Transitional / intermediate

[crochet1949]

"abelcainsbrother"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

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

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

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

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

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


haha

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

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

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


Audie -- I've come across 'this' -- your comment to acb about "Now, I do realize that you are married to your beliefs ..." and I was responding back "talk about someone being 'married' to their opinions".

And your comment "(keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib) -- acb's trying to talk about glaciers, Noah's ark bit. Your wording.

Is 'this' what you are referring to?

[crochet1949]

Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

[crochet1949]

Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

[abelcainsbrother]

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

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

Hi,Jac buddy. Does this mean you don't agree with a worldwide flood? The evidence is against it too much for you? I believe the bible teaches a world wide flood and so I have tried to find evidence for one. I realize it might be a different explanation for a world wide flood than you are used to,but I think overall the one I found is the most accurate from a biblical and scientific standpoint. I do add other evidence into it though that I find if it enhances this explanation,so it may not be entirely the same as the original explanation. And Jac,I have been wrong many of times and I still can get things wrong from time to time but I try to be as accurate as I can. I can admit I'm wrong about something if it is pointed out to me and unlike some. I gladly change my mind because I want to be as truthful as I can. I learn new things all the time too being on here.I also learn how to better make points too. Iron sharpens iron,so to speak. I like to be challenged too,I don't mind it.

[Kurieuo]

Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

[Audie]

Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

Might be a number system would help identify posts?

[crochet1949]

Audie -- so -- is the post I found and 'pulled up' -- the one you were referring to?

[crochet1949]

Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

So - I'm in Texas time -- so if someone from costal time? is responding and wants to retrieve a post -- it can't really be retrieved by the time. A person would be needing to scan through the previous posts. Which is how I managed to find Audies' -- it Would have been easier for Her to relocate the post she was concerned about and bring it up so I could re-read it.

[Audie]

"abelcainsbrother"]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

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

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

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

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

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


haha

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

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

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

Audie -- I've come across 'this' -- your comment to acb about "Now, I do realize that you are married to your beliefs ..." and I was responding back "talk about someone being 'married' to their opinions".

And your comment "(keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib) -- acb's trying to talk about glaciers, Noah's ark bit. Your wording.

Is 'this' what you are referring to?[/quote]

That is the one. Youvsure you want to pursue this?

[crochet1949]

I really don't see what there is To pursue -- unless it's the ice age thing. Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

[Audie]

I really don't see what there is To pursue -- unless it's the ice age thing. Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Not much I guess, if you wish to hold to the unfortunate things you decidrd to think about me.

As for "ice age" the picture you draw is not at all accurate, but I kind of dont think that is of intetest to you.

[hughfarey]

Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Apparently? What does "apparently" mean? It ought to mean "it is apparent that ..." but it is certainly not apparent to me. Is it apparent to you? On what basis?

[crochet1949]

I really don't see what there is To pursue -- unless it's the ice age thing. Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Not much I guess, if you wish to hold to the unfortunate things you decidrd to think about me.

As for "ice age" the picture you draw is not at all accurate, but I kind of dont think that is of intetest to you.

Okay -- What are those 'unfortunate things' I've decided to think about you?

[crochet1949]

Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Apparently? What does "apparently" mean? It ought to mean "it is apparent that ..." but it is certainly not apparent to me. Is it apparent to you? On what basis?

According to Google -- there have been several ice ages over the ages of time. I've never paid any attention to that because I've never considered that this world had been around all that time.

Okay-- we'll use Your phraseology. And it is Not apparent to Me, is it apparent to You? And on what basis?

I'll add that when the subject of ice ages Has been brought up -- it is in regards to supporting a very Old earth age -- as in millions / billions of evolutionary years because it supposedly took that long for all the beginning forms of life to develop into what we have Today which includes people. So - - which I don't hold to -- so I ignore it.

Having shared That -- 'is it apparent to You? and on what basis?

[hughfarey]

No, I don't understand that. There have indeed been several ice ages over the ages of time. But does Google say that any of them have been the result of a flood? That's what's not at all apparent to me. Is is apparent to you?