Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audi throughout history how many times has man been wrong in what he believed and thought was true? You believe a lot of things man believes that could be nonsense. It is much wiser to believe God over what man says and thinks is true. Atleast I have given you evidence that was discovered by global warming science that shows something catastrophic happened world wide and it dates to the time of Noah's flood. I never said it proves it,but it is evidence that we had a world wide drought and it dates to about 4500 years ago which is within the margin of error of when Noah's flood happened. World wide dust,in the ice sheets,etc. I know science does not examine it from a biblical perspective but at least we can see that something catastrophic happened that effected the world,no its not proof but evidence.

Ab, Ab, do you even try?

So because there are differing views you can't be apart of it? .

All due respect ab, but you are not reading for content.

So no. That is not remotely what I said. You are so wrong that it is not even upside down and backwards. Would you be part of a faith that required you to believe something that is just nonsense?

See if you can grasp that idea, and answer it. No preaching, no irrelevancies, just address that question

All you did was preaching and irrelevancies, and in no way addressed the question.

You did, btw, a nice job of disproving your silly "flood" by identifying a dust layer that you agree is about 4500 years old... with ice above, and ice below.


Just how exactly could there be ice, a hundred thousand and more years accumulation, below the so called flood?

Try using your brain for something besides holding your ears apart.

You know it is impossible for a global flood ala bible to have left the polar ice intact.

There is an epiphany trying hard to get out of the dusty layers of dogma.
Try letting it happen.

I'm an old earth creationist so yes there is ice below where we see the dust that shows a drought. You are just hung up on the ice staying intact but overlook that science detects a catastrophic world wide drought that dates to Noah's flood. It is evidence,you just are hung up on ice staying intact.I still have evidence for what I believe even if it is'nt proof. I also know that if the earth's surface could be levelled out and the deep trenches in the ocean were filled in the whole earth would be flooded,it could be shown on a computer simulation.So it is not impossible to believe.

I see you will never answer the original question, I suppose you do not understand it.

I am no more "hung up on" the ice than I am on two plus two is four. Quit trying to put your errors off on me.


The presence of ice older than you flood proves there was no flood.
You admitted the ice is older than your flood.
You cant get around that.

Why disgrace yourself further with this foolishness?

So the ice staying intact does away with the other evidence? You know the flood only lasted a year.You think it would melt all away?

All it takes to disprove any theory is one contrary fact. Say it is a murder case, prosecution theory is you did it in the parlor in Bangkok with an axe, and they pile up the evidence. IF you can prove you were in Paris, not Bangkok at the time, then yes, it does away with all the other evidence.

That is how it works in science, that is how it works in law. You keep trying to find one thing that disproves ToE. Remember?

One thing-not that there are not ever so many more-but one thing is all it takes to disprove your flood theory. Polar ice will serve fine.



No, I dont know the flood lasted a year. There was no flood.

BUT, IF a had happened as you say, the ice would have been floated off.
Broken up, drifted away, gone.

Ice floats. Ice floats. Ice floats. Say it to yourself.

But it is still there. It did not float.

Oh, and the C14 dating etc does not show a sudden gap in the ice either, so dont claim the ice stayed stuck down and only some melted off the top.

Are you going to explode if you admit you are wrong?

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

Ab, Ab, do you even try?




All due respect ab, but you are not reading for content.

So no. That is not remotely what I said. You are so wrong that it is not even upside down and backwards. Would you be part of a faith that required you to believe something that is just nonsense?

See if you can grasp that idea, and answer it. No preaching, no irrelevancies, just address that question

All you did was preaching and irrelevancies, and in no way addressed the question.

You did, btw, a nice job of disproving your silly "flood" by identifying a dust layer that you agree is about 4500 years old... with ice above, and ice below.


Just how exactly could there be ice, a hundred thousand and more years accumulation, below the so called flood?

Try using your brain for something besides holding your ears apart.

You know it is impossible for a global flood ala bible to have left the polar ice intact.

There is an epiphany trying hard to get out of the dusty layers of dogma.
Try letting it happen.

I'm an old earth creationist so yes there is ice below where we see the dust that shows a drought. You are just hung up on the ice staying intact but overlook that science detects a catastrophic world wide drought that dates to Noah's flood. It is evidence,you just are hung up on ice staying intact.I still have evidence for what I believe even if it is'nt proof. I also know that if the earth's surface could be levelled out and the deep trenches in the ocean were filled in the whole earth would be flooded,it could be shown on a computer simulation.So it is not impossible to believe.

I see you will never answer the original question, I suppose you do not understand it.

I am no more "hung up on" the ice than I am on two plus two is four. Quit trying to put your errors off on me.


