Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

He's the guy who found the Titanic...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#61  Postby monkeyboy » Dec 08, 2014 9:00 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:
Forgive me if I did not understand the comment about taxonomical sorting of species. By this do you mean that as one digs deeper into the strata the lower life forms are farther down and the higher life forms are closer to the surface?
If that is how I am to understand your comments on the issue then the flood would be the best explanation for this. As the waters rose lower life forms did not seek higher ground. They stayed where they were and were buried. The higher life forms went to higher ground and were buried last. That would explain why there are few if any humans in the fossil record. If that is not what was meant then please clarify.


Image
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5475
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#62  Postby laklak » Dec 08, 2014 9:04 pm

Fucking lol. One fundy told me that the reason dinosaurs were in deeper strata than hominids was because they were heavier.

Image
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#63  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 08, 2014 9:16 pm

I read that strata are dated by the type of fossils found and fossils are dated by the strata.

Is there anywhere in the world that the strata layers are found as described in the below graphic?

Image
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#64  Postby Varangian » Dec 08, 2014 11:38 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:And I fail to see how "name calling" refutes anything. " sadist, megalomanical god's eye" have nothing to do with this discussion as best I can see.

Blasphemy... the victimless crime...
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#65  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 09, 2014 12:26 am

Chris Putnam wrote:Wow! That generated a lot! Not unexpected though. Yet none of it convincing.


Well since you've already decided that mythological assertions are purportedly superior to hard scientific evidence, no one is in the least surprised to see you claim this.

Chris Putnam wrote:I just got back to my computer after the weekend, and I will churn out out my reply as the day goes on.


Cue the usual apologetic fabrications in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Chris Putnam wrote:Forgive me if I did not understand the comment about taxonomical sorting of species. By this do you mean that as one digs deeper into the strata the lower life forms are farther down and the higher life forms are closer to the surface?


No. This might have something to do with the fact that the organisms you refer to, in such typically non-rigorous language, as "lower life forms", continued producing descendants right the way through to the present. As a consequence, those descendants associated with a particular geological epoch, are always found in strata of that epoch. So, in the case of a clade of organisms whose first representatives appear in, say, the Ordovician, descendants first discovered in Devonian strata are almost always found subsequently in the same Devonian strata, and similarly descendants first discovered in much more recent Pliocene strata are almost always found subsequently in those same Pliocene strata. Only on rare occasions is the time frame for a given clade of organisms expanded, and only then by a fraction commensurate with the known epoch and the nesting level of the clade. An individual species may, very occasionally, have its time frame expanded by one or two million years, whilst a taxonomic Order might undergo a 10 or 15 million year expansion upon the discovery of new fossils, but we never find gross anomalies such as Pliocene era mammal fossils in Precambrian strata. Nor do we find so-called "lower life forms" from Pliocene strata turning up in Precambrian strata.

Chris Putnam wrote:If that is how I am to understand your comments on the issue


Except that as I've just explained above, your "understanding" is hopelessly incompetent.

Chris Putnam wrote:then the flood would be the best explanation for this.


Poppycock. As I shall demonstrate in a moment, after I've spent time laughing at your fatuous apologetic fabrications.

Chris Putnam wrote:As the waters rose lower life forms did not seek higher ground. They stayed where they were and were buried. The higher life forms went to higher ground and were buried last.


Er, slight problem with this ridiculously naive and simplistic view. Said problem centring upon insects, which happen to be something of a speciality of mine. In particular, I point you in the direction of organisms such as Meganeura monyi. Which, if you're not familiar with this, is an ancestor of modern Dragonflies, and an ancestor that, courtesy of possessing a wingspan of up to a metre in life, was eminently capable of flight. So according to your above apologetic fabrication, this organism, capable of flight, should have been one of those successfully reaching the highest ground ahead of many others lacking the power of flight. But, oh wait, Meganeura monyi is never found in strata dating to more recent epochs than the Carboniferous. Its fossils are always found in deeply buried Carboniferous strata. Whilst, wait for it, later descendants of this organism are found in later, more recent strata. This example on its own destroys your fatuous apologetics.

Chris Putnam wrote:That would explain why there are few if any humans in the fossil record.


Wrong. See above.

Chris Putnam wrote:If that is not what was meant then please clarify.


I just have. Do learn some actual facts here, before posting assertions that the rest of us regard as an embarassing spectacle.

