Flow
Flow
Flow
TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

The Religion Discussion

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

User avatar
QG
punchin NOS
Posts: 3545
Joined: July 18th, 2006, 9:56 pm
Location: South

Postby QG » March 15th, 2010, 7:09 pm

DO YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD ALL DIE IN 2012??

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23912
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Postby MG Man » March 15th, 2010, 8:04 pm

KOTF wrote:Image

Image


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ohgadoye ah luv eeeeeet

Kasey
I LUV THIS PLACE
Posts: 1012
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 10:54 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Postby Kasey » March 16th, 2010, 7:30 am

really??

User avatar
illumin@ti
Trinituner Peong
Posts: 495
Joined: September 12th, 2006, 2:10 pm
Location: Letting them hate, so long as they fear

Postby illumin@ti » March 17th, 2010, 10:09 pm

where bluefete gone boy ... :roll: :roll: :roll:

User avatar
buzz
Riding on 17's
Posts: 1439
Joined: November 23rd, 2007, 1:21 pm
Location: FL studio 9 mofos !!1!

Postby buzz » March 17th, 2010, 10:15 pm

i heard he listens to cradle of filth, wears black nail polish and cuts himself thx to you guys :|



:lol:

Chimera
TunerGod
Posts: 20070
Joined: October 11th, 2009, 4:06 pm

Postby Chimera » March 17th, 2010, 10:20 pm

illumin@ti wrote:where bluefete gone boy ... :roll: :roll: :roll:


Masons get fed up of him.

He was sacrificed.

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Postby d spike » March 17th, 2010, 10:40 pm

buzz wrote:i heard he listens to cradle of filth, wears black nail polish and cuts himself thx to you guys :|



:lol:

Image

User avatar
DevilZ
3NE2NR is my LIFE
Posts: 884
Joined: July 11th, 2008, 8:58 am
Location: Neither here nor there

Postby DevilZ » March 24th, 2010, 11:10 pm

Image

User avatar
sMASH
TunerGod
Posts: 25660
Joined: January 11th, 2005, 4:30 am

Postby sMASH » March 25th, 2010, 7:20 pm

d spike wrote:Why not just enjoy the gift of life?

Enjoy the company of good friends...
Image

...and someone special...
Image

Enjoy good conversation...
Image

Enjoy good food...
Image

...and drink...
Image

Watch some comics...
Image

Enjoy a good car...
Image

And make someone happy...
Image


sig material???

User avatar
illumin@ti
Trinituner Peong
Posts: 495
Joined: September 12th, 2006, 2:10 pm
Location: Letting them hate, so long as they fear

Postby illumin@ti » March 26th, 2010, 8:04 am

too big ,,, lol :lol:

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23912
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Postby MG Man » March 28th, 2010, 7:03 pm

thats what she said

User avatar
illumin@ti
Trinituner Peong
Posts: 495
Joined: September 12th, 2006, 2:10 pm
Location: Letting them hate, so long as they fear

Postby illumin@ti » April 5th, 2010, 10:13 pm

So ......like yuh come out of hiding ,,, bluefete,, where for art thou bluefete :?:

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14691
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Postby bluefete » April 5th, 2010, 10:45 pm

illumin@ti wrote:So ......like yuh come out of hiding ,,, bluefete,, where for art thou bluefete :?:


Nati: I was NOT hiding. Sometimes, as I said before, life gets in the way of following up some of the replies on these posts. As I had the day off, I thought I would try to follow up and see where things had reached.

I see nothing has really changed though. The unbelievers are still so and do not understand how God works.

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Postby d spike » April 5th, 2010, 11:13 pm

bluefete wrote:
illumin@ti wrote:So ......like yuh come out of hiding ,,, bluefete,, where for art thou bluefete :?:


I see nothing has really changed though. The unbelievers are still so and do not understand how God works.

You expect to change the way people think, when all you do is scrounge up some unintelligent, anti-anything-that-smells-like-it-may-not-agree-with-your-version material on the internet, post it here, then duck and avoid questions on such material?

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14691
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Postby bluefete » April 9th, 2010, 7:22 am

d spike wrote:
bluefete wrote:
illumin@ti wrote:So ......like yuh come out of hiding ,,, bluefete,, where for art thou bluefete :?:


I see nothing has really changed though. The unbelievers are still so and do not understand how God works.

You expect to change the way people think, when all you do is scrounge up some unintelligent, anti-anything-that-smells-like-it-may-not-agree-with-your-version material on the internet, post it here, then duck and avoid questions on such material?


Spike: After your epic battle with Megadoc, do you expect me to dig a hole for myself.

Let me make it very clear - The problem you and several others had with this thread is that you could not refute the logic of God's great work.

So the next best thing to do (in your eyes) was to disparage. If you stick to the facts(some of you say that I have not posted one "factual" statement in this thread), you will agree that much of what so-called scientists spend their time doing is trying to disprove rather than prove. Those scientists who do prove find themselves drowned out because a scientist is not supposed to prove that God exists.

That goes against all the logic of scientific determinism.

Granted, I have found your existentialist arguments most interesting.

