Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Morality and Religion
<3 </3
Reply
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 14 15 >

Offline
Fist of Eden
You clearly DID NOT understand what I was saying, like most people on here. However, you are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be. To OBSERVE something you MUST witness it.

Speciation has been observed, including species with newly developed abilities that could not have been possible outside of the 20th century industrial environment (eg, nylon-eating bacteria when nylon did not exist before 1937,) as well as "ring species" which known to have a common ancestor yet are not interfertile.

Quote:
Evolutionists try to bend that in a way to suit them, when we all know our knowledge is simply limited and that's just how it is.
NOT ONE TIME DID I SAY that evolution isn't ALWAYS happening or that NATURAL SELECTION AND MICROEVOLUTION ARE THE SAME. But thanks for pointing out how evolutionists will twist words to suit themselves even more smile
Next, aside from natural selection, EVOLUTION CANNOT BE OBSERVED. The idea that a new species can spawn something new in their genetic code is NOT SUPPORTED AND HAS NEVER OCCURED IN NATURE.
Thank you for your cocky, uninformed comment. Good day smile


Please look up "frame shift mutation." Also, we observe "spawning something new in the genetic code" even in the phenotypical human genome. DNA has ablative end-molecules known as telomeres; however, the second chromosome-pair (of the 23) in humans has telomeres (which are given the name centromeres) in the middle of the chromosome as well as on the end.

Other apes have 24 chromosome-pairs; by some process of mutation, the apes' second and third chromosomes got fused at the ends, producing the human second chromosome.

Down's syndrome, though what we'd consider a negative case, is caused by a third 21st chromosome; not all mutations are negative or positive, however, as natural selection is the "arbiter" of that "decision."

Noob

Offline
Faustine Liem
Asadachi
The Flood of the Earth has already been proven true.


You've made the claim you have to PROVE IT.

To be absolutely fair to his point, worldwide flood stories are found in numerous cultures, most of which had no connection to one another that we're aware of. That's an interesting coincidence.

Offline
Cosmic Injustice
Faustine Liem
Asadachi
The Flood of the Earth has already been proven true.


You've made the claim you have to PROVE IT.

To be absolutely fair to his point, worldwide flood stories are found in numerous cultures, most of which had no connection to one another that we're aware of. That's an interesting coincidence.

Flooding is not exactly an exceptional event. It happens all over the world on a regular basis

Noob

Offline
Ratreoz
Cosmic Injustice
Faustine Liem
Asadachi
The Flood of the Earth has already been proven true.


You've made the claim you have to PROVE IT.

To be absolutely fair to his point, worldwide flood stories are found in numerous cultures, most of which had no connection to one another that we're aware of. That's an interesting coincidence.

Flooding is not exactly an exceptional event. It happens all over the world on a regular basis

I will grant that. I just find it interesting that, specifically, worldwide flooding is a theme in most cultures.

Offline
Cosmic Injustice

I will grant that. I just find it interesting that, specifically, worldwide flooding is a theme in most cultures.


Reliance on rivers was a theme in most cultures; it only took one bad flood to inspire a story of The Big One that destroyed nearly everything because the gods weren't happy.

Dedicated Firestarter

23,975 Points
  • Blazing Power of Friendship Wave 200
  • Comrades in Arms 150
  • Firestarter 200
Offline
Cosmic Injustice
Faustine Liem
Asadachi
The Flood of the Earth has already been proven true.


You've made the claim you have to PROVE IT.

To be absolutely fair to his point, worldwide flood stories are found in numerous cultures, most of which had no connection to one another that we're aware of. That's an interesting coincidence.


I made an analogy to mermaids. Numerous cultures who have NOTHING to do with each other created mermaids, or mermaid-like creatures all on there own, that doesn't mean there is a correlation between the tales and that there are in fact mermaids.

Correlation is not causation.

A man stuck by lighting during a thunderstorm shouldn't think he was stuck by gods wrath if he had any amount of intelligence.

Omnipresent Loiterer

12,850 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Offline
Fist of Eden
You clearly DID NOT understand what I was saying,


Oh, I did...It's just that you clearly don't know what you're talking about, which is why it's easy to refute your nonsense.

