Evidence for God from Science

So ABC, do you know that the ice in Antarctica is well over 100,000 years old?
The ice goes down down below any dust such as you describe.

You will have to explain why the ice did not float away in your flood.

I understand you are heavily invested in your idea, but that is no excuse for being
dishonest with yourself and making up some "ad hoc" explanation with zero evidence.

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)

Audie wrote:So ABC, do you know that the ice in Antarctica is well over 100,000 years old?
The ice goes down down below any dust such as you describe.

You will have to explain why the ice did not float away in your flood.

I understand you are heavily invested in your idea, but that is no excuse for being
dishonest with yourself and making up some "ad hoc" explanation with zero evidence.

Yes Audie,I am not a Young earth creationist,I know you reject the gap theory but it is what I accept at this point.the glacier problem seems problematic and cannot be glossed over but you do know that ice does not float under all conditions? You can take ice cubes from your freezer and put them in a metal bowl and put it in the freezer for a couple of hours,take it out and pour tap water on it and the ice at the bottom will stay clung to the bowl under the water until the bowls surface temperature rises enough to melt the bond,this is comparable to the bedrock the mountain glacier is fastened to. But even if it did happen to break lose the currents could possible hold it in place until the waters settled.

ConfusedMan wrote: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)

Well the whole time all I've really been trying to do is make the point that the drought that produced the dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,etc dates to the time of Noah's flood and yet I kept getting hung up by people doubting it.

Why should I go further when people cannot even see that something catastrophic happened that dates to the time of Noah's flood? I've been waiting for people to get this before I get into the flood.If people can't see it dates to Noah's flood? Then why get into a actual world wide flood? I was trying to go a step at a time and lay everything out first before I got into a flood,sadly people doubted it dated to Noah's flood.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:So ABC, do you know that the ice in Antarctica is well over 100,000 years old?
The ice goes down down below any dust such as you describe.

You will have to explain why the ice did not float away in your flood.

I understand you are heavily invested in your idea, but that is no excuse for being
dishonest with yourself and making up some "ad hoc" explanation with zero evidence.

Yes Audie,I am not a Young earth creationist,I know you reject the gap theory but it is what I accept at this point.the glacier problem seems problematic and cannot be glossed over but you do know that ice does not float under all conditions? You can take ice cubes from your freezer and put them in a metal bowl and put it in the freezer for a couple of hours,take it out and pour tap water on it and the ice at the bottom will stay clung to the bowl under the water until the bowls surface temperature rises enough to melt the bond,this is comparable to the bedrock the mountain glacier is fastened to. But even if it did happen to break lose the currents could possible hold it in place until the waters settled.

And even if the currents didnt hold glaciers in place never letting them melt or break apart and oh so carefully set them back just so on Greenland, Antarctica, each in its exact place in its valley and the mountain glaciers perfectly in theirs, you will make up something else. You do know that you just made up your excuse for the ice being there after your "flood"?

The glaciers are not stuck to the rock, they are constantly moving, and its liquid water at the bottom, not ice. You claim to know more than all the scientists in the world but you dont know a thing.

The ice was there before the date of your "flood" and it is still there. You cannot have it both ways. There just is no way that a flood could have left the ice intact. You know that.

You are in the position of someone so sure his business is a success that he wont believe the accounts books, when they show he is bankrupt. No, No, it cannot be!
Maybe the numbers crawled around on the pages while I slept! Maybe the ocean currents put my glacier back perfectly in its valley, after lifting it 5 miles and floating it about for months! ANYthing but face the truth.


Maybe you can break free now from your fantasy, and maybe not. I tho, will remind
you and any readers of this, if you keep trying to promote it.

ConfusedMan wrote: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.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:So ABC, do you know that the ice in Antarctica is well over 100,000 years old?
The ice goes down down below any dust such as you describe.

You will have to explain why the ice did not float away in your flood.

I understand you are heavily invested in your idea, but that is no excuse for being
dishonest with yourself and making up some "ad hoc" explanation with zero evidence.

Yes Audie,I am not a Young earth creationist,I know you reject the gap theory but it is what I accept at this point.the glacier problem seems problematic and cannot be glossed over but you do know that ice does not float under all conditions? You can take ice cubes from your freezer and put them in a metal bowl and put it in the freezer for a couple of hours,take it out and pour tap water on it and the ice at the bottom will stay clung to the bowl under the water until the bowls surface temperature rises enough to melt the bond,this is comparable to the bedrock the mountain glacier is fastened to. But even if it did happen to break lose the currents could possible hold it in place until the waters settled.

And even if the currents didnt hold glaciers in place never letting them melt or break apart and oh so carefully set them back just so on Greenland, Antarctica, each in its exact place in its valley and the mountain glaciers perfectly in theirs, you will make up something else. You do know that you just made up your excuse for the ice being there after your "flood"?

The glaciers are not stuck to the rock, they are constantly moving, and its liquid water at the bottom, not ice. You claim to know more than all the scientists in the world but you dont know a thing.

The ice was there before the date of your "flood" and it is still there. You cannot have it both ways. There just is no way that a flood could have left the ice intact. You know that.

You are in the position of someone so sure his business is a success that he wont believe the accounts books, when they show he is bankrupt. No, No, it cannot be!
Maybe the numbers crawled around on the pages while I slept! Maybe the ocean currents put my glacier back perfectly in its valley, after lifting it 5 miles and floating it about for months! ANYthing but face the truth.


Maybe you can break free now from your fantasy, and maybe not. I tho, will remind
you and any readers of this, if you keep trying to promote it.

Go ahead as I have not got into the evidence yet as I' m not casting it before swine.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:So ABC, do you know that the ice in Antarctica is well over 100,000 years old?
The ice goes down down below any dust such as you describe.

You will have to explain why the ice did not float away in your flood.

I understand you are heavily invested in your idea, but that is no excuse for being
dishonest with yourself and making up some "ad hoc" explanation with zero evidence.

Yes Audie,I am not a Young earth creationist,I know you reject the gap theory but it is what I accept at this point.the glacier problem seems problematic and cannot be glossed over but you do know that ice does not float under all conditions? You can take ice cubes from your freezer and put them in a metal bowl and put it in the freezer for a couple of hours,take it out and pour tap water on it and the ice at the bottom will stay clung to the bowl under the water until the bowls surface temperature rises enough to melt the bond,this is comparable to the bedrock the mountain glacier is fastened to. But even if it did happen to break lose the currents could possible hold it in place until the waters settled.

And even if the currents didnt hold glaciers in place never letting them melt or break apart and oh so carefully set them back just so on Greenland, Antarctica, each in its exact place in its valley and the mountain glaciers perfectly in theirs, you will make up something else. You do know that you just made up your excuse for the ice being there after your "flood"?

The glaciers are not stuck to the rock, they are constantly moving, and its liquid water at the bottom, not ice. You claim to know more than all the scientists in the world but you dont know a thing.

The ice was there before the date of your "flood" and it is still there. You cannot have it both ways. There just is no way that a flood could have left the ice intact. You know that.

You are in the position of someone so sure his business is a success that he wont believe the accounts books, when they show he is bankrupt. No, No, it cannot be!
Maybe the numbers crawled around on the pages while I slept! Maybe the ocean currents put my glacier back perfectly in its valley, after lifting it 5 miles and floating it about for months! ANYthing but face the truth.


Maybe you can break free now from your fantasy, and maybe not. I tho, will remind
you and any readers of this, if you keep trying to promote it.

Go ahead as I have not got into the evidence yet as I' m not casting it before swine.

Well, I didnt think your way of getting out of it would be to call names. That is contemptible.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:So ABC, do you know that the ice in Antarctica is well over 100,000 years old?
The ice goes down down below any dust such as you describe.

You will have to explain why the ice did not float away in your flood.

I understand you are heavily invested in your idea, but that is no excuse for being
dishonest with yourself and making up some "ad hoc" explanation with zero evidence.

Yes Audie,I am not a Young earth creationist,I know you reject the gap theory but it is what I accept at this point.the glacier problem seems problematic and cannot be glossed over but you do know that ice does not float under all conditions? You can take ice cubes from your freezer and put them in a metal bowl and put it in the freezer for a couple of hours,take it out and pour tap water on it and the ice at the bottom will stay clung to the bowl under the water until the bowls surface temperature rises enough to melt the bond,this is comparable to the bedrock the mountain glacier is fastened to. But even if it did happen to break lose the currents could possible hold it in place until the waters settled.

And even if the currents didnt hold glaciers in place never letting them melt or break apart and oh so carefully set them back just so on Greenland, Antarctica, each in its exact place in its valley and the mountain glaciers perfectly in theirs, you will make up something else. You do know that you just made up your excuse for the ice being there after your "flood"?

The glaciers are not stuck to the rock, they are constantly moving, and its liquid water at the bottom, not ice. You claim to know more than all the scientists in the world but you dont know a thing.

The ice was there before the date of your "flood" and it is still there. You cannot have it both ways. There just is no way that a flood could have left the ice intact. You know that.

You are in the position of someone so sure his business is a success that he wont believe the accounts books, when they show he is bankrupt. No, No, it cannot be!
Maybe the numbers crawled around on the pages while I slept! Maybe the ocean currents put my glacier back perfectly in its valley, after lifting it 5 miles and floating it about for months! ANYthing but face the truth.


Maybe you can break free now from your fantasy, and maybe not. I tho, will remind
you and any readers of this, if you keep trying to promote it.

Go ahead as I have not got into the evidence yet as I' m not casting it before swine.

Well, I didnt think your way of getting out of it would be to call names. That is contemptible.

Jesus warned about casting pearls before swine.I give evidence on my terms when it is appropriate to do it.All I was doing is trying to lay it out a little at a time but got hung up with doubt about the dates of the climate change.I did not really get into the evidence yet as I just gave a brief explanation.If people can't see that something catastrophic happened that dates to Noah' s flood then why go further? This is why I asked when did Noah' s flood happen?

Do you know about the coriolis force?

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.

Audie wrote: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.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote: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?

When I studied Physics we also studied Coriolis Force.

1over137 wrote:When I studied Physics we also studied Coriolis Force.

Everyone with a bit of education knows what the coriolis effect is.

But the magic powers ABC is seemingly attributing to it..


Maybe you can explain how it would protect hundreds of square miles of ice cap, keep it just exactly in place to settle down where it came from?

Just kidding.

Audie wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote: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.