Atheist Desire to Disprove God

The Neo Nerd · Apr 13, 2011

My favourite bit was when he said giants made the ark.

I got a good giggle out of that

tumbleweed41 · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Glaciers, glaciers, glaciers.. where to begin.
Oh, they are only necessary to fit scientific hypothesis', as I have explained for the umpteenth time. You know, the theories that assume the initial state of anything and speculate..

A world-wide flood can more than accomodate for the Great Lakes. The Ice Age itself has incredible flaws.

800px-Perito_Moreno_Glacier_Patagonia_Argentina_Luca_Galuzzi_2005.JPG

The physical evidence abounds. :cold:

waitasec · Apr 13, 2011

evidence schmevidence....it's irrelevant!!
those pictures were photo shopped

:ignore:

waitasec · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
For one, I'm a troll? For getting frustrated ...

maybe the reason you are frustrated is because the facts do not align with your claims....

the facts could care less about your feelings...or anyone else's...
scientific method remember?

McBell · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Because things get misconstrued over time. You can see the evidence of that looking at now.

As for the genetic impossibility, I don't see how it is impossible, unless you believe the far-fetched ideas of evolutionists. Many aquatic animals would've survived, and the species on Noah's ship would have evolved, split, and multiplied over the next 4000-5000 years.
Like I said before, science makes it's own hypothesis without considering the evident history and accounts.
For all you know, the fossils we find could simply just be organisms Noah couldn't account for.
There is much to consider before just offing these things for science. I find it disturbing the amount of faith you trust you put into theory. You have no right to call religious people ignorant.

How many of each "species" did Noah have on the ark?
For example, how many tigers?
How many lions?
How many Cougars?
How many leopards?

What did these meat eating species eat?

RitalinO.D. · Apr 13, 2011

Could have sworn I posted this already, but apparently it disappeared magically...i think Goddidit! :drool:

Sum,

Debunk Ice core dating for me.

Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snippet:

The ice core drilled in Guliya ice cap in western China in the 1990s reaches back to 760,000 years before the present farther back than any other core at the time, though the EPICA core in Antarctica equalled that extreme in 2003

Dirty Penguin · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Because things get misconstrued over time. You can see the evidence of that looking at now.

As for the genetic impossibility, I don't see how it is impossible, unless you believe the far-fetched ideas of evolutionists. Many aquatic animals would've survived, and the species on Noah's ship would have evolved, split, and multiplied over the next 4000-5000 years.
Like I said before, science makes it's own hypothesis without considering the evident history and accounts.
For all you know, the fossils we find could simply just be organisms Noah couldn't account for.
There is much to consider before just offing these things for science. I find it disturbing the amount of faith you trust you put into theory. You have no right to call religious people ignorant.

I'm going to post this again. Obviously you missed it.....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2426366-post758.html

Dirty Penguin · Apr 13, 2011

The days of "creation"...summed up in two videos and refuted in the process.

[youtube]JcQTCoY3wYQ[/youtube]
YouTube - The Most Wrong Anyone Ever Was
[youtube]s6AdEDm2mLQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Atheist Comedy - Intelijunt Dezine

Sum1sGruj · Apr 13, 2011

So people had cameras 1000's of years ago. Awesome.

Anyways, my source debunks the living hell out of glacier theories. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because some want to keep asking the same questions. Every question since my last posts have already been answered 5 times over. The fact that you all cannot come up with these simple answers paints a picture.

I'm done. I told myself that I'd just go ahead and continue the debate but it's 100 against one. I'm sure 100 more posts will come up behind this one, throwing up stuff as they know no one will come back on and contest it, or saying 'god did it' and whatnot.

God did it..
okay, nothing did it. It's the biggest joke in mathematics and science I've ever heard.

McBell · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
So people had cameras 1000's of years ago. Awesome.

Anyways, my source debunks the living hell out of glacier theories. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because some want to keep asking the same questions. Every question since my last posts have already been answered 5 times over. The fact that you all cannot come up with these simple answers paints a picture.

I'm done. I told myself that I'd just go ahead and continue the debate but it's 100 against one. I'm sure 100 more posts will come up behind this one, throwing up stuff as they know no one will come back on and contest it, or saying 'god did it' and whatnot.

God did it..
okay, nothing did it. It's the biggest joke in mathematics and science I've ever heard.

What?
You mean you are not even going to try and explain how all the animals on the ark survived long enough to populate all the current animals on the planet in the last like 6000 or so years?

Not that I blame you.
I mean, you did bite off more than you can chew.
Now you are want to run home and tell them how you so blew everyone away with your ultimate evidence/explanation:

"GOD DID IT!!"

RitalinO.D. · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
So people had cameras 1000's of years ago. Awesome.

Anyways, my source debunks the living hell out of glacier theories. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because some want to keep asking the same questions. Every question since my last posts have already been answered 5 times over. The fact that you all cannot come up with these simple answers paints a picture.

I'm done. I told myself that I'd just go ahead and continue the debate but it's 100 against one. I'm sure 100 more posts will come up behind this one, throwing up stuff as they know no one will come back on and contest it, or saying 'god did it' and whatnot.

God did it..
okay, nothing did it. It's the biggest joke in mathematics and science I've ever heard.

So now mathematics is a joke? Yer a friggin peach.

You still haven't provided anything to debunk Ice cores. And I expect that you will continue to ignore it.

McBell · Apr 13, 2011

RitalinO.D. said:
So now mathematics is a joke? Yer a friggin peach.

You still haven't provided anything to debunk Ice cores. And I expect that you will continue to ignore it.

What?
Did you not see how he clearly, thoroughly, and absolutely ripped ice cores part with "my source debunks the living hell out of glacier theories"?

I mean, how is it possible to even continue with a straight face after that kind of a debunking?

Hells bells, I bet I will still be laughing my arse off about it for the next two or three hours.

9-10ths_Penguin · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Glaciers, glaciers, glaciers.. where to begin.
Oh, they are only necessary to fit scientific hypothesis', as I have explained for the umpteenth time. You know, the theories that assume the initial state of anything and speculate..

A world-wide flood can more than accomodate for the Great Lakes. The Ice Age itself has incredible flaws.

Actually, my point wasn't that glaciers account for the Great Lakes themselves. What I had in mind was that the underlying soils in the Great Lakes region are all overconsolidated to exactly the stress level that would occur if they had a ~1 km thick glacier sitting on them some time in their past.

Other geological clues let us pinpoint the date that these glaciers receded to around 11,000 to 12,000 years ago, but even without that, we can realize that they haven't been present since the beginning of recorded written history.

And before you try to argue that the weight of water from a global flood could cause this overconsolidation effect, you should realize that the pressure of liquid water on soil actually reduces, not increases, the effective stress in the soil.

RitalinO.D. · Apr 13, 2011

Mestemia said:
What?
Did you not see how he clearly, thoroughly, and absolutely ripped ice cores part with "my source debunks the living hell out of glacier theories"?

I mean, how is it possible to even continue with a straight face after that kind of a debunking?

Hells bells, I bet I will still be laughing my arse off about it for the next two or three hours.

I'm actually inclined to cry, considering people this blind reproduce.

The Neo Nerd · Apr 13, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
So people had cameras 1000's of years ago. Awesome.

Anyways, my source debunks the living hell out of glacier theories. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because some want to keep asking the same questions. Every question since my last posts have already been answered 5 times over. The fact that you all cannot come up with these simple answers paints a picture.

I'm done. I told myself that I'd just go ahead and continue the debate but it's 100 against one. I'm sure 100 more posts will come up behind this one, throwing up stuff as they know no one will come back on and contest it, or saying 'god did it' and whatnot.

God did it..
okay, nothing did it. It's the biggest joke in mathematics and science I've ever heard.

No please don't leave grujy, im really keen on learning about this source of yours.

-Q

nonbeliever_92 · Apr 14, 2011

Mestemia said:
Hells bells.

Sidenote: Hell's bells? Harry Dresden, is that you?

McBell · Apr 14, 2011

nonbeliever_92 said:
Sidenote: Hell's bells? Harry Dresden, is that you?

Nope.
Blackstone Copperfield.

Autodidact · Apr 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
To put it simply, science dismisses religious intrigue on account that we do not see such things taking effect, as if 'right now' defines what could have happened 1000's of years ago. So scientists make vast assumptions.
For example, the biblical Great flood. It explains aquatic fossils on the tops of mountains. It explains that fossil fuels would have rapidly formed due to decay, pressure, and burial resulting from it.
And yet, because there are mountains and there isn't an existing flood today to show how those fossils got up there, there just has to be millions of years of stratum-colliding masses to form them, when they could have immediately been made at the beginning chaos of the Earth being formed.

What is the use of science if it only 'discovers' what it wants to 'discover'?

This is so true. Science is completely useless. Over and over again in history we've seen that Christianity is right, and science is wrong. Christianity said the sun revolves around the earth, and it was right. Christianity said snakes can talk, and the sun can stand still in the sky, and it was right every time. I don't know why scientists even bother. Name one thing science has contributed to human knowledge.

Autodidact · Apr 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
Scientific hypothesis' are built on willful ignorance- willing to ignore anything that replaces or denies it.

Exactly. Scientists are nothing but a bunch of big dummy-heads. How do you think we got computers--science? I don't THINK so. We just kept praying until they came into existence. Religion works way better than science; any fool knows that. That's why there's no point in studying it, as Sum1 so aptly demonstrates.

Autodidact · Apr 14, 2011

Sum1sGruj said:
I'm glad you brought this up, because it's the only thing science exceeds in. Technological/medical advancement.
Take into account that, and you can see how far behind the other aspects of science are. Surely if they weren't struggling, the ideas of evolution and geology wouldn't be so lacking in comparison.

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

That's odd. First Sum1 tells us how stupid and useless science is, then he uses so-called scientific evidence. If science doesn't work, Sum, why are you trying to use it?

Atheist Desire to Disprove God

Well-Known Member

Resident Liberal Hippie

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Resident Sourpuss

Well-Known Member

Master Of Ceremony

Master Of Ceremony

Active Member

Resident Sourpuss

Well-Known Member

Resident Sourpuss

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident Sourpuss

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank

Intentionally Blank