Quote:
like most people on here.


Translation: "I can't be wrong about this...so you all must be misunderstanding me." Nope, sport. You're just grossly ignorant, and that much is clear from the stuff you've posted.

Quote:
However, you are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be.


Well, gee whiz, mister, if I'm wrong about something, perhaps you'd like to do more than just assert it and show me where I'm wrong and explain how I'm wrong. It'd sure go a long way to help you not so delusional and ignorant...

Quote:
To OBSERVE something you MUST witness it.


Which I've already explained is an equivocation fallacy....on top of also being a straw man fallacy....and a shifting the goal posts fallacy. The simple fact is that they ARE observing something...it's the effects of evolution. Hell, they've even observed speciation events. We have plenty of evidence on this. And if you'd drop your cognitive dissonance for five seconds, you'd be able to see that.

Quote:
Evolutionists try to bend that in a way to suit them,


The only one bending anything here, sunshine, is you. You don't understand what science is. You don't want to have to admit that the bible isn't literal, and so you can't accept what is so clearly obvious: All life on this planet shares a common ancestor. Cry all you want, make up any ridiculous claim you desire, that fact will always remain.

Quote:
when we all know our knowledge is simply limited and that's just how it is.


Yes...knowledge is limited...to the things that we can observe the effects of. For example, we can understand the effects of gravity, even though we have no way to "observe" gravity. We also have ways of determining how a crime was committed, even if there are no eye witnesses. By your silly argument, such things should be impossible, as they "can't possibly be science"...and yet, both are. So there you go....you're wrong about the definition of "observe."

Quote:
NOT ONE TIME DID I SAY that evolution isn't ALWAYS happening


Ummm....yeah you did. Not literally, however, if you're going to claim something is a lie, you can't also claim that it is "always happening." So there's a contradiction there...perhaps you should stay away from exaggerating your points so that there isn't confusion in what you're trying to convey (or, you could actually learn about evolution without your bias...that'd go a long way too).

Quote:
or that NATURAL SELECTION AND MICROEVOLUTION ARE THE SAME.


Sure...again, you didn't "say" this...however, that is clearly what you are talking about when you phrase it that way.

Quote:
But thanks for pointing out how evolutionists will twist words to suit themselves even more


No one twisted your words...what you wrote is still intact, and your muddled mess of an argument can be read by the rest of the forum. If what you wrote isn't what you meant, THEN DON'T WRITE IT...

Quote:
Next, aside from natural selection, EVOLUTION CANNOT BE OBSERVED.


Not only can it...not only has it...I POSTED A ******** LINK THAT PROVES IT. You can assert all you want otherwise, however, you're wrong.

Quote:
The idea that a new species can spawn something new in their genetic code is NOT SUPPORTED AND HAS NEVER OCCURED IN NATURE.


Here is a link talking about all the different types of evolution, which, you can follow the sources for further information. Your assertion is bullshit...thanks for playing.

Quote:
Thank you for your cocky, uninformed comment. Good day


So, I'm uninformed, eh? I guess that's why I've been supporting my argument with evidence then, isn't it? And let's see, how many times have you done more than just assert something? What's that? Zero times? Well, isn't that interesting....

Omnipresent Loiterer

12,850 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Offline
Cosmic Injustice
Ratreoz
Cosmic Injustice
Faustine Liem
Asadachi
The Flood of the Earth has already been proven true.


You've made the claim you have to PROVE IT.

To be absolutely fair to his point, worldwide flood stories are found in numerous cultures, most of which had no connection to one another that we're aware of. That's an interesting coincidence.

Flooding is not exactly an exceptional event. It happens all over the world on a regular basis

I will grant that. I just find it interesting that, specifically, worldwide flooding is a theme in most cultures.


There are a lot of themes that pop up in myths throughout the world, and none of them are particularly all that interesting: fear of the dark, good versus evil, gods, other supernatural entities, natural disasters (well, ones common for the area). As for the notion of worldwide floods...we're talking about times where humanity really hadn't grasped how big the planet was, and how weather patterns worked...it would make sense that, when it flooded locally, they probably thought it was flooding all over the world as well, until they got a better sense of the world.

Magical Investigator

22,875 Points
  • Bookworm 100
  • Pine Perfection 250
  • Forum Regular 100
Offline
Coming in a bit late, forgive me if I ******** up anything.

Fist of Eden
Evolution is a LIE

Nice bait there.

Fist of Eden
But there's SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that proves dinosaurs haven't been extinct for even half of that long.

OH PLEASE, MR. PhD IN PALEONTOLOGY, PLEASE GRANT US YOUR BOON OF EVIDENCE!
Fist of Eden
If you do your research(a few minutes of it at that) you ill see that they discovered a dinosaur bone with tissue in it containing Carbon 14.

wahmbulance
Sorry, you've already ******** up. Rather than present evidence, you've asked us to research it. You have presented nothing. You're asking us to do our own homework on this. You have come to a gunfight empty-handed.

The worst possible thing, in fact, is to do this. Because we have three outcomes that I can see.

1) We do a quick little Google - something you should have done, out of etiquette, so less people would have to have done it in the long run - and find what you're talking about. And through some miracle, we believe you.

2) We find what you're talking about, feel skeptical about this, then Google rebuttals and explanations/debunking of your so-called "evidence," and surprise of surprises, we find it and come back to call you out on your bullshit.

3) We find nothing and still deem you full of s**t.

Now, you have a 33.333333333333333333333333333333333...% chance of us believing you. Even with just those options. There is, of course, a fourth where we find it, then dismiss it automatically as full of s**t due to disreputable sourcing. Which then reduces to 25% chance of believing you. But I'm s**t at statistics and it's probably less than that even.

But yeah. Sorry, I can't follow your debate. You're not citing your sources and you really just have this... stench of troll about you. Which is a shame.

Evolution isn't a "lie" any more than Intelligent Design is a "lie." A lie implies intent to deceive. I do not see that in either case. However, evolution has far more evidence for it. and the fact that you're trying to poke holes in it shows you don't have much to prove your own point. Which is also a shame. Real, genuine evidence for another model would be so much more interesting for me. I love learning new s**t But this debate is so tired, it runs around in so many circles, nobody has anything to genuinely build upon the body of knowledge we have.

So... ******** it.

In Medias Res IV
The Bible, like every other religious text in the world, is mythology.

Myth.Ology.

Hey now. "Myth" doesn't necessarily mean what you seem to think it means.

Mora Starseed's Husband

Intellectual Combatant

11,225 Points
  • Battle: Mage 100
  • Unfortunate Abductee 175
  • Mark Twain 100
Offline
Fist of Eden
Cosmic Injustice
...everything i said in this is true. Do some research and you will see that.
That's not Cosmic's job, but yours.

You made a claim (by assertion, without evidence), and Cosmic Injustice provided evidence against it. Now the ball is in your court, as the claimant, to back up what you're saying. That's how it works.
Fist of Eden
Your objection is so pathetic, it's like arguing that no matter how many times you add a penny to a jar, you'll never get a dollars worth.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
Fist of Eden
Evolutionists try to--
No they don't, because "Evolutionists" (at least in the way you're using the word) don't exist.

The term "Evolutionist" is an anti-science label, invoked by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to refer to scientists and others who accept that the evidence-based theory of evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on the earth (otherwise known as over 99% of all scientists in relevant fields). When invoked in this way, it is used to attempt to color the argument, and imply that evolution is just another belief system or worldview (an "-ism"), as opposed to a scientific theory.

To compound this stupidity some creationists/Evangelicals/etc even argue that "Evolutionism" is a secular religion, leading to sexual freedom and other supposed failings of present day society, and is often just thrown around by them to refer to anyone else they're disagreeing with at the time, such as atheists or libruls.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Faustine Liem
Asadachi
Blah blah water water everywhere and not a drop to be seen
The needed water to flood the earth to even cover the area you want is more water then the earth has EVER had.
Wanna know how much water...?

