Theists who assert that Atheism is a 'belief system' are completely without a clue but then they're theists.
How many of today's atheists here would contest one of following positive points:
- Universe needs neither creator nor upholder;
- It started with a Big Bang but we do not need to know where the gigantic mass before it came from;
- Galaxies and stars with or without planets start out the same way: clouds of gas get attracted to each other, to a focal point in the middle, where a spiralling movement starts;
- Our sun is a star with planets and started out that way too;
- Earth started out hot and uninhabitable;
- Life on earth started by chance combinations of ammoniac, carbon dioxide and other gasses with water;
- Life on earth started out with DNA or RNA forming self replicating single cell beings;
- Single cell beings somehow evolved into genuine tissue variagated many celled animals (as well as into plants of also many cells, as well as into sponges where many cells form a colony as much as a being);
- From then on and from origin of sexual reproduction evolution has been a question of mutation, cross-breeding, weeding out by natural selection;
- This evolution has given rise to spineless animals, to fishes as primary spine animals, from fishes with only cartilage to fishes with real bones, and fishes gave rise via crossopterygians to amphibia, amphibia gave rise to reptiles (which modern scientists do not consider a true group anyway, but divide it into those having one, two or no hole at all on a spot of the cranium)
- Reptiles of appropriate types gave rise to birds and to mammals (which have different number of holes on that part of cranium) who unlike reptiles are warmblooded creatures;
- One branch of mammals are primates, one branch of which are true monkeys, one branch of which - since Ramapithecus 20 million years ago - are apes, one branch of which - since Australopithecan species 4 million years ago to 1 million years ago - is hominids the surviving branch of which is man: who had already some cultural capacities, though very primitively evolved from his precursors, and whose developed culture started out with superstition, went on to polytheism, to monotheism and from then to atheistic and pantheistic philosophies, until man finally learned all of this story by pretty recent resarch (five hundred years or so and some parts only last fifty years) of a scientific type which trumps all previous cultures of man as far as getting to the true origin of things is concerned.
July 21 at 2:00pm
I will not tire you with seven days of very uniform debate in which apart from charges that I have no clue, I was told more than once that this was not the belief system of these atheists, and in which not one of them challenged any one point. I will take you to a somewhat more varied debate, in which I was eventually excluded for contesting heliocentrism. Here was my opening statement, with reactions.
Thank you for letting me join.
Now, I am not quite a fan, I happen to have joined this only to answer one of his videos with a blogpost of mine (on my creationist blog, b t w):
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2012/07/thunderf00t-welcome-to-world-of-p-c.html
N. E.
That species give rise to new species (macroevolution) is an OBSERVED FACT of reality. End of story.
July 20 at 6:30pm · 2.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Observed fact? Among plants where polyploidy constitutes a new legitimate species. Mammals do not go polyploid. One rat species has been found that one set of specialists consider tetraploid, but that is contested.
July 21 at 1:43pm.
N. E.
How does this in anyway refute what I said? Speciation is observed and documented and thus macroevolution is an observed fact, by definition.
And I wasn't referring to polyploid plants.
July 21 at 5:49pm.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
But to ... ?
Mammals? Hardly!
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
July 21 at 6:33pm
Ch. Ch.
Yawn. Your god is the latest in a series of fads, having derived substantial portions of his mythology from previous works. That's called plagiarism, and not really indicative of divine inspiration.
That said, I only disbelieve in one additional set of mythology than you. Yours is frankly no more interesting than the Greek gods, and less inspirational than some pagean goddesses I know, who birthed creation in a similar manner as a woman would a child.
Certainly Christianity is less suggestively interesting that gods who fertilize the earth, literally with their divine seed, or plunge their swords (yes, this is as suggestive in the native tongue) into the ocean to form land.
In short, your mythology is not compelling or original. It yields no answers of predictive value, nor provides a good moral base (unless you find genocide and gang rape moral pastimes) to live by.
Like those before it, yours too will be remembered only as myth one day, and people will wonder how silly you were for believing a dry pasty cracker to be the body of your beloved god, which you then consume! How quaint a story indeed.
Now, if you'd like to return to the desert walking, frankly barbaric ways of your Arabic predecessors, by all means please do so. Remember that modern medicine, the Internet, gps, turbine engines, and the like aren't of your world, so it may take some doing to get home, but I'm sure the world of scientifically minded individuals will be willing to let you use these things to go home if you'd like... Or...
You can acknowledge the reality of the world around you. The modern world and our modern understanding of it is so miraculous it boggles the mind. The possibilities before us as a species are seemingly endless, and totally foreign to our way of thinking as relatively flatland dwelling, relatively slow, lumbering giants. When you get too small, water is more like glue than what we think of as water, too big and it's more like air.