Quite simply, the time and taxonomic sorting observed in the fossil record, includes temporally constrained members of those clades you laughingly refer to as "lower life forms. And, if you had actually bothered to read my previous post on this subject, you would have learned that this sorting includes pollen grains. Pollen grains associated with Carboniferous era proto-gymnosperms (e.g., ancestral conifer trees and cycads) are ONLY found in Carboniferous strata. Pollen grains associated with Triassic era cycads and Ginkgoales (ancestors of the modern day Maidenhair Tree) are ONLY found in the Triassic. Pollen grains associated with Cretaceous era proto-angiosperms are ONLY found in Cretaceous strata. This exquisite sorting is impossible to produce from a "global flood", unless you want to invoke magic, and good luck with that strategy. Once again, pay attention not only to that video clip I posted earlier, of the 2011 Sendai tsunami in action, which manifestly did NOT produce any "hydrologic sorting" (a creationist fantasy), but pay attention also to what is known about turbulent fluid flows, courtesy of the Navier-Stokes Equations. When you have a Navier-Stokes model replicating the required results in detail, then you'll be in a position to talk, but until then, your assertions are eminently discardable in the face of the known and verifiable facts.

Chris Putnam wrote:In answering Varangian, creatures in the water would have consumed them.


Except that, oh wait, the intact fossil remains of so many of these organisms tells us that this didn't happen.Scavengers have a habit of disturbing the articulation of anatomical parts during feeding, and, courtesy of something like 250 years of observsation of such phenomena by biologists, we know what sort of disarticulations arise from scavenger activity.

Plus, as I've already explained in some detail, your fantasy "global flood" would have exterminated vast swathes of marine and freshwater taxa wholesale if it had ever happened, and I provided sound reasons, based upon the known physiology of the relevant organisms, why this would have happened. First of all, huge numbers would have been killed by osmoregulatory shock, because the vast majority of aquatic organisms are stenohaline. In other words, they are restricted to living in either freshwater or marine habitats, and if these organisms are subject to the sort of large scale salinity changes that would have been a feature of the fantasy "global flood", they would have DIED within 24 hours. Some of them a lot more quickly. Just ask anyone who has kept an aquarium (as I have) what happens when you subject aquatic organisms to rapid water chemistry changes. My own experience of the physiology of aquatic organisms includes taking account of the high-maintenance needs of Corydoras panda, three generations of which I've bred successfully in captivity, and there is NO way I could have achieved that by being cavalier about the water chemistry these fishes were living in. It's even worse for coral reef fishes, all of which will die in about 12 hours if subject to the sort of massive water chemistry changes that would have arisen from the fantasy "global flood".

Then of course, we have the angiospermatous aquatic plants, almost all of which are freshwater, and almost all of which die if exposed to even modest concentrations of salt. All would have been exterminated wholesale if your fantasy "global flood" had ever happened, even before we take into account the dire effects of being buried under several million tons of silt. Even if some of them escaped burial under silt, they would still have died from osmoregulatory shock, and any few hardy ones that survived this, would then die as a result of being unable to photosynthesise, courtesy of being under an extra 9,000 metres of water. Ooops.

These are verifiable facts. All of which say that your fantasy "global flood" was a fantasy. Game Over.

Chris Putnam wrote:We would not expect this layer.


Actually, what those of us who paid attention in science classes would expect to see, if your fantasy "global flood" had actually happened, would be a disorganised fossil assemblage, embedded in a single, globally present, and extremely thick sedimentary layer, dating to recent age. The simple fact that we do not find this, but find an organised fossil layer, sorted by time and taxonomy, embedded within a multiplicity of strata of greatly varying ages, destroys the "global flood" fantasy. Once again, it's Game Over.

Chris Putnam wrote:And I fail to see how "name calling" refutes anything. " sadist, megalomanical god's eye" have nothing to do with this discussion as best I can see.


Except that, of course, that it is your favourite mythology, that not only asserts that the fantasy "global flood" happened for real, but that it was brought about because your magic man wanted to perform a Pol Pot style "Year Zero" on the entire planet and start over again. It is your favourite mythology that asserts this, and as a corollary, it is perfectly legitimate to point out the implications of those assertions actually being true. Namely, that your god was the most ruthlessly efficient murderer in existence, one that wiped out virtually all life on an entire planet. This is what your Bible actually says, if you bother to read it. Which should be giving you much pause for thought about whether or not [1] you want these assertions to be true, and [2] whether you want anything to do with an entity capable of this.

Chris Putnam wrote:Spearthrower seems to believe that the whole or majority of the Christians teachings are completely made up by liars and those propagating a false religion.


You manifestly don't understand the entire basis of our thinking. Namely, that it's not just your religion that suffers from being nothing more than a collection of unsupported mythological assertions, it's all of them. The only reason yours is subject to attention here, is because you are seeking to defend a special, privileged status for its assertions.

Chris Putnam wrote:They did not paint a positive portrait of themselves in the record. Liars usually try to make themselves look good.


We've seen enough creationists in action, to know that this assertion is once again wholly unsupported by evidence. This includes the professional liars for doctrine, who manifestly don't care how venal, corrupt, underhand or simply plain wicked, they appear to the rest of us.

Chris Putnam wrote:What is more distressing is that they convinced many people to die in this belief system who knew the whole thing was false.


Wouldn't be the first time people died for falsehoods.

Chris Putnam wrote:You might find people who would die for something that was wrong, but they would believe it to be true. These disciples died torturous deaths for something they knew was false. And they had nothing to gain from their fraud.


Oh, you mean "nothing" such as power?

Just take a look at the power wielded by religious figures around the world. You think anyone who saw a chance of helping themselves to a piece of that pie wouldn't strive to that end?

Let's just take one modern example of the sort of end result that has been achieved, by those successfully climbing the religious power politics greasy pole. In the form of Benny Hinn, a modern day televangelist, who managed to persuade the gullible rubes who hang on his every word, to pony up for thirty six million dollars' worth of private jet. Now if I tried bilking you for that kind of money, would you give it to me? No? Why not? Even if I was a representative for a research foundation, striving to combat malaria, and could present a raft of verifiable credentials establishing this, there is no way you would hand me this sort of money. Yet, those who climb the greasy pole of religious power politics, routinely acquire for themselves mansions, private jets, private yachts, huge stock exchange portfolios and the like. Even 2,000 years ago, religion was an easy route to riches for those willing to connive sufficiently. They might not have had private jets back then, but they still had palaces.

Moving on ...

Chris Putnam wrote:I'd like to ask anyone here these questions. Who was (is) Jesus Christ?


I'm not up to speed on the requisite scholarship, but what I know of that scholarship tells me that this individual was simply one of the more prominent of the apocalyptic preachers doing the rounds of 1st century Palestine. Prominent enough to attract the attention of the authorities. As for the supernatural assertions about this individual, I regard them as being as discardable as every other supernaturalist assertion.

Chris Putnam wrote:What do you believe about him?


I don't bother with "belief" full stop, because all too often, belief is nothing more than the uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. I prefer evidence.

The problem being, of course, that the body of text purporting to inform us about this individual's teachings, has an uncomfortably large number of contradictions to be truly reliable. See for example my exposition on Matthew 27.

Chris Putnam wrote:What did He teach? Who were the disciples? Who was the Apostle Paul?


Do you have something better to ask here? Something that requires a little more effort than looking up the requisite entries in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica?

I know I'm fond of educating people about elementary concepts, but that tends to happen when people demonstrate to me that they need it.

Chris Putnam wrote:Yes, I know there were issues raised in this discussion that I have not yet addressed. Specifically my comments about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.


I'd rather you address first some of those scientific facts I presented above, that destroy your "global flood" apologetics.

Chris Putnam wrote:None of the objections seemed to have been well thought through yet.


Oh, you mean the complete absence of any real evidence for this merely asserted event?

Chris Putnam wrote:Please be patient and I will do my best to address as many as I can.


Patience is something I've learned to nurture in my dealings with supernaturalists. All too often because they fail to deliver substantive answers.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#66  Postby Varangian » Dec 09, 2014 1:07 am

Chris, if you are a biblical literalist, you must agree with the dating of the mythical flood which places it in 2348 BCE. This was during the reign of pharaoh Teti, and didn't interrupt life in any degree. He could be laid to rest in his pyramid at Saqqara 15 years later. Must've been a very local flood, sparing Egypt... To the east, the flood didn't make any discernible impact on the rule of Sargon the Great in the Akkadian empire in Mesopotamia either. It seems the Assyrians were rather unimpressed, business being as usual while the people between Mesopotamia and Egypt were drowning...

As for your god being a sadistic megalomanical murderer, if he possessed enough magic to create a fossil record in very convincing strata, well, we can probably add "liar" and "deceiver" to his CV. And if he did posses that magic, then why didn't he just magick away the wickedness of the world instead of resetting his creation in the worst possible way? Could it be that the bible is a bunch of pig-ignorant ramblings by the priests of illiterate iron age goat herders?
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#67  Postby Weaver » Dec 09, 2014 3:23 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:...
Forgive me if I did not understand the comment about taxonomical sorting of species. By this do you mean that as one digs deeper into the strata the lower life forms are farther down and the higher life forms are closer to the surface? If that is how I am to understand your comments on the issue then the flood would be the best explanation for this. As the waters rose lower life forms did not seek higher ground. They stayed where they were and were buried. The higher life forms went to higher ground and were buried last. That would explain why there are few if any humans in the fossil record. If that is not what was meant then please clarify.

Now explain how a flood made that happen for animals and plants which lived in water, and didn't need to seek higher ground as they survived.

Then explain how it works that the animal fossils which were found in land strata aren't found with more complex forms only on mountains, but that the nature and original location of the strata is much more important.

We'll wait.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#68  Postby Weaver » Dec 09, 2014 3:36 pm

I'm always amused when people think they need to defend a purportedly all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-beneficent deity which transcends space, time and human understanding from "name calling."

The Abrahamic god was one of the worst examples of evil ever devised by man. It puts the most evil of men to utter shame - whether Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Hitler, or Mother Theresa - all evil in their own ways - this god goes light-years beyond their puny attempts, committing genocide many, many times over, racking up a death count beyond imagine, advocating infanticide and death for the most minor of offenses, advocating slavery - hell, even saying that a woman should be executed if she assist her husband in a fight by kicking the opponent in the nuts. Insane and sick beyond ken ...
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#69  Postby Chris Putnam » Dec 10, 2014 1:50 am

Hi Weaver. God does not need me to defend Him with regard to name calling. I'm sure He can take care of that Himself as He sees fit. I simply find it sad when supposed rational thinking people think "name calling" refutes an argument.
Also, what I observed earlier seems to hold up, and my evidence is a lifetime of observing this. Many people reject the God of the Bible because they despise Him. Not for lack of a reason to believe He is there.
I suppose that I must be incompetent with regard to the sciences and have not attempted to singularly build my case for a world wide flood on that. As I said before, scientists change their conclusions based on new studies and I see no need to abandon my position based on someones interpretation of the "facts". I spent today looking at websites and I own books by PH d scientists who believe in a world wide flood. There are plenty of them.
I have watched debates on this matter and creationism. Scientists disagree on the "facts". Frequently what follows is a debate about what legitimate scientists are. Are they trustworthy? This is what common "scientifically incompetent" people must do.
My son had a deadly cancer at the age of 4. I am not an MD much less a cancer specialist. Not all the doctors agreed on his treatment, yet I had to choose a protocol. To this day I do not know if I chose the right path.
I have built my case on the Biblical record. It is verified by the resurrection of Christ. So far the attempts presented in this forum to explain His empty tomb have been, in my opinion, less than feeble at best. Clearly those attempts are by those who have studied more science than Bible. But they have strong opinions about the Bible. Much the same as Bible scholars who have limited backgrounds in science having strong viewpoints about science.
Perhaps I am to much of an irritation to all of you. Pile on and tell me so. I'll stop participation in this forum.

Thank you, and I appreciate being challenged. It is a good thing.

Chris
Chris Putnam
 
Name: Chris Putnam
Posts: 65

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#70  Postby Onyx8 » Dec 10, 2014 1:57 am

Then you might try responding to some of the challenges rather than just repeating that the tomb was empty. You have read a story that the tomb was empty, besides the story you have no evidence whatsoever that the tomb even existed.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#71  Postby Weaver » Dec 10, 2014 3:26 am

You build your case on a book with massive known historical errors - in fact, so many that it is rather hard to glean any historical truths from it.

The global flood did not happen - no amount of wishing it did can change that. It certainly did not happen in the time the Bible claims it did, because there were people around the world leaving written histories then who didn't notice a fucking thing.

Many other bits of "history" from the Bible have been utterly debunked - Moses' great trek around the desert, for example - absolutely no archaeological evidence anywhere to support it, and if he had been wandering around with thousands of followers not only would they have left some trace, but they would have been forced to either find their way out or retrace their steps in less than a year max.

No record of Jesus from the time he supposedly lived - he was, according to the Bible, doing big flashy miracles all over the land, and royally pissing off the Jewish and Roman power elite - yet none of them mentioned anything about him anywhere. No, it's all down to people writing decades to centuries later, sometimes thousands of miles away - tell me, have you ever played the game of "telephone" to show how a story gets distorted as it is passed from one person to another? Yet you think the Bible is somehow true?

Finally, there's the utterly damning physical evidence - the world simply does not work the way the Bible claims it does, and every single bit of scientific evidence ever discovered anywhere refutes the Biblical claims, from DNA analysis to mitochondrial RNA tracking to geology to chemistry to math to physics - NOTHING in the Bible is true.

As to anger with your fantasy man - that's silly. How can we be angry with something we don't think exists? Are you angry with the Tooth Fairy because you cannot get a couple bucks by bashing your teeth out? Are you angry with Zeus for assuming the shape of a swan to fuck Leda?

We can be, however, angry with silly people who think they can point to the Bible and demonstrate a all-powerful, all-good, all-loving god, yet who simultaneously ignore all the evil done by that god and in his name - the repeated genocide of tribes and up to the entire species, the shifting rules of morality, the capricious way only those fortunate enough to be born within earshot of the little cult can gain admission to heaven while everyone else is subject to hellfire and damnation - the list goes on and on, but it's not angry at the fairy tale monster god, it's anger that people can be so evil that they would wish such shit upon their fellow humans.

One last thing - learn to format your stuff in paragraphs - your wall of text crap is difficult to read.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#72  Postby Jerome Da Gnome » Dec 10, 2014 4:53 am

Weaver wrote:I'm always amused when people think they need to defend a purportedly all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-beneficent deity which transcends space, time and human understanding from "name calling."


You don't have to believe in extraterrestrial nonsense to know evolution is bunk.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.
-Albert Camus
User avatar
Jerome Da Gnome
Banned User
 
Name: Jerome
Posts: 5719

Country: usa
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#73  Postby Weaver » Dec 10, 2014 5:04 am

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:
Weaver wrote:I'm always amused when people think they need to defend a purportedly all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-beneficent deity which transcends space, time and human understanding from "name calling."


You don't have to believe in extraterrestrial nonsense to know evolution is bunk.

I hope your trolling on this subject is better than your other trolling here.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#74  Postby Zadocfish2 » Dec 10, 2014 6:55 am

This comment has been removed.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#75  Postby Scot Dutchy » Dec 10, 2014 8:49 am

Hi Chris

I would not care too much about people like you. What I don't like is what you represent.
You represent institutions that have been responsible for state of the world we find ourselves in.
All the wars we have going on at present are based on religious conflict. Take religion out of the equation and the reason for conflict is gone.

It is just not the 41,000 different so called xtian sects and belief systems it is also the many islam sects and belief systems that have brought this planet to its present state.

Why is the pope talking to islamic leaders? Because he knows as do many xtian sect leaders their days are numbered. Xtianity like islam is dying. What does a dying animal do? It thrashes around as death is a very slow business.
You are doing the same Chris. Your belief system has no future. In America it is thrashing around as is Islam in the middle East.
Bringing up fables that are written in a book that is of no consequence may satisfied your terrorised mind but does not prove anything. How many people today are concerned one bit about a "great flood"?

In my country not many anymore remember the flood of 1953. We have now the defences in place so what is the problem.
Here in Europe all belief systems are fading away. Less and less are following men in dresses. The local catholic church (the only working one in this city) has moved its main mass from the church to a side chapel. Not enough people are attending anymore. Fancy buying a church? We have plenty to spare.

People following these discredited belief systems and sects are dinosaurs. They are becoming extinct and it is not a nice feeling. Their world is shattered and the only word left on their lips is "BUT".
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#76  Postby Varangian » Dec 10, 2014 8:53 am

Chris Putnam wrote:I suppose that I must be incompetent with regard to the sciences and have not attempted to singularly build my case for a world wide flood on that. As I said before, scientists change their conclusions based on new studies and I see no need to abandon my position based on someones interpretation of the "facts". I spent today looking at websites and I own books by PH d scientists who believe in a world wide flood. There are plenty of them.

Do they have their PhDs in the relevant fields? It is a common tactic among the duplicitous creationists to appeal to authority. Ever heard of Project Steve? Scientists adjust their theories as new facts turn up. You seem to think that the bible is inerrant, but there are thousands of interpretations of it and many hundreds of different translations. You have to rely on your and your pastor's interpretation of the biblical "facts".

Chris Putnam wrote:I have watched debates on this matter and creationism. Scientists disagree on the "facts". Frequently what follows is a debate about what legitimate scientists are. Are they trustworthy? This is what common "scientifically incompetent" people must do.

If there is a general concensus, one can most likely rely on the conclusions. If there is a controversy, one knows that there's science in progress.

Chris Putnam wrote:My son had a deadly cancer at the age of 4. I am not an MD much less a cancer specialist. Not all the doctors agreed on his treatment, yet I had to choose a protocol. To this day I do not know if I chose the right path.

I hope he survived. I note that you chose to listen to the doctors at least, and didn't rely on prayers like the Followers of Christ church. Also, regardless of the outcome, what do you think of a god that allows a child to develop cancer?

Chris Putnam wrote:I have built my case on the Biblical record. It is verified by the resurrection of Christ. So far the attempts presented in this forum to explain His empty tomb have been, in my opinion, less than feeble at best. Clearly those attempts are by those who have studied more science than Bible. But they have strong opinions about the Bible. Much the same as Bible scholars who have limited backgrounds in science having strong viewpoints about science.

As others have pointed out, Jesus, the tomb, the resurrection and the other mythical stuff hasn't been proved. Even the gospels don't agree on what happened. And what about the great zombie invasion of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:51)?

Chris Putnam wrote:Perhaps I am to much of an irritation to all of you. Pile on and tell me so. I'll stop participation in this forum.

Christian persecution complex. We've seen it before. You aren't unique; we've had several of your ilk here over the years. It isn't as much irritation as frustration that yet one more person has bought into the myths of the bible, and refuses to budge.

Chris Putnam wrote:Thank you, and I appreciate being challenged. It is a good thing.

Somehow, I suspect you regard this forum as a sort of lions' den to be braved so you can tell your friends that "I went to one of those atheist forums, but they couldn't present any convincing proof". You are too indoctrinated to really listen to differing views - or are you?
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#77  Postby Zadocfish2 » Dec 10, 2014 10:55 am

Also, regardless of the outcome, what do you think of a god that allows a child to develop cancer?


Just so you know, that's like a Creationist asking the question about there still being monkeys: a strawman at the very least. Diseases exist. People do bad things. The world isn't perfect, it's in a state of disrepair. Blaming God for the state of the world when it's the fault of the world we live in, and expecting to make an argument against Christianity of it, shows a total lack of knowledge as to the Faith's beliefs.

Also: Project Steve is hilarious. :grin: Goodness knows what the results would be if you took a census of all the "John" scientists, the meter would explode in a day...
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#78  Postby Scot Dutchy » Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:
Also, regardless of the outcome, what do you think of a god that allows a child to develop cancer?


Just so you know, that's like a Creationist asking the question about there still being monkeys: a strawman at the very least. Diseases exist. People do bad things. The world isn't perfect, it's in a state of disrepair. Blaming God for the state of the world when it's the fault of the world we live in, and expecting to make an argument against Christianity of it, shows a total lack of knowledge as to the Faith's beliefs.


No it does not. That is the whole point. Xtians go on and on about this wondrous power yet when asked why? No answer is given except "unless you have faith you cannot understand".

FFS! Cant they see how fucking stupid that is?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#79  Postby Zadocfish2 » Dec 10, 2014 11:05 am

No answer is given except "unless you have faith you cannot understand".


The answer is "The world is filled with bad things. This is because of choices man has made and the way other living things work. You want to place blame, place it on the disease that is causing the suffering, same as when a dog mauls somebody. You don't blame a higher power, you blame the dog (the disease) or the owner (humanity, stewards of the Earth). Why blame the landlord?"
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#80  Postby Scot Dutchy » Dec 10, 2014 11:14 am

Zadocfish2 wrote:
No answer is given except "unless you have faith you cannot understand".


The answer is "The world is filled with bad things. This is because of choices man has made and the way other living things work. You want to place blame, place it on the disease that is causing the suffering, same as when a dog mauls somebody. You don't blame a higher power, you blame the dog (the disease) or the owner (humanity, stewards of the Earth). Why blame the landlord?"


Who is blaming anyone that is a xtian concept. There is no landlord. I don't have the concept of stewards of the Earth that again is another xtian concept that is used to describe something that is intangible. There is no such thing. No super power. Nothing but that concept is totally outside the logic of the xtian mind. There must be an answer. A why.

Religion of any sort is only about one thing and that is power. Power over the minds of people. That is why the pope is talking to muslim leaders because both are losing power.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest