If God doesn't exist...

[hobelim]

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

 

[Hollie]

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

 

[hobelim]

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

 

[Hollie]

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

 

[Hollie]

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

A hypothesis is not evidence. You will notice that hypothesis and evidence are spelled differently suggesting they are different words with different connotations / meanings.

Evidence suggests...... you know...... evidence. You are unable to supply such evidence. Evidence is what is used to support a hypothesis. That's why evidence is not spelled hypothesis.

 

[hobelim]

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything perfectly and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky suddenly in the form of a worldwide deluge.

 

[Hollie]

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

 

[hobelim]

This is a message board. Lighten up. "not a shred of evidence" what do you think a hypothesis is professor?....Sheesh.

Do you really think that by posting links to articles about the effects of melting glaciers that caused regional flooding that you are presenting evidence for the origin of worldwide stories about a devastating flood caused by torrential rain?

Seriously?

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

 

[Hollie]

I made no claim about torrential rain.

I've given you evidence for flood tales that derived from the affects of the last ice age.

You have proposed something about an asteroid strike on the planet that you cannot supply any evidence for. Why is anyone required to accept your ".... because I say so" commandments?

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.

 

[hobelim]

You may have made no claim about torrential rain but all of the flood stories do. In fact they describe the rain as an extraordinary and relentless downpour as if an ocean itself was falling down from the sky, which is a perfect description of what the aftermath of an ocean impact would be, not any number of melting glaciers.

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.

Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.

The splash itself would have looked exactly like the fountains of the deep opened up.

 

[Hollie]

You're just making that up.

Much like you made up some "hypothesis" about some alleged asteroid strike you cannot supply evidence for.

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.

Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.

That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".

 

[hobelim]

The worldwide stories themselves and the constraints provided by the descriptions of what they saw happen eliminate the possibility that melting glaciers are responsible for the tales.

I gave you a link, since you like them so much, about the Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The cause of the feature is still being debated. If and when it is a confirmed as an impact site that corresponds to the dates of all of the flood myths then it will become more than a hypothesis based on limited facts..

An impact crater 25 larger than meteor crater in AZ at the bottom of the indian ocean would explain everything and show that their stories were not such an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain? I would even accept a rational explanation for how melting ice could fall from the sky in a worldwide deluge?

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.

Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.

That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".

Did you think that someone was trying to impress you? Now thats funny. Do you even know how to have a civilized conversation?

Why is it that every time that I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out?

 

[BreezeWood]

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.

Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.

That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".

Did you think that someone was trying to impress you? Now thats funny. Do you even know how to have a civilized conversation?

Why is it that every time that I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out?

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

stories, tales and fables tend to be revised ...

HOB, your scenario is a good hypothesis of what may have caused the great flood, so if the truth is discovered for a biblical event what is the deterrent from correcting the scriptures to reflect the actual event ?

though in this example how it was done is less important than its occurrence -

however the same for correcting other scriptures to find in the end the actual truth rather than what is pleasing for "christians" to read or are obvious fabrications.

.

 

[Hollie]

I have no evidence that melting glaciers inspired stories about rain because that is your claim.

I would suggest you look at sources other than wiki for science data. How about fundamentalist creation ministries?

Plotting Mythic Events: The Burckle Crater


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?_r=1&

Monster Tsunami May Have Created Madagascar's Giant Sand Dunes

Burckle abyssal impact crater: Did this impact produce a global deluge? - Academic Commons

So how wouild you account for those areas not impacted by by your alleged asteroid strike? Your alleged meteor strike was not the global flood producing disaster your earlier claimed it was.

Something big enough to make a crater 25 times larger than meteor crater would have affected everyone living anywhere near rivers, streams, and even dry washes all over the world and would have swept away any trace of coastal settlements around the entire indian ocean. Billions of metric tons of water being vaporized instantly into the atmosphere would have caused a worldwide deluge that would have lasted for weeks.

That's a lovely hypothesis. But I'm not impressed with "..... because I say so".

Did you think that someone was trying to impress you? Now thats funny. Do you even know how to have a civilized conversation?

Why is it that every time that I squeeze your head a foul and smelly pus comes out?

Getting angry and emotive does nothing to bolster your "..... because I say so" attempt at argument.

 

[zaangalewa]

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you. Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.

1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.

2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.

Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.

Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.

3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.

Are you okay with interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?