It takes a lot of imagination just to accept the observations of the world as true on scales just a little bigger or smaller than ourselves. That's fine, we're just used to being how we are, and only now leaving the ignorance of our own short existences.
The people who wrote the bible, whether you think them divinely inspired or not, obviously had no inspiration of the sorts coming every day from our modern world. These discoveries aren't stopping, but speeding up, and trying to put brakes on this train won't end well for the brakes.
So enjoy the ride. We'll all get there, a little or a lot less for wear. That's your choice, though it looks like you've already made it. Ours is only ignorance, and a promise to pursue the answers that we don't yet have, using the proven, reliable means we already have: questioning everything, even faith.
July 23 at 4:32pm
N. E.
Mammals, insects, birds, amphibians. Take your pick. I'm sorry the fact of evolution removes you from your PERCEIVED self importance but this is reality. You need to look a the big picture. The earth and everything on it is literally nothing compared to the universe. This, however, makes it VERY special. The only life we know for sure exists is here, with us, on this Pale Blue Dot. We should cherish and respect it. It is our home, our ONLY home. Christianity says god gave man dominion over the earth (obvious crap). This can ONLY breed the dangerous, anthropocentric view that allows us to keep raping the natural world. We do NOT have dominion over the earth as Katrina, Haiti, Indonesian Tsunami and the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami prove. We don't have dominion over anything but ourselves. The bible is wrong on so many fronts it is amazing why anyone would take it as gospel.
July 23 at 8:46pm
St. Wh.
I've recently been thinking about this question. Why are there other animals on earth? If God only cares about humans believing in him, and we are the only ones that can get into heaven or be damned to eternal hellfire, what is the creationist reason for other animals being here?
I'm genuinely asking to. I've never asked this question to any theist, let alone a creationist. So please Hans, educate me on this point. Why aren't there just humans here on earth?
July 23 at 8:44pm.
N. E.
The other animals are here for us to eat and use as resources. That is the answer a creationist will give. Part of the "dominion" bs.
July 23 at 8:47pm.
St. Wh.
That's too easy. We don't eat and utilize every plant or animal. We don't even have an official number of species on the planet. If there were only fruits, vegetables, cows, pigs, or chickens, I'd say they have a point. And even then it's complete bullshit because we don't even need that many to survive, and then on top of that why do we even need to consume if we could have been 'designed' to not have to eat to survive.
Haha that's directed at Hans, I know you could agree N. (E.)
July 23 at 8:52pm.
N. E.
I know exactly how the creationist will answer....
July 23 at 9:21pm
St. Wh.
lol Just when I thought I had a good point, they've already prepared an answer. I just don't understand why they're entitled to answer these unique questions when the bible doesn't even give a fraction of the details we would need to know in order for it to make sense.
July 23 at 9:32pm.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ch. Ch. - sure, truth is less original than some stuff in Hesiod. Sometimes at least. And less original than the 12 point program of your creed I vented. After discussion below your point, I would like to ask whether ecology nowadays is not a thirteenth of thiose points, along with blaming Christian view of man's dominion for ravages of industrialism.
St. Wh. & N. E. I am Catholic, not "Bible alone". There are Church Father's, there is Thomist Philosophy and Theology. Every part of creation was made to glorify its maker. Animals were not created only when man was told to eat of them after the flood, but were there before the flood too.
N. E. - I pick MAMMALS. In what sense has specification or macroevolution been observed in MAMMALS. Which MAMMALIAN species has come into existance since Darwin's day (i e since some of us started looking for macroevolution)?
July 24 at 5:37pm
N. E.
Faroe Island House Mouse. So the plague bacteria was created to glorify god, gotcha. What an evil bastard. Global flood never happened as such an event is physically impossible, there isn't enough water. Such an event would have left very specific, obvious evidences but they don't exist. There is NO evidence for such an event and literally mountains of evidence refuting such an event, sorry.
July 24 at 6:26pm.
St. Wh.
You didn't answer my questions either Hans. July 24 at 6:32pm.
Ch. Ch.
Hans: any unbalanced creed leads to destructive ends, like the male dominion concepts, which are also not unique to Christianity.
In point of fact however, non-subjective reality is far more original and compelling than you seem to give it credit for. Ideas we take for granted now used to be novel, even unbelievable, but they show the limits of purely human scale intuition. Things like the earth being round, electromagnetic properties, even the nature of the atom. These defy the limits of our existence, and cannot be predicted by anything sort of rigorous investigation precisely because they're so foreign.
