Originally posted by galveston75Evidence? What evidence?!
I think in this case I'll stick to the Bible and God's word as well as the evidence the earth clearly shows about the flood over this man who was obviously not there to say it did or didn't happen. Deal?
This flower found under an ice cap in Chile which you bizarrely claimed was evidence for the Biblical flood doesn't even tie in with the date you think the flood happened!!! A point you keep ignoring.
As for the rest of your evidence, it's laughably, utterly laughable. I think there is a very large discrepancy between what you and i would call evidence. You seem to be under the delusion that whatever you can think off constitutes evidence, that might work in 'bonkers world', me though living in the land of the sane, i like to have a little bit more than that.
Originally posted by Proper KnobI did not ignor it but it's just not what you want to hear. It is clear to me that you in no way will even consider what this evidence means and are unwilling to even admit anything that would give proof to the flood. Your so determind to be a Godless person, it's gettting in your way of seeing proof that's every where on this planet.
Evidence? What evidence?!
This flower found under an ice cap in Chile which you bizarrely claimed was evidence for the Biblical flood doesn't even tie in with the date you think the flood happened!!! A point you keep ignoring.
As for the rest of your evidence, it's laughably, utterly laughable. I think there is a very large discrepancy between what ...[text shortened]... orld', me though living in the land of the sane, i like to have a little bit more than that.
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/is-carbon-dating-accurate-faq.htm
This is one of many articles that explains the inaccuracy of carbon dating. The less then one thousand years that the carbon dating is saying with the 5200 years as opposed to 4593 years since the flood actually happened is to be expected.
Also now once the sun was now totally exposed to the surface of the earth after the flood occured, would also make the inaccuracy of carbon dating become even more of an issue.
Originally posted by galveston75Determined to be Godless? What are you wittering about? My rejection of your 'evidence' has nothing to do with my 'determination to be Godless', it has to do with my looking at your evidence with rationality. No respectable geologist in the world agrees with your 'evidence', as i demonstrated in an above post, even a geologist who's an evangelical Christian disagrees with your 'evidence' Do you think he disagrees with you because of his 'determination to be Godless'?! No, so stop being absurd.
I did not ignor it but it's just not what you want to hear. It is clear to me that you in no way will even consider what this evidence means and are unwilling to even admit anything that would give proof to the flood. Your so determind to be a Godless person, it's gettting in your way of seeing proof that's every where on this planet.
http://www.alla ...[text shortened]... flood occured, would also make the inaccuracy of carbon dating become even more of an issue.
As for your radio carbon dating claim. It just makes my point which i've made countless times. If the science agrees with your religious then of course it is correct, it the science disagrees with your religious beliefs then of course it is incorrect. You just pick and choose whatever you want to fit your beliefs. For instance, show me a respectable geologist who believes the Himalayan mountain range is only 4,300 years old?!
The flood occurred 4593 years ago? I though you claimed the flood occurred 2370BCE? That would make it 4381 years ago.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe common accepted ideas in science have be wrong so many times
Determined to be Godless? What are you wittering about? My rejection of your 'evidence' has nothing to do with my 'determination to be Godless', it has to do with my looking at your evidence with rationality. No respectable geologist in the world agrees with your 'evidence', as i demonstrated in an above post, even a geologist who's an evangelical Christ ...[text shortened]... I though you claimed the flood occurred 2370BCE? That would make it 4381 years ago.
in the past why would one not believe they might be wrong again and
again? The mistakes in science have been so many that I would not
accept any scientific explanation unless it agrees with the Book of
Truth, the Holy Bible, which has always been right.
I admit I cling to my faith but creationist have tried to make models fit with the data we see in geology and origins of the universe and many times they have to reject these models because they defy some basic tenet of physics. I love science and physics I just don't have the maths and basics to comprehend it fully. Some of the issues however creationist need to wrestle with whether we like it or not. (granted we can fall back on God did it and that's it but this is not enough for some) The young earth old earth issue is a big one for me. The Star light issue is a big one for me. How can people believe that the universe is only 10,000 years old when there is light we are just now seeing from objects said to be a 100,000 light years away or further? Creationist (some) said well God created the light in transit. If this be so then that supernova being seen that is million light years out actually never existed. This would mean a deceptive God!! Also the idea that God planted fossils how ludicrous is that? Once again that would make God deceptive. We would have to reject those models.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem
All of the models have problems with what we actually see and observe.
Manny
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich 'common accepted ideas in science' have been 'wrong so many times'?