Great is the evolutionary perspective and long may it prevail. :lying: :lying:

User avatar
Skanky
I LUV THIS PLACE
Posts: 927
Joined: February 8th, 2005, 12:11 pm

Postby Skanky » April 9th, 2010, 8:40 am

I eh know who more chupid,bluefete or allyuh for still trying to argue with him.

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14691
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Postby bluefete » April 9th, 2010, 8:52 am

Skanky wrote:I eh know who more chupid,bluefete or allyuh for still trying to argue with him.


There is no "argument" here. Just a rational discussion and some people who are frustrated by their inability to disprove God's existence..

User avatar
Razkal
2NRholic
Posts: 4824
Joined: May 30th, 2004, 2:33 am
Location: Gone Fishing...
Contact:

Postby Razkal » April 9th, 2010, 10:19 am

how come..

i say evolution (for eg), you say prove it...(and 'we' mostly have to..)

you say god and i have to prove it isn't??

its 'your' crazy idea meng!

User avatar
RaidenRain
Ricer
Posts: 19
Joined: March 15th, 2010, 9:36 pm

Postby RaidenRain » April 9th, 2010, 10:38 am

was when i felt all around me was moving and felt that something was pushing me into a small narrow hole, I was like wtf?? :o it keep pushing me deeper into this frickin small hole, I' was like oh goooooooood meh head, finally my head was out and i take my 1st breath and saw this stunning woman looking down at me :lol:

User avatar
Razkal
2NRholic
Posts: 4824
Joined: May 30th, 2004, 2:33 am
Location: Gone Fishing...
Contact:

Postby Razkal » April 9th, 2010, 10:41 am

steupppps....a NEXT outta timing one....next month or two gonna be fun

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Postby d spike » April 9th, 2010, 12:12 pm

bluefete wrote:
d spike wrote:
bluefete wrote:
illumin@ti wrote:So ......like yuh come out of hiding ,,, bluefete,, where for art thou bluefete :?:


I see nothing has really changed though. The unbelievers are still so and do not understand how God works.

You expect to change the way people think, when all you do is scrounge up some unintelligent, anti-anything-that-smells-like-it-may-not-agree-with-your-version material on the internet, post it here, then duck and avoid questions on such material?


Spike: After your epic battle with Megadoc, do you expect me to dig a hole for myself.
Please don't talk nonsense. To refer to that dogcatching scramble as an 'epic battle' belittles all the great debates and discussions that humanity has thankfully recorded as part of history. Actually, it belittles even the heated rum-shop discussions that take place over the actual shape of the moon. The word 'battle' is sorely out of place there. 'Epic' could be included, if it refers to the blindness/ignorance that fills the void between the ears of that particular gentleman. Do yourself a favour, and don't consider yourself one of his peers - or you might end up as one, for that sort of hysterical fervour that masks a vacuous mind is very contagious. Admittedly, you likewise refuse to respond to posts that are themselves in response to your statements... but at least your posts are moot and make use of reason.

Let me make it very clear - The problem you and several others had with this thread is that you could not refute the logic of God's great work.
No. This is not so. The problem we have in this thread is that you refuse to respond to statements and queries based on your original posts. A simple example would be the posts concerning the movie, "Avatar". You said it was evil. I responded by pointing out that it was full of Christian themes. You never replied.
A discussion/debate, by its very nature, allows for opinions to be stated by all sides, as well as opinions refuting other opinions, rebuttals, and so on. You will make a statement... and then 'go dark', refusing to clarify or refute responses... then you will pop up with another topic, ignoring all that went before - rather like a little boy, who hides, jumping up every now and then to throw a rotten fruit at unsuspecting passers-by. If you wish to publish your opinions in this fashion, an open forum is not the correct medium... perhaps, you should start a 'blog'...


So the next best thing to do (in your eyes) was to disparage.
I disagree. I pay close attention to what you say, then state my opinion. Perhaps you should give an example to back up this ludicrous statement... or are you going to copy Megadoc1's style and start slinging unproven accusations?


If you stick to the facts(some of you say that I have not posted one "factual" statement in this thread), you will agree that much of what so-called scientists spend their time doing is trying to disprove rather than prove. Those scientists who do prove find themselves drowned out because a scientist is not supposed to prove that God exists.
I agree. The basis of faith exists simply because proof does not.

That goes against all the logic of scientific determinism.
One cannot blame humans for being human. Logic is a tool and should be used. You cannot blame a squirrel for using his teeth to open nuts.

Granted, I have found your existentialist arguments most interesting.
...but somehow, you never could find proper answers to give... unless your PC just happens to crash at odd times.

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Postby d spike » April 9th, 2010, 12:27 pm

bluefete wrote:
Skanky wrote:I eh know who more chupid,bluefete or allyuh for still trying to argue with him.


There is no "argument" here. Just a rational discussion and some people who are frustrated by their inability to disprove God's existence..


Skanky, yuh really can't call it an argument if de fella doh respond. We actually waiting fuh him tuh reply first.

Bluefete, the people who are frustrated are so because you fooled them into thinking that this was an open discussion on the forum, and so they responded to your statements... and are thus frustrated by your lack of straight responses.


