*What Is Death To An Ahteist*?

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

In the many pages of this thread that I did not read, I suppose someone has presented this view, but as an atheist I suspect that non-existence after death will be somewhat similar to non-existence before birth. And that didn't bother me so much, so I'm not really worried.

1. I don't know man, the idea of being *pre-birth* after being alive, is more scary than the prospect of going to hell to be alive forever but in eternal flames, I am sure after a few years of burning, you will get used to it.
2. But *just not being* thats a nightmare!!!!
3. dblack I got a question for you man, is your avatar a picture of you dude?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry bout that,

Why ask me? Purpose your theory and get on with it. You didn't have to wait all day long to do this.

Sorry i have a life . let me start with my opinion and then you can respond with your rebuttal.

The fossil record contains millions of fossils of all forms of life from all over the earth. It is a global phenomenon. And these fossils are all mainly buried in sedimentary rock. The evolutionary explanation is that the fossils are millions of years old because the rocks that contain the fossils are millions of years old but is this so?

The fact is, that there is no way of measuring the age of sedimentary rock. When we try to measure the age of the rock we would be only measuring the age of the materials that were ripped up and these could have been in existence a longtime before the flood.


The very word sediment describes the way that sedimentary rock was formed. The age of its mineral materials was fixed long before they were ripped up and held in suspension by the floodwaters, whereas the age of the fossils was fixed at the time that the flood actually occurred. Why? Because that was when the animals drowned and died, ending up within the sediment that was later deposited. The two time factors are completely unrelated. Sedimentary rock is actually composed of materials that were ripped up and subsequently deposited as sediment when the waters subsided On the other hand the animals and other life forms that were drowned together with any vegetation that was ripped up were all carried around in suspension until the violent activity of the waters ceased so that the sediment could settle at the bottom. The sediment then dried out after the waters receded and over a period of time, the materials were cemented together to form sedimentary rock resulting in the preservation of the remains of the animals, the sea life and the vegetation that were later changed into fossils. However, it is the date of the flood that trapped these animals that we require and not the date of the rock itself.

Now any method that purports to date the materials that form the rock are simply dating materials that was ripped up at the time of the flood and not the date of the flood itself. This means that the only way we can date the formation of sedimentary rock is if we know when the actual flood occurred. Why? Because that is when the sedimentary rock was basically formed. Therefore we need to turn to historical records for the information.

How have evolutionists treated this serious problem with their evidence? They have basically relied on the ignorance of the public to accomplish this deception. How? One way has been by insinuating that radioactive dating methods are used to date the rocks, whereas what we require is the date when the animals were drowned by the flood that laid the sediment, and not the date of the rock. Furthermore, when dating any actual organic remains that they may have found by radioactive tests, they fail to mention that these only give dates in thousands of years.

Because evolutionary geologists have no genuine way of dating the fossils in the actual rock, they have used the evolution theory to get them out of their dilemma. How have they accomplished this? Evolutionary biologists have simply arranged the fossils that they have found, in an imaginary sequence and then assumed that this is the way they have actually evolved. They have labeled these fossils, index fossils and offered them as date indicators to the geologists, claiming that in whatever strata layer the index fossil may be found, the strata layer can then be given the date assigned to the index fossil. By artificially arranging the fossils sequentially according to the evolutionary model, assigning them imaginary ages according to the evolutionary model, labeling these fossils as index fossils and then using them to date the sedimentary rock, they have devised a masterful distortion of the facts. This hoax has been explained in more detail in my articles entitled
"Evolution’s Time Scale” and “the Geological Hoax.” This may be a brilliant evolutionary plan but it is fraudulent deception and not true science.

A video to support my view.

19-The Non-Existent Geologic Column

1. Very very interesting, Youwerecreated,= YWC.
2. So the flood waters stirred up the soil so much, it made more or less a cement, that *all* life (That didn't get into the ark with Noah), randomly got mixed up in, during the flood event, encasing them in cement more or less which is a perfect condition to fossilize the victims of the flood.
3. Here is something that we need more evidence of, and thats why we haven't found human fossils in this cement layer of sediment for which we find nearly all fossils.
4. In my view there wasn't all that many people at that time, not that many years had passed since creation of the world, man had only been on earth, along with creation only 1000 to 3000 years, and populations were small, I would guess to say no more than 5000 people were on earth during the flood, food supplies were still small, so populations didn't explode back then.
5. Have any humans been found in this layer of fossilization, and if not, we should be looking for them, and I would estimate that the location we will find them in is, some where in the area of Israel, or middle east, perhaps in the sea around there, the dead sea.
6. The end for these humans must of been horrific.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Yes fossils have been found in the wrong strata or evolutionist were wrong on how old the fossils were. But really they determine the age of the fossils by the age of the sandstone which is probably much older then the fossil,that formed in the cement.