Of course we find them incredible, because these are new to the human experience, and things which have never been observed before. That warrants reasonable doubt, and is why even now, the existence of theories are sometimes spoken of in % certainty.
Yet these principles give us much beneficial knowledge about the earth and universe, and how to both shape and co-exist with it. You literally can't do anything in your daily life without using EM principles of some sort, (electricity, wireless communications) but the principles are frankly bizarre. We've come to accept them as part of our daily existence, because the experience is common to us and benefits our lives directly. Not all scientific principles are as common in our daily lives, but when they are, as say evolutionary principles are to a biologist, geneticist or pharmaceutical researcher, the usefulness of the knowledge makes its use a no-brainer.
By comparison, plagiarized books from other myths, which contain nothing of predictive value, those are quite uncompelling and unoriginal by comparison.
I know your creed confuses the two, but they really are as different as neutron stars are from sand. Horus and Jesus are perhaps just a cat and a mouse apart.
Wednesday at 2:35am via mobile.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Faroe Island House Mouse - reference proving it is not just another chromosomal race of mice achieved by chromosome fusion?
St. Wh. - I did answer this point: "We don't eat and utilize every plant or animal. We don't even have an official number of species on the planet. If there were only fruits, vegetables, cows, pigs, or chickens, I'd say they have a point." - and N. E. noted it.
N. E. - the yersinia pestis glorifies God sometimes by punishing people and sometimes by being gotten rid of. Both the work of Yersin and the working of miraculous cures involving disappearance of Yersinia Pestis do glorify God.
Ch. Ch. - you assume yourself to be dealing with uncensored reality and me to be dealing with plagiarised myth. Why?
Wednesday at 10:43am
Ch. Ch.
Hans: my computer works because of science, as does yours. Modern medicine? Evolution theory, biology and genetics.
I don't assume, I witness what works and draw conclusions. Why do you attribute things to an invisible man, when visible men can be seen inventing and researching these things?
It seems absurd to me that you'd even assert God has a role in the world. Really, look at it. This ball of water is a horrible stain on the resume of any divine being, but about what you'd expect without one.
Wednesday at 2:25pm
N. E.
The Faroe Island House Mouse is a new species. That is the point. Speciation is observed fact and thus macroevolution is observed fact. Yersinia pestis is endemic to the US and many other places. It hasn't disappeared. I'm glad you agree your god is an evil bastard though. Can I assume that you do not think the flood of Noah was literally a global event?
Wednesday at 6:53pm.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
N. E. - "is a new species." I asked for REFERENCE ...
Ch. Ch. - computer science is not about evolution or about heliocentrism. Modern medicine has little to do with evolution except for the microevolution of bacteria we do acknowledge as creationists. What works and what is true is not always same thing. False predictions sometimes work by being self-fulfilling, as was the case with certain ones of Apollo Delphicus.
N. E. - yersinia pestis SOMETIMES glorifies God by being gotten rid of. I mean you do not have to have all of the globe rid of it for that. As for rest ofthat diatribe, we owe God one for not being holy because of our ancestor Adam, and we owe God another one for each sin we do. Although it seems some Catholic theologians were open for globe not being literally global, I am not.
Thursday at 1:55pm.
N. E.
Hans, Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, pg 41. You do know what speciation is right? It doesn't matter what kind of speciation we are talking about, it is still a new species. Curing the plague isn't a miracle, it is modern medicine. Miracles are, by definition, impossible. Original sin? Are you serious?????? So if you have a great, great, great, great grandfather that raped and murdered little boys YOU should be punished for this, right? You're a moron if you believe in original sin. It is a barbaric, irrational concept that has NO place in the modern world. Do you think the flood of Noah was global and if so what evidence do you have outside the bible to support it?
Thursday at 6:20pm · Edited
Ch. Ch.
Hans: Why do you feel qualified to talk about things you are clearly ignorant of?
Silicon chips are largely a product of the space race, which, yes, presumes hello centrism to work.
Modern medicine? Evolutionary theory on a small (bacteria) and large (how testing on mice and chimps bears and validity in humans) scale.
You keep insisting on "Evidence" which is flawed, and frankly shows your ignorance.
I've suggested before that if you don't like science, please stop using its products, but you clearly don't even know the extent to which your modern existence is utterly dependent on scientific discovery.
Maybe you should answer that question for yourself first, then you'll understand what tf00t means when he says "Science delivers the goods".
I'm pretty sure when you are breakfast (processed by machines using electricity) you weren't worried about food poisoning (thanks to Mr Pasteur) and didn't travel to a farm by foot to get it, or grow it yourself. Even if you did, you probably used fertilizers and/or pesticides, and possibly GMO seeds.
Your food was kept chilled in a refrigerator, which runs on electricity. Clean, safe water was assured by your local utility, by utilizing modern chemical and biological filtering and test techniques, and pumped to your house using electricity.
You likely heated something in the microwave, or on a (non wood burning) stove.
The computer you're using is a product of the space race, and runs on electricity.
And all of these are gifts of science, for which you pay virtually nothing, but each of these small things makes your life so much easier. So east in fact that you can sit there and call science a crock with all the spare time freed up from activities like scrounging for food and water, and avoiding being killed by lions.
If you want to go back to that lifestyle, I hear a few countries on earth still offer that experience. Please indulge yourself for a few months, so you'll be more inclined to thank the diligent work of scientists who discovered each of these principles.
Yesterday at 2:23am via mobile
Hans-Georg Lundahl
N. E. - "Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, pg 41."
Noted. We will see if it has been disputed, as non-factual or irrelevant since 1979.
"Curing the plague isn't a miracle, it is modern medicine."
Carpentras was miraculously spared way before modern medicine, and both miracles and modern medicine glorify God.
"Miracles are, by definition, impossible."
Not unless you add the important qualification "to created agents".
"You're a moron if you believe in original sin."
I am a Catholic, and as such I obviously believe in original sin. I also see you got its essence wrong.
Adam sinned as ancestor of all mankind, and therefore all mankind is punished by God. My great grand father's great grand father sinned as an individual and I should obviously not be punished for his sins by human justice.
"Do you think the flood of Noah was global and if so what evidence do you have outside the bible to support it?"
1 Yes, I do.
2 a the fossil record that you guys divide into billions of years, which we consider product of a very quick and big sedimentation.
2 b every second Pagan mythology in the world records a recent creation and a universal flood.
And if you ask whether I consider Pagan myths evidence, yes again, to a limited extent. I do not think Zeus Apollo and Poseidon walked along before the Flood and found Deucalion and Pyrrha hospitable, but I do think that the "three angels" - the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost appearing in angelic form - found Abraham and two of them found Lot hospitable, and Abraham and Sara were fertile and Lot was spared as thanks for that, and I do think Noah and his wife and his three sons and his three daughters in law were spared an universal flood, and I do think the Greeks did not invent the Deucalion story from nothing but rather garble two real stories.
Yesterday at 4:46pm
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ch. Ch. - "Why do you feel qualified to talk about things you are clearly ignorant of?"
Because my ignorance is not so clear to myself as it is to you? Or because I am not ignorant but it suits you to call me so?
Thanks for admitting there is an atheist animus about this against me!
"Silicon chips are largely a product of the space race, which, yes, presumes hello centrism to work."
Space voyages may or may not need heliocentrism to be true in order to work. Silicon chips do not.
"Modern medicine? Evolutionary theory on a small (bacteria) and large (how testing on mice and chimps bears and validity in humans) scale."
Marginal to medicine. Evolution of bacterias is also marginal to the question dividing creationists from evolutionists. As for validity of testing on animals, when intended for men, that question depends on similarities and dissimilarities which are explicable without involving evolution at all.
"I've suggested before that if you don't like science, please stop using its products, but you clearly don't even know the extent to which your modern existence is utterly dependent on scientific discovery."
Strawmannus maximus. I did not say I did not like science, I do say I do not like your confusing evolution and heliocentrism with science.
"I'm pretty sure when you are breakfast (processed by machines using electricity) you weren't worried about food poisoning (thanks to Mr Pasteur) and didn't travel to a farm by foot to get it, or grow it yourself. Even if you did, you probably used fertilizers and/or pesticides, and possibly GMO seeds."
I might like to change parts of that situation. I have lived without electricity in the flat, using a coal heated stove in winter and a gaz burner in summer to boil the tea or cook the food (that is ma did most of the cooking back then) as well as candles for reading after nightfall. I would enjoy doing so again. I also think people living closer to farms (statistically, not exactly everyone) would be good for curing some troubles in modern society.
"Your food was kept chilled in a refrigerator, which runs on electricity."
Actually yes. But cold cellars have been used before and can be used again.
"Clean, safe water was assured by your local utility, by utilizing modern chemical and biological filtering and test techniques, and pumped to your house using electricity."
You presume I have a house. But apart from that, neither the chemicals nor the biological means of cleaning up water come from heliocentrism or from darwinism. They come from fields of science which I count as considerably less infected with modern errors than those two.
"You likely heated something in the microwave, or on a (non wood burning) stove."
As mentioned, I have heated things on wood burning stoves too.
"The computer you're using is a product of the space race, and runs on electricity."
As mentioned, electricity is a field of science which may be less infected with modern error than the ones you defend against me. And space race as human activity would have happened due to acceptance of heliocentrism even if it were not true, and computers working does not presume it to be true. Your argument is as stupid as Piggy's in Lord of the Flies "there are no ghosts, if there were ghosts television and elevators would'nt work" - one very big assumption of consequentiality between two unrelated sentences.
"And all of these are gifts of science, for which you pay virtually nothing, but each of these small things makes your life so much easier. ... so you'll be more inclined to thank the diligent work of scientists who discovered each of these principles."
Wow, now you are deep down in Pagan "Society-Rules-Ism". Science is not a subject to be debated but a benefactor to be thanked. Wow, guess what? Your style of reasoning is not very scientific.
23 hours ago
N. E.
Hans, you are demonstrably wrong on so many points I don't know where to start. First off, when it comes to original sin you are simply making excuses. Punishing someone for the actions of others is WRONG no matter what kind of excuses you make. You and I are both far more moral than your god.
As for the global flood. The fossil record directly refutes a global flood. Most dinosaurs are NOT found in flood deposits. They are found is deposits of braided river systems. Some dinosaurs are also found in "petrified", DRY desert sand dunes. This is the ABSENCE of water. A global flood would have left a SINGLE layer with ALL the fossils in it. This is NOT what is observed. We observe many different layers separated by what are called bedding planes. These bedding planes represent unknown periods of erosion followed by deposition of new sediments on top. All the strata that consists of volcanic ash or diatoms would be ON TOP of the entire geologic column, not interspersed among sandstone, limestone, etc. which is what we DO observe. If you think the flood was global you have MANY things to answer for. Here is just a tiny sample:
1.Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
2.How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
3.Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
4.Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
5.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]
6.How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
a.the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
b.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?
c.why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
d.why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
e.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?
f.how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
g.why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
h.why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
i.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?
j.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].
k.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?
The fossil record DIRECTLY REFUTES a global flood, fact, sorry.
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.]
10.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]
I don't expect you to address any of these because I'm sure you lack the education to address any of them directly. My point is that there are serious problems/implications with a global flood. None of it matches what we actually observe. My last point is that there isn't enough water on earth for such an event, not even close. Mt. Ararat is about 17,000 feet above sea level. In order to flood the earth to just 15,000 feet you would need 1,645,321,698.4 cubic miles of water. The total amount of water on earth is only about 350 million cubic miles. Where is all the missing water? Where did it come from and where did it go?
I suggest you start living in reality.
22 hours ago · Edited · 1
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Speaking of reality it is only 19 minutes left on the last computer session today, I will have to check back tomorrow.
19 hours ago.
(back today) Starting with 1:
"Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993]"
I do not think the layers are at all necessarily annual. Hence I see no evidence they date back to the flood. They might be part of where the water went to after the flood.
My answer to 1 also answered 2.
Skipping 3 and 4 for now.
5 - 10, I am indeed ill qualified to answer some of the detail, but not all. I recently learned that strata form sideways.
sideways:
a
bb
ccc
aa
bbb
cccc
aaa
bbbb
ccccc
aaaa
bbbbb
cccccc
not like:
then:
bbbbb
cccccc
and last:
aaaa
bbbbb
cccccc
Some dating methods (including uranium/thorium probably, since rate of radiodecomposition is too slow to have been directly measured and should probably have been calculated over supposed ages of items supposedly not having contained any lead from beginning) are simply rip-offs on sedimentary dating. As for C14, the content thereof in atmosphere is constant if at all due to a balance, which allows for a period of buildup, during which content was much lower, and objects alive back then seem much older due to that dating fault.
Ch. Ch.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: "Strawmannus maximus. I did not say I did not like science, I do say I do not like your confusing evolution and heliocentrism with science."
Are we actually trying to hold a discussion with someone who honestly believes the earth does NOT go around the sun?
Everyone, give up, I'm afraid this one is truly, honestly, and irrevocably beyond hope. Even the POPE admits the catholic church was wrong on this point.
Please, leave this group, and do not come back.
19 minutes ago · Edited
But Ch. Ch. did not wait for me to follow that injunction, it seems, because when I was reading this I was already excluded.
Open to debate, these atheists? Not really. Religious about what they call science? One might say so.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
G. Pompidou Library
of Paris
28-VII-2012
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire