Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Comments
3,941 - 3,960 of 6,103 Comments Last updated May 20, 2013

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#3991 Oct 29, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
Goodness! I peeked in here after all this time to se if anyone had anything new to say, and you're still at that tired old argument about Pharaohs and gods. Methinks someone (Nuggin in all probability) is obsessed to the point where an intervention is called for.
See you all in a couple of weeks or months--assuming your discussing something of more interest by then, that is.

Why Nuggin and I can argue till the second coming (infinity), doesn't really matter does it?
Besides it beats arguing with wolfie or t-town who's responses are
evolution is a lie! and science is a religion!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3992 Oct 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
I have no problem with you defining Pharaoh correctly ,
as a representative of a mythological god.
Once again I have to scold you on your use of qualifiers.

If you want to define Pharaohs as mythological gods, then you have two problems.

#1) You are drawing a distinction between mythological gods and non-mythological gods. Please give me a list of non-mythological gods so that we can determine whether or not something belongs on group or another.

If you can't come up with any non-mythological gods, then why is this a distinction you are trying to draw?

#2) Pharaohs certainly weren't "mythological" by any account. They ACTUALLY existed. They were ACTUALLY worshiped. Therefore, they were ACTUALLY gods.

You have a set of criteria which is unique to YOUR opinion on whether or not something measures up to Jesus, however that set of criteria is NOT the standard in use by people evaluating religions, it's not the standard in use by sociology, theology, anthropology, etc.

It's unique to YOU. AND, despite having been asked 100+ times to give some examples, you CAN'T.

Your ENTIRE argument STILL boils down to: "If I don't believe that people worshiped the Pharaohs, then Jesus is real."

That's utter bullshit.
AKA : The Pope is a representative of a mythological god.
People think the pope has holy powers and talks to god too,
this is no different than the Pharaoh, with the exception
that the Pope no longer controls an army.
No, people do not believe that the Pope requires worship. They believe that the Pope is holy. They believe that the Pope speaks for God. They believe that the Pope should be given respect and followed. However, they do not believe that you should worship the Pope.

Therefore the Pope is not a god. The Pope is... wait for it... POPE.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#3993 Oct 29, 2012
A history lesson.

Following Alexander's death in Babylon in 323 BC, a succession crisis erupted among his generals. Initially, Perdiccas ruled the empire as regent for Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus, who became Philip III of Macedon, and then as regent for both Philip III and Alexander's infant son Alexander IV of Macedon, who had not been born at the time of his father's death.

***Perdiccas appointed Ptolemy,

one of Alexander's closest companions, to be satrap of Egypt. Ptolemy ruled Egypt from 323 BC, nominally in the name of the joint kings Philip III and Alexander IV. However, as Alexander the Great's empire disintegrated, Ptolemy soon established himself as ruler in his own right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ptole...

No distinction all gods are mythological and...
Here is where you are mistaken , The Pharaoh was not considered a god , but rather a demigod who was a representative of a god.
Who by divine right communicated with the god Ra and or other gods.

There is not much distinction between that and the pope who by divine right supposedly communicates with god. The biggest differences are we have limited the power of religion.
Also you keep trying to deflect the truth AS I do not believe in any religious figures but you say things like..

(((Your ENTIRE argument STILL boils down to: "If I don't believe that people worshiped the Pharaohs, then Jesus is real.")))

Absolutely not ,

what I'm really saying is neither one is a god.
Both are representations of mythological gods.
The pope is a representation of a mythological god , but you do not worship him because religion has figured out people aren't
going for that anymore. But it doesn't change that the Pharaoh and the Pope play the exact same role , of a human who is by divine right the spokesperson for a god.

It doesn't make the pope god any more than it made the Pharaoh god.
In Christianity the Pope is the closet earthy human being to god.
In ancient Egypt's religion the Pharaoh was the closest earthly human to the gods.

You say you don't accept the Pope as god , then you could not accept Pharaoh as god . It's that simple.

