m ≈ 4 kilometers sea level drop


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that there is a massive crater in the polar region which would have resulted in a global climatic change which was a sudden event which released massive amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere which would have come down as rain
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, dithering ding, wasting everyone's time again.
> 
> Uh, you forgot your actual point, which was to argue that this caused a global flood. Is someone supposed to come along and do this for you?
Click to expand...

That's disingenuous.  This OP is about an asteroid impact in Greenland which unleashed 700 gigatons of TNT equivalence and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice which caused a global disruption to the climate.  Flooding happend all around the globe.  That doesn't mean it was a worldwide flood.  You couldn't debate honestly if you tried.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? How small was it?
> 
> 
> 
> This is described in your own link, you fraud.
> 
> If you read that book you keep bringing up, then I am the queen of England. Stop wasting my time and summarize the evidence you claim exists. Or, shut the fk up.
> 
> Before you continue to embarrass yourself:
> 
> Don't forget to account for the fact that the article very clearly states that much of that melted water just ran off into the ocean, and that the melt took quite a while (was not instant).
> 
> You know, I really shouldn't have to coach you with information from your own links.
Click to expand...

You are the fraud.  I sleep like a baby knowing that you reap what you sow. And that is why you are such a pathetic excuse of a human being.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying there was global flooding in the past but the ark was allegorical? You also say that mankind began in the Middle East and spread to everywhere on the globe from there but the Tower of Babel was allegorical? Do I have that right? You realize there is not a lot of physical evidence for either.
> 
> What was God's role in all this? Did He send the asteroid and confuse languages to punish mankind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, ding doesn't know science nor understand Archimedes Principle.  There are hundreds of gigatons of ice melting at the poles due to warming cycles and no global flood.  It's evidence for God as he promised no more global floods.
> 
> Second, Noah's flood was real and it happened around 2458 BC.  None of Genesis is allegorical.  It happened the way the Bible is written.  Creation was in seven days.  While Noah and his family were building the ark as instructed by God, he tried to get people to repent, i.e. change their minds, but to no avail.  It's the same as with ding and others here.  They'll continue to believe what they want to believe.
> 
> With the global flood, it first rained for forty days and forty nights.  During that time, the fountains of the deep rose up as mountains underneath the seas rose up and the water inside the Earth came rising up quickly.  More evidence for God are the subterranean oceans that came forth.  There is also some who believe there was a canopy of water in the sky that was created on the second day.  This would add to the water.  Eventually, the water covered the mountain tops and highest peaks.  It covered Mt. Everest and the Himalayas because they weren't as high as today.  More evidence that the past was different from the present.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
> 
> Noah's ark drifted for 150 days while every plant, animal, and human were killed.  The fact is a flood is one of the natural disasters that will kill the most people.  More evidence for God.  The God sent a wind to the ark and then for another 150 days the water steadily went down.  Where did the water go?  It went here --  https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html.
> 
> Noah was instructed by God to send out a raven, which flew back and forth but could find no place to land.  How did Noah know?  It did not return.  Next, he sent out a dove, which came back.  A few days later, he sent it out again and the second time came back with an olive leaf in its beak. It symbolized peace.  A few more days and Noah sent it out a third time and this time it did not return. It had found a safe place to live and that is where Noah headed.  If you know about birds and their behaviors, then this is more evidence of God.  Look up how Vikings used to navigate their ships.
> 
> Noah and his family ended up on land, but waited until God commanded him to leave the ark, along with his family, and all the animals.  They had been on the ark over a year. As soon as he stepped on dry land, Noah built an altar of stones and offered sacrifices to God to give thanks.  God made a covenant with Noah to never send another flood to destroy the entire world and marked it with a rainbow.  Noah and his sons received the command from God to be fruitful and multiply.  Before the Flood, people ate only vegetables.  I suppose one could argue they were vegan, but not in the same context as today.  After the flood, God gave Noah and his family permission to eat meat from animals.  The water of the Flood symbolized baptism.  Just as the Flood washed away evil and gave the world a fresh start, baptism cleanses a person for entry into a new life.  This may to some who have repented, but sin remained and we are ending up like it was before.  Will people become so evil that innocent people are in danger?  I don't think so.  We have nuclear weapons and guns to protect ourselves now.  The danger will probably come from those who do not believe in God, i.e. without God, or end up being _like God_ in their thinking and attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I’ve been a practicing engineer for 35 years. Engineering is the commercial application of science, so I am pretty sure I am qualified to discuss science.
> 
> you on the other hand are a religious nutjob who reads the Bible literally and believes the earth and universe were created 6000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a computer scientist who is smarter and have a higher IQ than you.  I've read evolution (have a source for that) and believed it and then started comparing it with the Bible since 2012; I was baptized then and became a born-again Christian.  From 2007 -  2011, there were a lot of scientific articles that came out criticizing evolution.  This was not my motive for getting baptized.  It was coincidental.  These articles are more difficult to find now, but I think still there.
> 
> Furthermore I have a source for my beliefs -- the Bible -- and learned how to read it and understand how science backs it up.
> 
> Anyway, I cannot convince you to change your worldview.  What I can argue is that you are wrong about this thread since we have much more ice melting at the poles than fifteen gigatons.  Read and learn -- Antarctica is Dumping Ice into the Ocean 630% Faster Than It Did the 1980s | Live Science
> 
> The Global Impacts of Rapidly Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice
> 
> What isn't happening is AGW.  It's just cyclical warming that we go through.  Besides, there are things we can do if you do not want excess CO2.
Click to expand...

I think you are dumber than a rock.  

Computer scientist, pfft.  You work in IT.  You have never done any science in your life.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.



I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?

Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.

What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.

No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis. 

As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
Click to expand...

The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.


----------



## ding

Unless of course you use ReinyDays fucked up calculation. He thinks 15 gigatons of water equals 4 km deep in the world’s oceans.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
Click to expand...


You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
Click to expand...

How so?  Feel free to take his place.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this question. If the whole earth was covered in water, including the mountains, where did the water drain to?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
Click to expand...

Although not the place for this discussion, I don’t believe you know what a Christian is.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you this question. If the whole earth was covered in water, including the mountains, where did the water drain to?
Click to expand...



They are our present day seas.  Some of fountains of the deep are underwater and show how our mountains were formed.  Contrary to what you think, they were not carved out by glaciers.  Things happened very fast with catastrophism.  Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were thought to be of lower elevation and they were pushed higher by the oceans, rocks, and magma coming from underneath the seafloor.  Atheist Bill Nye found one, but didn't know what he had.  Valleys formed as well from the mountains going higher and water flowed into it.  As for the supercontinent Pangaea, I'm not sure if it broke apart then but think it did.  I think evos say different.  All of this changed the topography of the Earth.  Evidence for it our super deep oceans along with the highest mountain peaks.  We do not know what is down there and continue to find exotic sea creatures.  It is difficult to explore as it is so deep.  Our highest mountains are a challenge for humans to climb.

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

Where the waters came from are from raining 40 days and 40 nights and then the seafloor opening up and the fountains of the deep rising up with the mountains.  We had much ocean waters under the seafloor as you know.  There may have been a canopy of water in the sky which some believe was the firmament to separate day and night (northern lights or see Aurora Borealis effects).  Others think it described the clouds.

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

Buried civilizations
10 Mysteries of Lost Civilizations That Will Pique Your Interest

An Ancient City Emerges in a Remote Rain Forest

7 Ancient Lost Civilizations Buried Under The Sand | MessageToEagle.com

Other evidence for the global flood are underwater civilizations all over the world discovered.  They are buried in our deserts and rain forests.

ETA:



ding said:


> Although not the place for this discussion, I don’t believe you know what a Christian is.



Let's stick to Genesis.

Briefly, a Christian has to learn what the original sin was from Genesis.  We all know what God's one commandment was, but do not know what Satan's temptation was.  What was the temptation that Satan presented Eve and Adam with so they would be influenced to break the one command?  Hint:  It wasn't the fear of dying.

ETA:
"The Fall
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. 
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”   And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,  but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’  ”But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5


----------



## james bond

ding, now let me ask you a question testing your knowledge about evolution.  The following is Darwin's timeline, now called, "Important events in the the timeline of history."  What caused the 3/4 of the surface of the Earth to be covered by water?

*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.

Text:
Important events in the history of life

Graph



 


Important events in the history of life


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you this question. If the whole earth was covered in water, including the mountains, where did the water drain to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are our present day seas.  Some of fountains of the deep are underwater and show how our mountains were formed.  Contrary to what you think, they were not carved out by glaciers.  Things happened very fast with catastrophism.  Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were thought to be of lower elevation and they were pushed higher by the oceans, rocks, and magma coming from underneath the seafloor.  Atheist Bill Nye found one, but didn't know what he had.  Valleys formed as well from the mountains going higher and water flowed into it.  As for the supercontinent Pangaea, I'm not sure if it broke apart then but think it did.  I think evos say different.  All of this changed the topography of the Earth.  Evidence for it our super deep oceans along with the highest mountain peaks.  We do not know what is down there and continue to find exotic sea creatures.  It is difficult to explore as it is so deep.  Our highest mountains are a challenge for humans to climb.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
> 
> Where the waters came from are from raining 40 days and 40 nights and then the seafloor opening up and the fountains of the deep rising up with the mountains.  We had much ocean waters under the seafloor as you know.  There may have been a canopy of water in the sky which some believe was the firmament to separate day and night (northern lights or see Aurora Borealis effects).  Others think it described the clouds.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
> 
> Buried civilizations
> 10 Mysteries of Lost Civilizations That Will Pique Your Interest
> 
> An Ancient City Emerges in a Remote Rain Forest
> 
> 7 Ancient Lost Civilizations Buried Under The Sand | MessageToEagle.com
> 
> Other evidence for the global flood are underwater civilizations all over the world discovered.  They are buried in our deserts and rain forests.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although not the place for this discussion, I don’t believe you know what a Christian is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's stick to Genesis.
> 
> Briefly, a Christian has to learn what the original sin was from Genesis.  We all know what God's one commandment was, but do not know what Satan's temptation was.  What was the temptation that Satan presented Eve and Adam with so they would be influenced to break the one command?  Hint:  It wasn't the fear of dying.
> 
> ETA:
> "The Fall
> Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
> He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”   And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,  but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’  ”But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5
Click to expand...

So basically you believe God produced the rain and God made the waters recede.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> What caused the 3/4 of the surface of the Earth to be covered by water?


Probably comets.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> just the bogus article ...


The article isn’t bogus.  They misstated the energy of the asteroid strike. They said 700 megatons instead of gigatons. 

Using the published papers energy it calculates that 1500 gigatons would be vaporized.  

At least you would if you could do 8th grade math.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding, now let me ask you a question testing your knowledge about evolution.  The following is Darwin's timeline, now called, "Important events in the the timeline of history."  What caused the 3/4 of the surface of the Earth to be covered by water?
> 
> *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.
> 
> Text:
> Important events in the history of life
> 
> Graph
> View attachment 312107
> 
> 
> Important events in the history of life



You falsified what you cut and pasted from the blog. 

That is not Darwin’s timeline. 

How sad that you feel a need to perpetrate a fraud in a desperate attempt to advance your agenda.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> So basically you believe God produced the rain and God made the waters recede.



As the literal reading of Genesis states.



ding said:


> Probably comets.



Partially correct.  Evos think meteors and comets with ice fell ~4.6 billion years ago.  I doubt that's enough water and it would be too random.  The evidence shows a global flood and the Earth's topography was changed.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you believe God produced the rain and God made the waters recede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the literal reading of Genesis states.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably comets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partially correct.  Evos think meteors and comets with ice fell ~4.6 billion years ago.  I doubt that's enough water and it would be too random.  The evidence shows a global flood and the Earth's topography was changed.
Click to expand...

Genesis isn’t intended to be read literally. 

Evos?  Is that supposed to be a derogatory nickname like fundies?

I don’t know if comets provided enough water or not. No one does. It’s possible that our water was home grown so to speak. No one really knows. But we do know the approximate age of the universe and we do know the approximate age of the earth. And it ain’t 6,000 years.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you this question. If the whole earth was covered in water, including the mountains, where did the water drain to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are our present day seas.  Some of fountains of the deep are underwater and show how our mountains were formed.  Contrary to what you think, they were not carved out by glaciers.  Things happened very fast with catastrophism.  Mt. Everest and the Himalayas were thought to be of lower elevation and they were pushed higher by the oceans, rocks, and magma coming from underneath the seafloor.  Atheist Bill Nye found one, but didn't know what he had.  Valleys formed as well from the mountains going higher and water flowed into it.  As for the supercontinent Pangaea, I'm not sure if it broke apart then but think it did.  I think evos say different.  All of this changed the topography of the Earth.  Evidence for it our super deep oceans along with the highest mountain peaks.  We do not know what is down there and continue to find exotic sea creatures.  It is difficult to explore as it is so deep.  Our highest mountains are a challenge for humans to climb.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
> 
> Where the waters came from are from raining 40 days and 40 nights and then the seafloor opening up and the fountains of the deep rising up with the mountains.  We had much ocean waters under the seafloor as you know.  There may have been a canopy of water in the sky which some believe was the firmament to separate day and night (northern lights or see Aurora Borealis effects).  Others think it described the clouds.
> 
> https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
> 
> Buried civilizations
> 10 Mysteries of Lost Civilizations That Will Pique Your Interest
> 
> An Ancient City Emerges in a Remote Rain Forest
> 
> 7 Ancient Lost Civilizations Buried Under The Sand | MessageToEagle.com
> 
> Other evidence for the global flood are underwater civilizations all over the world discovered.  They are buried in our deserts and rain forests.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although not the place for this discussion, I don’t believe you know what a Christian is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's stick to Genesis.
> 
> Briefly, a Christian has to learn what the original sin was from Genesis.  We all know what God's one commandment was, but do not know what Satan's temptation was.  What was the temptation that Satan presented Eve and Adam with so they would be influenced to break the one command?  Hint:  It wasn't the fear of dying.
> 
> ETA:
> "The Fall
> Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
> He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”   And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,  but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’  ”But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5
Click to expand...

Interesting, that. 

In the genesis fable, the gods lied. Satan told the truth. 

Time to re-write the bibles (again),  and get those fables corrected.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you believe God produced the rain and God made the waters recede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the literal reading of Genesis states.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably comets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partially correct.  Evos think meteors and comets with ice fell ~4.6 billion years ago.  I doubt that's enough water and it would be too random.  The evidence shows a global flood and the Earth's topography was changed.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for a global flood. That's why "religo's" never present any.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up but Christians are rarely embarrassed.  They KNOW they are right so any evidence to the contrary can be incorrect.  

As for the 'alleged', I consider anyone who claims to be a Christian, to be a Christian.  Curiously no Christian can explain what makes one a Christian but every Christian can say who is NOT a Christian.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> The second law of thermodynamics says otherwise.



The second law requires the passage of time ... you asked about instantly ... for that much water to instantly vaporize, you're beyond what's physically possible ... yet another misstatement ... I make mistakes too, but I admit it ... you're too full of selfish pride ... 



ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the 3/4 of the surface of the Earth to be covered by water?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably comets.
Click to expand...


Here's another mistake ... water is one of the top four most common substances in the universe ... all this water has always been here ... 

Selfish pride, I know, keeps you from God's embrace ...


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> Genesis isn’t intended to be read literally.
> 
> Evos? Is that supposed to be a derogatory nickname like fundies?
> 
> I don’t know if comets provided enough water or not. No one does. It’s possible that our water was home grown so to speak. No one really knows. But we do know the approximate age of the universe and we do know the approximate age of the earth. And it ain’t 6,000 years.



So stubborn.  You'll have to fight the Judaists and YEC.  These were the first books written by Moses after the Ten Commandments.  The kings of Israel and ancient peoples had to verify them to make certain they were from God.  The Bible scholars who read literally the Bible and treat as allegory the prophecies understand it the best.  Daniel was the best prophet for King Nebuchanezzar.  The kings had to have people like Daniel read the prophecies to tell them what they mean.  You have no idea what the prophecies are nor know how to read the Bible so it means you will have difficulties after death.  You can be misled during the end times.  Maybe you won't be part of rapture, but mid-tribulation or post tribulation.

Comets and ice won't hold enough water and there is no way they could form mountains so high and valleys so low.  The valleys are our deepest oceans.  Like I said, I am smarter than you.  Continue to argue your stupid global warming and ice melting.  I don't think you even know about the power of running water which the Bible teaches us.

Good day.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Interesting, that.
> 
> In the genesis fable, the gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> Time to re-write the bibles (again), and get those fables corrected.



Why are you writing to me?  Post to ding.  He's the guy who says, "In the genesis fable, the gods lied.  Satan told the truth."

What I said was God wrote the Bible.  In 2019, I've discovered Satan wrote the Antibible called evolution.  Due to his rebellious nature, he could not help but contradict everything God wrote in his auto-biography.  One of the key learnings is the Bible can't change.  It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  Furthermore, Satan has the advantage since he can change things to fit his wrong theories.  If something is debunked, then he just comes up with another lie.

Anyway, the creation scientists and I have the hard evidence to show a global flood.  We now have oxygen-18 from rocks around the world to add to the evidence.  You have a waterworld that destroyed Darwin's cell.  The atheist scientists could not explain the origination of the cell nor universe, so had to start with it as default.  The universe had a beginning, so the Antibiblists had to make up the big bang.  It's ridiculous circumstantial and mind numbing circular logic that you guys follow.

