• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big blunder by the Institute for Creation Research

javajo

Well-Known Member
"as the flood resided" -- where to? such a flood is not physically possible, so if you're going to assume it anyway, why even bother constructing a chain of logic based on it..
I believe as the ocean basins cooled from all the volcanic and geologic activity with the breaking open of all the fountains of the deep, they became heavier and sank and as the plates moved the continents were separated and pushed up and the mountains were formed. The Bible only says there were high hills before the flood so there was easily enough water to flood the earth. Without mountains or sea basins the water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 1.7 miles. Now with God's promise not to flood the earth we have the not just the promise we remember when we see a rainbow, but the high mountains for assurance it cannot happen.

Not really a shocker. We've had this debate here in regards to the flood and Mt. Ararat and they've been proven to be wrong in interpretation of the geological data.
It may be significant that the Ark settled on the Mountains of Ararat which just happen to be in a tectonically active region believed to be the junction of three crustal plates.

every culture? really? or just "a bunch"? what are those very similar accounts from all over the world?
Most every culture has flood stories, the closer to the Mountains of Ararat the closer they are to the Biblical account.

Is it just me, or is it weird that Christians appeal to various cultures and their representative flood myths to back up the claims in Genesis, and yet don't do the same for the various myths that have a god becoming incarnate as a human, dying, resurrecting, and the like? Off topic, but just curious.
The flood would have been carried to all cultures as only 4 couples (Noah and his wife and his three sons and their wives) survived. When the tongues were confused at Babel because the people would not spread out and multiply but instead came together and worshiped a false God, the story was taken with them thus into every culture. The Incarnation, death and resurrection happened some 2,200 years later and the news was carried throughout the Roman Empire, but the Holy Spirit forbade Paul from going to Asia for a time so it is still being taken to the furthest villages and tribes of the world. So, we are to spread the Gospel while the flood story was taken by the ancestors of every culture from Babel and to where they were scattered.
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
The flood would have been carried to all cultures as only 4 couples (Noah and his wife and his three sons and their wives) survived. When the tongues were confused at Babel because the people would not spread out and multiply but instead came together and worshiped a false God, the story was taken with them thus into every culture. The Incarnation, death and resurrection happened some 2,200 years later and the news was carried throughout the Roman Empire, but the Holy Spirit forbade Paul from going to Asia for a time so it is still being taken to the furthest villages and tribes of the world. So, we are to spread the Gospel while the flood story was taken by the ancestors of every culture from Babel and to where they were scattered.

What convinces you that your version is the correct one, and not of of the copies?
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
The idea that mountains rose from Sea Level is a THEORY. Plate Tectonics is not proven as a matter of fact, and there is much evidence and logic against it. Ask Outhouse, who refuses to address any of the claims I've brought against it by dismissing it as "Pseudoscience" as if that excuses him from any of the claims.

http://nuclearplanet.com/510090.pdf

"The idea that mountains rose from Sea Level is a THEORY. Plate Tectonics is not proven as a matter of fact, and there is much evidence and logic against it."


LOL

Plate Tectonics is not proven as a matter of fact

Yes it is

Plate Tectonics

As early as the 16th century, cartographers noted that the continents appeared to fit together like pieces of a grand jigsaw puzzle. During the 19th century, various geologists and explorers, including Charles Darwin, noticed that many fossilized remains and geological formations were similar across the continents. To make sense of these phenomena, 20th century Austrian geologist Eduard Sues proposed a theory that the continents were once part of a large supercontinent, which he called Gwondanaland. In 1915, German meteorologist Alfred L. Wegener published his theory that 200 to 300 million years ago, the continents were once joined together in a large landform, called Pangaea, and that they had drifted apart to form separate land masses as well as the Atlantic Ocean basin.
Wegener's theory was rejected by the scientific community, in part because of a prevailing view at that time that the Earth was solid and rigid. Were it not for a small dedicated group of scientists and the emergence of new scientific data and methods, the theory could have been largely forgotten. Fortunately, a new field of scientific study, paleomagnetism, emerged giving proponents of Wegener's theory new hope that they might be able to prove the existence of a super continent.
When some rocks are created, they are magnetized in the direction of the earth's magnetic field. Paleomagnetists, drilling into prehistoric rock, discovered that the Earth's magnetic field, in fact, changes direction every few hundred thousand years. Observations of these alternating regions, found to be symmetrical on both sides of ocean floor ridges, have given scientists strong evidence of a key mechanism for creating continental drift. As new material wells up from the Earth's mantle, the sea floor spreads.

However, it was only in the 1960s, when improved seismological instrumentation and other measuring devices were developed, that Wegener's theory was confirmed. In studies funded by the U.S. Navy to improve submarine warfare, researchers began mapping the ocean floor, collecting data to explain the magnetic anomalies that were affecting sonar readings. From this data, scientists confirmed that the sea floor was indeed spreading apart.
In 1985, the Navy launched a satellite called "Geosat" whose goal was to measure variations in gravity on the Earth's surface, which would then submarine commanders - and scientists - where underwater mountains and valleys were located. From 500 miles above the Earth, Geosat used radar to create an incredibly accurate map of the sea floor. Within a few short years, scientists studying this new data found conclusive evidence of continental drift and discovered additional evidence to validate the theory of plate tectonics.
Scientists now understand that the Earth's surface (the upper 45-60 miles of crust) is divided into massive plates which move 1 to 4 inches per year. The margins of where these plates spread, collide, and slide past each other are where earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountains are concentrated.
There are plates of drastically different shapes and sizes that move along the Earth's crust. From the massive Pacific and European plates, to the smaller Caribbean and Juan de Fuca plates, each plate can react differently when coming into contact with another plate. Converging boundaries occur when two plates collide. The area where one plate slides over another is called the subduction zone. Transverse boundaries occur when two plates simply slide past one another, which occurs less frequently. The stress and strain that results from the sliding of plates results in faults. As the stress becomes too great for the plates to bear, earthquakes can occur. A spreading boundary is characterized by two tectonic plates pulling apart from one another. Spreading boundaries typically have high levels of volcanic activity, since the Earth's crust is cracking and weakening, thus exposing the mantle below.
A wide variety of geographic formations are explained by from plate activity. The activity of the so-called "Ring of Fire," a famous group of extremely powerful volcanoes surrounding the Pacific Ocean, is caused by the movement of tectonic plates. The collusion of the Juan de Fuca and Gorda plates created the Cascade Mountain range and was responsible for the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The subduction of the Pacific plate under the Eurasian plate created the Japanese islands, and, in South America, the South American plate collided with the Nazca plate to create the Andes Mountains as well as both the Cotopaxi and Azul volcanoes.
Scientists have a fairly good understanding of the movements of plates and their interaction at plate boundaries, but there are still unanswered questions. While it is known that forces deep within the Earth's interior drive the motion of the plates, these forces are not yet well understood. And, while the plate tectonic theory helps to explain phenomenon such as volcanoes and earthquakes, it does not yet offer an explanation why the continents were originally joined or why they broke apart.

The Environmental Literacy Council - Plate Tectonics


tectonics_world_map_600.jpg




pangaea_gond.gif




You better inform the Navy and the USGS and anyone studying earthquakes or volcanoes that plate tectonics is just a theory again support by millions of facts, including Global Positioning satellites that now measure the movements. LOL



The amount of tectonic plate movement is measured using Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites and a network of GPS receivers. This technology allows scientists to measure plate movements as small as a few millimeters per year.

Twenty-four GPS satellites orbit the Earth every 24 hours at 20,000 km above the earth. Using accurately measured distances from at least three GPS satellites, the precise location of a GPS receiver on Earth can be calculated using a method called triangulation.

Science On the Leading Edge | Measuring Plate Movements
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Africa-America split: back to the suture - evidence that Florida was once part of Africa


Earth scientists mapping the United States at considerable depths have located the "suture" between North America and an African fragment -- now called Florida -- that was left behind when the two continents parted 190 million years ago, according to two papers to be published in GEOLOGY. This connecting seam, which runs roughly east-southeast beneath southern Georgia, probably first formed 300 million years ago when the drifting African and North American continents collided to form the supercontinent Pangea, says Douglas Nelson, an associate researcher for the Consortium for Continental Reflection Profiling (COCORP) at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

Because Florida's oldest rocks and fossils more closely resemble those of Africa than those of the rest of the United States, earth scientists have long suspected that Florida might have once been part of Africa.

Africa-America split: back to the suture - evidence that Florida was once part of Africa | Science News | Find Articles
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I believe the Bible is God's Word.


Then you don't understand how it actually was written and by whom.

For example why are they errors in it? Why are there different versions of the same stories in it?



"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."


1. something believed ; an opinion or conviction


A fact (derived from the Latin Factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case


the quality of being actual : actuality a question of fact hinges on evidence

a : something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact

b : an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality


in fact
: in truth


Is Evolution only a theory?



Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions. Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs

Definition of Scientific Theory




So what is the difference between a belief and a fact?

Or a fact and a scientific theory?

Or a fact and a scientific theory and a belief?
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
I don't even look at long cut and pastes. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of Almighty God.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't even look at long cut and pastes. I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of Almighty God.


A god didnt write it though

many different unknown men or groups of unknown men wrote the many different books over a thousadn years.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I don't even look at long cut and pastes

Why, you posted some, you expect people to read yours and not give others the same courtesy?

which is why you don't understand a lot of these discussions and you will never understand the world around you which according to your beilefs god created and how god created it, which is sad really.

So you hold your cultural beliefs higher then mankinds combined knowledge and the billions of facts?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Why wont you learn or look at knowledge???

godidit is the same as saying its all magic. it doesnt cut it
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
I don't even look at long cut and pastes

Why, you posted some, you expect people to read yours and not give others the same courtesy?

which is why you don't understand a lot of these discussions and you will never understand the world around you which according to your beilefs god created and how god created it, which is sad really.

So you hold your cultural beliefs higher then mankinds combined knowledge and the billions of facts?
I did post some and I got called out for it. So, I'm not doing it anymore as it actually against the forum rules. I do indeed hold the Bible as supreme.

Why wont you learn or look at knowledge???

godidit is the same as saying its all magic. it doesnt cut it
I am a firm believer that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I am a Christian, that is what I believe.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I did post some and I got called out for it. So, I'm not doing it anymore as it actually against the forum rules. I do indeed hold the Bible as supreme.

I am a firm believer that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I am a Christian, that is what I believe.


so what.

belief in the bible doesnt mean you have to shut your mind to reason, logic or knowledge.
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
what about the verse that claims bats are birds :facepalm:



To the biblical God, a bat is just an another unclean bird. 14:11, 18
Its in a list of birds not to eat, probably because it flies, so its no big deal to me. The Hebrew word is ofe and means winged creature so it can include bats. If you want to try to find reasons not to believe the Bible I'm sure you won't have any trouble. I'm not asking anyone to believe it and however 'wrong' things are in it to you, its just what I believe is all. Perhaps you should google it and read some of the good explanations for the bat deal, there's plenty of them.
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
I never said I did. Y'all might have said it about me.

Even when reason, logic, and knowledge shows your faith to be absurd?

It's one thing to believe things that cannot be either proven or disproven by science to be the work of a divine being, it's another thing entirely to believe things are the products of a divine being when science clearly shows it not to be the case. The whole premise of science is that it is there to explain how the world works. It's based on what we can see, what we can experience, what we can test. Religious claims cannot fall under the scrutiny of science by the very fact of their 'otherworldlyness'. So, while believing in things such as gods, angels, demons, spirits, another world, and the like, is all fine and good, believing things about reality that are clearly not true simply because a book that makes outrageous claims says it to be true is a denial of the very logical and rational (supposedly) brain that said god is supposed to have given us.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Its in a list of birds not to eat, probably because it flies, so its no big deal to me. The Hebrew word is ofe and means winged creature so it can include bats. If you want to try to find reasons not to believe the Bible I'm sure you won't have any trouble. I'm not asking anyone to believe it and however 'wrong' things are in it to you, its just what I believe is all. Perhaps you should google it and read some of the good explanations for the bat deal, there's plenty of them.


it was one example of many.

problem is if we post the information, you wont answer and if you do its always "godidit"
 
Top