[_ Old Earth _] carbon dating?

[reznwerks]

huh

I’m sorry, Juan, I missed this post. I wasn’t dodging your questions.

army_of_juan wrote:

There would have to be enough water on the planet to flood it to begin with.

There is. It’s just been moved to a sunken part of the planet or frozen in ice caps, or suspended as clouds, where is more or less contained. First of all, 71% of the earth is still covered by water. The average depth is around 2 miles. The deepest is the Pacific Ocean, at 35,837 feet. This would cover the tallest mountain on earth by 6802 feet of water.
There is not enough water buried under the planet and in the clouds to flood the earth. This is another claim by YEC'rs that holds no water. (pardon the pun) Unless you can find some reliable info from respected geologists please stop making the claim.

army_of_juan wrote:[quote:36336] We would find genetic bottlenecks in all species dating back about 6000 years. We would find a single global flood layer with a dense mixture of fossils of all the animals types.

That’s where the dating methods have skewed the evidence. Have you ever heard of the population explosion in the Cambrian era? Jeffrey S. Levinton, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York writes in a major science journal an article called, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution" :
The apparant lack of interest in Levinton should speak volumes. I am not going to go into a disertation on Levinton but here is one quote from him which is simply WRONG.
"If evolution were true, one would expect a progressive advance from simple to complex in the fossil record, but amazingly one finds that even the complex life forms such as the chordates appear right in the beginning. In an article entitled "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution" (Scientific American, November 1992), Jeffrey S. Levinton, a professor in ecology and evolution at State University of New York states:"
This is not correct.
Not all phyla appear at the same time at all. Some appear later, others earlier. Further more, it's only representatives that appear. Reptiles, mammals, birds etc. don't appear until much later.
No one is paying any attention to Levinson except YEC'rs.


"Cambrium explosion was characterized by the sudden and roughly simultaneous appearance of many diverse animal forms almost 600 million years ago. No other period in the history of animal life can match this remarkable burst of evolutionary creativity."
This is talking about an explosion of animals found in the earth’s layers. These are not animals suddenly evolving but animals suddenly dying. This means that there is evidence of a sudden death of a variety of animals. If the flood is true, what we would see is mass deaths and extinctions dating back to about 4000 years. This is what we have but it has been labeled at 600 million years ago.

army_of_juan wrote:

You'd have to explain how the animals swam across the oceans to get to countries like Australia and the Americas.
You'd have to explain how the animals ate after the waters receded (and where the receded to) since everything would be dead, plants and animals alike.

During what is mistakenly called the Ice ‘Age,’ there was more of the earth showing. If you will look at a map of the world, you can see that you can get to all the continents from the Mt Ararat area if you lowered the sea level. Animals that prefer the colder climates walked and swam to the arctic regions. They didn’t have to run. 4,000 years is a long, long time. Animals eat plants or other animals. Plants are very resilient. They float. They have seeds that float, stick to animal fur, blow for miles on the wind. If you destroy a tree, it will sprout up from the root. If you tear off a limb, a branch or a twig, it will sprout in wet ground. In a few months time, the plants in warmer climates would have already begun to flourish in the rich flood muck Animals who ate meat would have a vast supply of dead carcasses to feast on as they slowly thawed out of the receding glaciers. As the glaciers melted over the next few hundred years, the land bridges disappeared.
Again you use a lot of assumptions which are no where supported of the evidence or even logic. No recognized geologist, paleontologist, or zoologist supports the assumptions you have made. Ever wonder why?

army_of_juan wrote:

The problem is the layers these deposits are found in are too deep to have been made just 6000 years ago. Most cultures have flood stories because they tend to live near water which tends to flood pretty often. Also the flood stories don't match up, unless you are talking about The Epic of Galgamesh which Noah's flood story originated from.
How did people such as the Chinese and Egyptians not only exist during the flood, but didn't record any such events?

This is a misconception caused by dating errors. As civilizations grew from the three sons of Noah, they lost the story of the creation and the flood or what little of it that they retained was so polluted with fables that it is practically useless as history. Today, nations are so competitive, they want to claim to be the oldest, most advanced civilization. The easiest way is to make up a glorious past from your history fragments. The Chinese and Egyptians had several kings ruling in different provinces at the same time. These reigns were stretched to be successive instead of contemporary. Archeologists complicate the problem by adding their dating ‘estimates’ in a frenzy to discover the oldest artifacts and receive the biggest grants.
Another assumption which is supported no where in historical records. The answer of "they lost it" is laughable as an answer to support such a claim you are making. The hard evidence is not there .

army_of_juan wrote:

This is 100% wrong. They don't give Nobel Prizes to conformists. Biologist have been trying to poke holes in the ToE for 150 years and to believe there is some kind of conspiracy is just plain paranoia. Evolution is accepted by 99% of biologist and 95% of all other scientist because it's solid, makes logical sense, and is the cornerstone of biology. I think if there was a problem someone would have found it by now.

[/quote:36336]
Actually, you need to do some research for yourself on this. Your mind is pretty made up apparently, so you’re the one who has to change it. I would have to copy/paste half the internet to show you enough examples of this to make any impression. I started a file of frauds and academic prejudice but it got so big, I can hardly find the ones I use for examples here. LOL. Without the background info, they would be distrustfully unacceptable.
As for finding error, first of all, the current leaders of the scientific community don’t want it to be wrong. They spend all their time trying to prove it.
You have the tactics correct but it's the YEC'rs that use it. For them the Noahs flood happened and they are ignoring the lack of any evidence that it didn't and as usual use a lot of "ifs' maybe's etc to make it work. It shouldn't be that hard to prove if it occurred. It is because it didn't.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

There is not enough water buried under the planet and in the clouds to flood the earth. This is another claim by YEC'rs that holds no water. (pardon the pun) Unless you can find some reliable info from respected geologists please stop making the claim.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear that time. In trying to say it seven ways to Sunday, I might not have stated it so you understood it or not emphasized some key element enough. I said, “There is (enough water). It’s just been moved to a sunken part of the planet or frozen in ice caps, or suspended as clouds, where is more or less contained. First of all, 71% of the earth is still covered by water. The average depth is around 2 miles. The deepest is the Pacific Ocean, at 35,837 feet. This would cover the tallest mountain on earth by 6802 feet of water.â€Â

Let me spell it out for you again. The water is in the ice caps at the poles, the clouds in the atmosphere, and the rifts (huge cracks) of the ocean floors. It’s not all ‘water buried under the planet.’ There are places in the ocean that used to be land covered ‘fountains of the deep.’ The water released from them, added to rain from the ‘windows of heaven’ made a flood that covered the earth. Then, probably with plate tectonics, huge areas were pushed down (under what are now oceans) as land masses were folded upwards. This probably also set off some volcanic activity.

All this movement no doubt caused powerful tsunamis that deposited large quantities of sediment onto the highest points of the continents as far as they could carry it. These deposits would have, no doubt, been layered (like the sediment of Mount Ste. Helens that was deposited by the mini tsunami wave that Spirit Lake made as it shifted from one side of the Mountain to another.)

The changes in the atmosphere due to possibly large clouds of ash, brought the temperature down enough to make more snow at the poles which caused the glaciers to extend down well into the lower regions. (your ‘Ice Age’, btw). This caused the ocean water to recede so that land bridging the continents appeared. Today, all that is left of these bridges are only a few strings of islands above the water.

When you say that there isn‘t enough water on the planet and in the clouds to flood the earth, you are in fact making a hypothesis that supports one of God’s predictions. He said the entire earth would never be destroyed by water again. Because of the changes he made in the topography, if you squeezed out all the clouds and melted all the ice covering the earth, you still would not have covered the highest mountains and some islands would remain, just as God promised.

