AiG: "Evolution not a theory" and "Four power questions"

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings,

I actually think its funny that with an earth with 70% water covering the earth,science says there was no global flood.I just don't believe it can be explained like YEC's explain it.

There was no Noachian flood, and the Earth was never completely covered with water.

I've already explained it to you here.

Thanks for the other links.This is interesting to me but I don't see how it changes much of my points even though I know you're not going to look at it from a biblical perspective.I can tell,because you always do,no matter what evidence I give.

I agree with Visaki's observation - as, indeed, everyone else here has noted.

You are unable/unwilling to take your head out of the bible and look around you at things as they really are.

Kindest regards,

James

Oh the irony!

 

[abelcainsbrother]

You both ignore world wide dust,it in the ice sheets,in the oceans,world wide,a drought caused the dust and it just so happens to date to Noah's flood and you cannot even fathom it could be evidence for Noah's flood.Like I've said repeatedly true science is only going to confirm more of the bible true as scientists make more discoveries.

This is one reason why it is not boring at all to be a Christian and to sit back and watch God confound the wise.This is not proof of a flood but it is evidence after the flood.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There is nothing wrong with it like you imply.You're going to look at it and interpret it from a secular non-biblical view and I'm going to look at it from a biblical view.What's the problem?I did not say it was proof but how do you just explain away world wide dust dated to the time of Noah's flood?A drought after the flood makes sense and it was drought that produced the dust it is even in the ice sheets,this is not just made up stuff,science discovered world wide dust,its in the oceans too and it just so happens to date to Noah's flood.

How can you claim that "a drought after the flood makes sense"?

I've already shown that the drought occurred only in the Northern Hemisphere between certain latitudes - this is not evidence of a "world-wide drought".

You're grasping at this or that scientific discovery to claim as "evidence" for "the flood", the bible, and a creator, without any regard for the fact that each piece of evidence fits a purely natural explanation far better than a belief in the supernatural.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You both ignore world wide dust,it in the ice sheets,in the oceans,world wide,a drought caused the dust and it just so happens to date to Noah's flood and you cannot even fathom it could be evidence for Noah's flood.Like I've said repeatedly true science is only going to confirm more of the bible true as scientists make more discoveries.

It's not "world-wide" - just certain latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

This is one reason why it is not boring at all to be a Christian and to sit back and watch God confound the wise.This is not proof of a flood but it is evidence after the flood.

Wrong - the supposed date of the flood is 2348BCE.

The dating of the drought is ~2200BCE.

The drought occurs after the supposed "flood" - not the other way round, as you claim.

Yet more evidence of your simply grasping at straws to bolster your beliefs.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[abelcainsbrother]

We're not gonna drown.

https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=9EXRxHPEpWc

 

[Grumpy Santa]

You both ignore world wide dust,it in the ice sheets,in the oceans,world wide,a drought caused the dust and it just so happens to date to Noah's flood and you cannot even fathom it could be evidence for Noah's flood.Like I've said repeatedly true science is only going to confirm more of the bible true as scientists make more discoveries.

This is one reason why it is not boring at all to be a Christian and to sit back and watch God confound the wise.This is not proof of a flood but it is evidence after the flood.

You keep asserting that this alleged world-wide drought is somehow tied to a world-wide mythical flood, but you're not providing any evidence to make the connection. Why would a world-wide flood result in a world-wide drought after the fact? What data is this assertion based on? Do you have any way to test this hypothesis... have you at least run computer models showing what would happen if you artificially added enough water to flood the earth completely then removed the water to see what weather patterns emerge?

"Because I said so" isn't an argument. That's not good enough. You need to give people something they can actually analyze and potentially verify or falsify.

Another problem I see is that you're "looking at it from a biblical perspective". This is called leading the evidence to the conclusion you want. It's intellectually dishonest. You're required to warp things in ways that make no sense in order to push the round peg of evidence into your square hole of conjecture while ignoring the stack of other pegs that simply won't fit into your hole no matter how big of a sledgehammer you use. Stop it. Drop your conclusions completely, then look at the evidence and see where it leads you. Don't drag it along kicking and screaming to somewhere it was never meant to go.

 

[Visaki]

"Because I said so" isn't an argument. That's not good enough. You need to give people something they can actually analyze and potentially verify or falsify.

An "Because the Bible says so, or at least my interpretation of it" isn't any better.

 

[ldmitruk]

"Because I said so" isn't an argument. That's not good enough. You need to give people something they can actually analyze and potentially verify or falsify.

An "Because the Bible says so, or at least my interpretation of it" isn't any better.

Abel is the poster child of looking at the world through "bible glasses" as ole Hambo likes to say.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

An "Because the Bible says so, or at least my interpretation of it" isn't any better.

Abel is the poster child of looking at the world through "bible glasses" as ole Hambo likes to say.

Is that like "beer goggles", but without the beer?


Or the women?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

@abelcainsbrother

With a ~150 year gap between the alleged "Noachian flood" and the - now - equally alleged "world-wide drought", the problems only pile up for humanity (and your idea).

"Noah's flood" reduced the number of humans to 8 - of which only 6 bred.