Sorry, but I'm putting you on ignore.  We just cannot get anywhere in science and I don't care if you believe in the Bible or not in regards to religion.


----------



## james bond

To wrap my post up, it is the creation scientists and I with the Bible theory that provide the best evidence for a global flood.  It was a supernatural even caused by God circa 2458 BC.  That is almost 3500 years ago, so will be difficult to just find historical evidence for it.  The hard evidence and the forensic evidence is there.  We also can do tests on running water and discover its power.  People and civilizations were literally washed away.  These are ancient times, so the Earth's atmosphere and environment was much different then such as less gravity.  You can't compare to today and what we started with 120-year life span.  That's why people and scientists who use uniformitarianism can't believe in Genesis.

A good comparison to the fake science of evolution are the prehistoric or stone age peoples.  These peoples did not exist.  Nobody was stupid enough to live in a cave.  They only used it as temporary shelter and this is what we find in WW II and when people get trapped outdoors during a thunderstorm.  These ancient civilizations we find buried were not of low IQ.  They knew how to use farming tools and had enough technical knowledge, advanced tools, and their own technology to discover about the universe and the world.

The Bible even discusses these caves as what people will do during end times.  Of course, Satan in his Antibible made up the Flintstones or stone age and today people believe in stone age humans.  Heck, that's another contradiction of the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, that.
> 
> In the genesis fable, the gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> Time to re-write the bibles (again), and get those fables corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you writing to me?  Post to ding.  He's the guy who says, "In the genesis fable, the gods lied.  Satan told the truth."
> 
> What I said was God wrote the Bible.  In 2019, I've discovered Satan wrote the Antibible called evolution.  Due to his rebellious nature, he could not help but contradict everything God wrote in his auto-biography.  One of the key learnings is the Bible can't change.  It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  Furthermore, Satan has the advantage since he can change things to fit his wrong theories.  If something is debunked, then he just comes up with another lie.
> 
> Anyway, the creation scientists and I have the hard evidence to show a global flood.  We now have oxygen-18 from rocks around the world to add to the evidence.  You have a waterworld that destroyed Darwin's cell.  The atheist scientists could not explain the origination of the cell nor universe, so had to start with it as default.  The universe had a beginning, so the Antibiblists had to make up the big bang.  It's ridiculous circumstantial and mind numbing circular logic that you guys follow.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm putting you on ignore.  We just cannot get anywhere in science and I don't care if you believe in the Bible or not in regards to religion.
Click to expand...

The gods wrote the bible?

I thought it was claimed that various (unknown), men wrote the tales and fables. 

If the gods actually did write the bible, when did the first copy supernaturally appear?

Why did the gods not edit out the errors and contradictions?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> To wrap my post up, it is the creation scientists and I with the Bible theory that provide the best evidence for a global flood.  It was a supernatural even caused by God circa 2458 BC.  That is almost 3500 years ago, so will be difficult to just find historical evidence for it.  The hard evidence and the forensic evidence is there.  We also can do tests on running water and discover its power.  People and civilizations were literally washed away.  These are ancient times, so the Earth's atmosphere and environment was much different then such as less gravity.  You can't compare to today and what we started with 120-year life span.  That's why people and scientists who use uniformitarianism can't believe in Genesis.
> 
> A good comparison to the fake science of evolution are the prehistoric or stone age peoples.  These peoples did not exist.  Nobody was stupid enough to live in a cave.  They only used it as temporary shelter and this is what we find in WW II and when people get trapped outdoors during a thunderstorm.  These ancient civilizations we find buried were not of low IQ.  They knew how to use farming tools and had enough technical knowledge, advanced tools, and their own technology to discover about the universe and the world.
> 
> The Bible even discusses these caves as what people will do during end times.  Of course, Satan in his Antibible made up the Flintstones or stone age and today people believe in stone age humans.  Heck, that's another contradiction of the Bible.



If the Gods "circa 2458 BC" wiped humanity from the planet, why is there no indication of that in the histories of the Chinese, Maya, etc.?


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are dumber than a rock.
> 
> Computer scientist, pfft. You work in IT. You have never done any science in your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one who is arguing for a global flood from 15 gigatons of ice melting.  How stupid is that when hundreds of gigatons do not cause a flood?
> 
> Being smarter than you must've struck a nerve.  Whatever.  It wasn't brag.  Just fact.
> 
> What got me involved was alang1216 attacking your interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> No one believes you.  If what you claim is allegorical, then anyone can say that your god is allegorical.  The flood was allegorical.  One can't even explain what happened in the past.  I can't help it if that is what you believe, but you soon get painted in a corner.  Instead, why don't you just claim old Earth creationism, BioLogos ,or Hugh Ross and Gerald Schroeder.  At least, you'll have a source and some semblance of science behind you instead of making up stuff like you always do.  I even suggested you follow Pope Francis.
> 
> As science, it's you who do not use the Bible.  I'm not even sure how much of it that you have read or whether you go to church.  You never refer to how science backs up the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole earth wasn’t covered in water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just open yourself up for embarrassment.  Heh.  alang1216 some alleged Christian is ripe for plucking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the heads up but Christians are rarely embarrassed.  They KNOW they are right so any evidence to the contrary can be incorrect.
> 
> As for the 'alleged', I consider anyone who claims to be a Christian, to be a Christian.  Curiously no Christian can explain what makes one a Christian but every Christian can say who is NOT a Christian.
Click to expand...

That’s false.

A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second law of thermodynamics says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second law requires the passage of time ... you asked about instantly ... for that much water to instantly vaporize, you're beyond what's physically possible ... yet another misstatement ... I make mistakes too, but I admit it ... you're too full of selfish pride ...
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> What caused the 3/4 of the surface of the Earth to be covered by water?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably comets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's another mistake ... water is one of the top four most common substances in the universe ... all this water has always been here ...
> 
> Selfish pride, I know, keeps you from God's embrace ...
Click to expand...

Good Lord. Now you are quibbling over the word instantly. Give me a break. You are desperate. 

WRT perpetual motion, the SLoT forbids it. End of story. Don’t make me teach you thermo now too. 

Selfish pride?  You are an expert on that. You have not only failed to admit your error, you have failed to admit the energy released from the impact of the asteroid is enough energy to vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice which is the amount the team that discovered the impact crater calculated would have been vaporized. 

but yes, I never claimed to be a saint.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis isn’t intended to be read literally.
> 
> Evos? Is that supposed to be a derogatory nickname like fundies?
> 
> I don’t know if comets provided enough water or not. No one does. It’s possible that our water was home grown so to speak. No one really knows. But we do know the approximate age of the universe and we do know the approximate age of the earth. And it ain’t 6,000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stubborn.  You'll have to fight the Judaists and YEC.  These were the first books written by Moses after the Ten Commandments.  The kings of Israel and ancient peoples had to verify them to make certain they were from God.  The Bible scholars who read literally the Bible and treat as allegory the prophecies understand it the best.  Daniel was the best prophet for King Nebuchanezzar.  The kings had to have people like Daniel read the prophecies to tell them what they mean.  You have no idea what the prophecies are nor know how to read the Bible so it means you will have difficulties after death.  You can be misled during the end times.  Maybe you won't be part of rapture, but mid-tribulation or post tribulation.
> 
> Comets and ice won't hold enough water and there is no way they could form mountains so high and valleys so low.  The valleys are our deepest oceans.  Like I said, I am smarter than you.  Continue to argue your stupid global warming and ice melting.  I don't think you even know about the power of running water which the Bible teaches us.
> 
> Good day.
Click to expand...

^ dunning effect


----------



## ding

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you believe God produced the rain and God made the waters recede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As the literal reading of Genesis states.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably comets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partially correct.  Evos think meteors and comets with ice fell ~4.6 billion years ago.  I doubt that's enough water and it would be too random.  The evidence shows a global flood and the Earth's topography was changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no evidence for a global flood. That's why "religo's" never present any.
Click to expand...

But there is evidence for a worldwide climate disruption which led to massive flooding all around the globe.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, that.
> 
> In the genesis fable, the gods lied. Satan told the truth.
> 
> Time to re-write the bibles (again), and get those fables corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you writing to me?  Post to ding.  He's the guy who says, "In the genesis fable, the gods lied.  Satan told the truth."
> 
> What I said was God wrote the Bible.  In 2019, I've discovered Satan wrote the Antibible called evolution.  Due to his rebellious nature, he could not help but contradict everything God wrote in his auto-biography.  One of the key learnings is the Bible can't change.  It isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  Furthermore, Satan has the advantage since he can change things to fit his wrong theories.  If something is debunked, then he just comes up with another lie.
> 
> Anyway, the creation scientists and I have the hard evidence to show a global flood.  We now have oxygen-18 from rocks around the world to add to the evidence.  You have a waterworld that destroyed Darwin's cell.  The atheist scientists could not explain the origination of the cell nor universe, so had to start with it as default.  The universe had a beginning, so the Antibiblists had to make up the big bang.  It's ridiculous circumstantial and mind numbing circular logic that you guys follow.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm putting you on ignore.  We just cannot get anywhere in science and I don't care if you believe in the Bible or not in regards to religion.
Click to expand...

Probably because you are the fool who believes the universe and the earth were created 6000 years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> But there is evidence for a worldwide climate disruption which led to massive flooding all around the globe.


False. You have been corrected many times on your misrepresentation of the article you posted.


----------



## Marion Morrison

When there's written history (from everywhere on earth that has it) documenting a great flood, I'd say so.


----------



## ding

Marion Morrison said:


> When there's written history from everywhere on earth that has it documenting a great flood, I'd say so.


Look who’s back.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> When there's written history from everywhere on earth that has it documenting a great flood, I'd say so.


Then you would be a fool, and you would also have to believe in dragons, flat Earth,  and many, many gods


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is evidence for a worldwide climate disruption which led to massive flooding all around the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> False. You have been corrected many times on your misrepresentation of the article you posted.
Click to expand...

There is no misrepresentation. There is only your denial of science.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's written history from everywhere on earth that has it documenting a great flood, I'd say so.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be a fool, and you would also have to believe in dragons, flat Earth,  and many, many gods
Click to expand...

How much energy did the scientifically published peer reviewed paper say was unleashed by the meteor strike?

how much ice would have been vaporized by that amount of energy?

come on, Einstein, do the calculation. You can’t can you?


----------



## Death Angel

ding said:


> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


It's not an allegory. The BIBLICAL account is the true version. The others are passed down oral accounts. Stories get confused when passed down this why


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> There is no misrepresentation.


You, of course, repeatedly misrepresented the high end of the possible melt as both being the correct amount and as being water vapor put into the atmosphere, despite the fact that the same article clearly states that was not the case.

This was pointed out to you. Several times. Your response?

You kept repeating the lie, and you are still repeating it. Embarrassing.

The funniest part of watching you flail and embarrass yourself is that literally your entire body of evidence is this silly, simple lie that everyone in the thread since page 2 has known is a lie.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there's written history from everywhere on earth that has it documenting a great flood, I'd say so.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be a fool, and you would also have to believe in dragons, flat Earth,  and many, many gods
Click to expand...


Yet the account of a great flood is common in all of them.

I guess everyone from everywhere before was wrong, and you're right.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no misrepresentation.
> 
> 
> 
> You, of course, repeatedly misrepresented the high end of the possible melt as being water vapor put into the atmosphere, despite the fact that the same article clearly states that was not the case.
> 
> This was pointed out to you. Several times. Your response?
> 
> You kept repeating the lie, and you are still repeating it. Embarrassing.
> 
> The funniest part of watching you flail and embarrass yourself is that literally your entire body of evidence is this silly, simple lie that everyone in the thread since page 2 has known is a lie.
Click to expand...

Nope. Do the calculations, dipshit. Oh wait, you can’t because you are a fake.


----------



## ding

Death Angel said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an allegory. The BIBLICAL account is the true version. The others are passed down oral accounts. Stories get confused when passed down this why
Click to expand...

They all shared a common culture prior to the migration of Mesopotamia. Look at the timeline. Flood first. Migration later.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Yet a great flood is common in all of them.


All? Now you're making stuff up.

And I am curious how a culture that didn't even know people 3000 miles away existed can know there is a "great flood".

Let me guess...they also also have myths of a great, global lightning event?

How about those stories of the great, global cloudy day?

Heh heh


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Nope. Do the calculations,


No need. We actually have career scientists who do this, and we can read their work. No ding, nobody is deferring to some uneducated religious slob who thinks he has outsmarted them all.

No ding, the article you posted is not in any way evidence of a global flooding event that would have all landlocked people underwater. Sorry.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Do the calculations,
> 
> 
> 
> No need. We actually have career scientists who do this, and we can read their work. No ding, nobody is deferring to some uneducated religious slob who thinks he has outsmarted them all.
> 
> No ding, the article you posted is not in any way evidence of a global flooding event that would have all landlocked people underwater. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Did you just say there is no need to do calculations?

how do you think they arrived at the estimate.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Do the calculations,
> 
> 
> 
> No need. We actually have career scientists who do this, and we can read their work. No ding, nobody is deferring to some uneducated religious slob who thinks he has outsmarted them all.
> 
> No ding, the article you posted is not in any way evidence of a global flooding event that would have all landlocked people underwater. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Again, you keep misstating my argument like a cultural Marxist.


----------



## ding

Death Angel said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an allegory. The BIBLICAL account is the true version. The others are passed down oral accounts. Stories get confused when passed down this why
Click to expand...

These symbols were used in the Chinese written language 800 years before Moses recorded the account of Genesis.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Did you just say there is no need to do calculations?


No, you embarrassing fraud, I said there is no need for ME to do them. The career scientists, including the ones in your article do them. You can follow links to their paper and see them.

Goddamn son, these are simple English sentences, try to follow...


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Do the calculations,
> 
> 
> 
> No need. We actually have career scientists who do this, and we can read their work. No ding, nobody is deferring to some uneducated religious slob who thinks he has outsmarted them all.
> 
> No ding, the article you posted is not in any way evidence of a global flooding event that would have all landlocked people underwater. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Career scientists did do this work, dipshit. It was peer reviewed and published. You shit all over science when it suits your purpose.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Again, you keep misstating my argument


False. You clearly lied about 1500 gigatons of water going into the atmosphere. This was pointed out to you. So, you lied again, because that's what religious goobers using faith do. What else can you do? You have no evidence or good theory.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just say there is no need to do calculations?
> 
> 
> 
> No, you embarrassing fraud, I said there is no need for ME to do them. The career scientists, including the ones in your article do them. You can follow links to their paper and see them.
> 
> Goddamn son, these are simple English sentences, try to follow...
Click to expand...

Career scientists did do the calculation. You are shitting all over their calculation. 

and for the record you can’t do the calculation. I can.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Career scientists did do this work,


Correct. I literally just pointed this out to you. And their work does not indicate or support your silly lies.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep misstating my argument
> 
> 
> 
> False. You clearly lied about 1500 gigatons of water going into the atmosphere. This was pointed out to you. So, you lied again, because that's what religious goobers using faith do. What else can you do? You have no evidence or good theory.
Click to expand...

Where do you believe water that is vaporized goes, idiot?

holy fuck, their argument is that this event caused a global climate change. Are you so dense that you cannot understand how that would happen unless all that moisture went into the atmosphere.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Career scientists did do this work,
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I literally just pointed this out to you. And their work does not indicate or support your silly lies.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. Their point is that this event caused a global climate change, you moron.


----------



## ding

There’s a video on YouTube that shows the linkage to the climate change.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Let's tuck ding  in for the night. No, don't worry people, he will come back tomorrow and repeat the same lies.

1 Gt (gigatonne) = 1.1023 GT (gigaton) = the mass of one cubic km of water.

So, 1500 GT = 1360.79 Gt. I.E, the mass of 1360.79 cubic kilometers of water. So, let's imagine a 1360.79 square kilometers area of water that is 1 km thick.

The surface area of the Earth's oceans is 361.9 million square kilometers.

(361.9 million) ÷ (1360.79) = 265,948.

So, the ocean level rise resulting from the INSTANT addition of 1500 GT of water is 1/265.948 of a meter. About 1/3 of a centimeter. In other words, a guy standing on the beach in Asia would not even notice.

In contrast, let's have a laugh and look at ding's "math" that says sea level rose 4 km:

(4 km) * (361.9 million square km) = 1447.6 million cubic kilometers.

1447.6 million GT = 1595.7 million GT.

So, hey, he's only off by a factor of a million or so.

This is what religion can do to your brain, people.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Let's tuck ding in for the night. No, don't worry people, he will come back tomorrow and repeat the same lies.
> 
> 1 Gt (gigatonne) = 1.1023 GT (gigaton) = the mass of one cubic km of water.
> 
> So, 1500 GT = 1360.79 Gt. I.E, the mass of 1360.79 cubic kilometers of water.
> 
> The surface area of the Earth's oceans is 361.9 million square kilometers.
> 
> (361.9 million) ÷ (1360.79) = 265,948.
> 
> So, the ocean level rise resulting from the INSTANT addition of 1500 GT of water is 1/265.948 of a meter. About 1/3 of a centimeter. In other words, a guy standing on the beach in Asia would not even notice.
> 
> In contrast, let's have a laugh and look at ding's "math" that says sea level rose 4 km:
> 
> (4 km) * (361.9 million square km) = 1447.6 million cubic kilometers.
> 
> 1447.6 million GT = 1595.7 million GT.
> 
> So, hey, he's only off by a factor of a million or so.
> 
> 
> Bwahahahahaha


That’s not my argument. How many times do I have to tell you that. I’m not JamesBond.

