There is irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed in a short time, the worldwide flood.

[blü 2]

But the God of the Bible is the only God and that is easily proven to be true.

I'd have thought the problem with that proposition is that the bible god didn't exist till around 1500 BCE. The gods of Mesopotamia and Egypt are at least a thousand years older, and I dare say there are many older still whose names have dropped off the record.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I'd have thought the problem with that proposition is that the bible god didn't exist till around 1500 BCE. The gods of Mesopotamia and Egypt are at least a thousand years older, and I dare say there are many more older still whose names have dropped off the record.

Read the Bible.

 

[Esteban X]

Read the Bible.

Done. And the Vedas, and Enuma Elish and the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Your point?

 

[blü 2]

Read the Bible.

Well, it's clear what 20 years of reading the bible did for you ─ I can quote it in support of what I say and you can't quote it in support of what you say. It remains the case that the God of the bible isn't found in history until roughly 1500 BCE.

 

[Mock Turtle]

i dont think you really grasp the point... you have it completely assabout face.

If there is no God, then both the atheist and Christian end up the same (so the Christian loses nothing)

Apart from the Christian living a life of delusion and perhaps fighting or being in conflict with some other religion, which the non-believer has no reason to do.

If there is a God, then the Christian wins and the atheist loses.

So the point is, in either of the above inevitable outcomes, the atheist loses! Surely you have the intellectual capacity to recognise that fact?

You don't seem to have the capacity to understand that if you are wrong you won't even know it. How is that a win? At least the atheist will know they were wrong if they are wrong, and if they are right then they will get what they expect upon death - nothing. And as pointed out, what happens when you have been worshipping the wrong God - given there is such a spectrum of religious beliefs to choose from?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well, it's clear what 20 years of reading the bible did for you ─ I can quote it in support of what I say and you can't quote it in support of what you say. It remains the case that the God of the bible isn't found in history until roughly 1500 BCE.

Quote what ?
Genesis 1 happened about 6000 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well what you say has some merit.

But the God of the Bible is the only God and that is easily proven to be true.
And what the Bible says is crystal clear.

If it is so easily proven then why do you constantly fail at it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quote what ?
Genesis 1 happened about 6000 years ago.

No, it demonstrably never happened.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it demonstrably never happened.

But I already proved it.

 

[Soandso]

Well what you say has some merit.

But the God of the Bible is the only God and that is easily proven to be true.
And what the Bible says is crystal clear.

If it's so crystal clear, why do more and more denominations pop up over time, let alone whole new religions? It seems to me that a crystal clear message would leave no room for interpretation

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If it's so crystal clear, why do more and more denominations pop up over time, let alone whole new religions? It seems to me that a crystal clear message would leave no room for interpretation

Satan deceives people.

 

[Soandso]

Satan deceives people.

To me that seems like a convenient scapegoat to utilize when you don't want to think about the contradiction that causes this cognitive dissonance too deeply

When is it Satan's fault and when is it just because you are mistaken?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

To me that seems like a convenient scapegoat to utilize when you don't want to think about the contradiction that causes this cognitive dissonance too deeply

When is it Satan's fault and when is it just because you are mistaken?

Because God made free will creatures and Satan is very intelligent and deceives many.

 

[Soandso]

Because God made free will creatures and Satan is very intelligent and deceives many.

Well the question wasn't about why Satan deceives, it was about when you know it's Satan vs. being mistaken. Let me reiterate;

To me it seems like a convenient scapegoat to utilize when you don't want to think about the contradiction that causes this cognitive dissonance too deeply

When is it Satan's fault and when is it just because you are mistaken?

For instance, you made the claim that the Bible is crystal clear, yet that can't be the case if there are thousands of denominations and new religions that pop up from time to time based on the text of the Bible. No crystal clear message would leave room for misinterpretation

Why do you think that it's more likely for the misunderstanding of the message to be a deception from Satan more than you being mistaken that the message is as crystal clear as you think it is? How can you tell whether or not you are wrong in your assumption?

 

[blü 2]

But I already proved it.

Now now. You merely asserted it, and then kept asserting your assertion was proof. As your many threads here show, you have virtually no other form of argument.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Now now. You merely asserted it, and then kept asserting your assertion was proof. As your many threads here show, you have virtually no other form of argument.

I refuted evolution, billions of years, the Big Bang, atheism, and uniformatarianism.
The many threads was because there is so much evidence against these.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The amount of dry land and its heights above sea level have no changed significantly in the last 5,000 years.

You think the ice caps could all melt within 371 days? Where's your demonstration of the physics that would show that's true?

You think 70 m / 230 feet less water height required will solve the problem?

I did not say 70 metre of additional water from ice melt is going to solve any problem. The entire problem you attempt to raise is a construct of your own doing...not mine!

New research suggests ancient Earth was a water world, with little to no land in sight. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.​

​

While modern Earth’s surface is about 70 percent water-covered, the new research indicates that our planet was a true ocean world some 3 billion years ago. At this point, only scattered archipelagos breached our global ocean’s briny surface. That is, if any land existed at all.​

Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" without any dry land

New research suggests ancient Earth was completely covered in water. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

www.astronomy.com

Limited Archaean continental emergence reflected in an early Archaean 18O-enriched ocean - Nature Geoscience

The water cycle was in two different steady states, before and after continental emergence, as recorded in the decreasing oxygen isotope values of seawater since the Archaean, according to an inverse geochemical model of the oceanic crustal record.

www.nature.com

Again let me simplify it for you...

1. both world views agree that plate techtonics are responsible for mountain range uplift...so once upon a time, Everest was not 8km high! Your entire claim about the need for billions of cubic metres of aditional water is mute!

2. The difference essentially is only about when it happened, not how.

 

[blü 2]

I refuted evolution, billions of years, the Big Bang, atheism, and uniformatarianism.

I take it pigs regularly fly over and around your house.

 

[blü 2]

I did not say 70 metre of additional water from ice melt is going to solve any problem. The entire problem you attempt to raise is a construct of your own doing...not mine!

No, the problem arises from the geological and hydrological nonsense you find yourself in if you take the bible as accurate history ─ as everyone but YECs can see at a glance, apparently.

New research suggests ancient Earth was a water world, with little to no land in sight. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

That hypothesis is about the earth as it existed very shortly after its formation some 4.5 billion years ago. No geologist of any repute relates it to the world as it existed in the third millennium or so BCE, where the Flood story comes from ─ a thousand years or so before the god of the bible appears in history.

1, Both world views agree that plate techtonics are responsible for mountain range uplift...so once upon a time, Everest was not 8km high!

Yes ─ as I showed you, something like that may have been the case 70 million years ago.

Your entire claim about the need for billions of cubic metres of aditional water is mute!

No, I've given voice to it. You live in Mesopotamia in the third millennium BCE. Water appears out of nowhere and drowns Mesopotamia under something like 5 miles of water, just enough to put say 20 feet of water above the tip of Mt Everest. How much more water do you need to achieve this, over and above the water presently on the earth? I set out the sum earlier in this thread ─

Volume of the earth, radius center to mean sea level plus ~30,000 feet​

minus​

volume of the earth, radius center to mean sea level​

minus​

volume of land above mean sea level.​

And you've done the sum, so you know you need about 1.113 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

It ain't rocket science, just high school arithmetic you can do on your pocket calculator.


Now where's your explanation of "the fountains of the deep" and where do we find examples of them?

And how can you make them cover the earth with all the water mentioned above, given the problems I spelt out for you in my previous post?

And where's that universal geological flood layer left by the Flood?

And where are those genetic bottlenecks in every species of land animal, all dating to the same date as the flood layer?

After all, if the Flood actually happened, ALL those things MUST be out there.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

No, I've given voice to it. You live in Mesopotamia in the third millennium BCE. Water appears out of nowhere and drowns Mesopotamia under something like 5 miles of water, just enough to put say 20 feet of water above the tip of Mt Everest.

You can harp on with this crap all you like, you are wrong, your comprehension of the entire issue is fundamentally bull****.

I will post the references again...for goodness sake use some intelligence and go away and actually read them.

Again, the origins of the earth are almost identical... secular cosmonogy believes that this planet was once a waterworld. You are currently dog barking up trees and making a fool of yourself. The secular references i have provided you in previous posts clearly deny your claim...you need to go away and actually do some proper study on the topic:

New research suggests ancient Earth was a water world, with little to no land in sight. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

While modern Earth’s surface is about 70 percent water-covered, the new research indicates that our planet was a true ocean world some 3 billion years ago. At this point, only scattered archipelagos breached our global ocean’s briny surface. That is, if any land existed at all.

Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" without any dry land

New research suggests ancient Earth was completely covered in water. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

www.astronomy.com

Limited Archaean continental emergence reflected in an early Archaean 18O-enriched ocean - Nature Geoscience

The water cycle was in two different steady states, before and after continental emergence, as recorded in the decreasing oxygen isotope values of seawater since the Archaean, according to an inverse geochemical model of the oceanic crustal record.

www.nature.com

AGAIN, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR VIEWS IS WHEN!

Now it doesnt matter whether or not you believe in Noahs flood. Your own Cosmonogy accepts that the earth was once completely covered by water. That proves the Noahs flood story andparticularly, the creation account in Genesis is actually most likely true.