The Flood

[PLAYER57832]

Natty,

What's been refuted? Is Player right and wikipedia wrong when it comes to sedimentary rock?

By a technicality you might be correct, depending on the reference. Sometimes "sedimentary" is used as a general term for all deposits of layers of dust/earth/etc. However, there is also technically a different name for rocks formed by wind deposits along, those formed in lakes, etc.


Still, the point is irrelevant. They definitely did not all come from a single flood, no matter what you try to infer or assert.

[King Doctor]

Haha, you're funny, Woodruff.

Actually, I'm Woodruffette, Woodruff is my brother.

[Army of GOD]

Shouldn't you be Queen Doctor then?

[King Doctor]

No. That would give away my true identity.






Also, don't tell Saxi, but there's kind of a glass-ceiling in this profession.

[jonesthecurl]

No that's a celing mirror so you can watch yourself humping with your brother. Who also loves mirrors.

[King Doctor]

No that's a celing mirror so you can watch yourself humping with your brother.

*Pops like twelve boners*

[Lionz]

Woodruff,

You refer to an image found online and said your statement as if I wrote something on it myself maybe. An image that does not even say we shouldn't have as many fossils as we do on it perhaps, but perhaps you make one or more valid point either way and there have been billions of floods spread across earth at various times over billions of years for all I know. Maybe we should look at a number of things collectively and weigh evidence. What can we do to explain this if there were not massive layers of mud that were compacted together rapidly while in a putty-like state?


Words included that are not my own depending on definition at least perhaps.

[jonesthecurl]

Woodruff,

You refer to an image found online and said your statement as if I wrote something on it myself maybe. An image that does not even say we shouldn't have as many fossils as we do on it perhaps, but perhaps you make one or more valid point either way and there have been billions of floods spread across earth at various times over billions of years for all I know. Maybe we should look at a number of things collectively and weigh evidence. What can we do to explain this if there were not massive layers of mud that were compacted together rapidly while in a putty-like state?


Words included that are not my own depending on definition at least perhaps.

What, like thousands of scientists have?

[PLAYER57832]

What can we do to explain this if there were not massive layers of mud that were compacted together rapidly while in a putty-like state?

It WAS many layers of mud, other subtances (have to look at the exact geo data on that particular site to say exactly what the layers each are.. cannot tell from just a picture), compacted over a very long period of time.

A picture is not sufficient to allow me to identify each layer, BUT it is quite sufficient to make it clear that is not a single mud layer... and please, skip the Bryce canyon/test tube comparison. I already addressed them... they don't show what creationist websites claim.

That is, there is NO confusion between the test-tube striation and the striations seen here (or at Bryce). If anything, they show why geologists do a good deal more than just pick up a couple of pictures and claim that's enough to study anything. However, those pictures don't even truly show that, what they really show is how little creationist know about the processes they claim to study. The fact is that if you were to look closely at each layer in Bryce, you would see layering within each layer, plus other factors that make it clear it was NOT all laid down at once.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
You refer to an image found online and said your statement as if I wrote something on it myself maybe. An image that does not even say we shouldn't have as many fossils as we do on it perhaps

You claim to worry about lying, and yet...here you are...lying:

Or are you claiming you didn't post that image?

Words included that are not my own depending on definition at least perhaps.

I say again...face your OCD problem or stop using it as an excuse. Either one is fine by me.

[THORNHEART]

I think lionz doesnt have as much a problem as some of you.

If OCD about being a liar and wanting to remain humble and realizing all knowledge he may have is a gift perhaps (haha yes that was a intended joke) then I don't think that is a bad thing.

Maybe everyone should take care to make sure they are not lying or quoting mistruth more often. You guys just ridicule and mock. Thats not arguing.

Anyone can make someone laugh. That doesn't prove truth.

The fools scorn in of the ways they know not.

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth { hebrew word =(yeh-led)=( teenage thugs)} out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in The Name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria" (2 Kings 2:23-25 KJV)

[Woodruff]

If OCD about being a liar and wanting to remain humble and realizing all knowledge he may have is a gift perhaps (haha yes that was a intended joke) then I don't think that is a bad thing.

If it stops you from lying, perhaps. Otherwise...not so much.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I think lionz doesnt have as much a problem as some of you.

If OCD about being a liar and wanting to remain humble and realizing all knowledge he may have is a gift perhaps (haha yes that was a intended joke) then I don't think that is a bad thing.