Razkal wrote:how come..

i say evolution (for eg), you say prove it...(and 'we' mostly have to..)

you say god and i have to prove it isn't??

its 'your' crazy idea meng!


Razkal has a point. If you put the onus on him to back up his statements with evidence, then you must do likewise (...and quoting from a book that is a remarkable study of prose, but not a scientific text, is not evidence. :lol: )

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Postby d spike » April 9th, 2010, 12:29 pm

RaidenRain wrote:was when i felt all around me was moving and felt that something was pushing me into a small narrow hole, I was like wtf?? :o it keep pushing me deeper into this frickin small hole, I' was like oh goooooooood meh head, finally my head was out and i take my 1st breath and saw this stunning woman looking down at me :lol:


Why do you refer to her as 'stunning'? Was she hitting you in the head with a half-brick? :lol: :lol:

User avatar
EVA Unit-01
Riding on 17's
Posts: 1531
Joined: November 9th, 2009, 1:32 pm
Location: Wherever you need me to be...
Contact:

Postby EVA Unit-01 » April 9th, 2010, 2:28 pm

d spike wrote:
Razkal wrote:how come..

i say evolution (for eg), you say prove it...(and 'we' mostly have to..)

you say god and i have to prove it isn't??

its 'your' crazy idea meng!


Razkal has a point. If you put the onus on him to back up his statements with evidence, then you must do likewise (...and quoting from a book that is a remarkable study of prose, but not a scientific text, is not evidence. :lol: )


Image

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14691
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Postby bluefete » April 9th, 2010, 3:12 pm

d spike wrote:
bluefete wrote:
d spike wrote:[quote="bluefete"][quote="illumin@ti"]So ......like yuh come out of hiding ,,, bluefete,, where for art thou bluefete :?:


I see nothing has really changed though. The unbelievers are still so and do not understand how God works.

You expect to change the way people think, when all you do is scrounge up some unintelligent, anti-anything-that-smells-like-it-may-not-agree-with-your-version material on the internet, post it here, then duck and avoid questions on such material?


Spike: After your epic battle with Megadoc, do you expect me to dig a hole for myself.
Please don't talk nonsense. To refer to that dogcatching scramble as an 'epic battle' belittles all the great debates and discussions that humanity has thankfully recorded as part of history. Actually, it belittles even the heated rum-shop discussions that take place over the actual shape of the moon. The word 'battle' is sorely out of place there. 'Epic' could be included, if it refers to the blindness/ignorance that fills the void between the ears of that particular gentleman. Do yourself a favour, and don't consider yourself one of his peers - or you might end up as one, for that sort of hysterical fervour that masks a vacuous mind is very contagious. Admittedly, you likewise refuse to respond to posts that are themselves in response to your statements... but at least your posts are moot and make use of reason.

Let me make it very clear - The problem you and several others had with this thread is that you could not refute the logic of God's great work.
No. This is not so. The problem we have in this thread is that you refuse to respond to statements and queries based on your original posts. A simple example would be the posts concerning the movie, "Avatar". You said it was evil. I responded by pointing out that it was full of Christian themes. You never replied.
A discussion/debate, by its very nature, allows for opinions to be stated by all sides, as well as opinions refuting other opinions, rebuttals, and so on. You will make a statement... and then 'go dark', refusing to clarify or refute responses... then you will pop up with another topic, ignoring all that went before - rather like a little boy, who hides, jumping up every now and then to throw a rotten fruit at unsuspecting passers-by. If you wish to publish your opinions in this fashion, an open forum is not the correct medium... perhaps, you should start a 'blog'...


So the next best thing to do (in your eyes) was to disparage.
I disagree. I pay close attention to what you say, then state my opinion. Perhaps you should give an example to back up this ludicrous statement... or are you going to copy Megadoc1's style and start slinging unproven accusations?


If you stick to the facts(some of you say that I have not posted one "factual" statement in this thread), you will agree that much of what so-called scientists spend their time doing is trying to disprove rather than prove. Those scientists who do prove find themselves drowned out because a scientist is not supposed to prove that God exists.
I agree. The basis of faith exists simply because proof does not.

That goes against all the logic of scientific determinism.
One cannot blame humans for being human. Logic is a tool and should be used. You cannot blame a squirrel for using his teeth to open nuts.

Granted, I have found your existentialist arguments most interesting.
...but somehow, you never could find proper answers to give... unless your PC just happens to crash at odd times.
[/quote][/quote]

Let me pop up again.

Any movie that damns the Almighty God is an EVIL movie. It could be covered in kuchlela and pepper, or overlaid with so-called Christian themes, it is still an EVIL movie. Prove otherwise. AVATAR is an EVIL movie, notwithstanding its underlying themes.

There is none so blind as those who would not see.

Mega-flood triggered Europe's last big freeze... and global warming could plunge us into the cold again, warn scientists

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:00 AM on 2nd April 2010

Europe was plunged into a mini ice age 13,000 years ago after global warming caused a mega-flood, geologists said today.

