Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 8:14 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,098 Year: 5,135/19,786 Month: 1,257/873 Week: 153/460 Day: 95/58 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
25NextFF
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1295 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 136 of 372 (418460)
08-28-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 8:45 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
That's because there were no neanderthals or ape-men. The theory of evolution is so absurd that it's an emparrassment to people who call themselves educated.

Wow! Arguments from incredulity are no longer fallacious?! Why didn't anyone tell me!

Sarcasm aside: then why do the bones of neanderthals and other evolutionary ancestors to humanity exist (not ape-men, of course, because that's an absurd misrepresentation of what evolution states)?

More to the point of the topic, why do these bones and others in the geological record lie in the order predicted by evolution, rather than being sorted by weight like would be the result of a flood? Why are stone tools, copper tools, tools of any other sort, and all other manmade items that should be on the bottom of the sediment in a flood model, always higher in the geological column than dinosaurs?

Someone's an embarrassment, but I don't think it's the biologists and others who have actual evidence to back up their claims...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:45 AM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 10:42 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 137 of 372 (418466)
08-28-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Rahvin
08-28-2007 9:39 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Your error is in claiming that anyone who finds bones in the dirt and calls them anything he wants to call them, makes it true.

Since the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God, then they don't even CONSIDER other more rational alternatives to what those skulls and bones could be. In fact, with the evidence of a global flood in all the sedimentary rock layers all over the world, which is where they even find these bones, then not even CONSIDERING that those bones are nothing more than pre-flood humans whose skeletal remains have been crushed and distorted by the bilions of gallons of water that overwhelmed them, is not the sign of people seeking the truth. The skeletons of pre-flood humans a far more rational explanation for the shape of those skeletons than claiming that apes turned into human beings which can't be verified by history OR reality. But history and reality does verify the flood accounts.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Rahvin, posted 08-28-2007 9:39 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2007 11:21 AM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 140 by jar, posted 08-28-2007 11:49 AM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Chiroptera, posted 08-28-2007 12:22 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 142 by iceage, posted 08-28-2007 12:28 PM Refpunk has responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 138 of 372 (418474)
08-28-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 8:45 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
To the question of why no world cultures tell stories about 'cave men' I wrote:

Because Fred and Wilma killed all the witnesses when Pebbles became an unwed mitochondrial mother.

Refpunk:
That's because there were no neanderthals or ape-men.

Yeah, I guess that's the problem. There was just that kid next door with the singularly appropriate name of Bamm Bamm.

___


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:45 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 372 (418475)
08-28-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 10:42 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Your error is in claiming that anyone who finds bones in the dirt and calls them anything he wants to call them, makes it true.

You can't tell the difference between a chicken bone and a beef bone just by looking?

Really? You can't? Oh, you can?

Then why the hell is it so surprising that people who study bones for a living can do the exact same thing, only to a greater degree of specificity and to more different kinds of bones?

When you see the medical examiner on CSI determine cause of death from marks on bones, do you think that they're railroading some innocent dude? Or don't you accept in that context that the study of bones can actually tell us true things about what happened when the owner of the bones was alive?

Since the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God, then they don't even CONSIDER other more rational alternatives to what those skulls and bones could be.

Flood stories were disproved by Christians in the 19th century. Today, even the Pope accepts the scientific model of evolution, along with about half of all Americans.

Are you trying to tell me that the Pope is in the business of denying God? That half of all Americans are atheists?

Don't be stupid, ok?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 10:42 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 372 (418479)
08-28-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 10:42 AM


A reminder.
Since the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God, then they don't even CONSIDER other more rational alternatives to what those skulls and bones could be.

Since you were shown before that the above is a false and untrue statement, yet continue to repeat it, it becomes necessary to remind you of the TRUTH, HONESTY and FACTS.

Evolution, the Theory of Evolution and evolutionists do not have a goal of denying God.

I am a Christian, who very strongly believes in God and that God is the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen. I fully accept evolution.

