10 Jul 05
Originally posted by Jay PeateaHey you have my respect, many would simply not respond and not
[b] neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood
Try telling that to bangladeshie stuck up a tree, whilst his family, home & livelyhood get washed away
neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth
What about the recent tsunami, plenty of destruction there.
However i agree, technically the text ...[text shortened]...
..........and I would have got away with it, if it hadn't be for those meddling christians [/b]
admit they made a small mistake. Personally, I think it is one of
the most adult things a person can do. I was going to say manly,
but thought women would kick my butt for being sexest. 🙂
Kelly
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionDon't misunderstand. I'm not trying to justify the flood myth with this information, nor does the data support any sort of worldwide flood catastrophe. Granted, this is only one researcher (well, his team), but he is tenured by a (ahem) respected institution:
I don't know Dave. I am not up to snuff on the subject of glacial cores. If each layer is deposited annually, and then I would think there would be a frozen mud layer right about that period. I would wonder how the water didn't melt the glaciers (maybe God kept all the water tempratures constant at their pre-Flood levels even as billions of gallons of fresh water fell into it at incredible rates.
http://www.news-about-space.org/story/2409.html
Additionally, we have the ongoing Holocene extinction. Milestone events include the relatively sudden disappearance of so-called "megafauna" circa 13000-9000 BCE. Could the trigger for the proto-myth of global disaster predate Usher's calculations?
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by David CAre you sure you gave the correct address?
Don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to justify the flood myth with this information, nor does the data support any sort of worldwide flood catastrophe. Granted, this is only one researcher (well, his team), but he is tenured by a (ahem) respected institution:
http://www.news-about-space.org/story/2409.html
Additionally, we have the ongoing Holocene e ...[text shortened]... 9000 BCE. Could the trigger for the proto-myth of global disaster predate Usher's calculations?
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by David CDecember 16, 2004 Glaciologist Lonnie Thompson worries that he may have found clues that show history repeating itself, and if he is right, the result could have important implications to modern society.
Yeah, pretty sure. Is it not loading for you?
Thompson has spent his career trekking to the far corners of the world to find remote ice fields and then bring back cores drilled from their centers. Within those cores are the records of ancient climate from across the globe.
this one??? 2409
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightOk, ok. I give you credit for the PANTIES idea, and you can use it as you will. (I just wish I had thought of it first!) Though I must insist that we all get credit for 'seeking the truth'.
Coal started forming 390 million years ago, any geologist would know that. Your site is off the beaten path enough to be totally lost.
"PANTies" could be applied to the either side, but since I coined it, I apply it to creationists. Evolutionists aren't PANTies, by definition, since they seek Truth. If it turns out that Goddunnit, then tha ...[text shortened]... rs old and that evolution happened.
I'm ready to let this thread die, there's nothing here.
But, when you say this..........
Coal started forming 390 million years ago, any geologist would know that. Your site is off the beaten path enough to be totally lost.
........I have to point out that this idea only fits into the contrived theory. It is not a fact that any geologist 'knows'; but an idea that most unthinking geology students are taught, and absorb without analyzing.
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58You are confusing geology and theology students.
I have to point out that this idea only fits into the contrived theory. It is not a fact that any geologist 'knows'; but an idea that most unthinking geology students are taught, and absorb without analyzing.
How is coal forming over millions of years absurd? Do you have any evidence that contradicts the (literal) mountain of evidence for it?
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by Jay Peateayeah....but you're not here to 'get away with' anything are you?
[b] neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood
Try telling that to bangladeshie stuck up a tree, whilst his family, home & livelyhood get washed away
neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth
What about the recent tsunami, plenty of destruction there.
However i agree, technically the text ...[text shortened]...
..........and I would have got away with it, if it hadn't be for those meddling christians [/b]
We are all seeking the truth. I will be bold enough to speak for everyone when I say that we all want the truth, whatever it turns out to be.