Maybe everyone should take care to make sure they are not lying or quoting mistruth more often. You guys just ridicule and mock. Thats not arguing.

The fact that nothing anyone says is 100% sure to be true is one that is inherent to our communication system and even our perception of the universe. If someone asks you: "Are you sure you didn't forget the keys". And you answer: "Yes, I'm sure" instead of "Well, to the best of my recollection i did take them, and i have just now checked to see if they're in my pocket and i felt something that i can, from previous experience, ascertain, with some degree of certainty, feels like my keys do, but we can only perceive our own subjective reality, so maybe", it wouldn't really be considered lying, would it? In short, it's redundant to put "maybe" after every sentence, we already know you don't have objective insight into the inner working of the universe.

Oh, and we are talking about the belief that basically the body of science is mostly wrong and that instead our magical father got pissed of at us, so he let us suffer and die, then decided to kill all living things(except for 2 of every species, which he put on a big boat), and he did all of this because he loves us of course.
If that doesn't deserve ridicule i don't know what the hell does.

[King Doctor]

Oh, and we are talking about the belief that basically the body of science is mostly wrong and that instead our magical father got pissed of at us, so he let us suffer and die, then decided to kill all living things(except for 2 of every species, which he put on a big boat), and he did all of this because he loves us of course.
If that doesn't deserve ridicule i don't know what the hell does.

The idea that he went through that convoluted farce of a process because he loves us?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Oh, and we are talking about the belief that basically the body of science is mostly wrong and that instead our magical father got pissed of at us, so he let us suffer and die, then decided to kill all living things(except for 2 of every species, which he put on a big boat), and he did all of this because he loves us of course.
If that doesn't deserve ridicule i don't know what the hell does.

The idea that he went through that convoluted farce of a process because he loves us?

Of course! The obvious answer is that he actually did it to spite the IPU, our true benevolent creator.

[Tiggy D Amour]

I wouldn't go into a mental hospital and start trying to convince all the people who think they're Napoleon that they're not. In much the same way I don't see the point in trying to explain things to religious people. Just feel sorry for them and move on.

[PLAYER57832]

I think lionz doesnt have as much a problem as some of you.

If OCD about being a liar and wanting to remain humble and realizing all knowledge he may have is a gift perhaps (haha yes that was a intended joke) then I don't think that is a bad thing.

OCD is not about being a liar.
Lionz is not humble, he just pretends to be so. I say this because when we do challenge him, as more than a few of us have done, he simply comes back with "oh, but did I really say that.....".

The fools scorn in of the ways they know not.

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth { hebrew word =(yeh-led)=( teenage thugs)} out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in The Name of The Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria" (2 Kings 2:23-25 KJV)

Exactly, yet any who deny evolution deny truth and scorn those who understand what they themselves do not even try to understand.

Denying evolution is not about supporting or believing Christianity or the Bible.

[PLAYER57832]

I wouldn't go into a mental hospital and start trying to convince all the people who think they're Napoleon that they're not. In much the same way I don't see the point in trying to explain things to religious people. Just feel sorry for them and move on.

And they feel sorry for you. But a few of us do try to at least understand the other's perception.

But when it comes to science, its not about belief or perception, its about truth versus lies. What is put forward in young earth creationist websites is either just.. nothing, or is pretty much a lie.

[2dimes]

But when it comes to science, its not about belief or perception, its about truth versus lies. What is put forward in young earth creationist websites is either just.. nothing, or is pretty much a lie.

"truth versus lies" I don't know why you like to say such things.

Science is unbiased experimentation hoping to figure out how something works or trying to solve a problem, which is why so many really great discoveries are sort of accidental by products of trying to make something else.

When scientist come to a conclusion and it's accepted as truth until proven otherwise it's not a lie, it's just an error.

[Woodruff]

But when it comes to science, its not about belief or perception, its about truth versus lies. What is put forward in young earth creationist websites is either just.. nothing, or is pretty much a lie.

"truth versus lies" I don't know why you like to say such things.

Science is unbiased experimentation hoping to figure out how something works or trying to solve a problem, which is why so many really great discoveries are sort of accidental by products of trying to make something else.
When scientist come to a conclusion and it's accepted as truth until proven otherwise it's not a lie, it's just an error.

