Science Proves the Bible Again

[Hollie]

Compelling evidence for the FLOOD of Noah:

The traditional view held by geologists is that the Yellowstone petrified tree formations represent many forests which grew one after the other. Each took hundreds of years to grow before it was buried by volcanic ash and slides of volcanic breccia (sharp-edged chunks of volcanic rock cemented to form a solid rock). Then another forest grew on top of it, only to suffer a similar fate, until perhaps as many as fifty to sixty-five forests had been buried and petrified. This explanation has been accepted without question for almost a century. However, recent detailed research has brought to light much evidence that contradicts this traditional view.

Dr. Harold Coffin has conducted careful studies over a number of years on all aspects of the Specimen Ridge formations. Some of the facts that do not fit the picture of forests' being buried where they grew are as follows:9

a. Tree roots abruptly terminating or broken.

b. Almost all trees completely stripped of bark and limbs.

c. Small trees upright, unbroken (a breccia flow would push them over).

d. Ring patterns of neighboring trees do not match.

e. Both upright and prone trees lined up as if by water current.

f. No valid evidence of soil layers where trees grew.

g. Absolutely no evidence of animals found where soil layers should be; also, very few cones found.

h. Many examples of trees overlapping with roots on one located at a level part-way up the trunk of another.

i. Broad leaves found where tree trunks are only conifers.

j. Pollen scarce and not of same kind as the tree trunks.

These and other facts strongly contradict the uniformitarian view. The evidence better fits the view that trees were ripped up and transported from another location by water and dumped in place at the same time that repeated volcanic eruptions were layering the area with ash and breccia. The evidence supports the view that this happened rapidly, not slowly over periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

Do you mean this guy: Encyclopedia of American Loons: #578: Harold G. Coffin

 

[james bond]

The biggest evidence is observable. The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface. There is no other planet or exo planet like it. Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it. What a "dumbass atheist." Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?

I viewed it but didn't see anything in it that supported "foundtains of the deep" or anything Biblical. What did this "dumbass atheist" miss?

You missed the fountains of the deep. Catastrophism produces mountains such as earthquakes beneath the ocean as well as on land. It happens rapidly instead of taking thousands or millions of years.



This second vid is much longer and from the view of secular scientists, but is cool nonetheless. They do not consider a global flood and an earthquake underneath the oceans producing "fountains of the deep." It did not take millions of years, but was very rapid. I think channel flow is the fountains of the deep caused by an act of God and not a natural earth pressure..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And this is why the FLOOD must be denied by atheists.

Utter nonsense. It is rejected by both atheists and many Christians as a myth, since the evidence all contradicts it. All of it. If there were evidence of a global flood, then atheists would accept it, and merely reject magical sky daddies as the explanation. So no, what you just said is stupid.

No, it's not utter nonsense. It's rejected by ALL atheists and some people who call themselves "Christian." The evidence is mounting regardless of your opinion. Atheists will not accept the FLOOD unless they become saved (or at least acknowledge the probability of GOD). In which case, they are no longer atheists and don't count according to your logic. I know of several in that regard who now accept the FLOOD and are Christian. Atheists cannot accept the FLOOD because it would vindicate the Bible in the eyes of the world, and make atheists seem stubborn and foolish.

No goober. Last time: the global flood is rejected as laughable bullshit by everyone except Christian literalists, because it is an absurd, ridiculous idea that is contradicted by all the evidence .

 

[james bond]

Odd that the silly “fountains of the deep” doesn't appear in any of the relevant science literature. Could it be that creationists / Flat Earthers are simply pressing Christian fundamentalist dogma?

Not odd because the creation science view or Bible theory has been systematically eliminated by atheist or secular science. This is why I say atheist scientists are usually wrong because they eliminated God. To them, it can only happen naturally.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I rest my case!

Great! Let's get the verdict:

You are wrong, you have not one shred of evidence, and you would fail a 4th grade science test.

 

[james bond]

There is no other planet or exo planet like it.

Made-up bullshit

Yet, you do not have any evidence. OTOH, I already gave mine using catastrophism. Thus, you are a loser once again. Did you really pass 7th grade ?

 

[Hollie]

Odd that the silly “fountains of the deep” doesn't appear in any of the relevant science literature. Could it be that creationists / Flat Earthers are simply pressing Christian fundamentalist dogma?

Not odd because the creation science view or Bible theory has been systematically eliminated by atheist or secular science. This is why I say atheist scientists are usually wrong because they eliminated God. To them, it can only happen naturally.

"Things" happening naturally is what science can investigate. What things have happened supernaturally? Give us a list.

It is the fundamentalist Christians who masquerade their fundamentalist beliefs as "creation science" who have eliminated themselves from the science debate.

Whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of intelligent design--or not--depends on whether you believe in gross speculation, pseudoscience, or supernaturalism--or not. It is obvious that all living species--and the rest of the universe, for that matter--could have been created by a mendacious, intelligent, cosmic, superhuman or supernatural designer who deceptively gave everything the appearance of natural adaptation, structure, and old age. This is Philip Gosse's argument in Omphalos, but even Christian fundamentalists / creationists don't like this argument because, if true, it means their candidate for the "intelligent designer" (their loving and trustworthy God) would be quite obviously malicious! So ID creationists persist in using misleading and specious arguments to try to show that the apparent design in nature reveals real design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose (i.e., by pseudoscientific methods).

