Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:37 am
How humble of you oh mighty queen of self-righteousness. I expect nothing less from you, you atheist jerk.Audie wrote:Stu wrote:There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.Audie wrote:I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie wrote:
I guess ab really does think he has studied evolution, knows a lot about it,
and is capable of "talking over" someone's head.
It is obviously not so, to anyone who actually has an interest,
let alone put in long hours' work in lab, field and lecture halls.
Easy to see as it would be to see I am cluelees if I tried to be the announcer
at football game. Or ab trying to do ballet. A man is supposed to know his limitations!
I'd be embarrassed to claim knowledge I dont have, but-
He isnt embarrassed to offer three made up and evidence free assertions
for how glaciers could survive a global flood, capping it with that it is god's
word. ( so he is incapable of being wrong?)
The current explanation is that the glaciers are stuck down.
Of course, they are not stuck. They move. If some part does temporarily freeze tight to
the bedrock, millions of tons pressure soon breaks it free.
I calculated the buoyant force per square ft if five miles of ice
went underwater. Anyone can do it. I forget what it was, but it
looked like about enough to pull a battleship in half. Ice dont freeze that tight to
rock. And of course, some ride on a cushion of liquid water. None are frozen down,
the point is moot.
But nope, ol'ab says he explained how ice could survive a flood.
(NEVER let no stinkin' facts mess with a good superstition)
I liked jac's idea that he doesnt get to talk about, aka mantra-chant,
about evolution till he admits he has no -zero- explanation for why polar ice does not
disprove his "flood"
I doubt it is possible, he has so much invested (see "sunk cost fallacy")
in gappitism, it might send him into a tailspin to accept that he is so mixed up,
But I guess his thinking is at least sincerely deranged; that is something.
It would be nice tho to see him on the road to rationality tho.
Go ahead and preach it is true,but let's get into the evidence. As usual you just declare evolution is true because you've been lectured to about it,etc. You don't have to be an expert or scientist to examine evidence behind evolution and realize it is nowhere near being confirmed true. Evolutionists typically imply that only scientists and experts can understand evolution and this is just apologetics of evolution. If only scientists and experts can understand it,what good is it? Evolution should be confirmed by evidence,but it is'nt and this is why only scientists and experts can understand the evidence behind it.They see what they want to see. Evolution is not the only way we can interpret the evidence in the earth.
And as far as the gap theory all I'm doing is coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. You believe the evidence has to do with life evolving continually over billions of years,while I do not believe life evolves and the evidence in the earth only proves there was a former world different than this world we now live in. When you look at a fossil? Instead of thinking it evolved over billions of years just think instead this is just life that lived in the former world until it died and up until that world perished completely. Then read 2nd Peter 3:6
It is taking the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what its telling us. It is a much better theory based on the fossils that have been found and the massive amount of evidence for life over billions of years at the very least and possibly even longer than even scientists say because our God is eternal.
Now, how about you just deal with the facts.
Christians have no need to deny facts, hide, run away, or change the subject, right?
I mean, you got god and inerrant bible-readin' on your side right?
Here are your made up stories:
1. The ice floated, but didnt melt. Then it settled back ( exactly) in place.
2. The ice did not float, it is stuck down.
3. The top half broke free, but did not melt, and settled back just so,
Then you wrapped it up with that you are right because "flood" is God's word.
(According to you)
Now, try again:
In face of the clear and obvious physical imposdibility of polar ice surviving a world wide flood,
how can you pretend there was?
There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.
But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....
The lost squadron
Not that I was expecting much, but I was hoping for something
better than that.
Do you really-really think that a creosite is a reliable source of ibfo?
Or that there are no differences in annual snowfall in so large a place as Greenland?
Or that it snows like that in Antarctica?
Or that all the dating methods used on ice cores simply defy all laws of physics
when applied to ice, and therefore are all wrong.
Even ab is more sensible than that.
Or no, never mind, I've seen what must be your best hand. Carry on with
someone more patient with nonsense.