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.

[AdamjEdgar]

... people actually waste time addressing these claims?

In reading the lengthy signature you appear to have gone to a lot of trouble to add to your profile below your posts...apparently we are in good company!

 

[LuisDantas]

In reading the lengthy signature you appear to have gone to a lot of trouble to add to your profile below your posts...apparently we are in good company!

Really? Is that your comment?

From you who are attempting to present YEC as some form of science?

Frankly, that is not worth the trouble of feeling insulted.

 

[Colt]

Refuted long back. These haloes were not created by Polonium at all. So the entire argument falls splat.
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted

The evidence shows that the Israelites created the Genesis creation story by appropriating elements of ancient Mesopotamian religious lore.

 

[blü 2]

You are dog barking up trees. If you want answers from YEC: (I don't care if you don't read them btw...these are not for your benefit.)

1. Average land elevation foir the earth is "minus 2.4km." You keep ignoring this fact...the water is exactly where it's always been.

You're saying that the tip of Mount Everest is some 20 feet or so under water? Like Genesis says?

I don't think so.

2. Getting Enough Genetic Diversity

This link doesn't address the problem.

A "genetic bottleneck" appears as too great a similarity between the genes of critters of the same species, indicating that they were derived from a very small genetic pool at some stage, the date of which can be estimated, in the past.

According to the story, all the land animals that survived the flood were on the Ark, hence all their descendants come from one, or two, or seven, breeding pairs, a very limited gene pool detectable now, what we're very generously calling 7,000 years down the track.

IF the bible tale of the flood were true, then we could and would have detected those bottlenecks by now. Instead we find nothing of the kind.

Yet another plain demonstration that there was no Genesis flood.

3. The Flood

That's just a rehash of the myth. It offers nothing by way of evidence.

4. Sumerian mythology? You are taking that as literal history?

It's no more literal history than the Genesis flood tale, which is a version of it. I'm just pointing out that the story predates Yahweh.

The problem is the bible is proven both internally and externally..

That's an untenable claim. When you've accounted for the absence of that billion cubic miles of water and of that universal recent flood layer and all those genetic bottlenecks. all of which MUST be there if the story is true, we can look at other errors in the bible.

Do you think the earth is flat, and immovably fixed and the sun stars and moon go round it? Do you think the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are attached such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth? The bible thinks all those things, and a careful bible student like you probably knows the relevant verses that affirm these views already, but for convenience you can read them >on this link<.

Do you think it's possible for fruit trees to have existed on earth before the sun formed? In the utter cold of sunless outer space? Do you think birds existed before land animals did? Genesis asserts those things, again as you probably know.

.we know it's historical because of a wealth of supporting evidence. There's multiple writers, often unknown to esth other, multiple events consistent with other writings...the consistency is to solid for it to be a fabrication from Sumerians. I would argue the existence of the Sumerian myth, like the dreamtime stories from other cultures such as Australian aboriginals, supports the bible narrative as most likely true!

You can argue that when you've produced that billion cubic miles of water, that single universal flood layer and ALL those genetic bottlenecks pointing to a date that agrees with the flood layer.

I don't recall any Rainbow Serpent in the tales of the Sumerians or Babylonians. What did you have in mind?

Might I suggest you also read this Gobekli Tepe it's an interfering dilemma for your Sumerian claim an the hunter gatherer view. The find is dated by secularists at least to 9000 b.c!​

Not relevant. We know there were examples of H sap living around 200,000 years ago, though they didn't build buildings or work in stone ─ Göbekli Tepe is of interest because of its age and its claim to be one of the earliest manmade buildings that we know of.

 

[blü 2]

A lot of YEC research is peer reviewed.

You mean reviewed by other YECs, of course ─ checked for conformity to the arbitrary YEC tenets, not for accuracy as a statement about reality.

And I've at least twice now pointed out to you that the bible says the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and the sun moon and stars go round it, and that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

And given you a link to the bible passages that say exactly that.

So this time please tell us clearly explicitly ─ do you think the earth is flat and immovably fixed and so on, as the bible says? (Here's that link to the bible quotes yet again.)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

You mean reviewed by other YECs, of course ─ checked for conformity to the arbitrary YEC tenets, not for accuracy as a statement about reality.

oh ok, so you are now claiming that anyone who has a university degree who is YEC, is not an academic peer, even those who have been trained and or taught in well known state institutions ? Good one...now you are really showing the true level of discrimination from humanism towards christianity.


The real problem there is that the brainwashing is not limited to just some religious cults...it extends to you as well. You have grown up with evolutionayry wives tails all your life and now that is the only lens through which any credible research may be interpreted.