Reznwerks wrote:

Not all phyla appear at the same time at all. Some appear later, others earlier. Further more, it's only representatives that appear. Reptiles, mammals, birds etc. don't appear until much later.
No one is paying any attention to Levinson except YEC'rs.

He is not the only one saying that among your ranks and the fossil layers support his theory or the Scientific ‘powers-that-be’ would have exterminated him by now, according to popular belief that errors are quickly exposed by the watchdogs within the peer system. I think the only things that are speedily exposed as ’error’ are things that put the ToE out of joint.


Reznwerks wrote:

Again you use a lot of assumptions which are no where supported of the evidence or even logic. No recognized geologist, paleontologist, or zoologist supports the assumptions you have made. Ever wonder why?

I wouldn’t know if they did. I rarely go to creationists’ sites. I wouldn’t expect any “recognized geologist, paleontologist, or zoologist†to bite the hand that feeds him. They know who butters their bread and it would really go against logic to shoot yourself in the foot like that. As you demonstrated above, “No one is paying any attention to Levinsonâ€Â.


Reznwerks wrote:

Another assumption which is supported no where in historical records. The answer of "they lost it" is laughable as an answer to support such a claim you are making. The hard evidence is not there .

The “assumption†I was making was that China and Egypt both pride themselves on having some of the oldest civilizations. Japan and Germany have both been caught displaying false evidence planted to make their finds appear thousands of years older. No one in evolutiondom was happy over losing those added years to their ages. In fact, there was no joy in Mudville. Would you like me to dig up the hard evidence? I have a file but it’s huge. Maybe I should make it more user friendly.

This isn’t the evidence that I referred to that was lost. The flood accounts that had been passed down, father to son, were what I mentioned as lost. If this is so laughable, try telling me what your great, great, great grandfather’s occupation was or his religious denomination. Some people don’t know their grandmother’s maiden name. Most of the flood history has been so corrupted by legend that it is barely recognizable.



Reznwerks wrote:

You have the tactics correct but it's the YEC'rs that use it. For them the Noahs flood happened and they are ignoring the lack of any evidence that it didn't and as usual use a lot of "ifs' maybe's etc to make it work. It shouldn't be that hard to prove if it occurred. It is because it didn't.

I use a ot of "ifs' maybe's etc†because I am being honest about it. No one can say with certainty what happened over 6,000 years ago, let alone millions.
As I have repeatedly expressed, the evidence is as plain as your big TOE. You’re not in denial, are you?

 

[reznwerks]

re

Reznwerks wrote:

There is not enough water buried under the planet and in the clouds to flood the earth. This is another claim by YEC'rs that holds no water. (pardon the pun) Unless you can find some reliable info from respected geologists please stop making the claim.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear that time. In trying to say it seven ways to Sunday, I might not have stated it so you understood it or not emphasized some key element enough. I said, “There is (enough water). It’s just been moved to a sunken part of the planet or frozen in ice caps, or suspended as clouds, where is more or less contained. First of all, 71% of the earth is still covered by water. The average depth is around 2 miles. The deepest is the Pacific Ocean, at 35,837 feet. This would cover the tallest mountain on earth by 6802 feet of water.â€Â
Having the surface covered by 71% of water cannot be called a flood or capable of flooding. Claiming to have enough water buried under the ground to cover the earth in a flood is not provable and furthermore is not likely to have occurred because of gravity. If somehow the water underground came to the surface it would leave a void underneath and would be quickly refilled. You not only want us to believe that the flood occurred but now you want us to believe that somehow the laws of gravity were suspended that only affected the water.

Let me spell it out for you again. The water is in the ice caps at the poles, the clouds in the atmosphere, and the rifts (huge cracks) of the ocean floors. It’s not all ‘water buried under the planet.’ There are places in the ocean that used to be land covered ‘fountains of the deep.’ The water released from them, added to rain from the ‘windows of heaven’ made a flood that covered the earth. Then, probably with plate tectonics, huge areas were pushed down (under what are now oceans) as land masses were folded upwards. This probably also set off some volcanic activity.
There is still not enough water to cover the earth some 20 feet or so. Geologists have already done the calculations regarding the ice caps melting and agree that some coastlines would be inundated but no where is the likelyhood of a worldwide flood.

All this movement no doubt caused powerful tsunamis that deposited large quantities of sediment onto the highest points of the continents as far as they could carry it. These deposits would have, no doubt, been layered (like the sediment of Mount Ste. Helens that was deposited by the mini tsunami wave that Spirit Lake made as it shifted from one side of the Mountain to another.)
Another assumption without evidence.

The changes in the atmosphere due to possibly large clouds of ash, brought the temperature down enough to make more snow at the poles which caused the glaciers to extend down well into the lower regions. (your ‘Ice Age’, btw). This caused the ocean water to recede so that land bridging the continents appeared. Today, all that is left of these bridges are only a few strings of islands above the water.
Possibly ?

When you say that there isn‘t enough water on the planet and in the clouds to flood the earth, you are in fact making a hypothesis that supports one of God’s predictions. He said the entire earth would never be destroyed by water again. Because of the changes he made in the topography, if you squeezed out all the clouds and melted all the ice covering the earth, you still would not have covered the highest mountains and some islands would remain, just as God promised.
I don't want to check my bible but I don't recall where it says some mountains weren't covered.

Reznwerks wrote:[quote:6ade9] Not all phyla appear at the same time at all. Some appear later, others earlier. Further more, it's only representatives that appear. Reptiles, mammals, birds etc. don't appear until much later.
No one is paying any attention to Levinson except YEC'rs.

He is not the only one saying that among your ranks and the fossil layers support his theory or the Scientific ‘powers-that-be’ would have exterminated him by now, according to popular belief that errors are quickly exposed by the watchdogs within the peer system. I think the only things that are speedily exposed as ’error’ are things that put the ToE out of joint.
Levinsons works have been in existance for a good number of years and if he was on to something suryly someone looking to make a name for himself and a good deal of cash would be looking for ways to rock the boat. It happens all the time.


Reznwerks wrote:

Again you use a lot of assumptions which are no where supported of the evidence or even logic. No recognized geologist, paleontologist, or zoologist supports the assumptions you have made. Ever wonder why?

I wouldn’t know if they did. I rarely go to creationists’ sites. I wouldn’t expect any “recognized geologist, paleontologist, or zoologist†to bite the hand that feeds him. They know who butters their bread and it would really go against logic to shoot yourself in the foot like that. As you demonstrated above, “No one is paying any attention to Levinsonâ€Â.
It's a cliche arguement to say that they are all in the same group and that their motive for existance if purly a paycheck. However as I said before there is a bigger paycheck for those that have proof to the contrary. Do you realize how many people have borrowed money to pay their educations and have gone into debt in order to do so? Don't you think if what they were taught was so bogus at least a few would be P/O and say something? Believe it or not some kids will not go along with the crowd if it is not true. Believe it or not some kids come from well off families and don't have to lie if they find the truth differs from what is taught. Do you realize how many people have to be in agreement on this conspiracy to have remained rock solid? If the evidence was their and contrary what better way to pay off the education than to expose the lie?


Reznwerks wrote:

Another assumption which is supported no where in historical records. The answer of "they lost it" is laughable as an answer to support such a claim you are making. The hard evidence is not there .

The “assumption†I was making was that China and Egypt both pride themselves on having some of the oldest civilizations. Japan and Germany have both been caught displaying false evidence planted to make their finds appear thousands of years older. No one in evolutiondom was happy over losing those added years to their ages. In fact, there was no joy in Mudville. Would you like me to dig up the hard evidence? I have a file but it’s huge. Maybe I should make it more user friendly.
Of all the finds and evidence that exist I am sure it comes no where close to upsetting all the undisputed evidence. As for conjuring up false evidence you need look no further than the ICR for starters.

