Faithless a Choice?

[ppp]

I just wanted to understand why you thought to mention that the earth does not have enough water molecules to create a global flood.

I don't understand your (apparent) confusion between molecules of water and a purported flood of water.

The earth was once covered by water, according to the Genesis account.

I read that story. I also read a story where the sky was blackened with dragons. Not enough dragon molecules either.

Then it explains what happened with the water and the land.

Like I said, I have read the story. I contains plenty of assertions. No explanations. Nor, more importantly, no demonstrations.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your silly and completely evidence-free story really should include the thing about excess water going to Neptune. Kind of caps off the
narrative in style.

You've never responded to my question about
whether you continue to deny that erosion can and does produce spires, knife ridges etc. You've maintained it only produces smooth / rounded structures.

I never said "only," did I?
You're referring to weathering, a different mechanism.
"In earth science, erosion is the action of surface processes (such as water flow or wind) that removes soil, rock, or dissolved material from one location on the Earth's crust, and then transports it to another location. Erosion is distinct from weathering which involves no movement.
Erosion - Wikipedia

Which features does erosion mostly produce? (Erosion: destruction by wearing down.)
And we don't observe it with the high ranges.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I was staying away from assuming. I could assume an explanation but don't want to.

Well, ok. I was just trying to help you out.

 

[Audie]

I never said "only," did I?
You're referring to weathering, a different mechanism.
"In earth science, erosion is the action of surface processes (such as water flow or wind) that removes soil, rock, or dissolved material from one location on the Earth's crust, and then transports it to another location. Erosion is distinct from weathering which involves no movement.
Erosion - Wikipedia

Which features does erosion mostly produce? (Erosion: destruction by wearing down.)
And we don't observe it with the high ranges.

Your file does not open.

Now, is it true that you think that erosion
andc/ or weathering only produce smooth or rounded blunt surfaces?

You have i believe said the American rockies
are sharp ridged and peaked because they
are young.

Of course you say little and avoid committing
yourself to a definable statement, that does not leave an easy escape hatch.

 

[Audie]

Well, ok. I was just trying to help you out.

Nonsense multiplied by nonsense is little help.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I described how the global flood can be deproved. One of many ways.
There is abundant access to the data.

Yes, there is abundant data. How are many of the related facts, explained? "We don't know".


Unfortunately, you begin with erroneous suppositions, basically strawmen, which you attack.
Example: "There's not enough water to cover Mt. Everest."
Newsflash! Mt.Everest was nowhere near as high as it is now, prior to the Flood! (Most [much?] of the Flood waters came from below the Earth's surface, as the text reveals.)

Nothing could disprove it to YOU.
I knew that all along.

And nothing will prove it to you.
Maybe someday.
I suggest you read "The Genesis Flood", by Drs. John Woodmorappe & Henry Morris.
(I doubt you ever would want to challenge your belief.)
Unfortunately, they are YEC's (an errant position), yet the evidence they provide for the Global Flood is substantial.

 

[ppp]

Newsflash! Mt.Everest was nowhere near as high as it is now, prior to the Flood! (Most [much?] of the Flood waters came from below the Earth's surface, as the text reveals.)

Can you demonstrate that either of those statements are true?

 

[Audie]

Yes, there is abundant data. How are many of the related facts, explained? "We don't know".


Unfortunately, you begin with erroneous suppositions, basically strawmen, which you attack.
Example: "There's not enough water to cover Mt. Everest."
Newsflash! Mt.Everest was nowhere near as high as it is now, prior to the Flood! (Most [much?] of the Flood waters came from below the Earth's surface, as the text reveals.)



And nothing will prove it to you.
Maybe someday.
I suggest you read "The Genesis Flood", by Drs. John Woodmorappe & Henry Morris.
(I doubt you ever would want to challenge your belief.)
Unfortunately, they are YEC's (an errant position), yet the evidence they provide for the Global Flood is substantial.

What related fact did I address with " i don't know"?

Polar ice predating flood is higly relevant.

I didn't bring up my Everest.


And you are again off through the tree tops,
new topics, evading the old.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Can you demonstrate that either of those statements are true?

Fact 1: "Mt.Everest was nowhere near as high as it is now, prior to the Flood! "
Explanation: Just observe the range! Their features are distinct & well-defined! Very little erosion... certainly not "millions of years"!!
And the huge (marine) clams found, are in the closed position, indicating a quick death! Like a catastrophe would cause.
Fact 2: "(Most [much?] of the Flood waters came from below the Earth's surface, as the text reveals.)"
'And the springs of the vast watery deep were opened up..."

What effect, do you think, would this have on the land directly above it?

 

[Audie]

Fact 1: "Mt.Everest was nowhere near as high as it is now, prior to the Flood! "
Explanation: Just observe the range! Their features are distinct & well-defined! Very little erosion... certainly not "millions of years"!!
And the huge (marine) clams found, are in the closed position, indicating a quick death! Like a catastrophe would cause.
Fact 2: "(Most [much?] of the Flood waters came from below the Earth's surface, as the text reveals.)"
'And the springs of the vast watery deep were opened up..."

What effect, do you think, would this have on the land directly above it?

You are really a specimen..
As I pointed out before ANY clam digger knows that you dig up lots of claims that are closed, but dead and full of mud.

But here you are again as always regurgitating
garbage you got somewhere, and peddling it as fact. So dishonest.

 

[ppp]

Fact 1: "Mt.Everest was nowhere near as high as it is now, prior to the Flood! "

That assumes your conclusion, and is thus rejected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You left me here. Which shows you are not interested in discussing anything. You just want to say what you like.
No matter how wrong you are.

I must say, I find it most impressive, and kind of disturbing, how you keep track of posts as if you have an archive ready to be used whenever you think you can use it.

I don't even remember the thread and I have no idea why I left it there.
Perhaps I got bored, perhaps I got frustrated with your stubbornness, perhaps I simply missed it. I really don't remember.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Now, is it true that you think that erosion
andc/ or weathering only produce smooth or rounded blunt surfaces?

I think I just answered that.See above.

You have i believe said the American rockies
are sharp ridged and peaked because they are young

Yes, I make that claim. If they existed before the Flood, they weren't nearly as high.
But their features indicate little erosion.

Of course you say little and avoid committing
yourself to a definable statement, that does not leave an easy escape hatch.

You mean like your revered scientists, with claims of "we don't know"?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That assumes your conclusion, and is thus rejected.

You didn't even address the post!

 

[ppp]

You didn't even address the post!

You didn't provide anything to address.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are really a specimen..
As I pointed out before ANY clam digger knows that you dig up lots of claims that are closed, but dead and full of mud.

But here you are again as always regurgitating
garbage you got somewhere, and peddling it as fact. So dishonest.

It's an established fact. You answered your own question, by saying "digging". The ones dug up... How did they get buried?
Question: how do you bury 500-pound clams?

This is getting comical.

Hope you have a good day, my cousin.

 

[Audie]

I think I just answered that.See above.


Yes, I make that claim. If they existed before the Flood, they weren't nearly as high.
But their features indicate little erosion.


You mean like your revered scientific claims of "we don't know"?

I don't use excuses.

And you sure don't have a clue about
geomprphology.

The enormous volume of material shed by the himalays or the rockies is a hint that there's been a lot of ewesthrring and erosion.

But like I said geomorph isn't your thing,
and you won't lesrnbany from a creobook.

 

[savagewind]

May I add a third reason?

Too many churches pinning their masts to political parties against the teachings of their holy scripts.

Wonderful! That is some good thinking. I say churches are for their own interests, even nonchurches.

 

[nPeace]

I described how the global flood can be deproved. One of many ways.
There is abundant access to the data.

Nothing could disprove it to YOU.
I knew that all along.

My interest is in the weird and varied ways
that people do denial.

One creationist I talked to could see that
if antarctic ice was flooded, it would float.
But he figured it would stay in place due to
circumpolar current.

When I pointed out how setting back
in the right place is a problem he went
dark for a couple of days.

Then he decided (made it up) that the ice was frozen
down like ice to a sidewalk!

I calculated for him the buoyant force of
Ice two miles thick, per square foot.

More than enough to tear a car apart,
let alone break ice free from rock.

After that he wouldn't talk to me.

Like I said Audie, I do appreciate what you presented, but please understand that you have not disproved anything, since you assume that everything is set up in your favor.
As I told @Hockeycowboy, I don't want to assume what happened. I can, but we are not dealing with assumptions, right.
There are factors that will prevent ice from floating.
You know this. You can do an experiment in your own home, and show how you can set up an environment that will prevent ice from moving.
This can happen naturally... but like I said, I don't want to making assumptions.
There are many reasons I believe the global flood took place.
Not only is there evidence in the 175 legends, but there is validity in many Biblical account, and when I put them together, they say, the flood account is true.
Jesus Christ confirmed it.

To give you an example, of what I mean... I read Leviticus 18, and 19 today, and I saw 99% positive and reasonable statements... which are basic, and understandable, and can be / are appropriated by most people.
Then I read something, that was puzzling - 1%... but when I reflected on it, and got an explanation from my brothers of "the faithful and wise servant", I thought to myself, "Wow". This is how it is.... People read the Bible, ignore the 99% clear, reasonable and positive, and focus on one thing to criticize.... and why? It is something that is either not clearly understood, or can be questioned because it seems to defy logic, or known observations.

I think the 95% we can accept, gives us reason to have faith in the 5%.
This is why, evidently... getting back to the OP, Jesus said, "Faith is not the possession of all people".
I believe, and I have faith - I'm sure of those realities not seen... including Jonah being in the belly of the big fish, three days.

I totally get your lack of faith though Audie, and I certainly don't want you to believe something you are highly skeptical of - even considering it foolishness.
The Bible does say, God uses foolish things, to bring the wise to shame. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)
Believe it or not Audie, some of us Christians were once like you. That's a fact.

 

[nPeace]

Well, ok. I was just trying to help you out.

Thanks. I'm okay.