IF the scientist is honest and diligent in his work, this is absolutely true. In my experience, those terms don't really apply to Young Earth Creationist "scientists".

[King Doctor]

OCD is not about being a liar.

Unless you are a compulsive liar...

[PLAYER57832]

But when it comes to science, its not about belief or perception, its about truth versus lies. What is put forward in young earth creationist websites is either just.. nothing, or is pretty much a lie.

"truth versus lies" I don't know why you like to say such things.

Science is unbiased experimentation hoping to figure out how something works or trying to solve a problem, which is why so many really great discoveries are sort of accidental by products of trying to make something else.

When scientist come to a conclusion and it's accepted as truth until proven otherwise it's not a lie, it's just an error.

Exactly, but what young earth creation "scientists" put forward is not simply a different idea. Most of it is not even a pretense of science -- that is, they don't really and truly put forward conclusions, they just try to poke holes in evolution theory. Only, what they claim is "evolution" and claim is the proof scientists look to is really not. I mean, when you say that scientists look to this fossil that has long since been proven false, with no mention that the science absolutely acknowledges that fraud and that there is other evidence... etc. These are not academic disagreements, they are distortions of truth.

When they say things like the grand canyon might have been made by Noah's flood and try to claim that there is no real basis for why science says the opposit is not just believed, but proven true... then it is a lie.

[JPcelticfc]

I believe in god, but dont believe a great flood came and wiped out the dinos.
Its a story taken from the Old Testament its not meant to be taken literally.
Those who point out that there is fossilised sea creatures on mountain tops. Theres a reasonable explanation for that. Plates move!! Mount Everest wasen't always a mountain, It was formed by the Indian plate pushing up into the asian plate causing the land to rise. Before that an ocean could have easily existed over that land. Look at my own country Ireland, we used to be a desert and a tropical rainforest lol

[Lionz]

Jones,

What do you mean? What has been done to explain that?

Player,

Are you meaning to suggest that does show a mountain formed by layers of mud, but layers of mud that somehow remained mud well above sea level for millions of years? And are you meaning to suggest a flood would have laid down one layer of sediment as opposed to several distinct layers? And can you point out a place where I have said oh, but did I really say that?

Woodruff,

Where am I lying? Maybe I'm a technical person, but does A equal B and is either something that is my personal statement?

A. We should not have as many fossils as we do.

B. So there should not be many fossils, right?

Note... neither includes a claim of me in here or in anywhere else depending on definition at least maybe... I might post quite a bit of images with words that are not my own... maybe we should weigh evidence for ourselves and I know little to nothing.

McMutton,

If we approach trying to figure out what occured in the past while falsely assuming that a random distribution of dust particles came together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years, what is going to happen whether you claim I'm rejecting science or not? Do you claim I'm rejecting something that does not rest on that having occured?

How about I theorize and you tell me what's wrong with one or more theory? What should be seen that is not seen if gem filled earth was instantly created out of non-matter less than 7,000 years ago and less than 4,500 years ago there was an earthwide flood leading to a layer of fossil filled sedimentary rock on earth's surface?

Want me to poke at a theory? Did particles evolve into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolve into living materials and living materials evolve into more and more complex plants and animals and finally into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution without there being a decrease of entropy in the Universe?

Want to discuss whether or not Him flooding earth and killing life on it as a result would have been an immoral thing for Him to do? How many non-nephil humans were on earth when the flood started if the flood actually occured and started at some point? Earth was filled with extreme violence and famine perhaps. What if the flood actually helped prevent early human extinction and there were souls who had died that were crying out and desiring judgement? How about go here and look for links and get back to me?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 9#p2659419

JPceltic,

Where do we draw a line? Did He die for trangressions of others and then rise from the dead, or no?

And is there a version of Matthew 24:37-39 or 2 Peter 3:3-7 that suggests to you that the flood is not to be taken literally?

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

Are you meaning to suggest that does show a mountain formed by layers of mud, but layers of mud that somehow remained mud well above sea level for millions of years?

No.

And are you meaning to suggest a flood would have laid down one layer of sediment as opposed to several distinct layers?

Essentially, though each layer is itself often composed of layers within the "single" layer.

And can you point out a place where I have said oh, but did I really say that?

The young earth creationism again thread, The is God logical thread. I cannot be bothered to find the place. If you won't admit you do that, then it rather lends credence to the "troll" bit.