"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists

[Hockeycowboy]

Skeptics would follow where the evidence lead them, even if it should disagree with any of their long-held beliefs or teachings.

JW followers have the tendencies to ignore any evidence, especially evidence relating to natural science, because the evidence clashed with JW teachings. That not the signs of JW being skeptics.

Right! That is why We post evidence all the time! We're just not as gullible....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For the ultimate 1-minute deluge, we head east to the state of Maryland. In just 60 seconds, 1.23 inches of rain fell in Unionville, Maryland, on July 4, 1956.

The world record is 71.8 inches (almost 6 feet) at Foc-Foc, Réunion Island, in the South Indian Ocean, on Jan. 7-8, 1966.

It's nothing for a rain storm to drop 3-6 inches of rain. And yes it can rain a lot in a minute or a day but nothing has ever been recorded as needed for the great flood.

Remember, much of the water — most, I’d say — came from the “vast underground springs” that were “broken open”.

That is why Psalms 104 says the “valleys fell”...the surface sank to fill the void, while underneath the land which formed the mountain ranges, have a root-structure, keeping them in place. IMO.

Google “mountain roots”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The one which aligns with steady 14C, back to about 5,000 yrs.ago....

“much of the 14C dating of things carries us back 5,000 years, and then we see huge jumps (to 60,000 years or more). Could this be due to the fact that there was much less cosmic radiation hitting the earth prior to the great Downpour (flood) spoken of in Genesis Chapter 6? For if our earth had once been protected from such radiation by huge quantities of stratospheric ice crystals (as many have suggested) which fell to the earth as a flood, then the radiocarbon and luminescence dating clocks are unreliable and are indicating much older dates for materials than may actually be true.”

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_14

You hurt your case when you supply links written by loons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right! That is why We post evidence all the time! We're just not as gullible....

No, you do not understand the concept of evidence. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. Would you like to go over the concept. You reject evidence constantly and do demonstrate that you are rather gullible quite often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember, much of the water — most, I’d say — came from the “vast underground springs” that were “broken open”.

That is why Psalms 104 says the “valleys fell”...the surface sank to fill the void, while underneath the land which formed the mountain ranges, have a root-structure, keeping them in place. IMO.

Google “mountain roots”.

And underground springs are very limited in what they can supply. And how fast.

 

[gnostic]

The one which aligns with steady 14C, back to about 5,000 yrs.ago....

“much of the 14C dating of things carries us back 5,000 years, and then we see huge jumps (to 60,000 years or more). Could this be due to the fact that there was much less cosmic radiation hitting the earth prior to the great Downpour (flood) spoken of in Genesis Chapter 6? For if our earth had once been protected from such radiation by huge quantities of stratospheric ice crystals (as many have suggested) which fell to the earth as a flood, then the radiocarbon and luminescence dating clocks are unreliable and are indicating much older dates for materials than may actually be true.”

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_14

Sorry, hockeycowboy, but what does any of that have to do with my reply (post 283)?

@Hockeycowboy


First. I wanted to ask you which translation do you read and use the most?

Or which Bible (translation) does your church officially use?


Second:

The only (mostly complete) extant Septuagint manuscripts are the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus. The datings of Genesis genealogy, differed slightly, thereby giving different dates to when the Flood occurred.

So, which manuscript is the correct one?

I have asked you which translation you personally use, most often?

Which translation do your church recommend?

And were you unaware that two main extant versions of the Septuagint bible exist?

These are the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, both written in 10th century CE, and they are the most complete Septuagint manuscripts that we have, but Alexandrinus have some missing books or missing chapters. While C Vaticanus is undamaged and with no missing books or chapters.

The genealogy in Genesis 5, are undamaged, so if you were to compare these 2 Greek versions, so there is a discrepancy between 2 versions of 14 years.

How would you determine which manuscript is in error?

So which translations do you and your church use?

 

[tas8831]

Right! That is why We post evidence all the time! We're just not as gullible....

Right... "Evidence."

Like when you copy-pasted Jon Wells and then later claimed to have never read his stuff?

Or when you linked to a HuffPost article without checking its veracity and used it as an argument against evolution?


Great rep you creationists s have built for yourselves, champ! But sure, ya'll post all kinds of evidence - just not the kind that is actually favorable to creationism!

 

[YoursTrue]

If you bother to read the whole chapter, none of the verses related to Noah’s Flood, and neither does verses 8-9.

If a flood is drastic enough to change the sea level, like Genesis claim that it covered the highest mountains, it is highly improbable in a matter of six months that the sea level would return the level prior to the flood.

Where did all the water come from? Where did all the water go?

You bring up a few questions here. Why indeed would the sea level return to its previous place?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You bring up a few questions here. Why indeed would the sea level return to its previous place?

If it didn't everything would still be under water.

 

[YoursTrue]

If it didn't everything would still be under water.

Evidently the mountain the ark rested on was not entirely submerged. I read flooding is threatening a million persons in Kenya. And of course not to mention the ice caps melting, threats of coastal cities disappearing. Water, whilst life enabling, can be destructive as well. Now the question of embryos living in amniotic fluid in the sac.

 

[YoursTrue]

If it didn't everything would still be under water.

Further, it would? Maybe, just maybe, the earth's topography changed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Further, it would? Maybe, just maybe, the earth's topography changed.

We can date the mountains.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidently the mountain the ark rested on was not entirely submerged. I read flooding is threatening a million persons in Kenya. And of course not to mention the ice caps melting, threats of coastal cities disappearing. Water, whilst life enabling, can be destructive as well. Now the question of embryos living in amniotic fluid in the sac.

The myth has endless fatal flaws in it. Where did the water come from? Where did it go to? Ice floats. You are not in danger of waking up in an ice filled bathtub in a seedy hotel missing a kidney. I could go on for days. There is no evidence for the flood but endless evidence that tells us that it did not happen.

 

[YoursTrue]

We can date the mountains.

I'm not into dating methods yet because there is much to be said about what and how. Just looking at the grand canyon shows there are large cavities. And of course, water running through it. Later and good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not into dating methods yet because there is much to be said about what and how. Just looking at the grand canyon shows there are large cavities. And of course, water running through it. Later and good night.

.
No, it does not. Seriously you need to stop listening to Liars, Losers, and Loons. You have been lied to about the Grand Canyon. There are no problems with its dating.

 

[YoursTrue]

.
No, it does not. Seriously you need to stop listening to Liars, Losers, and Loons. You have been lied to about the Grand Canyon. There are no problems with its dating.

Not talking about dating there. There's water down in that canyon. There are clouds above and water on and in the earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

The myth has endless fatal flaws in it. Where did the water come from? Where did it go to? Ice floats. You are not in danger of waking up in an ice filled bathtub in a seedy hotel missing a kidney. I could go on for days. There is no evidence for the flood but endless evidence that tells us that it did not happen.

Do you think it is possible that the topography of the earth has changed over the years? I have read there are cities that submerged under water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not talking about dating there. There's water down in that canyon. There are clouds above and water on and in the earth.

Yes, we know how the canyon formed. It does not support the flood myth at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think it is possible that the topography of the earth has changed over the years? I have read there are cities that submerged under water.

Over many years yes. And there are even some floods that covered cities. They do not help the flood myth. You are clutching at straws again. Guess what? Floods happen. But nothing like in the Noah's Ark myth.

 

[tas8831]

The justaposition of this post:

Remember, much of the water — most, I’d say — came from the “vast underground springs” that were “broken open”.

That is why Psalms 104 says the “valleys fell”...the surface sank to fill the void, while underneath the land which formed the mountain ranges, have a root-structure, keeping them in place. IMO...

With his previous post:

Right! That is why We post evidence all the time! We're just not as gullible...

is pure ironic-and-unintended comedy gold.