Genesis 7:19-20 says "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." Fifteen cubits is roughly 22.5 feet, and the highest mountain on Earth is Everest (a title it's held for a long damn time). If the waters covered Everest, that would put the water level above 29,000 feet. The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of 29,000 feet is the Difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest, and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.
    * The volume of a sphere is 4/3πR³, where R=radius.

    * The radius of Earth is 6,378.15 KM, and the height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 Kilometers.

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level is 4/3π(6,378.15 KM)³, which equals 1,086,825,918,019 KM³

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest is 4/3π(6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)³, or 1,091,388,460,971 KM³.

Therefore, the Difference is 4,530,488,766 KM³.

(Fun Fact: Four billion, five hundred million, four hundred eighty-eight thousand, seven hundred sixty-six cubic kilometers is more than three times the amount of water presently on Earth.)

Going one step further, w can multiply the number of days it was raining (40) by the number of hours in a day (24), and get 960. If we then divide our 4,530,488,766 of water by 960, we can calculate that 4,719,259 cubic km of rain fell per hour for those 40 days.

(Fun Fact #2: The kind of conditions necessary to have that much water in the atmosphere would have turned the surface of the planet into a pressure cooker, similar to the surface of Venus.)

Dedicated Firestarter

23,975 Points
  • Blazing Power of Friendship Wave 200
  • Comrades in Arms 150
  • Firestarter 200
Offline
Arcoon Effox
Wanna know how much water...?


Roughly ten miles if you want to cover Everest with the current ocean depth added in.

Quote:
Genesis 7:19-20 says "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."


Fiffteen cubits, that is the tip of a finger to your elbow. I how you know this. So a cubit changes depending on the person who is measuring via a cubit. But lets say two feet, per cubit or so.

Quote:
Fifteen cubits is roughly 22.5 feet, and the highest mountain on Earth is Everest (a title it's held for a long damn time).


Technically the highest. But Mountain Mauna Kea is actually 10k meters. That is A little over 1000 meters taller then Everest. But lets go with Everest for simplicity sake.

Quote:
If the waters covered Everest, that would put the water level above 29,000 feet.


Yippie math.

Quote:
The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of 29,000 feet is the Difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest, and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.


Like I said, yippe math.
Quote:

    * The volume of a sphere is 4/3πR³, where R=radius.

    * The radius of Earth is 6,378.15 KM, and the height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 Kilometers.

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level is 4/3π(6,378.15 KM)³, which equals 1,086,825,918,019 KM³

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest is 4/3π(6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)³, or 1,091,388,460,971 KM³.

Therefore, the Difference is 4,530,488,766 KM³.


Yeah, and didn't I say that the effects of all that would be easily shown on the surface of the earth. Pressure is pressure, and pressure is a LOT when under about say... five miles of water where I am at. I would be able to find limestone, and depending on what TYPE of water salt or fresh, I would find LOTS more salt beds then there actually are. Or tons of fish fossils EVERYWHERE from the massive die off from ocean fish.
Or smaller die off from the fresh water fish dying. Its not just the mechanics as it were, it is how the fish survived when they are adapted to live in specific climes.

Quote:
(Fun Fact: Four billion, five hundred million, four hundred eighty-eight thousand, seven hundred sixty-six cubic kilometers is more than three times the amount of water presently on Earth.)


Yes and?

Quote:
Going one step further, w can multiply the number of days it was raining (40) by the number of hours in a day (24), and get 960. If we then divide our 4,530,488,766 of water by 960, we can calculate that 4,719,259 cubic km of rain fell per hour for those 40 days.


STOP. Pull the brakes, the forty days and forty nights is NOT LITERAL. It is just a way back then from the original language to say 'a really long time' so it could have been longer or even less. It is a way of saying 'many many many days' or for instance the 'Eighty million' gods you see in japanese language. Eighty million is NOT LITERAL numbering it is just a way of basically saying 'a metric ******** ton' in more nice words.
Plus it would have to be pouring out the same amount of water in a more or less equal rate no? No slacking no massive downpour. Just steady rain no? I mean not every faucet always puts out twenty gallons of water a minute once you turn it on. You would have to calculate just how much rain has fallen in X time on earth then track on how long it would take for THAT to go where you want it to go. You'd have more hurricane force levels of water, but lets just say it was really really really pouring with no high devastating winds.