The common accepted ideas in science have be wrong so many times
in the past why would one not believe they might be wrong again and
again? The mistakes in science have been so many that I would not
accept any scientific explanation unless it agrees with the Book of
Truth, the Holy Bible, which has always been right.
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt was 2370, sorry for the misprint.
Determined to be Godless? What are you wittering about? My rejection of your 'evidence' has nothing to do with my 'determination to be Godless', it has to do with my looking at your evidence with rationality. No respectable geologist in the world agrees with your 'evidence', as i demonstrated in an above post, even a geologist who's an evangelical Christ I though you claimed the flood occurred 2370BCE? That would make it 4381 years ago.
And as RJ stated the Bible has never been proved wrong by proven science. But a of a lot of the science community has been wrong. Look at our world toady with the ecological problems we have that could end life on earth if God does not step in soon.
Originally posted by menace71Yes Manny some of it is still confusing for sure and none of us have the exact answers. Mostly because none of us have lived for the tens of thousands of years to see how things have happened in person in the universe and on our own planet.
I admit I cling to my faith but creationist have tried to make models fit with the data we see in geology and origins of the universe and many times they have to reject these models because they defy some basic tenet of physics. I love science and physics I just don't have the maths and basics to comprehend it fully. Some of the issues however creationist ...[text shortened]... ght_problem
All of the models have problems with what we actually see and observe.
Manny
But with us being Christans and having the bible as our guide from God, that's where we put our faith and trust as we know if will never fail us unlike the science of man which will many times.
We may not exactly know how old the earth is even in comparison to the rest of the universe. But is it beyond God's abilty to create things at different times? Maybe the earth isn't as old as the rest of the universe. None of us know, but the Bible says that in the future new scrolls will be opened and no telling what info will be in them for us to see. I'm sure many questions will be answered then. I hope so for myself.
As far as the flood actually happeneing which I know you believe it did, it seems everyone is looking from the perspective of men and their godless theories, and usually men that don't believe in God or that such a thing could ever happen such as our friend Knob does here.
But looking at the earth and it's features such as the Grand Canyon from the view of the flood being real and how it made that canyon, the evidence is crystal clear even to everyday guys like us. It's not the complicated mystery they'd like us to believe it is.
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume2/Issue3/ZeroPointEnergyInReview[2].pdf
I spent about 3 hours trying to comprehend this review. I do actually understand the basic premise of ZPE and how it could be the explain the macro-atomic and unify these.
Maybe this is meant for the science forum. I actually have no issue with the flood. I believe that a flood actually did occur. The question might be in the mechanics of it and how it affected the earth. I also look at the flood stories from cultures all over the earth. While some of these stories seem silly I believe they are shadows of a real truth. The universality of the stories is one example. These cultures all believe something cataclysmic happened to the earth in the past. This would include the biblical and Summarian accounts of this story.
Manny
Originally posted by menace71I need to watch that National Geographic show again but I think the Mayans believe it will be another flood again that destroys the world.
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume2/Issue3/ZeroPointEnergyInReview[2].pdf
I spent about 3 hours trying to comprehend this review. I do actually understand the basic premise of ZPE and how it could be the explain the macro-atomic and unify these.
Maybe this is meant for the science forum. I actually have no issue with the flood. I beli ...[text shortened]... arth in the past. This would include the biblical and Summarian accounts of this story.
Manny
The Bible says there will never be aother flood again as was promsed by God with the rainbow so their prophesy is not right but the point is they were referring to what they knew or had been told about an earthwide flood in the past and that's what they think will happen again.
So yes many, many cultures have the story of the flood in their history. If it was just a local event in one area of the planet as some suggest, this legend or story would not be as earth wide as it is.
http://www.setterfield.org/Bibleandgeology.html
Interesting take on things. I don't have enough knowledge to refute or agree with this take but it's seems to be a more violent take on creation and the flood and events mentioned after the flood then most conventional creation models. Check it out G-75 I think you will find it interesting if nothing else.
Manny
Originally posted by Proper KnobOne is the actual speed of light. Scientist can't agree but there seems to be a decay in the speed of light. I'm starting to see that sometimes a theory is held more dear than finding facts that militate against the theory. The more honest approach would be to challenge the theory. I think both sides of the debate are equally guilty of doing this very thing.
Which 'common accepted ideas in science' have been 'wrong so many times'?
Manny
Originally posted by menace71I will. Thanks...
http://www.setterfield.org/Bibleandgeology.html
Interesting take on things. I don't have enough knowledge to refute or agree with this take but it's seems to be a more violent take on creation and the flood and events mentioned after the flood then most conventional creation models. Check it out G-75 I think you will find it interesting if nothing else.
Manny