The "ice age"

[Carico]

Most scientists deny the biblical flood because they claim there is no evidence that water flooded the earth even though over 200 ancient cultures have passed along accounts of a global flood where one family survived.

Yet this is what scientists claim happened in the Jurassic period:

"The Jurassic geological record is good in western Europe, where extensive marine sequences indicate a time when much of the continent was submerged under shallow tropical seas; famous locales include the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and the renowned late Jurassic lagerstätten of Holzmaden and Solnhofen.[6] In contrast, the North American Jurassic record is the poorest of the Mesozoic, with few outcrops at the surface.[7] Though the epicontinental Sundance Sea left marine deposits in parts of the northern plains of the United States and Canada during the late Jurassic, most exposed sediments from this period are continental, such as the alluvial deposits of the Morrison Formation."

So they know there is much evidence of a global flood yet deny the biblical account because it's in the bible. Instead, they make up stories of an ice age that no one in history has recounted.:eek: That's no different than looking at a forest and imagining that trees once covered the whole earth. :bugeye: So why is the imagination considered evidence in science? :shrug:

[geologyrocks]

Bit of a convoluted mess, but let me try and answer some points you raise.

Most scientists deny the biblical flood because they claim there is no evidence that water flooded the earth even though over 200 ancient cultures have passed along accounts of a global flood where one family survived.

That's because there is no evidence in the recent sediment record that a flood occurred.


"The Jurassic geological record is good in western Europe, where extensive marine sequences indicate a time when much of the continent was submerged under shallow tropical seas; famous locales include the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and the renowned late Jurassic lagerstätten of Holzmaden and Solnhofen.[6] In contrast, the North American Jurassic record is the poorest of the Mesozoic, with few outcrops at the surface.[7] Though the epicontinental Sundance Sea left marine deposits in parts of the northern plains of the United States and Canada during the late Jurassic, most exposed sediments from this period are continental, such as the alluvial deposits of the Morrison Formation."

Few important point here:
- marine sediments preserve more readily as they are formed in subsiding basins
- you can tell marine sediments by looking at rocks type and sedimentary structures (e.g. limestone=marine, herringbone bedding=tidal currents, etc)
- marine sediments contain marine fossils

The above quote says nothing of a global flood and in fact points out some continental (i.e. land!) sediments in the US; the alluvial (or river) deposits.

So they know there is much evidence of a global flood yet deny the biblical account because it's in the bible. Instead, they make up stories of an ice age that no one in history has recounted. That's no different than looking at a forest and imagining that trees once covered the whole earth. So why is the imagination considered evidence in science?

No real evidence of a global flood is presented above. There is no evidence for it at all (if you know of some, do let me know). The ice age has plenty of evidence, such as U-valleys (evidence of a passing glacier), crag and tail formation, striation marks, moraine deposits, etc. The list goes on and on.

Imagination is not evidence in science. In geology the evidence is the rock record - go study it and you can see it for yourself.

I suggest you do some reading on geology. GeologyRocks is a good place to start ;)

[11parcal]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but there was no Human life in the jurassic period, so how could that have been Noah's Flood?

[OilIsMastery]

Atheist fundamentalists deny the biblical flood because they claim there is no evidence that water flooded the earth even though over 200 ancient cultures have passed along accounts of a global flood where one family survived.
Fixed.

[spidergoat]

How would an ancient culture know that a flood was worldwide? Satellite TV?

[nietzschefan]

There might have been some serious flooding circa 15000 BC. "Global", as in COVERING THE WHOLE EARTH - NO. reducing humanity to a handful of pairs? NO.

The last serious genetic bottle neck is about 90000 YA to about 1000-2000 pairs of humans.

Chances are: at the end of the ice age, many flood plains got partially or permanently submerged and probably quite suddenly from tidal waves caused by huge slabs of ice falling off ice caps, into the oceans(like try to imagine a massive slab of ice the size of Rhode Island or the Isle of Man suddenly displacing that much water or perhaps even larger). If cultures existed back then, they would very likely be at these locations or near them. I.E they would ALL be affected. The memory of that is passed down the generations and it would be very significant for cultures/trade places/perhaps even cities to "remember". It seems to have certainly taken a central role in Sumerian culture/religion and all it's descendants(including the 3 big ones we now have). Considering the Sumerians lived on a flood plain and even detail nearly exactly how the flood rode over some of their cities, it probably was a more recent flood than the ones that may have happened as a result of the end of the ice age.

[Billy T]

There is quite good / solid evidence that the Med Sea has at times not been connected to the Atlantic ocean. Even today it is more salty as the evaporation rate is higher than the rain + river influx. (There is a net influx of sea water from the Atlantic to keep both at same level. Without this influx there would be essentially no water in the Med basin, only salt deposites.)

When the contintial shelfs were exposted (large amounts of water stored on land as ice and snow) during ice ages, this influx was absent, but as the stored on land water melted the Atlantic level rose again to the point that high tides began to wash over into the dry (salt deposits are still found buried in the Med bottom mud) Med basin. This caused errosion, which rapidly deepend into a well defined channnel (the submerged channel is still available to subs or sonar depth finders) between Gibralter and Africa (Tangeres?) I do not know but probably in less than a month after even mean tide was filling the Med basin it was full again.

Many must have sought safety on realitive high locations but drowned as the waters continued to rise more every day. Noah was, if he even existed, probably a wealthy man who had large boat and got himsefl and some of his better animals to the African coast.

[Carico]

No real evidence of a global flood is presented above.

Wrong. Much of the continent being submerged underneath seas is absolutely evidence of a global flood. But again, since the whole goal of scientists is to try to prove there is no God and instead, play God themselves, instead, they make up stories that NO ONE in history can document. :bugeye: Any child can do that. In fact, I've heard every explanation for the sedimentary rock layers all over the earth from giant hurricanes (which no one can document) or giant tsumamis to global ices ages. :D Every explanation for water on the land EXCEPT a flood. But a global flood is the only account for the water that's been passed along by ancient peoples. So why make up stories that NO ONE in history can document? The answer is simple; because scientists are in the business of making up fairy tales and fairy tales of course can't have been observed or documented by anyone in history.

But I can tell you one thing; if the bible had said there was a global ice age, scientists would dismiss it as claptrap and try to play God themselves by presenting their own version of what happened before there were witnesses. ;)

[spidergoat]

Ocean levels change. That is not the same thing as a flood by a long shot, since it takes hundreds if not thousands of years. You see, fresh water gets locked up as ice in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, lowering sea levels. When that slowly melts, sea levels rise again.

There were indeed very, very large floods over much of Western North America, but, again, not global.

Sedimentary rock from around the world is not uniform, it is made of locally eroded material.

[Carico]

Ocean levels change. That is not the same thing as a flood by a long shot, since it takes hundreds if not thousands of years. You see, fresh water gets locked up as ice in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, lowering sea levels. When that slowly melts, sea levels rise again.

There were indeed very, very large floods over much of Western North America, but, again, not global.

Sedimentary rock from around the world is not uniform, it is made of locally eroded material.

How do you know? :eek: How do you know what happened before there were witnesses? You can't. So once again, leaping to a conclusion based on an observation is no more scientific than looking at a forest and claiming that's evidence that the earth was once covered in trees. :D

So claiming there were giant tsunamis and just recently some guy with letters after his name just claimed that there was once a giant hurricane that came all the way up from the Gulf of Mexico to Montana to try to explain the mass of bones they found in a basin. They could have come from ANYTHING. The number of fairy tales that scientists have come up with to try to deny the bible are as numerous as the images one can envision in his mind about what happened before there were witnesses. But once again, scientists count on the fact that they can use the letters after their names to dupe the public. And that, they can.

[spidergoat]

You do not understand even the rudiments of science. Sedimentary rock exists in layers at the present time, and can be studied to determine origins and age. There are layers of ice in greenland that date back to 400,000 years ago. There is air, pollen, and volcanic ash trapped in those layers that can be studied to establish the climate of the past.

[Carico]

You do not understand even the rudiments of science. Sedimentary rock exists in layers at the present time, and can be studied to determine origins and age. There are layers of ice in greenland that date back to 400,000 years ago. There is air, pollen, and volcanic ash trapped in those layers that can be studied to establish the climate of the past.

Sorry but all sediment comes from water. So scientists have to determine how water created the sediment; There are only these options; a global flood; a global ice age (which would mean that water absolutely covered the whole earth except that it was frozen), a giant tsunami or several giant tsunami's or a giant hurricane or several giant hurricanes, none of which they can prove except a flood because only a flood has been recounted by hundreds of cultures.

So all the theories of scientists to explain the sedimentary rock layers are nothing but SPECULATION. So scientists have a choice; they can use the giant tsunami routine, the giant hurricane, the global ice age or 2, 3, 4 giant tsunami's or hurricanes, or 1,2, or 3 ice ages,etc. And how do they determine which of those is correct? the answer is simple; by a vote and the majority wins. :D So if 50 scientists vote for an ice age and 44 vote for 2 giant tsunami's and 6 vote for several giant hurricanes, the ice age wins. Sorry but the past can't be determined by a vote because it already happened. ;)

[Pandaemoni]

over 200 ancient cultures have passed along accounts of a global flood where one family survived.

Just curious, how do you get t that number? Are you looking at unique cultures, are you assuming that Sumerians, Babylonians, Jews, Ugarits, Kadesh, Assyrians, Hittites, etc. are all "different" ancient cultures?

I mean, suppose I were to ask every American to tell me a story about a great white whale. Some might have no idea what story to tell, but I'd bet at least 10 million would give me some variation of Moby Dick. Many of the details will vary because so few people remember Mody Dick precisely, if they ever read it themselves at all. That said, most of the 10 million I heard would be variations ona single source story that passed down to them. Were I to conclude from the immense number (10 million) that a giant white whale once existed and harrangued some poor peg-legged sea captain, I'd be in error.

You are essentially arguing that, yes, there is a common source, and the common source is "truth"... but the common source you think you are seeing could itself be a fictional account that was popular enough that it hung on in some form for millennia.

That said, if you have a list of the 200 cultures I'd be interested to see it. I can think of many cultures that believe that water existed before the world was created (as the Bible suggests too), but even that I see as more likely coincidence based on common psychology, than proof that water existed before the world did.

[geologyrocks]

You seem to be confusing a few things here. Scientists don't give a hoot about God. The "job" of science is not to prove or disprove God (or Gods, or pasta creatures or whatever you believe in).

Geologists look at sedimentary rocks to determine past environments. Sedimentary rocks do not necessarily need water - sand dune get preserved and are transported by wind. The original material could have been igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary. The rocks and the structure they contain tell us how that sedimentary rock was formed - even the climate at the time, including things like wind direction (in the case of aolian sand dunes), prevailing current directions (in the case of fluvial sediments).

All creationists are delusional - if you actually studied the rock record with an open mind you would come to the same conclusions as the millions of geologists. This is not because science is "right", but because that's what the evidence says!

Here's some examples of sediment structures that tell us something about palaeoenvironments:
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/images/dessication_cracks
The above shows dessication cracks - formed when a lake dried up. They look identical to modern dessication cracks: http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/images/modern_dissication_cracks

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/images/pebble_conglomerate
The imbrication (stacking) of pebbles here gives us the current direction of the "wadi" that caused this deposit

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/images/cross_beds_with_topsets_foresets_and_downlap
These small dunes (about a metre high) were formed in a river system (there are no slip faces at the foreset of the dune face which you would see in an aolian setting). From the angle of the cross beds you can get a prevailing current direction. Further up this same sequence you see trough cross bedding, which is preserved in 3 dimensions. This gives a different current direction (though in the same general direction). Further up still, we get a great river channel cutting through the lot, in a third direction. Essentially, we have a meandering river system.

Unfortunately, I suspect "faith" will blind you to this evidence and you will simply decry it as "false" or bend it to fit your view of the world...all other creationists I've met do this and not one will go out in to the field with me to actually look at rocks...strange...

[Billy T]

...the common source you think you are seeing could itself be a fictional account that was popular enough that it hung on in some form for millennia....I doubt it was entirely created fiction, just very distorted while be handed down orally for a few thousands of generations. I think that most people with distant origins around the Mediterranean Sea have this legend of a "great flood" as there really was one (in much of the world region now called the shores of the Mediterranean sea.) at the end of the last ice age. See post 7 for more details.

[spidergoat]

Sorry but all sediment comes from water. So scientists have to determine how water created the sediment; There are only these options; a global flood; a global ice age (which would mean that water absolutely covered the whole earth except that it was frozen), a giant tsunami or several giant tsunami's or a giant hurricane or several giant hurricanes, none of which they can prove except a flood...;)

It's true that sedimentary rock comes from the action of erosion, mostly from water, but that is not a mystery, it can be any water... rain, streams, rivers, ice, snow, fog... you know, the typical action of ordinary weather...

[iceaura]

Sorry but all sediment comes from water. That is meaningless, and to the extent that it has meaning is false.

That exact assertion comes up in so many creationist screeds that the source must be a commonly available work of some kind. Anyone know what it is ?

btw: One thing creationists who wander unto forums like this one and embarrass themselves never seem to do, or at least one never hears of it, is go back to the people who sent them out into the wide world with what amounts to an intellectual "kick me" sign taped to their ass, and ask them why they did that.

Those people do not have the wellbeing of their young charges at heart.

It's true that sedimentary rock comes from the action of erosion, Wind, earthquake, temperature extremes, biological activities, and (very common) volcanic explosion, also produce little pieces of mineral stuff that can be compacted into sedimentary rock in various ways.

[Carico]

“
Sorry but all sediment comes from water.
”
That is meaningless, and to the extent that it has meaning is false.

Here's Wikipedia's definition of sediment: "Sediment is any particulate matter that can be transported by fluid flow and which eventually is deposited as a layer of solid particles on the bed or bottom of a body of water or other liquid."

So it appears that your statement is the one that's false. No wonder scientists make false assumptions about the past. :rolleyes:

[Repo Man]

The quality of Sciforums trolls seems to be slipping lately. To those who have posted factual counter arguments to this latest one, you have my respect. And those sort of posts are a big part of what makes this forum worth reading. That trolls bring you out to counter their BS means they aren't entirely worthless.

[OilIsMastery]

Scientists don't give a hoot about God.
Speak for yourself please. I'm pretty sure Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton gave "a hoot" about God...:rolleyes:

[OilIsMastery]

Here's Wikipedia's definition
Who cares what Wikipedia says?

[Carico]

Who cares what Wikipedia says?

Then it appears that no one really knows what sediment is and thus can't make any determinations about how it got there. :rolleyes: But, the dictionary says the same thing and in fact, every definition I've seen of sediment except yours says what Wikipedia says. So again, it appears that you are the ignorant one about the rudiments of science. ;)

[Pandaemoni]

For the record sedimentary rock can be formed as particles fall out of water (flood water or standing water, doesn't matter) or air, all that matters is that they sediment be deposited and pressure brought to bear on it for long periods.

"Fluid" does not mean "liquid" in this context. All gasses are fluid.

[Vkothii]

The Caspian is known to have dried out and refilled several times in the last few mil years.
I remember something about the most recent being possibly a source of the many flood myths in various cultures, there are other land-locked freshwater seas, that are candidates. The Mediterranean used to be a lot lower, not so far back that the 'flooding' would not have become a cultural myth. We're about 100,000 years old as a species, when did we start remembering events, or recording history?

Like the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, the Caspian Sea is a remnant of the ancient Tethys Ocean. It became landlocked about 5.5 million years ago due to continental drift. During warm and dry climatic periods, the landlocked sea has all but dried up, depositing evaporitic sediments like halite that have become covered by wind-blown deposits and were sealed off as an evaporite sink,[6] when cool, wet climates refilled the basin.

[Carico]

Read Wikipedia on evolution. They define every aspect of it because evolution is an accepted theory, not a proven theory. Wikipedia also defines every aspect of Christianity which scientists reject. Nevertheless, the definition of the word "sediment" remains the same in all dictionaries. ;)

[Billy T]

The Caspian is known to have dried out and refilled several times in the last few mil years.
I remember something about the most recent being possibly a source of the many flood myths in various cultures, there are other land-locked freshwater seas, that are candidates. The Mediterranean used to be a lot lower, not so far back that the 'flooding' would not have become a cultural myth. We're about 100,000 years old as a species, when did we start remembering events, or recording history? Land-locked basins in areas of periodic low rain fall often have their water surface fall. A current very minor example is Lake Powell behind Boulder Dam. When Earth is colder especially in one of the periodic ice ages, these basins may dry up completely. When they refill it is a slow process. The people living in the basin adapt by moving to higher ground and do not drown in large numbers.

The Mediterranean is a different story. It is quasi- land-locked. I.e. when large amounts of water are stored on land as ice and snow, it is land-locked or not connected to the Atlantic. As explained in post 7, when it reconnects, it can refill rapidly drowning almost all who have for have lived in it for many dozens of generations, if not hundreds of generations, and do not know that their village is below the current Atlantic Ocean level. They probably thought they were fortunate to be able to collect and sell the salt near their villages to passing caravans. Then one day they had to move away from the salt that collected in the lowest spots and set up tents on a nearby hill, which unknown to them was still below the level of the ocean, so in a month or so almost all of them drowned.

The few that survived told of the great flood - and their children retold the history, but its cause was never was understood by these ignorant people (or by some equally ignorant people posting here).
They typically ascribe the cause to an angry god same as when a volcano erupts after being long dormant etc.

[Carico]

Sorry, but your attacks don't refute my posts any more than they defend yours. All they show is the frustration that you can't defend your position or refute my posts. So they're a waste of time. If your arguments can't stand on their own merit, they don't stand at all. :rolleyes:

[Walter L. Wagner]

Land-locked basins in areas of periodic low rain fall often have their water surface fall. A current very minor example is Lake Powell behind Boulder Dam. When Earth is colder especially in one of the periodic ice ages, these basins may dry up completely. When they refill it is a slow process. The people living in the basin adapt by moving to higher ground and do not drown in large numbers.

The Mediterranean is a different story. It is quasi- land-locked. I.e. when large amounts of water are stored on land as ice and snow, it is land-locked or not connected to the Atlantic. As explained in post 7, when it reconnects, it can refill rapidly drowning almost all who have for have lived in it for many dozens of generations, if not hundreds of generations, and do not know that their village is below the current Atlantic Ocean level. They probably thought they were fortunate to be able to collect and sell the salt near their villages to passing caravans. Then one day they had to move away from the salt that collected in the lowest spots and set up tents on a nearby hill, which unknown to them was still below the level of the ocean, so in a month or so almost all of them drowned.

The few that survived told of the great flood - and their children retold the history, but its cause was never was understood by these ignorant people (or by some equally ignorant people posting here).
They typically ascribe the cause to an angry god same as when a volcano erupts after being long dormant etc.

BillyT:

The Mediterranean bottom has several distinct salt layers from episodes of evaporation in the distant past [millions of years ago]. As I recall, the Gibraltar Falls, during episodes of refilling, lasted around a century or so.

Anyway, those periods of drying and refilling all predate human history.

The Black Sea basin however, connected to the Mediterranean, is believed to have filled in the recent past, circa 10,000 BC during the final phase of ice-age melting when the seas rose a final roughly 50 feet, breaking through and creating a separate falls [lasting roughly several years]. It is that filling which has been suggested to have given rise to a Noah story.

You should be able to google on this and find the details fairly easily.

[Billy T]

BillyT: The Mediterranean bottom has several distinct salt layers from episodes of evaporation in the distant past [millions of years ago]. As I recall, the Gibraltar Falls, during episodes of refilling, lasted around a century or so.

Anyway, those periods of drying and refilling all predate human history.

The Black Sea basin however, connected to the Mediterranean, is believed to have filled in the recent past, circa 10,000 BC during the final phase of ice-age melting when the seas rose a final roughly 50 feet, breaking through and creating a separate falls [lasting roughly several years]. It is that filling which has been suggested to have given rise to a Noah story.

You should be able to google on this and find the details fairly easily.
You may be correct. I only work from memory. I thought the last icea age was only about 15 000 BP. (that is memory too.) I know that there are channels that subs use to slip in and out of the Mediterranean undetected near Gibraltar and am almost certain that the lowest parts (not in these channels) are higher than the edge of the continental shelf. Thus when the continental shelf was dry in an ice age the Med would have been cut off and made these channels by erosion, certainly with "Gibraltar Falls" where the eroding rocks were harder.

I was only guessing at the "months" time scale; it may have been few years to refill, but more than that I find hard to believe. I am not into geologic history but seem to recall that some state in the US central NW were also suddenly flooded When an "inland ocean" broke thru to a lower region. Just this spring a mere river, strong with snow melting in the Himalayas, broke thru its banks and flooded a huge lower area (>100 square miles?) in about a week; that drowned many even in this age when they could be warned. That probably caused me to sub-consciously guess it took only months to fill the Med with the Atlantic Ocean quickly cutting a deep channel for the flow. That channel may have been cut many ice ages ago, when there were no people in the dry Med basin to drown. I.e. you probably are right that it was the surge of water thru the Bosporus into the Black Sea that gave origin to the Bible's Noah story. Is not "Mt. Ararat”, where Noah's ark landed supposed to be near there?

[P. BOOM!]

I thought we were still IN the Ice Age :)

[Carico]

They typically ascribe the cause to an angry god same as when a volcano erupts after being long dormant etc.

Sorry but God will not allow himself to be mocked. He will absolutely punish people for cursing and desecrating his creation. If he didn't, he would be a wimp and not to be revered or respected because He could be walked all over and trampled on.

However, most lawbreakers don't think they deserve to be punished. So they think that by cursing God even more for punishing them that will make Him go away. But it doesn't. It angers Him further. So instead of ignoring, denying or getting angry at God for allowing mankind to be accountable for our behavior, you would fare better to heed His warning since he is the one who created the world and He made the laws of the universe. If you don't like that, then I guess that's your tough luck because you don't run the universe. It's that simple. :)

[spidergoat]

“

Here's Wikipedia's definition of sediment: "Sediment is any particulate matter that can be transported by fluid flow and which eventually is deposited as a layer of solid particles on the bed or bottom of a body of water or other liquid."

So it appears that your statement is the one that's false. No wonder scientists make false assumptions about the past. :rolleyes:

Notice, it doesn't say that it requires a flood, only fluid flow, something which, here in the Pacific Northwest, is an almost daily occurrence.

[Carico]

Notice, it doesn't say that it requires a flood, only fluid flow, something which, here in the Pacific Northwest, is an almost daily occurrence.

And as I already said, there are only a few options for "fluid flow" to create sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. And only ONE of those options has been recounted by ancient cultures; a global flood. ;)

[spidergoat]

It does rain on most of the planet. There is sedimentary rock all over, but it's not all the same kind of sediments. If all sedimentary rock were the same, you might have a point.

[Billy T]

Sorry but God will not allow himself to be mocked. ...Which God are you speaking of / for?

Mine likes people to use his gifts, especially the one most advanced in humans - intelligence and power to reason.
You are running great risk by effectively "spitting in his face" and refusing to do so but perhaps your God love fools, blesses the ignorant, etc.?

There are so many Gods to choose from - it is a problem, but mine suits me better than the one you adhere to.
Baucus is a nice god too when you want to relax but it is hard to serve both at the same time.
Baucus enjoys being mocked - He is a real good sport about it at the time but can give you a nasty head ache the next morning when he is sober again.

[Pandaemoni]

Sorry but God will not allow himself to be mocked. He will absolutely punish people for cursing and desecrating his creation. If he didn't, he would be a wimp and not to be revered or respected because He could be walked all over and trampled on.

So you're saying either that God has no sense of humor, or that He has one, but only finds things funny if it's not about Him, making him relatable, but insecure.

In any event, He also seems to be mercurial. Notice how many sinners live lives of peace and pleasure, and how many worshipful souls find themselves beset with hardships. More curiously, notice how many sinners are faced with hardships and how many faithful live lives of happiness. And the people who are neither especially sinful nor especially devout seem to get both in the same proportion. To the casual observer armed solely with his eyes and the tools of statistical analysis, it seems one's religion and religiosity are minor factors in determining how happy you'll be.

The religious are, to be sure, happier than the non-religious (though whether the link is causal or correlational is debated), but the research suggests that it doesn't matter what religion. Even non-theistic religions give the same effect. So if God is bestowing his grace, he is spilling it on everyone involved in any sort of religious service equally, including the Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, etc.

There's also that Pahnke "Good Friday" experiment...a researcher named Walter Pahnke conducted an experiment in which he chemically induced a religious experience in people. On a Good Friday, the subjects, theology students, came to meditate in a church for several hours. Each was given either a placebo or psilocybin. The ones who received the real drug reported intense religious experiences, of course. Their levels of happiness proved to be significantly greater than that of the control group, and the effects remained for more than six months after the experiment—the psilocybin group consistently reported that their attitudes were changed for the better (and happier) than did the placebo group.

So I am skeptical of the claim that God is making distinctions among the followers. It seems that even artificial religious experiences may explain the difference in levels of reported happiness or in punishments received. God, if He exists, is an equal opportunity smiter and bestower of gifts. Claiming otherwise reminds me of the religious uproar that Ben Franklin caused with the lightning rod. One school of thought condemned Franklin because God was revealed through lightning. The more dominant school of thought believed that lightning was the tool of the Devil (the "Prince of the Power of the Air"), to be chased away from homes by faith, not by scientific gadgetry.

Reverend Thomas Prince blamed Franklin's lightning rod for a 1755 earthquake that hit Boston (where, he figured, there were more of the devilish rods than anywhere else, so of course God's wrath was directed there). John Adams also spoke out against them on religious grounds, comparing them to the presumption of Peter trying to walk on water and decrying Franklin's impiously "attempting to control the artillery of heaven."

It is a strange God who is threatened by the private actions and statements of the men and women He created. Just as strange as One threatened by Franklin's iron rods.

[Billy T]

To Pandaemoni:

You will get no where with him by reason. - He has already demonstrated great immunity to that. Try mocking as I did - at least it is fun.

[iceaura]

Then it appears that no one really knows what sediment is and thus can't make any determinations about how it got there. The people who study sedimentary rock have a pretty good handle on what it is, and how particular examples got where they are.

Often, by wind deposition.

[Carico]

The people who study sedimentary rock have a pretty good handle on what it is, and how particular examples got where they are.

Often, by wind deposition.

Again, how do they know except by guessing? :confused:The answer is they can't know. So guessing is as much of a handle as chasing after the wind. :rolleyes:

[SkinWalker]

Just because you're ignorant and undereducated doesn't imply that others aren't knowledgeable or that they don't or can't understand.

Yours is a position that is to be either pitied or ridiculed.

[Billy T]

...Yours is a position that is to be either pitied or ridiculed.His God can pitty him - I will help out with the ridicule. - see post 35.

