Jump to content

The Scientists Thread


koops
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes I do have a chip when it comes to annoying posters.

My detailed explanation was, apparently, not detailed enough and judging from the response, looks like no matter what I say, you're sticking with what you want to believe.

Cheers!

 

 

Maybe you should find something else to do if you find yourself losing control over other folks posts. Also, you might find it helpful if you do not jump into posts that are not addressed to you, without first knowing the background.

Sherm and I have a history of baiting each other. He tells jokes about me, I try to wind him up. But, it's lighthearted and just a bit of fun. When I called Sherm a clown, he knew it was bait, and swam by without biting. You, however did bite. (See the Venting/Complaining/whining thread for some of Sherm's jokes)

 

Congratulation, you actually deserve the title "clown".

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catweazle earlier stated that humans share a lot of DNA with bananas.

-Reading catweazles latest rant, I can see how this could be true.

-I mean the bloke is clearly bananas!!!

 

Field of science has had it's chare of hoaxes, but do keep in mind that if you find one hoax scientist, it does not mean all scientists are suspect of fraud.

-And indeed, you can find much more hoaxes in the field of theology!

 

Archeology has found, for many species, unbroken chain of remains (skeletons) that show how the species have evolved into the ones earth has now. Fopr example, it has shown how smaller dinosaurs evolved into birds. Even humans, although still having a missing link or two, has this chain of evolution.

 

Great thing about science is that your findings and writings have to stand close scientific scrutiny by you fellow scientists. And believe me, in field of science, your fellow scientist are very keen to show you wrong!

 

I trust in scientists because they have actually srudied their subject matter, gotten their hands dirty, as you might say.

-But theologists, they just make things up in their comfy chambers. Now, trusting such lazy and ignorat individuals, and their made up theories, is rather silly in my opinion.

 

But each to his own.

Nice one Sherm. Using BBclown as bait. Kudos.

 

You will notice that I said, "not all scientists play by the rules".  That statement in know way implies that all scientists are subject to fraud. However, the article I posted clearly shows the damage that does occur from dishonest scientists. Fooling the world for nearly a hundred years with a lie that made it into school text books, is no small matter.

 

With regard to theology, that field is the master of fooling the world with hoaxes. We have debaited theology before. Did you forget on that topic we have more agreement than disagreement?

 

You say you trust in scientists. Remember, scientists are only people and are subject to human failings, as Mr Charles Marsh has shown.

 

I love science, and I admire scientists. However, I don't admire the field of evolution. I'm quite confident that the Theory of Evolution, will never be called the Law of Evolution!!!

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Sherm. Using BBclown as bait. Kudos.

 

You will notice that I said, "not all scientists play by the rules".  That statement in know way implies that all scientists are subject to fraud. However, the article I posted clearly shows the damage that does occur from dishonest scientists. Fooling the world for nearly a hundred years with a lie that made it into school text books, is no small matter.

 

With regard to theology, that field is the master of fooling the world with hoaxes. We have debaited theology before. Did you forget on that topic we have more agreement than disagreement?

 

You say you trust in scientists. Remember, scientists are only people and are subject to human failings, as Mr Charles Marsh has shown.

 

I love science, and I admire scientists. However, I don't admire the field of evolution. I'm quite confident that the Theory of Evolution, will never be called the Law of Evolution!!!

 

I'd agree on that! :icon_cheesygrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Sherm. Using BBclown as bait. Kudos.

 

You will notice that I said, "not all scientists play by the rules".  That statement in know way implies that all scientists are subject to fraud. However, the article I posted clearly shows the damage that does occur from dishonest scientists. Fooling the world for nearly a hundred years with a lie that made it into school text books, is no small matter.

 

With regard to theology, that field is the master of fooling the world with hoaxes. We have debaited theology before. Did you forget on that topic we have more agreement than disagreement?

 

You say you trust in scientists. Remember, scientists are only people and are subject to human failings, as Mr Charles Marsh has shown.

 

I love science, and I admire scientists. However, I don't admire the field of evolution. I'm quite confident that the Theory of Evolution, will never be called the Law of Evolution!!!

