Introduction to Biblical Nonsense Part 1: Noah's Ark

[Audie]

I really hate to sound like a quitter, but I think at this point the topic has devolved to an isolated argument. Not that any of you don't have the right to debate, but at this point I think it is safe to say no one is going to convince the other. I actually have a few more critiques of ABC's reasoning, but I am not going to bother stating them because whenever I do, he just seems to say the same thing over again. I know you're really trying here Audie, but I think your words are being aimed towards an unalterable opinion, so maybe it's best if we move on. I won't be responding to any more posts on this topic unless I find something that is directly related to my original post, so if you have anything to say about this particular post here, don't bother, because I'm kind of weary of answering and asking the same questions. Thanks to all of the posters that actually contributed to the primary subject I posted. All of my love to you peeples! (You too Audie and abelcainsbrother)

Sorry to have torpedoed your thread. Didnt intend to.

I find that discussions often spread out like Nebraska's Platte River, a mile wide and an inch deep. Nobody can be shown to be right or wrong with a brief superficial visit to a topic. Aim for one obvious weak link, I say, and hit it.

If the other still insists that blue is white, that 1 and 1 is 3, shows themselves as incapable of admitting even the tiniest and most obvious error, then, why go on?

Watch for what ABC does. I dont expect an epiphany, but for a couple of people here who may think his idea has possible merit, I have this exchange to point to.

If someone does not have enough sense to see that polar ice cant survive being floated about, they are out beyond the orbit of Pluto somewhere, and past human communication anyway.

Oh no, I don't blame you for the digression. I know that originally you were just trying to correct ABC on his line of thought, but that seems to be a futile effort. I know I made an exception to my previous post, but I wanted to let you know that I don't think it's your fault.

Its like the over protective mother who cannot accept that her precious son is a burglar, even tho the police caught him in the neighours house with a pillowcase full of loot, recorded on the home security video breaking in.

I think for some people, to admit even the tiniest error in their thinking is would be like making a tiny hole in a balloon. They instinctively know what would happen to their whole construct of reality if even one bit of the seamless whole were threatened.

So far we've had a fair bit of blatant falsehood and nonsense from ABC, trying to keep his ice from floating. I wonder if he is running out of them, or is just going to recycle.

There may be a breaking point for even the most dedicated to their fantasies.
Lets see if he runs, makes more excuses, or what.

[ConfusedMan]

I really hate to sound like a quitter, but I think at this point the topic has devolved to an isolated argument. Not that any of you don't have the right to debate, but at this point I think it is safe to say no one is going to convince the other. I actually have a few more critiques of ABC's reasoning, but I am not going to bother stating them because whenever I do, he just seems to say the same thing over again. I know you're really trying here Audie, but I think your words are being aimed towards an unalterable opinion, so maybe it's best if we move on. I won't be responding to any more posts on this topic unless I find something that is directly related to my original post, so if you have anything to say about this particular post here, don't bother, because I'm kind of weary of answering and asking the same questions. Thanks to all of the posters that actually contributed to the primary subject I posted. All of my love to you peeples! (You too Audie and abelcainsbrother)

Sorry to have torpedoed your thread. Didnt intend to.

I find that discussions often spread out like Nebraska's Platte River, a mile wide and an inch deep. Nobody can be shown to be right or wrong with a brief superficial visit to a topic. Aim for one obvious weak link, I say, and hit it.

If the other still insists that blue is white, that 1 and 1 is 3, shows themselves as incapable of admitting even the tiniest and most obvious error, then, why go on?

Watch for what ABC does. I dont expect an epiphany, but for a couple of people here who may think his idea has possible merit, I have this exchange to point to.

If someone does not have enough sense to see that polar ice cant survive being floated about, they are out beyond the orbit of Pluto somewhere, and past human communication anyway.

Oh no, I don't blame you for the digression. I know that originally you were just trying to correct ABC on his line of thought, but that seems to be a futile effort. I know I made an exception to my previous post, but I wanted to let you know that I don't think it's your fault.

Its like the over protective mother who cannot accept that her precious son is a burglar, even tho the police caught him in the neighours house with a pillowcase full of loot, recorded on the home security video breaking in.

I think for some people, to admit even the tiniest error in their thinking is would be like making a tiny hole in a balloon. They instinctively know what would happen to their whole construct of reality if even one bit of the seamless whole were threatened.

So far we've had a fair bit of blatant falsehood and nonsense from ABC, trying to keep his ice from floating. I wonder if he is running out of them, or is just going to recycle.

There may be a breaking point for even the most dedicated to their fantasies.
Lets see if he runs, makes more excuses, or what.

Yes, my dad had a friend who had a mother like that. I've had to learn to admit that I am wrong many times. I've found that it is actually emotionally easier to quickly admit one's wrongness and accept it then and there as opposed to dealing with lurking doubt and all the anxiety that comes with stubbornness. I have nothing personally against ABC, but I think he is getting a little too involved in a discussion that never was going to go anywhere fruitful anyways (mostly because of his faulty arguments). Anyhow, though your views differ greatly from many of the other posters, I appreciate your input on the topic and your attempts to clear up ABC's thinking. See you around, Audie.

[abelcainsbrother]

Your idea is intellectually bankrupt, and you know it. There is no way the ice could survive such a flood, and you know it. "coriolis effect"

You have "evidence"? Your flood is disproved by the ice you agree is therw. May as well try advancing a pawn after checkmate. A poor loser is no admirable in anyone's eyes

Im done now, your flood is impossible. You are done now too, whether you admit it or not. Lying to yourself is a bad habit, doing it in front of everyone is shameful. I will let the others assess what it means for you to claim Jesus as an ally in your deliberate deceptions.

Do you want me to say you win? A global flood is impossible to you,I get it,but what would make you think the mountain glacier would melt away in a very cold region where ice is submerged under water until the flood waters settled?Also it is -9°C at the bottom of the bore hole as it is frozen to the bed rock,it is not floating or liquid like you said.

No, I dont want you to say I win. There is no win or lose, except what you lose by insisting on such obvious nonsense. Whatever price there is to pay, its you paying it.

And to whatever extent you discredit whatever religion you think you represent, so much the better.

I dont say or think its impossible. Do you never tire of making things up? If there is a god that wanted it, anything is possible. The point is not could he, its did he.

He could have given us 6 purple moons. But he didnt. Look up, no purple moons.
He could have done a flood, but he didnt. If he had, the ice would not be 100,000 plus years old,

Pretending he did is most disrespectful, as much as if you were arguing for the 6 purple moons that are not there.

A mountain glacier is not "frozen to bedrock" if it were, it could not move.
So there you go with another falsehood. You know its not frozen to the ice, why do you bother to make such a silly claim?

The ice on Greenland and Antarctica is also moving, so its is not stuck either.
As for water under ice, I did not say it is floating. Another falsehood. You claim its not there..another falsehood.
The water is there, tho a few miles of ice cant float on a few inches of water.


http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarc ... ice-sheet/

Although much of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is very cold, and above pressure melting point, in some places, the ice is so thick that it does reach this magic temperature. In some of the deep troughs, where ice is over 3.5 km thick, pressure melting point is reached . This means that there is water underneath the ice sheet.

You have no excuse for claiming that the ice would not float up. It is not attached, and the adhesive power or ice to rock could not possible hold the billions of tons of lift even if it were frozen to the rock, which it is not.

Now which are you going to claim, that the ice wouldnt float, or that it magically stayed intact floating about in seas so violent they scooped up clams and put them on top of Mt Everest, then settled again precisely back where it started? Pick one!

Your reliance on falsehood and fantasy show plainly that your ideas are intellectually bankrupt. Repeating them regardless, is ethically bankrupt.
When is it ever going to get thru to you?

Audie I do not just make up stuff like you assume.I told you I had not even got into the evidence yet but you want to try to say I'm wrong about the Glacier being frozen to the bedrock,you say it is not frozen to the bed rock but not only do I have evidence that says the opposite of what you said,I also have evidence that it is possible the glacier was once moved and then sat back down in place,it is possible the glacier floated in place by the coriolis force that I brought up.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pale ... 2-info.txt

From this article

The -9o C ice temperature measured at the base of the two cores (W. Hancock and M. Wumkes, pers. comm., 1993;
N. Gundestrup and L. Hansen, pers. comm., 1993
This shows that at the base it is frozen to the bedrock like I said,you implied I just made it up to go along with my flood hypothesis,but I didn't.

But then notice this

GISP2 and GRIP Records Prior to 110 kyr B.P.
The climatic significance of the deeper part of the GISP2 ice core, below 2790 m depth and 110 kyr age, is a matter of
considerable investigation and controversy. The isotopic temperature records and electrical conductivity records of GISP2
and GRIP, so similar for younger ice, are very different in the lower part (Grootes et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1993a).

This would indicate that since the ice at the bottom is different than at the upper level it is possible that it has floated off before and then been set back down in place,like I described.
Now I know that you'll still disagree as I' m not saying this is proof but I am not just making up stuff like you imply I'm just interpreting it from a different perspective a world wide flood perspective.

[Audie]

Give my regards to the Oort cloud.