There is lots of evidence that the so called geologic column that was man made was created to fit the evolution timeline.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why ask me? Purpose your theory and get on with it. You didnt have to wait all day long to do this.

Sorry i have a life . let me start with my opinion and then you can respond with your rebuttal.

The fossil record contains millions of fossils of all forms of life from all over the earth. It is a global phenomenon. And these fossils are all mainly buried in sedimentary rock. The evolutionary explanation is that the fossils are millions of years old because the rocks that contain the fossils are millions of years old but is this so?

The fact is, that there is no way of measuring the age of sedimentary rock. When we try to measure the age of the rock we would be only measuring the age of the materials that were ripped up and these could have been in existence a longtime before the flood.


The very word sediment describes the way that sedimentary rock was formed. The age of its mineral materials was fixed long before they were ripped up and held in suspension by the floodwaters, whereas the age of the fossils was fixed at the time that the flood actually occurred. Why? Because that was when the animals drowned and died, ending up within the sediment that was later deposited. The two time factors are completely unrelated. Sedimentary rock is actually composed of materials that were ripped up and subsequently deposited as sediment when the waters subsided On the other hand the animals and other life forms that were drowned together with any vegetation that was ripped up were all carried around in suspension until the violent activity of the waters ceased so that the sediment could settle at the bottom. The sediment then dried out after the waters receded and over a period of time, the materials were cemented together to form sedimentary rock resulting in the preservation of the remains of the animals, the sea life and the vegetation that were later changed into fossils. However, it is the date of the flood that trapped these animals that we require and not the date of the rock itself.

Now any method that purports to date the materials that form the rock are simply dating materials that was ripped up at the time of the flood and not the date of the flood itself. This means that the only way we can date the formation of sedimentary rock is if we know when the actual flood occurred. Why? Because that is when the sedimentary rock was basically formed. Therefore we need to turn to historical records for the information.

How have evolutionists treated this serious problem with their evidence? They have basically relied on the ignorance of the public to accomplish this deception. How? One way has been by insinuating that radioactive dating methods are used to date the rocks, whereas what we require is the date when the animals were drowned by the flood that laid the sediment, and not the date of the rock. Furthermore, when dating any actual organic remains that they may have found by radioactive tests, they fail to mention that these only give dates in thousands of years.

Because evolutionary geologists have no genuine way of dating the fossils in the actual rock, they have used the evolution theory to get them out of their dilemma. How have they accomplished this? Evolutionary biologists have simply arranged the fossils that they have found, in an imaginary sequence and then assumed that this is the way they have actually evolved. They have labeled these fossils, index fossils and offered them as date indicators to the geologists, claiming that in whatever strata layer the index fossil may be found, the strata layer can then be given the date assigned to the index fossil. By artificially arranging the fossils sequentially according to the evolutionary model, assigning them imaginary ages according to the evolutionary model, labeling these fossils as index fossils and then using them to date the sedimentary rock, they have devised a masterful distortion of the facts. This hoax has been explained in more detail in my articles entitled
"Evolution’s Time Scale” and “the Geological Hoax.” This may be a brilliant evolutionary plan but it is fraudulent deception and not true science.

A video to support my view.

19-The Non-Existent Geologic Column

First, let me say, you could have provided a link for "your" opinion. Does the Fossil Record Support Evolution? | Face the Facts Scroll down to “Custers’s Last Stand”.

Ok, Im studying as I go. Some of this stuff is rudimentary but I am learning new things as I go.

First of all, it doesnt matter what sedimentary rock is in dating fossils. Yes, fossils are found in sedimentary rock but they dont date the rock. Fossils occur in sequences in the strata. (strata or stratum, the word you used when broaching this subject, is the layers of rock having approximately the same composition throughout.)

