Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2070897
| From | Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, alt.religion.christian |
| Subject | Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You |
| Date | 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kilodb9llomas5ort1be9brrelt2krovrm@4ax.com> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <56Dllilkl63CD4.5Fluiluilui@7sinai.74> <fv4fdb19j2hbdkofhme9k2ri7uhilrr0e6@4ax.com> <56DB8mghmghmmg467.67E@mhmhmhjmhmh.com> <nsvndbdp7hlpo80fhikanaj4vohph4omqe@4ax.com> <56DC22BC.770@sinai.56> |
| Organization | TDC Totalloesninger |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 07:29:48 -0500, Moses <moses@sinai.56> wrote: >Malte Runz wrote: >> >> Moses wrote: >> >> >Malte Runz wrote: >> >> >> >> Moses wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Did it happen? Oh yes! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural >> >> >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that >> >> >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism. >> >> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged >> >> >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely >> >> >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's" >> >> >> >> >> > implementation. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have >> >> >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses >> >> >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface >> >> >> >of the earth with water. ... >> >> > >> >> >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it >> >> >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >i never said all evidence was erased ... >> > >> >> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one >> >> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago, >> >> because there is no evidence left. >> > >> >well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the >> >earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood. >> >> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like >> over the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with >> absolute certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even >> the tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can >> go all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that. > > >all i see here are your assertions to the contrary. Regarding what? > >we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it. You don't vote in science. Will you show me yours if I show you mine... evidence, that is? > >you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the available water Of course. The higher the mountains the more water had to be added and then subtracted. And we're way past absurd. > >but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can >pump the interior waters well up above the surface level You know what, I'm glad somebody finally says it like it is. 'It takes something that can brake the laws of nature to create the Flood. > >you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters. Why do you think I did that? Did you read the article? Did you read this: "The water is hidden inside a blue rock called ringwoodite that lies 700 kilometers underground in the mantle, the layer of hot rock between Earth’s surface and its core." > >the interference pushed it up and rained it down, ... You didn't read the article. All I had to do was hold out my fist, and you slammed your face into it (after I asked you not to sit on it). > ... very slowly and controlled and later >assuaged it away in a very controlled manner ... How did "the interference" get it back down 700 km, down in the Mantle back into the ringwoodite? Because that is where the water is now. It takes an omnipotent god, right. > ... and there was no massive pile of mud strewn >around, but, the water levels did change as you agree below. Have you ever looked at the cross section of a drained basin? Oh, sorry... Imagine a dried out puddle of water out in the fields. You'll notice the there is a small film of silt and clay articles covering the coarser material. Now imagine the whole globe covered in water. Strong currents (cutting canyons and shith) whirling up millions of tons of material. Let the water 'assuage away', and you telling me that there will not be a thick coat of silt and clay everywhere? > >gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions? Let me remind you of what you wrote above: *** > .. you fail to recognize that the interfering God can >pump the interior waters well up above the surface level *** Now tell me about my "bald assertions". > > > >> >now, the bereshith ... > >> > ... account does not say earthquakes and tsunamis and >> >violent cataclysms caused this flood >> >it says this flood was caused over a 40 day period where water was >> >pushed up from below ground and rained >> >from above, until the surface of the earth was covered in water, by an >> >interfering conscious being God, >> >and then the same water was allowed to return to its place and teh >> >surface of teh earth showed again. > >> >almost as if the earth was a fish tank with a pump of water underneath >> >and a source of water from above. >> >and slowly, the earth is inundated, and slowly the earth is dried off. > >> If anything like that had happened the Earth's surface would look >> nothing like it actually does. There is only one sane conclusion: >> There was no Noahtic Flood. Unless, of course, God used his powers to >> make it look like it never happened. > >and yet your own little blurb speaks of a lot of water under the surface > >https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/ >""A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered >deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from."" > >plenty of water to cover the surface of the earth. even if some is in hydrated rocks. 700 km down. That is where the water is now. If you claim that that water was the Noahic water, you must explain how it got back down into the rocks. I'm perfectly fine with you saying 'Goddidit'. That's honest and does not pretend to be scientific. 'Magic' is the word, and you own it. (snip) >> >if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what >> >would you expect to see? > >> A very thick, graded layer, with all the heavy materials at the bottom >> and the finer materials at the top. We would see dinosaurs bones mixed >> with elephant bones, trilobites and rabbits all mixed up. We don't see >> anything like that. What we see debunks the flood fable. > >the water didn't move a lot of mud around, it just slowly crept up >and slowly disappeared pushed by the interfering God. Bald assertion. No evidence to back it up. >i'm not saying that the fossil mud was caused by this flood. "the fossil mud"? > >you haven't shown otherwise. I'm confused, I must admit. What is it I have to show about "the fossil mud"? > > >> >bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and >> >earthquakes and violence. >> >just water up water down, and its over. >> >> Something that can be falsified by looking out of the window. And yes, >> the Flood myth is over and done. It didn't happen. > >you haven't falsified anything. Of course I can't falsify the supposed, magical works of an interfering god, who is not of this naturalistic world. But I can easily disprove that the Earth can have been covered in 8000 m of water, that is no longer present, by naturalistic means. > >looking out the window doesn't prove that water rose and water fell and >didn't convulse the planet. Then what would prove it? I know that an omnipotent god can do anything, but that doesn't prove it happened. So, Moses, what would prove your theory? > > >> >> > ... the earth has undergone lots of transformations,. >> >> >some may be remanants of a flood and some may not be. ... >> > >> >> Like what? What geological or geomorphological feature do you think >> >> might be remnant of, not just 'a flood', but 'the Flood'. That's what >> >> we're talking about. 'a flood' is trivial. > >> >easter island used to be easter mountain > >> Erosion. Get used to it. > >no, easter mountain was accessible from south america Easter Island is a volcanic island, formed roughly 750.000 years ago, formed over a so called hotspot underneath the Pacific Plate. This assertion is based on physical evidence, and does not require the workings of an omnipotent god. And that's why mine is bigger than yours, punk. >the water level was much lower, that's what enabled the manufacture and >moving of the statues >they weren't built by space aliens, they were carved and moved here on >earth by earth people >they just weren't confined to the small island at the time. the water >level was lower and more access was available. I know you're fluent in Gibberish, but I'm surprised to see you master Gobbledygook. The Easter Island volcano rises about 2000 meters above the seabed. There never was dry land between the islands and the South American continent. You have to look into things before you think it supports your ideas. > > >> >you used to be able to walk to australia. > >> During an ice age shitloads of water is 'tied up' in glaciers. Water >> levels were hundreds of meters lower. > > >right, the water levels are different, that's a change that can be noted. >you just have a different explanation for how the water levels increased. It's the naturalistic explanation, with all it's limits and boundaries. Every time you hid the limit of what is physically possible you invoke God. Big points for honesty, absolutely no points for scientific achievements. > > >> >the atlantic ocean used to be the atlantic river. >> >just remeber, even the molten earth crowd has to maintain >> >that all of the water that is on the earth now, was once in space. >> >so, it is possible that some extra water was in space. > >> Yes. There is a lot of water (ice, actually) in space. So what. There >> is a lot of water trapped in crystaline structures deep beneath the >> Earth's surface. >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/ > > >plenty of water to cover the surface Water comes up, water comes down. How? > > >> >but, i'm not with the molten earth crowd for several reasons, anyway. >> > >> >if the earth was molten, we'd have a more uniform dispersal of ores >> >and things like that and not huge pockets of ore here and there >> >scattered about the globe. > >> You obviously know very little about how matter behaves in various >> situations. Some materials crystalize before others (a matter of >> temparature, saturation, pressure and so on), and will either float to >> the top, like granite, or sink like heavy metals. The latter can be >> pushed up towards the surface as a result of techtonics. Is all this >> news to you? > >you still wouldn't see these pockets of ores like you see. Why not? >it would make more sense to say that this accretion disk formed slowly >and was never molten and continued to accrete after a globe was formed. Why would that make more sense? Do you know what happens with material when you apply pressure? >but, i don't hold to accretion disk theories, i have other theories. 'It's very thin in one end, thicker on the middle and very thin at the other end.' > >but, of course, if the earth was never molten, then the uranium clocks would >be meaningless and you have to at least try to maintain that the uranium >clocks are meaningful. > > >> >> > ... disentangling these is not obvious. >> > >> >> >but yes, that is some awesome God, with that i agree. >> > >> >> Yeah! High six, brother. >> > >> >do you think it's "wrong" for human beings to kill animals? >> >like cows and sharks and whatever else human beings may kill// >> >> OT. > > >not if the six fingered things weren't human. You missed the joke, that's all. (snip) >man's planned activities are not naturalistic, we will never agree on this so, >you can keep your understanding of naturalistic and i'll keep mine. > >a crows planned activities are not naturalistic i'm speaking of the activities >of natural forces that do not, themselves think and actually can be >predicted with precise certainty. > >gravity doesn't think, electricity doesn't think, entropy doesn't think >and you can very well predict their purely mechanical behavior. Because of the predictability of the behavior, we can make things happen, but neither man, nor crow can change the mechanical behavior of gravity, or the other forces. We're restricted by the laws of nature. I can boil a pot of water, and a puddle can evaporate. It's the same physics that turn liquid water into vapor, but are the two cases different? Is what you say basically, that sentience, intelligence and intent is not naturalistic? > >these living creatures have unpredictable behavior patterns. > >they do things that would run contrary to the natural predictable >pattern of gravity electromagnetism and decay I think I'd like an example at this point. > > >> > ... but i'd cite the emanation of the physical >> >universe itself >> >as a phenomenon that we cannot explain with metastable-state accident. >> >you can say; "accident" but you can't show me such an accident that >> >results in universes. > >> I never say accident. > > >then you can say on purpose It's not an accident that puddle water evaporates in the sunlight. It's not done on, or with, purpose. It's the same with universes. (snip) >> > >> >ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now >> >"naturalistic" according to you, > >> What else would you call it. > > >i'd call it conscious interference Consciousness is as 'naturalistic' as gravity or ringwoodite. > > > >> > and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic"... > >> As soon as you can show me that an interfering God exists, yes. > > >finger prints are there. Let's see them. Wait... I have to find them in my own head and my own heart, right? > > >> >now, you can cite it and not feel uncomfortable. >> > >> >you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with >> >gravity >> >and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to >> >produce >> >a living cell that does not as yet exist. >> >> Only the ignorant an uneducated would say that a living cell is the >> result of "a random scattering" of chemicals. Count me out. > > >i said, show me a living cell emerging from a random scattering of chemicals by the forces of gravity >and electromagnetism alone, because those are the only natural forces you have to play with. I don't do magic. Cells are not formed that way. >you'd have natural forces behaving as a device to produce the device that reproduces itself. Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBty_NCRmJk >the cell now uses its dna as a template to copy itself, but, you'd be claiming that gravity and >electromagnetism do this same assembling without the coded set of instructions that are required to replicate it now. I would never claim that. We know how modern cells form today. They divide, and it is not an accident every time it happens. Neither is there intent behind. Water evaporates, cells divide. This is really all about how life arose from dead material and forces, if it wasn't done by God, and you're dragging the 'suddenly a cell appeared by accident' strawman on the stage by his leg. Show some mercy, Moses, and let the poor bastard die in peace. > >you say natural forces write an algorithm, ... I doubt I said that. Algorithms are created with a specific purpose in mind, and there is neither purpose nor mind behind the natural forces. > .. but you can only say, > >"the algorithm exists, it must have written itself" There is no algorithm that makes matter behave the way it does. > > >> >as of now, you have an imaginary "first organism" as such a first >> >organism is not in evidence. >> > >> >if you could show me this "first organism" i might believe in it. >> >> I'm afraid it died 3.8 billion years ago. > > >so you have no evidence of it? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v384/n6604/abs/384055a0.html > > >> >> >and a God who consciously interferes and causes a thing that would not, and perhaps could not, have happened without >> >> >such interference, is not "naturalistic" according to my verbiage. ... >> > >> >> I see. 'Naturalistic mechanisms' means 'random and unguided >> >> mechanisms'. Mechanisms that can't built a Ferrari. Can't build life. >> > >> > >> >well, if all you have is gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical >> >elements, the elusive "heat" and light, >> >kindly explain how these natural forces, cause the components of a >> >living cell, gathered up from whatever source, >> >to behave as if they were part of a working device before that device is >> >working as if these forces were a little >> >machine to produce a device, the living call, that then requires itself >> >to reproduce itself. >> >just remember, you don't have this imaginary first cell in evidence, if >> >if you may just cite it as a given. > >> The first life was not a fully functional living cell like those we >> see today. > >and just don't happen to be available in the fossil record, so, you have >no evidence of them Nope. > > > >> I'm not going to explain to you the various hypothesis >> about abiogenesis. You can find it online yourself. > >you and your wild guesses aren't evidences Where are the fossils of Adam and Eve? -- Malte Runz
Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.55> - 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6y> - 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.54> - 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:48 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 07:42 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:41 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:30 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:29 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-09 01:12 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 19:18 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 18:00 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:44 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <forget@it.nw> - 2016-03-06 12:01 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 07:29 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 13:56 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:27 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:35 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:33 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:47 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 20:23 +0000
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:07 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 22:17 -0500
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:20 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:37 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-08 23:15 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 16:56 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:25 -0700
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:07 -0800
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 17:08 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:50 -0600
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 23:01 +0100
Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500
csiph-web