1. You are right, I do not follow the traditional religious symbolism. I think on that point I'll give a personal anecdote. I was raised Roman Catholic and had bible class weekly until age 17. I was a like now a pragmatist and altough I felt that Jesus as described in the NT was a person worthy of following I, as I grew older developed doubts as to his divinity. So one day I asked my teacher. If I think the lessons as described in the NT are to be aspired to and I believe in the historical but not the divine Jesus, am I still a Roman Catholic? His response was a blunt no.

Short "no"? Be happy. A longer answer could had been the athanasian creed for example - what's by the way also the belief of orthodox, protestant and hopefully also evangelical Christians:
-----
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
-----

At that time I couldn't understand why if Jesus preaches love and understanding, why his club doesn't allow any dissent. Now I do get it of course, if you don't follow the dogma you are a danger to the institution wich is organised religion. My point being I do understand some of the symbolism, I don't however believe in God itself. Nore do I feel I particulary need to follow him in order to be a good person. Hope I make sense on this point here.

You are a good Atheist who speaks about bad Catholics, because bad Catholics are not good Atheists like you - aren't they?

2/3.I think I can claim I pretty thorough historical sense and I agree that human behavior is cyclical,

Cyclical? Strange.

I don't however agree with how it's cyclical. In my opinion human behavior can be boiled down to a pack mentality.

Our nature is it not to be alone. And our nature is also to be cursorial hunters. Even without a big intelligence we would be damned dangerous animals. So whatelse than a pack mentality do you expect?

in general spent they're time looking for social groups. Family,friends,region,country, language and religion are all expressions of that need.

Sounds you need friends but do you like to to be a friend ... Hmm ... From all animals dogs know us in the best possible way - and what they tell us about us is not a story about monsters.

to belong and ppl want their particular social group to be dominant. Historically they'll fight to achieve this. Over the millenia the cost of that struggle has grown ever higher, culminating in WWI and WWII

In WWI destroyed nationalistic states mutlinational empires like Austria-Hungaria or the Osman empire. The results of WW1 created crazy and mad situations all over the world and this situations created not only world war 2.

and the invention of the atom bomb. We have come to a point in history where the price to achieve dominance has grown so high we can literrally destroy ourselves.

Or we could build an arch.

Humanity as a race can't afford all out struggle for dominance, I am sorry to say though that I don't see the fact that we would kill ourself as a indefinet deterent. I have some hope the world will become a place were rationality reigns supreme but I'm not sure. Maybe religion can help achieve this but, and here I'll come back to my reason of replying to these post on the forum. Strict religious dogma needs to go,

You never in your life was a Catholic - otherwise you would know what I don't speak about now.

since I feel that claiming absolute truth in matters of faith is historicaly been a big reason for strife.

Concrete example?

Not to mention plain wrong lol.

What is wrong? What you don't know?

 

[forkup]

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you. Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.

1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.

2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.

Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.

Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.

3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.

Are you okay with interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?

1. You are right, I do not follow the traditional religious symbolism. I think on that point I'll give a personal anecdote. I was raised Roman Catholic and had bible class weekly until age 17. I was a like now a pragmatist and altough I felt that Jesus as described in the NT was a person worthy of following I, as I grew older developed doubts as to his divinity. So one day I asked my teacher. If I think the lessons as described in the NT are to be aspired to and I believe in the historical but not the divine Jesus, am I still a Roman Catholic? His response was a blunt no.

Short "no"? Be happy. A longer answer could had been the athanasian creed for example - what's by the way also the belief of orthodox, protestant and - hopefully - also the evangelical Christians:
-----
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved
-----

At that time I couldn't understand why if Jesus preaches love and understanding, why his club doesn't allow any dissent. Now I do get it of course, if you don't follow the dogma you are a danger to the institution wich is organised religion. My point being I do understand some of the symbolism, I don't however believe in God itself. Nore do I feel I particulary need to follow him in order to be a good person. Hope I make sense on this point here.

You are an atheist who speaks about bad Catholics.

2/3.I think I can claim I pretty thorough historical sense and I agree that human behavior is cyclical,

Cyclical? Strange.

I don't however agree with how it's cyclical. In my opinion human behavior can be boiled down to a pack mentality.

Our nature is it not to be alone. And our nature is it to be cursorial hunters. Even without a big intelligence we would be damned dangerous animals. So whatelse than a pack mentality do you expect? Wer it not the three muskteris whi sang the song "One for all and all for one!" dsang teh thre Musketoers before they continued to sing "United we stand, divided we fall"

in general spent they're time looking for social groups. Family,friends,region,country, language and religion are all expressions of that need.