This isn’t the evidence that I referred to that was lost. The flood accounts that had been passed down, father to son, were what I mentioned as lost. If this is so laughable, try telling me what your great, great, great grandfather’s occupation was or his religious denomination. Some people don’t know their grandmother’s maiden name. Most of the flood history has been so corrupted by legend that it is barely recognizable.
We don't need the legends. We have the evidence or lack of it. Any flood of this magnitude would leave a lot of evidence. It doesn't exist. Any flood legends are agreed to be local events and any claim of "worldwide" flooding was from the viewpoint of those in and around the event as no one had the capabity of world wide travel.



Reznwerks wrote:

You have the tactics correct but it's the YEC'rs that use it. For them the Noahs flood happened and they are ignoring the lack of any evidence that it didn't and as usual use a lot of "ifs' maybe's etc to make it work. It shouldn't be that hard to prove if it occurred. It is because it didn't.

I use a lot of "ifs' maybe's etc†because I am being honest about it. No one can say with certainty what happened over 6,000 years ago, let alone millions.
As I have repeatedly expressed, the evidence is as plain as your big TOE. You’re not in denial, are you?
I am not in denial. You just admitted that you have no proof of the flood and no evidence to back it. The evidence that you claim exists only exist for YEC'rs. It's not just the US scientists that reject the worldwide flood but I can't find any support anywhere in the whole world that supports the idea except Christian YEC'rs and perhaps some local isolated tribes that still cling to their ancestral religion. I am just curious as to why you still insist on claiming it occurred?

[/quote:6ade9]

 

[Heidi]

Scientists use all kinds of methods.

That's the reason why there are more than one in the first place.

And if any one of those methods was reliable, then why is the use of others even necessary? :o You have proven the OP's point quite well.

 

[army_of_juan]

Scientists use all kinds of methods.

That's the reason why there are more than one in the first place.

And if any one of those methods was reliable, then why is the use of others even necessary? :o You have proven the OP's point quite well.

To verify results. If a problem comes up in one then it will be caught by one of the other methods. It's really common sense.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Having the surface covered by 71% of water cannot be called a flood or capable of flooding. Claiming to have enough water buried under the ground to cover the earth in a flood is not provable and furthermore is not likely to have occurred because of gravity. If somehow the water underground came to the surface it would leave a void underneath and would be quickly refilled. You not only want us to believe that the flood occurred but now you want us to believe that somehow the laws of gravity were suspended that only affected the water.

I’m not trying to make 71% of the surface presently covered by water magically stretch to cover all the continents at the height we have today. Kindly stop rewriting my words to stuff your straw man arguments.

Why are you suspending gravity? There are underground water springs today but I think the fountains of the deep were more like underground catacombs or tunnels filled with water. If volcanic pressure pushed up from underneath, forcing the water to the surface, and collapsing the structure of them, it would make quite a splash.

If you open up the ground, lava usually fills the void. If lava displaces the water, you get volcanic mountains in place of fountains. Add some plate tectonics and it starts getting a lot more mountainous where it buckles up and deeper where the plates were pushed out. We don’t need as much water to cover the lower mountains and we don’t need the water to stay over the new higher mountains. A tsunami will do nicely. New volcanoes and mountains just pushed up won’t have any land animals or people on them anyways. I doubt if any people outside the ark lasted beyond the first month.

Also, I have been thinking about the fact that if you combine hydrogen and oxygen, you get water. This idea might even have something to do with the carbon in things that were killed before the flood having ‘old’ carbon in them. All of these things are just chemicals and without the ToE in the way, a real scientist might actually figure it out.



Reznwerks wrote:

I don't want to check my bible but I don't recall where it says some mountains weren't covered.

All the mountains were covered during the flood. I said that there isn’t enough now to cover all the mountains after the flood, since the topography has been changed. You don’t listen very well, do you? Or is it you just read what you want to hear?

Reznwerks wrote:

It's a cliche arguement to say that they are all in the same group and that their motive for existance if purly a paycheck. However as I said before there is a bigger paycheck for those that have proof to the contrary. Do you realize how many people have borrowed money to pay their educations and have gone into debt in order to do so? Don't you think if what they were taught was so bogus at least a few would be P/O and say something? Believe it or not some kids will not go along with the crowd if it is not true. Believe it or not some kids come from well off families and don't have to lie if they find the truth differs from what is taught. Do you realize how many people have to be in agreement on this conspiracy to have remained rock solid? If the evidence was their and contrary what better way to pay off the education than to expose the lie?
Levinsons works have been in existance for a good number of years and if he was on to something suryly someone looking to make a name for himself and a good deal of cash would be looking for ways to rock the boat. It happens all the time.

Don’t you mean what better way to lose their future in any scientific endeavor? Jeffrey S. Levinton, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York writes an article called, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution" in a major science journal, to which you replied: “No one is paying any attention to Levinson except YEC'rs.†This is weird. Here is a professor of ecology and evolution at a state university and because he advances a theory that can be used by creationists, even though he is an evolutionist, he is pushed off into obscurity. Tell me again how theories contrary to the accepted ToE can be beneficial to a proponent? Tell me again how this is true and try not to blink.

Reznwerks wrote:

Of all the finds and evidence that exist I am sure it comes no where close to upsetting all the undisputed evidence. As for conjuring up false evidence you need look no further than the ICR for starters.

I’m sure you have no idea. Even if you did, would you be busy trying to cover it up or admitting it? You’re only fooling yourself here.



Reznwerks wrote:

We don't need the legends. We have the evidence or lack of it. Any flood of this magnitude would leave a lot of evidence. It doesn't exist. Any flood legends are agreed to be local events and any claim of "worldwide" flooding was from the viewpoint of those in and around the event as no one had the capabity of world wide travel.

God always had the capability of world wide travel. As long as you deny his existence, you’re never going to catch on.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

We don't need the legends. We have the evidence or lack of it. Any flood of this magnitude would leave a lot of evidence. It doesn't exist. Any flood legends are agreed to be local events and any claim of "worldwide" flooding was from the viewpoint of those in and around the event as no one had the capabity of world wide travel.

Unred’s partial reply: God always had the capability of world wide travel. As long as you deny his existence, you’re never going to catch on.

Unred continues with further discussion, as time permits:
There may indeed be flood legends that have no basis in Noah’s flood but there are some remnants of this story in other cultures where the descendants of Noah passed it down to their children. Since it is the proof of God’s judgment and a warning against sin, Satan is trying aggressively to wipe it’s record off the face of the earth. Since he can’t change the evidence, he inspires it’s misinterpretation. You are just his unwitting accomplices.

As I explained many times, the evidence is there and it is being misinterpreted as layers of sediment from millions or billions of years worth of existence. The world wide features like the grand canyon and mountain ranges from volcanic and plate tectonic action, the massive layers of fossils, the evidence of many extinct species, and the coal, oil, and gas deposits around the globe are evidence for such a catastrophic event. God even left you a few trees as witnesses to the date of the event. If the ToE hadn’t taken over practically the entire scientific body of researchers, and unfairly discredited all others, we would have a flood of good solid theories to explain all the earth’s features.

I am hopeful that as the children of Creationists are removed from the mind numbing effects of evolutionary teaching, and into private and home schools, they will emerge as an army of Creationist scientists establishing and equipping their own labs and data gathering facilities and their field techs capable of “world wide travel.†Meanwhile, evolutionists are dumbing down their children with erroneous theories that bring despair and hopelessness to mankind, giving rise to drugs and violence. Sad. Who'd wanna be them?

 

[reznwerks]

logic

Reznwerks wrote:

Having the surface covered by 71% of water cannot be called a flood or capable of flooding. Claiming to have enough water buried under the ground to cover the earth in a flood is not provable and furthermore is not likely to have occurred because of gravity. If somehow the water underground came to the surface it would leave a void underneath and would be quickly refilled. You not only want us to believe that the flood occurred but now you want us to believe that somehow the laws of gravity were suspended that only affected the water.

I’m not trying to make 71% of the surface presently covered by water magically stretch to cover all the continents at the height we have today. Kindly stop rewriting my words to stuff your straw man arguments.

Why are you suspending gravity? There are underground water springs today but I think the fountains of the deep were more like underground catacombs or tunnels filled with water. If volcanic pressure pushed up from underneath, forcing the water to the surface, and collapsing the structure of them, it would make quite a splash.
You can't have it both ways again. If the underground caverns of water suddenly spit forth the water then the water would find its way back down in the void. Not to do so for a year would require gravity to be null and void. If the caverns collaped as you now suggest the water would still be on the surface of the earth. Give it up already.

If you open up the ground, lava usually fills the void. If lava displaces the water, you get volcanic mountains in place of fountains. Add some plate tectonics and it starts getting a lot more mountainous where it buckles up and deeper where the plates were pushed out. We don’t need as much water to cover the lower mountains and we don’t need the water to stay over the new higher mountains. A tsunami will do nicely. New volcanoes and mountains just pushed up won’t have any land animals or people on them anyways. I doubt if any people outside the ark lasted beyond the first month.
The problem is you don't have any evidence for what you suggest. There should'nt have been any people outside of the ark to last a month.

Also, I have been thinking about the fact that if you combine hydrogen and oxygen, you get water. This idea might even have something to do with the carbon in things that were killed before the flood having ‘old’ carbon in them. All of these things are just chemicals and without the ToE in the way, a real scientist might actually figure it out.
There you go again. You are making a hypothesis as fact without any evidence nor any idea of what you are claiming is even possible or even likely.



Reznwerks wrote:[quote:112f5] I don't want to check my bible but I don't recall where it says some mountains weren't covered.

All the mountains were covered during the flood. I said that there isn’t enough now to cover all the mountains after the flood, since the topography has been changed. You don’t listen very well, do you? Or is it you just read what you want to hear?
I listen very well. I don't accept the possiblity that nor is there any evidence to believe mountains like White Mt. Vermont occurred after a world wide flood that has no evidence to having really occurred.Even the smallest hills are routinely 100 feet high. Even at this level it is unimaginable that the highest mt at the time of the so called flood were only 100 feet high or less. Since the earth is a planet like the rest of the planets why do photographs on other planets show mountains higher than some of our mountains? Did those planets have a worldwide flood too? Or do you discount those pictures and claim that those taking the pictures are all in the same group and are trying to brainwash us here as well?

Reznwerks wrote:

It's a cliche arguement to say that they are all in the same group and that their motive for existance if purly a paycheck. However as I said before there is a bigger paycheck for those that have proof to the contrary. Do you realize how many people have borrowed money to pay their educations and have gone into debt in order to do so? Don't you think if what they were taught was so bogus at least a few would be P/O and say something? Believe it or not some kids will not go along with the crowd if it is not true. Believe it or not some kids come from well off families and don't have to lie if they find the truth differs from what is taught. Do you realize how many people have to be in agreement on this conspiracy to have remained rock solid? If the evidence was their and contrary what better way to pay off the education than to expose the lie?
Levinsons works have been in existance for a good number of years and if he was on to something suryly someone looking to make a name for himself and a good deal of cash would be looking for ways to rock the boat. It happens all the time.

Don’t you mean what better way to lose their future in any scientific endeavor?
As I said, some could use the cash, some could use the notoriety, and some just don't need the cash. There is so many reasons to expose the lies you claim if they existed.

Jeffrey S. Levinton, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York writes an article called, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution" in a major science journal, to which you replied: “No one is paying any attention to Levinson except YEC'rs.†This is weird. Here is a professor of ecology and evolution at a state university and because he advances a theory that can be used by creationists, even though he is an evolutionist, he is pushed off into obscurity. Tell me again how theories contrary to the accepted ToE can be beneficial to a proponent? Tell me again how this is true and try not to blink.
I know what his credential are and so does everyone else. The point is that no one is paying any attention to his theories and as I pointed out some of what he said has already been debunked.

Reznwerks wrote:

Of all the finds and evidence that exist I am sure it comes no where close to upsetting all the undisputed evidence. As for conjuring up false evidence you need look no further than the ICR for starters.

I’m sure you have no idea. Even if you did, would you be busy trying to cover it up or admitting it? You’re only fooling yourself here.
Do you realize how many people have to be wrong for you to be right?



Reznwerks wrote:

We don't need the legends. We have the evidence or lack of it. Any flood of this magnitude would leave a lot of evidence. It doesn't exist. Any flood legends are agreed to be local events and any claim of "worldwide" flooding was from the viewpoint of those in and around the event as no one had the capabity of world wide travel.

God always had the capability of world wide travel. As long as you deny his existence, you’re never going to catch on.
If you want to relate to God like a child relates to imaginary figures then all is possible.[/quote:112f5]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

You can't have it both ways again. If the underground caverns of water suddenly spit forth the water then the water would find its way back down in the void. Not to do so for a year would require gravity to be null and void. If the caverns collaped as you now suggest the water would still be on the surface of the earth. Give it up already.

If the caverns burst from underneath, the water would be released onto the planet (tsunamis) and this opening into the mantle would release lava and ash sludge that would fill the crevasses and form pretty marbled mountains. Or perhaps the pressure of the lava itself would force the water out as it pushed through the crevasses in the fountains of the deep. There are endless possibilities. As I told Jimbob, figuring out this mess is going to be like trying to reconstruct New Orleans back to it’s original condition using the same bricks and boards and plaster without any plans to go by. It’s flood debris. It’s not going to be simple labeling the layers and assigning them so many geological ages.


Reznwerks wrote:

I listen very well. I don't accept the possiblity that nor is there any evidence to believe mountains like White Mt. Vermont occurred after a world wide flood that has no evidence to having really occurred.Even the smallest hills are routinely 100 feet high. Even at this level it is unimaginable that the highest mt at the time of the so called flood were only 100 feet high or less. Since the earth is a planet like the rest of the planets why do photographs on other planets show mountains higher than some of our mountains? Did those planets have a worldwide flood too? Or do you discount those pictures and claim that those taking the pictures are all in the same group and are trying to brainwash us here as well?

You know something about plate tectonics. If you push the earth down here, it will pop up over there. Maybe you can even give us the scientific law that states that. If you have gravity and water, it’s going to seek the lowest level. It’s going to drain down to into lower places. When it does, the weight of it will cause a bulge in the mantle somewhere else. When volcanoes erupt, they usually spew out lava, and under water this cools and crusts over quickly. The action of tidal waves and tsunamis leaves mountains of debris and sediment as far ashore as it can carry it. This movement of tons of materials also could cause a redistribution of weight and a buckling of the crust. The earth doesn’t have a lot of ridges and bumps, when it is viewed from outer space. About all you can see in a satellite photo is water and clouds and a small amount of land in comparison.

Mountains only look gigantic to us peons on the ground. As you say, on other planets without wave action to soften them and a nice atmosphere to burn up most asteroids (aka shooting stars) before they strike our surface, the mountains are much bigger. You don’t need water to make mountains, but on our planet, the evidence shows that water was a key element in shaping our topography. If you look at an accurate relief map of the world, you will see many places that look similar to beach areas where waves and tides drain back to the ocean and places that look like dirt roads that wash out during rain storms. If water trapped by flood debris were suddenly released when those natural levees broke, it would quickly cut through sediment recently deposited by tsunamis and ash layers from volcanoes, leaving behind the grand canyons geologists mistakenly label as millions of years worth of stratum.

