Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 55 of 106 (742573)
11-22-2014 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
11-02-2014 8:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:
When you're ready to show us how your opinions can change facts (which is what Ringo was actually talking about) you let us know.
The facts accepted are those derived by the majority or whatever, but are they always facts because of that decision and review? No.
The same authority exercised over knowledge and education in the dark ages has crept back in to dominate the so called age of enlightenment, except instead of taking the false religion road, it has taken the 'scientific' road, which the world wants to save the future? Talk about false worship in both scenarios.
The antichrist, then atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 11-02-2014 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 8:31 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 57 of 106 (742597)
11-22-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
11-22-2014 8:31 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:
So now over the past couple days you've been letting the cat out of bag and revealing that the real source of your objections is that you're anti-science, but this thread is about new evidence for the fountains of the deep. Your belief that science is a false religion taking us down the road to the Antichrist and atheism isn't relevant.
I let that argument about the direction of water flow go with the statement "It's just my opinion" because I knew it was pointless to go any further, since none of the responses showed any understanding of the basics of atmospheric air flow, ocean currents, etc
I am not anti science, but there are influences in the world which have created error both in the religious world and in the scientific world. If you are not aware of that, it would explain your general dismissal of what I post. And I am not prepared to argue on those points where there is no resolution close at hand.
Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 8:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 10:48 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 60 of 106 (742706)
11-23-2014 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Percy
11-22-2014 10:48 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:
It really doesn't matter whether you're prepared to argue this or not, because it's not the topic of this thread. Do you have new evidence for the fountains of the deep or not? If not then I think you're done.
I do have a lot to post, but you do not, and will not, acknowledge the truth in it by reasoning and working things out, neither will you give my sources any credit, so no, I will keep it for someone who is willing and able to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 11-22-2014 10:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:36 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 61 of 106 (742707)
11-23-2014 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
11-22-2014 11:00 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:
Yes, the consensus might be wrong one day. Then the next day new evdence comes in and the consensus may still be wrong. But eventually, with enough new evidence, the concensus should move toward "truth".
What other method would you propose to improve it?
I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.
For example, I believe in adaptation in animals and plants, but not that all living organisms are an offspring to an accident in a swamp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 11-22-2014 11:00 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 11-23-2014 8:00 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:40 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 11-23-2014 1:58 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 66 of 106 (742754)
11-24-2014 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
11-23-2014 8:36 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Percy writes:
I think that if instead of making excuses you directed your efforts at research and explication that you'd obtain a better outcome.
In this thread you've had a lot more to say about science and almost nothing about the fountains of the deep. Perhaps you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.
Thanks, I'll give it a go, backing up what I say with evidence from science, I just don't find the usual sites have the info I need to prove a point, simply because there is more than one way that info can be interpreted, but the consensus falls in the direction I disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 8:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-24-2014 8:15 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 67 of 106 (742755)
11-24-2014 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ringo
11-23-2014 1:58 PM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:
Since you accepted by faith that somebody had radio-carbon dated a penny, maybe you should be leaving faith out of the equation. Reasoning should have told you how ludicrous that idea was, but your faith seems to let the ludicrous in.
Not really, as a kid I believed what I was told to pass exams. Fortunately there never was a Question about dating in the final.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 11-23-2014 1:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 11-25-2014 10:42 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 70 of 106 (743266)
11-29-2014 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
11-25-2014 10:42 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Ringo writes:
But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?
Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 11-25-2014 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 11-29-2014 8:34 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 11-29-2014 9:28 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 73 by Coyote, posted 11-29-2014 10:56 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 11-29-2014 11:15 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 75 of 106 (743354)
11-30-2014 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
11-29-2014 8:34 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Jar writes:
Yet you have never presented any of your alleged evidence.
What evidence do you have?
Where did we leave off? What were we talking about last that did not fit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 11-29-2014 8:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 11-30-2014 8:42 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 78 of 106 (743826)
12-05-2014 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
11-30-2014 8:42 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Jar writes:
So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect?
Too much. Besides, you seem to have accepted that they are correct, is that an act of faith?
Evolution was never 'proven' until they came up with the dating method.
Who said it's correct?
Human history, without this method, only goes back a few thousand years, civilization, genealogies, ancient runs, only go back a few thousand years.
Anything before that time used to be called Pre-historic, ie not in history at all.
Now "prehistoric" is considered to be fact, but is it?
Here's one of the better creation websites -
Is Carbon-Dating Accurate? | Radiometric dating | Rate of Decay | Clock Reset | Closed System
I have my own reasons for dismissing the method, which has nothing to do with the method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 11-30-2014 8:42 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 12-05-2014 8:10 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 12-05-2014 8:22 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 12-05-2014 8:36 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 79 of 106 (743828)
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer.
The fossils are fully preserved, often in an upright position in the sedimentary rock.
If it took millions of years to build that layer, the fossil would have been standing in a desert for millions of years without being eroded, while slowly being covered.
This pattern can be seen in each subsequent layer.
It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths. This kind of settling with smaller items on the base is typical of a flood, where the water is moving while depositing. It is simple physics. If you have a pocket full of coins, the smaller coins end up down the bottom.
The sedimentary orders are not universal, sometimes they're upside down and inconsistent depending on the forces, but all point to the fact that the layers could not have been deposited over millions of years, neither interrupted and overturned in the same time.
There is hardly a place on the earth which does not reveal depositions, oceanic fossils, sedimentary layers etc. Everything is formed by flood water, wind, tectonic activities and natural erosion over a few thousand years.
The rejection of that cause comes from an inadequate understanding of global flood dynamics.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-05-2014 8:02 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 82 by herebedragons, posted 12-05-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2014 11:38 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:23 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 91 by Astrophile, posted 12-07-2014 6:20 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 86 of 106 (743946)
12-06-2014 5:15 AM