Quote:
(Fun Fact #2: The kind of conditions necessary to have that much water in the atmosphere would have turned the surface of the planet into a pressure cooker, similar to the surface of Venus.)


Did I not say this? I said that kind of pressure of water would be really really really easily seen on the surface of the earth. Plus again there is the question fresh or salt water, rain is fresh water, that much fresh water going into the ocean would kill basically EVERYTHING.
I mean its not as compilcated and not a reality denying as a Geo-centrist at least you know. Or a flat earther, yes they exist.

Ancient Aliens is downright believable compared to the flood.

Noob

Offline
Arcoon Effox
Genesis 7:19-20 says "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits." Fifteen cubits is roughly 22.5 feet, and the highest mountain on Earth is Everest (a title it's held for a long damn time). If the waters covered Everest, that would put the water level above 29,000 feet. The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of 29,000 feet is the Difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest, and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.
    * The volume of a sphere is 4/3πR³, where R=radius.

    * The radius of Earth is 6,378.15 KM, and the height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 Kilometers.

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level is 4/3π(6,378.15 KM)³, which equals 1,086,825,918,019 KM³

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest is 4/3π(6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)³, or 1,091,388,460,971 KM³.

Therefore, the Difference is 4,530,488,766 KM³.

(Fun Fact: Four billion, five hundred million, four hundred eighty-eight thousand, seven hundred sixty-six cubic kilometers is more than three times the amount of water presently on Earth.)

Going one step further, w can multiply the number of days it was raining (40) by the number of hours in a day (24), and get 960. If we then divide our 4,530,488,766 of water by 960, we can calculate that 4,719,259 cubic km of rain fell per hour for those 40 days.

Mmm, that Calculus. That sexy, sexy calculus. heart

Eloquent Streaker

Offline
saturnflair2009
The problem with evolution and creationism, is that they are theories not fact.
"Theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive terms. A theory that has plenty of supporting evidence can be a fact, and a fact that can be modified by future evidence is very much a theory. Claiming otherwise is a piss-poor attempt at discrediting something you'd rather not accept as fact.

And creationism is not a theory; it's a belief. A theory is a way of explaining large bodies of related data, a hypothesis that has evidence supporting its claims. Creationism has ZERO evidence to support it; it's religious dogma made up by people who refuse to accept the theory of evolution simply because it flies in the face of their religious beliefs.

Quote:
A mutation to generate limbs has never been proven or successfully recreated, which is true. This stumps evolutionists to this day.
Mutations don't work that way. Limbs don't spontaneously grow out of nowhere; they develop over generations as specific genetic traits get passed down.

Quote:
Faith is requires on both sides of the argument,
Religion requires faith, because religion cannot prove or disprove a lot of its claims. Science requires no faith, because faith is irrelevant in the face of cold hard evidence. There's no belief involved; scientific evidence doesn't stop being factual simply because you don't want to accept it.

Quote:
and unless we can discover first hand proof either way, I doubt either can ever truly be considerd a fact
Evolution IS a fact. We've got plenty of hard proof supporting the theory of evolution as being a fact beyond any reasonable doubt, and it will remain so unless new evidence proves it otherwise.

Omnipresent Loiterer

12,850 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Forum Regular 100
Offline
Arcoon Effox
Fist of Eden
Your objection is so pathetic, it's like arguing that no matter how many times you add a penny to a jar, you'll never get a dollars worth.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


Pretty sure there was an error in the quoting system, cause I'm fairly certain that I'm the one who wrote the "pennies in a jar" analogy, as I was pointing out his stance on "microevolution."

Mora Starseed's Husband

Intellectual Combatant

11,225 Points
  • Battle: Mage 100
  • Unfortunate Abductee 175
  • Mark Twain 100
Offline
Faustine Liem
Arcoon Effox
Wanna know how much water...?


Roughly ten miles if you want to cover Everest with the current ocean depth added in.

Quote:
Genesis 7:19-20 says "[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."


Fiffteen cubits, that is the tip of a finger to your elbow. I how you know this. So a cubit changes depending on the person who is measuring via a cubit. But lets say two feet, per cubit or so.