 

I'm also quite sure that the theory of evolution will never be called the law of evolution.

Of course, that's because theories and laws are 2 different things. If someone were to determine a valid law of evolution then we would have both a theory and a law.

 

I'm not sure if evolution lends itself to the formulation of a law in the same way that, for instance, gravity does. (Note for non-scientists: we have both a theory of gravity as well as a law of gravity).

 

In any case, there is so much evidence supporting the theory of evolution and it is such a fundamental underpinning of all of biology and the other life siences, that it is hardly something that could be considered questionable. If it were questionable, it wouldn't be a theory.

Edited by 4ofN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also quite sure that the theory of evolution will never be called the law of evolution.

Of course, that's because theories and laws are 2 different things. If someone were to determine a valid law of evolution then we would have both a theory and a law.

 

I'm not sure if evolution lends itself to the formulation of a law in the same way that, for instance, gravity does. (Note for non-scientists: we have both a theory of gravity as well as a law of gravity).

 

You're right of course.

If you wish - for non-scientists - it'd be nice in the very essence to clarify what the difference between the theory of gravity and a law of gravity.

Thanks

Falling_apple_on_Newton.gif
Edited by wannamaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right of course.

If you wish - for non-scientists - it'd be nice in the very essence to clarify what the difference between the theory of gravity and a law of gravity.

Thanks

Falling_apple_on_Newton.gif

 

I take it that will can see the rule of gravity's effect but we don't understand the cause of the effect. I may be wrong, I'm no scientist.

 

Maybe if the hypothetical Graviton gets obsevered we'll know more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also quite sure that the theory of evolution will never be called the law of evolution.

Of course, that's because theories and laws are 2 different things. If someone were to determine a valid law of evolution then we would have both a theory and a law.

 

I'm not sure if evolution lends itself to the formulation of a law in the same way that, for instance, gravity does. (Note for non-scientists: we have both a theory of gravity as well as a law of gravity).

 

In any case, there is so much evidence supporting the theory of evolution and it is such a fundamental underpinning of all of biology and the other life siences, that it is hardly something that could be considered questionable. If it were questionable, it wouldn't be a theory.

 

I've heard the claim by those that believe in the evolution myth, that evolution is both a theory and fact. In order to give that claim credibility they use gravity to demonstrate a similarity, as gravity is also considered both theory and fact in the eyes of science. Obviously, that is absurd.

 

There is no similarity between evolution theory/fact and gravity theory/fact. Linking the two is just a failed attempt to divert attention away from the truth that evolution cannot be classified as fact, whereas gravity can.

 

Gravity is apparent to every human being on the face of the Earth, and cannot be denied. Gravity can be observed.We all observe and feel the force of gravity, therefore gravity is a fact. Because science does not know how gravity works, theory comes into play.... But, the theory is only based on how it works.

 

Unlike gravity, evolution is not apparent to every human being on the face of the Earth, and billions of people deny and reject it's claims. Evolution cannot be oberseved, therefore evolution cannot be considered fact. Any claim that states evolution can be observed is nothing more than a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard the claim by those that believe in the evolution myth, that evolution is both a theory and fact. In order to give that claim credibility they use gravity to demonstrate a similarity, as gravity is also considered both theory and fact in the eyes of science. Obviously, that is absurd.

 

There is no similarity between evolution theory/fact and gravity theory/fact. Linking the two is just a failed attempt to divert attention away from the truth that evolution cannot be classified as fact, whereas gravity can.

 

Gravity is apparent to every human being on the face of the Earth, and cannot be denied. Gravity can be observed.We all observe and feel the force of gravity, therefore gravity is a fact. Because science does not know how gravity works, theory comes into play.... But, the theory is only based on how it works.

 

Unlike gravity, evolution is not apparent to every human being on the face of the Earth, and billions of people deny and reject it's claims. Evolution cannot be oberseved, therefore evolution cannot be considered fact. Any claim that states evolution can be observed is nothing more than a claim.

