Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[tumbleweed41]

If there was a flood, than logically there had to be some sort of divine influence to bring the water level above mountains. Therefore, any other argument regarding the animals on Noah's ship are obsolete.
But it can sit perfectly well that Noah went fishing for food. The rain would have accounted for clean water.

Goddidit and Noah went fishing? In the "clean water"?

Do you even listen to what you're saying?

 

[Meow Mix]

Goddidit and Noah went fishing? In the "clean water"?

Do you even listen to what you're saying?

He already mentioned divine influence raising the water above the mountains -- clearly he's already demonstrating that evidence is inconsequential since he can magic anything you say away with "divine influence."

All the evidence in the world could contradict his belief -- which it does -- but if he's already willing to use this "divine influence" argument it doesn't matter, since he can magic it all away. You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Unless you found fossils of wolves around at the same time as dogs. Which you would.

In what ways are dating techniques "obsolete"? Do you know anything about carbon dating?

Care to provide a single fact that runs contrary to the theory, then?

You have yet to demonstrate that a global flood ever occurred. This is the fourth, and last, time I will ask: What evidence is there of a global flood?

I'll answer these in order.

1st question doesn't really mean anything. There are still monkeys and fish around, which we are theorized to have evolved from.

One thing that is nerve-racking about forums with a general topic is the repetition of statements. Carbon dating is laughable. It so stupid that I'll even give you the opportunity to show how it's not before telling. Radiometric dating is manipulated with variables.

I don't need to provide facts on the contrary to theory. They remain theory for a reason.

I have provided evidence for the flood up and down this thread, and even put up a few sources. Stop being so redundant with the question.

 

[PolyHedral]

They remain theory for a reason.

Meow, may I borrow a cosmology textbook? From what I've heard, they're usually very heavy... :angel2:

And yes, they remain theory for a reason. That reason being that they are correct.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll answer these in order.

1st question doesn't really mean anything. There are still monkeys and fish around, which we are theorized to have evolved from.

Wrong. Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestors, and while humans did evolve from fish they are not the same fish that exist nowadays. The fossils we find in the fossil record are not of these contemporary apes or fish. This is a basic misunderstanding of the theory of evolution on your part.

One thing that is nerve-racking about forums with a general topic is the repetition of statements. Carbon dating is laughable. It so stupid that I'll even give you the opportunity to show how it's not before telling. Radiometric dating is manipulated with variables.

I asked you a question, and you respond by asking me to provide you with contrary examples. I'm not the one making a claim here - you are. Support your claims with facts.

Now, in what ways are radiometric dating or carbon dating obsolete?

I don't need to provide facts on the contrary to theory. They remain theory for a reason.

Theories can be disproven by facts, so yes, if you want to demonstrate a theory is false you have to demonstrate facts that contradict it.

I have provided evidence for the flood up and down this thread, and even put up a few sources. Provide some new questions.

Or just answer the one I've asked three times and you have yet to answer. If you have been posting evidence all this time, I would have seen it. And in any case, would it really be so difficult for you to just provide it one more time?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hey Sum,

Perhaps you could address the issues raised in the video.

1. The amount of room to hold each of the basic animal types.
2. Housing enough food and water to feed these animals.
3. Stopping the animals from eating eachother
4. Providing enough genetic diversity to create whole new populations from two single animals.
5. Stopping the animals from freezing and suffocating at such a great height.
6. Feeding the animals after they got off the ark.
7. Fish surviving in mixed salt/fresh water


I think that's all, respond at your leisure.

ohh and one more.

8. Getting all the animals to different continents after the flood.

Thankyou in advance.

-Q

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Religious people aren't necessarily ignorant. But evolution-deniers, at this time of human history, by definition are.

With all due respect, ignorance is the only possible explanation for claims that scientists must resort to "faith in the theory".

Even a superficial knowledge of the facts of biological research shows that faith is not needed at all. We have lots of fossils, for instance, but they aren't even needed anymore in order to conclusively prove that the Theory of Evolution is solid and, at this point, unlikely to suffer major revisions due to new findings.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Religious people aren't necessarily ignorant.

True, but unfortunately the one in this thread is. Like, way more than usual. He brings a whole new level of denial.

 

[darkendless]

True, but unfortunately the one in this thread is. Like, way more than usual. He brings a whole new level of denial.

I've been waiting for answers for like 6 pages.

 

[PhAA]

I'll answer these in order.

1st question doesn't really mean anything. There are still monkeys and fish around, which we are theorized to have evolved from.