You need friends but you don't like to be a friend? Wat auotnifyo unwould ask dogs about human beings? Fromall animals tehy know usinthe ebst öpossible way - and wahtt hey tel about us is not story about monsters. If yuo don't know how to speak with dogs then learn German. All other languages dogs have to translate frist.

to belong and ppl want their particular social group to be dominant. Historically they'll fight to achieve this. Over the millenia the cost of that struggle has grown ever higher, culminating in WWI and WWII

What?

and the invention of the atom bomb. We have come to a point in history where the price to achieve dominance has grown so high we can literrally destroy ourselves.

Or we could build an arch.

Humanity as a race can't afford all out struggle for dominance, I am sorry to say though that I don't see the fact that we would kill ourself as a indefinet deterent. I have some hope the world will become a place were rationality reigns supreme but I'm not sure. Maybe religion can help achieve this but, and here I'll come back to my reason of replying to these post on the forum. Strict religious dogma needs to go,

You never in your life was a Catholic - otherwise you would know what I don't speak about now.

since I feel that claiming absolute truth in matters of faith is historicaly been a big reason for strife.

Concrete example?

Not to mention plain wrong lol.

What is wrong? What you don't know?

[/Quote][/QUOTE]
1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one. I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.
2,As to your nt blib.I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing. Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son? Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?
3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.
4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull but because the body count has become unsustainable.
5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

 

[zaangalewa]

...1,I don't think my teacher was a bad catholic, simply a devout Roman Catholic who believed like alot of ppl

ppl? people?

on these forums that their brand of whatever religion they adhere is the one and only correct one.

While everyone of the people (=constructions of the shadows of your own thoughts) should know that your opinion about god and the world is the only correct one?

I understand now that in organised religion you can't pick and choose what you accept in said religion, you believe the whole thing or you aren't in, that simple.

That's only "simple" =(in harmony with your own mentalitiy and indoctrinations) because your enemies are munsters - whatever or whoever they are really.

2,As to your nt blib.

What?

I'll put in this question. If god is allknowing.

¿God is allknowing?

Don't you think he would be able to forgive the minor fact that you don't recognise him as your creator providing you live a live in the spirit of his son?

Again: "What?" I am a Catholic. Normally I don't discuss bullshit. So don't try to tell me what I think or what I do not think. If someone asks one of our teachers "Am I a Catholic, If I don't believe in the triune god nor in Jesus Christ who is for me not true god from true god?" then why to say anything else than "no"? Who needs more words? You can write 10000 books about - but you are not a Catholic. So what?

Knowing forgiveness is a big part of what Jesus preached. In other words do you think God would be petty enough to say, "yes you might be a good person but you don't believe in me so I will punish you for eternity."?

I'm not god - what you would know if you ever had to do anything with Catholics.

3,As to all the rest. There's been plenty of religious wars during the centuries, crusades being an obvious one.

I know, worryor. Better to say : I don't know this on plausible reasons, because I studied last century a long list of wars of the last 350 years and not any of this wars had anyting to do with religious reasons.

4,I was saying all out war is getting rarer, not because we've become more peacefull

The USA would live in a hell today if the most people in the world would not be very peaceful.

but because the body count has become unsustainable.

?

5,and to the last one. If you believe strictly what is in religious texts, you put yourself into a corner.since science is capable of disproving large swaths of your beliefs. Thats what's wrong.

Catholics are not fighting against spiritual truths and Catholics are not fighting against real truths. All truthes are part of the truth. Sometimes a way is not easy to find, that's all. So I would say you are fighting aginst Catholics on a very simple reason: You hate the truth and so you hate us without any reason to do so. I guess you think human beings make what's true or not - that's what your indoctrination teaches you. In this case no one has to understand anything or to learn any longer anything.

 

[james bond]

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.

I wasn't going to discuss creation science so much in this forum, but use facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Since you brought up Age of the Earth (part of evolutionary thought) and your link, it is based on this -- Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson . The problem is radiometric dating is not accurate because of its assumptions. Unfortunately, creation science does not have a peer-reviewed method to date the age of the earth (only hypothesis). So, today I can only offer various arguments against radiometric dating.

Jonathon Woolf makes a good presentation of evolutionists’ arguments. He starts by saying that evolutionists haven’t done a very good job of explaining "how" radiometric dating works. See your link and my previous link. He continues with some definitions and explanations of terms and explains the differences between elements and isotopes (also called “nuclides”) of those elements.

The major question is "how much of the nuclide was originally present in our sample? In some cases, we don’t know. Such cases are useless for radiometric dating. We must know the original quantity of the parent nuclide in order to date our sample radiometrically. Fortunately, there are cases where we can do that. Creation scientists content there are no cases where we can do it.

Woof states, "there’s a basic law of chemistry that says "Chemical processes like those that form minerals cannot distinguish between different nuclides of the same element." They simply can’t do it. If an element has more than one nuclide present, and a mineral forms in a magma melt that includes that element, the element’s different nuclides will appear in the mineral in precisely the same ratio that they occurred in the environment where and when the mineral was formed. This is the second axiom of radiometric dating.

There are evolutionists (evos) who claim water on Earth is older than the Sun:
"H2D+ becomes enriched relative to

because the deuterated isotopologue is energetically favored at low temperatures. There is an energy barrier ΔE1 to return to

, i.e.,

, where ΔE1 ≈ 124 K, although the precise value depends on the nuclear spin of the reactants and products. The relatively modest value of ΔE1 restricts deuterium enrichments in

to the coldest gas,

. Thus, deuterium-enriched water formation requires the right mix of environmental conditions: cold gas, gas-phase oxygen, and ionization."

In layman's terms, they are acknowledging that the number of protons, regardless of the number of neutrons, determines how atoms react chemically to form molecules -- but the number of neutrons does make a very tiny difference in the amount of heat liberated by the reaction. So, for very light elements at temperatures close to absolute zero, chemical processes do actually differentiate very slightly between isotopes because of the barely measurable difference in heat involved in the reaction.

Woolf also recognizes this fact, "Note: It’s true that some natural processes favor some isotopes over others. Water molecules containing oxygen-16 are lighter and therefore evaporate faster than water molecules with oxygen-18. However, as far as is known such fractionation occurs only with light nuclides: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon. The atoms used in radiometric dating techniques are mainly heavy atoms, so we can still use the axiom that mineral-forming processes can’t distinguish between different nuclides."

So, in general, it is the number of protons that determines how chemical bonds will be formed. The number of neutrons is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in molten rocks does not change immediately when the rock hardens. The age of the rock formation is supposedly determined by how much the ratio of isotopes changes AFTER the rock hardens (which presumes that enough time has elapsed for radioactive decay to change that ratio). Yet, we still do not know what the original ratio of isotopes was when the rock hardened.

Scientists computed the age of the Apollo 11 moon rocks 116 times using methods other than rubidium-strontium isochron dating. Of those 116 dates, only 10 of them fall in the range of 4.3 to 4.56 billion years, and 106 don’t. The non-isochron dates range from 40 million years to 8.2 billion years.

When faced with this obvious discrepancy, evos sometimes backpedal by saying that although the radiometric dates may not be perfectly accurate, even 40 million years is much older than 6,000 years, so the radiometric ages still prove the Earth is old. That reasoning fails because the ages aren’t simply inaccurate—they are invalid. All of the ages were calculated using baseless assumptions about the initial concentrations of radioactive isotopes and erroneous speculation about how those concentrations changed over time. The calculated ages have nothing to do with how old the rocks are, and have everything to do with how much of each kind of isotope was in the rocks when they were formed.

Jonathon Woolf
An Essay on Radiometric Dating

 

[james bond]

emilynghiem wrote about better health. I posted before about the discovery about the people who were buried in Pompeii. One can't have perfect teeth like that today unless they get braces. Back then, they just had perfect teeth and white, too. They probably had natural sweeteners, but no coffee.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Today, we live shorter lives due to changes in our universe post Noah's flood.

We are devolving.

As for Noah and ages, I'm going to withhold the science paper because of Mudda's comments, but here are examples of people who lived a long time and it was recorded besides the Bible.

Did Ancient People Really Have Lifespans Longer Than 200 Years?

 

[hobelim]

HOB, your scenario is a good hypothesis of what may have caused the great flood, so if the truth is discovered for a biblical event what is the deterrent from correcting the scriptures to reflect the actual event ?

I don't see any need to correct scripture. What needs to be corrected is the way people have historically categorized and interpreted scripture. Does the story of the three pigs need to be corrected because people have discovered that there is no such thing as talking pigs? If people believed that the story of the three pigs was a historical document, thats what would have to change. They would have to remove the book from the adult nonfiction section of the library and put it in the children's fiction area so people would stop trying to live their lives as adults and solve problems in society by praying to a statue of a pig, reciting one line of the book every Sunday, endlessly wondering about what the wise pig would do.

And even if a meteor strike is eventually confirmed as the cause that in itself would not in any way invalidate the hidden instruction in the flood story or disprove that there was a man who was warned by God about the coming doom.



.