 

Bringing gravity into the discussion was not meant to somehow justify evolution, but rather, to point out that the terms theory and law have different meanings and refer to different concepts. From your response to wannamaker, you do seem to understand that difference (a law is like a rule and a theory is like a cause (or explanation)).

 

Your assertion that evolution is a myth is, however, unjustifiable. You should really catch up on your reading before making statements like that. Evolution has been observed in the lab, is supported by fossil evidence, and has been confirmed by gene theory. We can see evolution at play in the mutation of flu viruses that require different vaccinations each year as well as the development of antibiotic resistance strains of various bacteria. This is the basis for all of modern biology.

 

Unfortunately the "fundy right" down in the US are constantly undermining real science education in that country so the school system seems to be having a hard time getting a basic understanding of evolution into the main stream.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of Truth and Lies.

This might sound a bit off topic, but bear with me!

According to the scripture, Christ is both Truth and Light.
-Also, the Holy Spirit is called The Spirit of Truth.

Therefore, it can be stated that Truth is imporant part of what God is.

And so, Those that dedicate their lives to the search of Truths, big and small, are in fact reaching towards God, wether they know it or not.

I would even state that people who seek truth, such as scientists, are the real Godly people on Earth.

What about lies, then?
Well, scripture says that Devil is the father of lies and that liars are spawn of Devil.

Therefore, those people who support lies and spread lies, must be in league with Devil.
-After all, God would hardly condone lying, eh?

 


Now, to an example: Copernicus vs the Church

Copernicus stated that Earth goes around the Sun, which is true.

Church opposed, and said that Sun goes around Earth, which is untrue.

Church also said that if Copernicus keeps telling the truth about Sun and Earth, they'll kill him.

Now, clearly Copernicus was on the side of Truth there, and therefore on the side of God.

Same story has been repeated several times. Scientists have claimed something, and church has claimed the opposite.

In every case, scientists have won, because they had the truth of the matter.

Truth will out, because truth is eternal. Lies are just fabricated stories. They cannot last forever.

 

I will always side with truth, because I am certain it is the side God is on.

 

BTW: Since God is the ultimate truth, at the end of all truths, then it is clear that when science finally finds the truth in all things, then it will actually find God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing gravity into the discussion was not meant to somehow justify evolution, but rather, to point out that the terms theory and law have different meanings and refer to different concepts. From your response to wannamaker, you do seem to understand that difference (a law is like a rule and a theory is like a cause (or explanation)).

 

Your assertion that evolution is a myth is, however, unjustifiable. You should really catch up on your reading before making statements like that. Evolution has been observed in the lab, is supported by fossil evidence, and has been confirmed by gene theory. We can see evolution at play in the mutation of flu viruses that require different vaccinations each year as well as the development of antibiotic resistance strains of various bacteria. This is the basis for all of modern biology.

 

Unfortunately the "fundy right" down in the US are constantly undermining real science education in that country so the school system seems to be having a hard time getting a basic understanding of evolution into the main stream.

Yes, there is probably error in my quotes on law and theory. Maybe my statement should have simply been, “I’m confident that the theory of evolution will always be a theory”. However, bringing gravity into the discussion does indeed highlight the subject as an example evolutionist use as a paradigm for theory/fact. Do you have another example of theory/fact as using gravity does not work?

 

My assertion that evolution is a myth is not an assertion, it is a fact. However, I don’t expect you to see that as you are obviously convinced by the false science. I don’t foresee my convincing you of that, and I know you cannot convince to the contrary. So, I’m assuming an exchange of evolution/creation subject matter will only result in circular argument. I do have some knowledge of the false science of evolution. But, do you have any knowledge of theology?

 

I agree that the “fundy right” (which I am not part of) creates confusion. However, the confusion they cause is theology error.

 

Tell me. In your evolutionary opinion, when will humans evolve into a non-theist species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of Truth and Lies.

This might sound a bit off topic, but bear with me!

According to the scripture, Christ is both Truth and Light.

-Also, the Holy Spirit is called The Spirit of Truth.

Therefore, it can be stated that Truth is imporant part of what God is.

