Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

You should know by now that those who do accept a flood do not think the mountains were as high as they now are.

That's a convenient postulate...

Well sure.
But since it is what the flood supporting scientists put forth, arguements about how much water it would take to cover mount everest are really kind of pointless - since they aren't arguing water was at what is now an elevation above 20K feet.

It is fact that marine fossils are found in every mountain range.
It also is fact that fossilized trees often have fossilized marine worms in them.
It is also fact that layers of rocks in the mountains are folded.

I don't know how the trees are explained, but I know they say that the mountains have fossils because they were once sea floor, and have since pushed up. I agree - they were once sea floor, during the flood, and have since pushed up - though from the manner of the rock folding, it is clearly sideways compression that resulted in them rising. That sideways compression happened as they moved away from the mid-oceanic ridge that tore the land into what we now call continents.

After the flood, the water level was actually lower than it currently is - that provided the land bridges by which man and animals redistributed themselves. As the continents settled, the water level rose - much like when you sit on a water bed, closing off the land bridges.

-=-
I'm taking a history course this semester, history of Shasta County. Class starts in a week, but since I bought the materials and I'm taking the class because it interests me - I've been reading the materials. There is now a penninsula into the Sacramento river that use to be an island before we "tamed" the river. It was called "Blood Island". No one knows why - but several reasons have been given in tales told be the families of settlers. Every single one of them includes a massacre of Indians that happened on that Island. Most of them can be discounted because details about the people involved (who was murdered resulting in the retaliation, who led the retaliation, etc.) would place the naming of the Island after known date maps that call the Island "Blood Island". Most of them refer to a legendary military leader, Fremont - but either place the time at a time when Fremont was not in the area, or the details are very close to other confrontations he had in his memoirs that did not happen at Blood Island. No one knows for sure why it is called Blood Island, but since every account of the naming includes an Indian massacre with many Indians trying to escape by jumping in the river and drowning, an Indian massacre at some point is probably responsible for the naming of the Island, and the local lore just added or changed details either to spice it up, or because of faulty memory. But it is fairly certain it was named because of a massacre (which were not too uncommon unfortunately - we made promises we never kept, didn't let them near the rivers they needed for fish because we were after Gold, we hunted the deer and elk, etc. Really dark history)

Anyway - virtually every single culture on the planet has a global flood story. Sometimes the details are very similar, even on different continents - sometimes they are not as similar, but often it includes saving the animals, often it includes one family surviving, often it includes displeasure of God and/or gods at the people as the cause. But just about every single culture, if not every culture, has a global flood story.

Have a good life in your hamster wheel buddy   If you wake up, email me, we'll talk.  As of now this thread is dead to me (kinda).

Note:  I'm not calling you crazy for your thoughts.  I just "think" that the theory I subscribe to makes more sense.  No hard feelings.  Just comes a point when you realize that neither side will budge.  They are theories after all.  Nice discussion though.  I'd never heard of the hydo-theory before.  You punch holes in the theory I believe in, I punch holes in yours.  It's only human

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Well, if the thread's over, I'd like to nominate res for the most unbelievable statement: the idea that you have to be an atheist to subscribe to the theory of evolution (and Christian to subscribe to ID).

Personally, I find that mind-boggling, even offensive.

I agree, but there you go.

Well, if the thread's over, I'd like to nominate res for the most unbelievable statement: the idea that you have to be an atheist to subscribe to the theory of evolution (and Christian to subscribe to ID).

I never said that, that is you lying about me again.
Please do not lie. Lying is offensive.

I did say if you are an athiest, you have to be an evolutionist - I never said the reverse, nor did I ever say you had to be a creationist/ID if you were christian (in fact, I said you didn't)

You lying about me isn't a surprise though. You have a habit of doing it.

Last edited by resedit (2005-08-10 10:19 pm)

Oh, forgot yeast.  Yes, another organism we cannot really understand because it changes so rapidly

resedit wrote:

We've seen that processes that were thought to take millions of years can happen quite quickly. A lot of that comes from the aftermath of Mt. St. Helens.

A)  It's not that geologist DON'T allow for catastrophic events to make certain land forms.  They just realize that "catastrophes" are not, for the most part, responsible for terrain features.

B) Do you realize how much energy was release to form some of those Mt. St. Helens landforms?  Now, if you believe that one 40-day cataclysm could cause most major world landforms (mountain ranges, etc.) think about the amount of energy required and released.  Think about what the world would look like, and what would survive, after such a virtually simultaneous energy release.

Thought so...

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

We've seen that processes that were thought to take millions of years can happen quite quickly. A lot of that comes from the aftermath of Mt. St. Helens.

A)  It's not that geologist DON'T allow for catastrophic events to make certain land forms.  They just realize that "catastrophes" are not, for the most part, responsible for terrain features.

B) Do you realize how much energy was release to form some of those Mt. St. Helens landforms?  Now, if you believe that one 40-day cataclysm could cause most major world landforms (mountain ranges, etc.) think about the amount of energy required and released.  Think about what the world would look like, and what would survive, after such a virtually simultaneous energy release.

Thought so...

Kinda what I was thinking.  Especially after the last Tsunami tragedy.  The plates only moved a little, but look at the results.  If there was a rapid shift, as you suggest, then the destruction  would amount to  huge waves?  Noah's boat was about of 40 cubits?  What is a cubit... doesn't matter.  It would have been high seas for that poor kid.  It is enough to say that he would have had Marklar up his ass     I understand that "Through God all things are possible", but give me Something better than that. 
P.S. I guess I'm not done with the thread yet.

resedit wrote:

Well, if the thread's over, I'd like to nominate res for the most unbelievable statement: the idea that you have to be an atheist to subscribe to the theory of evolution (and Christian to subscribe to ID).

I never said that, that is you lying about me again.
Please do not lie. Lying is offensive.

I did say if you are an athiest, you have to be an evolutionist - I never said the reverse, nor did I ever say you had to be a creationist/ID if you were christian (in fact, I said you didn't)

You lying about me isn't a surprise though. You have a habit of doing it.

Let's review, shall we?

Since most of you do not want to accept that a flood is even possible, you take the word of someone opposing the flood as accurately representing what these views are, when the fact is that he is distorting them for the purpose of his rebuttal. But you don't care about that, all you care about is does it ridicule the idea of a flood - if so, it is a great link - never mind checking as to whether or not it accurately portrays what it bashes, strawman is OK if it denies a need for God - whom you loathe.

The "you" in that paragraph refers to all of us in MiniThink who believe differently than you do on this subject. You said we all loathe God, which is first of all stupid, because atheists don't believe in God, so how can they hate him? For us to loathe God we'd have to be satanists or something.

No matter how you slice it, you painted all of us with a pretty broad (and nasty) brush there, chum.

Here's another one:

resedit wrote:

Ya know - the same can be said for athiests and evolution, and if you read the reasoning some of the early athiests gave - they stated it themselves, they wanted evolution to prove there is no God.

Evolution itself, then, is an atheist plot designed to destroy Christianity, and all of us evil anti-Christians are par of that plot.

I did say if you are an athiest, you have to be an evolutionist - I never said the reverse

one does have to be an evolutionist to be an athiest.

Maybe the problem is clumsy wording, but isn't that the reverse? Actually, the more I read that, the more confused I get. If I read it wrong, it certainly isn't my fault, nor does it make me guilty of "lying" about you -- at best I mis-translated what you said (and Lord knows I wasn't the only one).

Chew on that for awhile - and think about why there is so much vile against those who reject evolution. It is because without evolution, the athiest is kind of stuck ... it is critical to their belief in no higher power.

Again, evolution isn't a scientific theory, it's a key plank in an atheist's belief structure.

We all loathe God, we're all out to get Him (and you). That's what it boils down to.

Or am I lying again?

While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art … amp;ID=105

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art … amp;ID=105

Umm... as Shnicky has been trying to point out, just because someone believes in evolution doesn't mean they are an atheist. There are plenty of Christians who believe God guided evolution, and plenty of scientist, while not exactly Christian, are of the belief that some intelligences may have guided the processes of the universe. The only difference between those types of people and YECs is that the former group believes they can unlock the secrets of the universe, whatever they may be, through research.

Stop LYING!

mo' ron wrote:

and plenty of scientist, while not exactly Christian, are of the belief that some intelligences may have guided the processes of the universe.

Can you name one who is an athiest?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

I never said that someone who believes in evolution has to be an athiest.
That was pure spin.

I believe was schnicky spun it from was a post directly addressing those who thought the dishonest talkorigins.org link was a "good link" when in fact it was not, but rather misprepresented the views it trashed and completely neglected other arguements.

So you didn't say we loathed God?

C'mon, seriously.

The loathed God statement was in ditrect response to those stating the talkorigins link was good, when a simple investigation would show that it was dishonest.

That was NOT a statement about all evolutions being athiests, and you know it.

Being vague is a great argument tactic. You can say about anything you want and then redefine it later.