Transitional / intermediate

[Audie]

"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

[/quote]

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Evidence ice can stick down? You dont need to give evidence for something everybody knows.

BUT- then you extrapolate from an ice cube to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)

[Jac3510]

You know, ACB is always saying he is open minded and willing to be shown he is wrong and willing to look at evidence. I wonder if he'll prove himself honest on that point.

I thought about holding my breath. Decided not to. No excuse for suicide.

[crochet1949]

"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Yes you are right, you did, quite unnecessarily because it is simple and obvious to all, point out that ice can be stuck down underwater.

Then you extrapolate to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)[/quote]


Talk about someone being 'married' to their opinions. And you have No problem poking fun at those who choose to believe in an 'antiquated' 'God'. IF He indeed exists. I'll state for the record that those are Your comments -- not mine. Your 'god' -- if you even recognize a need For one -- are the sciences of geology / paleonology. Probably not the correct spelling. You've acknowledged the existence of 'gods' in various cultures in the world. You have No problem considering any form of Bible study / knowledge an exercise in futility. Our beliefs are considered to be Fantasy while Your are to be taken as absolute Truth. Well -- the Reason that God flooded the world isn't anything to be laughed at.

[Audie]

Talk about someone being 'married' to their opinions. And you have No problem poking fun at those who choose to believe in an 'antiquated' 'God'. IF He indeed exists. I'll state for the record that those are Your comments -- not mine. Your 'god' -- if you even recognize a need For one -- are the sciences of geology / paleonology. Probably not the correct spelling. You've acknowledged the existence of 'gods' in various cultures in the world. You have No problem considering any form of Bible study / knowledge an exercise in futility. Our beliefs are considered to be Fantasy while Your are to be taken as absolute Truth. Well -- the Reason that God flooded the world isn't anything to be laughed at.

Now C, you, like Ab, are entitled to your own opinions, but like everyone else, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

And you have No problem poking fun at those who choose to believe in an 'antiquated' 'God'.

I never have said "antiquainted" and I never have poked fun at anyone for belief in god.
Please do not bear false witness against me.

Your 'god' -- if you even recognize a need For one -- are the sciences of geology / paleonology.

Whatever that is supposed to mean. I dont do "gods". So wrong again.

You've acknowledged the existence of 'gods' in various cultures in the world.

Not really. I acknowledge the belief in them, an entirely different thing.

You have No problem considering any form of Bible study / knowledge an exercise in futility.

Nope. There is plenty of wisdom there. Again, your can do opinions, dont state them as facts.

Your are to be taken as absolute Truth.

Seriously? You pay no attention, evidently, to what I actually say.

Well -- the Reason that God flooded the world isn't anything to be laughed at

Some of the ideas about the flood are kinda funny. Like the one about how the excess water went to Neptune where it shines as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

Here is what really is not funny tho.

If there really is a God, then telling and insisting on a story of him committing a monstrous act-even though it most plainly did not happen-is not a matter for light humour.

[crochet1949]

Some of the ideas about the flood -- and who has come up with the excess water going to Neptune, etc. That is Not in the Bible.

And, you are right -- and since God Does exist and He did create mankind and everything else on this planet -- He gave people plenty of time and opportunity to listen to what Noah was Trying to share with those people. They Refused to listen to God's Word -- their sinning and 'and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually ... and He was going to destroy Everything that He had created. He was destroying evil -- with Plenty of warning -- 120 years of it. Not only Noah but his family were there to warn / share with the people. The Monstrous act was Because the people Refused to listen to God. Society does Not like the concept of Real Punishment for Sin. Society says it's really okay to do whatever -- if it feels good and the person is willing to accept whatever negative consequences there are -- then -- who's real business is it. Well -- eventually Everyone will give account to God for their actions and thoughts.

People would Rather explain away a Great Flood on 'whatever' -- denying it is easier to handle. And who is going to go against the experts in geology and paleon....-- it sounds really crazy to do so. However -- God's Word says what Genesis tells us -- that there Was a flood 'and I will destroy them with the earth'. vs 7 "So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

It has never been meant for light humor.

[crochet1949]

My 'opinions' as well as every person's alive are just as important as your 'facts'.

[Audie]

Some of the ideas about the flood -- and who has come up with the excess water going to Neptune, etc. That is Not in the Bible.

And, you are right -- and since God Does exist and He did create mankind and everything else on this planet -- He gave people plenty of time and opportunity to listen to what Noah was Trying to share with those people. They Refused to listen to God's Word -- their sinning and 'and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually ... and He was going to destroy Everything that He had created. He was destroying evil -- with Plenty of warning -- 120 years of it. Not only Noah but his family were there to warn / share with the people. The Monstrous act was Because the people Refused to listen to God. Society does Not like the concept of Real Punishment for Sin. Society says it's really okay to do whatever -- if it feels good and the person is willing to accept whatever negative consequences there are -- then -- who's real business is it. Well -- eventually Everyone will give account to God for their actions and thoughts.

People would Rather explain away a Great Flood on 'whatever' -- denying it is easier to handle. And who is going to go against the experts in geology and paleon....-- it sounds really crazy to do so. However -- God's Word says what Genesis tells us -- that there Was a flood 'and I will destroy them with the earth'. vs 7 "So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

It has never been meant for light humor.

So do you still think all those false and negative things about me?

People would Rather explain away a Great Flood on 'whatever' -- denying it is easier to handle

Interestingly, ab keeps trying to explain away, in the silliest ways, the demonstration that there was no flood. Because it is easier to "handle"
reality with an excuse than to accept the consequences?

To your credit, you dont offer "dog ate homework" responses in place of substantive argument.

I mean, if someone can show me how the polar ice
either is not old, or would behave in defiance of physics when flooded, then
I will change my tune.

Ab mikes up silly excuses, you dont offer anything but faith. That is honest, at least.

I think you missed what I said about humour.

You said

the Reason that God flooded the world isn't anything to be laughed at

I said:


Some of the ideas about the flood are kinda funny.

Here is what really is not funny tho.

If there really is a God, then telling and insisting on a story of him committing a monstrous act-even though it most plainly did not happen-is not a matter for light humour.

It has never been meant for light humor

You are missing what I am talking about.

If fewer words:

If there is a god, then falsely saying he committed a monstrous act might be quite a serious matter.


I dont believe you've given ten seconds thought to whether the story might not be what you think it is.

It might behoove you to think again.

[Audie]

My 'opinions' as well as every person's alive are just as important as your 'facts'.

Possibly.

But that is off topic.

I said everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not to their own facts.

You made several false statements about me, stated as facts

If you are satisfied to continue to bear false witness against me, that is on you.

A better course might be to ask me what I really think.

[crochet1949]

Okay -- what do you REALLY think. I'm Not bearing false witness against you -- just stating the impressions you leave in black and white print -- bearing false witness against a person is Purposely saying things in public that are Not true that would potentially ruin their reputation. And That would be the intent of the 'bearer Of'.

Maybe it's just that you 'bait' people and then they react back to/ at you.

I've been sharing that which God has plainly stated in His Word to us. It's 'there' in black and white for All to read.

[Audie]

Okay -- what do you REALLY think. I'm Not bearing false witness against you -- just stating the impressions you leave in black and white print -- bearing false witness against a person is Purposely saying things in public that are Not true that would potentially ruin their reputation. And That would be the intent of the 'bearer Of'.

Maybe it's just that you 'bait' people and then they react back to/ at you.

I've been sharing that which God has plainly stated in His Word to us. It's 'there' in black and white for All to read.

I'm Not bearing false witness against you -- just stating the impressions

Your chosen impression, as I said nor did any of the things you state as facts.

In court, to state an opinion as a fact is far from cool.

You didnt ask what I think, and still dont seem curious, or inclined to take back any falsehood.

What is in black and white in the bible is there to be interpreted.
you have an interpretation that is at variance with what many others think, as well as the plain record in the earth itself.

[crochet1949]

We're not In a court of law.

I just did ask 'what do you really think'? How am I supposed to take back any falsehoods when I haven't seen any of my comments as Being 'falsehoods' / lies actually -cause that's what falsehoods Are, aren't they? -- tell you what - You present the falsehoods that you feel I've made to you and I'll see how close Your interpretation of what I've said matches what I've actually said.

[Audie]

We're not In a court of law.

I just did ask 'what do you really think'? How am I supposed to take back any falsehoods when I haven't seen any of my comments as Being 'falsehoods' / lies actually -cause that's what falsehoods Are, aren't they? -- tell you what - You present the falsehoods that you feel I've made to you and I'll see how close Your interpretation of what I've said matches what I've actually said.

I addressed several of them in a response to your "speaking of married to" post.
Your acknowledgement? I didnt see any acknowledgement.

The mistaken interpretations are on your part, as noted in that post.

Now, you came in to a conversation I was having with someone else, and challenged my integrity
with baseless notions. I have to wonder why?

You will find nowhere words of mine that match your opinions.

I am sorry you choose to think so ill of me, but I am confident it will soon pass
upon closer reflection. I wish no conflict with you. But I dont let pass lightly
false assertions about me. Ask about something, or say its how you feel,
dont state facts not in evidence, and we will have no clashes.

I assume no ill will on your part. I am sorry you misinterpreted me so. I've no ill will toward you.
Nor do I make fun of your faith, or anyone else's faith in their god, or God.

Final note,.. you agree the "water to Neptune' thing is extra biblical.

Its kinda dumb, too. ? Yah?

If I were to use physics to show that, am I mocking faith in god?

What of the person who says God sent the water to Neptune?
What kind of respect is it to spread phony stories?

[crochet1949]

Would you Please put in quotes what you are talking about. My false statements concerning you?! Referring me back to 'a particular post' tells me nothing. Because a LOT of conversation has taken place. So - find what you are referring to and use quotes to quote it back. Then I'll know how you've interpreted my comments to you.

And, is a person supposed to personally check out Every concept that they come into contact with -- to check it's credibility - just in case it Might be accurate and then the person can change their mind and adjust to the New concept?!

Honestly - I have no clue as to who might have come up with the Neptune concept - and it doesn't really matter.

And you poke fun at acb's "silliness" -- his views as well as mine.

And lots of times I leave others to their conversations -- but this Is an open forum and people can enter into conversations at will which makes for interesting conversation / comparing /contrasting concepts / ideas.

Combining conversation Here as well as when we used to be on pming frequently -- we've gained insight into one another's personalities.

The person who says that God sent the water to Neptune -- that person needs to check with God's Word to see what That says. YOU brought up the Neptune thing -- so what's the deal about spreading phony stories?! So - are you by chance comparing Noah's flood with the Neptune thing? Are you putting them on the same level?

[Audie]

Would you Please put in quotes what you are talking about. My false statements concerning you?! Referring me back to 'a particular post' tells me nothing. Because a LOT of conversation has taken place. So - find what you are referring to and use quotes to quote it back. Then I'll know how you've interpreted my comments to you.

And, is a person supposed to personally check out Every concept that they come into contact with -- to check it's credibility - just in case it Might be accurate and then the person can change their mind and adjust to the New concept?!

Honestly - I have no clue as to who might have come up with the Neptune concept - and it doesn't really matter.

And you poke fun at acb's "silliness" -- his views as well as mine.

And lots of times I leave others to their conversations -- but this Is an open forum and people can enter into conversations at will which makes for interesting conversation / comparing /contrasting concepts / ideas.

Combining conversation Here as well as when we used to be on pming frequently -- we've gained insight into one another's personalities.

The person who says that God sent the water to Neptune -- that person needs to check with God's Word to see what That says. YOU brought up the Neptune thing -- so what's the deal about spreading phony stories?! So - are you by chance comparing Noah's flood with the Neptune thing? Are you putting them on the same level?

This is going nowhere but worse. Refer to my post of 8:58 a.m., if you wish to see what I referred to

I dont want to continue this, i feel no good will come of it.

[abelcainsbrother]

"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Evidence ice can stick down? You dont need to give evidence for something everybody knows.

BUT- then you extrapolate from an ice cube to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)[/quote]


OK,I see what you are doing. You are trying to drag me into a discussion about Noah's flood and it seems to be a reason for you to deny the whole bible as being true. But you have taken out ofcontext evidence I have presented to you. Like ice being stuck down. You overlook all of the other evidence I gave for how the polar ice could survive a world wide flood. In context you said that ice floats and that it could not remain stuck down. So I gave you an experiment to show you that ice can remain stuck down submerged under water. It is evidence you ignore by claiming glaciers are not stuck down and move around. They can at times move around,it depends on the climate,at times they can be frozen to the bedrock and at other times can move around. But this is just one piece of evidence I gave. You also ignore that this ice has dust in it that dates to Noah's flood it shows that it survived the flood but there was a drought,you ignore it and act like a drought is not evidence for a flood,overlooking that it shows a drought happened after the flood.

You also ignore ice core samples that shows the ice at a certain depth is different toward the bottom than the ice above it at a certain point. You imply I just made this up and yet if I actually found the link and posted it showing it? You'd still not believe a flood happened. You have it made up in your mind it didn't happen. I'm just giving evidence,not proof.