Reznwerks wrote:

The problem is you don't have any evidence for what you suggest. There should'nt have been any people outside of the ark to last a month.

Why would there have to be? We have all the good folks we need right inside the ark. The whole purpose was to eliminate the people and the corruption they caused on earth.


Reznwerks wrote:

There you go again. You are making a hypothesis as fact without any evidence nor any idea of what you are claiming is even possible or even likely.

You mean forming a hypothesis to prove, don’t you? I thought we liked those. I think a creationist with a good background in chemistry and geology could put together a good one to suggest a vehicle to change atmospheric oxygen and hydrogen into water, don’t you? A few experiments with oxygen, hydrogen, argon and carbon, etc. and I bet they could figure out why the carbon dating gives us all those erroneous ages, too.


Reznwerks wrote:

I know what his credential are and so does everyone else. The point is that no one is paying any attention to his theories and as I pointed out some of what he said has already been debunked.

I’m sure de TOE people tossed de bunk at him.

Reznwerks wrote:

Do you realize how many people have to be wrong for you to be right?

Do you realize how much I don’t care about that? Didn’t your Dad ever ask you, “If all the people jump in the lake, are you going to?†Since the majority is quite often wrong, I don’t think that is a great argument, especially when the majority has been mass brainwashed by ToE misinformation.


Reznwerks wrote:

If you want to relate to God like a child relates to imaginary figures then all is possible.

No, I relate to God like a child relates to their father. I trust him and know there are billions of things I don’t understand that he has created and knows inside and out. I am looking forward to the perfect world that he is creating to replace this one but I am afraid for those who resist his will. I want to be ready when his Son returns to rule this messed up place and to prove his worthiness. Next time the ‘flood’ will be by fire. Strange as it sounds, the Bible says that using a clever deception, Satan will be able to draw away a following of people who stubbornly hate God. I hope you won’t be one of them.

 

[reznwerks]

here we go

Reznwerks wrote:

You can't have it both ways again. If the underground caverns of water suddenly spit forth the water then the water would find its way back down in the void. Not to do so for a year would require gravity to be null and void. If the caverns collaped as you now suggest the water would still be on the surface of the earth. Give it up already.

If the caverns burst from underneath, the water would be released onto the planet (tsunamis) and this opening into the mantle would release lava and ash sludge that would fill the crevasses and form pretty marbled mountains. Or perhaps the pressure of the lava itself would force the water out as it pushed through the crevasses in the fountains of the deep. There are endless possibilities. As I told Jimbob, figuring out this mess is going to be like trying to reconstruct New Orleans back to it’s original condition using the same bricks and boards and plaster without any plans to go by. It’s flood debris. It’s not going to be simple labeling the layers and assigning them so many geological ages.
Here we go again. Look at your post. All of your answers are are contingent on "ifs possibiities perhaps and what you call endless possibilities. The fact is there ISN"T any evidence of what you propose and not only that your "endless possibities" are in fact unlikely probabilities and look into the dictionary or geology book to find out what a tsunami really is. You are as bad as a movie director who takes his imagination and makes it look real on screen. Unless you are going to comment on REAL facts and REAL evidence both likely and possible I suggest you find a forum that deals in the imaginary.



You know something about plate tectonics. If you push the earth down here, it will pop up over there.
Balloons do that but the earthe does not. Raising the surface may create a void underneath but who ever told you the earth is going to pop up somewhere else might have been having some adult beverages.
Maybe you can even give us the scientific law that states that. If you have gravity and water, it’s going to seek the lowest level. It’s going to drain down to into lower places.
Correct , that is why it is impossible for the water to have risen from underground to help create a flood of world wide proportions.

When it does, the weight of it will cause a bulge in the mantle somewhere else.
Maybe it will and maybe it won't. Regardless we have no evidence that it is probable and no evidence that it ever happened. All the evidence or lack of it says the flood did not occur.

When volcanoes erupt, they usually spew out lava, and under water this cools and crusts over quickly. The action of tidal waves and tsunamis leaves mountains of debris and sediment as far ashore as it can carry it.
A couple of miles maybe.
This movement of tons of materials also could cause a redistribution of weight and a buckling of the crust.
Could? Please try to deal with reality and evidence.

The earth doesn’t have a lot of ridges and bumps, when it is viewed from outer space. About all you can see in a satellite photo is water and clouds and a small amount of land in comparison.
So what is the point?

Mountains only look gigantic to us peons on the ground. As you say, on other planets without wave action to soften them and a nice atmosphere to burn up most asteroids (aka shooting stars) before they strike our surface, the mountains are much bigger.
Mountains on other planets probably formed the same way they did on earth and that was with the heating and cooling of the planet not by water action as you have suggested.

You don’t need water to make mountains, but on our planet, the evidence shows that water was a key element in shaping our topography.
Water is indeed a factor in shaping the surface of the earth but it did not occur at one time nor did it occur suddenly as in a flood.

If you look at an accurate relief map of the world, you will see many places that look similar to beach areas where waves and tides drain back to the ocean and places that look like dirt roads that wash out during rain storms. If water trapped by flood debris were suddenly released when those natural levees broke, it would quickly cut through sediment recently deposited by tsunamis and ash layers from volcanoes, leaving behind the grand canyons geologists mistakenly label as millions of years worth of stratum.
Now you think you think that 99% of the worlds geologists are incorrect and YOU are right. How could it be so many are wrong and you are right. Don't you think they have done the tests to see just how long it takes to wear away rock? It's not that hard to do. You can run water over stone for a period of time and then measure the wear rate and then do the math for a larger area and presto you have a calculation on how long it took for a certain area to look the way it does today.This is really a grade school argument and I can't believe an adult is argueing this case.

Reznwerks wrote:[quote:c5ff7] The problem is you don't have any evidence for what you suggest. There should'nt have been any people outside of the ark to last a month.

Why would there have to be? We have all the good folks we need right inside the ark. The whole purpose was to eliminate the people and the corruption they caused on earth.
Laughable! Why? A better question is Why not! As to the purpose, it didn't work did it! What does this say about making a claim the creator flooded the whole earth to eliminate evil and corruption when it still exists? I would think that if a creator set about to accomplish a task it would be done.


Reznwerks wrote:

There you go again. You are making a hypothesis as fact without any evidence nor any idea of what you are claiming is even possible or even likely.

You mean forming a hypothesis to prove, don’t you?
Absolutely.

I thought we liked those. I think a creationist with a good background in chemistry and geology could put together a good one to suggest a vehicle to change atmospheric oxygen and hydrogen into water, don’t you?
Why do we need a hypothesis to prove water exists? Scientists have already broken water down into in main parts.

A few experiments with oxygen, hydrogen, argon and carbon, etc. and I bet they could figure out why the carbon dating gives us all those erroneous ages, too.
The problem is that carbon dating is not all that is used. ALL tests point to the same conclusions. So not only do most of the scientists on the planet have to be wrong and you are right but all the tests that are repeatable over and over that say the same thing have to be wrong as well .



Reznwerks wrote:

Do you realize how many people have to be wrong for you to be right?

Do you realize how much I don’t care about that?
Then why are you here? You're right and you should find something else to do if you really don't care.

Didn’t your Dad ever ask you, “If all the people jump in the lake, are you going to?â€Â
Since you are surrounded by believers do you ask the same question?