My argument is that there were flooding events all around the world. Rain comes down on land, it can’t drain off fast enough and water levels rise on land. That’s how floods work.  Then it drains off to the oceans. The time required for it to drain off is directly proportional to the number of inches of rain that fell. 

Mind you, This wasn’t your run of the mill flooding event. This was a climate altering event.

The fact that you keep misstating my argument tells me you have no good argument. 

The fact that you try to make an argument when you have no good argument tells me that you are an idiot that has never amounted to anything and will most likely never amount to anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> My argument is that there were flooding events all around the world.


And all at different times. Wow man, that's insightful. And so stories of deadly floods were passed down. Wow, amazing.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that there were flooding events all around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> And all at different times. Wow man, that's insightful. And so stories of deadly floods were passed down. Wow, amazing.
Click to expand...

1500 gigatons of water vapor entered the atmosphere and you still can’t see the connection?

scientists wrote a peer reviewed paper that was published and you can’t see the linkage to a climate change event even though the scientists that did the research and published their work see the linkage?

keep making your argument. I’m happy enough to bury you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> 1500 gigatons of water vapor entered the atmosphere


Oops, you just repeated the lie again. You can't even stop yourself, can you? Embarrassing.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that there were flooding events all around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> And all at different times. Wow man, that's insightful. And so stories of deadly floods were passed down. Wow, amazing.
Click to expand...

I guess you must believe introducing 1500 gigatons of water to a pseudo steady state system has no effects. Holy shit you are dense.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you keep misstating my argument
> 
> 
> 
> False. You clearly lied about 1500 gigatons of water going into the atmosphere. This was pointed out to you. So, you lied again, because that's what religious goobers using faith do. What else can you do? You have no evidence or good theory.
Click to expand...

The team that published the paper calculated that volume. The energy they estimated is the exact energy needed to vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice. 

you are literally arguing with scientists that published a peer reviewed published paper.


----------



## ding

Keep digging your hole FF.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1500 gigatons of water vapor entered the atmosphere
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, you just repeated the lie again. You can't even stop yourself, can you? Embarrassing.
Click to expand...

700 gigatons of energy will vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice. The team that published the peer reviewed scientific paper stand behind those calcs.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet a great flood is common in all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> All? Now you're making stuff up.
> 
> And I am curious how a culture that didn't even know people 3000 miles away existed can know there is a "great flood".
> 
> Let me guess...they also also have myths of a great, global lightning event?
> 
> How about those stories of the great, global cloudy day?
> 
> Heh heh
Click to expand...


Because the whole world flooded, dumbass. Almost all written histories document it.

Everybody that could write worldwide documented it 5-6K years ago, but you know better, amirite? Because somebody told you you're wicked smaht. Maybe.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that there were flooding events all around the world.
> 
> 
> 
> And all at different times. Wow man, that's insightful. And so stories of deadly floods were passed down. Wow, amazing.
Click to expand...


Wow, but you know all those people all over the world were wrong and you're right. How?

As far as different times? No. All the history points to approximately 5k years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> 700 gigatons of energy will vaporize 1500 gigatons of ice.


Fancy!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Wow, but you know all those people all over the world were wrong and you're right. How?


What did I say they were wrong about, specifically?  Yes, if anyone who was alive 8000 years ago claimed a worldwide flood, they were wrong. Is that what you mean?

You just claimed that, yourself.  You're wrong, too.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, but you know all those people all over the world were wrong and you're right. How?
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say they were wrong about, specifically?  Yes, if anyone who was alive 8000 years ago claimed a worldwide flood, they were wrong. Is that what you mean?
> 
> You just claimed that, yourself.  You're wrong too
Click to expand...

Were they?  Or is it your characterization of their allegorical account that is wrong. 

I mean after all, you know the extent of the globe. They didn’t. It seems to me that you are the one who has failed to place the account in its proper context. They placed it in the only context they knew.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, but you know all those people all over the world were wrong and you're right. How?
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say they were wrong about, specifically?  Yes, if anyone who was alive 8000 years ago claimed a worldwide flood, they were wrong. Is that what you mean?
> 
> You just claimed that, yourself.  You're wrong too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they?  Or is it your characterization of their allegorical account that is wrong.
> 
> I mean after all, you know the extent of the globe. They didn’t. It seems to me that you are the one who has failed to place the account in its proper context. They placed it in the only context they knew.
Click to expand...

So, your big, hilarious attempt to "do the math" was off by a factor of a million.

Your only other premise is a lie and a repeated misrepresentation of the article.

Yet here you are, still going. No shame, no accountability. It's all there for everyone to see. Carry on.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, but you know all those people all over the world were wrong and you're right. How?
> 
> 
> 
> What did I say they were wrong about, specifically?  Yes, if anyone who was alive 8000 years ago claimed a worldwide flood, they were wrong. Is that what you mean?
> 
> You just claimed that, yourself.  You're wrong too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they?  Or is it your characterization of their allegorical account that is wrong.
> 
> I mean after all, you know the extent of the globe. They didn’t. It seems to me that you are the one who has failed to place the account in its proper context. They placed it in the only context they knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your big, hilarious attempt to "do the math" was off by a factor of a million.
> Your only other premise is a lie and a repeated misrepresentation of the article.
> 
> Yet here you are, still going. No shame, no accountability. It's all there for everyone to see. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Ummm, first of all it was misstated in the article.  secondly it was off by one thousand not a million.

You dismissing a peer reviewed published scientific paper is all that needs to be said.

Is there no end to your faggotry?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Ummm, first of all it was misstated in the article.


Hahahaha

Okay, ding. Gotcha. So, all this time you have been lying about what was in the article, it's because the article got it wrong.

Ding, you're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, first of all it was misstated in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahahaha
> 
> Okay, ding. Gotcha. So, all this time you have been lying about what was in the article, it's because the article got it wrong.
> 
> Ding, you're embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

No. This is you being dishonest again. There are two things; a peer reviewed scientific paper and an article about the peer reviewed scientific paper. The team of scientists that discovered the crater calculated the energy of the impact and the volume of ice that was vaporized. The article misstated the energy of the impact but correctly stated the volume of ice vaporized. Lastly if you take the energy of the impact that is stated in the peer reviewed published scientific paper and calculated how much ice would be vaporized from the impact you get the volume of 1500 gigatons of ice. 

So please stop being dishonest.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.



I just want to testify that you are wrong.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to testify that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Ok. Which part do you disagree with?

John 3:16?

John 18:37?

God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?

What do you believe a Christian is?


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to testify that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Which part do you disagree with?
> 
> John 3:16?
> 
> John 18:37?
> 
> God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?
> 
> What do you believe a Christian is?
Click to expand...


You have to ask yourself those questions.  I think you have no source for your religion; it doesn't exactly fit Catholicism.  Do you think John 3:16 is metaphor?

A Christian believes in Jesus, tries to learn, and follow his teachings.  He believes in finding the narrow gate and door of Jesus; this is metaphor.

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.


So what?  Is Yahweh a moody 13 year old girl begging for compliments on Snapchat?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to testify that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Which part do you disagree with?
> 
> John 3:16?
> 
> John 18:37?
> 
> God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?
> 
> What do you believe a Christian is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to ask yourself those questions.  I think you have no source for your religion; it doesn't exactly fit Catholicism.  Do you think John 3:16 is metaphor?
> 
> A Christian believes in Jesus, tries to learn, and follow his teachings.  He believes in finding the narrow gate and door of Jesus; this is metaphor.
> 
> "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
> 
> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question. What does one have to believe to be a Christian.

I say he must believe God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth. That’s straight from John 3:16 and John 18:37. And a Christian must also believe that God himself suffered death for our sins. That’s God reconciling justice with mercy.

I’m still waiting for what you think it means to believe Jesus is the way because I don’t believe you know what that means. You might as well be a militant atheist because you sure as hell behave like one.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

ding said:


> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?



  No, it is not possible.  If it's true, then it's not allegorical.  If it's allegorical, then it's not true, at least not in the literal sense.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to testify that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Which part do you disagree with?
> 
> John 3:16?
> 
> John 18:37?
> 
> God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?
> 
> What do you believe a Christian is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to ask yourself those questions.  I think you have no source for your religion; it doesn't exactly fit Catholicism.  Do you think John 3:16 is metaphor?
> 
> A Christian believes in Jesus, tries to learn, and follow his teachings.  He believes in finding the narrow gate and door of Jesus; this is metaphor.
> 
> "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
> 
> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. What does one have to believe to be a Christian.
> 
> I say he must believe God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth. That’s straight from John 3:16 and John 18:37. And a Christian must also believe that God himself suffered death for our sins. That’s God reconciling justice with mercy.
> 
> I’m still waiting for what you think it means to believe Jesus is the way because I don’t believe you know what that means. You might as well be a militant atheist because you sure as hell behave like one.
Click to expand...


Are you that far off from being a Christian?  Even a Catholic?  They abide by the Apostle's creed while Christians go by the Nicene creed.  I answered the question and it's what God said for us to do.

You do not have a source, so that is where you have to start to repent.  Like I said, people will believe what they want to believe.


----------



## ding

.


james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to testify that you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. Which part do you disagree with?
> 
> John 3:16?
> 
> John 18:37?
> 
> God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?
> 
> What do you believe a Christian is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to ask yourself those questions.  I think you have no source for your religion; it doesn't exactly fit Catholicism.  Do you think John 3:16 is metaphor?
> 
> A Christian believes in Jesus, tries to learn, and follow his teachings.  He believes in finding the narrow gate and door of Jesus; this is metaphor.
> 
> "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
> 
> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. What does one have to believe to be a Christian.
> 
> I say he must believe God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth. That’s straight from John 3:16 and John 18:37. And a Christian must also believe that God himself suffered death for our sins. That’s God reconciling justice with mercy.
> 
> I’m still waiting for what you think it means to believe Jesus is the way because I don’t believe you know what that means. You might as well be a militant atheist because you sure as hell behave like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that far off from being a Christian?  Even a Catholic?  They abide by the Apostle's creed while Christians go by the Nicene creed.  I answered the question and it's what God said for us to do.
> 
> You do not have a source, so that is where you have to start to repent.  Like I said, people will believe what they want to believe.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer it. What does it mean that Jesus is the way?


----------



## ding

Bob Blaylock said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not possible.  If it's true, then it's not allegorical.  If it's allegorical, then it's not true, at least not in the literal sense.
Click to expand...

How do you believe knowledge was passed down 6000 years ago?


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to testify that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Which part do you disagree with?
> 
> John 3:16?
> 
> John 18:37?
> 
> God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?
> 
> What do you believe a Christian is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to ask yourself those questions.  I think you have no source for your religion; it doesn't exactly fit Catholicism.  Do you think John 3:16 is metaphor?
> 
> A Christian believes in Jesus, tries to learn, and follow his teachings.  He believes in finding the narrow gate and door of Jesus; this is metaphor.
> 
> "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
> 
> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. What does one have to believe to be a Christian.
> 
> I say he must believe God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth. That’s straight from John 3:16 and John 18:37. And a Christian must also believe that God himself suffered death for our sins. That’s God reconciling justice with mercy.
> 
> I’m still waiting for what you think it means to believe Jesus is the way because I don’t believe you know what that means. You might as well be a militant atheist because you sure as hell behave like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that far off from being a Christian?  Even a Catholic?  They abide by the Apostle's creed while Christians go by the Nicene creed.  I answered the question and it's what God said for us to do.
> 
> You do not have a source, so that is where you have to start to repent.  Like I said, people will believe what they want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer it. What does it mean that Jesus is the way?
Click to expand...


I did answer, but I don't think you understood.  I don't know how much more I can explain because you base your faith on Catholicism.  I went to parochial school like the footbal QB Tom Brady and like him rebelled against it.  In that sense, we have a common background.  We both bad kids and did bad things due to rebelling against the school and church.  That and growing up playing sports in middle school and high school.  Mine was baseball and basketball.  His was baseball and football.  It was based on a lot of guilt.  Thus, if someone mentions WCAL league (western Catholic athletic league), then I know what they are talking about.  I also have a basic knowledge of Catholicism from it.  Where you would know more is the Cathecism doctrine.  However, the rest of what you state isn't from Catholicism or its dogma.  I think the Apostle's creed should be what you base your faith upon; I don't think you have this.  Thus, I'm not really qualified to teach what you should know or be a source for your religious beliefs or know where to find them.  I don't think you know about the history behind the RCC.  You didn't know the significance of 70 AD.  I don't know how the Catholics use the Bible, but I think it's different from the fundamentalist Protestants.  The Catholics use the rosary, the sign of the cross, and do the stations of the cross.  For example, if one hears an ambulance, then do the sign of the cross as silent prayer for those in need of emergency services.  They have the seven sacraments and their communion is the Holy Eucharist.  

Apostle's creed:





I remember reciting this ad infinitum as an elementary school pupil.  Brady would've gone through the same thing.  This is what makes you of Catholic faith.

Your church was founded by Peter, but I don't think you even follow this nor Pope Francis.  Thus, while you have some kind of philosophy, I don't think it's really based on Catholicism.  Just bits and pieces and then stuff from China (?), and your own philosophical or spiritual beliefs.  I would know if you were a devout Catholic because then you would be giving me lessons on Catholicism.  It's interesting to talk with a true Catholic who went through what I went through and is now an adult.  It's much more formal and strict.  However, the church has money, their cathedrals are huge, and they still have the most power and influence in the Christian world.

Nicene creed






The Protestants are more sola scriptura or Bible based.  We have Jesus as the creator of the universe, Earth, and six days of creation.  God the Father is the architect.  His son did the actual work.  You might notice the word Catholic, but it does not refer to the Catholic church.  It's the universal holy church.  I think it is same meaning in Apostle's creed.  The Protestants split from the RCC because of it's heavy handedness.  See Martin Luther. 

That said, the Catholics may believe in the Nicene Creed today.  I dunno.  Do they use both?  If so, then disregard the above.  It may have changed or I don't remember exactly what I was reciting lol.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Which part do you disagree with?
> 
> John 3:16?
> 
> John 18:37?
> 
> God suffering death to reconcile justice with mercy?
> 
> What do you believe a Christian is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to ask yourself those questions.  I think you have no source for your religion; it doesn't exactly fit Catholicism.  Do you think John 3:16 is metaphor?
> 
> A Christian believes in Jesus, tries to learn, and follow his teachings.  He believes in finding the narrow gate and door of Jesus; this is metaphor.
> 
> "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
> 
> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer the question. What does one have to believe to be a Christian.
> 
> I say he must believe God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth. That’s straight from John 3:16 and John 18:37. And a Christian must also believe that God himself suffered death for our sins. That’s God reconciling justice with mercy.
> 
> I’m still waiting for what you think it means to believe Jesus is the way because I don’t believe you know what that means. You might as well be a militant atheist because you sure as hell behave like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that far off from being a Christian?  Even a Catholic?  They abide by the Apostle's creed while Christians go by the Nicene creed.  I answered the question and it's what God said for us to do.
> 
> You do not have a source, so that is where you have to start to repent.  Like I said, people will believe what they want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn’t answer it. What does it mean that Jesus is the way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did answer, but I don't think you understood.  I don't know how much more I can explain because you base your faith on Catholicism.  I went to parochial school like the footbal QB Tom Brady and like him rebelled against it.  In that sense, we have a common background.  We both bad kids and did bad things due to rebelling against the school and church.  That and growing up playing sports in middle school and high school.  Mine was baseball and basketball.  His was baseball and football.  It was based on a lot of guilt.  Thus, if someone mentions WCAL league (western Catholic athletic league), then I know what they are talking about.  I also have a basic knowledge of Catholicism from it.  Where you would know more is the Cathecism doctrine.  However, the rest of what you state isn't from Catholicism or its dogma.  I think the Apostle's creed should be what you base your faith upon; I don't think you have this.  Thus, I'm not really qualified to teach what you should know or be a source for your religious beliefs or know where to find them.  I don't think you know about the history behind the RCC.  You didn't know the significance of 70 AD.  I don't know how the Catholics use the Bible, but I think it's different from the fundamentalist Protestants.  The Catholics use the rosary, the sign of the cross, and do the stations of the cross.  For example, if one hears an ambulance, then do the sign of the cross as silent prayer for those in need of emergency services.  They have the seven sacraments and their communion is the Holy Eucharist.
> 
> Apostle's creed:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember reciting this ad infinitum as an elementary school pupil.  Brady would've gone through the same thing.  This is what makes you of Catholic faith.
> 
> Your church was founded by Peter, but I don't think you even follow this nor Pope Francis.  Thus, while you have some kind of philosophy, I don't think it's really based on Catholicism.  Just bits and pieces and then stuff from China (?), and your own philosophical or spiritual beliefs.  I would know if you were a devout Catholic because then you would be giving me lessons on Catholicism.  It's interesting to talk with a true Catholic who went through what I went through and is now an adult.  It's much more formal and strict.  However, the church has money, their cathedrals are huge, and they still have the most power and influence in the Christian world.
> 
> Nicene creed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Protestants are more sola scriptura or Bible based.  We have Jesus as the creator of the universe, Earth, and six days of creation.  God the Father is the architect.  His son did the actual work.  You might notice the word Catholic, but it does not refer to the Catholic church.  It's the universal holy church.  I think it is same meaning in Apostle's creed.  The Protestants split from the RCC because of it's heavy handedness.  See Martin Luther.
> 
> That said, the Catholics may believe in the Nicene Creed today.  I dunno.  Do they use both?  If so, then disregard the above.  It may have changed or I don't remember exactly what I was reciting lol.
Click to expand...