[Carico]

Speak for yourself please. I'm pretty sure Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton gave "a hoot" about God...:rolleyes:

So then you're saying that most scientists of today agree with God that; there was a global food, that man was created out of the dust of the ground and God created the world in 6 days. Is that correct? :confused: Or do they instead have contempt for God's word and proceed to think they know better than God does what the truth is? So which is it?:confused:

[spidergoat]

I'm sure they do agree there was global food. Galileo used to say that if science contradicted God's word, the error was in our interpretation of God's word.

[SkinWalker]

So then you're saying that most scientists of today agree with God that; there was a global food, that man was created out of the dust of the ground and God created the world in 6 days. Is that correct? :: Or do they instead have contempt for God's word and proceed to think they know better than God does what the truth is? So which is it?::

This presents a false dichotomy.

There isn't some dichotomy that dictates a scientist must either 1) agree with your god, or 2) be contemptuous of your god.

To believe so is pure ignorance.

You must first demonstrate that 1) the scientist in question is raised in a culture that already accepts your god as legitimate, and 2) that your god is legitimate.

Christianity is but one set of religious cults among the thousands that have existed and still exist in human society. It is a distinct minority in that context both in population and durability.

Moreover, even if we accept that a given scientist was raised in a culture that generally considers your god to be legitimate, it doesn't demonstrate that this scientist has familial traditions that legitimize this or any other god or its corresponding mythology.

Therefore, you cannot claim that one either "agrees" or is "contemptuous" of a god for whom legitimacy is not established or for whom the scientist has even considered. Many in science simply don't give two shits about your god and have no feelings whatsoever for or against it since it doesn't exist.

[Carico]

I'm sure they do agree there was global food. Galileo used to say that if science contradicted God's word, the error was in our interpretation of God's word.

Sorry they claim there was no global flood but instead, a global ice age. Of course God doesn't say that, but who cares what God says? Certainly not scientists. ;) So ask any scientist if he believes the biblical account of the Flood. Or better yet, look at all the posts on this forum alone which deny the Flood. ;)

[Carico]

You must first demonstrate that 1) the scientist in question is raised in a culture that already accepts your god as legitimate, and 2) that your god is legitimate.

The don't, which was my point. :rolleyes: I was responding to the poster who falsely claimed that scientists agree with God. Oh, some of them might believe in a god of their imaginations who tells them there was a global ice age. But that god hasn't presented himself to the world yet. ;)

[SkinWalker]

There have been many "ice ages" demonstrated scientifically by isotopic analyses, paleontological analyses, geologic studies, etc.

The evidence for these are scientifically demonstrated and the data are available for you to falsify should you wish to obtain, examine and publish the results of your own analysis.

No gods have presented themselves to the world. Thousands upon thousands of gods have been presented to the world by humanity. Yours will not be the last nor was it hardly the first.

[Carico]

There have been many "ice ages" demonstrated scientifically by isotopic analyses, paleontological analyses, geologic studies, etc.

That is incorrect. There have been many speculations that there was an ice age based on certain observations. The sedimentary rock layers can also be used to claim there was a global Flood. ;)

[SkinWalker]

No, this isn't the case. Such sedimentary rock layers don't explain "global flood" since many other questions go unanswered, but you make the ignorant and under-educated mistake of thinking that the evidence for "ice ages" exists only sedimentary rock analysis.

Global floods are not only idiotic and illogical thinking, but demonstrably mythical. The biblical flood is a clear -very clear- plagiarized version of early Mesopotamian myths in which the claim that the entire planet was flooded wasn't made.

So, we have multiple scientific disciplines that come to a consensus that there were periods of cooling in the earth's history that are variously described as "ice ages" and a demonstrable myth being accepted as fact by the ignorant.

[Carico]

No, this isn't the case. Such sedimentary rock layers don't explain "global flood" since many other questions go unanswered, but you make the ignorant and under-educated mistake of thinking that the evidence for "ice ages" exists only sedimentary rock analysis.

Like what questions? The price of wheat in China? Or how about why birds fly? ;) Sorry but the glaciers all over the world are very easy to explain; they exist in cold climates. Since scientists don't believe God, they have more questions than answers and thus can't be trusted to know the truth. ;)

As for looking at basins and speculating how they got there; there a a myriad of scenarios such as; volcanic activity, earthquakes, or that God just plain designed land the way he did. But since the imagination is considered evidence in science, then they pick one explanation and adopt it for a few decades until they find out they were wrong. This is the way they work and will continue to work until they all die. then one will no longer hear the ridiculous words of scientists. They will be a thing of the past forever. ;)

[SkinWalker]

Like what questions?

Hmm.. like: where did all the water come from? A "global" flood requires more water than is available on the planet.

Other questions are: How did so many species on the planet survive? Where did all the water go? Why is there differential erosion of mountains around the planet? Why are polar ice caps still present? Why is there no trace of global flood on sea floors? Why does dendrochronology not show evidence of global flood? Why is the fossil record sorted as if to show a gradual evolution over time?

And then there are the geologic questions you say are so easily dismissed but really aren't regarding sedimentation and geologic strata:

Why do surface features so readily show themselves in various strata around the world when the geologic column is examined? There is evidence of raindrops, footprints, surface streams, burrows, dessication cracks/fissures, coral reefs, rippling water, etc.

There are probably thousands of these types of questions. Global flood doesn't come close to answering them. The current understandings of geology and planetology do, however.

Sorry but the glaciers all over the world are very easy to explain; they exist in cold climates. Since scientists don't believe God, they have more questions than answers and thus can't be trusted to know the truth.

So, your answer for those that think differently than you is that they don't believe in your god? What about the thousands of scientists who do believe in a god, many of them your god? Indeed, assuming your god exists, is he (or she) so incompetent and impotent that it cannot create a universe or even a planet that evolved slowly over time? You would blaspheme your god thus?

In truth, you're someone who's come to the realization that everything you were taught is true and factual (global floods, special creation, etc.) is either allegory/myth or a lie if science is to be accepted. This realization threatens your indoctrination as a member of the Christian cult to which you belong since demoting what is believed by you to be your god's word (allegedly an "inerrant" word), equates to saying that the rest of the bible is a lie or a myth.

Personally, I think very little in the bible is more than mythical. But I know many people for whom this presents no problem. I have many religious friends who are Christian who realize that just because certain aspects of the bible are allegory or just the best job a Bronze Age or Iron Age pastoralist could do to explain his existence, doesn't mean that the rest of what they believe regarding the teachings of Jesus are false. To them, the creation of the universe is even more miraculous believing that their god did it through evolution.

But, hey... if you want to go through life being one of the ignorant and the ridiculed -go right ahead. Don't expect me to do anything but laugh at your ignorance.

[Carico]

So, your answer for those that think differently than you is that they don't believe in your god? What about the thousands of scientists who do believe in a god, many of them your god? Indeed, assuming your god exists, is he (or she) so incompetent and impotent that it cannot create a universe or even a planet that evolved slowly over time? You would blaspheme your god thus?