Mark Bateman from the University of Sheffield, said a catastrophic flood was caused when an ice sheet in the U.S melted causing a huge amount of freshwater to be dumped into the Arctic Ocean.

This led to the shutting down of the Gulf Stream ocean circulation pattern that brings warmth to Europe.


Image
A huge lake (pictured), the size of the UK, dumped fresh water into the Arctic Ocean around 13,000 years ago

'We're talking about a lake the size of the UK emptying very quickly,' Dr Bateman said.

'We don't know the exact period of time but we're talking about a catastrophic flood.'

The finding has confirmed past theories about the likely cause of a sudden cooling period called the Younger Dryas when temperatures in Europe, similar to today, quickly returned to ice age conditions. The cooling lasted for about 1,400 years.

'Our research shows that if you put a large volume of fresh water into the North Atlantic in a very short space of time, this is what happens,' Dr Bateman said.

His team's work is published in the latest issue of the journal Nature.

The Gulf Stream acts like a conveyer belt by bringing warm water from the tropics to Europe while cold salty water sinks to the depths in the far north. This 'overturning' circulation draws in yet more warm water from the south.

Climate scientists fear rapid global warming could trigger a sharp increase in the amount of meltwater from Greenland.

This surge in freshwater could trigger a tipping point that overwhelms the Gulf Stream, shutting it down and likely plunging Europe into another deep freeze.

Dr Bateman and his team confirmed the path of the floodwaters from Lake Agassiz that covered part of what is now Canada and the northern United States. The lake had formed in front of the ice-sheet that once covered a large part of North America.

Scientists had previously guessed that a giant flood unleashed from the lake probably caused the Younger Dryas cooling but couldn't confirm the route of the floodwaters.

Image
A research team log sediments in a cliff exposure at Liverpool Bay, Northwest Territory, Arctic Canada. They said a massive flood caused the Gulf Stream to shut down 13,000 years ago.

Dr Bateman found that the waters flowed down the Mackenzie River, Canada's longest, rather than the Saint Lawrence Seaway that had previously seemed the most likely route.

Studying sediments from cliff sections along the river delta, he said the evidence spanned a large area at many altitudes. This could only be explained by a mega-flood from Lake Agassiz.

Dating of the sediments helped the team pin down the date of the flooding, showing that it occurred right at the start of the Younger Dryas.

Satellite observations and computer models by scientists have shown that the Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate, dumping large amounts of ice and meltwater into the North Atlantic.

A study published in the journal Science last November said recent summers further accelerated Greenland's mass loss to the equivalent of 273 cubic kilometers of water per year in the period

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z0kdDZJY1b


God did it first. Science can only try to prove it after. NEVER BEFORE!!!!!

User avatar
d spike
Riding on 18's
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 4th, 2009, 11:15 pm

Postby d spike » April 9th, 2010, 3:30 pm

bluefete wrote:
Let me pop up again.

Any movie that damns the Almighty God is an EVIL movie. It could be covered in kuchlela and pepper, or overlaid with so-called Christian themes, it is still an EVIL movie. Prove otherwise. AVATAR is an EVIL movie, notwithstanding its underlying themes.
Prove otherwise?? Read Razkal's last post, nah. You haven't proven that the movie was evil. All you did was to take bits and pieces from quasi-arguments on the net (if you had read the responses to those very nuggets you collected, you would have left them right where you found them) and stick them here - minus the arguments, of course. Copy and Paste. So, you put up a list of horrid things about the movie, and I put up a list of good things about the movie. What makes your list right and mine wrong? I responded to your list, refuting your points... What about you? You have not refuted my points, so they stand. That means, if anyone is right, I am. Go back and deal with it. Prove me wrong. Until then, I have proven otherwise.

There is none so blind as those who would not see.
Quite apt, as I have posted my opinion on this more that once, yet you have obviously not read any and still continue to muddle on without looking.

What? So it has some cussing in it... Jesus Christ! What is so evil with that? Okay, so that's wrong, so is killing people (another Hollywood favourite activity) that makes a movie evil?


Mega-flood triggered Europe's last big freeze... and global warming could plunge us into the cold again, warn scientists



Yup. Good ol' Bluefete strikes again. Shoot, duck, run. What's this now? A flood? How nice. MG, here we go again...[/b]
Last edited by d spike on April 9th, 2010, 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14691
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Postby bluefete » April 9th, 2010, 3:30 pm

Let me go again.

Outrage at 'Noah's Ark' creationist zoo which denies Darwin's theory of evolution

By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 9:03 AM on 28th August 2009

A secular group is demanding that tourism groups stop promoting a 'creationist' zoo which questions the traditional view of evolution.

The Noah's Ark Zoo is accused by the British Humanist Association of misleading tens of thousands of visitors annually and 'threatening public understanding'.

The BHA says the zoo farm, run by husband and wife Anthony and Christina Bush in Wraxall, near Bristol, promotes creationism - the belief that all life was created by God - and seeks to discredit scientific facts such as carbon dating, the fossil record and the speed of light.

BHA director of education and public affairs, Andrew Copson, said: 'As they are public bodies, we believe it is inappropriate that tourist boards should support establishments that seek to urge religious or ideological beliefs upon people.'

Noah's Ark research assistant Jon Woodward said: 'We are offering our visitors the chance to look at the evolution/creation debate. As it is a free country, that is within our right.

'We are slightly different from popular creationism. We hold a view that the natural world around us is the product of both God and evolution.

'We do not hold the stereotypical creationist views that the world was created in 6,000 years.'

In a long section entitled 'creation research', the zoo's website says Darwinism is 'flawed' and wants to encourage a 'creation/evolution debate'.


ImageThe British Humanist Association says Noah's Ark Zoo in Wraxall, Bristol undermines the teaching of science due to its religious stance

Elsewhere it reads: 'God was watching over his people on the earth he had made.

'But he was not pleased with what he saw; violence and corruption plagued the earth, all the people had hearts full of evil.

'The sight of what his creation had become made God very upset.

'God decided he would wipe away mankind and the animals on the earth by sending a great flood.'

Signs at the zoo in Wraxall near Bristol also describe how the 'three great people groups' could be descended from the three sons from Noah.

BHA director of education and public affairs Andrew Copson said: 'We believe Noah's Ark Farm Zoo misleads the public by not being open about its Creationist agenda in its promotional activities and by advancing misunderstandings of the natural world.

'We have therefore asked the South West England and Visit Britain tourist boards to stop promoting the zoo.

'As they are public bodies, we believe it is inappropriate that they should support establishments that seek to urge religious or ideological beliefs upon people in these ways.'

The government has not allowed the teaching of Creationism to be part of the National Curriculum, but guidelines on teaching it have been issued by ministers.

Science teachers have been told they can answer questions on the subject but must make clear that Creationism has 'no underpinning scientific principles'.

ImageControversial: Noah's Ark Zoo, where Sultana the Siamang gibbon was born last month

The BHA was behind the 'atheist bus campaign', which saw thousands of buses across Britain carrying a poster saying: 'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

The Advertising Standards Authority received more than 150 complaints, but it was not deemed to have breached guidelines.

Noah's Ark research assistant Jon Woodward dismissed the BHA's claims and said the Creationism debate was limited to posters in the indoor section of the zoo and the play area.

Mr Woodward said: 'We look at the evidence that is there and it is not 100% certain that God didn't have an involvement in the creation of the Earth.

'If it were false science we were claiming, that the Earth was created six thousand years ago and God created everything, then I could see their point.

'We're not saying that. You need to look at what we are saying: we are making claims to say that the facts suggest there is creation involved.'

He added that during lectures at the zoo no mention was made of Creationism and staff kept to the National Curriculum.

'It's not hokum, it's not rubbish science and it's not brainwashing - we're doing a fair job and some of the criticisms have been unfair.

'Out of 120,000, visitors each year, of which a vast amount are made up of parents and school trips, we get approximately 10 complaints a year regarding this topic which is very low. Clearly the public do not share the British Humanist view point.'

Last year the Scout Association faced a human rights watchdog investigation over a complaint that it discriminates against non-religious members.

The association's refusal to admit those who will did not make a promise to God forces youngsters to lie as there is no alternative for atheists, the National Secular Society claimed.

North Somerset Council spokesman Steve Makin said it awarded the licence for the zoo based on whether or not it promotes an understanding of animals and the natural world. The religious beliefs of those in charge is not a factor.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0kdHYcmDB

Should I summarize your arguments now? Here goes a quote from a friend of mine:

There is no two sides of the argument in science. Evolution has evidence and is an accepted scientific theory, creationism is simply a belief and not science. Creationists have never, despite all their moaning, published any research findings in a scientific journal or attempted any research. The reason being is that creationism is a philosophical/religious argument, it isn't in the sphere of science therefore it has no right to be taught as science. Sadly though this place promotes it as science instead of being clear that it is personal belief or philosophical view

- Craig, Cardiff, 15/9/2009 22:59


The mistake my friend makes, however, is that the Bible provides scientific spheres. It is just not written in the language of the scientist.

We have a scientific explanation for the flood but people choose to ignore it.

" ... the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 14691
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Postby bluefete » April 9th, 2010, 3:32 pm

d spike wrote:
bluefete wrote:
Let me pop up again.

Any movie that damns the Almighty God is an EVIL movie. It could be covered in kuchlela and pepper, or overlaid with so-called Christian themes, it is still an EVIL movie. Prove otherwise. AVATAR is an EVIL movie, notwithstanding its underlying themes.
Prove otherwise?? Read Razkal's last post, nah. You haven't proven that the movie was evil. All you did was to take bits and pieces from quasi-arguments on the net (if you had read the responses to those very nuggets you collected, you would have left them right where you found them) and stick them here - minus the arguments, of course. Copy and Paste. So, you put up a list of horrid things about the movie, and I put up a list of good things about the movie. What makes your list right and mine wrong? I responded to your list, refuting your points... What about you? You have not refuted my points, so they stand. That means, if anyone is right, I am. Go back and deal with it. Prove me wrong. Until then, I have proven otherwise.

