• 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!

Atheist Desire to Disprove God

Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sum1sGruj said:
There are witness accounts, historical and physical evidence. If one is foolish enough to take scientific theory as proof and not heed anything else out of pure stubbornness, than you will just have to live with it.
Click to expand...

Now we're back where we should be. Who would rely on science when it really counts? If you were diagnosed with appendicitis, would you rely on science on modern medicine? No way. You'd do what any intelligent person does and pray really hard. You're trying to tell me that science works as a method of learning about the world? hah! Go ahead, pull the other one; it's got bells on.
 
darkendless

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Hahaha who wrote your source Sum1sgruj?

"
One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone, yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) "younger" sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19"


Lets get started:


1) Assuming it takes a million years to form sandstone? It depends entirely on earth pressure and what type of area. Yesterday I drilled an alluvial deposit which had sandstone veining marine clay which is almost impossible, but there it was. Your source is making a grand assumption, one I feel that is uninformed when discussing formation.



Remember that sandstone is formed based on available sediments. If you have a silty sandy or a clayey sand, it would take a lot less time than a gravelly sand. Like I said, it depends on the available material.

The quote I have pulled out essentially is partial metamorphism. Where I live, argillite is formed from the partial metamorphism of shale.



Next issue with your source:


"Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits or river deltas. 42,43 Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. 44,45 First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.
This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.
We can say for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine fossils that are buried in much of this strata. For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself, old Earth geologists have said that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six different occasions. Young Earth geologists say it was probably only once."

LMFAO does this guy seriously not know what fluvial deposits are? They're usually not alluvial because alluvial deposits are usually mixed clays and fine material overlying clays which are disturbed but consistent enough to almost look natural. No fluvial deposits are desposits which wash over a landscape (usually during a flood) leaving a very thin layer called a pancake layer.

An easy way to show that your source is wrong is to bore down to about 1m into rock (if its ELS to VLS). Where this person is right is that it is often hard to tell how many times the ocean passed through an area. However it is possible to geotechnically solve this problem. Geologists will see the soil in its layer and recognise no change in composition because it all looks the same. The tell tale sign is strength of the soil. Marine deposits will be clay but will vary in strength considerably from very soft to very stiff.

Thats enough for now. Feel free to ask any question.
 
K

kutulu

Member
Hatred of our neighbor because his problematical theories do not agree with our undemonstrable hypotheses is, unfortunately, one of the salient weaknesses of human nature.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sum1sGruj said:
I've spoken on the evidences three times over. This reinforces my statement that most atheists do not care about finding any truth, but rather about finding fallacies in biblical history.
How is it that one will put all the logic, reason, and theory unto mere theory itself, but fail to do the same with history and evidences?
The fact of the matter, as I will state yet again, is that science tries to figure out problems that the Bible has long accounted for. Instead of working from what is already there and deciding what is real or not, one decides to start from scratch and invent their own hypothesis', which leads nowhere (as shown by science today).
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. If science worked, and those crazy hypotheses about planets orbiting the sun, moon orbiting earth and all that insanity were true, then they could send rockets into space and they would actually have gone to the moon and Mars. The reason they haven't is obvious--science doesn't work. Heaven is a firmament, a hard drum, and the rain comes through windows in it. Anyone can see that.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
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.
Click to expand...

See what I'm saying? Science is basically a process of making things up. It has nothing to do with evidence. Scientists just make up whatever they want, and the other scientists buy it because they hate God and will grasp at anything to disprove Him.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sum1sGruj said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what we mean by you atheist science guys being ignorant of basic reality. Go to a beach, any beach. Is the water salty? No, it is not. That's because freshwater floats on top of salt water. It doesn't mix together, as science would have you believe. All the water on top of every ocean in the world is fresh water. Duh.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sum1sGruj said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

I'm so sad. I was so enjoying playing with our new friend. However, he needs to go away now so he can protect his belief system from all that reality you atheists are assaulting it with.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sum1sGruj said:
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
Click to expand...

Oops, fooled again. That's what happens when you believe anything a creationist says.
 
K

kutulu

Member
Autodidact said:
Exactly. This is what we mean by you atheist science guys being ignorant of basic reality. Go to a beach, any beach. Is the water salty? No, it is not. That's because freshwater floats on top of salt water. It doesn't mix together, as science would have you believe. All the water on top of every ocean in the world is fresh water. Duh.
Click to expand...

lol thats not true dude.. have you never been to the ocean? the water is salty EVEN ON THE SURFACE!!!

not saying your theory is wrong.. just saying...
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
sarcasm%2Bmeter.jpg
 
RitalinO.D.

RitalinO.D.

Well-Known Member
kutulu said:
lol thats not true dude.. have you never been to the ocean? the water is salty EVEN ON THE SURFACE!!!

not saying your theory is wrong.. just saying...
Click to expand...

lol, someones sarcasm detector is uber broken...





EDIT: lol dammit Auto, you beat me to it
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Sorry, kutulu, not your fault. I am a prolific poster, and people who are familiar with my views would recognize my posts as sarcasm immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top