But the truth is we do not accept any of them as gods.
But you want to argue the Pharaoh was a god.
Then you have to accept the Pope is a god.

Alexander used the same reasoning of association to become a demigod.
He convinced the Egyptians he was chosen as the representative of a god . Thus starting the whole Ptolemaic dynasty,
So will you say Alexander was a god , and his generals after that and so on from 323 BC too 30 BC?

Or will you realize you have to discard their labels, The same as you discard the Popes label to define them what they really were.
Yes Alexander was a god , but only to the fools who believed it.
Alexander was man who played the role of a representative of mythological gods. As did all the Pharaohs, pretending to be demigods by a divine right that didn't exist to god that didn't exist.

Alexander thought himself to be the son of Herakles and Achilles then claimed to be a direct descendant of Zeus-Ammon to become a demigod and claim the divine right to the throne of Egypt.
There is no indication anyone worshiped him.
He succeeded because the Greek Army defeated Darius and his army was in Egypt. The supreme military power there was Greek.

But was Alexander a god?
Do you think people worshiped him?
It would be no different if Hitler had won the war and then demanded he be worshiped as a god.
Would you concede that Hitler was a god had he won ww2?
Alexander disowned Philip as his father, and recognized instead Zeus as his father.
The pharaohs were men who put themselves on a pedestal who
demanded your service and were nothing but tyrants.
Does that make them a god?
Not any more than the Pope.
Now lets get to the Ptolemy's
What made him a god? Appointment by Perdiccas?
He wasn't the god king , he was Alexanders General.
The god King was dead , no one worshiped Ptolemy or Perdiccas.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#3994 Oct 29, 2012
Now you have to figure out why if any one did worship the Ptolemy's they what were the bastard sons of Alexander and by divine right (the army) became the Pharaohs from 326 BC to 30 BC , because they were descendants of the general of a god?
That makes them god too huh?

Nope not gods ......tyrants with armies.
Does an army make you god?
I would tend to think it would make you agree with its controller. Yes by the right of your army you are god. Worship ? Not hardly , bow down yes to a tyrant.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3995 Oct 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
No distinction all gods are mythological
Therefore, the word "mythological" is a useless addition to the term "gods".

Look at the logic behind what you are saying:

All gods are mythological.
Pharaohs were mythological gods.
Therefore Pharaohs weren't gods.

That doesn't make sense.

If ALL gods are mythological AND Pharaohs fit this criteria, then Pharaohs are gods just like the rest.
The Pharaoh was not considered a god , but rather a demigod who was a representative of a god.
This is like saying, "he wasn't a male, he was a boy".

Boys are male. "demigods" are gods.

The Pope is a representative for god, he is not a demigod. He is a priest.
Also you keep trying to deflect the truth AS I do not believe in any religious figures but you say things like..
Because you keep trying to draw a distinction between the Pharaohs and other gods, claiming that the Pharaohs weren't gods because they were fake.

The logical extension of that argument is that there are other, non-fake gods against which you are testing the Pharaohs.

If your argument is that the Pharaohs aren't gods because they are EXACTLY like ALL GODS, then your argument is seriously flawed.
what I'm really saying is neither one is a god.
Both are representations of mythological gods.
Which you JUST said at the beginning of this thread represents ALL GODS.

"Pharaohs are not gods because they are gods". That's a BAD argument.
The pope is a representation of a mythological god , but you do not worship him because religion has figured out people aren't
going for that anymore.
No, the pope is a representative, not a representation. And he is not worshiped because the premise of the religion voids that possibility.
You say you don't accept the Pope as god , then you could not accept Pharaoh as god . It's that simple.
People dont worship the pope. People did worship the Pharaohs. Therefore, Pharaohs were gods and the Pope is a priest.
But the truth is we do not accept any of them as gods.
Again, IT DOES NOT MATTER what you think.

It does not MATTER that you personally don't think that Vishnu is a god. Vishnu IS A GOD.

You keep using the word "god" but you yourself have made it clear that you have absolutely no idea what the word means.

You continue to claim that it has NO DEFINITION and represents a null set, when CLEARLY these two things are absolutely false.

There is a CLEAR DEFINITION.
There is a LARGE SET for which the label applies.

Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, Odin, Jesus, Coyote, Mithra, etc etc etc. These are ALL gods.

If you grabbed ANY college professor and gave them a list of these names and said: "What is this a list of?" They would answer: "gods".

They would not answer: "This is a list of things that Aura rejects".

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#3996 Oct 29, 2012
I have to give it to you Nuggin you are a riot. lol

"Pharaohs were mythological gods."
That isn't what I said , What I said is the Pharaoh was a representative of a mythological god.

But the first Ptolemy wasn't any of those things,
he didn't have the claim by divine right and was not worshiped. But he did have the power of the army, Oh but isn't that what really made them all say they were gods in the first place?

So how do you justify his claim to divinity and succession to the throne as the son of a general of the god king? Out of thin air he became a so called god.

That shows the truth of what it was all along , these men weren't worshiped . They enforced people to bow down to them because they decided they were gods. I suppose you think that makes them such.

Now lets get to Caesar , he did the same you know.
He declared himself a god and demanded people worship him. Do you think that made him a god too?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#3997 Oct 29, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That just demonstrates that you have no interest in reading and understanding the thread.
My position remains unchanged.
Aura's position has changed multiple times.
He's previous admitted that he was wrong, conceded that I was right and stated that Pharaohs were gods.
Now he's going back on that because he either forgot or realize that Jesus might frown on that position.
Your sniping from the sidelines about how it's obsessive for me to continue having to restate the same simple point over and over again to people who's opinions change with every tick of the clock is ridiculous.
If you want to be involved, get an education, learn the definition of words and jump in.
If you don't, the STFU and go away
No, it shows that your obsession has made this thread tedious beyond belief. Normal conversations, even written ones, move on to new topics as old ones are exhausted. Since the arguments about Pharaohs have advanced not a wit since I was last here, it's obvious that you simply cannot let go and move on to new ideas to explore. I'm surprised that anyone else is left at all.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3998 Oct 30, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
So how do you justify his claim to divinity and succession to the throne as the son of a general of the god king? Out of thin air he became a so called god.
I don't have to.

This is what you still do not grasp.

I don't care AT ALL about the validity of the claim. In fact, the ability to MAKE a claim (valid or invalid) is NOT a requirement.

Pele is a volcano AND a god. I'm fairly certain that the volcano made absolutely no claim to divinity whatsoever.

Whether or not they had powers is irrelevant.
Whether or not they were liars is irrelevant.
Whether or not they were actually descended from mystical mythical beings is irrelevant.

The ONLY thing which is relevant is whether or not people believed they were gods.

It doesn't matter if Jesus existed or didn't. It doesn't matter, if he existed, if he was actually able to do miracles. It doesn't matter if he was the son of Yahweh or of some Roman soldier. NONE of that matters.

The IMPORTANT thing is that there is a religion based around this central figure, the people who are a part of that religion believe he has supernatural powers AND believe that he requires worship.

That's it. That's the ENTIRE criteria.

It's the same criteria for Zeus as it is for Jesus as it is for the Pharaohs or for Xenu.

We, as observers, can evaluate the components of this religion to which we do not belong and label the respective parts.

In this case the part is "Pharaoh" and the label is "god".
In the case of the Greeks, the part is "Zeus" and the label is "god".

This is the EXACT same process we apply when looking at kings, chiefs, presidents, czars, etc.

Look - here's a culture, there is a person in charge. He inherited the position from his father. His son will inherit it from him. He is a king.

It doesn't matter if YOU PERSONALLY don't listen to what the king says. It doesn't matter if the King on the throne is actually some peasant which switched places with the prince fifteen years ago and no one found out. He's the king.

Your opinion of his position does not matter at all.

Your opinion of the Pharaohs does not matter at all.
That shows the truth of what it was all along , these men weren't worshiped .They enforced people to bow down to them because they decided they were gods.
Mussalini was a tyrant. When he died, they played futbol with his head.

When Tut died they buried him with more riches than most kings of the time would have in their entire treasury.
Now lets get to Caesar , he did the same you know.
He declared himself a god and demanded people worship him. Do you think that made him a god too?
If the people believed he had supernatural powers AND required worship, then yes.

I don't think that the people believed this. I do think that they felt he demanded worship, but I don't know that they worshiped him.

Look what happened to him in the end. Is that more like Mussalini or more like Tut?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#3999 Oct 30, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>No, it shows that your obsession has made this thread tedious beyond belief. Normal conversations, even written ones, move on to new topics as old ones are exhausted. Since the arguments about Pharaohs have advanced not a wit since I was last here, it's obvious that you simply cannot let go and move on to new ideas to explore. I'm surprised that anyone else is left at all.
This is your argument:

"The last time I was here, you were insisting that 2+2=4. Several people disagreed with you. I left and came back a week later and you are STILL arguing that 2+2=4! What's wrong with you?"

Hey Jackass, 2+2 DOES equal 4. You don't simply abandon a fact just because the rest of the dipshits get bored with it.

Like I said before, you think this is boring? You are the one COMMENTING on the argument that you aren't even participating in.

You're a spectator and a critic. There is nothing lower.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Level 2

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#4001 Oct 30, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is your argument:
"The last time I was here, you were insisting that 2+2=4. Several people disagreed with you. I left and came back a week later and you are STILL arguing that 2+2=4! What's wrong with you?"
Hey Jackass, 2+2 DOES equal 4. You don't simply abandon a fact just because the rest of the dipshits get bored with it.
Like I said before, you think this is boring? You are the one COMMENTING on the argument that you aren't even participating in.
You're a spectator and a critic. There is nothing lower.
I did participate quite fully for a while. Perhaps you remember. But the original topic petered out, leaving only this one, which was actually quite interesting for a few pages. Then the thread stalled, and more robust discussions on other threads beckoned. As do they now. Perhaps one of my many friends here will let me know if anything interesting comes up here.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4002 Oct 30, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I did participate quite fully for a while. Perhaps you remember. But the original topic petered out, leaving only this one, which was actually quite interesting for a few pages. Then the thread stalled, and more robust discussions on other threads beckoned. As do they now. Perhaps one of my many friends here will let me know if anything interesting comes up here.
Nah, hardly ever, this page is very quiet.

A Durbanite from SA showed up here and to my great pleasure, his team got defeated in their own back yards, meaning our boys claimed the Championship.

Other than that...Still Phoroahs, I'm afraid

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#4003 Oct 30, 2012
2+2=5 (for extremely large values of 2)
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#4005 Oct 30, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
First things first:
WP, jou lekker ding!!!
What a game! 12-3 down, and STILL we had the balls to pull through!
Absolutely a great game! It was a game that I think everybody enjoyed – even us Sharkies that lost out. WP really played well, and I must say my team looked a bit shell-shocked at times. But it was a good game and generally played in good spirit. Congratulations! WP deserves it.
Now. I hang my head in shame. You are not doing a good job of representing South Africa's education system.
1) What physical evidence is consistent with a global flood? Present it.
Don’t blame the education system. You can only bring a horse to the water.
The opposing views are:
1. The flood never took place - stated as fact.
2. There is evidence consistent with a worldwide flood and hence the claim above is inaccurate.
I stand to be corrected, but if a statement of fact is made and evidence that suggests that a contrary position also has (even some) merit, the claim of “fact” is no longer valid. It is only then certain to a degree, but an alternative position is also possible.
The onus is thus on me only to provide reasonable evidence that would support (2).
Here are a few, that seems reasonable enough to put forward as evidence:
1. An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood
2. Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.
3. Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do this.
4. Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.
5. Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are consistent with the recession of a global flood.
6. Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary rock layers. Therefore, the thousand's of metres of sediment must have been deposited by a catastrophic global flood.
7. The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years old. Nothing is older that the date of Noah's flood
8. Polystrate Fossils : at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long.
9. Mt St. Helens eruption ( http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html )
10. Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scien...

Thus, in essence, some evidence consistent with a flood exists.

Conclusion: To claim that the flood never happened is inconsistent with some data and can therefore not be claimed as a statement of fact and the claim thus inaccurate.

BTW Etsebeth played a fantastic game!

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4006 Oct 30, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Absolutely a great game! It was a game that I think everybody enjoyed – even us Sharkies that lost out. WP really played well, and I must say my team looked a bit shell-shocked at times. But it was a good game and generally played in good spirit. Congratulations! WP deserves it.
BTW Etsebeth played a fantastic game!
Was a cracker.

Yes, Etzebeth was my Man of the Match, for all his line-out steals and brutal play at the break down. Deon Fourie was a tiger on the ground - Methinks with him, Brussouw and Francois Louw, we got 3 world class fetchers.

Duane Vermeulen did very well to combat guys like Alberts and Coetzee. Also, bad to lose Habana, but what a player we have in Joe P to replace him!

However, credit to our props: Up against the Springbok props and after being destroyed in the first half (I cringed), they came back, young as they are, and actually pushed Jannie and Beast back.

Also, Damian Des Allende was a surprise inclusion, but how useful was he in midfield!

Wel gedaan, WP

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4007 Oct 30, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
The opposing views are:
1. The flood never took place - stated as fact.
A fact accepted by mainstrem geology. Please do not forget that mainstream geology is the basis on which we locate minerals, and mining makes the world go round.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
2. There is evidence consistent with a worldwide flood and hence the claim above is inaccurate.
Wrong. Not one critically acclaimed geologist would agree with you.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand to be corrected, but if a statement of fact is made and evidence that suggests that a contrary position also has (even some) merit, the claim of “fact” is no longer valid. It is only then certain to a degree, but an alternative position is also possible.
*Some* merit, yes.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
The onus is thus on me only to provide reasonable evidence that would support (2).
Here are a few, that seems reasonable enough to put forward as evidence:
Let's put it this way. At some point in time, every bit of land was under water. We are referring here to "Noah's Flood" reported to have happened about 4,000 years ago.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
1. An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood
Absolutely wrong.

Cite your sources.

Mainstream Archeology and anthropology debunks your claim. DNA bottlenecks ALSO debunks your claim. The only thing that comes even close to your claim, is a mass extinction that took place 74,000 years ago, that nearly killed off all humans
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.
What studies? What layers?

Cite sources.

And why should sediment have compression fractures?
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
3. Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do this.
The term is 'isostasy', and it is being observed. Mountains grow every year, as does the sealevel sink every year. Research the terms 'isostasy' and 'tectonics'- Continental plates move against folds of sediment, pushing them upward.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - ie. by a global flood.
Flash flood, not global flood.

Because we find two fossilised tracks on opposing sides of the world, can we conclude that it was a global flood? No.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
5. Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are consistent with the recession of a global flood.
Cite sources. Just because you claim it does not make it so
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
6. Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary rock layers. Therefore, the thousand's of metres of sediment must have been deposited by a catastrophic global flood.
Once again, cite sources. You saying it, does not make it so
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
7. The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years old. Nothing is older that the date of Noah's flood
So the age of a tree proves a global flood? Mental gymnastics

CONT***
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#4008 Oct 30, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Was a cracker.
Yes, Etzebeth was my Man of the Match, for all his line-out steals and brutal play at the break down. Deon Fourie was a tiger on the ground - Methinks with him, Brussouw and Francois Louw, we got 3 world class fetchers.
Duane Vermeulen did very well to combat guys like Alberts and Coetzee. Also, bad to lose Habana, but what a player we have in Joe P to replace him!
However, credit to our props: Up against the Springbok props and after being destroyed in the first half (I cringed), they came back, young as they are, and actually pushed Jannie and Beast back.
Also, Damian Des Allende was a surprise inclusion, but how useful was he in midfield!
Wel gedaan, WP
They really did not know what to do with Etsebeth. But as they say with a final - it could have gone both ways. There were moments that changed everything - the pass that should not have been made - but that was a split-second decision that we cannot guarantee would have resulted in a try. But what the heck - we seem to have a lot more depth that can only spell good for the future.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4009 Oct 30, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
8. Polystrate Fossils : at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet long.

The geologic explantion:

In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.[2][4] Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.[5][6] The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.[5][7]

[QUOTE who="Andre"]<quot ed text>
9. Mt St. Helens eruption ( http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html )
Okay I get it. Rapid deposition/erosion.

Radiometric dating disproves any claims here.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
10. Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scien...
From your source:'No evidence of erosion in the layers themselves'.

Really? What does your source (people who are not geologists, I tell ya that much) suppose would 'erosion in the layers' look like?
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus, in essence, some evidence consistent with a flood exists.
Conclusion: To claim that the flood never happened is inconsistent with some data and can therefore not be claimed as a statement of fact and the claim thus inaccurate.
Wrong.
Go to a museum and speak to a professional geologist. Go take these claims to an expert and watch them get shot full of holes.

Now here is how we know that a global flood as described in Genesis did not happen; Explain these questions, please.

1) Where did the water come from? The Bible speaks of 'fountins of the deep'. Where are these fountains?

2) Where did the water go? Refer the term "water cycle". Water stays in the system. It alternates between liquid, solid and vapourous forms, but the total water in the system stays largely the same.

3) For every animal on every continent, you need a plausible explanation for *how* they got there. Do you believe that two koala bears swam across the Indian Ocean to Australia? Do you believe that two jaguars swam over the Pacific ocean to South America? How about two dodos to Madagascar? Do this for every animal on earth.

4) Explain how there was not a collapse of the food pyramid. I.e. Noah reportedly took two of each species on the ark, right? A male and a female? So let's say we have two gazelle in Africa and a lion catches one of them, then the breeding pair is destroyed. Next week the lion needs food again. Why are there still gazelle left? Did the carnivoes just stop eating or what?

5) Explain what the herbivores ate. Let's assume that our brave animals swam over the oceans and got to the continents. Are there any plants to eat for the herbivores? An elephant needs a million calories a week. Explain how the elephants received nutrition.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#4011 Oct 30, 2012
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>They really did not know what to do with Etsebeth. But as they say with a final - it could have gone both ways. There were moments that changed everything - the pass that should not have been made - but that was a split-second decision that we cannot guarantee would have resulted in a try. But what the heck - we seem to have a lot more depth that can only spell good for the future.
If we don't win the next World Cup with the current talent, Heynecke should be fired
THE BAPTIST

Belmont, NC

#4012 Nov 2, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on man, FLOOD!!. So much to play with here.
Tell us how the Lions shared a boat with Deer. Tell us the detail of how they used to sit on deck and play cards with the damn giraffe cheating.
MAKE YOUR LIES INTERESTING. PLEASE!
You do not quite understand,that maybe god suspended thier natural instincts,for that forty days and nights.You might laugh at that,but that is most likely happenned.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4013 Nov 2, 2012
THE BAPTIST wrote:
<quoted text>You do not quite understand,that maybe god suspended thier natural instincts,for that forty days and nights.You might laugh at that,but that is most likely happenned.
The main reason that is a funny notion is that it only addresses one of many major problems with your myth. Imagine the poo!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Gary 115,183
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 19 min Aura Mytha 305
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 hr Subduction Zone 172,506
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 2 hr TedHOhio 200
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 136,248
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••