The presence of ice older than you flood proves there was no flood.
You admitted the ice is older than your flood.
You cant get around that.

Why disgrace yourself further with this foolishness?

So the ice staying intact does away with the other evidence? You know the flood only lasted a year.You think it would melt all away?

All it takes to disprove any theory is one contrary fact. Say it is a murder case, prosecution theory is you did it in the parlor in Bangkok with an axe, and they pile up the evidence. IF you can prove you were in Paris, not Bangkok at the time, then yes, it does away with all the other evidence.

That is how it works in science, that is how it works in law. You keep trying to find one thing that disproves ToE. Remember?

One thing-not that there are not ever so many more-but one thing is all it takes to disprove your flood theory. Polar ice will serve fine.



No, I dont know the flood lasted a year. There was no flood.

BUT, IF a had happened as you say, the ice would have been floated off.
Broken up, drifted away, gone.

Ice floats. Ice floats. Ice floats. Say it to yourself.

But it is still there. It did not float.

Oh, and the C14 dating etc does not show a sudden gap in the ice either, so dont claim the ice stayed stuck down and only some melted off the top.

Are you going to explode if you admit you are wrong?

As for the ToE not only did I give you plenty of reasons to reject it I offered you a much,much more believable theory based on much of the very same evidence like the life you believe evolved into the life in this world was simply the life that existed in the former world.Yes,there is evidence of a gap but I'm not getting into it in this thread. I simply been making a case for Noah's flood and how it is not so impossible to believe like you think. Look I can only give evidence and reasons why I believe it happened,but I cannot change your mind.There are ways to see the ice would remain intact with only partial melt and it not float away like you think.It would depend on how long it was covered and with the water pressing down on the earth's surface it may not have been that long.Ice does not always float also,it can remain intact stuck to the bottom.

abelcainsbrother wrote:d.There are ways to see the ice would remain intact with only partial melt and it not float away like you think.It would depend on how long it was covered and with the water pressing down on the earth's surface it may not have been that long.Ice does not always float also,it can remain intact stuck to the bottom.

"how long it was covered"

You have claimed your flood lasted a year, but the concept of the ice being covered in nonsense anyway.

By "covered' you mean, how long the ice was underwater? Ice floats, it wont stay underwater. So the time elapsed while "covered" would be zero. And of course, the antarctic ice is five miles thick, sloping toward the sea; so if the water rose around it, large piece would keep breaking off around the edges as they started to submerge.

Ice does not always float

Ice floats The antarctic ice shelf is floating today, and
has been there for many many thousands of years. Icebergs come from glaciers. They float. Simple physics. Ice floats. Then it melts.

it can remain intact stuck to the bottom

The ice shelves are not stuck down. The continental glaciers are not stuck down. The are in constant motion and it is liquid water at the bottom. Liquid. Water. Not stuck.

Each of the things you suggest (make up) is impossible.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:d.There are ways to see the ice would remain intact with only partial melt and it not float away like you think.It would depend on how long it was covered and with the water pressing down on the earth's surface it may not have been that long.Ice does not always float also,it can remain intact stuck to the bottom.

"how long it was covered"

You have claimed your flood lasted a year, but the concept of the ice being covered in nonsense anyway.

By "covered' you mean, how long the ice was underwater? Ice floats, it wont stay underwater. So the time elapsed while "covered" would be zero. And of course, the antarctic ice is five miles thick, sloping toward the sea; so if the water rose around it, large piece would keep breaking off around the edges as they started to submerge.

Ice does not always float

Ice floats The antarctic ice shelf is floating today, and
has been there for many many thousands of years. Icebergs come from glaciers. They float. Simple physics. Ice floats. Then it melts.

it can remain intact stuck to the bottom

The ice shelves are not stuck down. The continental glaciers are not stuck down. The are in constant motion and it is liquid water at the bottom. Liquid. Water. Not stuck.

Each of the things you suggest (make up) is impossible.

You've got your mind made up it is impossible and so not even evidence can change your mind.I still choose to believe God over man because man cannot always be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times throughout history.At least I have evidence for what I believe,it is not based on blind faith and it is scientifically valid also even if it is'nt proof.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:d.There are ways to see the ice would remain intact with only partial melt and it not float away like you think.It would depend on how long it was covered and with the water pressing down on the earth's surface it may not have been that long.Ice does not always float also,it can remain intact stuck to the bottom.

"how long it was covered"

You have claimed your flood lasted a year, but the concept of the ice being covered in nonsense anyway.

By "covered' you mean, how long the ice was underwater? Ice floats, it wont stay underwater. So the time elapsed while "covered" would be zero. And of course, the antarctic ice is five miles thick, sloping toward the sea; so if the water rose around it, large piece would keep breaking off around the edges as they started to submerge.

Ice does not always float

Ice floats The antarctic ice shelf is floating today, and
has been there for many many thousands of years. Icebergs come from glaciers. They float. Simple physics. Ice floats. Then it melts.

it can remain intact stuck to the bottom

The ice shelves are not stuck down. The continental glaciers are not stuck down. The are in constant motion and it is liquid water at the bottom. Liquid. Water. Not stuck.

Each of the things you suggest (make up) is impossible.

You've got your mind made up it is impossible and so not even evidence can change your mind.I still choose to believe God over man because man cannot always be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times throughout history.At least I have evidence for what I believe,it is not based on blind faith and it is scientifically valid also even if it is'nt proof.

Oh right. You just cannot trust ice to float. And those who ssy it does?
Why that is blind faith, and anyway god says it dont float.

Am I the only one who notices that "conversations" between Audie and ACB, go absolutely nowhere?

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:d.There are ways to see the ice would remain intact with only partial melt and it not float away like you think.It would depend on how long it was covered and with the water pressing down on the earth's surface it may not have been that long.Ice does not always float also,it can remain intact stuck to the bottom.

"how long it was covered"

You have claimed your flood lasted a year, but the concept of the ice being covered in nonsense anyway.

By "covered' you mean, how long the ice was underwater? Ice floats, it wont stay underwater. So the time elapsed while "covered" would be zero. And of course, the antarctic ice is five miles thick, sloping toward the sea; so if the water rose around it, large piece would keep breaking off around the edges as they started to submerge.

Ice does not always float

Ice floats The antarctic ice shelf is floating today, and
has been there for many many thousands of years. Icebergs come from glaciers. They float. Simple physics. Ice floats. Then it melts.

it can remain intact stuck to the bottom

The ice shelves are not stuck down. The continental glaciers are not stuck down. The are in constant motion and it is liquid water at the bottom. Liquid. Water. Not stuck.

Each of the things you suggest (make up) is impossible.

You've got your mind made up it is impossible and so not even evidence can change your mind.I still choose to believe God over man because man cannot always be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times throughout history.At least I have evidence for what I believe,it is not based on blind faith and it is scientifically valid also even if it is'nt proof.

Oh right. You just cannot trust ice to float. And those who ssy it does?
Why that is blind faith, and anyway god says it dont float.

You overlooked what I said.You need to acknowledge ice does not always float,it can float,but it can also stay stuck to the bottom.I also mentioned other evidence also.

RickD wrote:Am I the only one who notices that "conversations" between Audie and ACB, go absolutely nowhere?

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

Thanks. I needed that. I signed on to ask someone to stop me.
You got here first.

I wouldnt quite say it went nowhere tho. I found out that ab is the discoverer
of Facultative Flotation In Polar Ice, ( FFIPI) which is a rather dramatic advance in physics.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:d.There are ways to see the ice would remain intact with only partial melt and it not float away like you think.It would depend on how long it was covered and with the water pressing down on the earth's surface it may not have been that long.Ice does not always float also,it can remain intact stuck to the bottom.

"how long it was covered"

You have claimed your flood lasted a year, but the concept of the ice being covered in nonsense anyway.

By "covered' you mean, how long the ice was underwater? Ice floats, it wont stay underwater. So the time elapsed while "covered" would be zero. And of course, the antarctic ice is five miles thick, sloping toward the sea; so if the water rose around it, large piece would keep breaking off around the edges as they started to submerge.

Ice does not always float

Ice floats The antarctic ice shelf is floating today, and
has been there for many many thousands of years. Icebergs come from glaciers. They float. Simple physics. Ice floats. Then it melts.

it can remain intact stuck to the bottom

The ice shelves are not stuck down. The continental glaciers are not stuck down. The are in constant motion and it is liquid water at the bottom. Liquid. Water. Not stuck.

Each of the things you suggest (make up) is impossible.

You've got your mind made up it is impossible and so not even evidence can change your mind.I still choose to believe God over man because man cannot always be trusted to tell the truth and has been wrong so many times throughout history.At least I have evidence for what I believe,it is not based on blind faith and it is scientifically valid also even if it is'nt proof.

Oh right. You just cannot trust ice to float. And those who ssy it does?
Why that is blind faith, and anyway god says it dont float.

You overlooked what I said.You need to acknowledge ice does not always float,it can float,but it can also stay stuck to the bottom.I also mentioned other evidence also.

No I did not overlook that. You are simply wrong, and I saidvwhy. The polar ice is not "stuck". It is moving constantly
and rests on a layer of liquid water at the bottom. Those are observed facts.
It is also a fact that ice floats. Your faith now relies on you inventing a kind of ice
that wont float. Honestly, people in America!

Quit making yourself look so silly. You are making me look bad too, its like I am beating up a puppy

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

-Mark Twain


I'll let you two argue over who is the fool, and who is the one arguing with the fool.*



*I hope you both know that I'm kidding. I don't think either one of you is a fool.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Am I the only one who notices that "conversations" between Audie and ACB, go absolutely nowhere?

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

Thanks. I needed that. I signed on to ask someone to stop me.
You got here first.

I wouldnt quite say it went nowhere tho. I found out that ab is the discoverer
of Facultative Flotation In Polar Ice, ( FFIPI) which is a rather dramatic advance in physics.

I never denied ice can float,nor do I deny the continental ice glaciers kinda moves around.Everything I've said and the evidence I've mentioned is scientifically valid.It is not just made up Mumbo-Jumbo to defend a world wide flood. It would be easier for me to just accept a local flood but I'm just not there.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Am I the only one who notices that "conversations" between Audie and ACB, go absolutely nowhere?

Isn't the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result?

Thanks. I needed that. I signed on to ask someone to stop me.
You got here first.

I wouldnt quite say it went nowhere tho. I found out that ab is the discoverer
of Facultative Flotation In Polar Ice, ( FFIPI) which is a rather dramatic advance in physics.

I never denied ice can float,nor do I deny the continental ice glaciers kinda moves around.Everything I've said and the evidence I've mentioned is scientifically valid.It is not just made up Mumbo-Jumbo to defend a world wide flood. It would be easier for me to just accept a local flood but I'm just not there.

Why is so hard for you to accept the obvious? The ice is not stuck down.
Correct?

If you flooded it, it would float. Correct?

It was there before the date of your flood, and it is there now.

In court, you'd be in a very awkward position

So what is your non- mum jum explanation, scientifically valid, backed by solid data.

The jury is waiting for your story.

Here is a brief scientific case for a world wide flood. It is not technical but is scientifically valid. I believe before Noah's flood there was not as much water on the surface of the earth,the oceans were not as deep as they are now. And the water on this earth came from inside the earth like a geyser shooting heated water out of the earth. There was a break in the earth's crust at the bottom of the now ocean,the water shot up out of the earth and into the atmosphere where it cooled and condensed into rain. The water level was rising before it started to rain also your bible tells you. As this water shot up out of the earth the weight of the water pushed down on the earth's surface,for every action there's a reaction,but the water level rose up and the whole earth was flooded and the weight of the water crushed down on the earth's surface pushing it down causing the very deep trenches in the oceans we see which allowed the water level to slowly lower. This is why if we could level out the earth's surface the water level would rise again flooding the whole earth again.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Here is a brief scientific case for a world wide flood. It is not technical but is scientifically valid. I believe before Noah's flood there was not as much water on the surface of the earth,the oceans were not as deep as they are now. And the water on this earth came from inside the earth like a geyser shooting heated water out of the earth. There was a break in the earth's crust at the bottom of the now ocean,the water shot up out of the earth and into the atmosphere where it cooled and condensed into rain. The water level was rising before it started to rain also your bible tells you. As this water shot up out of the earth the weight of the water pushed down on the earth's surface,for every action there's a reaction,but the water level rose up and the whole earth was flooded and the weight of the water crushed down on the earth's surface pushing it down causing the very deep trenches in the oceans we see which allowed the water level to slowly lower. This is why if we could level out the earth's surface the water level would rise again flooding the whole earth again.

Nothing there to explain how the ice did not float or melt.

Stay on topic: you said dust in ice is flood evidence.

I said it cannot be because a global flood o'er all the land would
float the ice away

Simple, easy observations,, very basic.

What evidence (data) do you have to show against that?

To interject a thought or two -- waters came Up from under the ground And it also rained from above. Atmospheric conditions were a Lot different before than after the world-wide flood. And, yes, I DO believe it was a world-wide flood Because of the reasons For the global flooding.
And, yes, ice Can float. Fill a glass with ice and add a beverage -- the ice does float -- and depending on how much ice is in the container -- some of it could possibly get stuck at the bottom of the container because there's More material / ice Above it. And depending on the temp --it might Stay ice for a Long time or it could melt depending on the environment.

If there's a global flood -- Everywhere flooded -- where is the ice supposed to be able to float away To. It Will gradually Melt -- just like being in a snow blizzard -- tons of snow falls -- again and again -- it piles up -- Eventually it Melts away -- as the temperature gets warmer - many times causing local flooding.

One more comment -- volcanoes erupt and produce lava and Ash -- and that Can produce a dust-like layer on the ground and on everything around the area. Part of the result of the underground areas being moved around could cause earthquakes and volcanos. Which is what happened as the waters way underground were being brought up to the surface.