Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Sum1sGruj]

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.

I know I said that would be my last post, but there is something I must say in lieu of the post above.
For one, you have done exactly what you accuse theists of doing: Denying anything that goes against their belief.
A good example would be the idea that Noah's boat would run into mountains. Wow.

So Noah's smart enough to build a gigantic boat, but not enough to steer the damn thing and away from mountains when he knows a worldwide flood is coming.

Your experience with a hydrometer does not give you any indication on a flood 5000 years ago.

Something consistent in these threads are atheists who find it appropriate to join a religious forum and argue with religious people about their religious belief at the whim of thought and with misinformation and theory.

The fact of the matter is, you are just so consumed with the fact that you are not the cornerstone of gods and the mantle of life itself, so you deny anything greater in the world.
I don't know what it is about atheists who think that they are on some kind of high horse for mistaking theory for fact.

Theory is something that has not been proven. Scientists assume the initial condition of Earth and then come up with ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a fact, and it's a joke to see people live by it.
So with that, I'm out.

And also to note, atheists are also the most rude. Another thing consistant with this site

 

[waitasec]

:troll:

 

[tumbleweed41]

7. Salt water would sit deeper in the ocean. As you get closer to the surface, the water becomes more and more freshwater.

Silly Biblical Literalist...

I knew you knew nothing of hydrology.

 

[waitasec]

:biglaugh:

 

[tumbleweed41]

Theory is something that has not been proven.

I know you won't read the link, but maybe someone with a little sense, but confused by your rants, will.


Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

5. The water would have pushed the surface air upward

What does this mean, exactly?


You know, a while back I saw a documentary TV show about a giant cattle ship, the Becrux. Based on the dimensions given on its web page, and comparing them with the dimensions in metres for the Ark given on the first Creationist web page I found, it seems that the two vessels are approximately the same size. However, there are some important differences: for instance, going by the description of the Ark in the Bible, the Becrux has a much more open design, allowing much more natural airflow to the livestock decks.

Despite this, the documentary brought up an interesting point about the air supply on the ship.

Do you see the big cylindrical things on the top deck in the picture on that web page? Those are ventilation fans; the ship has 24 huge blowers. One thing they mentioned is that the fans are one of the highest priority maintenance items on the ship, because if they weren't working, the animals would quickly begin to suffocate.

Do you really expect us to believe that a ship of the same size, with only a small hatch area at the very top of the ship, full of animals, and with no forced ventilation wouldn't suffer the problems that would happen to the Becrux without its large number of huge ventilation fans?

 

[waitasec]

how can there be air without any trees?

 

[PhAA]

I know I said that would be my last post, but there is something I must say in lieu of the post above.
For one, you have done exactly what you accuse theists of doing: Denying anything that goes against their belief.
A good example would be the idea that Noah's boat would run into mountains. Wow.

So Noah's smart enough to build a gigantic boat, but not enough to steer the damn thing and away from mountains when he knows a worldwide flood is coming.

Your experience with a hydrometer does not give you any indication on a flood 5000 years ago.

Something consistent in these threads are atheists who find it appropriate to join a religious forum and argue with religious people about their religious belief at the whim of thought and with misinformation and theory.

The fact of the matter is, you are just so consumed with the fact that you are not the cornerstone of gods and the mantle of life itself, so you deny anything greater in the world.
I don't know what it is about atheists who think that they are on some kind of high horse for mistaking theory for fact.

Theory is something that has not been proven. Scientists assume the initial condition of Earth and then come up with ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a fact, and it's a joke to see people live by it.
So with that, I'm out.

And also to note, atheists are also the most rude. Another thing consistant with this site

Do you know that there are theists, christians, jews, etc that will disagree with you? While yes, there are only theories and circumstances, there are more overwhelming evidences that say that the great flood most likely didn't happen. It's seems impossible to get physical evidence that would prove that it didn't happen because, it didn't happen. However, you, claim that it did happen. But sadly you can't give any evidence, or even just a theory except claiming that you have evidence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do you really expect us to believe that a ship of the same size, with only a small hatch area at the very top of the ship, full of animals, and with no forced ventilation wouldn't suffer the problems that would happen to the Becrux without its large number of huge ventilation fans?

Goddidit!!!

:run:

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Silly Biblical Literalist...

I knew you knew nothing of hydrology.

And you do? Get real, the very thought is amusing.
Your post is meaningless. It doesn't take a genius to see the fault in it when regarding a worldwide flood.

If one stops posting, the other can say the 'sky is green' and feel accomplished in their logic.
Maybe I shouldn't be going against my word.

Alright, for the last time.. bye

 

[tumbleweed41]

And you do? Get real, the very thought is amusing.
Your post is meaningless. It doesn't take a genius to see the fault in it when regarding a worldwide flood.

I know, I know.....


Goddidit.

 

[waitasec]

Alright, for the last time.. bye

good riddance troll

 

[darkendless]

I know I said that would be my last post, but there is something I must say in lieu of the post above.
For one, you have done exactly what you accuse theists of doing: Denying anything that goes against their belief.
A good example would be the idea that Noah's boat would run into mountains. Wow.

