Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation

On 7 Aug, 02:14, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:12 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On 6 Aug, 05:36, mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Why do you believe such arrant nonsense?
Silly question.

Uh, you need to see the photograph of this car. I don't think Popular
Mechanics magazine could get that wrong. But I belive that you could
get that wrong.


It runs on *compressed* air!
How the hell do you think air gets compressed?
The fuel is that which is used to compress the air. All the car is
doing is using the energy put into the air to compress it as a storage
device. It's actually a rather inefficient way of storing energy.





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

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.

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.

Oxygen can be a source of energy. When you compress oxygen you can
release it producing energy.

That's using oxygen to store energy, not as a source of energy. In any
case, why on earth would anyone want to used compressed oxygen as an
energy storage medium when compressed air will do just as well?




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

You, evidently, don't have a corner on education.


In your company, I do.



No. Evidently you can't read either.

Air, did you say?



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.

Preservation of ignorance?


Your refusal to learn anything about the subjects on which you
comment. It's your ignorance we are talking about, in this case the
historical meaning of the terms uniformitarianism and catastrophism. I
can suggest some relevant reading matter if you want to learn.




DJT said that there is no evidence from the Bible and I quoted the
verse that proves it. You need to read what is being debated before
you pitch your claims.

It isn't evidence. It is a verse from the Bible.




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.

Why not? It's archeologically and historically accurate.

Nonsense! It's full of archaeological and historical inaccuracies, as
any competent biblical scholar will tell you.

Why
shouldn't we look at it?

Because it is a religious text, not a book of history or science.



There is no evidence for this.

That's what the Bible says, so there is evidence for it.

It's still not evidence.


There is no evidence for this.

It's possible. How did dinosaurs get so large unless they lived many
days?

They grew quickly. We can tell that from histological studies of
dinosaur bone.

That proves that the environment was conducive toward
dinosaurian growth.

Dinosaurs are archosaurs, not mammals. The physiology of mammals is
different, and their nutritional requirements are much higher.



There is no evidence for this.

Large ancient swords.

Such as?

Traditions of giants world wide.

There are big fossil bones sticking out of the ground in many places
all over the world. I suggest that you read Adrienne Major's excellent
book "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times"

That's
evidence.

No, it's folk history. Evidence is something which can be verified
independently.




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.

We're not talking germs here.

Neither am I.


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

Not as large as they used to.

Your knowledge of the fossil record is severely limited if you think
that. Most extinct animals fall into much the same size range as
modern animals. There are relatively speaking very few which are
substantially larger. There is also a tendency to exaggerate the size
of the larger extinct animals.

http://www.plesiosaur.com/plesiosaurs/liopleurodon.php

They are not as common. Maybe the
whales, but that's about it.

Definitely the whales, many of which are far larger than any extinct
marine animal. Few extinct animals were as large as a modern elephant.
There were a few dinosaurs which were, and a small handful of extinct
rhinos and elephants in terrestrial animals.



There is evidence for this. It's written down in the Bible (being a
reliable historical document) and many traditions throughout the
world.

The Bible is not a reliable historical document, as any competent
Bible scholar can tell you.



There is no evidence for this.

In the artic regions there has been found frozen vegetation.

So what? It's cold in the arctic. Things freeze there.

There is
evidence for this and you are spouting assertions.

Where is the evidence for "dead preflood stuffs"? There is no evidence
for a global flood. This has been known by scientists for centuries.



Bull***.

No. There has been found massive deposits of preflood stuff in the
artic.

As there is no evidence for a flood, there is also no way of telling
is something is "preflood".
Where are these "massive deposits of preflood stuff" and how do you
know that they are "preflood"?


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

I just refuted you.

No you didn't. Making an unfounded assertion is not refutation, no
matter how many times you repeat it.




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

No. I made accurate statements.


Repeating inaccurate statements does not make them accurate.

RF

.