Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation

On 6 Aug, 05:36, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:35 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



<mc...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:mccoy-1186349542.962288.246430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

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.

Did anyone's irony meter survive this shock?

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).

Moron, the problem is that petroleum and coal are both finite resources.
They are abundant, but they are not infinite, and at the rate they are being
used, it poses a problem for the future.

Actually you're wrong. There is absolutely no problem for the
future. Pick up this months Popular Mechanics magazine. In it, in the
letters section, is a picture of car. It goes up to 65 miles per hour
and also travels 125 miles per fill. Per fill of air, that is. And
soon it will be sold in India.

Why do you believe such arrant nonsense?
Silly question.

When desperate times kick in you can
bet that this or some other vehiclel will be available in the US. You
need to get informed and for starters, read Julian Simon's The
Ultimate Resource. Simon says that there is an infinite amount of
energy just as there are an infinite amount of measurements in a
ruler.

ditto.

That's because energy is interchangeable. That means one
resource can replace another.

ditto

But we have enough energy to last many
generations. The problem is that the environmentalist movement is
preventing us from accessing that energy.

How? They are busily trying to encourage us to use different sources
for energy rather than relying heavily on fossil fuels which are a
finite resource.




But
the case be true is that Morton ignores vertical space.

I doubt that Glenn Morton is the one ignoring the evidence.

You're the one who claimed that we are running out of fuel. With
oxygen as a source there is endless fuel. It goes to show where the
education really lies.


Oh, my word!
Oxygen is not a source of energy. It is the combustion of oxygen -
i.e. the exothermic reaction of oxygen with other elements - which
releases the energy stored in fuels when we burn them.

As you say, this goes to show where the education really lies, and it
sure as hell ain't in your corner!




Whereas on the
bases of trees that exist today, and their limited height, sure, you
could make your rationale.

As could anyone with functioning brain cells.

Air? Did you say?


No. Evidently you can't read either.



But Morton is acting upon uniformitarian
assumptions ("the present is the key to the past".

An "assumption" that appears to be correct.

It isn't correct. The dinosaurs were said to be made extinct through a
process that isn't occurring in the present. It was a singularity and
is exempt from uniformitarianism.


I suggest that you educate yourself in what the term actually means.
You won't, of course, as the preservation of your ignorance is
fundamental to your arguments.



The preflood world was a much more perfect world.

You have made this claim before, but never have been able to support it with
any evidence. First of all, how do you determine what is "preflood" and
what is "post flood". Also, what justification do you have for saying
that it was a "much more perfect world"? Not even the Bible makes that
claim.

I guess you didn't not read: "And God saw that it was good." Genesis
1:9-13.

That's not evidence. It's a verse from the Bible.

I would assume that anyone who wasn't biased against the
Bible, who was stuck deep in humanist philosophy would be quite fair
to say that if a God who created a human being (a high-tech being)
would know exactly what chemistry to put into the soil for optimum
growth.

Why should anyone interpret the Bible as a source for scientific
evidence? Most of the world's Christians don't, let alone those of
other or no faiths.


Secondly, we note that the life spans were quite a bit longer: Adam
lived to 930.

There is no evidence for this.

Most everyone lived a great years.

There is no evidence for this.

The Bible says that
there were giants in the land.


There is no evidence for this.


And if we were to infer anything about
the preflood world we could do so by the size of the fossils.

Why? Most fossils are microscopic.

There
were giant reptiles and mammals in those days.

There still are today, and there were also innumerable small mammals
and reptiles in the past.

Some of this giant
affect continued after the flood,


There is no evidence for this.


perhaps because in some areas the
soil was created by dead preflood food stuffs.


There is no evidence for this.


And naturally those
who ate the food from the vegetation that grew upon it grew larger
too.

Bull***.




The plants had
perfect balance of nutrients.

What evidence do you have for this claim?

Just told you.


No, you have simply made an unfounded assertion. That isn't evidence.



Things grew bigger and taller.

Any evidence for this?

Just told you.



No, you have simply made an unfounded assertion. That isn't evidence.




Imagine
trees growing upward, much like Redwoods, but maybe larger.

Coal is not made up of tree trunks like redwoods. It's make up of smaller
plants in larger amounts.

Coal is largely made up of wood bark.

No it isn't.

And like I said, if trees were
taller there would be more wood bark.

The plants which are represented in the major coal measures were not
taller than modern trees. They were substantially smaller.

Vertical space, remember?


What the hell has that to do with your argument?



Vegetation
was enabled to grow in areas that it cannot do so today.

What evidence do you have for this assertion?

What evidence do I not have, Tweedy? The fact is with proper
nutrition, and proper watering and so fourth you could do incredible
things.

So where is this evidence?

But, the oxygen was purer.

How can oxygen, which is an element, be "purer"?



In shady

areas, etc. The preflood world also had much more land space as
indicated by underwater maps.

What "underwater maps"?

National Geographic has them.

Those maps show that most of the sea floor is oceanic plate which has
never been above sea level. There are some marginal areas on the edge
of continental shelves which were land in the past, but they represent
only a small proportion of the surface area of the planet.




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

Please support this claim as well. Citations in the primary scientific
literature, please.

Just take a look at national geographic maps. They show flat areas
just off the coast of continents.

...which extend a few tens, or at best a couple of hundred miles out to
sea.

By the way, National Geographic is a popular magazine, not primary
scientific literature.



Many of the animals that lived in the past were larger than the ones
that live today.

Some animals that lived in the past were larger, but many were smaller too.
The largest animal that ever lived is alive today. Not all animals that
lived in the past were large, Small animals lived at the same time larger
ones did.

That is correct. Some animals, like reptiles and some mammals like
Giraffes grew quite large.




They, obviously, consumed this preflood vegetation.

How do you determine "preflood" plants from 'post flood" plants?

Preflood plants have been destroyed.

So any plant which has been destroyed is "pre-flood"?
I guess the remains of the bonfire in my garden are "pre-flood" in
that case.




This vegetation that lived off perfect combination of nutrients.

Evidence for this assertion, please.

Unless you're making a claim that God couldn't do it right I fail to
see why you bother asking questions like this.


Wow! The killer argument!

RF


JM



DJT


.

Quantcast