Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Atheist Page VMSA vs God or Absurdity

Recently I made some comments on the militant atheist page VMSA (Virgin Mary Should've Aborted) with the desire to reach out to them with the truth of God's word and to challenge their absurd beliefs that are mocking the God of the Bible. I said I'd like to informally debate with them on our page, but apart from this comment they've yet to really engage in discussion. There has been some discussion that's taken place on their page but it's hard to follow the discussion as there are so many trolls on their page that it makes it difficult to have a proper conversation. The comment below was posted on our page in response to a discussion about the Global Flood. Their objections are absurd, but I've responded below. I challenge Andras to respond to the questions I've asked below.

Here is the continued discussion:

(I will highlight my response in bold.)

//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?

//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).

So response to his response!


The original comment from a Christian on the God or Absurdity page that started this discussion:

"I was debating athiest about Noah's flood...yea the creation and noah are popular with them. anyways we were debating the levels of earth water. the athiest said the earth can not be currently be flooded I said I know even the scriptures confirm that but water is used up. Do not forget the glaciers. I told her I live in Las Vegas and you can clearly see the significance of the water levels. Even the grand canyon is evidence of More water than before."

Him>>>>>"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.

//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).

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?).

// 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.


"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.

// 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."


More dishonest theatrics.
//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). The water temperature most likely would have been relatively warm due to the increased volcanic activity that would have most likely accompanied the Flood. 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?)

//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.

//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?

//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.

//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. 

" 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."
//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?).

"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.

//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?)

" 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.

"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.

// 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.

//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.

//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?)

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

//(laughs more)//

See comment above.

//There is that pesky isotope dating,//

Refuted above.

//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.

//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

//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.

//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?"

//(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?

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.

(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.

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.

//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.

//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//

Thanks for trying. Try again.
~ Brendan

For the continuation of this discussion see: Atheist Page VMSA vs GOA - Round 2.

For Further Reading / Research:

1 comment:

  1. Boy, these modern-day atheists are STUBBORN!!! Well done, God or Absurdity.