One thing that is nerve-racking about forums with a general topic is the repetition of statements. Carbon dating is laughable. It so stupid that I'll even give you the opportunity to show how it's not before telling. Radiometric dating is manipulated with variables.

I don't need to provide facts on the contrary to theory. They remain theory for a reason.

I have provided evidence for the flood up and down this thread, and even put up a few sources. Stop being so redundant with the question.

Basically, Sum1sGruj is saying that he is right because he said he is right. No need for to present any evidence to counter such widely accepted theories. Ignorance and denial will do.

Hey, he must be god. Come on, let's praise him.:bow::jester3:

 

[waitasec]

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.

it's very telling how you ignored my posts regarding the missing fossils of penguins, kangaroos and bears in the region...
you do realize that if those fossils were ever to be found there evolution would be debunked

not a fan of the scientific method are you...typical delusional mind set
not impressive at all...
in fact it's sad :sad: knowing people like you vote...

 

[PhAA]

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.

*sigh *Did you even watch the video? If the great flood was really as great as stated in the bible, then they would be so high in the atmosphere that it would be hard, if not impossible to breath. So right then and there, everyone would be dead. Try watching the video again, there are more points raise before this.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

\
1. The amount of room to hold each of the basic animal types.
2. Housing enough food and water to feed these animals.
3. Stopping the animals from eating eachother
4. Providing enough genetic diversity to create whole new populations from two single animals.
5. Stopping the animals from freezing and suffocating at such a great height.
6. Feeding the animals after they got off the ark.
7. Fish surviving in mixed salt/fresh water

1. It was designed specifically to hold them. It was practically a zoo on water. Noah's helper were likely of the giant race and could make the ship very sturdy and in a shorter amount of time. Noah himself may have been a giant.

2. Already answered this
3. Not all animals eat each other. For those that do- they were separate
4. The animals would have already had different genetics in their DNA, and also carried bacteria and such.
5. The water would have pushed the surface air upward
6. The animals were taken care of for a long while after the flood, as mankind also had to rebuild. Noah was 600 years old when this happened, and so 200 of it was spent doing exactly this.
7. Salt water would sit deeper in the ocean. As you get closer to the surface, the water becomes more and more freshwater. Since the flood took 40 days to fill the Earth, the aquatic animals would have gone where the water is most suitable.

As for the condescending statements of some, they do not affect me in any way. In fact, it only brings out the measurement of your depth

 

[darkendless]

1. It was designed specifically to hold them. It was practically a zoo on water. Noah's helper were likely of the giant race and could make the ship very sturdy and in a shorter amount of time. Noah himself may have been a giant.

2. Already answered this
3. Not all animals eat each other. For those that do- they were separate
4. The animals would have already had different genetics in their DNA, and also carried bacteria and such.
5. The water would have pushed the surface air upward
6. The animals were taken care of for a long while after the flood, as mankind also had to rebuild. Noah was 600 years old when this happened, and so 200 of it was spent doing exactly this.
7. Salt water would sit deeper in the ocean. As you get closer to the surface, the water becomes more and more freshwater. Since the flood took 40 days to fill the Earth, the aquatic animals would have gone where the water is most suitable.

As for the condescending statements of some, they do not affect me in any way. In fact, it only brings out the measurement of your depth

1) how did a wooden ship not break up in turbulent waters and get smashed up by debris and rocks as the water level rose?
2) how did a ship of that size stay afloat, fluid mechanics would dictate a wooden boat of the required size would have bouyancy issues.
3) how did the boat carry enough food for the humans and the zoo?
4) how were predators kept apart from their prey?
5) where did all the water go?
6) why are there no geological footprints of such a large flood?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

1. It was designed specifically to hold them. It was practically a zoo on water. Noah's helper were likely of the giant race and could make the ship very sturdy and in a shorter amount of time. Noah himself may have been a giant.

2. Already answered this
3. Not all animals eat each other. For those that do- they were separate
4. The animals would have already had different genetics in their DNA, and also carried bacteria and such.
5. The water would have pushed the surface air upward
6. The animals were taken care of for a long while after the flood, as mankind also had to rebuild. Noah was 600 years old when this happened, and so 200 of it was spent doing exactly this.
7. Salt water would sit deeper in the ocean. As you get closer to the surface, the water becomes more and more freshwater. Since the flood took 40 days to fill the Earth, the aquatic animals would have gone where the water is most suitable.