Since the majority is quite often wrong, I don’t think that is a great argument, especially when the majority has been mass brainwashed by ToE misinformation.
The majority in this case for years were bible believers. Guess what happened? EVIDENCE. The truth is out.


Reznwerks wrote:

If you want to relate to God like a child relates to imaginary figures then all is possible.

No, I relate to God like a child relates to their father. I trust him and know there are billions of things I don’t understand that he has created and knows inside and out. I am looking forward to the perfect world that he is creating to replace this one but I am afraid for those who resist his will. I want to be ready when his Son returns to rule this messed up place and to prove his worthiness. Next time the ‘flood’ will be by fire. Strange as it sounds, the Bible says that using a clever deception, Satan will be able to draw away a following of people who stubbornly hate God. I hope you won’t be one of them.
There is not evidence of God and no evidence that Jesus ever lived on this planet. His world as you claim will not be perfect since Jesus (if he ever lived) will have to rule over it. The fact that it will need a ruler means that their will be derision and conflict so it will not be perfect. As to hating God I don't because it is impossible to hate something that doesn't exist. There is no evidence for God, angels, satan or his demons.


[/quote:c5ff7]

 

[Heidi]

Actually most of the universe is composed of water. Water comprises 91% of the substance in the human body and oxygen is composed of 2 molecules of hydrogen (water).

Carbon-14 is only present in one trillionth of all the atoms in each molecule and its existence varies greatly according to the amount of sun in each day, how much radiation in the air from nuclear power plants, and the position of the sun relative to the equator. Therefore, the chance of winning the lottery is much higher than the accuracy of carbon-14 dating.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Come on Heidi, I like how you're trying to sound like you know thing one about science, but really, implying that the sun reaching the earth doesn't fit into a relatively small interval such that C14 radiometrics are useful is just silly.

I'm sure your next bound in logic would be to say that because there's a science paper somewhere that says that the speed of light may vary from its defined velocity means that use of redshift is wrong, and then you'll go on to prove that black is white and that the republican party is too conservative and that Shari'a law has some definite fine points to be considered in Western legal codes.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Here we go again. Look at your post. All of your answers are are contingent on "ifs possibiities perhaps and what you call endless possibilities. The fact is there ISN"T any evidence of what you propose and not only that your "endless possibities" are in fact unlikely probabilities and look into the dictionary or geology book to find out what a tsunami really is. You are as bad as a movie director who takes his imagination and makes it look real on screen. Unless you are going to comment on REAL facts and REAL evidence both likely and possible I suggest you find a forum that deals in the imaginary.

What do you want? A pile of dirt or a piece of bone? You have those. Now look at them from another POV and stop pretending you have the one and only answer.

Reznwerks wrote:

Balloons do that but the earthe does not. Raising the surface may create a void underneath but who ever told you the earth is going to pop up somewhere else might have been having some adult beverages.

Sorry. I got that from one of your geologist’s web sites. They must have been having a little something on the rocks.
Reznwerks wrote:

Correct , that is why it is impossible for the water to have risen from underground to help create a flood of world wide proportions.

Did you miss the part about volcanic pressure forcing the water out? Because if I’m not mistaken, lava rises from underground in spite of gravity.


Reznwerks wrote:

[quote:3e7ab]unred said:“When volcanoes erupt, they usually spew out lava, and under water this cools and crusts over quickly. The action of tidal waves and tsunamis leaves mountains of debris and sediment as far ashore as it can carry it.â€Â

A couple of miles maybe. [/quote:3e7ab]
A normal sized tsunami might just dump debris a couple of miles off shore but a super sized one would probably do much better.

Reznwerks wrote:

Unred said:“This movement of tons of materials also could cause a redistribution of weight and a buckling of the crust.â€Â
Could? Please try to deal with reality and evidence.

Yes, could. Would you say it’s reality to imagine that through chance and time, the millions of changes in the millions of species of plants, fish, birds, insects, and microscopic life happened all by themselves? How many is that a day, btw? Let’s put some facts and figures with those assumptions. Don't forget I have a designer in charge of changes and all you have are happy accidents like the (pair of?) lizards who won the lottery for dominant gene of hair or feathers versus scales.


Reznwerks wrote:

unred said:“The earth doesn’t have a lot of ridges and bumps, when it is viewed from outer space. About all you can see in a satellite photo is water and clouds and a small amount of land in comparison.â€Â
So what is the point?

You brought it up. You implied that I thought that mountains on other planets were smaller than ours or that ours were all made up from flood deposits. Neither is true. You just made it up to make my post sound illogical.

Reznwerks wrote:

Mountains on other planets probably formed the same way they did on earth and that was with the heating and cooling of the planet not by water action as you have suggested.

I never suggested water action formed all the mountains on earth or any at all anywhere else. I would guess that the lack of atmosphere would make a difference in how many asteroids hit the surface of other planets. The impacts could trigger volcanoes and earthquakes and plate shifting there.

Reznwerks wrote:

Water is indeed a factor in shaping the surface of the earth but it did not occur at one time nor did it occur suddenly as in a flood.

I agree with that. Not all the geological features occurred at one time in one flood event. Some of the most notable ones did, however. Though the flood of Noah was one of the greatest geological events of the earth’s history, many other things happened throughout the last 5000 years that have left their own scars on this old planet.


Reznwerks wrote:

Now you think you think that 99% of the worlds geologists are incorrect and YOU are right. How could it be so many are wrong and you are right. Don't you think they have done the tests to see just how long it takes to wear away rock? It's not that hard to do. You can run water over stone for a period of time and then measure the wear rate and then do the math for a larger area and presto you have a calculation on how long it took for a certain area to look the way it does today.This is really a grade school argument and I can't believe an adult is argueing this case.

LOL. I don’t think that 99% of the worlds geologists are incorrect. Only the ones who assume the earth is millions of years old. I’m sure it is a majority but I don’t believe it’s 99% of them.
Your estimation of tests don’t even make sense. Running water over stone would not give the calculation needed to tell how fast the fresh flood debris could be worn away with the amount of flow a lake half the size of America would be as it thundered to the ocean carrying megatons of rock and forming the grand canyon on it’s way.



Reznwerks wrote:

Laughable! Why? A better question is Why not! As to the purpose, it didn't work did it! What does this say about making a claim the creator flooded the whole earth to eliminate evil and corruption when it still exists? I would think that if a creator set about to accomplish a task it would be done.

Sloppy reading. I said: “The whole purpose was to eliminate the people and the corruption they caused on earth.†So you tell me. Did God eliminate those people and did he eliminate the corruption and evil that they were engaging in? Guess what? None of the people God drowned in the flood are doing any of their evil practices to corrupt the world any more. They’re dead. Perished with hardly a trace.




Reznwerks wrote:

Why do we need a hypothesis to prove water exists? Scientists have already broken water down into in main parts.

That’s not what I said. I was referring to a hypothesis to explain Noah’s flood waters created by the change of atmospheric oxygen and hydrogen into water.


Reznwerks wrote:

The problem is that carbon dating is not all that is used. ALL tests point to the same conclusions. So not only do most of the scientists on the planet have to be wrong and you are right but all the tests that are repeatable over and over that say the same thing have to be wrong as well .

All tests do not point to anything but the fact that you all share a common brain. That doesn’t leave too many cells for original thinking.


Reznwerks wrote:

Then why are you here? You're right and you should find something else to do if you really don't care.

More sloppy reading. I don’t care how many people disagree with me who really should know better. That has nothing to do with what is true and what is right. As for the propagation of your ToE’s outrageous lie, I do care, obviously.


Reznwerks wrote:

Since you are surrounded by believers do you ask the same question?
The majority in this case for years were bible believers. Guess what happened? EVIDENCE. The truth is out.

