RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Stu]

How did He know of the future then and what events would befall mankind in the end days?

I've no idea. You said he was omniscient. That means he knew everything. Your question does not address my comment.

Surely then if He relied on the word of mouth of the people of the time, some of His wisdom could be fallible, and His message and words shouldn't be seen as infallible?

Very confused. If he relied on the wisdom of the time, etc. he was certainly not infallible, but he didn't. Those who listened to him heard what he said, not what he knew, and not everything he said was literally true. Your question does not address my comment.

Do you believe that He performed miracles?

Sure. The fact of a miracle depends on the observer, not on the miracle-worker.

Did He create many fish out of a few?

I very much doubt it, but that's not important. The people who were there thought he had, or at least that was the sense they made out of what happened, and what they thought and reported is more important than what actually happened.

Did He walk on water?

Same answer as above.

Are you saying Jesus was wrong about Noah's Ark...

No. I'm saying Jesus knew the truth, but chose to teach his followers using a context they could more easily understand.

... and that it was just a fable?

Yes.

Very confused. If he relied on the wisdom of the time, etc. he was certainly not infallible, but he didn't. Those who listened to him heard what he said, not what he knew, and not everything he said was literally true. Your question does not address my comment.

What do you mean, "not everything he said was literally true"????

Sure. The fact of a miracle depends on the observer, not on the miracle-worker.

Is this just another way of saying that he was a magician rather than an actual miracle-worker. Because by your standards (the observer), David Blaine and David Copperfield are also true miracle workers.......

I very much doubt it, but that's not important. The people who were there thought he had, or at least that was the sense they made out of what happened, and what they thought and reported is more important than what actually happened.

Seriously you're losing it now. Now you're saying He didn't perform those miracles. So what sets Him apart from just another con artist of the day?

Same answer as above.

So He didn't walk on water - so I guess He and Peter never walked on water either?

No. I'm saying Jesus knew the truth, but chose to teach his followers using a context they could more easily understand.

So He chose to lie to the disciples rather than tell the truth. Interesting. What else did Jesus lie about.

This Jesus fella sounds like a tricky one. Pretends to perform miracles to trick the people into believing He is the Son of God and then tells lies about Noah's Ark to gain credibility. I don't like this Jesus.

Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

[hughfarey]

What do you mean, "not everything he said was literally true"????

Do keep up. We've been talking about the literal truth of Noah's Flood, which many people think didn't happen. So when Jesus referred to it, he was using it as a kind of parable. Which are also not intended to be literally true.

Sure. The fact of a miracle depends on the observer, not on the miracle-worker.

Is this just another way of saying that he was a magician rather than an actual miracle-worker. Because by your standards (the observer), David Blaine and David Copperfield are also true miracle workers.......

From this answer I'm not sure you understand the essence of a miracle. Not every inexplicable event is a miracle, and many perfectly explicable events are miracles.

Did He create many fish out of a few?

I very much doubt it, but that's not important. The people who were there thought he had, or at least that was the sense they made out of what happened, and what they thought and reported is more important than what actually happened.

Seriously you're losing it now. Now you're saying He didn't perform those miracles. So what sets Him apart from just another con artist of the day?

See the answer above. Try to clarify what you think a miracle really is.

No. I'm saying Jesus knew the truth, but chose to teach his followers using a context they could more easily understand.

So He chose to lie to the disciples rather than tell the truth. Interesting. What else did Jesus lie about.

Proably better to read what I said, rather than invent what I said in order to suit your prejudices.

This Jesus fella sounds like a tricky one. Pretends to perform miracles to trick the people into believing He is the Son of God and then tells lies about Noah's Ark to gain credibility. I don't like this Jesus.

No? Well, perhaps you would if you got to know him better!

[Stu]

What do you mean, "not everything he said was literally true"????

Do keep up. We've been talking about the literal truth of Noah's Flood, which many people think didn't happen. So when Jesus referred to it, he was using it as a kind of parable. Which are also not intended to be literally true.

Sure. The fact of a miracle depends on the observer, not on the miracle-worker.

Is this just another way of saying that he was a magician rather than an actual miracle-worker. Because by your standards (the observer), David Blaine and David Copperfield are also true miracle workers.......

From this answer I'm not sure you understand the essence of a miracle. Not every inexplicable event is a miracle, and many perfectly explicable events are miracles.

Did He create many fish out of a few?

I very much doubt it, but that's not important. The people who were there thought he had, or at least that was the sense they made out of what happened, and what they thought and reported is more important than what actually happened.

Seriously you're losing it now. Now you're saying He didn't perform those miracles. So what sets Him apart from just another con artist of the day?

See the answer above. Try to clarify what you think a miracle really is.

No. I'm saying Jesus knew the truth, but chose to teach his followers using a context they could more easily understand.

So He chose to lie to the disciples rather than tell the truth. Interesting. What else did Jesus lie about.

Proably better to read what I said, rather than invent what I said in order to suit your prejudices.

This Jesus fella sounds like a tricky one. Pretends to perform miracles to trick the people into believing He is the Son of God and then tells lies about Noah's Ark to gain credibility. I don't like this Jesus.

No? Well, perhaps you would if you got to know him better!

You never answered a critical question:

Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

[Audie]

The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

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.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

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,
in place.

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?

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
Great point Stu! Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

hughfarey wrote:
Nope. There is a lot of interesting theology about what Jesus knew and how he chose to communicate it. Google it. Luke famously says that he "grew in wisdom" as he got older, which is, of course, impossible if he was God. Similarly he occasionally asked non-rhetorical questions - to which, of course, he must have already known the answer. Whatever he actually knew, he chose to teach within the conventional wisdom of the time. So yes, Jesus's opinions, as spoken to and recorded by, the disciples, and us, were indeed "formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God."

Jesus could not have grown in wisdom if he were God? Did you forget he's fully human as well?
Do you also think, since he's God, that he was fully mature at the moment of his birth? Or do you concede that he actually grew in all ways that a human grows?

[Audie]

What do you mean, "not everything he said was literally true"????

Do keep up. We've been talking about the literal truth of Noah's Flood, which many people think didn't happen. So when Jesus referred to it, he was using it as a kind of parable. Which are also not intended to be literally true.

Sure. The fact of a miracle depends on the observer, not on the miracle-worker.

Is this just another way of saying that he was a magician rather than an actual miracle-worker. Because by your standards (the observer), David Blaine and David Copperfield are also true miracle workers.......

From this answer I'm not sure you understand the essence of a miracle. Not every inexplicable event is a miracle, and many perfectly explicable events are miracles.

Did He create many fish out of a few?

I very much doubt it, but that's not important. The people who were there thought he had, or at least that was the sense they made out of what happened, and what they thought and reported is more important than what actually happened.

Seriously you're losing it now. Now you're saying He didn't perform those miracles. So what sets Him apart from just another con artist of the day?

See the answer above. Try to clarify what you think a miracle really is.

No. I'm saying Jesus knew the truth, but chose to teach his followers using a context they could more easily understand.

So He chose to lie to the disciples rather than tell the truth. Interesting. What else did Jesus lie about.

Proably better to read what I said, rather than invent what I said in order to suit your prejudices.

This Jesus fella sounds like a tricky one. Pretends to perform miracles to trick the people into believing He is the Son of God and then tells lies about Noah's Ark to gain credibility. I don't like this Jesus.

No? Well, perhaps you would if you got to know him better!

You never answered a critical question:

Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

And the relevance of "Jesus" birth to evolution is?

Flood/no flood is relevant; ab runs away from the proof thst "flood"
is just a story.

A guy with an avatar like yours should not be afraid to face facts.

So?

[hughfarey]

You never answered a critical question: Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Jesus could not have grown in wisdom if he were God? Did you forget he's fully human as well?
Do you also think, since he's God, that he was fully mature at the moment of his birth? Or do you concede that he actually grew in all ways that a human grows?

I forget nothing. I merely answer the questions put to me. You might like to pursue the ramifications of Jesus's growing in wisdom. How old do you think he was when he realised he was God? When did he learn about Noah's Ark? When his dad showed him how to use a chisel, did he say: "Yup; I knew that."

I think Stuart and yourselves are trying to bog me down in your own confusion. I think the omniscience of God should be understood in Jesus at different levels, which enables me to understand that at one level he could have known all about the big bang, having done it himself, and at another level he could live in 1st century Judea as a typical 1st century Judean, being educated bit by bit in the synagogue, and learning how to make furniture bit by bit in the workshop.

[Stu]

The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

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.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

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,
in place.

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 is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

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

[Stu]

You never answered a critical question: Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible. The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!
You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

[neo-x]

You never answered a critical question: Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible. The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!
You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

Stu, why are there two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2? Which one do you believe is the correct one?
Most importantly, why do you think there are two and not one?

[Audie]

The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

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.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

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,
in place.

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 is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

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.

[RickD]

The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

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.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

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,
in place.

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 is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

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

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

[RickD]

You never answered a critical question: Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Jesus could not have grown in wisdom if he were God? Did you forget he's fully human as well?
Do you also think, since he's God, that he was fully mature at the moment of his birth? Or do you concede that he actually grew in all ways that a human grows?

I forget nothing. I merely answer the questions put to me. You might like to pursue the ramifications of Jesus's growing in wisdom. How old do you think he was when he realised he was God? When did he learn about Noah's Ark? When his dad showed him how to use a chisel, did he say: "Yup; I knew that."

I think Stuart and yourselves are trying to bog me down in your own confusion. I think the omniscience of God should be understood in Jesus at different levels, which enables me to understand that at one level he could have known all about the big bang, having done it himself, and at another level he could live in 1st century Judea as a typical 1st century Judean, being educated bit by bit in the synagogue, and learning how to make furniture bit by bit in the workshop.

Hugh,

You said Jesus couldn't grow in wisdom if he was God. He could if he is also human. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Audie]

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.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

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,
in place.

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 is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

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

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

Good stuff, a battle of the links, creosite vs evosite.

[Stu]

You never answered a critical question: Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible. The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!
You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

Stu, why are there two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2? Which one do you believe is the correct one?
Most importantly, why do you think there are two and not one?

Explain further?