That’s dogma so to speak. To me the thing that makes people a Christian is believing that God loved man so much that through the Holy Spirit he was born into this world as the person of Jesus Christ to testify to the truth and he suffered death on our behalf to pay for our sins to reconcile justice with mercy. That encapsulates the apostles creed and the nicene creed.


----------



## james bond

The dogma is sola scriptura and sola fide.  Your Catholicism wants works included and more, so our Catholicism vs. Protestantism are different.  Bottom line for both of us is the creed is what we believe in and what we have faith in.  You can use it to compare to JW, Mormons, Christian Scientists to see that they do not follow it.  I print out the Nicene Creed and give it to JW who come to the door and then leave me alone.  I'll talk to them though if they seem interesting.  Ofc, the atheists are even further off.  It goes to show Satan put false teachers in their churches and atheists were led to their "wide gate" with evolution or Satan's Antibible.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> The dogma is sola scriptura and sola fide.  Your Catholicism wants works included and more, so our Catholicism vs. Protestantism are different.  Bottom line for both of us is the creed is what we believe in and what we have faith in.  You can use it to compare to JW, Mormons, Christian Scientists to see that they do not follow it.  I print out the Nicene Creed and give it to JW who come to the door and then leave me alone.  I'll talk to them though if they seem interesting.  Ofc, the atheists are even further off.  It goes to show Satan put false teachers in their churches and atheists were led to their "wide gate" with evolution or Satan's Antibible.


That’s not my take. My take is that we believe everything is through the grace of God and as we progress in our walk with God the fabric of our identity will change for the better and as the fabric of our identity changes we will produce better fruit (works) such that the fruit we produce is confirmation that we walk with God.

conversely if we make the claim that we walk with God and there are no external signs (works) then we haven’t really changed and our words are just lip service.

so what I have just written is nothing like your perception of what my faith taught me.


----------



## ding

Mind you works are not necessarily charity. In fact, although that is a part of it, it’s only a small part of it. 

The Greek word for repent is "metanoia." Metanoia means to change your mind. Our thoughts, the flow of consciousness which determines our behaviors, can change. Metanoia has to do with moral activity, but goes beyond that. Jesus was teaching that we could change our mind about how we treat people. We don’t have to be unforgiving and cynical. We can change our mind about being negative. We can think positive thoughts and walk in faith instead of doubt. We can change our minds about sin. Rather than being caught in the strongholds of consistent habits of lust or selfishness, for example, we can experience freedom and selflessness. Jesus would not have told us to change unless it was possible and attainable. The Bible is full of words that speak about change. Repentance, metamorphosis, transformation, conversion, resurrection, rebirth, renewal, regeneration, healing and transfiguration.

these are the works that prove we walk in faith rather than pay lip service to God.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even give credit, thanks, nor any mention to our creator and savior.
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Is Yahweh a moody 13 year old girl begging for compliments on Snapchat?
Click to expand...

Those behaviors aren’t for him, they are for us. 

you have no clue about any of this but you are certain that you do. Such that you never even consider you could be wrong. 

only people that consider they can be wrong will learn new things. Your mind is closed and it shows in these debates.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dogma is sola scriptura and sola fide.  Your Catholicism wants works included and more, so our Catholicism vs. Protestantism are different.  Bottom line for both of us is the creed is what we believe in and what we have faith in.  You can use it to compare to JW, Mormons, Christian Scientists to see that they do not follow it.  I print out the Nicene Creed and give it to JW who come to the door and then leave me alone.  I'll talk to them though if they seem interesting.  Ofc, the atheists are even further off.  It goes to show Satan put false teachers in their churches and atheists were led to their "wide gate" with evolution or Satan's Antibible.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not my take. My take is that we believe everything is through the grace of God and as we progress in our walk with God the fabric of our identity will change for the better and as the fabric of our identity changes we will produce better fruit (works) such that the fruit we produce is confirmation that we walk with God.
> 
> conversely if we make the claim that we walk with God and there are no external signs (works) then we haven’t really changed and our words are just lip service.
> 
> so what I have just written is nothing like your perception of what my faith taught me.
Click to expand...


So, what makes you different from JW, Christian Scientists, and Mormons?  Those people sacrifice much of their lives to do good.  If you go by sola scriptura and sola fide, then salvation isn't tied to works.  Otherwise a good atheist may be able to qualify for heaven.  The way it works is once you have the sincere faith as per the creed, then the Holy Spirit reveals himself to you and Jesus comes into your heart.  I doubt that this has happened for you.  You become born again.  You asked me what John 3:16 and John 14:6 meant.  Those are God's one commandment. 

Thus, good luck to you with your beliefs.  Only you can repent and then be able to find the way, the truth, and the life.  It is tied to the metaphor of the narrow gate and door.

I wouldn't think the Catholics would understand everything that you state and what a Christian is.  I understand what you are saying, but to me it appears that Satan has put a false teacher as you to get you to believe what you do.  I can understand if you don't listen to the Protestants like me, but it's hard to figure out what you represent and what your source is if it doesn't follow Catholicism either.  I explained what I could in a brief post.  It's a lot of things that normally happen over time as one becomes a church member.  It's the religion part.

ETA:  I apologize as this isn't the place for religion to other forum members, but I think it's better you get something to ground your faith in than nothing.  Someone told me that I should focus on the believers instead of the atheists, and I've repented and am trying to follow that way of thinking.  The atheists are for creation vs. evolution and not for religion.  They already wrongly claim creation science is religion.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dogma is sola scriptura and sola fide.  Your Catholicism wants works included and more, so our Catholicism vs. Protestantism are different.  Bottom line for both of us is the creed is what we believe in and what we have faith in.  You can use it to compare to JW, Mormons, Christian Scientists to see that they do not follow it.  I print out the Nicene Creed and give it to JW who come to the door and then leave me alone.  I'll talk to them though if they seem interesting.  Ofc, the atheists are even further off.  It goes to show Satan put false teachers in their churches and atheists were led to their "wide gate" with evolution or Satan's Antibible.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not my take. My take is that we believe everything is through the grace of God and as we progress in our walk with God the fabric of our identity will change for the better and as the fabric of our identity changes we will produce better fruit (works) such that the fruit we produce is confirmation that we walk with God.
> 
> conversely if we make the claim that we walk with God and there are no external signs (works) then we haven’t really changed and our words are just lip service.
> 
> so what I have just written is nothing like your perception of what my faith taught me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what makes you different from JW, Christian Scientists, and Mormons?  Those people sacrifice much of their lives to do good.  If you go by sola scriptura and sola fide, then salvation isn't tied to works.  Otherwise a good atheist may be able to qualify for heaven.  The way it works is once you have the sincere faith as per the creed, then the Holy Spirit reveals himself to you and Jesus comes into your heart.  I doubt that this has happened for you.  You become born again.  You asked me what John 3:16 and John 14:6 meant.  Those are God's one commandment.
> 
> Thus, good luck to you with your beliefs.  Only you can repent and then be able to find the way, the truth, and the life.  It is tied to the metaphor of the narrow gate and door.
> 
> I wouldn't think the Catholics would understand everything that you state and what a Christian is.  I understand what you are saying, but to me it appears that Satan has put a false teacher as you to get you to believe what you do.  I can understand if you don't listen to the Protestants like me, but it's hard to figure out what you represent and what your source is if it doesn't follow Catholicism either.  I explained what I could in a brief post.  It's a lot of things that normally happen over time as one becomes a church member.  It's the religion part.
> 
> ETA:  I apologize as this isn't the place for religion to other forum members, but I think it's better you get something to ground your faith in than nothing.  Someone told me that I should focus on the believers instead of the atheists, and I've repented and am trying to follow that way of thinking.  The atheists are for creation vs. evolution and not for religion.  They already wrongly claim creation science is religion.
Click to expand...

You mean besides I believe in the Trinity?

there is nothing I have said on this board that you can’t find in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

be honest, you are biased against Catholics.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.


A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
Click to expand...

Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
Click to expand...

What do you believe makes someone a Christian?


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you believe makes someone a Christian?
Click to expand...

I think your definition is as good a one as I've seen but I'm even more liberal, if someone tells me they are a Christian, I believe them.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> You mean besides I believe in the Trinity?
> 
> there is nothing I have said on this board that you can’t find in the catechism of the Catholic Church.
> 
> be honest, you are biased against Catholics.



I have nothing against Catholics.  What makes you think that?

What I am pointing out is your takes on Catholicism are not complete in addition to disagreeing with you about Genesis being allegorical.  Furthermore, the things you say show you do not have a Catholicism source.  Otherwise, you would know about most of the things I described earlier.  Most people wouldn't even question you about but just think you're mistaken.  Look, I can only point these things out and not trying to discourage you but what's the point if you miss our on God's one commandment?

In regards to science, what I am pointing out are your errors such as 15 gigatons of ice would not cause a global flood.  When did this happen?  How is it described in the Bible.  What evidence do you have for it?  It doesn't even cause a local flood from Archimedes Principle.  Also, your reference to an allegorical account of a great flood in Genesis makes no sense.  It was a GLOBAL FLOOD in Genesis and it was not allegory.  Why would anyone believe that since you would not know what happened?  Moreover you do not know about the Biblical prophecies which ARE allegorical.

Google gigatons of ice melt and see where it is happening today.  It's part of the warming cycle we are going through.

Aside from the science, I don't have a bone to pick with you.  You can believe whatever you want to believe and I won't bring it up anymore unless someone attacks or questions the Bible based on what you state.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
Click to expand...

I see. You have an unrealistic expectation then.

or maybe you are just perfect. You’d be only the third person to pull off that trick and one of them was fully God and fully human.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you believe makes someone a Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think your definition is as good a one as I've seen but I'm even more liberal, if someone tells me they are a Christian, I believe them.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe that was the question I was asked.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides I believe in the Trinity?
> 
> there is nothing I have said on this board that you can’t find in the catechism of the Catholic Church.
> 
> be honest, you are biased against Catholics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against Catholics.  What makes you think that?
> 
> What I am pointing out is your takes on Catholicism are not complete in addition to disagreeing with you about Genesis being allegorical.  Furthermore, the things you say show you do not have a Catholicism source.  Otherwise, you would know about most of the things I described earlier.  Most people wouldn't even question you about but just think you're mistaken.  Look, I can only point these things out and not trying to discourage you but what's the point if you miss our on God's one commandment?
> 
> In regards to science, what I am pointing out are your errors such as 15 gigatons of ice would not cause a global flood.  When did this happen?  How is it described in the Bible.  What evidence do you have for it?  It doesn't even cause a local flood from Archimedes Principle.  Also, your reference to an allegorical account of a great flood in Genesis makes no sense.  It was a GLOBAL FLOOD in Genesis and it was not allegory.  Why would anyone believe that since you would not know what happened?  Moreover you do not know about the Biblical prophecies which ARE allegorical.
> 
> Google gigatons of ice melt and see where it is happening today.  It's part of the warming cycle we are going through.
> 
> Aside from the science, I don't have a bone to pick with you.  You can believe whatever you want to believe and I won't bring it up anymore unless someone attacks or questions the Bible based on what you state.
Click to expand...

you don’t know what Catholics believe. You have never read the catechism.  Read the catechism and show me where my beliefs disagree.

why are you so worried if my beliefs conflict with the church?  What’s it to you anyway?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
Click to expand...


It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.  

Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
Click to expand...

I was more than happy to stay on the topic. 

there is scientific evidence that an asteroid impact in the northern polar region of the globe that may be the source of the flood accounts that all ancient civilizations have. 

this strike would have unleashed 700 gigatons of tnt equivalents energy that would have vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and disrupted the climate of the planet for years. One outcome would have been unprecedented rain around the planet that would have led to floods all around the planets which would have been outside of anything that had been experienced in their usual weather patterns. In other words it would have been note worthy.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe makes someone a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> if someone tells me they are a Christian, I believe them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe that was the question I was asked.
Click to expand...

I believe I did.  If someone believes they are a Christian, that is good enough for me to accept them as Christian.  I'm probably the last person qualified to judge others.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe makes someone a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> if someone tells me they are a Christian, I believe them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe that was the question I was asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I did.  If someone believes they are a Christian, that is good enough for me to accept them as Christian.  I'm probably the last person qualified to judge others.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe you did. Can you show me?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
Click to expand...

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus is also credited with the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe makes someone a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> if someone tells me they are a Christian, I believe them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe that was the question I was asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I did.  If someone believes they are a Christian, that is good enough for me to accept them as Christian.  I'm probably the last person qualified to judge others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe you did. Can you show me?
Click to expand...

Apparently not, you don't seem to be able to accept my answer.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was more than happy to stay on the topic.
> 
> there is scientific evidence that an asteroid impact in the northern polar region of the globe that may be the source of the flood accounts that all ancient civilizations have.
> 
> this strike would have unleashed 700 gigatons of tnt equivalents energy that would have vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and disrupted the climate of the planet for years. One outcome would have been unprecedented rain around the planet that would have led to floods all around the planets which would have been outside of anything that had been experienced in their usual weather patterns. In other words it would have been note worthy.
Click to expand...


When was this?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you believe makes someone a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> if someone tells me they are a Christian, I believe them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe that was the question I was asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe I did.  If someone believes they are a Christian, that is good enough for me to accept them as Christian.  I'm probably the last person qualified to judge others.
Click to expand...


That's the spirit.  Where one diverges is in forums like this when people explain their beliefs.  It is always the creeds one goes to if there are any questions.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
> 
> Jesus is also credited with the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.



Yes, I agree now that this is the greatest commandment.  Jesus is Lord.  It is more positive than the first commandment.  I was thinking how we are misled and even if we know what is right like Adam and Eve end up the way we are today.  And the second is the golden rule.  Very nice.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
Click to expand...


It’s not surprising that religion (Christianity), tends to get inserted into science discussions. Christianity is, afterall, a proselytizing religion. It’s pretty typical that religo’s will try and spackle their gods into every nook and cranny that are science matters. Interestingly, outside of Christian and Moslem fundamentalism, there doesn’t exist an organized anti-science movement.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was more than happy to stay on the topic.
> 
> there is scientific evidence that an asteroid impact in the northern polar region of the globe that may be the source of the flood accounts that all ancient civilizations have.
> 
> this strike would have unleashed 700 gigatons of tnt equivalents energy that would have vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice and disrupted the climate of the planet for years. One outcome would have been unprecedented rain around the planet that would have led to floods all around the planets which would have been outside of anything that had been experienced in their usual weather patterns. In other words it would have been note worthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was this?
Click to expand...

That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ding said:


> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.









Muck, Otto |

A good read. Thought provoking.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.



Maybe.  I'll have keep an eye out for it.

How many impacts occurred during this time?  One large or many?


----------



## james bond

Damaged Eagle said:


> Muck, Otto |
> 
> A good read. Thought provoking.
> 
> *****SMILE*****



Does he discuss asteroids or meteors from space?  One guy named Michael Oard has a hypothesis of a lot of impacts.  How could that cause a problem?  I would hate to be Noah and then get a bombardment of space rocks.

The problem depending on on author is no peer review.  One author can claim something totally different caused the flood or a flood.  It may be related, but you'd have to find some other evidence to tie it to the flood.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

james bond said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muck, Otto |
> 
> A good read. Thought provoking.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he discuss asteroids or meteors from space?  One guy named Michael Oard has a hypothesis of a lot of impacts.  How could that cause a problem?  I would hate to be Noah and then get a bombardment of space rocks.
> 
> The problem depending on on author is no peer review.  One author can claim something totally different caused the flood or a flood.  It may be related, but you'd have to find some other evidence to tie it to the flood.
Click to expand...







Asteroid. Does it really matter?

Peer review? Did you read his bio? The man was a genius back during the wars and proposed a theory about what may have happened to Atlantis. Not saying everything he proposed about Atlantis at the beginning of last century is true however he had some interesting information and proposals/explanations about what may have happened over 10,000 years ago.

A lot of the books I've read concerning Atlantis are crap with very little new info. They're more of a travel guide than a actual study on the subject. Otto Muck on the other hand stuck strictly to the subject and his research just as Ignatius Donnelly did.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

Damaged Eagle said:


> Asteroid. Does it really matter?



Atlantis.  Does it really matter since it probably was a Greek myth?

We may not ever know, but these authors sure can make you think it was based on a true story.


----------



## james bond

I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy.  Wonder if ding can dismiss it?

It's very important to understand what happened in Italy.  Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.

I can even give you a link if you want haha.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  I'll have keep an eye out for it.
> 
> How many impacts occurred during this time?  One large or many?
Click to expand...

As I recall reading there was a 2nd crater site that was identified. Not sure if it has been confirmed or if more will be discovered later. 

why do you ask?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy.  Wonder if ding can dismiss it?
> 
> It's very important to understand what happened in Italy.  Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.
> 
> I can even give you a link if you want haha.


Why would I dismiss it?

another angle can be found comparing the differences between South Korea and Italy. .


----------



## Damaged Eagle

james bond said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asteroid. Does it really matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atlantis.  Does it really matter since it probably was a Greek myth?
> 
> We may not ever know, but these authors sure can make you think it was based on a true story.
Click to expand...