So Noah's smart enough to build a gigantic boat, but not enough to steer the damn thing and away from mountains when he knows a worldwide flood is coming.

Your experience with a hydrometer does not give you any indication on a flood 5000 years ago.

Something consistent in these threads are atheists who find it appropriate to join a religious forum and argue with religious people about their religious belief at the whim of thought and with misinformation and theory.

The fact of the matter is, you are just so consumed with the fact that you are not the cornerstone of gods and the mantle of life itself, so you deny anything greater in the world.
I don't know what it is about atheists who think that they are on some kind of high horse for mistaking theory for fact.

Theory is something that has not been proven. Scientists assume the initial condition of Earth and then come up with ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a fact, and it's a joke to see people live by it.
So with that, I'm out.

And also to note, atheists are also the most rude. Another thing consistant with this site

Cry me a river.

You just ignored several facts.

I don't have beliefs, I have facts. Scientific theory is a fact. Like I said, my facts directly affect buildings in my area and theyre still standing.

Run away and deny everything you've learned.

 

[waitasec]

Run away and deny everything you've learned.

who says this troll has learned anything...

 

[darkendless]

who says this troll has learned anything...

At least one post had to get through the bible cloud.

Maybe he's right and there was a divine global flood? Wait a sec i'll just go find the clients I designed footings for and tell them to run!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't have beliefs, I have facts. Scientific theory is a fact. Like I said, my facts directly affect buildings in my area and theyre still standing.

I think he just doesn't realize that there's much more than radiometric dating and fossilization that speaks against him. There's more types of evidence in the ground that I can count that speaks against his claims.

Sum1sGruj, forget radiometric dating for a moment; without relying on radiometric data at all, it can be conclusively shown that the Great Lakes region of North America was under a glacier until 11,000 to 12,000 years ago. Taken by itself, this implies that the age of the Earth is at least 11,000 years plus however long it would've taken the glacier to form. This doesn't give us the age of the whole planet, but it does clearly demonstrate that anyone claiming that the Earth is 6,000 years old is flat-out wrong.

If you want, I can go through how this conclusion is arrived at. I can even describe experiments that you could do yourself with just some basic equipment that will verify what I'm talking about.

The planet is covered in countless examples of mundane local features that are completely incompatible with young Earth creationism.

 

[darkendless]

I think he just doesn't realize that there's much more than radiometric dating and fossilization that speaks against him. There's more types of evidence in the ground that I can count that speaks against his claims.

I think so but i'm fed up with being called a liar and compared with a creationist because I do not accept his "evidence."

I also can't see how I believe in scientific theory. I apply it having studied for almost 4 years but belief? I've asked for evidence in the last 3 pages and even asked questions instead of being mean and still nothing. I guess we;ve seen the potential damage hardcore belief can do?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Damn he left.

I was so hoping that he actually had something intelligent to say

*elaborate sigh*

Maybe the next creationist will do better.

-Q

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I think so but i'm fed up with being called a liar and compared with a creationist because I do not accept his "evidence."

I also can't see how I believe in scientific theory. I apply it having studied for almost 4 years but belief? I've asked for evidence in the last 3 pages and even asked questions instead of being mean and still nothing. I guess we;ve seen the potential damage hardcore belief can do?

You know what? I'm just going to give in to my impulses. It's not as if these things will not be re-occurring subjects on here anyways.

For one, I'm a troll? For getting frustrated and returning a mere ounce of defence to the crap you all have been throwing up.
I provide evidence, some smart *** says something like 'god did it'.
On every other post through the entirety of the debate. The nerve..

And I have answered questions ten times over, and all that happens is someone provides another explanation rather than prove it wrong. If they even provide at all. One says that it takes God to be able to create such a flood, and then I'm asked how Noah survived it, cared for the animals, etc.,

As irrelevant as those questions are in lieu of God creating a flood and therefore existing, I STILL provided explanations.
I can see the damage of what theory and popular belief does to people..


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.

Problems in the Glacial Theory

 

[darkendless]

You know what? I'm just going to give in to my impulses. It's not as if these things will not be re-occurring subjects on here anyways.

For one, I'm a troll? For getting frustrated and returning a mere ounce of defence to the crap you all have been throwing up.
I provide evidence, some smart *** says something like 'god did it'.
On every other post through the entirety of the debate. The nerve..

And I have answered questions ten times over, and all that happens is someone provides another explanation rather than prove it wrong. If they even provide at all. One says that it takes God to be able to create such a flood, and then I'm asked how Noah survived it, cared for the animals, etc.,

As irrelevant as those questions are in lieu of God creating a flood and therefore existing, I STILL provided explanations.
I can see the damage of what theory and popular belief does to people..
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/gtprob.html

I did not and do not call you a troll. To an extent I can see why you're annoyed.

However, the reason I lost my patience is because I asked you clear and simple questions and you did not respond and instead spoke of my belief in scientific theory which I disagree with.