Quote:
Fifteen cubits is roughly 22.5 feet, and the highest mountain on Earth is Everest (a title it's held for a long damn time).


Technically the highest. But Mountain Mauna Kea is actually 10k meters. That is A little over 1000 meters taller then Everest. But lets go with Everest for simplicity sake.

Quote:
If the waters covered Everest, that would put the water level above 29,000 feet.


Yippie math.

Quote:
The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of 29,000 feet is the Difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest, and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.


Like I said, yippe math.
Quote:

    * The volume of a sphere is 4/3πR³, where R=radius.

    * The radius of Earth is 6,378.15 KM, and the height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 Kilometers.

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level is 4/3π(6,378.15 KM)³, which equals 1,086,825,918,019 KM³

    * The volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest is 4/3π(6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)³, or 1,091,388,460,971 KM³.

Therefore, the Difference is 4,530,488,766 KM³.


Yeah, and didn't I say that the effects of all that would be easily shown on the surface of the earth. Pressure is pressure, and pressure is a LOT when under about say... five miles of water where I am at. I would be able to find limestone, and depending on what TYPE of water salt or fresh, I would find LOTS more salt beds then there actually are. Or tons of fish fossils EVERYWHERE from the massive die off from ocean fish.
Or smaller die off from the fresh water fish dying. Its not just the mechanics as it were, it is how the fish survived when they are adapted to live in specific climes.

Quote:
(Fun Fact: Four billion, five hundred million, four hundred eighty-eight thousand, seven hundred sixty-six cubic kilometers is more than three times the amount of water presently on Earth.)


Yes and?

Quote:
Going one step further, w can multiply the number of days it was raining (40) by the number of hours in a day (24), and get 960. If we then divide our 4,530,488,766 of water by 960, we can calculate that 4,719,259 cubic km of rain fell per hour for those 40 days.


STOP. Pull the brakes, the forty days and forty nights is NOT LITERAL. It is just a way back then from the original language to say 'a really long time' so it could have been longer or even less. It is a way of saying 'many many many days' or for instance the 'Eighty million' gods you see in japanese language. Eighty million is NOT LITERAL numbering it is just a way of basically saying 'a metric ******** ton' in more nice words.
Plus it would have to be pouring out the same amount of water in a more or less equal rate no? No slacking no massive downpour. Just steady rain no? I mean not every faucet always puts out twenty gallons of water a minute once you turn it on. You would have to calculate just how much rain has fallen in X time on earth then track on how long it would take for THAT to go where you want it to go. You'd have more hurricane force levels of water, but lets just say it was really really really pouring with no high devastating winds.

Quote:
(Fun Fact #2: The kind of conditions necessary to have that much water in the atmosphere would have turned the surface of the planet into a pressure cooker, similar to the surface of Venus.)


Did I not say this? I said that kind of pressure of water would be really really really easily seen on the surface of the earth. Plus again there is the question fresh or salt water, rain is fresh water, that much fresh water going into the ocean would kill basically EVERYTHING.
I mean its not as compilcated and not a reality denying as a Geo-centrist at least you know. Or a flat earther, yes they exist.

Ancient Aliens is downright believable compared to the flood.
I guess I didn't make it clear enough, but that was more or less what I was trying to say sweatdrop

The Flood is a ridiculous fabrication, and there's no evidence for the massive amount of water which would be required for it in the geological record (nor a dense layer of bone in the geological record to account for everything which allegedly died as a result of it).

Also, the only reason I use the literal 40 days as a factor is because the people who assert that the Flood happened are usually Biblical Literalists, and I'm playing by their rules (so to speak) in an effort to demonstrate how asinine the Bible story is.
Gaia Forums » MISC Forums » Forum & Sticky Archive » Morality and Religion

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
More
Get GCash
Offers
More
Get Items
More Items
More
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
  • Guilds
    fan clubs for the stuff you love
  • Chat
    chat in real time with other Gaian's
  • Art Arenas
    browse & rate gaian art galleries
  • Clans
    play zOMG with others
More
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
More
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
More
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
More