And so, Those that dedicate their lives to the search of Truths, big and small, are in fact reaching towards God, wether they know it or not.

I would even state that people who seek truth, such as scientists, are the real Godly people on Earth.

What about lies, then?

Well, scripture says that Devil is the father of lies and that liars are spawn of Devil.

Therefore, those people who support lies and spread lies, must be in league with Devil.

-After all, God would hardly condone lying, eh?

 

Now, to an example: Copernicus vs the Church

Copernicus stated that Earth goes around the Sun, which is true.

Church opposed, and said that Sun goes around Earth, which is untrue.

Church also said that if Copernicus keeps telling the truth about Sun and Earth, they'll kill him.

Now, clearly Copernicus was on the side of Truth there, and therefore on the side of God.

Same story has been repeated several times. Scientists have claimed something, and church has claimed the opposite.

In every case, scientists have won, because they had the truth of the matter.

Truth will out, because truth is eternal. Lies are just fabricated stories. They cannot last forever.

 

I will always side with truth, because I am certain it is the side God is on.

 

BTW: Since God is the ultimate truth, at the end of all truths, then it is clear that when science finally finds the truth in all things, then it will actually find God.

You have made some good points. Truth should be the desire of all individuals, wheather scientist or labourer.

 

Everthing has a fundamental truth, no matter what.

 

The problem with the human race, is that we cannot agree on what the truth is. We live in eternal disagreement.

 

So, what is the solution. When will we all be in agreement.

 

Something to think about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is probably error in my quotes on law and theory. Maybe my statement should have simply been, “I’m confident that the theory of evolution will always be a theory”. However, bringing gravity into the discussion does indeed highlight the subject as an example evolutionist use as a paradigm for theory/fact. Do you have another example of theory/fact as using gravity does not work?

 

My assertion that evolution is a myth is not an assertion, it is a fact. However, I don’t expect you to see that as you are obviously convinced by the false science. I don’t foresee my convincing you of that, and I know you cannot convince to the contrary. So, I’m assuming an exchange of evolution/creation subject matter will only result in circular argument. I do have some knowledge of the false science of evolution. But, do you have any knowledge of theology?

 

I agree that the “fundy right” (which I am not part of) creates confusion. However, the confusion they cause is theology error.

 

Tell me. In your evolutionary opinion, when will humans evolve into a non-theist species?

 

Excellent "I’m confident that the theory of evolution will always be a theory". Then we are in agreement.

 

Of course I use the word theory in the scientific sense so to me that statement means that evolutionary theory is accepted. I suspect that you may be using the word theory in the non-scientific "just a theory" sense rather than the proper scientific one. Since this is "the scientists thread" I think that using the word in the correct scientific sense would be appropriate.

 

I'm a little surprised that you even watch the big bang theory. The show is rooted in science which must be difficult for you since you seem to reject science - calling it "false".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent "I’m confident that the theory of evolution will always be a theory". Then we are in agreement.

 

Of course I use the word theory in the scientific sense so to me that statement means that evolutionary theory is accepted. I suspect that you may be using the word theory in the non-scientific "just a theory" sense rather than the proper scientific one. Since this is "the scientists thread" I think that using the word in the correct scientific sense would be appropriate.

 

I'm a little surprised that you even watch the big bang theory. The show is rooted in science which must be difficult for you since you seem to reject science - calling it "false".

Yes, you are correct. I am using the word “theory” in the non-scientific sense. The scientific sense is nonsense!!

 

You are surprised that I watch TBBT. Maybe, if you research the show's viewers you may discover a wide variation in opinions and occupations. Are you really suggesting that the viewers not employed in the field of science find the show difficult? 

 

If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I'm calling evolution false. Where did you see me call all science false?

 

By the way, you didn’t answer my question. It’s a real question. Do you believe that humans will evolve into a non-theist species?

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are correct. I am using the word “theory” in the non-scientific sense. The scientific sense is nonsense!!

 

You are surprised that I watch TBBT. Maybe, if you research the show's viewers you may discover a wide variation in opinions and occupations. Are you really suggesting that the viewers not employed in the field of science find the show difficult? 