A "world-wide drought" that lasted 200 years would mean that humans wouldn't have any rain to grow food - much less to feed their domestic animals (goats, sheep, etc).

Then there's the problems for the wild animals - what would herbivores eat without any rain to make things grow for 200 years? And dying herbivores would only keep carnivores going for so long before they end up attacking humans and their domestic animals.

Any animals who were supposed to be repopulating the Earth after "the flood" wouldn't be able to migrate as that would require sources of water - without rain for 200 years, they're going to be hard-pressed to find any.

In Africa, if the annual rains don't come in time, many animals die - and that's just from one year's lateness.

The 1930s "Dust Bowl" in the US only lasted a few years but it caused considerable strain on America and Americans. They survived because there was a national infrastructure which could help them withstand it.

That can not be said for the people in the bible a century or so after "the flood".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ldmitruk]

An "Because the Bible says so, or at least my interpretation of it" isn't any better.

Abel is the poster child of looking at the world through "bible glasses" as ole Hambo likes to say.

Is that like "beer goggles", but without the beer?

Or the women?

Yes

At times I think I need my beer googles on just to understand what Abel writes.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Don't ya'll realize that a global flood would effect the climate?Why should I keep giving evidence? All ya' all do is explain it away,you cannot allow the bible to be right.I have not given all of the evidence for Noah's flood and if y'all cannot see how a global flood would effect the climate causing a drought that produced the dust? Then I don't think you will see.First things first,acknowledge that the drought dates to the time of Noah's flood,and that it would cause climate change,then we might can move on.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Don't y'all realise that there never was a global flood? There are entire taxa of freshwater fish that could not be alive had such an event occurred within the last few million years, let alone the last few thousand. The cichlid populations of lakes Victoria, Malawi and Tanganyika are pissing themselves at your idiotic fucking fantasy.

Get this through your tiny mind: There never was a global fludd.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Don't ya'll realize that a global flood would effect the climate?Why should I keep giving evidence? All ya' all do is explain it away,you cannot allow the bible to be right.I have not given all of the evidence for Noah's flood and if y'all cannot see how a global flood would effect the climate causing a drought that produced the dust? Then I don't think you will see.First things first,acknowledge that the drought dates to the time of Noah's flood,and that it would cause climate change,then we might can move on.

Yes, it's very likely that a global flood would affect the climate due to all that added water magically appearing, especially when you consider the heating added to the climate as all that potential energy goes kinetic. However, contrary to your assertion, not only have you not given "all" the evidence for a global flood... you haven't given any. At all. Not one speck, one data point, one anything that could be considered fact. Period. Ever.

Then you assert connections between a flood that has no evidence of ever happening and some apparently mythical global drought. But you provide nothing to back that assertion up beyond the occasional "neener neener neener" argument.

Even if we make a wild-assed assumption that everything you said or believe is true your argument would still fail to verify any of it. Assertions cannot replace facts, no matter how many times you repeat them.

 

[Visaki]

Don't ya'll realize that a global flood would effect the climate?Why should I keep giving evidence? All ya' all do is explain it away,you cannot allow the bible to be right.I have not given all of the evidence for Noah's flood and if y'all cannot see how a global flood would effect the climate causing a drought that produced the dust? Then I don't think you will see.First things first,acknowledge that the drought dates to the time of Noah's flood,and that it would cause climate change,then we might can move on.

So... are you really trying to use regional (as was showed they were) droughts are evidence for a global flood causing them without giving us any proper explanation why a global flood would lead to regional droughts? Even if, and I mean IF, we had evidence for a global flood a good scientest still wouldn't just claim that the global flood lead to the droughts without showing the causal link and the evidence for it. Which you haven't even tried to explain other than "global flood will f#"¤ up the climate, thus droughts". That's not science. That's not even proper thinking.

 

[Dustnite]

Don't y'all realise that there never was a global flood? There are entire taxa of freshwater fish that could not be alive had such an event occurred within the last few million years, let alone the last few thousand. The cichlid populations of lakes Victoria, Malawi and Tanganyika are pissing themselves at your idiotic fucking fantasy.

Get this through your tiny mind: There never was a global fludd.

[sarcasm]Hack, you don't understand. God commanded Noah to build a freshwater aquarium out of several cubits of wood next to the tigers on the Ark. You blaspheme God by denying the great freshwater aquarium on the ark![/sarcasm]

Seriously I had a creationist describe in detail how freshwater fish survived and used an argument above.

 

[Deleted member 619]

There's only one reasonable response to that:

 

[ldmitruk]

There's only one reasonable response to that:

Ahh, one of the impact events causing a mass extinction

 

[tuxbox]

There's only one reasonable response to that:

Ahh, one of the impact events causing a mass extinction

lmao

 

[keeper541]

There's only one reasonable response to that:

I'm amazed you all have followed through with him as long as you have. I don't think he's honestly responded to anyone in any of the threads he's posted in while most people have so honestly and painstakenly tried to get him to understand that he's just plain wrong.

I just get a kick out of his complaint that his claims are being reasoned away. Well yea, no duh. When they have no evidence to support them and defy all known logic than blind asserstions will be reasoned away. Means the argument is bad if it can't face up to reason.