I also provide a link for you, and will do so again, to the Clergy Project Letter which has been signed and endorsed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy.

It says in part:

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

What you are doing is deliberately embracing ignorance. You are committing an act of Hubris,

Now you have been shown that your assertion is false, proof has been provided. You can continue to embrace ignorance but if you repeat the assertion that "...the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God..." then there is no other possible explanation then that you are being willfully ignorant, that you are delusional or that you are lying.

I will watch to see if you learn.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 10:42 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 141 of 372 (418484)
08-28-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 10:42 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Since the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God....

I'm interested in finding out why you think you know what motivates evolutionists, but it's off-topic here. If you would like to explain why you think you know why evolutionists think the way that they do, you can start a new thread; if you don't want to do that, I started a thread to get people to explain why they think they know how atheists think; it's been dead for a while (and was never really on-topic when it was active), so maybe the moderators will allow this discussion there.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 10:42 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 142 of 372 (418485)
08-28-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 10:42 AM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Refpunk writes:

Since the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God

No.

Refpunk writes:

with the evidence of a global flood in all the sedimentary rock layers all over the world, which is where they even find these bones, then not even CONSIDERING that those bones are nothing more than pre-flood humans whose skeletal remains have been crushed and distorted by the bilions of gallons of water that overwhelmed them, is not the sign of people seeking the truth.

Please Refpunk educate yourself on that which you rail against. Abyssal ignorance combined with smug confidence is an ugly scene.

Hydrostatic pressure does not crush and distort solid objects. There are perfectly preserved dinosaur fossils with no distortion.

You need to understand that fossils are very well compartmentalized with the geological column. That is large mammal fossils are never found in place with dinosaur fossils. Also trilobite fossils are never found with mammal, bird or even dinosaur fossils. This presents a huge problem to flood believers. They have presented several absurd unworkable solutions to fix this problem.

Refpunk writes:

But history and reality does verify the flood accounts.

The opposite is true.

Try to find what you consider the most powerful evidence for the flood and explore it, learn about it and attempt to present it.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 10:42 AM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM iceage has not yet responded

Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 143 of 372 (418495)
08-28-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by iceage
08-28-2007 12:28 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
I've already explained the sedimentary rock layers all over the world which indicates a global flood. There can be no other rational explanation for the existence of global sediment. In fact, some scientists have tried to explain that by saying there was a giant tsunami that once covered the whole earth. Other scientists claim it's snow melt from a huge ice age.

And as I already mentioned, the accounts of a global flood from over 200 cultures, and ZERO accounts in history of any kind of giant tsunami, ice age or apemen ancestors. Those are all made-up stories by scientists that EASILY dupe anyone who thinks that someone with a Ph.D. can make up history.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by iceage, posted 08-28-2007 12:28 PM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Chiroptera, posted 08-28-2007 1:43 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 145 by jar, posted 08-28-2007 2:44 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 08-28-2007 5:42 PM Refpunk has responded
 Message 150 by The Matt, posted 08-28-2007 9:38 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 144 of 372 (418496)
08-28-2007 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 1:39 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
In fact, some scientists have tried to explain that by saying there was a giant tsunami that once covered the whole earth. Other scientists claim it's snow melt from a huge ice age.

None of this is true. You see, this is your problem: you are being told stuff that isn't true, and you believe it.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 145 of 372 (418503)
08-28-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 1:39 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
I've already explained the sedimentary rock layers all over the world which indicates a global flood.

Uh, no, you have not.

If you like I would be happy to walk through some examples with you and let you explain your model.

In fact, some scientists have tried to explain that by saying there was a giant tsunami that once covered the whole earth.

I'm sorry but until you can provide links to support such an assertion you have nothing.

Are you willing to actually try to defend the Flood model?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 146 of 372 (418513)
08-28-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 1:39 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Hi Refpunk,

I guess the thing I'm most curious about is who is supplying you with information like this:

In fact, some scientists have tried to explain that by saying there was a giant tsunami that once covered the whole earth. Other scientists claim it's snow melt from a huge ice age.

This is not how scientists believe the sedimentary layers came to be. Either you're making this up, or someone is having a big joke at your expense.

The evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old. The oldest rocks ever found date to around 4.2 billion years old. Many sedimentary layers contain indications of life in the form of fossils or fossil traces or the remains of structures created by life such as burrows. Before approximately 600 million years ago the indications of life were for single celled creatures - the ancestor of bluegreen algae was very common. In younger layers signs of multicellular life become increasingly common, until the Cambrian explosion when a multiplicity of body forms appear relatively suddenly in the fossil record.

As you explore younger and younger layers you find fish, then amphibians, then insects, then tetrapods (land animals), then reptiles, then dinosaurs, then mammals and finally us. (This is only a rough outline - there's considerable overlap on some of the dates of earliest appearance).

What this means is that fossils become increasingly different from modern forms as we dig into deeper and older sedimentary layers. A giant tsunami or giant melting glaciers could not create this ordering of fossils, so no scientist has ever proposed such scenarios to explain the evidence of the sedimentary layers.

What scientists actually believe is that these ancient sedimentary layers formed in the same way sedimentary layers form today, which is gradually through the process of erosion in higher regions and deposition in lower regions. That deposition takes place most easily in low lying regions explains why most sedimentary deposits are marine in nature, since nothing is lower in any given area than seas.

And as I already mentioned, the accounts of a global flood from over 200 cultures, and ZERO accounts in history of any kind of giant tsunami, ice age or apemen ancestors. Those are all made-up stories by scientists that EASILY dupe anyone who thinks that someone with a Ph.D. can make up history.

The scientific accounts of Earth's history are constructed around evidence. I don't blame you for thinking that a giant tsunami and a giant ice melt were made up, because they obviously were, but but these ideas didn't come from scientists.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:41 PM Percy has responded

  
Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 147 of 372 (418533)
08-28-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
08-28-2007 5:42 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Sorry, but I heard about the giant tsunami on the Science Discovery Channel and then again on the History cChannel. So it absolutely did come from scientists.

And the only "evidence" for evolution is looking at skulls and bones and imagining what they could be. That's called science fiction, not science. So it's about as much evidence as looking at a woman who looks like someone I know then claiming that she's related to that person. That's called speculation, not fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 08-28-2007 5:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-28-2007 8:51 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Chiroptera, posted 08-28-2007 8:53 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2007 10:04 PM Refpunk has responded
 Message 158 by Rahvin, posted 08-29-2007 2:20 AM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 08-29-2007 6:25 PM Refpunk has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 148 of 372 (418535)
08-28-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 8:41 PM


Giant Tsunami on Discovery Channel
The is a long (46:40) Discovery Channel video available at http://www.armageddononline.org/content/view/174/49/. It might also be available elsewhere.

Is this the program you saw?

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added time info.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:41 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 149 of 372 (418536)
08-28-2007 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 8:41 PM


I have a question for you (off-topic)
This is interesting.

Refpunk at EvC Forum:

Yet I wonder why there ar exactly ZERO accounts of ancient peoples describing their ancestors being cavemen. Why do you think that is?

And

Carico at Theology Web:

There are accounts of over 200 cultures of a global flood where one family survived. But there are exactly zero accounts by ancient peoples of their ancestors being apemen. So why do you think that is?

Are you Carico at TWeb? I'm asking because there is some speculation there that Carico is kendemeyer, and if you are kendemeyer then why have you now registering under third or fourth name here?

If not, never mind.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Misspelled name. All three times.


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 8:41 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

The Matt
Member (Idle past 3650 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 150 of 372 (418543)
08-28-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Refpunk
08-28-2007 1:39 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
I think you've misunderstood here. I mean really misunderstood. Geology in its entirety, and I'd bet this discovery documentary too (Note that being on the discovery channel does not make it true, even if that is what was said). I can tell you this is the first time I've heard a claim of any global layer of tsunami deposits or ice melt.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Refpunk, posted 08-28-2007 1:39 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
25NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019