I don’t even think most ‘believers’ would agree with me. My theories are not set in stone and that bothers a lot of people who like to have their ducks in a row. If you give me your “evidence,†I bet I can come up with a nice Biblical model to accommodate the ‘facts’ as you believe them to be. Change them tomorrow and I’ll just come up with another Biblical scenario.


Reznwerks wrote:

There is not evidence of God and no evidence that Jesus ever lived on this planet. His world as you claim will not be perfect since Jesus (if he ever lived) will have to rule over it. The fact that it will need a ruler means that their will be derision and conflict so it will not be perfect. As to hating God I don't because it is impossible to hate something that doesn't exist. There is no evidence for God, angels, satan or his demons.

That won’t be hard to prove at all. Time is on my side and we’re not talking billions.
I give you a few decades at the most and you’ll be a believer as every knee will bow.

 

[unred typo]

(a P.S. to my above posting: )

Reznwerks wrote:

Here we go again. Look at your post. All of your answers are are contingent on "ifs possibiities perhaps and what you call endless possibilities. The fact is there ISN"T any evidence of what you propose and not only that your "endless possibities" are in fact unlikely probabilities and look into the dictionary or geology book to find out what a tsunami really is. You are as bad as a movie director who takes his imagination and makes it look real on screen. Unless you are going to comment on REAL facts and REAL evidence both likely and possible I suggest you find a forum that deals in the imaginary.

Your big ToE ideas should be required to display a caution for unwary readers; “Warning: OBFUSCATION AHEAD. All of the views expressed here are based on imaginary possibilities propagated by people who believe them to be facts. Any resemblance to real facts or events is purely erroneous.â€Â
This morning as I reread your first statement back there, I was reminded of the thousands of evolutionary visions embellished with colorful depictions of grunting hominids in various degrees of advancement squatted around their little homesteads. Then in my mind’s eye, the scene widened to include your “movie directorâ€Â; the museum curator or encyclopedia artist working with only bits of bone and skull and rock implements (still in use today by fully human ‘specimens,’ btw) creating a total fabrication of circumstantial evidence designed to convince even the hardened skeptic. Now I’m waiting for the sound of “Cut!†and the inevitable corrections that will boasted of as the latest ‘new face for _______ !(insert name of your favorite caveman. I pick ‘Neanderthal‘… no, no… ‘Barney’

As you are prone to say at every opportunity, one is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, as if you actually had cornered the market. The nice thing about facts is that they don’t change. It totally amuses me that in order to keep up with your latest views, I have to constantly revise my own theories to accommodate them. I wish you had more facts so I wouldn’t have to do it on a daily basis but that’s the name of the game in your imaginary world. At least I don’t imagine them to be dogmatic truths every time they morph into something else.

 

[reznwerks]

surly

(a P.S. to my above posting: )

Reznwerks wrote:

Here we go again. Look at your post. All of your answers are are contingent on "ifs possibiities perhaps and what you call endless possibilities. The fact is there ISN"T any evidence of what you propose and not only that your "endless possibities" are in fact unlikely probabilities and look into the dictionary or geology book to find out what a tsunami really is. You are as bad as a movie director who takes his imagination and makes it look real on screen. Unless you are going to comment on REAL facts and REAL evidence both likely and possible I suggest you find a forum that deals in the imaginary.

Your big ToE ideas should be required to display a caution for unwary readers; “Warning: OBFUSCATION AHEAD. All of the views expressed here are based on imaginary possibilities propagated by people who believe them to be facts. Any resemblance to real facts or events is purely erroneous.â€Â
Look who is calling the kettle black. LOL You can't show anywhere from any recognized and respected source where evolution is not accepted as fact by the majority of those that study it, test it and observe it. It has been shown to you repeatedly where evolution occurs TODAY on a daily recurring basis. However you have chosen to put your head in the sand and ignore it because your belief is more important than fact.

As you are prone to say at every opportunity, one is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts, as if you actually had cornered the market. The nice thing about facts is that they don’t change.
Facts don't change but new facts may change the conclusion which is something you have problems dealing with. For you the bible has to be right or everything is upside down for you. Science and its conclusions can and will change based on new info. For all the errors you allude to however none have come to the conclusion that their must be an intelligent designer. If God (if he exists) is so eager for us to know and science wants to find out, why can't they get together. Did ya ever wonder why?

It totally amuses me that in order to keep up with your latest views, I have to constantly revise my own theories to accommodate them.
I don't know whose posts you are reading but my views have not changed one bit. There is no evidence of God , less evidence of a Christian God, and all the evidence for us being here point to evolution as the cause and unanswered questions don't default to the idea that God did it.

I wish you had more facts so I wouldn’t have to do it on a daily basis but that’s the name of the game in your imaginary world.
The facts are all in the libraries of the world, the colleges and universities, the book stores etc etc. You on the other hand are clinging to a book written by people who attribute the "books" according to so and so rather than by the author with only a first name . These authors make the claim inspired by "God" but what else would they claim?No information on the writers can be found anywhere outside of the bible no evidence for the fantastic claims can be found outside the bible etc etc etc .Then we have unred who questions the "facts " regarding evolution.

size=18][/size]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

Look who is calling the kettle black. LOL You can't show anywhere from any recognized and respected source where evolution is not accepted as fact by the majority of those that study it, test it and observe it. It has been shown to you repeatedly where evolution occurs TODAY on a daily recurring basis. However you have chosen to put your head in the sand and ignore it because your belief is more important than fact.

I am trying to make an appeal to reason and common sense. I have told you repeatedly that I accept evolution as it is shown to have occurred in the past, if you have the actual proof of such a thing. I believe that there is a design feature built into the creation that allows for changes that allow it to adapt for survival. God either planned ahead or he makes changes as needed. This shouldn’t require any longer to accomplish than the original 6 days of creation.


Reznwerks wrote:

Facts don't change but new facts may change the conclusion which is something you have problems dealing with. For you the bible has to be right or everything is upside down for you. Science and its conclusions can and will change based on new info. For all the errors you allude to however none have come to the conclusion that their must be an intelligent designer. If God (if he exists) is so eager for us to know and science wants to find out, why can't they get together. Did ya ever wonder why?

That’s exactly what I’m saying. You don’t have enough of the actual facts to make the kind of assumptions you are making and calling them ‘facts’. You refer to the ‘fact’ of evolution as if it automatically includes millions of years. Based on this assumption, you erroneously determine all the dates of the evidence. They agree with each other in the same way you can balance your checkbook perfectly without accounting for a million dollar withdrawal until the next statement comes in that includes that check. You just haven’t gotten your new statement yet.
The reason your scientists can’t find God is because they’re not looking to find him but to find ways to create the universes without him. You’re in denial and you even deny that you’re in denial.



Reznwerks wrote:

I don't know whose posts you are reading but my views have not changed one bit. There is no evidence of God , less evidence of a Christian God, and all the evidence for us being here point to evolution as the cause and unanswered questions don't default to the idea that God did it.

By “your views†I am speaking of the collective views of the ToE that you subscribe to... the ones that change with every discovery of a fraud or some ‘new evidence that reshapes the face of evolutionary thought.’ If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read that science doesn’t believe that anymore, I wouldn’t even have to worry about a million dollar error in my checkbook.
My evidence isn’t a default situation. If you didn’t discount and misinterpret the evidence God gave you, you wouldn’t have to make up your own story. There is plenty of archeological evidence but you are ignoring it, pretending it doesn‘t exist.



Reznwerks wrote:

The facts are all in the libraries of the world, the colleges and universities, the book stores etc etc. You on the other hand are clinging to a book written by people who attribute the "books" according to so and so rather than by the author with only a first name . These authors make the claim inspired by "God" but what else would they claim?No information on the writers can be found anywhere outside of the bible no evidence for the fantastic claims can be found outside the bible etc etc etc .Then we have unred who questions the "facts " regarding evolution.

