12 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungis annoying to see people that have zero clue try to pass off word tricks as science in their idiotic attempt to tear down science in an effort to perpetuate myths that formed in the middle east's polytheistic days.
I like to hear their perspectives and see if they make sense to me or not. It does get annoying when people are too biased to listen to my perspective.
wanna bet they think there was a worldwide flood?
or the tower of Babel is responsiple for Chinese speaking Chinese?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat does our history have to do with it? Were you there 2000 years ago?
What does our history have to do with it? Were you there 2000 years ago?
No I don't know if I had an ancestor 200 million years ago. I think it's very probable though.
Our history records that there were human beings living 2000 years ago. Therefore I can safely assume that I had an ancestor living 2000 years ago.
No I don't know if I had an ancestor 200 million years ago. I think it's very probable though.
On what do you base your probability? The big bang? A chemical soup? Do you know what the mathematical probability is of your assumption?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompwanna bet they think there was a worldwide flood?
is annoying to see people that have zero clue try to pass off word tricks as science in their idiotic attempt to tear down science in an effort to perpetuate myths that formed in the middle east's polytheistic days.
wanna bet they think there was a worldwide flood?
or the tower of Babel is responsiple for Chinese speaking Chinese?
Have you ever considered the evidence?
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerplease don't try and disprove any basic science . it gets tedius in the extreme having to bother with it just to punch down a lump in your word game pillow.
[b]wanna bet they think there was a worldwide flood?
Have you ever considered the evidence?[/b]
basic earth sciences like geology aint gonna be overturned for a myth.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompI will not try to disprove any basic science. Would you mind answering my question. Have you considered the evidence for a worldwide flood?
please don't try and disprove any basic science . it gets tedius in the extreme having to bother with it just to punch down a lump in your word game pillow.
basic earth sciences like geology aint gonna be overturned for a myth.
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerummm ,,, There is NO evidence for there ever being a worldwide flood.
I will not try to disprove any basic science. Would you mind answering my question. Have you considered the evidence for a worldwide flood?
but Im sure some pseudo scientist has tried to fake some. so hit me wid ur best shot.
I aint got forever ya know.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstompActually you are just revealing your ignorance. You only need to type the words "evidence for a universal flood" in a google search and I'm sure you'll find more than you can swallow.
ummm ,,, There is NO evidence for there ever being a worldwide flood.
but Im sure some pseudo scientist has tried to fake some. so hit me wid ur best shot.
I aint got forever ya know.
But in the mean while here is something:
"One of the most fascinating scientific discoveries in recent times regarding a universal flood came from some scientists who were not searching for any evidence of the Flood. It came from oceanographers in the Gulf of Mexico who were doing some rather routine research on coral and sediments of the ocean floor.
Their two oceanographic vessels had pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender core samples of the sediment, which includes the fossil shells of one-celled plankton called foraminifera. While still alive, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the temperature and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells fall away and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that ocean bed carries a record of climates that the oceanographers say go back more than 100 million years.
The cores were analyzed in two different investigations-by Cesar Emiliani of the University of Miami, and by James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shack of Cambridge University. Both analyses pointed to a dramatic drop in the salinity of the water providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico thousands of years ago.
Cesar Emiliani explains the results: "A huge amount of ice-melt water rushed into the Gulf of Mexico and produced a sea-level rise that spread around the world with the speed of a tidal wave." He adds, "We know this because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, with a peak about 11,600 years ago. There is no question that there was a flood and there is also no question that it was a universal flood" ("Noah, the Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest, U.S. edition, September 1977, p. 133).
It is also worth mentioning that the radiocarbon dating used to establish the number of years is imprecise after 4,000 years, so the time of this universal deluge could be closer to the 4,300 years described in the Bible as the time of the biblical Flood."
http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/gn0307d.html
12 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerFrom: http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116-3.html
Actually you are just revealing your ignorance. You only need to type the words "evidence for a universal flood" in a google search and I'm sure you'll find more than you can swallow.
But in the mean while here is something:
" ...[text shortened]... cal Flood."
http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/gn0307d.html
The reference to this [quote of dj2becker] is:
"Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134."
This is a popular article, whose author grossly misinterpreted the findings of these scientists. If a person goes back to the original article, they find that the data shows that the flooding was restricted only the Mississippi River. There is simply no evidence that any "universal flood" was involved.
What Randt B doesn't realize in this case, is that the antiquated research cited by Warshofsky, Emiliani et al. (1975), has been rendered obsolete in the 28 years since it was published. If a person looks at the latest research on the meltwater / freshwater events in the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. Aharon (2003), they would find that during the last 18,000 years, large floods of meltwater flowed down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico at 13,400; 12,600; 11,900; 9,900; 9,700; and 9,100 BP. The period of time, argued by Emiliani et al. (1975) to have been a "period of flooding", in fact, was a period of complete cessation of meltwater flow down the Mississippi River between 11,900 and 9,900 BP. Thus, more recent research has disproved Emiliani et al. (1975)'s timing of meltwater floods down the Mississippi, which is used above by Warshofsky to argue for a global flood. In addition, it shows that there were many of these floods than proposed by Emiliani et al. (1975). Using Warshofsky's faulty interpretation of Emiliani et al. (1975), a person would have to admit that there had been **six**, not just one, alleged "global floods" during the last 18,000 years. If the pre-18,000 BP record from the Gulf of Mexico is considered, than the number of alleged "global floods" increases considerably.