There is none so blind as those who would not see.
Quite apt, as I have posted my opinion on this more that once, yet you have obviously not read any and still continue to muddle on without looking.

Mega-flood triggered Europe's last big freeze... and global warming could plunge us into the cold again, warn scientists



Yup. Good ol' Bluefete strikes again. Shoot, duck, run. What's this now? A flood? How nice. MG, here we go again...[/b]


Spike: I will return and deal with it tonight.

Jonathan
Sweet on this forum
Posts: 320
Joined: July 18th, 2005, 11:05 am

Postby Jonathan » April 9th, 2010, 6:29 pm

Producing the Geological Record

Most people who believe in a global flood also believe that the flood was responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata. (The alternative, that the strata were laid down slowly and thus represent a time sequence of several generations at least, would prove that some kind of evolutionary process occurred.) However, there is a great deal of contrary evidence.

Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868].)

Why are geological eras consistent worldwide? How do you explain worldwide agreement between "apparent" geological eras and several different (independent) radiometric and nonradiometric dating methods? [e.g., Short et al, 1991]

How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?

How do surface features appear far from the surface? Deep in the geologic column there are formations which could have originated only on the surface, such as:

* Rain drops. [Robb, 1992]
* River channels. [Miall, 1996, especially chpt. 6]
* Wind-blown dunes. [Kocurek & Dott, 1981; Clemmenson & Abrahamsen, 1983; Hubert & Mertz, 1984]
* Beaches.
* Glacial deposits. [Eyles & Miall, 1984]
* Burrows. [Crimes & Droser, 1992; Thackray, 1994]
* In-place trees. [Cristie & McMillan, 1991]
* Soil. [Reinhardt & Sigleo, 1989; Wright, 1986, 1994]
* Desiccation cracks. [Andrews, 1988; Robb, 1992]
* Footprints. [Gore, 1993, has a photograph (p. 16-17) showing dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it. Gilette & Lockley, 1989, have several more examples, including dinosaur footprints on top of a coal seam (p. 361-366).]
* Meteorites and meteor craters. [Grieve, 1997; Schmitz et al, 1997]
* Coral reefs. [Wilson, 1975]
* Cave systems. [James & Choquette, 1988]

How could these have appeared in the midst of a catastrophic flood?

How does a global flood explain angular unconformities? These are where one set of layers of sediments have been extensively modified (e.g., tilted) and eroded before a second set of layers were deposited on top. They thus seem to require at least two periods of deposition (more, where there is more than one unconformity) with long periods of time in between to account for the deformation, erosion, and weathering observed.

How were mountains and valleys formed? Many very tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rocks. (The summit of Everest is composed of deep-marine limestone, with fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling crinoids [Gansser, 1964].) If these were formed during the Flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away? Keep in mind that many valleys were clearly carved by glacial erosion, which is a slow process.

When did granite batholiths form? Some of these are intruded into older sediments and have younger sediments on their eroded top surfaces. It takes a long time for magma to cool into granite, nor does granite erode very quickly. [For example, see Donohoe & Grantham, 1989, for locations of contact between the South Mountain Batholith and the Meugma Group of sediments, as well as some angular unconformities.]

How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.? [Zimmer, 1992]

How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

How could a flood deposit layered fossil forests? Stratigraphic sections showing a dozen or more mature forests layered atop each other--all with upright trunks, in-place roots, and well-developed soil--appear in many locations. One example, the Joggins section along the Bay of Fundy, shows a continuous section 2750 meters thick (along a 48-km sea cliff) with multiple in-place forests, some separated by hundreds of feet of strata, some even showing evidence of forest fires. [Ferguson, 1988. For other examples, see Dawson, 1868; Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Gastaldo, 1990; Yuretich, 1994.] Creationists point to logs sinking in a lake below Mt. St. Helens as an example of how a flood can deposit vertical trunks, but deposition by flood fails to explain the roots, the soil, the layering, and other features found in such places.

Where did all the heat go? If the geologic record was deposited in a year, then the events it records must also have occurred within a year. Some of these events release significant amounts of heat.

* Magma. The geologic record includes roughly 8 x 1024 grams of lava flows and igneous intrusions. Assuming (conservatively) a specific heat of 0.15, this magma would release 5.4 x 1027 joules while cooling 1100 degrees C. In addition, the heat of crystallization as the magma solidifies would release a great deal more heat.
* Limestone formation. There are roughly 5 x 1023 grams of limestone in the earth's sediments [Poldervaart, 1955], and the formation of calcite releases about 11,290 joules/gram [Weast, 1974, p. D63]. If only 10% of the limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters.
* Meteorite impacts. Erosion and crustal movements have erased an unknown number of impact craters on earth, but Creationists Whitcomb and DeYoung suggest that cratering to the extent seen on the Moon and Mercury occurred on earth during the year of Noah's Flood. The heat from just one of the largest lunar impacts released an estimated 3 x 1026 joules; the same sized object falling to earth would release even more energy. [Fezer, pp. 45-46]
* Other. Other possibly significant heat sources are radioactive decay (some Creationists claim that radioactive decay rates were much higher during the Flood to account for consistently old radiometric dates); biological decay (think of the heat released in compost piles); and compression of sediments.

5.6 x 1026 joules is enough to heat the oceans to boiling. 3.7 x 1027 joules will vaporize them completely. Since steam and air have a lower heat capacity than water, the steam released will quickly raise the temperature of the atmosphere over 1000 C. At these temperatures, much of the atmosphere would boil off the Earth.

Aside from losing its atmosphere, Earth can only get rid of heat by radiating it to space, and it can't radiate significantly more heat than it gets from the sun unless it is a great deal hotter than it is now. (It is very nearly at thermal equilibrium now.) If there weren't many millions of years to radiate the heat from the above processes, the earth would still be unlivably hot.

As shown in section 5, all the mechanisms proposed for causing the Flood already provide more than enough energy to vaporize it as well. These additional factors only make the heat problem worse.

How were limestone deposits formed? Much limestone is made of the skeletons of zillions of microscopic sea animals. Some deposits are thousands of meters thick. Were all those animals alive when the Flood started? If not, how do you explain the well-ordered sequence of fossils in the deposits? Roughly 1.5 x 1015 grams of calcium carbonate are deposited on the ocean floor each year. [Poldervaart, 1955] A deposition rate ten times as high for 5000 years before the Flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of limestone deposits.

How could a flood have deposited chalk? Chalk is largely made up of the bodies of plankton 700 to 1000 angstroms in diameter [Bignot, 1985]. Objects this small settle at a rate of .0000154 mm/sec. [Twenhofel, 1961] In a year of the Flood, they could have settled about half a meter.

How could the Flood deposit layers of solid salt? Such layers are sometimes meters in width, interbedded with sediments containing marine fossils. This apparently occurs when a body of salt water has its fresh-water intake cut off, and then evaporates. These layers can occur more or less at random times in the geological history, and have characteristic fossils on either side. Therefore, if the fossils were themselves laid down during a catastrophic flood, there are, it seems, only two choices:
(1) the salt layers were themselves laid down at the same time, during the heavy rains that began the flooding, or
(2) the salt is a later intrusion. I suspect that both will prove insuperable difficulties for a theory of flood deposition of the geologic column and its fossils. [Jackson et al, 1990]

How were sedimentary deposits recrystallized and plastically deformed in the short time since the Flood? The stretched pebble conglomerate in Death Valley National Monument (Wildrose Canyon Rd., 15 mi. south of Hwy. 190), for example, contains streambed pebbles metamorphosed to quartzite and stretched to 3 or more times their original length. Plastically deformed stone is also common around salt diapirs [Jackson et al, 1990].

How were hematite layers laid down? Standard theory is that they were laid down before Earth's atmosphere contained much oxygen. In an oxygen-rich regime, they would almost certainly be impossible.

How do you explain fossil mineralization? Mineralization is the replacement of the original material with a different mineral.

* Buried skeletal remains of modern fauna are negligibly mineralized, including some that biblical archaeology says are quite old - a substantial fraction of the age of the earth in this diluvian geology. For example, remains of Egyptian commoners buried near the time of Moses aren't extensively mineralized.
* Buried skeletal remains of extinct mammalian fauna show quite variable mineralization.
* Dinosaur remains are often extensively mineralized.
* Trilobite remains are usually mineralized - and in different sites, fossils of the same species are composed of different materials.

How are these observations explained by a sorted deposition of remains in a single episode of global flooding?

How does a flood explain the accuracy of "coral clocks"? The moon is slowly sapping the earth's rotational energy. The earth should have rotated more quickly in the distant past, meaning that a day would have been less than 24 hours, and there would have been more days per year. Corals can be dated by the number of "daily" growth layers per "annual" growth layer. Devonian corals, for example, show nearly 400 days per year. There is an exceedingly strong correlation between the "supposed age" of a wide range of fossils (corals, stromatolites, and a few others -- collected from geologic formations throughout the column and from locations all over the world) and the number of days per year that their growth pattern shows. The agreement between these clocks, and radiometric dating, and the theory of superposition is a little hard to explain away as the result of a number of unlucky coincidences in a 300-day-long flood. [Rosenberg & Runcorn, 1975; Scrutton, 1965; Wells, 1963]

Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive? Schadewald [1982] writes:

"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals (see Whitcomb and Morris, p. 160; Gish, p. 61). As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed.

Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16 x 1013 metric tons of coal reserves, and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth, would supply only 1.9 x 1013 metric tons. [Ricklefs, 1993, p. 149]

How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils.
References

Andrews, J. E., 1988. Soil-zone microfabrics in calcrete and in desiccation cracks from the Upper Jurassic Purbeck Formation of Dorset. Geological Journal 23(3): 261-270.

Bignot, G., 1985. Micropaleontology Boston: IHRDC, p. 75.

Clemmenson, L.B. and Abrahamsen, K., 1983. Aeolian stratification in desert sediments, Arran basin (Permian), Scotland. Sedimentology 30: 311-339.

Crimes, Peter, and Mary L Droser, 1992. Trace fossils and bioturbation: the other fossil record. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 339-360.

Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991. Tertiary fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island, Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403., 227pp.

Dawson, J.W., 1868. Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, 2nd edition. MacMillan and Co.: London, 694pp.

Donohoe, H.V. Jr. and Grantham, R.G. (eds.), 1989. Geological Highway Map of Nova Scotia, 2nd edition. Atlantic Geoscience Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia. AGS Special Publication no. 1, 1:640 000.

Eyles, N. and Miall, A.D., 1984, Glacial Facies. IN: Walker, R.G., Facies Models, 2nd edition. Geoscience Canada, Reprint Series 1: 15-38.

Ferguson, Laing, 1988. The fossil cliffs of Joggins. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Fezer, Karl D., 1993. "Creationism: Please Don't Call It Science" Creation/Evolution, 13:1 (Summer 1993), 45-49.

Gansser, A., 1964. Geology of the Himalayas, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., New York.

Gastaldo, R. A., 1990, Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal zone, Warrior Basin, Alabama. in R. A. Gastaldo et. al., Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the Mary Lee Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook for the Field Trip VI, Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. pp. 41-54.

Gilette, D.D. and Lockley, M.G. (eds.), 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 454pp.

Gore, Rick, 1993. Dinosaurs. National Geographic, 183(1) (Jan. 1993): 2-54.

Grieve, R. A. F., 1997. Extraterrestrial impact events: the record in the rocks and the stratigraphic record. Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 132: 5-23.

Hubert, J.F., and Mertz, K.A., Jr., 1984. Eolian sandstones in Upper Triassic-Lower Jurassic red beds of the Fundy Basin, Nova Scotia. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 54: 798-810.

Jackson, M.P.A., et al., 1990. Salt diapirs of the Great Kavir, Central Iran. Geological Society of America, Memoir 177, 139pp.

James, N. P. & P. W. Choquette (eds.), 1988. Paleokarst, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Kocurek, G., and Dott, R.H., 1981. Distinctions and uses of stratification types in the interpretation of eolian sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51(2): 579-595.

Miall, A. D., 1996. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Moore, James R., 1973. "Charles Lyell and the Noachian Deluge", in Dundes, 1988, The Flood Myth, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Newell, N., 1982. Creation and Evolution, Colombia U. Press, p. 62.

Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.

Reinhardt, J., and Sigleo, W.R. (eds.), 1989. Paleosols and weathering through geologic time: principles and applications. Geological Society of America Special Paper 216, 181pp.

Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature, W. H. Freeman, New York.

Robb, A. J. III, 1992. Rain-impact microtopography (RIM); an experimental analogue for fossil examples from the Maroon Formation, Colorado. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 62(3): 530-535.

Rosenberg, G. D. & Runcorn, S. K. (Eds), 1975. Growth rhythms and the history of the earth's rotation. Willey Interscience, New York.

Schadewald, Robert, 1982. Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9: 12-17.

Schmitz, B., B. Peucker-Ehrenbrink, M. Lindstrom, & M. Tassinari, 1997. Accretion rates of meteorites and cosmic dust in the Early Ordovician. Science 278: 88-90.

Scrutton, C. T., ( 1964 ) 1965. Periodicity in Devonian coral growth. Palaeontology, 7(4): 552-558, Plates 86-87.

Short, D. A., J. G. Mengel, T. J. Crowley, W. T. Hyde and G. R. North, 1991. Filtering of Milankovitch Cycles by Earth's Geography. Quaternary Research. 35, 157-173. (Re an independent method of dating the Green River formation)

Stewart, W.N., 1983. Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 405pp.

Thackray, G. D., 1994. Fossil nest of sweat bees (Halictinae) from a Miocene paleosol, Rusinga Island, western Kenya. Journal of Paleontology 68(4): 795-800.

Twenhofel, William H., 1961. Treatise on Sedimentation, Dover, p. 50-52.

Weast, Robert C., 1974. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 55th edition, CRC Press, Cleveland, OH.

Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.

Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.

Wilson, J. L., 1975. Carbonate Facies in Geologic History. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Wright, V. P. (ed.), 1986. Paleosols: Their Recognition and Interpretation, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Wright, V. P., 1994. Paleosols in shallow marine sequences. Earth-Science Reviews, 37: 367-395. See also pp. 135-137.

Yun, Zhang, 1989. Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China. Lethaia 22: 113-132.

Yuretich, Richard F., 1984. Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial in place, Geology 12, 159-162. See also Fritz, W.J. & Yuretich, R.F., Comment and reply, Geology 20, 638-639.

Zimmer, Carl, 1992. Peeling the big blue banana. Discover 13(1): 46-47.

:twisted:

User avatar
Razkal
2NRholic
Posts: 4824
Joined: May 30th, 2004, 2:33 am
Location: Gone Fishing...
Contact:

Postby Razkal » April 9th, 2010, 8:02 pm

Zimmer, Carl, 1992. Peeling the big blue banana. Discover 13(1): 46-47.


Wells, J. W., 1963. Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature 197: 948-950.

Newell, N., 1982. Creation and Evolution, Colombia U. Press, p. 62.

^^^epic reading.

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pugboy, shake d livin wake d dead and 251 guests