I believe that at one time in the distant past there was a civilization that influenced many cultures worldwide. I'm not saying that it was a continent in the middle of the Atlantic but perhaps a seafaring nation that was fairly advanced. That would put any major cities they held sway over along the coastlines and then disaster struck.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  I'll have keep an eye out for it.
> 
> How many impacts occurred during this time?  One large or many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall reading there was a 2nd crater site that was identified. Not sure if it has been confirmed or if more will be discovered later.
> 
> why do you ask?
Click to expand...


Just trying to find the evidence.  Who is peer reviewing it?  Creation scientists?


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy.  Wonder if ding can dismiss it?
> 
> It's very important to understand what happened in Italy.  Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.
> 
> I can even give you a link if you want haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I dismiss it?
> 
> another angle can be found comparing the differences between South Korea and Italy. .
Click to expand...


Stick with this story.  So, you would accept a story like this?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muck, Otto |
> 
> A good read. Thought provoking.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...

Can be found in the fiction section of all fine booksellers.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Can be found in the fiction section of all fine booksellers.








Those Al Gore global warming videos will be there along with your other scientific consensus stuff most likely.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  I'll have keep an eye out for it.
> 
> How many impacts occurred during this time?  One large or many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall reading there was a 2nd crater site that was identified. Not sure if it has been confirmed or if more will be discovered later.
> 
> why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to find the evidence.  Who is peer reviewing it?  Creation scientists?
Click to expand...

You should email the authors of the published paper.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy.  Wonder if ding can dismiss it?
> 
> It's very important to understand what happened in Italy.  Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.
> 
> I can even give you a link if you want haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I dismiss it?
> 
> another angle can be found comparing the differences between South Korea and Italy. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick with this story.  So, you would accept a story like this?
Click to expand...

I don’t know. I haven’t looked at it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  I'll have keep an eye out for it.
> 
> How many impacts occurred during this time?  One large or many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall reading there was a 2nd crater site that was identified. Not sure if it has been confirmed or if more will be discovered later.
> 
> why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to find the evidence.  Who is peer reviewing it?  Creation scientists?
Click to expand...


Christian ministries do no research and don’t peer review. Their conclusions are predefined. 

About Us - creation.com


Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

The “creation ministries” in one word: “The gawds did it”. Well, one slogan, anyway.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Those Al Gore global warming videos will be there along with your other scientific consensus stuff most likely


No, you will find those in the science section. I'm sure you will have to ask the nice lady where that is.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those Al Gore global warming videos will be there along with your other scientific consensus stuff most likely
> 
> 
> 
> No, you will find those in the science section. I'm sure you will have to ask the nice lady where that is.
Click to expand...







I'm glad you agree that that global warming and other scientific consensus stuff belongs anywhere but the informational section.

Though perhaps the paranormal section would be more appropriate for your selection.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


Wrong I have the correct guy


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong I have the correct guy
Click to expand...

Show me where I discuss an ark, Einstein?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  I'll have keep an eye out for it.
> 
> How many impacts occurred during this time?  One large or many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I recall reading there was a 2nd crater site that was identified. Not sure if it has been confirmed or if more will be discovered later.
> 
> why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just trying to find the evidence.  Who is peer reviewing it?  Creation scientists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian ministries do no research and don’t peer review. Their conclusions are predefined.
> 
> About Us - creation.com
> 
> 
> Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
> Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
> Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.
> 
> The “creation ministries” in one word: “The gawds did it”. Well, one slogan, anyway.
Click to expand...

Atheism in three words, "Stuff simply happens."


----------



## LittleNipper

And when Creationist come up with a testable prediction, evolutionists use the excuse, "There MUST be contamination."








						Radiocarbon in Yet Another Dinosaur Fossil
					

Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction. If Noah’s Flood formed dinosaur and other fossils only 4,500 or so years ago, then they may still contain measurable amounts of the short-lived radioactive isotope carbon-14—also called radiocarbon. On the other hand, any fossil deposited...




					www.icr.org


----------



## LittleNipper

Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!


----------



## james bond

LittleNipper said:


> Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!



This is the norm because the Earth is only around 6,000 years old.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!



That's so silly.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the norm because the Earth is only around 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...

That's so silly.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> And when Creationist come up with a testable prediction, evolutionists use the excuse, "There MUST be contamination."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radiocarbon in Yet Another Dinosaur Fossil
> 
> 
> Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction. If Noah’s Flood formed dinosaur and other fossils only 4,500 or so years ago, then they may still contain measurable amounts of the short-lived radioactive isotope carbon-14—also called radiocarbon. On the other hand, any fossil deposited...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org


The supernatural is testable?

That's so silly.


----------



## james bond

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies?  Based on a true story.  You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies?  Based on a true story.  You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.


I think you will find that movies such as _Armageddon, Poseidon _and many other Hollywood films are not based on true stories. Hollywood doesn't always make documentary films. You know that, right?


----------



## Newtonian

james bond said:


> Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies?  Based on a true story.  You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.



The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate.   Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events.   Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.

Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform.   I think the reason is bias.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies?  Based on a true story.  You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate.   Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events.   Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.
> 
> Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform.   I think the reason is bias.
Click to expand...

Scientists have no reason to "believe in" comet and asteroid extinction. The data leads to those conclusions. Similarly. there's no reason to "believe in" a global flood and Noah's Ark unless you "believe in" Christianity. 

Why would a rational person unconditionally "believe in" something there is no evidence for?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies?  Based on a true story.  You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate.   Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events.   Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.
> 
> Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform.   I think the reason is bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists have no reason to "believe in" comet and asteroid extinction. The data leads to those conclusions. Similarly. there's no reason to "believe in" a global flood and Noah's Ark unless you "believe in" Christianity.
> 
> Why would a rational person unconditionally "believe in" something there is no evidence for?
Click to expand...


You mean atheist scientists who assume no God.  They are wrong.  I believe atheist scientists who have died such as God hater Victor Stenger is suffering already.  These are the kind of beliefs I have in regards to Christianity.  I believe in a global flood due to the evidence.  There really isn't good evidence that dinosaurs became extinct via a large asteroid.  Instead, the evidence points to they died in a water based disaster.  Most dinosaur graveyards are found near water areas.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies?  Based on a true story.  You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate.   Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events.   Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.
> 
> Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform.   I think the reason is bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists have no reason to "believe in" comet and asteroid extinction. The data leads to those conclusions. Similarly. there's no reason to "believe in" a global flood and Noah's Ark unless you "believe in" Christianity.
> 
> Why would a rational person unconditionally "believe in" something there is no evidence for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean atheist scientists who assume no God.  They are wrong.  I believe atheist scientists who have died such as God hater Victor Stenger is suffering already.  These are the kind of beliefs I have in regards to Christianity.  I believe in a global flood due to the evidence.  There really isn't good evidence that dinosaurs became extinct via a large asteroid.  Instead, the evidence points to they died in a water based disaster.  Most dinosaur graveyards are found near water areas.
Click to expand...

Creationist quacks will convince you of anything they want you to believe.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Creationist quacks will convince you of anything they want you to believe.



Newtonian already said the reason is bias.  I would add prejudice and disbelief.  Also, I think going to hell would be a catastrophe, but you think the present is the key to the past; That sounds like a non sequitur.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist quacks will convince you of anything they want you to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian already said the reason is bias.  I would add prejudice and disbelief.  Also, I think going to hell would be a catastrophe, but you think the present is the key to the past; That sounds like a non sequitur.
Click to expand...

You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.



Prove it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

Your comments, 

Proved 

Done!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
Click to expand...


Fountains of the deep

Underwater civilizations

Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.

I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
Click to expand...

The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth. 

Thank you.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying that the FLOOD being a myth is a myth?


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're saying that the FLOOD being a myth is a myth?
Click to expand...

Obviously not. If you cant follow simple english sentences, how do you follow the convoluted word salad that is the iron aged bible?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


Rocks and fossils don't last that long.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no.
Click to expand...


Like I said, you can't figure it out.  Chinese have it askew.  They write top to bottom.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you can't figure it out.  Chinese have it askew.  They write top to bottom.
Click to expand...

 I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally.

what I believe is not based upon one single thing. It is based upon everything.


----------



## MarathonMike

The timeline of the great flood always confused me. In terms of world history, what period of time are we talking exactly? As I recall it was 40 days and nights of rain that flooded the world. Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally.



It's your free will and choice to believe what you want such as fake science and pantheism.



ding said:


> what I believe is not based upon one single thing. It is based upon everything.



No.  Haha.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your free will and choice to believe what you want such as fake science and pantheism.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I believe is not based upon one single thing. It is based upon everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Haha.
Click to expand...

And it’s your free will to chose to misstate my religious beliefs. I for one would never do that to another but that’s your mistake to make.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

MarathonMike said:


> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?


Never. There was no global flood.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocks and fossils don't last that long.
Click to expand...

How about nearly 3.5 billion years? Is that a long time?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
Click to expand...

Not like you think.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
Click to expand...

Neat!


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
Click to expand...

Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Cool!

So there was no global flood. Just, some floods. Got it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ding said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
Click to expand...

A very cloudy day?


----------



## MarathonMike

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

If your supposition is that the great flood happened, doesn't there have to be an actual period in the global history timeline for it to have occurred?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very cloudy day?
Click to expand...

You will have to use your imagination, as this event to which he is referring is imaginary.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ding said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a world wide climate altering event with world wide rain. Flooding would have occurred everywhere until the water ran off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that even possible?
> 
> I think the 40 days and 40 nights of rain was the way to explain the rising waters that they didn't understand had come from melting glaciers so far to the north that they didn't even dream of their existence.  Just as Noah's ark was an explanation for how humans and all the animals managed to survive.  These people had logic.  They asked questions.  There had to be an explanation, even though they didn't have the knowledge base, yet, to actually explain it.
> The floods, though?  Oh yeah, we know the floods really happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. If an asteroid vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice that water is put into the atmosphere. It would affect global weather patterns. That moisture would come back as rain and would cause flooding on land until it ran off into the oceans.
Click to expand...

What about snow?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool!
> 
> So there was no global flood. Just, some floods. Got it.
Click to expand...

Major climate disruption which extended the ice age and created massive flooding events around the globe.

that’s what happens when an asteroid strike in a polar region strikes a glacier and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice.


----------



## ding

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very cloudy day?
Click to expand...

A little more than that. But yeah, lots and lots of clouds.


----------



## ding

MarathonMike said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your supposition is that the great flood happened, doesn't there have to be an actual period in the global history timeline for it to have occurred?
Click to expand...

~12,000 years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool!
> 
> So there was no global flood. Just, some floods. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Major climate disruption which extended the ice age and created massive flooding events around the globe.
> 
> that’s what happens when an asteroid strike in a polar region strikes a glacier and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice.
Click to expand...

False. That is not what would happen. You're nuts.


----------



## ding

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a world wide climate altering event with world wide rain. Flooding would have occurred everywhere until the water ran off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that even possible?
> 
> I think the 40 days and 40 nights of rain was the way to explain the rising waters that they didn't understand had come from melting glaciers so far to the north that they didn't even dream of their existence.  Just as Noah's ark was an explanation for how humans and all the animals managed to survive.  These people had logic.  They asked questions.  There had to be an explanation, even though they didn't have the knowledge base, yet, to actually explain it.
> The floods, though?  Oh yeah, we know the floods really happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. If an asteroid vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice that water is put into the atmosphere. It would affect global weather patterns. That moisture would come back as rain and would cause flooding on land until it ran off into the oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about snow?
Click to expand...

Maybe in some places.  It was a global event. Asteroid strikes of this size usually are.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cool!
> 
> So there was no global flood. Just, some floods. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Major climate disruption which extended the ice age and created massive flooding events around the globe.
> 
> that’s what happens when an asteroid strike in a polar region strikes a glacier and vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. That is not what would happen. You're nuts.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what happens when 1500 gigatons of tnt equivalence strikes a glacier. Do the math.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do believe would happen if the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear bombs was unleashed in the northern polar region and instantly vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very cloudy day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will have to use your imagination, as this event to which he is referring is imaginary.
Click to expand...

There’s a couple of craters in Greenland which say otherwise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> That’s exactly what happens when 1500 gigatons of tnt equivalence strikes a glacier. Do the math


False.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> There’s a couple of craters in Greenland which say otherwise.


Sure.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s exactly what happens when 1500 gigatons of tnt equivalence strikes a glacier. Do the math
> 
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...

Prove me wrong. Do the math. You do know how to do the math, right?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a couple of craters in Greenland which say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.
Click to expand...

Yep, and the research team of scientists who discovered it have calculated the energy of the impact and the amount of ice that would be vaporized. It’s called science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Prove me wrong.


Why? No need. Prove yourself right. Do the math.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? No need. Prove yourself right. Do the math.
Click to expand...

Research team already has. But I did too.

and since you can’t do the math you can’t disprove it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Yep, and the research team of scientists who discovered it have calculated the energy of the impact and the amount of ice that would be vaporized.


Right. And they didn't calculate that what you claim happened, happened.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Research team already has.


False.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and the research team of scientists who discovered it have calculated the energy of the impact and the amount of ice that would be vaporized.
> 
> 
> 
> Right. And they didn't calculate that what you claim happened, happened.
Click to expand...

They calculated that 1500 gigatons of ice would be vaporized. You tell me where that goes. Because according to them it resulted in a major climate disruption. You think that water vapor isn’t going to come back down?


----------



## ding

When a large asteroid strikes the planet the effects are felt all around the globe.


----------



## ding

And they think there were two of them. One has been confirmed.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Research team already has.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...

Wrong.


----------



## Newtonian

ding said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> ding, like I think you said, ancient man didn't know the "whole" world, only his neck of the woods. It seems to be pretty established theory that the coastal areas around the Mediterranean and Black Seas flooded at the end of the last ice age due to a big rise in the Atlantic Ocean, from melt water. If this Hiawatha crater is what they think it is, it may have done the deed, but I don't think it necessarily flooded the whole world, ding. All of the earliest civilizations grew up around seas or river systems, for obvious reasons. Over time, they would have all flooded but I don't think every flood that was spoken of by ancient man happened at the same time. A rise in the Atlantic Ocean would not have caused a flood in India or China, I don't think anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a world wide climate altering event with world wide rain. Flooding would have occurred everywhere until the water ran off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that even possible?
> 
> I think the 40 days and 40 nights of rain was the way to explain the rising waters that they didn't understand had come from melting glaciers so far to the north that they didn't even dream of their existence.  Just as Noah's ark was an explanation for how humans and all the animals managed to survive.  These people had logic.  They asked questions.  There had to be an explanation, even though they didn't have the knowledge base, yet, to actually explain it.
> The floods, though?  Oh yeah, we know the floods really happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. If an asteroid vaporized 1500 gigatons of ice that water is put into the atmosphere. It would affect global weather patterns. That moisture would come back as rain and would cause flooding on land until it ran off into the oceans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about snow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in some places.  It was a global event. Asteroid strikes of this size usually are.
Click to expand...

 
That is, of course, true.   The thing is that local events would also be caused by this global event - whatever its cause.


----------



## Newtonian

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? No need. Prove yourself right. Do the math.
Click to expand...

 
Math is crucial, of course.    There are two (probably more) interpretations of the massive extinctions found frozen in the arctic permafrost:

1.   The last ice age.

2.  The Flood.

As in our 1963 article: Earth's sculptor - ice or water?

Take the ice age for example.    It is theorized that over hundreds+ years ice built up in elevation so that it would flow southward and engulf places like New England (Long Island is claimed to have been caused by the ice age glacier).  

One of the simplest points is the minimum angle of glacial flow - roughly 20 across and 1 up.   So, for a glacier to flow 1,000 miles it would have to flow from and ice sheet 20,000 miles high!

How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?   Last time I checked, the record annual snowfall is in the western Rocky Mountains where moisture from  the Pacific Ocean is forced to condense as it is forced up elevations by the wet adiabatic rate: namely c. 1,000  inches which makes about 100 inches of ice or <10 feet of ice.   At that rate it would take >2,000 years for the ice to build to only 20,000 feet not miles in height!

Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!   That illustrates the drastic difference with catastrophism and uniformitarianism.  

Now, that is from memory from an article nearly 60 years ago (I am 73 btw) - in my next post I will check the figures since math is only as accurate at the numbers that are used in calculations.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

What if Greenland was NOT covered with ice at that time?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> They calculated that 1500 gigatons of ice would be vaporized.


False.


----------



## Newtonian

OK, confirming (or not confirming) my figures:

1.  Highest annual snowfall.   In 1963 it was about 1,000 inches - I think it was in Tamarak, California (from memory).   However, due to global warming the oceans have warmed which caused greater precipitation from greater atmospheric moisture.    So, over 60 years later we can expect higher snowfall records - and indeed this is what I found:









						5 Incredible Snowfall Extremes | The Weather Channel
					

The most amazing snowfall totals ever recorded in the United States. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com




					weather.com
				




"The western United States is king when it comes to the most amazing snow totals ever recorded over the course of a season, month _and_ a day. A plethora of mountainous terrain in this part of the country interacting with moist Pacific storm systems can lead to some enormous amounts of snow.

We begin our look at *five of the most incredible U.S. snowfall records* beginning with the all-time seasonal snowfall record set at Mount Baker in Washington State.

An amazing 1,140 inches (95 feet) was recorded at Mount Baker Ski Area (4,200 feet elevation) during the July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 snow season."