 

If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I'm calling evolution false. Where did you see me call all science false?

 

By the way, you didn’t answer my question. It’s a real question. Do you believe that humans will evolve into a non-theist species?

Well, you obviously don't understand or accept evolution and I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

 

Your position on the validity of science is answered in your own post when you say that the scientific use of the word theory is nonsense. If you dispute something as foundational as the basic scientific vocabulary then it is hard to imagine that you take the subject seriously

 

As for the question about humans evolving into a non-theist species, what I or anyone else "believes" about the issue is irrelevant. What I know is that evolution is not guided (as discussed, there is no "law of evolution") so there is no way to specifically determine how evolution would affect cultural issues such as the percentage of a population that believes (or doesn't believe) in the existence of one or more gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you obviously don't understand or accept evolution and I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

 

Your position on the validity of science is answered in your own post when you say that the scientific use of the word theory is nonsense. If you dispute something as foundational as the basic scientific vocabulary then it is hard to imagine that you take the subject seriously

 

As for the question about humans evolving into a non-theist species, what I or anyone else "believes" about the issue is irrelevant. What I know is that evolution is not guided (as discussed, there is no "law of evolution") so there is no way to specifically determine how evolution would affect cultural issues such as the percentage of a population that believes (or doesn't believe) in the existence of one or more gods.

 

You are wrong I do understand evolution. Evolution is a necessary belief for the non-theist. As even the non-theist understands life had to have a beginning, the evolution myth, explain how that is possible without intelligent design.

 

I maintain that the scientific sense of the word “theory “with regard to the evolution myth is nonsense. Just as a hypothetical particle is no longer hypothetical after observation, a theory is no longer a theory upon undeniable proof of fact. Evolution does not fit those criteria.

 

Maybe as you’ve failed to answer my question with regard to humans evolving into a non-theistic species you can answer this one..... In your evolutionary opinion, why have humans evolved with a theistic majority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong I do understand evolution. Evolution is a necessary belief for the non-theist. As even the non-theist understands life had to have a beginning, the evolution myth, explain how that is possible without intelligent design.

 

I maintain that the scientific sense of the word “theory “with regard to the evolution myth is nonsense. Just as a hypothetical particle is no longer hypothetical after observation, a theory is no longer a theory upon undeniable proof of fact. Evolution does not fit those criteria.

 

Maybe as you’ve failed to answer my question with regard to humans evolving into a non-theistic species you can answer this one..... In your evolutionary opinion, why have humans evolved with a theistic majority?

 

Hmmmm, you say that you understand the theory of evolution but immediately talk about the beginning of life. The theory of evolution does not (and is not meant to) have anything to do with the beginning of life.

 

Pro tip: If you are interested in the begining of life, google "abiogenesis".

 

So thats enough feeding of this particular troll for me.

 

ttfn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, you say that you understand the theory of evolution but immediately talk about the beginning of life. The theory of evolution does not (and is not meant to) have anything to do with the beginning of life.

 

Pro tip: If you are interested in the begining of life, google "abiogenesis".

 

So thats enough feeding of this particular troll for me.

 

ttfn.

 

I was being facetious. Maybe I should have stated I understand the need for atheists to invent a theory of evolution in order to deny the alternative.

 

I’ll pass on your pro tip. Evolutionist cannot agree on an evolutionary explanation of how life evolved (Beginning of life). One minute its amino acids coming together in a primordial soup, the next its microbes arriving on a meteorite.

 

Your personal insult, calling me a troll, only goes to highlight your inability to remain civil. I have made no personal remarks to you. You may not have liked the questions I asked (as you didn’t answer) but I see no need to be invective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationists are always asking solid proof for stuff like evolution.

 

How about giving us solid proof of creation???

 

So, any creationists reading this, would you kindly answer the following:

 

According to scripture, God created first Earth and plantlife, among other things. And only after this, did God create Sun and Moon.

-So, accoding to scripture, Earth and plantlife appeared first, then Sun and Moon.