References Cited:
Aharon, Paul, 2003, Meltwater flooding events in the Gulf of Mexico
revisited: Implications for rapid climate changes during the last
glaciation. Paleoceanography, Vol. 18, no. 4, 1079, doi: 10.1029/2002PA000840
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002PA000840.shtml
Emiliani, C., Gartner, S., Lidz, B., Eldridge, K., Elvey, D. K.,
Huang, T. C., Stipp, J. J., and Swanson, M. F., 1975,
Paleoclimatological Anaylsis of Late Quaternary Cores from
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol.189, no.4208,
pp. 1083-1088.
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerDidn't we agree on no pseudo science allowed.
Actually you are just revealing your ignorance. You only need to type the words "evidence for a universal flood" in a google search and I'm sure you'll find more than you can swallow.
But in the mean while here is something:
"One of the most fascinating scientific discoveries in recent times regarding a universal flood came from some scientists ...[text shortened]... Bible as the time of the biblical Flood."
http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/gn0307d.html
I wiill deal with simpler things like:
The ark was not big enough to hold the cargo.
A million pairs of animals would need a lot of feeding , a crew of 8 would never been able to feed them.or even know what specialized diets were needed. Not to mention the nghtmare shoveling job the 8 would have everyday.
Just for logistics reasons the clearly was no worldwide flood.
Don't even have to use science to see that that Myth should have been shoveled off your ship of fools.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by bbarrFine. I only inlcuded the first article that I foud. I was not aware that it had been refuted by some evolutionsts. But there is much more evidence which I'd be happy to supply.
From: [b]http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116-3.html
The reference to this [quote of dj2becker] is:
"Warshofsky, Fred, "Noah, The Flood, the Facts," Readers Digest,
Sept. 1977, pp.132-134."
This is a popular article, whose author grossly misinterpreted the findings of these scientists. If a person goes back to the original article, ...[text shortened]... res from
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Science. vol.189, no.4208,
pp. 1083-1088.
[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by frogstompThe ark was not big enough to hold the cargo.
Didn't we agree on no pseudo science allowed.
I wiill deal with simpler things like:
The ark was not big enough to hold the cargo.
A million pairs of animals would need a lot of feeding , a crew of 8 would never been able to feed them.or even know what specialized diets were needed. Not to mention th ...[text shortened]... se science to see that that Myth should have been shoveled off your ship of fools.
The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts. Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars. The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood? According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world. God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished, a Christian motion picture about the Flood)
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.
A million pairs of animals would need a lot of feeding , a crew of 8 would never been able to feed them.or even know what specialized diets were needed. Not to mention the nghtmare shoveling job the 8 would have everyday
Once aboard, many have suggested that Noah's problems really began, with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerAncient Chinese writing consisted of a series of word pictures or pictographs which combined separate features to express a idea or concept. The symbol for Shang Ti (God) is a combination of the symbol for emperor and the symbol for heaven (or above). Thus, the original God worshiped by the Chinese was a single heavenly emperor (not many gods). The Bible states that God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. The ancient Chinese symbol for create is a combination of person (or breath), dust, walking, and alive. Thus, to create, is to have dust walk, breath, and live. The Bible describes a world wide flood catastrophe in which all human life with the exception of eight individuals on a floating vessel were destroyed. The ancient Chinese symbol for 'boat' is vessel, eight, and people. Thus, a boat is eight people onboard of a vessel! The Bible describes that man was told to spread out over the earth after the worldwide flood, yet he rebelled and built a tower to his own glory. God ended this rebellion by confusing man's languages so that they set out and journeyed across the globe in different language groups. Interestingly, the ancient Chinese chose to use the identical symbol for confusion and rebellion...a combination of tongue and right leg (or journey). Thus, to confuse is to set out on a journey with a new tongue (or language). These are just a few of many examples of the historical knowledge of the Bible which the ancient Chinese people must have had as they developed their written language.Many more examples can be found in an excellent book by C.H. Kang and Ethel Nelson called The Discovery of Genesis.
Fine. I only inlcuded the first article that I foud. I was not aware that it had been refuted by some evolutionsts. But there is much more evidence which I'd be happy to supply.
This Article is from Bruce Malone's book, "Search for the Truth".
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerCoal comes from massive amounts of trees and plant matter that has been changed by tremendous heat and pressure. Oil and natural gas form from fish, reptile, and animal matter under similar heat and pressure conditions. The most logical time for coal, oil and gas to form was during and after the world-wide flood, when enormous amounts of animal and vegetable matter underwent mass burial under the incredible destruction and pressure of the flood waters and the sediments. (See Creation "exnihilo" 12 #2: #30). www.answersingenesis.org for article "How fast can oil form."
Fine. I only inlcuded the first article that I foud. I was not aware that it had been refuted by some evolutionsts. But there is much more evidence which I'd be happy to supply.
Diamonds are highly pressurized, pure carbon gems. (Superman used to make them from coal all the time.) Most diamonds appear in "blue ground," in or near the neck of an extinct volcano where magma erupted. The high pressure of volcanic activity could have formed diamonds. Many may have formed when the "fountains of the deep" were broken up or when mountains arose during the last months of the flood" (Psalm 104:6-8.)