But that was 1998.  But then I found this conflicting report:









						The Top Snowfall Events in Recorded History: - SnowBrains
					

Is it possible to have too much of a good thing? Can it really snow too much? What is too much snow? These are questions that skiers and boarders often ponder on lift chairs or over a beer. If you live in a big city then a couple of inches is too much. It makes traffic come to a crawl, sidewalks...




					snowbrains.com
				




*'The Pacific Northwest region of North America, which includes Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, is the snowiest region of the continent.* In many areas of Alaska and British Columbia, there are no meteorological stations, so we can only imagine how much falls during a given season. In Mount Rainier National Park, at the Paradise Ranger Station, 1,224.5 inches (102 feet) of snow fell between February 19, 1971, and February 18, 1972. That is equal to the height of a 10-story building.'"

From Google search:

"The heaviest *annual snowfall* ever measured in the entire United States and the world is 95 feet (29 metres) that fell between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999 at the downhill ski area on Mount Baker, Washington.

From:









						Greatest Snowfall Records of All-Time
					

All of these Snowfall records occurred in the Western USA.  We suspect there are some pretty big numbers coming out of Alaska, but there’s no one there to record ‘em. Single Day Snowfall Record 76 …




					unofficialnetworks.com
				




*"1,225 inches (102 feet) at Paradise (5,400 feet) on Mount Rainer, WA from Feb. 19, 1971 – Feb. 18, 1972.

– Mount Rainer is 14,411 feet tall and averages 635 inches (53 feet) per year

– Minimum annual snowfall was 313  inches (26 feet)in 1939-40 (that is more than most ski resorts average)

– Maximum snowpack 357 feet (30 feet) in March 1955

– Heaviest snow occurs between 5,000 & 8,000 feet

– It snows every month of every year on this mountain

– Paradise on Mount Rainier is the snowiest place on Earth"*

From:





__





						Mount Baker - World Record Snowfall
					

The world record for the most snow in one year is now held by Mount Baker in Washington State, USA. The area reported 1,140 inches (95 feet) / 2,896 cm (29 meters) of snowfall in 1998-99.



					www.athropolis.com
				




"*World Record Snowfall
Although the Arctic is known as a snowy place, it is in fact a desert where very little snow actually falls. The snow that does fall, however, stays around a long time, giving the impression of much snow.
So where did the MOST snow fall?
The world record for the most snow in one year is now held by Mount Baker (elevation: 10,775 feet / 3,285 meters) in Washington State, USA. The Mount Baker Ski Area reported 1,140 inches (95 feet) / 2,896 cm (29 meters) of snowfall for the 1998-99 season.
The mountain also beat its own record for most snowfall in a month with 304 inches / 772 cm.*
*

*​*Snowfall can be difficult to measure because it settles, melts, or drifts from place to place. Strict standards must be observed - a flat surface is used to measure daily snowfall amounts along with a snow stake to measure depth.
The heavy snowfalls in Washington's Cascade Mountains are the result of several factors:*


*Winter is the wettest season on the mild Pacific Coast, and with the west-to-east weather patterns, storms strike the Pacific Northwest frequently.*
*Freezing levels average about 4,000 feet / 1,220 meters over the winter months. Near that altitude snowfall amounts increases very rapidly with just small increases in elevation.*
*Air full of moisture after its journey across the Pacific is forced up"*
*Bottom line:  The arctic is like a desert when it comes to snowfall and the world record annual snowfall is about 100 feet which translates to 10 feet of ice.   And the records are more recent because of global warming resulting in warmer oceans resulting in greater moisture in air forced up the Cascade mountains.

The irony is that the ice age postulates colder not warmer ocean temperatures which would cause LESS snowfall!

Note also the confliciting reports - not unusual btw.*


----------



## Newtonian

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What if Greenland was NOT covered with ice at that time?



That depends on how ice core samples are interpreted.    Another subject for research - not now for me btw.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Newtonian said:


> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?





Newtonian said:


> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!


And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Newtonian said:


> OK, confirming (or not confirming) my figures:
> 
> 1.  Highest annual snowfall.   In 1963 it was about 1,000 inches - I think it was in Tamarak, California (from memory).   However, due to global warming the oceans have warmed which caused greater precipitation from greater atmospheric moisture.    So, over 60 years later we can expect higher snowfall records - and indeed this is what I found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 Incredible Snowfall Extremes | The Weather Channel
> 
> 
> The most amazing snowfall totals ever recorded in the United States. - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> weather.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The western United States is king when it comes to the most amazing snow totals ever recorded over the course of a season, month _and_ a day. A plethora of mountainous terrain in this part of the country interacting with moist Pacific storm systems can lead to some enormous amounts of snow.
> 
> We begin our look at *five of the most incredible U.S. snowfall records* beginning with the all-time seasonal snowfall record set at Mount Baker in Washington State.
> 
> An amazing 1,140 inches (95 feet) was recorded at Mount Baker Ski Area (4,200 feet elevation) during the July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 snow season."
> 
> But that was 1998.  But then I found this conflicting report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Top Snowfall Events in Recorded History: - SnowBrains
> 
> 
> Is it possible to have too much of a good thing? Can it really snow too much? What is too much snow? These are questions that skiers and boarders often ponder on lift chairs or over a beer. If you live in a big city then a couple of inches is too much. It makes traffic come to a crawl, sidewalks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> snowbrains.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'The Pacific Northwest region of North America, which includes Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, is the snowiest region of the continent.* In many areas of Alaska and British Columbia, there are no meteorological stations, so we can only imagine how much falls during a given season. In Mount Rainier National Park, at the Paradise Ranger Station, 1,224.5 inches (102 feet) of snow fell between February 19, 1971, and February 18, 1972. That is equal to the height of a 10-story building.'"
> 
> From Google search:
> 
> "The heaviest *annual snowfall* ever measured in the entire United States and the world is 95 feet (29 metres) that fell between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999 at the downhill ski area on Mount Baker, Washington.
> 
> From:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest Snowfall Records of All-Time
> 
> 
> All of these Snowfall records occurred in the Western USA.  We suspect there are some pretty big numbers coming out of Alaska, but there’s no one there to record ‘em. Single Day Snowfall Record 76 …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unofficialnetworks.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"1,225 inches (102 feet) at Paradise (5,400 feet) on Mount Rainer, WA from Feb. 19, 1971 – Feb. 18, 1972.
> 
> – Mount Rainer is 14,411 feet tall and averages 635 inches (53 feet) per year
> 
> – Minimum annual snowfall was 313  inches (26 feet)in 1939-40 (that is more than most ski resorts average)
> 
> – Maximum snowpack 357 feet (30 feet) in March 1955
> 
> – Heaviest snow occurs between 5,000 & 8,000 feet
> 
> – It snows every month of every year on this mountain
> 
> – Paradise on Mount Rainier is the snowiest place on Earth"*
> 
> From:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Baker - World Record Snowfall
> 
> 
> The world record for the most snow in one year is now held by Mount Baker in Washington State, USA. The area reported 1,140 inches (95 feet) / 2,896 cm (29 meters) of snowfall in 1998-99.
> 
> 
> 
> www.athropolis.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*World Record Snowfall
> Although the Arctic is known as a snowy place, it is in fact a desert where very little snow actually falls. The snow that does fall, however, stays around a long time, giving the impression of much snow.
> So where did the MOST snow fall?
> The world record for the most snow in one year is now held by Mount Baker (elevation: 10,775 feet / 3,285 meters) in Washington State, USA. The Mount Baker Ski Area reported 1,140 inches (95 feet) / 2,896 cm (29 meters) of snowfall for the 1998-99 season.
> The mountain also beat its own record for most snowfall in a month with 304 inches / 772 cm.*
> *
> 
> *​*Snowfall can be difficult to measure because it settles, melts, or drifts from place to place. Strict standards must be observed - a flat surface is used to measure daily snowfall amounts along with a snow stake to measure depth.
> The heavy snowfalls in Washington's Cascade Mountains are the result of several factors:*
> 
> 
> *Winter is the wettest season on the mild Pacific Coast, and with the west-to-east weather patterns, storms strike the Pacific Northwest frequently.*
> *Freezing levels average about 4,000 feet / 1,220 meters over the winter months. Near that altitude snowfall amounts increases very rapidly with just small increases in elevation.*
> *Air full of moisture after its journey across the Pacific is forced up"*
> *Bottom line:  The arctic is like a desert when it comes to snowfall and the world record annual snowfall is about 100 feet which translates to 10 feet of ice.   And the records are more recent because of global warming resulting in warmer oceans resulting in greater moisture in air forced up the Cascade mountains.
> 
> The irony is that the ice age postulates colder not warmer ocean temperatures which would cause LESS snowfall!
> 
> Note also the confliciting reports - not unusual btw.*


This is called the "Gish Gallop".  All the charlatans use the same playbook,, you know. They have since charlatans existed. Human brains haven't changed much, The same old tricks will always work, to some degree. Call it, the first religion.


----------



## Newtonian

MarathonMike said:


> The timeline of the great flood always confused me. In terms of world history, what period of time are we talking exactly? As I recall it was 40 days and nights of rain that flooded the world. Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?



2370 BCE according to Bible chronology.   I don't know the variant estimates based on some 100 flood legends worldwide.   I have found Biblical chronology more reliable than Babylonian chronology (compare the mythical account of Gilgamesh likely based on the same event.)

The floodwaters stood on top of mountains for up to 1 year.   The ark came to rest on the upper foothills of Mount Ararat in what is now Turkey.   Finding is not a wild turkey chase but a wild goose chase!


----------



## Newtonian

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!
Click to expand...

The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.   Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning.   Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on).   Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!

My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:


----------



## MarathonMike

ding said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your supposition is that the great flood happened, doesn't there have to be an actual period in the global history timeline for it to have occurred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ~12,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Ok but there were early human civilizations and settlements 12,000 years ago. Were they all wiped out.


Newtonian said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.   Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning.   Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on).   Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!
> 
> My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
Click to expand...

Interesting!


----------



## Newtonian

OK, I will study this link later - it has the math and the variables involving the angle of glacial flow:



			https://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/geo563/Geo563-6.IceFlow&profiles.pdf
		


This link is also too deep for me tonight:









						Ice-sheet dynamics - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




But two important points from that link:

1.  Glacial flow is slowest at the base due to friction.

2.  Base flow is increased by meltwater at the base

From my own observations at Glacier National Park in Montana and especially the Columbian ice fields in Jasper National Park in the Canadian Rockies is that the flow involves >1 up to <20 across.

See also:









						Glacier Stress and Strain
					

Glacier stress and strain determines how glaciers flow downslope in response to gravity and the weight of the ice above.




					www.antarcticglaciers.org
				




The main point is that glacial flow is alwahys downslope but it only requires downslope of the surface of the ice sheet - not the downslope of the earth under the ice.

I am still trying to find the minimum angle of the surface of the ice sheet for the glacier.ice sheet to flow.


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your free will and choice to believe what you want such as fake science and pantheism.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I believe is not based upon one single thing. It is based upon everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it’s your free will to chose to misstate my religious beliefs. I for one would never do that to another but that’s your mistake to make.
Click to expand...


What you believe for yourself is irrelevant.  This is the S&T forum.  I just don't want you to mislead others.

First you state that Noah's Flood or the global flood was allegorical and that is wrong.  Second, your science is off.  It happened around 2348 BC -- Timeline for the Flood.  Nobody understands you allegorical version.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocks and fossils don't last that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about nearly 3.5 billion years? Is that a long time?
Click to expand...


Nothing has lasted that long.


----------



## Newtonian

I'm not sure why I cannot find a simple answer to the minimum angle of glacial flow - but a picture is worth 1,000 words:





Notice how the base terrain only matters very slightly and it is the surface slope that is crucial.   Obviously there are many factors that can change glacial flow.   But this picture does illustrate the slope required.

Another picture with an angle:


400 x 221 · gif
www4.uwsp.edu

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...tedIndex=6&qpvt=minimum+angle+of+glacial+flow
400 x 221 · gif
www4.uwsp.edu

Note again about the same angle.   Another picture:







Notice again a similar angle.

I do  believe 1 up 20 across is the minimum angle provided the base is solid ice.   A simple experiment:  pour sand (or sugar etc.) on a table top and note the height required to widen the base.

But what of the evidence in Wisconsin of ice rather than water?   I think the answer is simple, the ice passed the area violently because it was floating.   Try pouring water on a table top and note the slope - totally different!    

OK, I'll let you all find a simple answer to link to as to the minimum angle of glacial flow.   I can only say that I have observed glaciers and know the slope is steeper than that minimum in most cases.


----------



## Newtonian

OK, time for me to sleep.   But I will post a response to thread title with my sense of humor factored in:

Could the flood be allegorical?

Hmmm, derivation of allegorical: Al Gore: al -gore - ical

Ask Al Gore!   His answer would be Al gorical!


----------



## Newtonian

As I posted, I have observed the slopes of glaciers and ice fields.   Have any of you observed a glacier flowing with a less steep angle than 1 up 20 across?  

Other than those with water at the base which is happening now in Greenland due to global warming.

Ice sheet melting in Greenland produces water flow down crevaces for thousands of feet - I remember reading about those powerful waterfalls!   That has an important effect: rise of sea level.

That reminds me of Ding's model - catastrophic melting of ice sheets due to meteorite impact.   But I didn't think earth has ice sheets before the flood?


----------



## ding

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What if Greenland was NOT covered with ice at that time?


12,000 years ago it was. 12,000 years ago the Great Lakes were formed by retreating glaciers. 12,000 years ago New York was under a 1,000 ft thick sheet of ice.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> They calculated that 1500 gigatons of ice would be vaporized.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...


"...The impact would have melted 1500 gigatons of ice, *the team estimates*—about as much ice as Antarctica has lost because of global warming in the past decade. The local greenhouse effect from the released steam and the residual heat in the crater rock would have added more melt..."





__





						Science | AAAS
					






					www.sciencemag.org
				







Here is the what the research team calculated as the energy released from the impact which was determined by the size of the crater.










						Science | AAAS
					






					advances.sciencemag.org
				




You can confirm that 1500 gigatons of ice were vaporized by doing a simple calculation.  Calculate the mass of water that 3 × 10^21 J of energy would heat from 32F to 212F.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? No need. Prove yourself right. Do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Math is crucial, of course.    There are two (probably more) interpretations of the massive extinctions found frozen in the arctic permafrost:
> 
> 1.   The last ice age.
> 
> 2.  The Flood.
> 
> As in our 1963 article: Earth's sculptor - ice or water?
> 
> Take the ice age for example.    It is theorized that over hundreds+ years ice built up in elevation so that it would flow southward and engulf places like New England (Long Island is claimed to have been caused by the ice age glacier).
> 
> One of the simplest points is the minimum angle of glacial flow - roughly 20 across and 1 up.   So, for a glacier to flow 1,000 miles it would have to flow from and ice sheet 20,000 miles high!
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?   Last time I checked, the record annual snowfall is in the western Rocky Mountains where moisture from  the Pacific Ocean is forced to condense as it is forced up elevations by the wet adiabatic rate: namely c. 1,000  inches which makes about 100 inches of ice or <10 feet of ice.   At that rate it would take >2,000 years for the ice to build to only 20,000 feet not miles in height!
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!   That illustrates the drastic difference with catastrophism and uniformitarianism.
> 
> Now, that is from memory from an article nearly 60 years ago (I am 73 btw) - in my next post I will check the figures since math is only as accurate at the numbers that are used in calculations.
Click to expand...


"The minimum angle of glacial flow - roughly 20 across and 1 up.''

You made that up. Speaks volumes about "creation science"


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's your free will and choice to believe what you want such as fake science and pantheism.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> what I believe is not based upon one single thing. It is based upon everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Haha.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it’s your free will to chose to misstate my religious beliefs. I for one would never do that to another but that’s your mistake to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you believe for yourself is irrelevant.  This is the S&T forum.  I just don't want you to mislead others.
> 
> First you state that Noah's Flood or the global flood was allegorical and that is wrong.  Second, your science is off.  It happened around 2348 BC -- Timeline for the Flood.  Nobody understands you allegorical version.
Click to expand...

What's not to understand?  An allegorical account is no different from a fable so to speak.  An allegorical account of an actual historical event captures the truth that there was a great and unusual flood event.  Something which other cultures confirm.

So a great flood did occur and they passed down that information orally from generation to generation for thousands of years in a manner that made it easier to remember and retell the story.

I think the point you are missing is that science confirms that a great flood did occur.  Just not exactly like the account says, but in a way that matches the details, which are... it rained for a really long time, there was lots and lots of flooding, lives were lost and then the flood waters receded.  What's not to understand?


----------



## ding

MarathonMike said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeeeaaahh ok, let's go with that. But when did it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Never. There was no global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. Sure is. That’s the point of this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your supposition is that the great flood happened, doesn't there have to be an actual period in the global history timeline for it to have occurred?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ~12,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but there were early human civilizations and settlements 12,000 years ago. Were they all wiped out.
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.   Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning.   Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on).   Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!
> 
> My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting!
Click to expand...

I don't believe all living things were killed.  I think a lot of them were.  Enough so that it was noteworthy such that every major ancient culture had an account of a great flood.  I think the fact that every major culture had an account of a great flood tells us that not everyone and everything were wiped out.  I think it also tells us that there was a very unusual flooding event that was outside of the norm.  

People need to realize that the way people from ancient times kept and passed down history was orally.  They did so in story fashion.  These stories were told in ways to make them easier to remember and pass down.  Often times they would include moral elements because that made it easier to remember and pass down.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.   Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning.   Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on).   Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!
> 
> My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
Click to expand...