Fossil sequences have been studied for a few hundred years, since before Darwin.

William 'Strata' Smith, canal surveyor, noticed fossils existed in certain layers. These sequences matched sequences in other parts of the country exactly. He and others had discovered stratigraphy- older rocks lie beneath younger rocks in a particular, predictable order.

Using this, they put together the stratigraphic column which mapped out the familiar listing of the separations of geological time, the Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary etc. It works around the world without fail.

From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)

Darwin came into the picture in 1859 when he published “On the origin of species”.

Dating fossils is done many ways, Ill get into that more later.

Yes i am sorry i left off the link but this writing i am in complete agreement with.

There are many articles on this issue.

 

[dblack]

3. dblack I got a question for you man, is your avatar a picture of you dude?

Nah man, I couldn't cop to being half as cool as Bill Haverchuck. He's a character from the ill-fated, but exquisitely good, television series Freaks and Geeks.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why ask me? Purpose your theory and get on with it. You didnt have to wait all day long to do this.

Sorry i have a life . let me start with my opinion and then you can respond with your rebuttal.

The fossil record contains millions of fossils of all forms of life from all over the earth. It is a global phenomenon. And these fossils are all mainly buried in sedimentary rock. The evolutionary explanation is that the fossils are millions of years old because the rocks that contain the fossils are millions of years old but is this so?

The fact is, that there is no way of measuring the age of sedimentary rock. When we try to measure the age of the rock we would be only measuring the age of the materials that were ripped up and these could have been in existence a longtime before the flood.


The very word sediment describes the way that sedimentary rock was formed. The age of its mineral materials was fixed long before they were ripped up and held in suspension by the floodwaters, whereas the age of the fossils was fixed at the time that the flood actually occurred. Why? Because that was when the animals drowned and died, ending up within the sediment that was later deposited. The two time factors are completely unrelated. Sedimentary rock is actually composed of materials that were ripped up and subsequently deposited as sediment when the waters subsided On the other hand the animals and other life forms that were drowned together with any vegetation that was ripped up were all carried around in suspension until the violent activity of the waters ceased so that the sediment could settle at the bottom. The sediment then dried out after the waters receded and over a period of time, the materials were cemented together to form sedimentary rock resulting in the preservation of the remains of the animals, the sea life and the vegetation that were later changed into fossils. However, it is the date of the flood that trapped these animals that we require and not the date of the rock itself.

Now any method that purports to date the materials that form the rock are simply dating materials that was ripped up at the time of the flood and not the date of the flood itself. This means that the only way we can date the formation of sedimentary rock is if we know when the actual flood occurred. Why? Because that is when the sedimentary rock was basically formed. Therefore we need to turn to historical records for the information.

How have evolutionists treated this serious problem with their evidence? They have basically relied on the ignorance of the public to accomplish this deception. How? One way has been by insinuating that radioactive dating methods are used to date the rocks, whereas what we require is the date when the animals were drowned by the flood that laid the sediment, and not the date of the rock. Furthermore, when dating any actual organic remains that they may have found by radioactive tests, they fail to mention that these only give dates in thousands of years.

Because evolutionary geologists have no genuine way of dating the fossils in the actual rock, they have used the evolution theory to get them out of their dilemma. How have they accomplished this? Evolutionary biologists have simply arranged the fossils that they have found, in an imaginary sequence and then assumed that this is the way they have actually evolved. They have labeled these fossils, index fossils and offered them as date indicators to the geologists, claiming that in whatever strata layer the index fossil may be found, the strata layer can then be given the date assigned to the index fossil. By artificially arranging the fossils sequentially according to the evolutionary model, assigning them imaginary ages according to the evolutionary model, labeling these fossils as index fossils and then using them to date the sedimentary rock, they have devised a masterful distortion of the facts. This hoax has been explained in more detail in my articles entitled
"Evolution’s Time Scale” and “the Geological Hoax.” This may be a brilliant evolutionary plan but it is fraudulent deception and not true science.

A video to support my view.

19-The Non-Existent Geologic Column

First, let me say, you could have provided a link for "your" opinion. Does the Fossil Record Support Evolution? | Face the Facts Scroll down to “Custers’s Last Stand”.

