Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation

On Aug 5, 1:13 pm, "Rolf" <r...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
<mc...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:mccoy-1186339928.589276.301630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Athiests are often quick to dispose of the Bible, claiming that it is
based on myths.

We note the following however. There is no hard fact of science that
proves the Bible wrong. There is no hard fact of archeology that
proves the Bible wrong. Let's take a look at some simple facts:

The Bible states that there was a world wide flood. This predicts
that there would be large-scale burial of plants and animals. You
could prove the Bible wrong if there were no fossils. Yet petroleum
and coal are excellent proofs thereof.

Hi there Mr. McCoy. We could have some interesting discussions if you could
adopt a more realistic position. Personally, I am always willing to look at
new evidence and have no problem with accepting that if it seems reasonable.
I do not need for the Bible to be full of myths or the ToE to be entirely
true, but for the time being, that is what the evidence says.

As for you - it ssems that you ahve decided that the Bible is true and that
that is waht you want to belive and that you are going to believe until you
die, regardless of what the evidence says.

With that position of yours, intelligent discourse is out of the question.

Now, WRT your undocumented claim of "petroleum
and coal are excellent proof", it simply is as false as can be. If you had
bothered to really study geology, you would already have known that.

I have inserted another t.o. post here that ought to cause some kind of
reaction from you, but with your track record, I suppose it will mean
nothing to you. In all sincerity, i don't think any amount of evidence could
make you change yuor mind. People like you or Kurt Wise, you have decided to
stick to the Bible no matter waht the evidence says. Well, it's your funeral
and no business of mine.

From: "Desertphile" <desertph...@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: The awakening of a Young-Earth petro-geology worker
Date: 1. august 2007 18:38

I suppose most in talk.origins know this article already.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Why I left Young-earth Creationism
by Glenn R. Morton
...

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they
questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my
difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me
that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors.
When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then
said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he
consider that I might really believe the data.

I've already had a run-in with said Glenn Morton. Mr Morton truly has
his position, and it's one built on ignorance and assumption. His
contention is that petroleum and coal deposits indicate a longer age
for the earth, being that they are truly abundant (that's poses
problems for those who claim that we are running out resources). But
the case be true is that Morton ignores vertical space. Whereas on the
bases of trees that exist today, and their limited height, sure, you
could make your rationale. But Morton is acting upon uniformitarian
assumptions ("the present is the key to the past".

The preflood world was a much more perfect world. The plants had
perfect balance of nutrients. Things grew bigger and taller. Imagine
trees growing upward, much like Redwoods, but maybe larger. Vegetation
was enabled to grow in areas that it cannot do so today. In shady
areas, etc. The preflood world also had much more land space as
indicated by underwater maps.

A large part of today's ocean are rather empty compared to how it
exists today.

Many of the animals that lived in the past were larger than the ones
that live today. They, obviously, consumed this preflood vegetation.
This vegetation that lived off perfect combination of nutrients.

JM




--http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

[I have snipped all from your post here. It was 100% pure nonsense and
ought to have stayed within your muddy brain.]

If you really want to discuss oil and coal deposits, fine - but you have to
relate to fact and evidence. Are you capable of that? I seriouslyt doubt it.
Let us include limestone, chalk and salt deposits as well.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation
    ... new evidence and have no problem with accepting that if it seems reasonable. ... I do not need for the Bible to be full of myths or the ToE to be entirely ... bothered to really study geology, you would already have known that. ... I've already had a run-in with said Glenn Morton. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bad science is still science
    ... Those "massive geological features" were not created at the same time. ... within a year *from evidence*. ... about geology and how geological features are formed, ... *know* that the event I propose doesn't deliver the right kind of energy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evidences against subduction theory
    ... Do they have any strong evidence against the subduction theory? ... As I've noted in this group before, without a hint of crackpottery, if you're stuck in the middle of a long term craton like North America, there's a helluva lot of geology out there which has very little to do with subducting margins. ... Having said that, there is ample evidence that the middle of our continent has seen numerous rift events, and so plate tectonics does have something to say about the geology of the mid-continent as well. ... "It" (science) is not a massive object, it is a process engaged in by a lot of people. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Bad science is still science
    ... Those "massive geological features" were not created at the same time. ... hypothesis starts with evidence, and there is no evidence to support the ... centuries of research in geology and demonstrate that the conclusions formed ... *know* that the event I propose doesn't deliver the right kind of energy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A question to The Creationists, again
    ... This is pretty elementary geology. ... As you have no alternative explanation for the evidence and ... You are ignoring most of the facts. ... should just listen to what the scientists say because they are the wise ...
    (talk.origins)