Your "flash freezing" meme appears to have come from Answers in Genesis. For a more detailed and factual account, try here: Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?

"As for instant freezing, as claimed by Ted Holden, there is no evidence of that. The Berezovka mammoth shows evidence of having been buried in a landslide, the cold mud acting as preservative and the underlying permafrost completing the process by freezing the carcass. "


----------



## james bond

ding said:


> What's not to understand? An allegorical account is no different from a fable so to speak. An allegorical account of an actual historical event captures the truth that there was a great and unusual flood event. Something which other cultures confirm.



Then what are the prophecies?  Those are allegorical.  Most of the Bible is literal.  What you are doing is ignoring God's word and making the facts fit your 1500 gigaton and asteroid thesis.  We have more than that melt today and it doesn't cause a global flood.  I look at the facts such as the mid_Atlantic Ridge, underwater civilizations, seafloor spread, and more to see science backs up the Bible.  Not many others agree with you including me.  It's you who are being like God and making up these stories.



ding said:


> What's not to understand?



The believers of God's word understand Genesis.  You don't even try to read and understand the Bible.  I would think Satan is leading you astray right now, but it's not place to convince you different.


----------



## ding

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's not to understand? An allegorical account is no different from a fable so to speak. An allegorical account of an actual historical event captures the truth that there was a great and unusual flood event. Something which other cultures confirm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what are the prophecies?  Those are allegorical.  Most of the Bible is literal.  What you are doing is ignoring God's word and making the facts fit your 1500 gigaton and asteroid thesis.  We have more than that melt today and it doesn't cause a global flood.  I look at the facts such as the mid_Atlantic Ridge, underwater civilizations, seafloor spread, and more to see science backs up the Bible.  Not many others agree with you including me.  It's you who are being like God and making up these stories.
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's not to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The believers of God's word understand Genesis.  You don't even try to read and understand the Bible.  I would think Satan is leading you astray right now, but it's not place to convince you different.
Click to expand...

Why do you do that?  I never said everything in the Bible was allegorical.  There are several literary styles used; allegorical, poetic, historic, legal, prophetic, etc.  

Actually what I am doing is validating the Bible.  You can't see it because of your pride.  

I believe in God.  Probably more than you do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Newtonian said:


> Beresovaka Mammoth





Newtonian said:


> The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.


A silly lie. Stick to brainwashing children. This isnt going to work on me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> You can confirm that 1500 gigatons of ice were vaporized by doing a simple calculation


False. As they clearly said, "melted and vaporized". No, it was not all instantly vaporized.  You're a shameless liar. The scientists made that clear in the article you posted earlier in the thread. They were very clear and specific about this.

Furthermore, you colossal dumbass, the water would not just stay vaporized and travel across the globe. It would remain as a local event when the air above the crater reached its dew point.

But that's irrelevant anyway, since your number is a shameless lie. You have literally been lying your ass off for this entire thread.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can confirm that 1500 gigatons of ice were vaporized by doing a simple calculation
> 
> 
> 
> False. As they clearly said, "melted and vaporized". No, it was not all instantly vaporized.  You're a shameless liar. The scientists made that clear in the article you posted earlier in the thread.
> 
> Furthermore, you colossal dumbass, the water would not just stay vaporized and travel across the globe. It would remain as a local event when the air above the crater reached its dew point.
> 
> But that's irrelevant anyway, since your number is a shameless lie.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot.


----------



## ding

*Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*





__





						Science | AAAS
					






					www.sciencemag.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> *Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org


Neat! Really, interesting. But in no way support of any of your lies or a global flood.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! Really, interesting. But in no way support of any of your lies or a global flood.
Click to expand...

Yep, keep misstating it.  

That's what you do.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! Really, interesting. But in no way support of any of your lies or a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, keep misstating it.
> 
> That's what you do.
Click to expand...

Neat! But in no way does that article (that you never read) support any of your nonsense.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! Really, interesting. But in no way support of any of your lies or a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, keep misstating it.
> 
> That's what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! But in no way does that article (that you never read) support any of your nonsense.
Click to expand...

Of course it does.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! Really, interesting. But in no way support of any of your lies or a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, keep misstating it.
> 
> That's what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! But in no way does that article (that you never read) support any of your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does.
Click to expand...

No, sorry. Your faith is faith. But you are so embarrassed that you have nothing to support it but "because i say so", that you do this embarrassing dog and pony show and lie your ass off.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science | AAAS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencemag.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat! Really, interesting. But in no way support of any of your lies or a global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, keep misstating it.
> 
> That's what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neat! But in no way does that article (that you never read) support any of your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, sorry. Your faith is faith. But you are so embarrassed that you have nothing to support it but "because i say so", that you do this embarrassing dog and pony show and lie your ass off.
Click to expand...

We are discussing the science of a massive asteroid strike and what happens after that.  Specifically one that strikes a glacier in the polar region with  3 × 10^21 J of energy.


----------



## ding

Gee, I wonder what mass of water would be heated from 32F to 212F from 3 × 10^21 J of energy.

Gee, what do you know... it's 1500 gigatons.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> We are discussing the science of a massive asteroid strike and what happens after that


No, you are lying your ass off about that, and i am mocking you for it.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing the science of a massive asteroid strike and what happens after that
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are lying your ass off about that, and i am mocking you for it.
Click to expand...

I haven't lied about anything.  And if you believe you need to mock others then it is only because you have been mocked throughout your life.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing the science of a massive asteroid strike and what happens after that
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are lying your ass off about that, and i am mocking you for it.
Click to expand...

How much water will 3 × 10^21 J of energy heat from 32F to 212F?


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s not surprising that religion (Christianity), tends to get inserted into science discussions. Christianity is, afterall, a proselytizing religion. It’s pretty typical that religo’s will try and spackle their gods into every nook and cranny that are science matters. Interestingly, outside of Christian and Moslem fundamentalism, there doesn’t exist an organized anti-science movement.
Click to expand...



Babble.


----------



## Ringtone

james bond said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy.  Wonder if ding can dismiss it?
> 
> It's very important to understand what happened in Italy.  Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.
> 
> I can even give you a link if you want haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I dismiss it?
> 
> another angle can be found comparing the differences between South Korea and Italy. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick with this story.  So, you would accept a story like this?
Click to expand...



You know, James, I really don't think I will ever understand you.  I don't doubt for a moment that the Noahic Flood was an actual historical event, that it was a worldwide event, but I don't know why it could not have happened due to an asteroid strike.  Why would the physical cause have any bearing on its historicity or God's determination?  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

007 said:


> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.


That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.


----------



## Ringtone

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comments,
> 
> Proved
> 
> Done!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fountains of the deep
> 
> Underwater civilizations
> 
> Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.
> 
> I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out?  I think it means great tribulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.
> 
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


More babble.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Christian is anyone who believes that God loved man so much that he chose to be born into this world to testify to the truth and suffer death to reconcile justice with  mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> A very encompassing definition.  Nice.  Of course it includes David Koresh and Jim Jones, Catholic inquisitors, the Eastern Orthodox, and Mormons.  Quite a mixed bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says you. I say it encompasses the essential belief. I can’t think of any other way to capture the key belief in fewer words. If one rejects any aspect of that statement I don’t see how he could be a Christian. If one accepts every aspect of that statement I don’t see how he couldn’t be a Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with your definition, I only note that many people I consider evil fall under that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is ironic that we all end up discussing religion when getting down to the nitty gritty of science.  I think both of you are wrong about being a Christian and I'll explain why.  However, it's not one of those things that make you go aha.  To understand it, one has to understand God and that takes some experience.
> 
> Briefly, it is more about OBEY than doing what you think is good.  This isn't easily understood as God doesn't want robots.  He gave us free will.  The crux of what God wants goes back to Adam's sin.  One has to understand what was the sin and then it becomes more clear.  God gave us the Ten Commandments to show us that none of us are sinless.  If you look at the first commandment, then this is what he wants us to obey the most.  This is much more important than doing good.  God knows that if you can do that, then the rest will follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s not surprising that religion (Christianity), tends to get inserted into science discussions. Christianity is, afterall, a proselytizing religion. It’s pretty typical that religo’s will try and spackle their gods into every nook and cranny that are science matters. Interestingly, outside of Christian and Moslem fundamentalism, there doesn’t exist an organized anti-science movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Babble.
Click to expand...

I see you're one of few words, few thoughts and less culture.

Oh, and Noah's pleasure cruise was not an actual event. However, the gods really can pull a rabbit out of a hat.


----------



## ding

Ringtone said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you a story that people here may believe that I heard about the coronavirus and Italy.  Wonder if ding can dismiss it?
> 
> It's very important to understand what happened in Italy.  Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for Wuhan coronavirus.
> 
> I can even give you a link if you want haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I dismiss it?
> 
> another angle can be found comparing the differences between South Korea and Italy. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stick with this story.  So, you would accept a story like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, James, I really don't think I will ever understand you.  I don't doubt for a moment that the Noahic Flood was an actual historical event, that it was a worldwide event, but I don't know why it could not have happened due to an asteroid strike.  Why would the physical cause have any bearing on its historicity or God's determination?  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I could never understand that either.  Seems fishy to me.


----------



## Newtonian

Hollie said:


> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.   Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning.   Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on).   Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!
> 
> My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "flash freezing" meme appears to have come from Answers in Genesis. For a more detailed and factual account, try here: Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?
> 
> "As for instant freezing, as claimed by Ted Holden, there is no evidence of that. The Berezovka mammoth shows evidence of having been buried in a landslide, the cold mud acting as preservative and the underlying permafrost completing the process by freezing the carcass. "
Click to expand...


That makes no sense Hollie.   The mammoth would have rotted in that scenario.


----------



## Newtonian

Well, we agree on that.    However, the evidence in the arctic permafrost is for a rapid lowering of the temperature.    I'm not sure a meteorite strike would accomplish that.   A near miss by a water-laden comet seems more likely.   

Of course, the comet or asteroid could have broken up and the crater ding is posting about may have been from a piece of the comet (or asteroid).   I think that the accretion of water by planet earth was usually gradual - but I also think that there could have been condensation catastrophes.   

Either way, I think (personal opinion) that the waters the earth was out of and in the midst of were perturbed rotationally in some way so as to initiate the catastrophic falling of the last accretion belts of water - and the Beresovka mammoth evidence points to supercooled water.

Those who deny the flood rarely refer to how earth did accrete its water.


----------



## Newtonian

Though not totally accurate, this link mentions some details about the Beresovka Mammoth:



			Beresovka Mammoth |
		


Excerpt:





"One theory to explain this was that somehow there had been a sudden, deadly drop in temperature. If the temperature dropped fast enough and low enough, it could freeze the carcass and stop the digestive process, leaving the food intact.

There are problems with this theory, however. First, it takes time to freeze an animal that big. A side of beef takes thirty minutes to freeze at a temperature of -40° F. The mammoth was massive, still warm, had its internal organs, and was covered with a woolly hide that would have insulated it. It is estimated that in order to freeze in a half hour, the temperature would have had to be below -150° F. If it took much longer than half an hour, the stomach contents would have been digested.

Adding to the complications, the temperature would have had to drop quite suddenly. Since the mammoth was eating buttercups when it died, we know that it had to be in the late summer or early autumn. It may have been cold then, but it was still mild enough for there to be buttercups. Suddenly – within a matter of hours at most – the temperature would have had to plummet fifty or more degrees, possibly more than 100 degrees. We don’t know of any mechanism that could cause that"

The most important accurate part of this link is how long it would have taken to freeze that mammoth so that its flesh was still edible.   While the link only mentions buttercups, there were actually many plant species found in that mammoth's stomach and mouth indicating the climate at its death - which has never been the climate there since then - though the current global warming may change that.

Extremely important is that the evidence is consistent with a lowering of the temperature to below -150 degrees F for 30 minutes.   The authors doubt this because they were not aware of a mechanism that would cause that.

The article does not mention results of an autopsy which revealed the cause of death was drowning.   Normally water is not liquid at -150 degrees F.   But most who are aware of the actual evidence fail to note supercooled water - and also are not aware of how such supercooled water could have been rotating around the earth.   Now, this is just a personal theory of mine - but supercooled water is not theory - it is fact.   I will explain further in my next post:


----------



## Newtonian

Supercooled water - some of the evidence:






						The Freaky Physics of Supercooled Water
					

The Freaky Physics of Supercooled Water




					www.discovermagazine.com
				




Excerpts:

"Despite its ubiquity on this planet (and in our bodies, and in the universe), water’s a pretty weird substance. It’s corrosive, its solid form floats on its liquid form, it's got super high surface tension — and apparently, if it gets cold enough fast enough, it might have two different kinds of liquid form, with a phase transition (i.e., the threshold between liquid water and supercooled water) somewhere around 228 kelvin (-49° F). But, for now, that's just a theory. ....

"The problem is, it’s tough to get enough of this supercooled liquid water together to examine it with any precision. In fact, scientists refer to liquid water below 232 K (-42° F) as a “no-man’s land,” because it’s so hard to get there. But they now have a way to measure “bulk liquid water” at these incredibly low temperatures, according to a paper from this week’s _Nature_ ....

"A “droplet dispenser” shoots tiny drops of water out into a vacuum, which cools the water almost immediately through evaporation. But, crucially, enough liquid water remains in some of the droplets for the scientists to study. Perpendicular to the beam of water drops is an X-ray laser shooting extremely brief pulses, just 50 femtoseconds long (i.e., 50 _quadrillionths_ of a second). By studying the diffraction pattern that results when one of these pulses encounters a droplet of supercooled water, the scientists can probe the structural makeup of the droplets. So far, they’ve proven that liquid water as cold as 227 K (-51° F) does remain stable long enough for this method to work, meaning they’ve reliably entered into no-man’s land. And their early observations indicate that water's structure does change a little at ultracold temperatures, appearing more orderly, but still liquid. What else they'll discover in no-man’s land — and how it’ll help us better understand (and exploit) one of the universe’s most abundant materials — we’ll have to wait and see."

Notice, however, that this is not -150 F but c. -50 F.   This is not inconsistent with the evidence however.   Since the mammoth died from drowning, the water would have entered the internal parts of the mammoth - so -150 would not be neccesary - -50 supercooled water could produce the quick freezing of the mammoth.  

More on supercooled water in my next post:


----------



## Newtonian

Experimental explanation of supercooling : why water does not freeze in the clouds
					






					www.esrf.eu
				




Excerpts:

"Supercooling, a state where liquids do not solidify even below their normal freezing point, still puzzles scientists today. A good example of this phenomenon is found everyday in meteorology: clouds in high altitude are an accumulation of supercooled droplets of water below their freezing point....

"Supercooled liquids are trapped in a metastable state even well below their freezing point, which can only be achieved in liquids that do not contain seeds that may trigger crystallization. Clouds at high altitude are a good example for this: they contain tiny droplets of water that, in the absence of seed crystals do not form ice despite the low temperatures. In everyday life, though, there is usually some crystalline impurity in contact with the liquid that will trigger the crystallization process, and therefore the freezing. ....

"Supercooling was discovered already in 1724 by Fahrenheit, ....

"Models propose that a significant fraction of the atoms in liquids arrange in five-fold coordinated clusters. To form a crystal however, one needs a structure that can be repeated periodically, filling the entire space. This is not possible with five-fold coordinated clusters. In the two-dimensional analogue, a plane cannot be filled by pentagons only, whereas triangles, rectangles or hexagons can fill a plane perfectly. In this example, pentagons are an obstacle to crystallization."

Bottom line, my personal theory is that there were accretion belts of supercooled water c. -50 F or lower rotating around the earth  until the flood.   It is very cold in outer space (another subject for research - but not tonight for me!).   The reason these belts did not freeze solid is the lack of dust for the water to crystallize.   Because a huge mass of water fell at the flood, it is possible that some of this remained liguid while drowning the Beresovka mammoth and causing the quick freezing.

Amazing how discoveries as recent as 1724 explain things we never knew before!


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> I don't doubt for a moment that the Noahic Flood was an actual historical event, that it was a worldwide event, but I don't know why it could not have happened due to an asteroid strike.



An asteroid strike may not be as easy to ascertain as was thought.  It could be a volcanic eruption.  Which asteroid strike are you referring to?

I don't follow people who get misled like ding.  He said, "I am never going to believe the earth and universe are 6000 years old. I am never going to believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis were written to be read literally."  He can be discarded.


----------



## 007

Tipsycatlover said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
Click to expand...

"The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...









						Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
					

There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading




					answersingenesis.org


----------



## EvilCat Breath

007 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
Click to expand...

I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.


----------



## 007

Tipsycatlover said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sorry, but there's a whole big world outside just your personal circle. But possibly you missed when I said "SUPER" Christians, and those are the ones that believe every singe last word in the Bible, and to take it LITERALLY, because God is perfect, and God inspired the words in the Bible, therefore EVERYTHING in the Bible is true, and I just posted a link that shows how the young earthers come to their conclusions. You should have looked at it.

And, I identify as a Christian, but I think the young earthers are all nutso, but then, I'm not a "SUPER" Christian. I don't go around Bible thumping and proselytizing to everyone.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

007 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I'm sorry, but there's a whole big world outside just your personal circle. But possibly you missed when I said "SUPER" Christians, and those are the ones that believe every singe last word in the Bible, and to take it LITERALLY, because God is perfect, and God inspired the words in the Bible, therefore EVERYTHING in the Bible is true, and I just posted a link that shows how the young earthers come to their conclusions. You should have looked at it.
> 
> And, I identify as a Christian, but I think the young earthers are all nutso, but then, I'm not a "SUPER" Christian. I don't go around Bible thumping and proselytizing to everyone.
Click to expand...