Sorry but Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." And scientists sure aren't with Jesus in the creation of the world or the creation of man! So according to Jesus, they are against him...unless they don't believe Jesus when he says; "he who is not with me is against me." So if these scientists claim to be Christians then they merely honor Jesus with their lips not with their hearts because they don't appear to believe much of what he said. :o

[SkinWalker]

Sorry but Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me."

What's your evidence that Jesus actually said that and that it isn't just propaganda created by a Jesus cult, even assuming that Jesus really existed?

Just curious.

And scientists sure aren't with Jesus in the creation of the world or the creation of man!

What is Jesus actually alleged to have said about the "creation of the world" or the "creation of man" along with the other animals on the planet?

Just curious.

So according to Jesus, they are against him...unless they don't believe Jesus when he says; "he who is not with me is against me."

Without satisfactory answers to the above questions, this is an illogical and fallacious conclusion. Thus, it can be discarded. In short, you're talking out of your ass.

So if these scientists claim to be Christians then they merely honor Jesus with their lips not with their hearts because they don't appear to believe much of what he said.

Again, your cute smilies notwithstanding, you'll have to adequately answer the above questions before we can even come close to discussing this conclusion.

[spidergoat]

Sorry they claim there was no global flood but instead, a global ice age. Of course God doesn't say that, but who cares what God says? Certainly not scientists. ;) So ask any scientist if he believes the biblical account of the Flood. Or better yet, look at all the posts on this forum alone which deny the Flood. ;)

Scientists can meet you halfway and acknowledge that there have indeed been some major floods, especially in the Middle East region, but nothing global. If you read Noah as literally true, you miss the point. It is a fable with a moral - be good because your entire world can fail at any time. I think you aren't paying attention to God's word. You make God sad.:bawl:

[Carico]

What is Jesus actually alleged to have said about the "creation of the world" or the "creation of man" along with the other animals on the planet?


Get educated and read what he said in the bible just like you read what scientists say in their textbooks. Only then will you be speaking from knowledge rather than your imagination. :rolleyes:So you're right; there's no point in discussing a topic with you until you first get educated about it.

[spidergoat]

Why is the Bible knowledge rather than myth?

[SkinWalker]

Get educated and read what he said in the bible just like you read what scientists say in their textbooks. Only then will you be speaking from knowledge rather than your imagination. :rolleyes:So you're right; there's no point in discussing a topic with you until you first get educated about it.

Ah. Like I thought. You have no answer that can discussed in this context.

I repeat the question, if Jesus is alleged to have said anything about "creation" would you post the chapter and verse here that we might discuss it's relevance to the topic?

You might try to appeal to Matthew (chapter 4 or 5 I think) where he talks about "every jot or one tittle," being of divine origin, and a couple other places were he is alleged to warn against adding or taking away anything, but this would lead you down a slippery slope since a literal interpretation of biblical mythology would still have us stoning adulterers and even suspected adulteresses as well as keeping slaves, particularly those nice, nubile young girls of our enemies with whom the OT god gave permission to rape pass around as sex toys.

[Carico]

I repeat the question, if Jesus is alleged to have said anything about "creation" would you post the chapter and verse here that we might discuss it's relevance to the topic?

I'd be more than happy to:

John 1;1-2, "In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

John 1:14, "And the word became flesh."
So not only is Jesus the Word because God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one, and the bible was written by the Holy Spirit inside its authors, Jesus was also with God at the beginning of creation. So Jesus wrote every word in the bible because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one.

Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule..."

So those tiny little words which unbelievers miss that are never contradicted in later books of the bible which were written by different people can only be described as miraculous. ;)

[spidergoat]

A work of fiction can be made to say anything you want.

[Carico]

A work of fiction can be made to say anything you want.

Prove it. Considering that no one has witnessed an ape turning into a human nor have any ancient tribes passed along accounts of their vine-swinging ancestors, it appears that you have no clue what's real and what's imaginary. But that's your problem, not mine. :rolleyes:

[spidergoat]

If no one witnessed the events in the Bible, how do you know that it is true? I will hold you to your own standards.

[SkinWalker]

I'd be more than happy to:

[silly scriptures omitted for brevity]

So those tiny little words which unbelievers miss that are never contradicted in later books of the bible which were written by different people can only be described as miraculous. ;)

There's nothing missed in those silly little words. He says nothing about "creation" at all. You interpret it to mean such since it fits your belief system and indoctrination, but the fact of the matter is, assuming that Jesus actually uttered those words (and this, itself, is a big assumption), there's nothing in there that isn't consistent with the beliefs of someone who is ignorant of evolutionary processes and the true age of the universe.

Moreover, there's nothing in those words, even if accepted prima facie, that suggests that the planet had to be created the way you think it was or that there was a global flood, or that man didn't evolve.

Sorry, but you just demonstrated your complete and utter willingness to interpret whatever you want however you want as long as it fits your narrow-minded view of the world.

If there is a god, you've blasphemed him by accusing him of being impotent and incompetent to such a degree he cannot create a world or universe in the way it appears he has. You've further blasphemed him by implicitly accusing him of deceiving the world with evidence that it appears to be evolved over time and without a global flood.

And its interesting to note that you've carefully cherry-picked my criticisms in the last few pages of this thread to rely only on those which you think you're knowledgeable about. Not a single real criticism of the sciences behind global climate and geologic studies other than "wah! I don't believe it."

[SkinWalker]

Prove it. Considering that no one has witnessed an ape turning into a human nor have any ancient tribes passed along accounts of their vine-swinging ancestors, it appears that you have no clue what's real and what's imaginary. But that's your problem, not mine.

First, no one is alleging that an "ape" turned into a human. This is because Homo sapiens sapiens are a species of ape. Other great apes and non-human primates evolved from the same ancient ancestor and this has been demonstrated to a degree in which it is far, far more likely than alternative explanations, which involve the supernatural (which has never been shown to exist).

The scope of this demonstration is far and beyond the ability of a single thread post since it would require that you actually obtain an education in that which you think you are criticizing: science.

I can point you to a list of texts which will build your knowledge to the point at which you can understand the data, however, you like most creationist nutbars (and this is a valid term since to believe in Creation in the manner you do is one of the nuttiest and most laughable ideas in the modern world, indeed, the rest of the world literally laughs at American creationists) make the assumption that evolution is something to be "proved" in a simple calculation like 2+3=5 since 5 minus either one equals the other.

This is a fallacy of logical thinking since the fact of evolution involves nearly every scientific discipline and has many lines of research and to adequately explain or "prove" would be akin to teaching you calculus when you haven't even an understanding of basic algebra.

But, if you want the texts, which are available at your local library or through the magic of inter-library loan, I'm happy to recommend them. The education would be free.

[Billy T]

OK, I am convinced. The Bible is God's words and literally true. Sorry but Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me."..That was very stupid of him. No wonder they hung him up. (Insane asylums not having been invented yet.) Everyone would have recognized him as babbling idiot as English like that was still1800 years into the future.

Surely there were no human translators or error prone scribes messing with the “Words of God” in the Bible.
BTW is that quote from the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, the Coptic or Greek Orthodox version of the English Bible?

[Carico]

First, no one is alleging that an "ape" turned into a human. This is because Homo sapiens sapiens are a species of ape.

Considering that a "homo-sapiens" is nothing more than a sculpture of the bones of many different animals and humans, then it's as fictitious as the common ancestor is. So that isn't data, it's called artwork. Sorry. ;)

So again, until you know what happened in history by the accounts of those who lived in the past instead of making up your own history, you aren't educated enough to converse with about history. :o

[spidergoat]

Hey God-boy,
Homo sapiens is the scientific classification for modern humans. Are you fictitious?

[SkinWalker]

Considering that a "homo-sapiens" is nothing more than a sculpture of the bones of many different animals and humans, then it's as fictitious as the common ancestor is. So that isn't data, it's called artwork. Sorry.

You truly have no clue about what you're going on about, do you? Wow.

So again, until you know what happened in history by the accounts of those who lived in the past instead of making up your own history, you aren't educated enough to converse with about history.

How is it okay for you to just make up whatever you want then? Moreover, where is it demonstrated (I've asked this several times in at least two threads) that I or someone else is unaware of "what happened in history" or that they're "making up" history?

[SkinWalker]

Hey God-boy,
Homo sapiens is the scientific classification for modern humans. Are you fictitious?

By the way she types, I highly doubt we're conversing with a male. Nor do I think she is young enough to be considered "boy" if she were.

I think, based on experience, that we're talking to a woman in her forties or fifties. This is relevant since studies have shown that females are more easily brainwashed into cults than males, who are more willing to accept new ideas or knowledge and, if she's as old as I think, she's been brainwashed a long time.


How about it, carico? Am I right? Do you have a "Y"-chromosome? Do you remember the Carter administration?

[S.A.M.]

Sexists. Remember Jimmy?

[spidergoat]

Carico isn't real, he/she is artwork! I guess that's in the Bible somewhere.

[Billy T]

...So again, until you know what happened in history by the accounts of those who lived in the past instead of making up your own history, you aren't educated enough to converse with about history. :oGood point, science needs to look for confirmation of what has been handed down to us from the ancients, not reinvent ideas by the so called “Scientific Method."

I hope you will send some funds for my first expedition - It will try to discover the exact point of contact between Earth and the Great Turtle, which supports Earth.

[Carico]

Good point, science needs to look for confirmation of what has been handed down to us from the ancients, not reinvent ideas by the so called “Scientific Method."

I hope you will send some funds for my first expedition - It will try to discover the exact point of contact between Earth and the Great Turtle, which supports Earth.

Since the "scientific" method makes assertions that no one in the past or present has witnessed or documented, then the scientific method relies on the imagination for evidence, not what happens in the real world. So I'll stick with what happens int he real world; you can stick with your imagination. ;)

[spidergoat]

Nature has documented what happened in nature. We only have to read it like a book.

[Carico]

Nature has documented what happened in nature. We only have to read it like a book.

Yup. And when you observe nature you see that each animal reproduces itself, not a completely new species. That's why it's called re-production. ;)

[spidergoat]

No, that's cloning. The progeny of any sexual species is never an exact copy of the parent(s).

[Carico]

No, that's cloning. The progeny of any sexual species is never an exact copy of the parent(s).

So do you know what the term "reproduction" means? or not? :confused: Do you know why humans produce humans, apes produce apes, cows produce cows? Or not? If not, then of course you're not qualified to discuss reproduction and genetics. You live in the twilight zone where pigs breed chickens, cows breed horses and apes or unknown animals breed humans. So you need to come back to reality & get educated first. :rolleyes: The ignorance of basic biology among those who follow scientists is much worse than I thought. :rolleyes:

[spidergoat]

Humans do produce humans, and apes do produce apes, by the accepted definition of species. However, they also change over time. If a group of animals (or plants) is separated from the original group for a long enough time, they eventually change so much that they can no longer reproduce with the original group, making them a separate species. After that they can drift even further apart. You are talking about a limited timeframe (one lifetime), I am talking about long term trends.

[Carico]

Humans do produce humans, and apes do produce apes, by the accepted definition of species. However, they also change over time. If a group of animals (or plants) is separated from the original group for a long enough time, they eventually change so much that they can no longer reproduce with the original group, making them a separate species. After that they can drift even further apart. You are talking about a limited timeframe (one lifetime), I am talking about long term trends.

Have you ever seen an ape's descendants change over time? :eek: Into what, praytell? Or do you simply live in your imagination where animals change into anything you want them to over time? It's obviously the latter. evolution thus belongs in the category of science fiction, not science. ;)

[spidergoat]

I'm not a million years old. I do see such change reflected in the fossil record.

Biology 101.

[Carico]

If no one witnessed the events in the Bible, how do you know that it is true? I will hold you to your own standards.

Again, since many of the assertions of scientists weren't witnessed by anyone, then by their reasoning, we don't need witnesses to any of the events in the bible to claim they're true. ;)

[spidergoat]

But you seem to insist on witnesses, so are you going to provide any or not? Scientists do insist on some kind of evidence in place of direct observation.

[Carico]

But you seem to insist on witnesses, so are you going to provide any or not? Scientists do insist on some kind of evidence in place of direct observation.

The bible lists the witnesses. Or are you going to claim they were imaginary as well? :D You guys are so funny. You believe things that no one has witnessed or documented, and you don't believe what has been witnessed or documented. That just proves that scientists live in their own fantasy world, not in the real world.;)

[SkinWalker]

The bible lists the witnesses. Or are you going to claim they were imaginary as well?

Ah, so you're going to use the bible to prove the bible. Need I explain how ignorant that is?

Moreover, if we apply your fallacious reasoning regarding science, your bible and your gods don't stand a chance. Need I explain how ignorant your arguments are?

I'm going to make a prophecy now: your anti-science nonsense isn't going to last long here.

[Carico]

Ah, so you're going to use the bible to prove the bible. Need I explain how ignorant that is?

Moreover, if we apply your fallacious reasoning regarding science, your bible and your gods don't stand a chance. Need I explain how ignorant your arguments are?

I'm going to make a prophecy now: your anti-science nonsense isn't going to last long here.

:bugeye: That's like saying you can't use Einstein's theories to prove Einstein's theories. :D Until you realize how impossible that is, you're not educated enough to converse with. :rolleyes:

[SkinWalker]

Using the bible to prove the bible is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Please, cite where anyone has "use[d] Einstein's theories to prove Einstein's theories."

[one_raven]

So they know there is much evidence of a global flood yet deny the biblical account because it's in the bible.
Is that why most acknowledge that much of what is in the Bible is, in fact, verifiable and has contemporary suporting evidence?

If they deny the flood "because it's in the bible" why would they not deny:
The existence of the Biblical kings?
The Babylonian conquest of Persia?
Abraham?

[Carico]

Is that why most acknowledge that much of what is in the Bible is, in fact, verifiable and has contemporary suporting evidence?

If they deny the flood "because it's in the bible" why would they not deny:
The existence of the Biblical kings?
The Babylonian conquest of Persia?
Abraham?

Many of them do. They claim that the bible is a myth. So since there's no reason to deny a global flood when they say there was a global ice age (which is nothing more than frozen water), especially when over 200 ancient cultures have passed along accounts of a global flood and no one has passed along accounts of a global ice age, then the only reason they do is to try to deny the bible. There can be no other reason.

[Medicine*Woman]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this but there was no Human life in the jurassic period, so how could that have been Noah's Flood?
*************
M*W: Because it's a fairy tale by ancients who thought they knew what they were talking about. Noah and his animals is an A-T reference to the zodiac and it's entities.

Perhaps in the beginning of earth being formed, there was water/ice on the surface of the whole globe. I don't know, but I think I heard this on Nova. This ice began melting, so I think global warming has been going own since the beginning of our expanding universe. We just helped it along with our industrialization and advancing technologies. I am nowhere near a geologist, so I am simplifying what I am saying.

There is some evidence that scientists believe the flood was limited to the Black Sea overcoming it's banks and flooding what was known as the whole world at that time.

The A-T take on it is that Noah and his Ark were what the ancients believed to be in the stories they created about the night skies. It was purely entertainment for them. There were no TVs or DVDs or telescopes then. This was all created from early man's imagination, and that's my take on it. I am rabidly studying astro-theology in that all religions came to be from man-made myths and not necessarily beliefs. Too bad modern folks still believe what the ancients did. It's really time for people to grow up.

[Medicine*Woman]

Most scientists deny the biblical flood because they claim there is no evidence that water flooded the earth even though over 200 ancient cultures have passed along accounts of a global flood where one family survived.
*************
M*W: Apparently, you did not read my post to parcal. I'm not surprised. I have said there is recent scientific evidence that there was some sort of flood in the region of the Black Sea when it overcame it's banks. To the people who existed in that day, that was their entire world. BTW, I am an atheist.

[Medicine*Woman]

Hey God-boy, Homo sapiens is the scientific classification for modern humans. Are you fictitious?
*************
M*W: Don't ask.

[Medicine*Woman]

I'm sure they do agree there was global food. Galileo used to say that if science contradicted God's word, the error was in our interpretation of God's word.
*************
M*W: Damn, I like that man!

[Medicine*Woman]

Sorry they claim there was no global flood but instead, a global ice age. Of course God doesn't say that, but who cares what God says? Certainly not scientists. ;) So ask any scientist if he believes the biblical account of the Flood. Or better yet, look at all the posts on this forum alone which deny the Flood. ;)
*************
M*W: May I ask, what is your reading comprehension, and has it ever been tested?

I'm still waiting for your answer to my much earlier question, "What language does god speak?"

If you can't come up with an honest answer by tomorrow, I'm going to report you to the mods for fraud.

[Medicine*Woman]

That is incorrect. There have been many speculations that there was an ice age based on certain observations. The sedimentary rock layers can also be used to claim there was a global Flood. ;)
*************
M*W: Right about now, I'm really missing IAC.

[Medicine*Woman]

Sorry but Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me."
*************
M*W: I could explain what Jesus allegedly said by A-T, but this would be waaaaay too over your head.

[Medicine*Woman]

Get educated and read what he said in the bible just like you read what scientists say in their textbooks. Only then will you be speaking from knowledge rather than your imagination. :rolleyes:So you're right; there's no point in discussing a topic with you until you first get educated about it.

*************
M*W: Man, I've got to admit that if there were an ice age n right now, you'd be treading on the thinnest part of it.

[Medicine*Woman]

And as I already said, there are only a few options for "fluid flow" to create sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. And only ONE of those options has been recounted by ancient cultures; a global flood. ;)
*************
M*W: In ancient times, what was the total area (figures please) of this "global" flood?

[Medicine*Woman]

Just because you're ignorant and undereducated doesn't imply that others aren't knowledgeable or that they don't or can't understand.

Yours is a position that is to be either pitied or ridiculed.
*************
M*W: I have a couple of suggestons:

1) Put him on eternal IGNORE;

2) Put him on eternal BAN.

He will get very lonely, and go away to preach to somebody else.

[Carico]

ust because you're ignorant and undereducated doesn't imply that others aren't knowledgeable or that they don't or can't understand.


I'm ridiculed because most people here don't know that each animal can only produce its own kind. But you don't want to be educated on the birds and the bees so you'll continue to ridicule me and live in the twilight zone where animals turn into humans. :D So you ridicule me because your theory is indefensible. But I know you can't help your ignorance & fear of the truth so I forgive you. :)

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

@Medicine*Woman, was it entirely necessary to post TEN successive posts in a row, use the multi-quote button.

@Carico, please actually *read* the posts that others post in response to your comments.

[(Q)]

I'm ridiculed because most people here don't know that each animal can only produce its own kind.

Really? And, here I thought all along it was because you're deluded. Silly me.

But you don't want to be educated on the birds and the bees so you'll continue to ridicule me and live in the twilight zone where animals turn into humans.

Aren't humans already animals, by definition? Are you a plant, perhaps?

So you ridicule me because your theory is indefensible.

I'd rather ridicule you because your deluded, if that's ok with you? http://www.smileyhut.com/friends/hug2.gif (http://www.smileyhut.com)

[BenTheMan]

...So once again, leaping to a conclusion based on an observation...

Holy shit. I feel like stabbing myself in the eye.

[Billy T]

...use the multi-quote button. ...How? It does not seem to do anything when I try. Can you explain its use in some detail?

[D H]

Holy shit. I feel like stabbing myself in the eye.
Or at least with the multi-quote tool.

How? It does not seem to do anything when I try. Can you explain its use in some detail?
Suppose you want to address a set of N posts. Click the multi post button http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif on the first N-1 post, making each selected multi-quote button turn red, http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/multiquote_on.gif.

When you are down to the last post in the set, click the plain-old-vanilla quote button http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/quote.gif on this last post. Presto-chango, you have a "reply to thread" form with N quoted posts.

[BenTheMan]

Suppose you want to address a set of N posts. Click the multi post button http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif on the first N-1 post, making each selected multi-quote button turn red, http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/multiquote_on.gif.

When you are down to the last post in the set, the plain-old-vanilla quote button http://www.sciforums.com/images/buttons/quote.gif on this last post. Presto-chango, you have a "reply to thread" form with N quoted posts.

Ahh that's how that damned thing works.

[EntropyAlwaysWins]

You can also press the multi-quote button on all N posts and then click the 'post reply' button down the bottom.

[Billy T]

To DH: Thanks - I have made my first use of it. It is big help.