Ok, Im studying as I go. Some of this stuff is rudimentary but I am learning new things as I go.

First of all, it doesnt matter what sedimentary rock is in dating fossils. Yes, fossils are found in sedimentary rock but they dont date the rock. Fossils occur in sequences in the strata. (strata or stratum, the word you used when broaching this subject, is the layers of rock having approximately the same composition throughout.)

Fossil sequences have been studied for a few hundred years, since before Darwin.

William 'Strata' Smith, canal surveyor, noticed fossils existed in certain layers. These sequences matched sequences in other parts of the country exactly. He and others had discovered stratigraphy- older rocks lie beneath younger rocks in a particular, predictable order.

Using this, they put together the stratigraphic column which mapped out the familiar listing of the separations of geological time, the Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary etc. It works around the world without fail.

From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of ‘progress’ going on.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)

Darwin came into the picture in 1859 when he published “On the origin of species”.

Dating fossils is done many ways, Ill get into that more later.

I will quote Molecular Biologist Professor Brown.

"Since the radioisotope dating techniques, discussed on this web page, do not date the fossil but the rock surrounding the fossil; We need to look at a different set of assumptions than is necessary when considering either C-14 or Amino Acid dates. (Evolutionists believe that the fossil will date the same as the surrounding rock because the radioisotope clock is generally thought to reset to zero.)

 

[Obamerican]

Sorry bout that,

In the many pages of this thread that I did not read, I suppose someone has presented this view, but as an atheist I suspect that non-existence after death will be somewhat similar to non-existence before birth. And that didn't bother me so much, so I'm not really worried.

1. I don't know man, the idea of being *pre-birth* after being alive, is more scary than the prospect of going to hell to be alive forever but in eternal flames, I am sure after a few years of burning, you will get used to it.
2. But *just not being* thats a nightmare!!!!
3. dblack I got a question for you man, is your avatar a picture of you dude?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

WOW as a "bible thumper" I don't think you're suppose to JUDGE anyone!!!!

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

In the many pages of this thread that I did not read, I suppose someone has presented this view, but as an atheist I suspect that non-existence after death will be somewhat similar to non-existence before birth. And that didn't bother me so much, so I'm not really worried.

1. I don't know man, the idea of being *pre-birth* after being alive, is more scary than the prospect of going to hell to be alive forever but in eternal flames, I am sure after a few years of burning, you will get used to it.
2. But *just not being* thats a nightmare!!!!
3. dblack I got a question for you man, is your avatar a picture of you dude?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

WOW as a "bible thumper" I don't think you're suppose to JUDGE anyone!!!!

1. Another atheist **** deleted*, who wants to borrow scriptures to whack Christians on the head.
2. Priceless.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Obamerican]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,









1. I don't know man, the idea of being *pre-birth* after being alive, is more scary than the prospect of going to hell to be alive forever but in eternal flames, I am sure after a few years of burning, you will get used to it.
2. But *just not being* thats a nightmare!!!!
3. dblack I got a question for you man, is your avatar a picture of you dude?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

WOW as a "bible thumper" I don't think you're suppose to JUDGE anyone!!!!

1. Another atheist fuck who wants to borrow scriptures to whack Christians on the head.
2. Priceless.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Typical response from a "bible thumper" when I use their own bullshit against them. Keep praying, maggot and see where it gets you.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

WOW as a "bible thumper" I don't think you're suppose to JUDGE anyone!!!!

1. Another atheist fuck who wants to borrow scriptures to whack Christians on the head.
2. Priceless.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Typical response from a "bible thumper" when I use their own bullshit against them. Keep praying, maggot and see where it gets you.

1. Why are you using it if you think its bullshit.
2. You secretly believe it huh?
3. What a phony baloney.
4. Get real dude.
5. And what makes you think I was judging him anyways?
6. I asked a question, wassup?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. If death is a gateway to *nothingness* for atheists, while life is a *new beginning* to Christians.
2. With everything and all to consider, which one sounds like a better deal?
3. Die and to be *nothing* or die and have *everything*, have life and be with loved ones.
4. Yeah thats a tough one.
5. Jesus said while on the cross to one of the two men also being crucified, "This day you will be with me in paradise"


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. In my book, atheists are freaks of nature, they are an enemy of Christ, and everything good and decent on earth.
2. They are an enemy to themselves, unknowingly, they claim that life is pointless, and in the end, you find, *nothingness*, end of story.
3. As if you never was born, might as well never been born, for they live as though it doesn't matter anyway.
4. Living in this darkness makes void the atheists life, they will muttle along lifeless doing things out of necessity, and without truth.
5. They murder themsleves, their blood will be upon themselves.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Mr Natural]

^

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AzOzoCXDUw&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes‬‏[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

^

YouTube - ‪Merrie Melodies & Looney Tunes‬‏

Some atheists are funny.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,









1. I don't know man, the idea of being *pre-birth* after being alive, is more scary than the prospect of going to hell to be alive forever but in eternal flames, I am sure after a few years of burning, you will get used to it.
2. But *just not being* thats a nightmare!!!!
3. dblack I got a question for you man, is your avatar a picture of you dude?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

WOW as a "bible thumper" I don't think you're suppose to JUDGE anyone!!!!

1. Another atheist fuck who wants to borrow scriptures to whack Christians on the head.
2. Priceless.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I'm not trying to be harsh but if you wish to represent Christ why would you use such an offensive word in doing so.

I expect that from Huggy and a few others on here but why you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, there are references to things such as "Leviathan" but it's not clear what is meant. And there were thousands of species of dinosaur yet no mention in the OT.



How do you know that? Or is that just a guess as it's the only thing that could possibly explain/defer the question? We have plenty of layers of fossils, but nothing that looks like a world wide flood.

Well, since I've never heard of Micheal DeAnglo and can't find and mention of him on the internet, that's not a high standard is it?

There are pockets of fossils found all around the world.

Prove it.

Here this short video covers what you were wanting proved.

21-Global Flood Erodes Old Earth Beliefs

 

[Youwerecreated]

Link?

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

There is no scientific proof of a world-wide flood. Find a non religious link.

So you automatically reject anything dealing with science that comes from a man with a belief in creation.

You earlier stated that most scientists are believers but you are not willing to hear their views are you saying you really don't care what the truth is you're gonna believe what you wish to believe ?

 

[Montrovant]

Sorry bout that,



1. If death is a gateway to *nothingness* for atheists, while life is a *new beginning* to Christians.
2. With everything and all to consider, which one sounds like a better deal?
3. Die and to be *nothing* or die and have *everything*, have life and be with loved ones.
4. Yeah thats a tough one.
5. Jesus said while on the cross to one of the two men also being crucified, "This day you will be with me in paradise"


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Are you saying people should base their religious beliefs on what is the 'better deal' as opposed to what they think is the truth?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

WOW as a "bible thumper" I don't think you're suppose to JUDGE anyone!!!!

1. Another atheist fuck who wants to borrow scriptures to whack Christians on the head.
2. Priceless.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I'm not trying to be harsh but if you wish to represent Christ why would you use such an offensive word in doing so.

I expect that from Huggy and a few others on here but why you ?

1. I can get a little riled up on the internet after over ten years ranting on it.
2. My apologies.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,



1. If death is a gateway to *nothingness* for atheists, while life is a *new beginning* to Christians.
2. With everything and all to consider, which one sounds like a better deal?
3. Die and to be *nothing* or die and have *everything*, have life and be with loved ones.
4. Yeah thats a tough one.
5. Jesus said while on the cross to one of the two men also being crucified, "This day you will be with me in paradise"


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Are you saying people should base their religious beliefs on what is the 'better deal' as opposed to what they think is the truth?

1. No not at all, I am just comparing the two, so people who haven't ever thought about it much can see the disparity.
2. Its like if you go down this one road, you get this, and if you go down this other road, you get *THIS*!!!!
3. I think I would look into *THIS* before I took *that*.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Was the earths terrain changed radically during *the flood*?
2. If so, what parts of the earth saw the biggest changes?
3. And when the flood happened, were there dinosaurs in the middle east?
4. I haven't seen much proof of dinos in those parts of the planet, here in the Americas, it would seem we had lots of dinos, and also fewer people.
5. I don't think the American Indians had made it from China yet, they being off shoots from the Chinese.
6. At the time of the flood, no people lived on the Americas.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas