Saturday, April 25, 2015

Atheist Page VMSA vs GoA - Round 2

This is the continuation of the discussion / informal debate with the Atheist Facebook page VMSA (Virgin Mary Should've Aborted). As usual my responses will be in bold. (For round one see here.)

(I don't use this meme much but it sums things up well with this debate, and it's ironic because VMSA posted a similar meme accusing Creationists of doing this.)

//Round 2 with Gawd or Absurdity. Of course, he did not honor the request because of "too many troll"accusations. It is a thread site, Absurdy. It really is simple. Do not read what others post. Just read what I say.//

The too many trolls issue is a valid issue, especially on your page. Also I want this discussion to be recorded so that everyone can see the absurd lengths that people have to go to in order to deny the God they know exists but hate.

//As some are probably aware, there is an informal debate going on with this page, and a page called "Gawd or Absurdity".//

"It's God or Absurdity. You've got a really bad habit of being deliberately rude and offensive. But then why not do that if you've got no basis for morality?"

///Now, I like this. Because it is a prime example of Xtian superiority complex. That they think they are the sole creators of what they deem moral.////

That's nonsense.

///First off, ALL morals are subjective.///

So why are you complaining as if we've done something morally wrong? If all morals are subjective then nothing is objectively morally wrong - not even ISIS or Nazi atrocities - which is absurd.

///What is moral for one person, is not always the same for others. They are personal concepts.///

So what if my morality says it's ok to shoot you? Would that be fine? The debate would be over and I'd be the winner by default. Of course I'm not going to do that because in my worldview objective morality exists and murder is objectively morally wrong.

///In fact, your gawd you claim exists imposed what THEY deemed as morals too. So, that would mean they are subjective.///

I've heard this absurd and dishonest argument before, and it's total nonsense. Morality exists as a reflection of God's character and nature that is perfect and totally morally good. Nothing subjective about it.

///I will call it gawd, gosh, golly or bullshit(which it is).///

Out of bullets again? You can mock God now, but only because of His patience and love, but if you don't repent before you die and trust in Jesus Christ then you will face Him on judgment day. You won't be mocking then.

///You are doing what is called a tone argument, which is a fallacy. You are claiming offense to a term. This is not a formal debate. Either get over it and stick to the subject matter, or move on. And if you are going to talk about being rude, then you ignored my request to keep it here and not on a blog. For shame.///

If my argument was that you are wrong because of your rude tone then that would be fallacious, but I haven't argued that. I've just pointed out that you've got a bad habit of mocking and trying to be deliberately insulting. 

//I was over there and saw a HILARIOUS post about there was a world wide flood thus proving the myth of Noah's Ark as valid. Not being able to resist, I commented. Then the admin of the page, responded to my comments. Which reminds me, if you want to debate, Absurdy, keep it on the page, not posting it to your blog and then posting the link here. Thanks.//

"My name is Brendan Larsen and I'm posting this discussion on my blog because Facebook Community pages like we both operate are open forums, and I've found that when I post things on your page there are too many trolls and conversations end up getting lost in a sea of swearing and mockery. I also want this to stand as a record so that everyone can see the kind of absurdity and amorality that results when people reject the God they know exists but hate. (Romans 1)."

///And there you have it folks! Tone arguments mixed with claims of immorality and hurt feels. Like most cult mentalities, they think they are superior and are free to claim what is moral or not.///

Nonsense. But if that were the case is that objectively immoral?

///This is what faith based, cult thinking does. Which is why there are so many Xtian domestic terrorists. They have the same mindset.///

More nonsense. A Christian terrorist is an oxymoron as it's inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus whom we follow. You're getting confused with Islam. But why are you talking as if that's objectively morally wrong?

"God or Absurdity Virgin Mary Should've Aborted. So many knowledge claims that you can't substantiate. Spare us the theatrical laughter - you might fool others with it but not us."

Yours truly>>>//Uhh, the Grand Canyon is millions of years old//

"You can't know that. You assume that it is."


"Writing something in caps or shouting doesn't make it true."

///It is called emphasis. If I was text shouting EVERYTHING I POST WOULD BE IN CAPS LIKE THIS. So stick to the subject matter, and not tone arguments. Move on with your feels///

My point still stands, and you've yet to show how you know anything according to your worldview.

//We have radiometric dating of base rock. Then the sediment layers in the following order: Precambrian, Paleozoic and Cenozoic Lavas. All this puts it at around 6 million years. BUT geologists think it may be older.//

"Radiometric dating is built on many assumptions that cannot be proven. It must be taken by faith that it works, especially given the fact that every time tests on rocks that are known to be just a few years old have been done it has resulted in "dates" of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. If we can't trust dating of rocks of known age then it's absurd to trust it with rocks of unknown age. (See Radioactive "Dating" Failure)."

///This is a common lie put out by the "geniuses" of the Institute of Creation Research. Testing is accurate to within +/- fail of less than 80. It is reliable and fairly accurate.///

It's only as reliable as the assumptions, and in this case the assumptions are false and so leading you up the garden path into delusion.

///You claiming it does not work because you say it does not, is not even a valid argument. PSST! Any "failure" is an already discredited claim made by "creation scientists". There was a "project they tried on the Grand Canyon. It was laughed out and discredited. You can find it here: ///

Claiming something has been discredited doesn't make it so. Nor does laughing and mockery. Anyway, anything from the Talk Origins website is dubious. It's not peer reviewed and their claims have been debunked by the True Origins website.

///One more thing? Using terms like "creation science" is like saying one studied the "astrophysics of Santa's flying reindeer". It is not falsifiable as it does not follow scientific methodology. It goes in assuming its hypothesis is already conclusion: Gawd did it. So, fail.///

Creation science starts with the presupposition that the Bible is true, and experiments are done to confirm the truth of God's word. In contrast secular science starts with the presupposition that the human mind is generally reliable, nature is generally uniform, and that all things must be explained through naturalistic means. The problem you have is to account for the reliability of the human mind and the uniformity of nature - neither of which can be accounted for without God. By a priori ruling out the possibility of Genesis being true secular scientists are also assuming their worldview is true as if to say "God didn't do it" even though this cannot be proven. So, fail.

///I also want actual proof that radiometric dating on ALL isotopes is always inaccurate.///

You can't prove anything from science. See my blog post Why Science is Always False.

///Now if you bring up Austin's infamous experiment that it failed on sea life fossils, know that he mistakenly used Carbon 14 dating on them. Which you do NOT use on saline fossils. You use them on land based fossils.///

I'm not sure which experiment you are referring to. I provided one link that refutes dating in the previous post. Did you even read it? (Radioactive "Dating" Failure.)

"As for the sediment layers being used as evidence of the age, that is begging the question as to why you assume that all of the layers aren't evidence of rapid deposition during a global Flood. It has been shown from flow tests in tanks that sediment naturally separates into layers very quickly when it is being laid down by water, so all of the sediments from a biblical perspective are evidence of the global Flood. Also secular scientists say that there is 10 million years of missing layers in the Grand Canyon. Their ad hoc explanation is that it has been eroded away. But if this is the case why is there no evidence of erosion? (See Grand Canyon - What is the Message?)."

///One more time, Sedimentation layers show levels of eras of past eras as I mentioned.///

That's your assumption, but you're begging the question once again by assuming your conclusion and a priori ruling out a global Flood.

///Fossil records, isotope decay testing, etc., all show this.///

No, they don't.

///I want the names and the research of the supposed "secular" scientists you name.///

Why do I have to name secular scientists? Anyway, most Creation scientists work in the secular field too with their jobs. Tas Walker is one example of many who are highly respected in their fields but also happen to be creationists.

///I will ask again, either you back up your claims or we can call it quits. Not going to waste time arguing with someone with the mentality of a 4 year old who argues Santa exists.///

I already have backed up my claims. Proof doesn't equal persuasion. And to compare the creator God to Santa is absurd. Why don't you have a page dedicated to refuting Santa? The answer is because you know that God is the creator, and you hate him, but you know that Santa doesn't exist.

// and there was no little bit of water then as the levels rise and fall.//

"You assume that but that's extrapolating from the present back in to the past."


"Are you not familiar with the fallacy of uniformitarianism? This is the foundation of modern geology, but it is fallacious. The argument goes that the present is the key to the past, and that the present processes we see happening today have always happened this way. So you look at how the oceans are today and assume that they've always been like this in the past even millions of years ago. There is no way you have of knowing this. It's like seeing a tap dripping and assuming that it's always been dripping at the same rate."

///Wrong again. uniformitarianism is correct, but it is the fundies like you who STRAWMAN and give it the wrong definition. Geologists have NEVER stated it in the way you claim. That is called a fallacy of false definition.///

That's incorrect.

///All the common misconceptions and fallacies like the one you used are addressed here: ///

You're confusing things here by conceding that geologists are increasingly open to the idea of catastrophes in the past. But this undermines even further their reliance on uniformitarian assumptions for dating methods. In order to prove that dating methods are true and reliable you need to show that you know that the rates of things have been constant, but you can't know this and so all dating methods rely on the uniformitarian assumption. When it comes down to it you have faith in secular scientists and what they say, but my faith isn't in science. I know that evolution and deep time are false because they contradict the Bible, and I know that the Bible is true by revelation from God and by the impossibility of the contrary. How do you get truth without God? How do you account for truth? Do you even believe in absolute truth?


"More dishonest theatrics."

//Not at all. In total amazement of how badly the education system has failed the poster. Really.//

"That's what you've said but you've got your fingers on the scales. It's always easy to act surprised and make a big show of it rather than think things through."

///I agree. So you should practice what you preach.See what I said about your moral superiority comments.///

Projection much?

// And if there was a worldwide flood that placed the entire planet underwater, then: it would all be salt and brackish. No sea life or plants. No land plants.//

"Seeds can survive for long periods of time under water and other seeds would have floated above the water on clumps of floating land masses. It has surprised evolutionists to see how quickly places devastated by floods have regrown and that's assuming that God didn't do any miracles to regrow the land as he had done in the Garden of Eden."

///BUT your bible claims the entire planet was covered in water. NO land mass whatsoever. OOPS!///

The planet was entirely covered in water. This doesn't preclude relatively small floating clumps of land. 


"More dishonest theatrics."

///Not at all. I am finding it funny you continue to make all this up without any valid, scientific research that supports your hypothesis. Continue in this method, please.///

More mockery and strawman arguments. Out of bullets again?

//Please provide the empirical data that shows any LAND plants, that can survive under TONS of crushing water depths, and sub freezing temps under that water.//

"Plants didn't need to survive as sprouted plants. Their seeds only needed to survive, and seeds float. (Also Noah would have taken seeds with him on board the Ark)."

///Please show where he loaded seeds of EVERY plant life form on his tiny ark. And you realize, you just killed your argument about seeds surviving in crushing depths and long term exposure to saline. Nice goal post move.///

He didn't have to take seeds from every plant on Earth and the Ark wasn't tiny. Again, did you even bother to read the article in the previous post which explained all of this?

" The water temperature most likely would have been relatively warm due to the increased volcanic activity that would have most likely accompanied the Flood."

///(laughs) Uhhm, wut? Please post ANY data that any respected volcanologist would back that claim up. I will be looking for it on your next response.///

This article is from National Geographic: Mega-eruptions Caused Mass Extinction, Study Finds. Of course creationists disagree with the dating of studies like this, but this does confirm that in the past there has been at least one period of much greater volcanism. I'm sure you don't need me to explain to you that Mega eruptions around the world would have increased sea temperatures. The article states that this period of mega eruptions was when the earth was a single continent and at the time it broke up it caused this period of massively increased volcanism. This is exactly the same as the creationist model apart from the time it happened and the time frame it took to happen.

"Darwin himself did research into the problem of seed dispersal because it's a problem for evolutionists too - how to account for the great biodiversity we find on our planet. One observation Darwin made was how seeds can survive inside dead animal carcasses. (For more on this see How Did Plants Survive the Flood?)"

/// are saying EVERY animal Noah could squeeze into his ark,///

They weren't squeezed in. There was more than enough space on the Ark for the less than 16,000 required animals. (See here)

///ALL had seeds in them so when they died, they would rot and spread them out?///

I didn't say that but that's possible. I believe that most of the animals would have been put into hibernation during the year on the Ark. Again, did you read the article?

///You still did not give data to prove your claims about how they all magically made it to all the continents.///

No magic required. But here's an article to back that up: Migration After the Flood. It points out the many problems with the secular explanations of migration and biodiversity, and explains how they could have migrated around the world. One of the most likely explanations as I've mentioned before is log mat rafts. After the global Flood there would most likely have been billions of trees and clumps of land floating in the oceans, and this would have provided ideal rafts for migration to occur.

//Along with showing how it can survive being saturated in salt water.//

"Many seeds can survive for long periods of time in salt water, and as I've already mentioned some plants would have most likely survived on large floating clumps of land."

///See above comment about no land after the flood. And name these magical plants. Are they corn? Wheat? Beans? Because NONE of them can survive in saline for long. You also never addressed the fact that the seeds would SINK and be crushed under the atmospheric pressure of water. Nice try though.///

Again, these things were discussed in the article which you don't seem to have read. How do you know that corn, wheat, beans etc can't survive in salt water? (You haven't provided any research to back up that assertion along with your mocking tone, nor have you provided any research to show that they would have sunk.)

"Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water.  Indeed, salt water impedes the germination of some species so that the seed lasts better in salt water than fresh water. Other plants could have survived in floating vegetation masses, or on pumice from the volcanic activity. Pieces of many plants are capable of asexual sprouting.
Many plants could have survived as planned food stores on the Ark, or accidental inclusions in such food stores. Many seeds have devices for attaching themselves to animals, and some could have survived the Flood by this means. Others could have survived in the stomachs of the bloated, floating carcasses of dead herbivores.
The olive leaf brought back to Noah by the dove (Gen. 8:11) shows that plants were regenerating well before Noah and company left the Ark." (

//Then explain how all that water evaporated.//

It didn't. It drained off the continents at the end of the Flood when God raised up the continents and sank down the ocean basins. The Earth is covered by about 70% water, which is a testimony to the global Flood. How do you account for where so much water came from? Comets?"

///Uhh, show that the land ROSE in the bible. This I cannot wait for.///

Explained further down.

///And yep. It did. But not all of it in fact, we are bombarded with comets, you know, the things composed of mud and crystalized water? Yeah, they contribute some. Planetary cooling creating condensation, Condensation created by life forms (exhaled breath) over billions of years, But the most likely cause was the Great Oxygenation Event that created the bond of hydrogen (most common element in the universe) and oxygen. Hmm...remind me, WHAT is water composed of again?///

Roughly how many comets bombarded the earth in order to cover the world in 70% water? Exhaled breath isn't going to create a net gain in water because the only reason there is moisture in our breath is due to the fact that our bodies already contain water. Tell me more about this Great Oxygenation Event. It sounds like a fairytale to me. In order to have enough plants for that you need enough water in the first place for them to grow, so that can't be the main solution. Back to comets. Sounds absurd to me and takes way more faith to believe than the biblical account. 

(This article has related information: Origin of oxygen more complex than imagined).

///And FYI, they found water in other planets in our solar system, including the moon. So......cannot wait for your response.///

Please provide a reference when you make wild claims. I did a quick check and found lots of speculation but no solid evidence that could be considered "proof". Ironically most scientists believe that there was once massive flooding on Mars, despite having never found water there, but they reject the idea of massive flooding on earth despite there being water all around us.

//A flood of a day or so, does NOT cover the entire planet.//

"Have you not read the Bible? The book of Genesis has rain falling for 40 days and when we add up the time for the Flood it was about a whole 1 year. Most of the water most likely came from under the crust of the Earth. The Bible says that the fountains of the great deep were broken open."

///Oy, have I ever. Studied it for years. Sort of had to at one time.///

So how is it that you thought that the flood was only for a "day or so"?

///Anyway. Continuous rain for 40 days and nights would not flood the Earth. Let us look at the physics of it:///

The Bible doesn't say that the rain was the only source of water. It says that water also came from the ground from the breaking up of the fountains of the deep - subterranean water reservoirs. 

///Earth radius is 6,400 km. The radius in the peak of the flood had to be around, 9 km larger, in order to cover “all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven”.

So ;pull out a calculator: 6,409 raised to the power of 3 minus 6,400 raised to the power of 3 is what it would take to reach that.

Then you calculate hours in a day, by 40 and to meet that volume you would need rainfall of more than9,000 mm (350 inches) of rain per hour.

THAT much water pressure (the mass and speed and duration as a constant) would crush the ark. Crush the people, crush the animals.///

You don't know how high the highest mountains were before the Flood, so that just stuffed up your calculations. And the last part is just bizarre about crushing the Ark. The Ark was above the water floating on it, and I've already addressed the absurd claim about air pressure the other day. (See Did Noah Need Oxygen on the Ark - Answers in Genesis).

///One other thing? It rained for 40 days and nights in Juneau, Alaska. Is it underwater? D'oh!///

"all the fountains of the great deep burst forth..." (Genesis 7:11)

//And most floods are fresh water, not salt.//

I'm not sure what your point is here.

//There is a reason ancient armies would salt the land to keep crops from growing in places they invaded.//

That has nothing to do with the Flood.

//And you "assume" your gawd created a miracle? So got any evidence to go with that assumption?//

I never said that. What I was trying to say is that we can think of naturalistic explanations for much of what happened at the time of the Flood without needing to appeal to miracles, but God is a God of miracles and so we can't limit ourselves only to naturalistic explanations.

// Tell me how specific species such as those on the continent of Australia, get to Noah's Ark in the middle east, and made it back there again.//

"In the beginning the Bible hints that there was only one continent."

//Huh? Where in Genesis?//

"Genesis 1:9 (NIV) "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so."

"This seems to indicate only one continent and one ocean because it says that the water was "gathered to one place". This verse inspired Antonio Snider, a biblical creationist, to come up with the theory of continental drift in 1859. It wasn't until over 50 years later that other scientists even began to acknowledge that his theory could be right. Most scientists mocked it because it went against everything they'd believed prior to that - which is the same kind of thing that still happens today when any theories try to challenge the status quo or majority opinion."

///Indicate? No. You cherry picked. You also made the mistake of using the "updated" NIV, which was edited to try and make thing like Genesis seem less....bullshitty. The "land" is the entire planet. How do we know? From Darby and Strong's ORIGINAL translations:

7 And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so.

8 And God called the expanse Heavens. And there was evening, and there was morning—a second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together to one place, and let the dry [land] appear. And it was so.

10 And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.///

Different Bible translations are slightly different. You can't just look at one translation but it helps to look at a number of different translations and then the original Hebrew. These verses aren't totally clear and so that's why I said that they seem to indicate one land mass.

" The Bible says that God brought the animals to the Ark."

//Not it does not. It says NOAH brought them.//

Yes, it does say that God brought the animals to the Ark.

Genesis 6:20 (NIV) "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

///Like I said, NIV again. From the ORIGINAL ACTUAL translation, and not the edited NIV:

Of fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of each shall go in to thee, to keep [them] alive.///

There's no such thing as an original actual translation. Which one have you used? Even still the version you've used still supports my point.

///As in, Gawd tells Noah, you will go get them, and shove them in. Oops again!///

Do you know what the word eisegesis means?

//So.....Noah traveled the world and magically transported all the animals and insects of the world and shoved them all into a boat a little bigger than a football field?//

"That's a strawman argument. All of the animals and insects of the world didn't need to be on the Ark. It has been calculated that no more than 16,000 animals total would have needed to be on the Ark, and the size of the Ark was quite a bit bigger than a football field as well as having 3 levels inside. (See How Could Noah Fit The Animals On The Ark And Care For Them?)."

///Yeah, he did bring them all:

7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowl, and of everything that creeps on the ground,

9 there came two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God had commanded Noah.///

Are you reading something different from me?

///Size of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high). So yes not as big as 2 football fields, but still a little bigger than one. You really do not think things through.///

Plenty big enough. I'm not sure how you get to the non sequitur about not thinking things through.

///It also does not mention how food it would take to feed them all. What about the predators? What did he do about that? D'oh!///

Hibernation is one theory. God is able to do miracles remember. But they would have taken juveniles and food onto the Ark.

"After the flood there was most likely an ice age which would have created land bridges so that over the next few centuries animals would have been able to migrate around the world."

Umm...BAHAHAHA! More unsubstantiated supposition.//

"More intellectually dishonest mockery. It's the lowest form of debate, and is logically fallacious."

///Yet, you cannot prove it. Frustrating, huh? More tone arguments.///

Proof does not equal persuasion.

//Ice cores of poles taken recently, puts most ice age coverage at around 14000 years. Minimum. Noah's myth is around 4-5000 years old.//

"Ice cores are based on false uniformitarian assumptions, so the secular dates are wrong. (See Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?)"

Reread the post about the fallacies of uniformitarianism. You cannot prove them wrong. Saying they are, does not make it so.

" Also people would have introduced animals to different countries. "

//Yes. They brought them over in ships across oceans. ( Did you just kill your ice bridge claim?) And they did not bring 2 of everything in a boat smaller than the Queen Elizabeth.//

"I never said it would have happened in one boat in one trip."

///Nope. It would take thousands over hundreds of years, while keeping them alive long enough to breed.///

Incorrect. See above comments and articles.

"That's just a few ideas off the top of my head but there are other answers that resolve this question on CMI or AIG or other creationist websites."

//(laughs) So that is where you got your ideas that you cannot prove. Good job!//

"You do like to use intellectually dishonest debating methods don't you. Every time you mock it makes it seem like you've got no confidence in your arguments and so have to resort to mocking because at the end of the day that's all you've got."

///Outright lie by you. I post data that is verified and can link to it. Like I did here. More tone arguments again. Which is intellectually dishonest on your part.///

I think unbiased readers will be able to see who is being intellectually dishonest.

// Here is my fave. If the entire planet was covered in water, with no land, the highest peak on Earth is Mt. Everest, that is over 7 miles above sea level, or over 36,000 feet. Being that high up, there would be NO oxygen to speak of (couple that with all the plants being drown and no oxygen anyway), and EVERY animal and person would freeze to death. One, the other or both. (just laughs) -Andras//

"That's showing a basic lack of understanding of physics. Atmospheric pressure is related to sea level and so as the sea level rose around the world the height above sea level would mean that the oxygen would have been the same as on any ocean going trip."


"Once again - laughter isn't a refutation. You may find it funny but if you do it only shows that you haven't thought beyond your own presuppositions and worldview."

///When a grown man who has never opened a science book and makes shit up as they go and claim it as truth, says really dumb things, I laugh. Oh well.///

More intellectual dishonesty. You've also yet to account for truth in your worldview.

//Wrong! Did the atmosphere suddenly move UP from the sea level? No.//

"Yes, it would have and to deny that is to show a lack of understanding of basic science."

///Wrong. It would be compressed between the pressures layers of the stratosphere, ionosphere, etc.. As I explained the atmospheres would increase and oxygen and nitrogen levels would become toxic. This what happens to scuba divers when they get what is called the "bends".///

I can't believe that you're choosing this battle to die over. I suggest you talk with some other atheists or anyone who actually understands a bit about science.

POST EDIT: These articles are good: Did Noah Need Oxygen above the mountains? and Atmospheric Pressure - Wikipedia.)

//Atmospheric pressure would be compressed and would either crush them, or their lungs would pop like a balloon. Do not believe me? Take a ride on a jet and open the the door. See what happens.//

"Again, that's showing you don't understand basic science. (See Did Noah Need Oxygen on the Ark?)"

///Yep. You have no basic knowledge of science. Otherwise you would post WHY that could not happen, instead of telling me to read some creationist shit.///

Did you bother to read it? You might actually learn something.

" Also you are assuming that Mt Everest was that high before and during the flood."

//(laughs more)//

"See comment above."

///More tone argument.///

Have you done any study of logic?

//There is that pesky isotope dating,//

"Refuted above."

///No it was not. See my above your above and raise you another above.///

Yes, it was, but as I've mentioned already proof does not equal persuasion. And anyway, did you bother to read the article? 

//sediment layer and the mapping of the plates.//

"Sediments were laid down during the Flood. And if you're referring to Continental Drift and Plate Tectonics, creationists and evolutionists have basically the same theories but just disagree on the time frame required."

///No they do not agree. Actual GEOLOGISTS use observed data that plate tectonics do constantly shift. The fact you tried to tie"evolutionists" to geology is fucking hilarious///

Have you read any of the articles I've posted or ever done any actual reading of creationist articles or books in order to know what you're spouting? I'm not even sure if you've understood what I've said. I agree - plates do shift - creationists agree with that. The issue is how fast did they shift in the past.

//The Eurasian plate and the Indo-Australian plate-collided and pushed the rock sediment up. FYI, you do realize that the area is STILL rising at about 10 millimeters a year due to this constant pushing of plates, right? So this puts it at just over 60 million years old. D'oh!//

"How do you know that the rate the area is rising today has always been the same? (Again you're using the uniformitarian fallacy - See"

///(laughs) Addressed by an actual geology site above. And the fact it is STILL rising.///


//Also If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.//

"Where did I say I believe in the canopy theory? The canopy theory is an outdated theory that most creationists rejected years ago. It's mentioned here as one of the arguments that creationists should NOT use."

///But that is the ONLY way your worldwide flood theory would work. And bad news, Even Ken Hamm uses it.///

Ken Ham doesn't use the canopy theory, and as I've said above you're ignoring what the Bible says about the fountains of the deep.

//Again, being that close to the Ionosphere and the ozone layer, the temp would be subfreezing. Not to mention the fact cloud cover to produce the rain to flood the world to block out light. That contributes to freezing. Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.//

"You're still arguing a strawman. (For a more up to date discussion on where the water came from see here).

" It was only after the flood that God rose up the mountains and sank down the valleys and so the water drained into the oceans. Have you done any study of these issues, or do you only read militant atheist websites that use strawman arguments?"

///You really do not know what a strawman fallacy is. Can we agree you give me a definition of it first before we go on? Thanks.///

Misrepresenting a persons argument and then shooting down that non-existent argument. This is usually followed by people claiming victory when really all they've done is either shown their ignorance or their dishonesty.

//(laughs) Uhh, what?!?? Where is THAT in Genesis, Book 8? And strawman? Are you really this dumb? I mean.....really? Do you even know what one is?//

"Out of bullets?"

///Still you did not answer.///


"As for the rising of the mountains and sinking of the valleys at the end of the Flood, it doesn't say it in Genesis, but then I never claimed that it did. It says it in Psalm 104 which is clearly referring to the Flood.

Psalm 104:6-9 (ESV)
6You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
8The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
9You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.

///Wrong again. More recent editions that try and cover up the contradictions and inconsistencies.You also quote mined, which is lying. If you are going to lie, then we can stop now. That chapter has to do with praising gawd for CREATING the Earth. Also, Psalms
Darby and Strong literal translations:

Bless Jehovah, O my soul! Jehovah my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with majesty and splendour;

2 Covering thyself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent-curtain;—

3 Who layeth the beams of his upper chambers in the waters, who maketh clouds his chariot, who walketh upon the wings of the wind;

4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flame of fire.

5 He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever.

6 Thou hadst covered it with the deep, as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains:

7 At thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away;—

8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank, unto the place which thou hadst founded for them;—

9 Thou hast set a bound which they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth.///

This Psalm is clearly talking about the Flood. Just because a translation is more "literal" doesn't mean it's right. No translation is perfect. So to accuse me of lying is ridiculous. Anyway I thought you didn't believe in objective morality, so why are you acting as if you it's objectively wrong to lie?

POST EDIT: In the article that I posted previously (Did Noah Need Oxygen on the Ark) they discussed this exact passage from Psalm 104 and showed that the English translations are about 50/50 on how they translate this passage. However when you look at non-English translations and especially the actual Hebrew you can see clearly that the correct and most literal translation is that the valleys sank down and mountains rose up. The fact that you've missed this point shows that you haven't bothered to read all of the links I posted.

///You do realize that Psalms was written long after Genesis to address Canaanite inaccuracies with the flood myth right?///

That's not true. I do have a theology degree you know. I'm not sure what makes you think you're an expert in these matters.

///This bullshit is also mentioned in Isaiah. I asked where it was found in GENESIS. Makes sense it would be found there, and not "addressed" thousands of years later. Noted Hebrew scholars like Barker said as much. Oops again!///

I'm not sure what scholar you are referring to, but unfortunately these days many liberal scholars reject the plain truth of God's word. Many other Hebrew scholars though are creationists and accept a literal Genesis.

(When you say Genesis book 8, I assume you mean Genesis chapter 8.)

"Beyond all of this you are assuming that your reasoning is valid - how do you know that?

//Truer words my friend. Every single one of your "arguments" are based on personal supposition with no data or substantiated facts. Basically? You made it up. Just like your creationist sites did. Oh and the authors of the bible too. If you are going to actually debate, you have to bring facts and scientific data to the table, pal. Not "Here is what I think happened to prove the bullshit stories in the bible". I can prove all that I posted. So far, you are not doing too well.//

"You haven't answered my question. How do you know your reasoning is valid? I'm guessing that you've deliberately avoided the question because it exposes the absurdity of your worldview where you end up reasoning that your reasoning is valid, which is viciously circular and means that you're unable to know anything based on your worldview. In order to know things you're stealing from the biblical worldview where knowledge is possible."

///My reasoning is valid because I use reason and not faith. To reason we gain knowledge via our senses.///

So you use your reasoning to validate your reasoning, which is viciously circular. You end up reasoning that your reasoning is reliable, and sensing that your senses are valid, and remembering that your memory is reliable. So basically you have blind faith in your reasoning and assume that it's valid but have no basis for this assumption within your own worldview.

///If you claim you know X, but also state reasoning cannot be trusted, then you contradict yourself. It is called the fallacy of the stolen concept.///

And your reasoning cannot be trusted to know anything to any degree. Also why are contradictions absolutely wrong according to your worldview? You're appealing to laws of logic that make sense in my worldview but not in yours, so to wrongly accuse me of stealing any concepts is absurd. The only one stealing concepts is you - you're stealing from the biblical worldview where reasoning and logic can be accounted for. 

"As for the things I've said, I know that biblical creation and the Flood happened because the Bible teaches it. From this a scientific model is able to be constructed that accounts for the world we see. What we find in God's Word corresponds with what we see in God's world. We see sedimentary depositions around the world that are full of fossils that were buried during the Flood."

///No you did not. Creation science is a laughable term that has no basis in scientific methodology or reason. The conclusion in the premise. Not falsifiable. You posting your unsubstantiated claims proves that.///

You are wrong. Atheism is a laughable worldview that has no basis for science, logic or reason. You trying to use science, logic, and reason to argue against the biblical worldview proves that you know in your heart of hearts that God exists, because without God you cannot account for anything you claim to know.

//You did not use reason here.//

"That's an absurd accusation, especially given that you've yet to show why anyone can or should use reasoning that is valid and corresponds with reality. In the biblical worldview we have a reason for knowing that our reasoning is basically reliable - revelation from the God who made us all in His image with the ability to reason and know the world as it really is. You've yet to show how you know anything, or even how you know you aren't in the Matrix or a Hindu illusion."

///See STOLEN CONCEPT FALLACY again. Because you just shot down your own Hindu illusion argument.///

Stop stealing from the biblical worldview. I'm not arguing that I believe that we could be in the Matrix. I'm arguing that without God you cannot prove you are not, and therefore you cannot know anything according to your worldview.

//You used faith based thinking. You HOPE and WISH this is how it happened, but cannot prove any of it. Just "wishful thinking".//

Faith is not a blind leap in the dark against reason. It's the necessary presupposition to even begin to reason. (See my blog post on Faith)
//Try again. -Andras//

///(laughs) Faith is the belief in things as truth with no evidence to support it, and it faces contradiction. Reason is the polar opposite. ///

That's not biblical faith. Did you read my blog post on that? You've got no evidence to support your faith based views where you have blind faith in your own reasoning.

///You prove here that faith based thinking makes one irrational.///

That's nonsense. Your belief in the concepts of proof and rationality vs irrationality shows that you do know that God exists because these things can only be accounted for with God.

///You prove this by NOT actually researching the subject matter involved. You throw out really bad hypothesis, assuming the conclusion is the premise, without data. Just "I say it is wrong because it is!" You are the epitome of blind faith, my friend.///

Oh the irony. I think it will be clear to most people who has actually done their research here. Professed atheists are the epitome of blind faith my friend.

Thanks for trying. Try again.
~ Brendan"

///Round 3! -Andras///

If we go another round I really hope that you actually stop with the theatrics and unsubstantiated claims, and actually carefully and honestly interact with the arguments. But that might be expecting too much from someone who is an admin on a page that is set up deliberately to mock God, Christianity, and biblical morality, and in doing so is mocking the very foundations of logic, truth and reason.

I hope it's becoming clearer to you that the real issue isn't evidence but the underlying presuppositions that we bring to the evidence. This is why I want you to show me how you account for how you know your reasoning is valid, and how you account for logic and truth.



After this the "debate" descended into illogical ramblings from the professed atheists sprinkled with plenty of swearing, ranting, and the odd death wish (see bottom comment here).

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed." (John 3:19-20)

1 comment:

  1. You'vs proven nothing except that you expect to demand people to respect your beliefs when beliefs are not entitled to respect.