Evidence for God from Science

HappyFlappyDeist wrote: That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable.

News Flash!!! "God did it" is not scientifically accepted.

Ken
PS Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted previously?

Kenny wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote: That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable.

News Flash!!! "God did it" is not scientifically accepted.

Ken
PS Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted previously?

No kidding, never claimed it was either! Read, that's all I can say; go back and read. I'm not going to continually re-write my posts.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kenny wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote: That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable.

News Flash!!! "God did it" is not scientifically accepted.

Ken
PS Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted previously?

No kidding, never claimed it was either! Read, that's all I can say; go back and read. I'm not going to continually re-write my posts.

that's good. Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kenny wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote: That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable.

News Flash!!! "God did it" is not scientifically accepted.

Ken
PS Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted previously?

No kidding, never claimed it was either! Read, that's all I can say; go back and read. I'm not going to continually re-write my posts.

that's good. Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted?

Ken

Sure...... That being you described, that is the only one you'll ever call a God?

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kenny wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Kenny wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote: That quote in it's context was referring 2 the option between a truly finite universe and regressable infinite universe. One is currently scientifically accepted and has a very strong basis for belief, the other is pure horse dung and un-scientific as it's not testable.

News Flash!!! "God did it" is not scientifically accepted.

Ken
PS Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted previously?

No kidding, never claimed it was either! Read, that's all I can say; go back and read. I'm not going to continually re-write my posts.

that's good. Do you have an opinion on the rest of what I posted?

Ken

Sure...... That being you described, that is the only one you'll ever call a God?

If he didn't have a son named Jesus I'd understand that, but otherwise; yes.

K

In the dept of derailed threads, this one is about Noah's Ark.

The story is nonsense if taken as a world wide flood. This should be stone obvious.

Then there is the whole spectrum of beliefs about big floods and lesser floods and the Black Sea filling up or maybe the Euphrates topped its banks and well maybe its all allegorical anyway.

What else is there to say?

In the dept of derailed threads, this one is about Noah's Ark.

The story is nonsense if taken as a world wide flood. This should be stone obvious.

Then there is the whole spectrum of beliefs about big floods and lesser floods and the Black Sea filling up or maybe the Euphrates topped its banks and well maybe its all allegorical anyway.

What else is there to say?

I suppose the conversation was supposed be directed at whether or not the global flood is "stone-obvious nonsense."
ACB has been missing for a while so the conversation regarding that has devolved a bit.

I think we left off on "did water cover everything" or something of the sort.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

In the dept of derailed threads, this one is about Noah's Ark.

The story is nonsense if taken as a world wide flood. This should be stone obvious.

Then there is the whole spectrum of beliefs about big floods and lesser floods and the Black Sea filling up or maybe the Euphrates topped its banks and well maybe its all allegorical anyway.

What else is there to say?

I suppose the conversation was supposed be directed at whether or not the global flood is "stone-obvious nonsense."
ACB has been missing for a while so the conversation regarding that has devolved a bit.

I guess. I dont find it possible to have a sensible conversation with him anyway.

ABC, you say that there are sediments from a world wide flood that covered everything, including mountain tops, is that right?

Is this sediment found at the bottom of the ice, or it between layers?

When you post to me could you stick to the ideas, and skip all the editorializing?

This was the last question directed at the global flood (minus the could god do it/ did he do it debacle).

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

ABC, you say that there are sediments from a world wide flood that covered everything, including mountain tops, is that right?

Is this sediment found at the bottom of the ice, or it between layers?

When you post to me could you stick to the ideas, and skip all the editorializing?

This was the last question directed at the global flood (minus the could god do it/ did he do it debacle).

Oh..I guess that left nothing at all to say, did it?

Audie wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

ABC, you say that there are sediments from a world wide flood that covered everything, including mountain tops, is that right?

Is this sediment found at the bottom of the ice, or it between layers?

When you post to me could you stick to the ideas, and skip all the editorializing?

This was the last question directed at the global flood (minus the could god do it/ did he do it debacle).

Oh..I guess that left nothing at all to say, did it?

I'm sure we'll see one later today.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

Audie wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

ABC, you say that there are sediments from a world wide flood that covered everything, including mountain tops, is that right?

Is this sediment found at the bottom of the ice, or it between layers?

When you post to me could you stick to the ideas, and skip all the editorializing?

This was the last question directed at the global flood (minus the could god do it/ did he do it debacle).

Oh..I guess that left nothing at all to say, did it?

I'm sure we'll see one later today.

When you post to me could you stick to the ideas, and skip all the editorializing?

I dont believe in miracles.

Audie wrote:In the dept of derailed threads, this one is about Noah's Ark.

The story is nonsense if taken as a world wide flood. This should be stone obvious.

Then there is the whole spectrum of beliefs about big floods and lesser floods and the Black Sea filling up or maybe the Euphrates topped its banks and well maybe its all allegorical anyway.

What else is there to say?

Audie,I've explained a world wide climate change that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,etc and this climate change dates to Noah's flood.I even showed how certian civilization collapsed because of this climate change.Well let me perhaps give a little more evidence that shows the effect of Noah's flood from a different perspective.

If you want to?look at this link and see if you see the bottle necks that scientists have detected but just don't consider the bible and Noah's flood,and so it seems they are overlooking Noah's flood.Because Adam and Noah are better explanations for these bottle necks and it shows the effects of Noah's flood.First you had Adam then a flood came and then it was Noah.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-ma ... lture.html

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:In the dept of derailed threads, this one is about Noah's Ark.

The story is nonsense if taken as a world wide flood. This should be stone obvious.

Then there is the whole spectrum of beliefs about big floods and lesser floods and the Black Sea filling up or maybe the Euphrates topped its banks and well maybe its all allegorical anyway.

What else is there to say?

Audie,I've explained a world wide climate change that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,etc and this climate change dates to Noah's flood.I even showed how certian civilization collapsed because of this climate change.Well let me perhaps give a little more evidence that shows the effect of Noah's flood from a different perspective.

If you want to?look at this link and see if you see the bottle necks that scientists have detected but just don't consider the bible and Noah's flood,and so it seems they are overlooking Noah's flood.Because Adam and Noah are better explanations for these bottle necks and it shows the effects of Noah's flood.First you had Adam then a flood came and then it was Noah.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-ma ... lture.html

Now ABC, I made two simple requests that I'd like you to honour, for the sake
of worthwhile conversation.

Stay on topic.
No editorializing.

The op ed about what scientists overlook is editorializing.
The topic I asked about, and you've not addressed is your layer of dust in the ice.
Lets keep this super simple.

Just yes/no, please!
1. There was a lot of dust after a world wide flood?
2. Some of it ended up trapped in between layers of ice in Antarctica?

Just give me a simple answer, then we can look at some of the implications.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:In the dept of derailed threads, this one is about Noah's Ark.

The story is nonsense if taken as a world wide flood. This should be stone obvious.

Then there is the whole spectrum of beliefs about big floods and lesser floods and the Black Sea filling up or maybe the Euphrates topped its banks and well maybe its all allegorical anyway.

What else is there to say?

Audie,I've explained a world wide climate change that produced dust in the ice sheets,in the oceans,etc and this climate change dates to Noah's flood.I even showed how certian civilization collapsed because of this climate change.Well let me perhaps give a little more evidence that shows the effect of Noah's flood from a different perspective.

If you want to?look at this link and see if you see the bottle necks that scientists have detected but just don't consider the bible and Noah's flood,and so it seems they are overlooking Noah's flood.Because Adam and Noah are better explanations for these bottle necks and it shows the effects of Noah's flood.First you had Adam then a flood came and then it was Noah.

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-decline-ma ... lture.html

Now ABC, I made two simple requests that I'd like you to honour, for the sake
of worthwhile conversation.

Stay on topic.
No editorializing.

The op ed about what scientists overlook is editorializing.
The topic I asked about, and you've not addressed is your layer of dust in the ice.
Lets keep this super simple.

Just yes/no, please!
1. There was a lot of dust after a world wide flood?
2. Some of it ended up trapped in between layers of ice in Antarctica?

Just give me a simple answer, then we can look at some of the implications.

Yes,however I have not even got into a world wide flood yet.All I've been doing so far is showing that secular science detects world wide climate change that dates to the time of Noah's flood.It needs to be established first that secular science detects something catastrophic happened yet do not see any correlation with Noah's flood.I do believe in a global flood that covered the tops of the mountains but not every Christian agrees with a world wide flood.