Re: No Absolute Bible Refutation


<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mccoy-1186449270.360938.45590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 6, 1:12 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.

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.



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.

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


Now I see that you really deserve all your nicknames; you really are
unbelievably dense.Now let us se if you can wiggle your way out of this
nonsense too:

If oxygen is a source of energy, so is nitrogen - or even carbondioxide.
Since the atmosphere contains much more nitrogen, in addition the the
troublesome CO2, why can't we use those as energy sources instead? Please
demontrate how oxygen is the source, "producing energy" in you claim above.
Also demonstrate why nitrogen is not an energy source too. A Nobel price is
waiting for you!

And you think I am an oddball? Takes one to spot one!



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.





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.

Air, did you say?





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.

Preservation of ignorance?






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.

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.




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.

Why not? It's archeologically and historically accurate. Why
shouldn't we look at it?





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

There is no evidence for this.

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


Most everyone lived a great years.

There is no evidence for this.

It's possible. How did dinosaurs get so large unless they lived many
days? That proves that the environment was conducive toward
dinosaurian growth.




The Bible says that
there were giants in the land.

There is no evidence for this.

Large ancient swords. Traditions of giants world wide. That's
evidence.



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.



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.

Not as large as they used to. They are not as common. Maybe the
whales, but that's about it.




Some of this giant
affect continued after the flood,

There is no evidence for this.

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reliable historical document) and many traditions throughout the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


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

There is no evidence for this.

In the artic regions there has been found frozen vegetation. There is
evidence for this and you are spouting assertions.


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

Bull***.

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



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.

I just refuted you.





Things grew bigger and taller.

Any evidence for this?

Just told you.

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

No. I made accurate statements.

JM




RF



JM

DJT




.