The fundamental issue remains, irrespective of whether or not it should be the case, Darwinian evolution has been joined with secular cosmology and the claim Stepehn Hawking made "the is no room for God in Science" (paraphrased)

 

[LuisDantas]

YEC isn't science. It is really that simple.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You mean reviewed by other YECs, of course ─ checked for conformity to the arbitrary YEC tenets, not for accuracy as a statement about reality.

And I've at least twice now pointed out to you that the bible says the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and the sun moon and stars go round it, and that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

And given you a link to the bible passages that say exactly that.

So this time please tell us clearly explicitly ─ do you think the earth is flat and immovably fixed and so on, as the bible says? (Here's that link to the bible quotes yet again.)

the Bible says the earth rotates on its axis and that is how night and day are caused
it also says that night and day occur at different times in the world at different times.
It also describes the earth as a sphere that hangs upon nothing.
And there are many other advance scientific knowledge in the Bible.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

the Bible says the earth rotates on its axis and that is how night and day are caused
it also says that night and day occur at different times in the world at different times.
It also describes the earth as a sphere that hangs upon nothing.
And there are many other advance scientific knowledge in the Bible.

thank youi for saving me the trouble of answering "dog barking up trees" dilemmas posted by those who are poor students of the bible and listen more to wives tails rather than intellectually study for themselves.

What naysayers simply do not understand is this,

ultimately, ones choice boils down to 2 basic things:

1. Everything was created by an intelligent being (GOD)....and given everything we know in our existence today that is made comes from an intelligent mind...so its quite logical to make the same connection to God when it comes to cosmology and our natural environment given the obvious complexity found in even the most primative of organisms

OR

2. All of this complexity is the result of random processes...with absolutely no consistent explanation of how matter and energy came into existence in the first place!

Now whether or not one cares to think seriously about epistomology...particularly since we all face death, our lives are relatively short to be honest...if one is willing to wonder, to hope, and want more after this life, to put ones faith in the possibility that the historical narrative of the bible (which has overwhelming evidence supporting its authenticity), then pascals wager really is a valid solution! Its essentially a binary choice.

Now i use a different logic when it comes to Pascals Wager...lottery. there are millions of individuals around the world who are willing to put good money into lottery in the hope that they can win...despite knowing they almost certainly wont. Christianity doesnt cost anything, has lots of social benefits, is better for mental health generally...one has absolutely everything to gain in becoming a Christian.

Finally, heres the thing...

I choose to be a Christian, an atheist does not:

If I am wrong, both the atheist and I end up in the exact same fate.

If i am right, the atheist loses out big time.

When considered from the above point of view...being Christian is a no brainer.

 

[blü 2]

oh ok, so you are now claiming that anyone who has a university degree who is YEC, is not an academic peer, even those who have been trained and or taught in well known state institutions ? Good one...now you are really showing the true level of discrimination from humanism towards christianity.

Anyone who has a university degree who is a YEC is NOT, while YECing, an academic peer, since they're not employing the skepticism, empiricism and induction of scientific method, but rather things imagined.

The real problem there is that the brainwashing is not limited to just some religious cults...it extends to you as well. You have grown up with evolutionayry wives tails all your life and now that is the only lens through which any credible research may be interpreted.

The idea of brainwashing reminds me of acculturation, I dare say the reason why you're a YEC.

The problem with the religious approach is that God never appears, never says, never does, sits on [his] omnipotent hands and watches the infant drown in the pool, and so on. So it seems fair to say that the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined, in an individual brain.

Additional evidence of this is that God has no description appropriate to a real being, one found in objective reality ─ the world external to the self ─ but instead is described in imaginary terms, such as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, eternal, perfect &c. If I really thought any of that was true, I'd be setting up research institutes to find out how miracles can be performed, and special sections of the military to find out how to mount, and how to defend against, supernatural attacks. But neither the church nor any state does anything like that. They proceed as though part of them knows it's all imaginary.

If you disagree, if you assert that God has objective existence ie is found in the world external to the self, please post a video of God in reality, or at the very least a photo. I'd like to see for myself what species is God, from what stock did [he] evolve, what limbs, what sensory organs, does [he] have, how do gods reproduce (&c)?

And what is "godness", the quality that a real god has and a real superscientist who can create universes, raise the dead and so on, lacks?

The fundamental issue remains, irrespective of whether or not it should be the case, Darwinian evolution has been joined with secular cosmology and the claim Stepehn Hawking made "the is no room for God in Science" (paraphrased)

If there were really a God [he]'d have no problem fixing that ─ [he]'d just have to appear and give some persuasive demonstrations of what [he] can and can't do, and answer a few basic questions like how [he] can be said to be benevolent while sitting on [his] hands, and so on.


And you still haven't told us whether you think the earth is flat, as the bible says it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

oh ok, so you are now claiming that anyone who has a university degree who is YEC, is not an academic peer, even those who have been trained and or taught in well known state institutions ? Good one...now you are really showing the true level of discrimination from humanism towards christianity.