On topic
You have managed to tell me what you think I think, and have made me and my opinions the prime subject, and yet the topic is not about me, it's about the "fountains of the deep." about which none of you have anything to contribute, so exactly why are you here? Your intellect has failed to engage, and that's not a good sign. Just calling things and people crap is too easy and does not require brains at all. If you want to come out from behind those text books and think then come forward, otherwise admit you don't know what you are doing trying to sludge a discussion before it even begins because you happen to disagree with well established ancient knowledge.
Are you here to dispute a contributor or to make a contribution? Make up your mind.
Should I wait for you to get on topic, or until your knowledge comes up to par?
If you have nothing to say about the fountains of the deep then I have nothing to talk about. I should not have to justify my conclusions to you if you don't have a clue about the topic, let alone how deceived you are.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-06-2014 9:06 AM Colbard has not replied
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 12-06-2014 11:20 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 90 of 106 (743991)
12-07-2014 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ringo
12-06-2014 11:23 AM


Ringo writes:
Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related.
When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood?
It's a good analogy for the flood layers. One of these days I may feel up to presenting global flood dynamics in a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-07-2014 1:21 PM Colbard has replied
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:28 PM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 94 of 106 (744089)
12-08-2014 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Astrophile
12-07-2014 6:20 AM


Astrophile writes:
What puzzles me is why you think it's worth your while to argue about the age of the Earth, the deposition of sedimentary rocks, black holes, the big bang, etc. with people who have devoted their whole lives to science.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Astrophile, posted 12-07-2014 6:20 AM Astrophile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Astrophile, posted 12-24-2014 2:37 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 95 of 106 (744090)
12-08-2014 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tanypteryx
12-07-2014 1:21 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
Boy, I can hardly wait for that. This science shit is so boring.
You won't need to be there, you've already had your thrill just then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-07-2014 1:21 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3390 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 96 of 106 (744091)
12-08-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ringo
12-07-2014 1:28 PM


Ringo writes:
Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous.
Yes, I know what you were saying, it still is a simple and effective way to get your point across.
As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age.
Yes, the earth would present evidence for multi floods, and many old lakes and swamps that have disappeared over the centuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 12-08-2014 10:44 AM Colbard has replied
 Message 103 by Larni, posted 12-21-2014 4:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024