As for the condescending statements of some, they do not affect me in any way. In fact, it only brings out the measurement of your depth

Here let me help ya out..



1. God did it.
2. God did it.
3. God did it.
4. God did it.
5. God did it.
6. God did it.
7. God did it.

There, now everyone understands where you are coming from.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

1) how did a wooden ship not break up in turbulent waters and get smashed up by debris and rocks as the water level rose?
2) how did a ship of that size stay afloat, fluid mechanics would dictate a wooden boat of the required size would have bouyancy issues.
3) how did the boat carry enough food for the humans and the zoo?
4) how were predators kept apart from their prey?
5) where did all the water go?
6) why are there no geological footprints of such a large flood?

1. Turbulent waters wouldn't matter much. It's not as if he was caught in a hurricane. It's not as if being in the middle of the Pacific or being on a worldwide ocean matters in this respect. Rocks do not float, and anything that does wouldn't do much damage.
2. To my knowledge, one of the largest ships in the world are 458 meters long, which is close to the size of the ark as considered by Christians. How does the material matter, especially if it was manufactured by giants?
3.) They went fishing. They got their water from rain. Rain is drinkable. I find it funny that this is included lol.
4.) They were separated.
5.) The water took a while to disperse. The water levels were probably not as high, the water saturated into the Earth, plates cracked and the water fell through, pushing mountains even higher, etc. etc. etc. There are many ways to contribute to the question.
6.)There are many geological footprints of the flood. I have even provided sources on this question, which seems to be asked over and over, if not in the same wording.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

1. Turbulent waters wouldn't matter much. It's not as if he was caught in a hurricane. It's not as if being in the middle of the Pacific or being on a worldwide ocean matters in this respect. Rocks do not float, and anything that does wouldn't do much damage.
2. To my knowledge, one of the largest ships in the world are 458 meters long, which is close to the size of the ark as considered by Christians. How does the material matter, especially if it was manufactured by giants?
3.) They went fishing. They got their water from rain. Rain is drinkable. I find it funny that this is included lol.
4.) They were separated.
5.) The water took a while to disperse. The water levels were probably not as high, the water saturated into the Earth, plates cracked and the water fell through, pushing mountains even higher, etc. etc. etc. There are many ways to contribute to the question.
6.)There are many geological footprints of the flood. I have even provided sources on this question, which seems to be asked over and over, if not in the same wording.

1. How do you know it wasn't a hurricane? Were you there? How do you know what would and would not do damage?
2. So now Noah was a gaint? lol ok.
3. So they caught enough fish to feed the animals? What did they feed the herbivores? How did he capture the water to give to the animals? Did he teach them all to catch it with their mouths?
4. How do you seperate every type of predator from their prey, and avoid the predators attacking and eating eachother?
5. The water fell through? Where did it go? You realize that the collisions of techtonic plates are what create mountains, not water right?
6. You haven't provided one single piece of evidence of a global flood.

 

[darkendless]

1. Turbulent waters wouldn't matter much. It's not as if he was caught in a hurricane. It's not as if being in the middle of the Pacific or being on a worldwide ocean matters in this respect. Rocks do not float, and anything that does wouldn't do much damage.
2. To my knowledge, one of the largest ships in the world are 458 meters long, which is close to the size of the ark as considered by Christians. How does the material matter, especially if it was manufactured by giants?
3.) They went fishing. They got their water from rain. Rain is drinkable. I find it funny that this is included lol.
4.) They were separated.
5.) The water took a while to disperse. The water levels were probably not as high, the water saturated into the Earth, plates cracked and the water fell through, pushing mountains even higher, etc. etc. etc. There are many ways to contribute to the question.
6.)There are many geological footprints of the flood. I have even provided sources on this question, which seems to be asked over and over, if not in the same wording.

1) it does because as flooding rose higher and higher the Ark would move against large rock formations in the ground which would splinter even the best wood. Its inevitable.
2) The material matters because wood has a considerably lower Young's Modulus (E) when compared to steel. Therefore deformation under the pressure of turbulent water would cause it to fail a lot easier than steel.

Remember deflection = PL/EA

3) think of how many animals they were feeding though. Its rediculous to think that it was sustainable, especially considering a flood that large would cause marine systems to collapse thus killing fish.

4) ok

5) Good God. Now here is where I can tell you don't really know what you're on about. You realise that the amount of water we're talking about would not just subside. It would takes several lifetimes for it to disappear meaning Noah would have perished with a lack of drinkable water (it would have to stop raining for it to cease meaning they'd run out of potable water).
Also, fractures in the earth were a result of seismic activity and occured a few million years (lol) before mr Noah and his impossible voyage.

6) Why are you trying to fool me? Honestly, do you think i'm an idiot?

I may have missed your evidence but I can't wait to have a laugh. Do you know what a high magnitude does to soil out of curiosity? Do you know the everlasting effects it leaves? Do you know what signs a person in my profession would look for to prove you wrong?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

1) it does because as flooding rose higher and higher the Ark would move against large rock formations in the ground which would splinter even the best wood. Its inevitable.
2) The material matters because wood has a considerably lower Young's Modulus (E) when compared to steel. Therefore deformation under the pressure of turbulent water would cause it to fail a lot easier than steel.

Remember deflection = PL/EA

3) think of how many animals they were feeding though. Its rediculous to think that it was sustainable, especially considering a flood that large would cause marine systems to collapse thus killing fish.

4) ok

5) Good God. Now here is where I can tell you don't really know what you're on about. You realise that the amount of water we're talking about would not just subside. It would takes several lifetimes for it to disappear meaning Noah would have perished with a lack of drinkable water (it would have to stop raining for it to cease meaning they'd run out of potable water).
Also, fractures in the earth were a result of seismic activity and occured a few million years (lol) before mr Noah and his impossible voyage.

6) Why are you trying to fool me? Honestly, do you think i'm an idiot?

I may have missed your evidence but I can't wait to have a laugh. Do you know what a high magnitude does to soil out of curiosity? Do you know the everlasting effects it leaves? Do you know what signs a person in my profession would look for to prove you wrong?

You are a very rude person. Is it really necessary?

1. You make handling a ship seem like rocket science. Do you not think this was brought into account when the ship was being made?

2. Wood is very strong. If it is reinforced enough, it can do wonders. Steel just happens to be more efficient and less time consuming.

3. With the amount of fish in the sea during such an event and the prepared food stores they had, it would more than suffice.

4. Good, the definition of 'separate' has finally been realized.

5. It doesn't run with scientific hypothesis, I know. That is why it is amusing to see people so turned on by theory.

6. I have provided evidence. Who's in denial now?

The bottom line is, if a flood occurred, it would've had to be done by a divine being. Everything else is obsolete. And if there is evidence for a flood, there is evidence for a flood. Just because it doesn't agree with scientific theories means precisely nothing.

I have been very patient on this thread, but I can see that it is a lost cause talking to atheists, who'd rather worship theory rather than get into any real depth of the matter. So this will be my last post.

And speaking of reason and logic: I saw none on the atheist side, nor was I impressed. I guess we're alike in that respect
Good-bye

 

[darkendless]

You are a very rude person. Is it really necessary?

1. You make handling a ship seem like rocket science. Do you not think this was brought into account when the ship was being made?

2. Wood is very strong. If it is reinforced enough, it can do wonders. Steel just happens to be more efficient and less time consuming.

3. With the amount of fish in the sea during such an event and the prepared food stores they had, it would more than suffice.

4. Good, the definition of 'separate' has finally been realized.

5. It doesn't run with scientific hypothesis, I know. That is why it is amusing to see people so turned on by theory.

6. I have provided evidence. Who's in denial now?

The bottom line is, if a flood occurred, it would've had to be done by a divine being. Everything else is obsolete. And if there is evidence for a flood, there is evidence for a flood. Just because it doesn't agree with scientific theories means precisely nothing.

I have been very patient on this thread, but I can see that it is a lost cause talking to atheists, who'd rather worship theory rather than get into any real depth of the matter. So this will be my last post.

And speaking of reason and logic: I saw none on the atheist side, nor was I impressed. I guess we're alike in that respect
Good-bye

I'm getting sick of you spouting the same stuff and ignoring some very simple questions.

I make a ship sound like rocket science because it is possible analyse what would happen to it. It is also a demonstration of how implausible the flood is.

Why I say there is no evidence for the flood is because there is no worldwide distinctive layer of fine material which when the world was covered in water, would have settled as a suspension during the flood. This is the mechanism of a hydrometer test which I use professionally to determine the amount of clay in a sample which directly affects the way I design foundations for houses so its more than theory.

Scientific theories are theories because they can comprehensively destroy myths that people dream up.

I was very patient with you, I asked questions instead of smashing your beliefs which I have done in similar threads in the past. SOmething consistent in these threads is that Noah's Ark supporters can't stomach sound reasoning.