Indeed, there is plenty of destruction in the earth, from all kinds of sources. For whatever reason, God promised that He would not destroy the whole earth again, with the same kind of flood. He did not promise there would be no horrible troubles.
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZFirst of all, noone ever saw coal form. We find it, oftentimes in massive amounts, and then imagine how it might have formed. We can conclude that it came from the carbonization of plant life easily enough. We figure that the plants must have been extremely abundant, then buried, and placed under tremendous pressure.
You are confusing geology and theology students.
How is coal forming over millions of years absurd? Do you have any evidence that contradicts the (literal) mountain of evidence for it?
The only method to have all of this happen, if one deliberately avoids considering a global flood that would wash whole forests away, push the debris into some corner somewhere, and then have them buried by another sediment laden current; is the slow gathering of one dieing tree after another. Then, somehow, that tree can't rot away in any normal way. It must stay relatively intact until more and more generations of forests die on top, without any intervening depositions of sediments and then maintain its potential for coal formation while a few more millions of years pass while the assumed slow deposition of overriding layers occurs.
Absurd is the word.
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I've heard the statement "no one saw coal form" or whatever as a negation of the idea that we can deduce anything "for sure"
First of all, noone ever saw coal form. We find it, oftentimes in massive amounts, and then imagine how it might have formed. We can conclude that it came from the carbonization of plant life easily enough. We figure that the plants must have been extremely abundant, then buried, and placed under tremendous pressure.
The only method to have all of t ...[text shortened]... years pass while the assumed slow deposition of overriding layers occurs.
Absurd is the word.
Not so, as a simple example will illustrate. We look out a window and see two cars travelling away from each other on a straight two lane highway. We can measure their speed and compute when they passed each other without actually seeing them passing each other.
Similar reasoning can be used to deduce things that happened before there were humans around to see them ie 390 million years ago when coal started to form.
10 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightwe do see coal forming when we see it in every stage of development . only noncomposmentists can't see it 'tis a pity they can't think rationally but then, they arent rational so ya can't expect any better from them..
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. I've heard the statement "no one saw coal form" or whatever as a negation of the idea that we can deduce anything "for sure"
Not so, as a simple example will illustrate. We look out ...[text shortened]... d to see them ie 390 million years ago when coal started to form.
Im not refering to people that actually realize that it would take real science to dispute geology and not the freaking word games this new batch of creationists have resorted to.
It's a shame that nice guys like KellyJay are caught in the crossfire
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompI know what you are saying.
we do see coal forming when we see it in every stage of development . only noncomposmentists can't see it 'tis a pity they can't think rationally but then, they arent rational so ya can't expect any better from them..
Im not refering to people that actually realize that
We can also see rivers cut out channels, but some people insist that the Grand Canyon had to be caused by a flood, global in scope, that happened recently and in a very short time.
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightHave you seen the Grand Canyon and the river in it, you see any
I know what you are saying.
We can also see rivers cut out channels, but some people insist that the Grand Canyon had to be caused by a flood, global in scope, that happened recently and in a very short time.
other river on the planet with canyons of equal size around them?
Why don't all the rivers have canyons of greater or equal size around
them?
Kelly
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayBecause the conditions were different around other rivers.
Have you seen the Grand Canyon and the river in it, you see any
other river on the planet with canyons of equal size around them?
Why don't all the rivers have canyons of greater or equal size around
them?
Kelly
Why don't all rivers have Grand Canyons if it was caused by the Flood? Conditions would have been nearly identical in that case, flooded under thousands of feet of water at the same time, for the same time.
10 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightOkay, I agree if the conditions were the same, but with rivers are
Because the conditions were different around other rivers.
Why don't all rivers have Grand Canyons if it was caused by the Flood? Conditions would have been nearly identical in that case, flooded under thousands of feet of water at the same time, for the same time.
not all rivers eating away at all around them? I can see the Grand
Canyon occuring because of major event because of the special
conditions at that place that are not the same else where. To say
that the river did it, and have major rivers else where without such
large canyons makes me think rivers may not have as much to do
with it as some think.
Kelly