 

[Hollie]

The biggest evidence is observable. The Earth is 3/4 covered with water on the surface. There is no other planet or exo planet like it. Also, I LMAO when I found Bill Nye, dim bulb, as he is discovered evidence for the "foundtains of the deep" and didn't even know it. What a "dumbass atheist." Dumbass atheist is an oxymoron isn't it?

I viewed it but didn't see anything in it that supported "foundtains of the deep" or anything Biblical. What did this "dumbass atheist" miss?

You missed the fountains of the deep. Catastrophism produces mountains such as earthquakes beneath the ocean as well as on land. It happens rapidly instead of taking thousands or millions of years.



This second vid is much longer and from the view of secular scientists, but is cool nonetheless. They do not consider a global flood and an earthquake underneath the oceans producing "fountains of the deep." It did not take millions of years, but was very rapid. I think channel flow is the fountains of the deep caused by an act of God and not a natural earth pressure..

Ah. You're a Harun Yahya fan?

 

[beautress]

If you're so gullible as to believe a silly youtube video, utterly unsupported, that's your choice. Just don't presume to foist your gullibility on others

Tou should do your homework science denier. Do you think the intent of that video, or the article was to prove the flood?
Most idiots/tards think the flood was caused solely by 40 days of rain, but the truth is, GOD says he "opened the fountains of the deep."

The existence of this great body of water is FACT. Deny all you want, denier.

Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water

There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans

Found! Hidden Ocean Locked Up Deep in Earth's Mantle

There is no 'ocean' underground. There is plenty of h2o but it is not collected into a single water body. Physics says it ain't so. To use the sponge analogy, to get the water out you'd have to squeeze the earth and there is no force in nature that could do that without destroying the planet.

Ya think so?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet, you do not have any evidence.

Of what? Be specific, charlatan. I have no evidence...that there was no global flood? We, of course, have mountains of such evidence, empirical, circumstantial, and theoretical. You have already admitted many times that your only evidence is the magical voodoo incantantions found in the Bible. So why this stupid dog and pony show? Just own your faith and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[james bond]

"Things" happening naturally is what science can investigate.

How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?

What things have happened supernaturally? Give us a list.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?

What a stupid question.

 

[Hollie]

"Things" happening naturally is what science can investigate.

How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?

What things have happened supernaturally? Give us a list.

Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?

 

[Old Rocks]

Major floods leave big evidence. We know this in the Pacific Northwest, because we have had several. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood, period. Not only that, there is the problem of where the water would have gone after the flood. This has to be one of the dumbest hypothesis that I have seen posted here.

 

[james bond]

How did science investigate the big bang when there was no space and time?

What a stupid question.

The atheist science answer is more stupid and you lost due to another emotional ad hominem attack .

 

[james bond]

Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?

What body of science? I doubt you can answer my question. My infograph explains succinctly and is by AIG.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The atheist science answer is more stupid

Oh yeah? And what is it? You don't even know. So just shut the fuk up.

 

[Hollie]

Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?

What body of science? I doubt you can answer my question. My infograph explains succinctly and is by AIG.

Your madrassah was, I'm sure, not real rigorous on science lessons but outside of the AIG madrassah, there's an entire world of learning.

 

[james bond]

Oh yeah? And what is it? You don't even know. So just shut the fuk up.

There, there. I know. I said it before and I'll say it again. Secular science has become atheist science because they systematically eliminated God, the supernatural (Genesis) and the Bible theory from science. Secular scientists believed in the aforementioned before the 1850s. This eliminates their counterparts who question the evolution theory and the Earth and universe being billions of years old. If atheist scientists actually practiced real science, then they would not be afraid of criticism. However, they have no observable, testable and falsifiable science to back up their theories. Thus, it bullsh*t that you and many other so called educated people who believe in science today with no God nor creator. It's fake science that you believe in just because it was taught to you in schools. Science has always been about disagreements and the biggest body of disagreers were eliminated. Thus, these atheist scientists believe in abiogenesis, big bang, aliens, humans from apes/chimps, birds from dinosaurs and more BS when there is no real science behind it. The Bible theory is more credible to believe that what the evos (atheist scientists) propose happened and it has nothing to do with "faith." It's backed by real science. You could not answer how the universe could start when there was no space and time.

One argument for this is the argument from contingency:

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Thus, you need to go back to the drawing board or just admit that you are a whiner with no means of support.

 

[james bond]

Against an entire body of science, the best the ID/creationists at AIG can offer are cartoons?

What body of science? I doubt you can answer my question. My infograph explains succinctly and is by AIG.

Your madrassah was, I'm sure, not real rigorous on science lessons but outside of the AIG madrassah, there's an entire world of learning.

As usual, all you can do is beotch. You claimed "an entire body of science" exists to back up your claims, but you cannot answer my simple question while I answered yours. WHAT BODY OF SCIENCE???!!!???!!! Not only can you not discern between ID and creationism, you do not even understand nor able to explain what your "an entire body of science" is. No need to waste any more time with you .