 

Now, scientists say that Sun came first, then Earth, then life on Earth.

(As far as only these three things are concerned.)

 

Now, could somebody give me solid, scientific proof that Earth and life did indeed come into being before Sun even existed. Because if you cannot proof this to be possible, then you cannot proof creation as it is told in the Bible.

 

Thank you kindly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationists are always asking solid proof for stuff like evolution.

 

How about giving us solid proof of creation???

 

So, any creationists reading this, would you kindly answer the following:

 

According to scripture, God created first Earth and plantlife, among other things. And only after this, did God create Sun and Moon.

-So, accoding to scripture, Earth and plantlife appeared first, then Sun and Moon.

 

Now, scientists say that Sun came first, then Earth, then life on Earth.

(As far as only these three things are concerned.)

 

Now, could somebody give me solid, scientific proof that Earth and life did indeed come into being before Sun even existed. Because if you cannot proof this to be possible, then you cannot proof creation as it is told in the Bible.

 

Thank you kindly.

 

When you say you want clear scientific proof, you should take into consideration that God created all things, including physics. The Bible is clear that God controls physics and bends and changes physics at His will. If you want proof of that, all you need to do is read the miracles that are throughout scripture.

 

It is physically impossible to change water into wine. It is physically impossible to bring back to life a man that has been dead for four days. It is impossible for a physical body to walk on water, impossible for a donkey to talk, and so on. All those things are scientifically impossible, and no scientific proof that they occurred can be given. If you believe in God then you should have belief in what God has made known in the Bible. Of course scientists don’t believe in miracles, nor can they accept the concept of a non physical existence. (The spirit realm)

 

With regard to plants being created before the sun, you will notice in Genesis 3 that God created light first. Scripture tells us that God created light before the sun.

 

Now, if you say that is impossible, then so are the miracles!!!

Edited by Catweazle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say you want clear scientific proof, you should take into consideration that God created all things, including physics. The Bible is clear that God controls physics and bends and changes physics at His will. If you want proof of that, all you need to do is read the miracles that are throughout scripture.

 

It is physically impossible to change water into wine. It is physically impossible to bring back to life a man that has been dead for four days. It is impossible for a physical body to walk on water, impossible for a donkey to talk, and so on. All those things are scientifically impossible, and no scientific proof that they occurred can be given. If you believe in God then you should have belief in what God has made known in the Bible. Of course scientists don’t believe in miracles, nor can they accept the concept of a non physical existence. (The spirit realm)

 

With regard to plants being created before the sun, you will notice in Genesis 3 that God created light first. Scripture tells us that God created light before the sun.

 

Now, if you say that is impossible, then so are the miracles!!!

 

Good answer there.

-I believe in the miracles of J-man, and therefore of course you are right that universe could come into being by God's will in any order. In theory at least. However, there should be direct and physical proof of creation, if such thing happened, in the same way there should be evidence of the Biblical Flood (which there is not) had it really happened.

 

Interesting note here is that there was light before suns formed, in early universe. According to scientists, the matter in the early univese started glowing, giving off photons, even before the stuff started forming into early suns. So, there was light, but no suns!

That being said, I doubt life could have been there before first generation suns formed.

 

As to evolution, there are very interesting books about cultural evolution. These books state that groups of humans that believe in Gods and supernatural phenomena, do better than groups that do not believe in Gods.

-Reason is that those societys that believe in Gods tend to behave better, do less 'sins' and they also have a feeling that their exsistence has a deeper meaning. Which promotes well being and survival of such societys.

-Whereas atheistic societys would not see any meaning in life but pleasure, and would self destruct in short order.

 

Cultural evolution is really interesting field of science, and I recommend everybody to read few books on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets dissect the Biblical Flood in scientific manner, shall we.

 

Now, according to scripture, the flood covered earth with a five kilometre thick layer of water for a full year.

 

Now, such event would leave geological evidence, such as:

 

1. The flood would cause all sweet and salty water to mix, resulting in the saltiness of lakes.

-after the flood both seas and lakes would be equally salty, and this saltiness would be evident even today, had flood happened.

 

2.South polar ice, if covered with five kilometre layer of water, would come under tremendous pressures, and would explode to smithereens. Current south polar ice would thus be very thin, if flood had happened.

 

3.Plantlife, bereft of air, light and warmth, would have died off, under the flood, as would have the topsoil and bees and such. Plantlife woudl have suffered such loss that it would have taken it thousand years to recover.

 

4.Plus, if earth was covered in water, it would cause the lowering of surface temperature and the atmospheric temperature, and would cause an ice age.

 

As an answer to the obvious conterargument; why would God erase all signs of such Flood, especially as it was meant as a warning example for people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets dissect the Biblical Flood in scientific manner, shall we.

 

Now, according to scripture, the flood covered earth with a five kilometre thick layer of water for a full year.

 

Now, such event would leave geological evidence, such as:

 

1. The flood would cause all sweet and salty water to mix, resulting in the saltiness of lakes.

-after the flood both seas and lakes would be equally salty, and this saltiness would be evident even today, had flood happened.

 

2.South polar ice, if covered with five kilometre layer of water, would come under tremendous pressures, and would explode to smithereens. Current south polar ice would thus be very thin, if flood had happened.

 

3.Plantlife, bereft of air, light and warmth, would have died off, under the flood, as would have the topsoil and bees and such. Plantlife woudl have suffered such loss that it would have taken it thousand years to recover.

 

4.Plus, if earth was covered in water, it would cause the lowering of surface temperature and the atmospheric temperature, and would cause an ice age.

 

As an answer to the obvious conterargument; why would God erase all signs of such Flood, especially as it was meant as a warning example for people?

 

There are arguments and counter arguments both pro and con for flood/no flood. I don't concern myself with perceived edivence/non evidence. There will always be a groups for both camps. Those that believe in the flood say there is abundant evidence for the flood. Those that do not reject and counter the claimed evidence.

 

For myself I have no problem whatsoever believing in a total world-wide flood. For me the choice is simple, either believe human claims, or believe God's word.

 

Many reject God's abillity to part the red sea claiming it is impossible. Those same people reject the flood for the same reason. Parting the red sea would take a change in the laws of pyhsics, as would covering the wholle earth with water. I don't know how He did it, but I have 100% belief that He did.

 

Having just Googled "Evidence for Noah's flood" dozens of websites claiming archeologically evidence came up. But I, don't feel the need to view them, as God's word is all I need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, however, The Flood is a folk story, and not the word of God, so there is no need to believe in it.

 

BTW: all 'proofs' of flood have always turned out to be shams and frauds, made up by the unscrupulous creationists.

 

 

Good proof of evolution are the archelologic digs

 

Creationists claim that the current animal species have existed since dawn of time.

 

If this was so, then the skeletons of current animal species would have been found in archeological digs.

 

This has not happened, which means that millions of years ago, the current animal species did not exist.

 

Therefore, the animal species that did exist back then, must have evolved to the current species.

 

 

However, I do realize that trying to cure insanity with logic does not work, so I will not bother to talk to catweazle anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, however, The Flood is a folk story, and not the word of God, so there is no need to believe in it.

 

BTW: all 'proofs' of flood have always turned out to be shams and frauds, made up by the unscrupulous creationists.

 

 

Good proof of evolution are the archelologic digs

 

Creationists claim that the current animal species have existed since dawn of time.

 

If this was so, then the skeletons of current animal species would have been found in archeological digs.

 

This has not happened, which means that millions of years ago, the current animal species did not exist.

 

Therefore, the animal species that did exist back then, must have evolved to the current species.

 

 

However, I do realize that trying to cure insanity with logic does not work, so I will not bother to talk to catweazle anymore.

 

I'm sorry if i've offended you in some way, I'm not sure how though.  I do enjoy our chats, we have different views and beliefs, which is the way of the world. Exchange of views, opinions and beliefs are an enjoyable way of learning in my opinion. I'd like to address your comments but I will respect your decision. Pity though.

 

Once again, sorry for any unintended offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.