The real problem there is that the brainwashing is not limited to just some religious cults...it extends to you as well. You have grown up with evolutionayry wives tails all your life and now that is the only lens through which any credible research may be interpreted.

The fundamental issue remains, irrespective of whether or not it should be the case, Darwinian evolution has been joined with secular cosmology and the claim Stepehn Hawking made "the is no room for God in Science" (paraphrased)

No, the problem is that those people cannot ever support their claims by following the scientific method.

 

[blü 2]

the Bible says the earth rotates on its axis and that is how night and day are caused

I'm not aware of any such thing anywhere in the bible. Please quote me the part that says the earth rotates at all, let alone that it has an axis.

it also says that night and day occur at different times in the world at different times.

Again, please quote me the part that says this.

It also describes the earth as a sphere that hangs upon nothing.

Again, please quote me the part that says this.

And there are many other advance scientific knowledge in the Bible.

Like π = 3, for example (1 Kings 7:23 and 26, iterated at 2 Chronicles 4:2-5).

Like Pharoah's magicians could and did turn the whole of the Nile into real blood and back (Exodus 7:22).

Like the Big Bad Wolf huffed and he puffed and ... oops, wrong folktale, sorry.

And I notice you're still holding back on whether you think the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and so on. What's the answer?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I'm not aware of any such thing anywhere in the bible. Please quote me the part that says the earth rotates at all, let alone that it has an axis.


Again, please quote me the part that says this.


Again, please quote me the part that says this.


Like π = 3, for example (1 Kings 7:23 and 26, iterated at 2 Chronicles 4:2-5).

Like Pharoah's magicians could and did turn the whole of the Nile into real blood and back (Exodus 7:22).

Like the Big Bad Wolf huffed and he puffed and ... oops, wrong folktale, sorry.

And I notice you're still holding back on whether you think the earth is flat, and immovably fixed, and so on. What's the answer?

The pi calculation is a bizarre attack on the Bible.
There bath‘s walls has a certain thickness just pick the correct diameter and it’s matching circumference and you get pi,
The amazing thing is that people are just dying to prove the Bible false that they buy any deception.

Think for a moment.
They made the actual bath and so of course the ratio of the dimensions leads to a correct value for pi.

 

[Secret Chief]

wives tails rather than intellectually study for themselves

I would raise my assessment of your intellect if you could spell a common colloquial expression correctly and also made use of an apostrophe where appropriate.

 

[Esteban X]

Finally, heres the thing...

I choose to be a Christian, an atheist does not:

If I am wrong, both the atheist and I end up in the exact same fate.

If i am right, the atheist loses out big time.

When considered from the above point of view...being Christian is a no brainer.

Pascal's wager is a flawed proposition. There are detailed refutations of it to be found. Simply put it's not an either/or choice. As the noted theologian Homer J. Simpson noted "What if we choose the wrong God, then every time we pray, we're just making him madder"

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Pascal's wager is a flawed proposition. There are detailed refutations of it to be found. Simply put it's not an either/or choice. As the noted theologian Homer J. Simpson noted "What if we choose the wrong God, then every time we pray, we're just making him madder"

While Pascal's wager is not 100% proof, it still makes a lot of sense.
First, it is an if statement. If the atheist is wrong and God does exist.
Second, it can be argued that what if the God of the Bible is not the real God but some other god is ...
Your post argues the 2nd point and many have argued that the first point is not certain.

What I have done is prove both.
As to specifically the second point, there is no viable option except the God of the Bible, who has proved the Bible to be the word of God.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I would raise my assessment of your intellect if you could spell a common colloquial expression correctly and also made use of an apostrophe where appropriate.

Obviously you don't use a mobile phone...small screen and can't be bothered with such things. I could resort to leaving all the vowels out of words if you like to save typing on small screen.

Anyway, if spelling and grammar are your defense against religion, then you clearly don't have anything useful to contribute here.

 

[Secret Chief]

defense against religion

I'm doing that?

I only made the comment because of your pious posturing. Carry on, it's entertaining.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Pascal's wager is a flawed proposition. There are detailed refutations of it to be found. Simply put it's not an either/or choice. As the noted theologian Homer J. Simpson noted "What if we choose the wrong God, then every time we pray, we're just making him madder"​

Pascal, however, did not advance the wager as a proof of God's existence but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision which is "impossible to avoid" for any living person.[14] He argued that abstaining from making a wager is not an option and that "reason is incapable of divining the truth"; thus, a decision of whether to believe in the existence of God must be made by "considering the consequences of each possibility". Pascal's wager - Wikipedia​

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I only made the comment because of your pious posturing. Carry on, it's entertaining.

Coming from someone who uses the forum title "secret chief"... Yeah right.