Comments
1,021 - 1,040 of 1,163 Comments Last updated May 25, 2014
messianic114

Carstairs, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1121
Jul 27, 2011
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he did. He also pointed out, more politely than I do, that you are too ignorant to understand the evidence.
I will think the best of Bob until he proves otherwise. I sense his frustration but not hostility.

At least Bob has some evidence to give, even though I may question it. You on the other hand have only rhetoric.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1122
Jul 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will think the best of Bob until he proves otherwise. I sense his frustration but not hostility.
At least Bob has some evidence to give, even though I may question it. You on the other hand have only rhetoric.
I admire Bob's patience with fundamentalist jackasses who he knows in advance are so willfully ignorant that they must deny any evidence that challenges the foundation of their house of cards.

You are lucky I spend any time with you at all. There are much more amusing fundamentalist clodhoppers to toy with.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1123
Jul 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Can you provide me a link to these daughter products?
2. Are you guessing here or are you staing fact?
3. I agree with this analysis, this is what I would expect.
4. This example is of horizontal not vertical fossils.
5. What is the basis for this dating?
6. Thanks for the info.
7. Thanks for the info.
2. Ask a nuclear physicist! I'm not one, but my statement was based on physicist's best understanding of nuclear processes. Challenge them only if you know more than they do...

4. NO... This was an example of VERTICAL fossils. Buried vertical trunks are commonly found today in major river floodplains; they are sometimes found in fossil-form.

Buried vertical forest fossils have been found near Yellowstone, buried in volcanic ash; they are found in Illinois, in a down-dropped fault slab, they are found in Colorado...intact stumps with dino footprints wandering around between. A perfectly normal landscape...forest with critters walking through; doesn't look like a flood!

5. Radiometric dating of various units through the planet Earth....

1. For radiometric dating, there ARE many websites; check out radiometric dating with uranium\lead; potassium\argon; rubidium\strontium. Wikipedia entries on these subjects are pretty good; "talkorigins" websites also...otherwise, hie thee to the library or college.

You're trying to attack a body of knowledge that would take you most of a lifetime to accumulate, so don't expect people to be impressed if you "don't buy it"!
messianic114

Carstairs, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1124
Jul 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I admire Bob's patience with fundamentalist jackasses who he knows in advance are so willfully ignorant that they must deny any evidence that challenges the foundation of their house of cards.
You are lucky I spend any time with you at all. There are much more amusing fundamentalist clodhoppers to toy with.
Don't do me any favors, I would just like you to give evidence for the things you say. Like the 2500 years of Jewish scholarship, what a load.
messianic114

Carstairs, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1125
Jul 27, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Ask a nuclear physicist! I'm not one, but my statement was based on physicist's best understanding of nuclear processes. Challenge them only if you know more than they do...
4. NO... This was an example of VERTICAL fossils. Buried vertical trunks are commonly found today in major river floodplains; they are sometimes found in fossil-form.
Buried vertical forest fossils have been found near Yellowstone, buried in volcanic ash; they are found in Illinois, in a down-dropped fault slab, they are found in Colorado...intact stumps with dino footprints wandering around between. A perfectly normal landscape...forest with critters walking through; doesn't look like a flood!
5. Radiometric dating of various units through the planet Earth....
1. For radiometric dating, there ARE many websites; check out radiometric dating with uranium\lead; potassium\argon; rubidium\strontium. Wikipedia entries on these subjects are pretty good; "talkorigins" websites also...otherwise, hie thee to the library or college.
You're trying to attack a body of knowledge that would take you most of a lifetime to accumulate, so don't expect people to be impressed if you "don't buy it"!
2. Bob you don't have to be ashamed you are not a physicist, but your assertion that we should not challenge anyone who knows more than we do on a subject would hardly pass for scientific enquiry. How many times has radiometric dating been challenged by people less knowledgable and that radiometric dating been found to be inaccurate. It goes without saying that scientific knowledge is increasing and that improvements are being made, this is not the issue. The issue is that we are being told to accept as fact radiometric dating is accurate in spite of it's many errors. In five years they will come up with another method because the current one is not accurate enough (meaning obvious errors). I can think of a recent example when they dated the Shroud of Turin they dated it later than the known historical history of the Shroud and when this same lab was sent a piece of cloth from a mummy of a known age they were off by thousands of years. Now in a time period of lets say 4000 years them being off 2000 years is a huge mistake.
4. The link I saw was horizontal, if you want to post another link I will check it out. Buried in ash does not constitute multiple layers. I would be interested in the stump with the dino prints, send me the link. By the way I am not linking every fossil with a flood. Fossils could have been formed before the flood.
5. Any don't be offended if I don't buy it. Would you think I should believe something just because someone says its so. Don't I have a right to examine the evidence myself and question the conclusions. Just based upon the history of science you would think that prudent. It was once a scientific notion that life spontanously generated from rags or dead meat. Now it spontaneously generated (but not presently) from organic material.
1. Thanks for the links when I have time I will do some reading.

Since: Dec 06

Urbana, Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1126
Jul 28, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
2. Bob you don't have to be ashamed you are not a physicist,...

...current one is not accurate enough (meaning obvious errors). I can think of a recent example when they dated the Shroud of Turin they dated it later than the known historical history of the Shroud and when this same lab was sent a piece of cloth from a mummy of a known age they were off by thousands of years. Now in a time period of lets say 4000 years them being off 2000 years is a huge mistake.
4. The link I saw was horizontal, if you want to post another link I will check it out. Buried in ash does not constitute multiple layers. I would be interested in the stump with the dino prints, send me the link. By the way I am not linking every fossil with a flood. Fossils could have been formed before the flood.
5. Any don't be offended if I don't buy it. Would you think I should believe something just because someone says its so. Don't I have a right to examine the evidence myself and question the conclusions. Just based upon the history of science you would think that prudent. It was once a scientific notion that life spontanously generated from rags or dead meat. Now it spontaneously generated (but not presently) from organic material.
1. Thanks for the links when I have time I will do some reading.
*I'M* not ashamed that I'm not a nuclear physicist! What I'm pointing out is...if you're going to challenge assertion of nuclear physics, you'd BETTER have extensive knowledge of the subject! Expect to spend a number of years on that process!

"how many times has radiometric dating been challenged by people less knowledgable and that radiometric dating been found to be inaccurate" No important examples that I know of...you have examples of this?

List the specific data of the Turin and "mummy" c-14 radiocarbon dates... C-14 dates all have an error range; nothing surprising about that;

I've seen plenty of challenges by people who didn't have the foggiest idea of what they were talking about!

Ash layers don't "count" as separate layers? You ARE funny! Try re-writing reality with someone having no knowledge of the subject; you might convince them...

I also pointed out that alluvial environments routinely leave multiple layers within days, months, or a few years, often with standing trees; you keep ignoring that.

Google\Yahoo Joggins forest; also see these photos (sometimes you need to thoroughly peruse all the material)"

http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/research/coal/fo...

Not only is much of the forest still upright, but they had to bolt tree trunks to keep them from dropping vertically right out of the roof like some king of pile driver; mining is particularly dangerous in such situations.

The forest is so intact in some areas, that plants fossil set where the plants grew 300,000,000 years ago, allowing ecological studies of plant communities:

http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/...

Dinosaur footprints in a coal forest:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.ht...

Your comment about changes in radiometric dating is interesting; you don't understand the concept of discovery, invention, improvement? Such changes further solidify the evidence in favor of an ancient Earth, and the evolutionary process. It's QUITE odd that you see it as just the reverse.

Dates are often modified with further information (creationists are the only people I know who see improvement as a threat, or as a condemnation of current procedures! The general sequence of events and dates changes little... refinement is common; major change quite rare. You have invented your own "reality" about the subject.
messianic114

Carstairs, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1127
Aug 2, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FossilBob wrote:
<quoted text>
Dates are often modified with further information (creationists are the only people I know who see improvement as a threat, or as a condemnation of current procedures! The general sequence of events and dates changes little... refinement is common; major change quite rare. You have invented your own "reality" about the subject.
Why should one have to be an expert in any field to be able to question the reasoning and scrutinize the data? If the conclusions are correct one would hope the scientist could explain this in everyday language and answer any questions as to his conclusions without hiding behind a cloak of knowledge. For instance you can question the bible without being an expert, and I think you have the right to do so.

Radio carbon dating of the Shroud was naturaly contested by those of faith who had no working knowledge of C14 dating. Here is a link about mummy dating at the Univ of Manchester showing a 1400 year difference between the bones dated 1000 BC and the cloth dated 360 AD. http://www.youtube.com/watch...

An ash layer would have been deposited at one time, this hardly fits the description I gave of a fossilized tree through multiple sedimentary layers. Of which the implication is that there are strata of large amounts of time involved.

I also pointed out that alluvial environments routinely leave multiple layers within days, months, or a few years, often with standing trees; you keep ignoring that.

Are any of these trees in this example fossilized? If so please document.

http://www.isgs.illinois.edu/research/coal/fo...
I don't believe you provided this link the last time, I can see the trees are upright so now are you saying the strata it is running through was not layed down at the same time? If so, how are you determining the dates as you have said multiple layers can be layed down in a short time. What is used to date the coal at 300,000,000 years?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.ht...
I don't see your point here. It says the footprints were left by a flood deposit.

Your comment about changes in radiometric dating is interesting; you don't understand the concept of discovery, invention, improvement? Such changes further solidify the evidence in favor of an ancient Earth, and the evolutionary process. It's QUITE odd that you see it as just the reverse.

My comment that changes are made to improve reliability should suffice to the issue of discovery, etc., and I do not dispute an ancient earth. What we are discussing is Noah's Ark, which is not ancient earth in the sense you are talking about. The bible doesn't give us any indication of the age of the earth, it does however give us an indication of the world as we know it. I hope you understand my point. In addition the evidence you have presented makes no case for evolution.
Lastly I don't understand your assertion that I see it as the reverse. I don't think I have implied that or stated that outright. What I have stated is my distrust of scientists, especially in the relation to the evolutionary paradigm.

I don't see improvement as a threat I see it as proof that the dates were inaccurate to start with. The Manchester mummy for example. Is this my creation of an alternate reality?
chris m

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1128
Sep 29, 2011
 
Who ever wrote this is a genious ha
unknown

Wilmington, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1130
Jul 18, 2012
 
we can just blame our ancestors and story tellers over time for brain washing society into believing that there is a unstoppable force(god). If all you can say is "God did it" then your relying on the same rebuttle you hsve been taught to respond with because your parents or whoever scared you into believing in this monster. EVERYTHING IS SCIENCE since the beginning of time. I will have to agree that earth could have been impacted by comets or astroids but that still science. To say that god flooded the earth and jesus walked on water is creating a thought conservatory for young gaullible minds to believe, so they feel like they have a paradise waiting for them after life that is so beautiful and grand. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion when it comes to believing in god or not but seriously how can you go through life needing evidence for so many things but when it comes to god you just gotta have faith?..
Ganonymous

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1131
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You're right. There is very little evidence for a worldwide flood. That's why I believe it was a local flood.

Besides, Galileo believed in the flood. Isaac Newton believed in the flood. For a majority of his life, Charles Darwin believed in the flood (he died an agnostic).

I don't want a debate here, so I won't post another comment, but I leave you with this statement: you shouldn't use someone's beliefs to question their intelligence. That is all.
Reality

San Diego, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1132
Jul 18, 2012
 
Ganonymous wrote:
You're right. There is very little evidence for a worldwide flood. That's why I believe it was a local flood.
Besides, Galileo believed in the flood. Isaac Newton believed in the flood. For a majority of his life, Charles Darwin believed in the flood (he died an agnostic).
I don't want a debate here, so I won't post another comment, but I leave you with this statement: you shouldn't use someone's beliefs to question their intelligence. That is all.
Does believing something is true when it isn't a reason to question a persons intelligence? Charles Darwin did not believed in the flood the majority of his life..
Kindergarden graduate

Las Vegas, NV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1133
Jul 31, 2012
 
John -Working on it wrote:
Why you contend that the God who took care of the Israelites for 40 years in the desert couldn't take care of a boatload of animals, is beyond me.
Yep, every animal on the planet earth we now know of, hundreds of thousands of species, of every class and size, from every continent... is a boatload.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1134
Jul 31, 2012
 
NoamChimpsky wrote:
There is zero evidence of a worldwide flood. Let's put aside the fact that a great flood would have been physically impossible and that there are no geological records indicating one ever happened, at least while humans existed, and just use our logic on this one.
Here's what the Dallas zoo needs every single day.
* A ton of hay
* 35 pounds of fish
* 50 pounds of meat
* 100 stalks of celery
* five pounds of red onions
* 100 pounds of carrots
* 25 pounds of spinach
* 15 pounds of kale
* 10 pounds of mixed vegetables
* 150 pounds of sweet potatoes
* 10 heads of cabbage
* 48 heads of romaine
* 30 ears of corn
* four loaves of wheat bread
* 24 eggs
* a pound of yogurt
* 40 pounds of bananas
* eight pounds of blueberries
* 170 oranges
* 500 apples
* 36 cantaloupes
* four papayas
* 250 rodents (the variety pack)
* 6000 mealworms
* 600 wax worms
* 7500 crickets
Remember, it rained for 40 days/nights, and then they had to wait around for the water to drain away (again, where did it go?) for some more weeks. This list of food is what the Dallas Zoo needs every day. Multiply this by 50 or 60 days... Say that Noah only needed half a ton of hay a day. That's 30 tons of hay for the whole cruise. Exactly where did they keep this? How did they gather it all in advance of the rain? If you gathered 100 pounds of hay every day, it would take you 20 days per ton. So you'd have to do nothing but gather hay for 600 days to get 30 tons together.
Now I'm using logic again here, so I'm sure I've lost you by now, but if it rained for 40 days, enough to cover the highest mountain peaks in the world, please tell me exactly where did all that water go? It would have taken years for it to evaporate or be absorbed into the soil, so where did it disappear to?
And how did the animals get there? How exactly did the wombats and kangaroos get to the middle east from Australia? Did the swim? Did the Polar bears swim tens of thousands of miles to get there?
This is such a ludicrous fairy tale I could sit here all day poking holes in this nonsense, just asking common sense questions. You don't even need science to disprove the Noah's Ark myth, just a brain.
Noah"s flood was not a physical flood of water at the end of that old evil world.
carpenter

Semaphore, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1135
Jan 27, 2013
 
I wish Noah were alive today, he could have built a hundred wooden houses in 1Year, what a gun.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1136
Jan 29, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

NoamChimpsky wrote:
There is zero evidence of a worldwide flood. Let's put aside the fact that a great flood would have been physically impossible and that there are no geological records indicating one ever happened, at least while humans existed, and just use our logic on this one.
Here's what the Dallas zoo needs every single day.
* A ton of hay
* 35 pounds of fish
* 50 pounds of meat
* 100 stalks of celery
* five pounds of red onions
* 100 pounds of carrots
* 25 pounds of spinach
* 15 pounds of kale
* 10 pounds of mixed vegetables
* 150 pounds of sweet potatoes
* 10 heads of cabbage
* 48 heads of romaine
* 30 ears of corn
* four loaves of wheat bread
* 24 eggs
* a pound of yogurt
* 40 pounds of bananas
* eight pounds of blueberries
* 170 oranges
* 500 apples
* 36 cantaloupes
* four papayas
* 250 rodents (the variety pack)
* 6000 mealworms
* 600 wax worms
* 7500 crickets
Remember, it rained for 40 days/nights, and then they had to wait around for the water to drain away (again, where did it go?) for some more weeks. This list of food is what the Dallas Zoo needs every day. Multiply this by 50 or 60 days... Say that Noah only needed half a ton of hay a day. That's 30 tons of hay for the whole cruise. Exactly where did they keep this? How did they gather it all in advance of the rain? If you gathered 100 pounds of hay every day, it would take you 20 days per ton. So you'd have to do nothing but gather hay for 600 days to get 30 tons together.
Now I'm using logic again here, so I'm sure I've lost you by now, but if it rained for 40 days, enough to cover the highest mountain peaks in the world, please tell me exactly where did all that water go? It would have taken years for it to evaporate or be absorbed into the soil, so where did it disappear to?
And how did the animals get there? How exactly did the wombats and kangaroos get to the middle east from Australia? Did the swim? Did the Polar bears swim tens of thousands of miles to get there?
This is such a ludicrous fairy tale I could sit here all day poking holes in this nonsense, just asking common sense questions. You don't even need science to disprove the Noah's Ark myth, just a brain.
You are delivered unto Satan in Jesus' Name.
marty

Waukesha, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1137
Mar 20, 2013
 
humans have been making crap up forever about things that are inexplicable in their time. noah is bullshit. adam and eve are bullshit too. otherwise incest would not be frowned upon.

Since: Jul 13

Clinton Township, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1138
Jul 5, 2013
 
The Math of the Great Flood - Mathematically Impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1139
Jul 5, 2013
 
Junebug54 wrote:
The Math of the Great Flood - Mathematically Impossible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The Bible is about miracles. The Flood was a miracle.
Prophet of Jesus Christ

San Antonio, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1140
Jul 6, 2013
 
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is about miracles. The Flood was a miracle.
Jesus said you are going to hell because you are not his disciple.

Jesus said you are not a Christian.

Luke, Chapter 14, 33: So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1141
Jul 6, 2013
 
Prophet of Jesus Christ wrote:
Luke, Chapter 14, 33: So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Do you have clothes? Hypocrite!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

15 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
apokalypsis (May '09) 1 hr LTT 1,081
A Message from Nettie 2 hr LTT 1,298
God is just 2 hr selatla 101
I am him 2 hr selatla 44
Why would God allow MH17 to be shot down??? 2 hr Flygerian 203
If Jesus said few would find the "road that lea... 2 hr Flygerian 388
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 2 hr Mr Ironhart 1,479
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 3 hr Barnsweb 1,729
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 3 hr janeebee 12,052
•••
•••