The only Christians you know are the ones you made up.


----------



## Hollie

Newtonian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long would it take for that much ice to build up by our current water cycle via snow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newtonian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the evidence of the quick freezing of animals in the arctic permafrost is consistent with freezing in roughly <1 hour!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And also consistent with freezing taking a few hours, as would be consistent with an animal that froze to death in sub zero temperatures and low humidity.  So, your work all still lies ahead of you to prove this "flash freeze" claim. Good luck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The birdseye study of the flash freezing of the Beresovaka Mammoth actually indicated a wind chill of -150 degrees F and freezing in about one half hour.   Autopsies indicate cause of death was drowning.   Those two findings can only be harmonized if supercooled water was involved (very cold water with nothing to base crystalization on).   Its late and I am researching the above math - feel free to research the point you are trying to make - I'll look forward to your links!
> 
> My next post will be researching the minimal angle of glacial flow:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "flash freezing" meme appears to have come from Answers in Genesis. For a more detailed and factual account, try here: Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?
> 
> "As for instant freezing, as claimed by Ted Holden, there is no evidence of that. The Berezovka mammoth shows evidence of having been buried in a landslide, the cold mud acting as preservative and the underlying permafrost completing the process by freezing the carcass. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That makes no sense Hollie.   The mammoth would have rotted in that scenario.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to believe that. What makes no sense is your claim that a frozen carcass would rot.


----------



## LittleNipper

Tipsycatlover said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
Click to expand...

There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.


----------



## LittleNipper

The sedimentation demonstrates the realities concerning the FLOOD...


----------



## EvilCat Breath

LittleNipper said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
Click to expand...

I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.

The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.


----------



## luchitociencia

Newtonian said:


> Though not totally accurate, this link mentions some details about the Beresovka Mammoth:
> 
> 
> 
> Beresovka Mammoth |
> 
> 
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "One theory to explain this was that somehow there had been a sudden, deadly drop in temperature. If the temperature dropped fast enough and low enough, it could freeze the carcass and stop the digestive process, leaving the food intact.
> 
> There are problems with this theory, however. First, it takes time to freeze an animal that big. A side of beef takes thirty minutes to freeze at a temperature of -40° F. The mammoth was massive, still warm, had its internal organs, and was covered with a woolly hide that would have insulated it. It is estimated that in order to freeze in a half hour, the temperature would have had to be below -150° F. If it took much longer than half an hour, the stomach contents would have been digested.
> 
> Adding to the complications, the temperature would have had to drop quite suddenly. Since the mammoth was eating buttercups when it died, we know that it had to be in the late summer or early autumn. It may have been cold then, but it was still mild enough for there to be buttercups. Suddenly – within a matter of hours at most – the temperature would have had to plummet fifty or more degrees, possibly more than 100 degrees. We don’t know of any mechanism that could cause that"
> 
> The most important accurate part of this link is how long it would have taken to freeze that mammoth so that its flesh was still edible.   While the link only mentions buttercups, there were actually many plant species found in that mammoth's stomach and mouth indicating the climate at its death - which has never been the climate there since then - though the current global warming may change that.
> 
> Extremely important is that the evidence is consistent with a lowering of the temperature to below -150 degrees F for 30 minutes.   The authors doubt this because they were not aware of a mechanism that would cause that.
> 
> The article does not mention results of an autopsy which revealed the cause of death was drowning.   Normally water is not liquid at -150 degrees F.   But most who are aware of the actual evidence fail to note supercooled water - and also are not aware of how such supercooled water could have been rotating around the earth.   Now, this is just a personal theory of mine - but supercooled water is not theory - it is fact.   I will explain further in my next post:


The *mabul *(Hebrew word which means "devastation" and is applied as "devastation for cause of water") happened when there was solely one continent on earth. (Pangaea).

No current mountains existed yet. Mountains were formed later on when the sole continent divided itself three generations after Noah, in the times of *Peleg*, who's name means "division".

The earth suffered another up side down turn in times of Moses , and ancient testimonies relate (thanks to scripture bein already in use) the change from Sun rising on West and setting on East to later rising up on the East and setting down on the West.

Scientists who work hard to discredit the biblical narration are trying to make you believe that the continents separated millions of years ago, but the evidence in favor of the bible and other ancient records, like the mammoth showed in the messages above, is absolute and without question.

Sooner or later scientists will recognize the veracity of the biblical narration with respect to the *Mabul*, they will never answer the mammoth evidence with a different explanation.  Never. And this is final.

Period.


----------



## LittleNipper

Tipsycatlover said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.
> 
> The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a Christian and I believe that the earth is likely 6 to 10 thousand years old. Time has no meaning without GOD and the only reality for time is that it measures our passing... And yes, even Jesus spoke of Noah.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, it speaks to willful ignorance for growing numbers of "bible believing" christians to believe in the notion of a 6,000 year old planet. Such nonsense is a true break from reality.


----------



## Hollie

Tipsycatlover said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.
> 
> The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
Click to expand...

It's good to know that a lot of people believing in something makes it true. That confirms my understanding of Bigfoot, Nessie, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy and space aliens are true and accurate.


----------



## Flash

The Book of Genesis is not a history book or a science text.  It describes the relationship between Man and God.

The story of Noah and the flood is a statement of how God deals with evil.  God cannot destroy the earth all the time because of the evil of Men.  We are responsible for the evil we do.  The consequences of free will.     God isn't going to tear things down and start over every time things get out of control  He did that once but no more.  That is the real lesson in the story.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> The sedimentation demonstrates the realities concerning the FLOOD...








						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Hollie said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.
> 
> The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's good to know that a lot of people believing in something makes it true. That confirms my understanding of Bigfoot, Nessie, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy and space aliens are true and accurate.
Click to expand...

When you have a similar account coming from places with no communication with one another that account will be accurate more often than not.   If the Chinese have a Bigfoot legend that closely mirrors Aztec cave depictions, Australian  aboriginal oral histories and Native American songs there will most certainly be a big hairy guy in their pasts.

There has certainly been a great flood.  There have certainly been men who managed to save animals.  The man may not have been Noah and his vessel may not have been the ark but the flood made an impression.


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?


No


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...

Why not?


----------



## Hollie

Tipsycatlover said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.
> 
> The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's good to know that a lot of people believing in something makes it true. That confirms my understanding of Bigfoot, Nessie, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy and space aliens are true and accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you have a similar account coming from places with no communication with one another that account will be accurate more often than not.   If the Chinese have a Bigfoot legend that closely mirrors Aztec cave depictions, Australian  aboriginal oral histories and Native American songs there will most certainly be a big hairy guy in their pasts.
> 
> There has certainly been a great flood.  There have certainly been men who managed to save animals.  The man may not have been Noah and his vessel may not have been the ark but the flood made an impression.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that following the last Ice Age, there would be accounts of floods. 

Just curious though, why do you think the gods would take such detailed efforts to cover their tracks so effectively after the alleged global flood that all evidence indicates a long geological history for the planet without a global flood?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Hollie said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.
> 
> The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's good to know that a lot of people believing in something makes it true. That confirms my understanding of Bigfoot, Nessie, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy and space aliens are true and accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you have a similar account coming from places with no communication with one another that account will be accurate more often than not.   If the Chinese have a Bigfoot legend that closely mirrors Aztec cave depictions, Australian  aboriginal oral histories and Native American songs there will most certainly be a big hairy guy in their pasts.
> 
> There has certainly been a great flood.  There have certainly been men who managed to save animals.  The man may not have been Noah and his vessel may not have been the ark but the flood made an impression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not surprising that following the last Ice Age, there would be accounts of floods.
> 
> Just curious though, why do you think the gods would take such detailed efforts to cover their tracks so effectively after the alleged global flood that all evidence indicates a long geological history for the planet without a global flood?
Click to expand...

Not only are there accounts of great floods, but many of them.  All over the world. It would be surprising if there were not accounts of floods.  








						Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous
					

Geologists long rejected the notion that cataclysmic flood had ever occurred — until one of them found proof of a Noah-like catastrophe in the wildly eroded river valleys of Washington State.




					www.discovermagazine.com
				




Forget religion.  Just as a matter of history we know there were floods.


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...

Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
Click to expand...

It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.  

Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend



I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.


----------



## Hollie

Tipsycatlover said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But... super Christians will tell you that the earth is only 6,000 years old. That's what they deduce from the Bible, and they believe there's scientific evidence to support it.
> 
> Don't ask me... I think they're nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what Christians believe any way.   The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus.  That goes back 6,000 years.   Adam and Eve were the first humans to be born in a state of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The Bible only traces the lineage of Jesus?" Are you serious? Did you miss Genesis and Revelations, the chapters in the Bible that literally talk of God creating... EVERYTHING... and how it will all end? That's got nothing to do with Jesus, and yes, super Christians most certainly DO believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, big time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young-Earth Creationist View Summarized And Defended
> 
> 
> There is a great amount of controversy in the church today regarding evolution and the age of the earth. Many competing views attract the attention of Christians producing great confusion and leading
> 
> 
> 
> 
> answersingenesis.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have known a lot of Christians and not one has ever held that the earth is 6,000 years old.  The only people that I have heard espouse this theory are liberals telling me what Christians believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is once again a growing number of Bible Believing Christians who fully believe that the earth is merely thousands of years old and not millions of years old. They also hold to the Flood of Noah's generation. At one time ALL professing Christians simply accepted the FLOOD and the Genesis Creation without thinking. Unfortunately, that is always a mistake. It leaves one wide open to unanswerable criticism and being lead astray. One needs to study to see and understand the reality of one's personal belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know any Christian that believes the earth is only thousands of years old.
> 
> The story of the Flood has to be absolutely true.  The story is just too widedpread to be a rumor or legend.  All of the stories of a great flood also have a survivor that saved the local animals.    With that many people in such far flung places has substantially the same story it's more than likely true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's good to know that a lot of people believing in something makes it true. That confirms my understanding of Bigfoot, Nessie, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy and space aliens are true and accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you have a similar account coming from places with no communication with one another that account will be accurate more often than not.   If the Chinese have a Bigfoot legend that closely mirrors Aztec cave depictions, Australian  aboriginal oral histories and Native American songs there will most certainly be a big hairy guy in their pasts.
> 
> There has certainly been a great flood.  There have certainly been men who managed to save animals.  The man may not have been Noah and his vessel may not have been the ark but the flood made an impression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not surprising that following the last Ice Age, there would be accounts of floods.
> 
> Just curious though, why do you think the gods would take such detailed efforts to cover their tracks so effectively after the alleged global flood that all evidence indicates a long geological history for the planet without a global flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only are there accounts of great floods, but many of them.  All over the world. It would be surprising if there were not accounts of floods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biblical-Type Floods Are Real, and They're Absolutely Enormous
> 
> 
> Geologists long rejected the notion that cataclysmic flood had ever occurred — until one of them found proof of a Noah-like catastrophe in the wildly eroded river valleys of Washington State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.discovermagazine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget religion.  Just as a matter of history we know there were floods.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to forget religion in a thread about a flood that is so central to a specific religion. Let’s also be clear about definitions. “Biblical-type floods” carrires with it a lot of theistic baggage. The claimed Biblical flood was about a global flood wiping most of humanity from the planet because humans were a disappointment to the Christian gods.


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.
> 
> Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Who passed down how god created the earth when there were no people

Please take your pills now


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
Click to expand...

Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense



You are following Satan's playbook or movie script to a T.  Very good.  1.  You scrape and bow down to your master Satan aka the "_god_ of the world and prince of the power of the air." 2. You call God's word in Genesis as nonsense. 3. You are Satan's lock, stock, and barrel for long time. 4. Haha.


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.
> 
> Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who passed down how god created the earth when there were no people
> 
> Please take your pills now
Click to expand...

No one.  Which is pretty amazing since they nailed that the universe was created and that man is a product of that creation.


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.


----------



## esalla

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are following Satan's playbook or movie script to a T.  Very good.  1.  You scrape and bow down to your master Satan aka the "_god_ of the world and prince of the power of the air." 2. You call God's word in Genesis as nonsense. 3. You are Satan's lock, stock, and barrel for long time. 4. Haha.
Click to expand...

Actually you are living your entire life making the same asinine arguments over and over and never actually living.  Are you married, do you have kids, I doubt it because your entire life is spent here trying to prove the unprovable 

Who will remember you after you die

No one because you forgot to live


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.
> 
> Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who passed down how god created the earth when there were no people
> 
> Please take your pills now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one.  Which is pretty amazing since they nailed that the universe was created and that man is a product of that creation.
Click to expand...

Who are they? The little greenies that probe you at night perhaps


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.
Click to expand...

Who believes in you?


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.
> 
> Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who passed down how god created the earth when there were no people
> 
> Please take your pills now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one.  Which is pretty amazing since they nailed that the universe was created and that man is a product of that creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are they? The little greenies that probe you at night perhaps
Click to expand...

Did I get your attention?


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who believes in you?
Click to expand...

Existence.


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.
> 
> Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who passed down how god created the earth when there were no people
> 
> Please take your pills now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one.  Which is pretty amazing since they nailed that the universe was created and that man is a product of that creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are they? The little greenies that probe you at night perhaps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I get your attention?
Click to expand...

Actually you are almost as funny as Rodney


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who believes in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence.
Click to expand...

So existence is a who to you?

Ding Dong


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is if that was how they passed down history and knowledge back then.
> 
> Which is exactly how they did it.  Orally.  From generation to generation for thousands of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who passed down how god created the earth when there were no people
> 
> Please take your pills now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one.  Which is pretty amazing since they nailed that the universe was created and that man is a product of that creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are they? The little greenies that probe you at night perhaps
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I get your attention?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are almost as funny as Rodney
Click to expand...

That's quite a compliment.  Thanks.


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who believes in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So existence is a who to you?
> 
> Ding Dong
Click to expand...

Stay to the end and find out.


----------



## ding

esalla was it something I said


----------



## esalla

ding said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who believes in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So existence is a who to you?
> 
> Ding Dong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stay to the end and find out.
Click to expand...

Dingbeetle

You are a gas


----------



## ding

esalla said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because allegory and true are not compatible for the same topic, not that you can comprehend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think ding can comprehend.  He just doesn't believe Genesis and said he will never will as _literally_ stated. I think he's his own god now in his mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless genesis was written by god its nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly what Karl Marx believed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who believes in you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So existence is a who to you?
> 
> Ding Dong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stay to the end and find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dingbeetle
> 
> You are a gas
Click to expand...

When I get in someone's head they can't get me out....


----------



## james bond

esalla said:


> Who will remember you after you die



We will all be remembered as everyone must rise again so they can see the second coming of Christ.  Everything will be settled on Earth.

Jesus will take care of me while he'll _take care_ of you on Judgement Day.    I imagine heaven for me and the Lake of Fire for you and Satan as your master.  I get a nice room in heaven while you get flaming St. George's sword up your rear or something like that.  Only pain, suffering, agony, burning, thrashing, and bucking  will convince your kind.

It's interesting the Lake of Fire was the first thing God created after he gave free will to the angels.  It existed before humankind.

I live just fine; It's you who are already spiritually dead.  Else why are you so concerned?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who will remember you after you die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will all be remembered as everyone must rise again so they can see the second coming of Christ.  Everything will be settled on Earth.
> 
> Jesus will take care of me while he'll _take care_ of you on Judgement Day.    I imagine heaven for me and the Lake of Fire for you and Satan as your master.  I get a nice room in heaven while you get flaming St. George's sword up your rear or something like that.  Only pain, suffering, agony, burning, thrashing, and bucking  will convince your kind.
> 
> It's interesting the Lake of Fire was the first thing God created after he gave free will to the angels.  It existed before humankind.
> 
> I live just fine; It's you who are already spiritually dead.  Else why are you so concerned?
Click to expand...

I hear the rooms in heaven are lovely. You get a mini-bar and free wifi, just like at Embassy Suites.

However, your behavior doesn't rate heaven.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ding said:


> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?



That can only mean that the internal combustion engine is far far older than anyone imagined


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who will remember you after you die
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will all be remembered as everyone must rise again so they can see the second coming of Christ.  Everything will be settled on Earth.
> 
> Jesus will take care of me while he'll _take care_ of you on Judgement Day.    I imagine heaven for me and the Lake of Fire for you and Satan as your master.  I get a nice room in heaven while you get flaming St. George's sword up your rear or something like that.  Only pain, suffering, agony, burning, thrashing, and bucking  will convince your kind.
> 
> It's interesting the Lake of Fire was the first thing God created after he gave free will to the angels.  It existed before humankind.
> 
> I live just fine; It's you who are already spiritually dead.  Else why are you so concerned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear the rooms in heaven are lovely. You get a mini-bar and free wifi, just like at Embassy Suites.
> 
> However, your behavior doesn't rate heaven.
Click to expand...


I called the Bravewood Inn


----------



## ding

CrusaderFrank said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That can only mean that the internal combustion engine is far far older than anyone imagined
Click to expand...

Good point.


----------



## esalla

CrusaderFrank said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans
> 
> Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That can only mean that the internal combustion engine is far far older than anyone imagined
Click to expand...

Why bother with ding dong the dingbat


----------



## ding

Like a moth to the flame.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

ding said:


> Like a moth to the flame.






I think she likes you.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------