The ‘facts’ are not all ‘facts’ and it’s quite hard to determine the real from the frauds until all the ‘facts’ are out. Since most Christians base their beliefs on faith, there isn’t a compelling drive to uncover the hard evidence for proof of the Bible and they may not even be aware that proof is abundant and available. Most people are intellectually lazy. If you worked as hard finding substantiation of Bible events as you do for your ToE, you would not have to rely only on faith. Here’s a site you could check out; http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm or just do a search of ‘Bible archeological evidence’ and take your choice of the thousands of sites about it. There is no excuse for your ignorance on the subject. Don’t just read biblical minimalists or revisionists, like Philip Davies, Ze'ev Herzog and Prof. Israel Finkelstein who see very little historical value in the Bible, claiming that archeology is silent in regard to Bible accounts. "In fact, the archaeological record is not at all silent. It's only that some historians are deaf."- William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Arizona.

Prof. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Dept. of Archaeology at the University of Haifa wrote, “After years of research, however, I believe it is impossible to explore Israel's origins without the Bible. At the same time, the research should be as objective as possible. he Bible should be used cautiously and critically. But again and again we have seen the historical value of the BIble. Again and again we have seen that an accurate memory has been preserved in its transmuted narratives, waiting to be unearthed and exposed by archaeological fieldwork and critical mind work.â€Â

 

[reznwerks]

proof

Reznwerks wrote:

Look who is calling the kettle black. LOL You can't show anywhere from any recognized and respected source where evolution is not accepted as fact by the majority of those that study it, test it and observe it. It has been shown to you repeatedly where evolution occurs TODAY on a daily recurring basis. However you have chosen to put your head in the sand and ignore it because your belief is more important than fact.

I am trying to make an appeal to reason and common sense. I have told you repeatedly that I accept evolution as it is shown to have occurred in the past, if you have the actual proof of such a thing.
I have pointed out the fact that simple influenza virus mutate or evolve yearly as proof positive that evolution exists.For more understanding here are some links if you dare read them.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html


I believe that there is a design feature built into the creation that allows for changes that allow it to adapt for survival.
This is the evolutionary process at work.

God either planned ahead or he makes changes as needed.
No evidence for Gods existance , then the claim he did something is thrown out.

This shouldn’t require any longer to accomplish than the original 6 days of creation.
Well I guess you know more than God.(if he exists) Now you are an engineer on creation I guess. Why couldn't God do the creating in three days? An all powerfull God could have done this in one day I think.


Reznwerks wrote:[quote:48c89] Facts don't change but new facts may change the conclusion which is something you have problems dealing with. For you the bible has to be right or everything is upside down for you. Science and its conclusions can and will change based on new info. For all the errors you allude to however none have come to the conclusion that their must be an intelligent designer. If God (if he exists) is so eager for us to know and science wants to find out, why can't they get together. Did ya ever wonder why?

That’s exactly what I’m saying. You don’t have enough of the actual facts to make the kind of assumptions you are making and calling them ‘facts’.
Yes we do. The fossil evidence is overwhelming validating evolution everyday.Its not the other way around and all you have to do is look at the above links to understand you are not even in the ticket line at the ballpark to comment on disputing evolution.

You refer to the ‘fact’ of evolution as if it automatically includes millions of years.
It does automatically include millions of years based on the many tests that validate each other in order to draw a conclusion.


Based on this assumption, you erroneously determine all the dates of the evidence. They agree with each other in the same way you can balance your checkbook perfectly without accounting for a million dollar withdrawal until the next statement comes in that includes that check. You just haven’t gotten your new statement yet.
The statements are in and the checkbook balances. Thats what evolution is:checks and balances. Claims are made then the evidence confirms the result.


The reason your scientists can’t find God is because they’re not looking to find him but to find ways to create the universes without him. You’re in denial and you even deny that you’re in denial.
Sure they are. They are looking for extraterrestrials why not God. He would certainly be the biggest find in mans history. You really have to get away from the "God of the gaps" phenomena. Looking for the origins of the universe may never be solved but until a God makes himself know the origins will never be attributed to him. Not having another answer does not mean God did it and not accepting the evidence that is there does not mean its not real.



Reznwerks wrote:

I don't know whose posts you are reading but my views have not changed one bit. There is no evidence of God , less evidence of a Christian God, and all the evidence for us being here point to evolution as the cause and unanswered questions don't default to the idea that God did it.

By “your views†I am speaking of the collective views of the ToE that you subscribe to... the ones that change with every discovery of a fraud or some ‘new evidence that reshapes the face of evolutionary thought.’

Any discovery or fraud that you elude to changes very little of the concept of evolution and certainly has not changed my opinion of the subject. Evolution occurs as has been proved repeatedly but the process may not be fully understood. That does not mean it is false by any means and the majority have not changed their opinion either. If someone who goes to a casino to gamble and cheats to win and is caught does this somehow invalidate all those who win honestly. The answer is no and the same applies to those who have tried to gain notoriety by perpetrating a fraud with evolution. However it is a little more different with the bible and frauds. The bible has no evidence when it comes to ID and when fantastic tales are attempted to be validated with fraudulent claims you go from no evidence to no confidence.


If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read that science doesn’t believe that anymore, I wouldn’t even have to worry about a million dollar error in my checkbook.
What an exageration. Surly you can cite some noteworthy examples on how these new found claims has somehow turned science on its ear.


My evidence isn’t a default situation. If you didn’t discount and misinterpret the evidence God gave you, you wouldn’t have to make up your own story. There is plenty of archeological evidence but you are ignoring it, pretending it doesn‘t exist.
Number one : There is no evidence of God. It is an assumption and a hope for you because you somehow expect to be rewarded for spouting the company line. I haven't ignored the archeology of the bible. If is validated that is fine. As I said many times some things in the bible are correct and some things are not. So far the fantastic tales and promises have no evidence at all. As far as archeology is concerned we still have no evidence that the Jews were held captive by the Egyptians even though we can read their tablets like the newspapers today. There is absolutely no evidence that the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years . The desert is not that big to not have found evidence of at least their campfires. Lastly is it believable that no one came across the Jews and said something in the forty years of wandering in the desert? Is it believable that they could have survived in the desert for 40 years withoug resupplying? Oh I guess anything is possible when you want to just say God took care of everything even though you have no evidence. That is just for starters on archeology.



Reznwerks wrote:

The facts are all in the libraries of the world, the colleges and universities, the book stores etc etc. You on the other hand are clinging to a book written by people who attribute the "books" according to so and so rather than by the author with only a first name . These authors make the claim inspired by "God" but what else would they claim?No information on the writers can be found anywhere outside of the bible no evidence for the fantastic claims can be found outside the bible etc etc etc .Then we have unred who questions the "facts " regarding evolution.

The ‘facts’ are not all ‘facts’ and it’s quite hard to determine the real from the frauds until all the ‘facts’ are out.
The vast majority of those involved in the field are legitamate. No one but you questions this fact.

Since most Christians base their beliefs on faith, there isn’t a compelling drive to uncover the hard evidence for proof of the Bible and they may not even be aware that proof is abundant and available.
Of course their isn't compelling drive to see if what they believe is true. They have already been told their is no evidence. As to Christians not being aware that proof is abundant and available that does not apply to those that are not Christian. That is not the case and logid would tell you this. Those that do not believe would have discovered the "truth" to the bible if it existed. It does not.

Most people are intellectually lazy.
No most theists are intellectually lazy. In fact most have never read their bible. If they did they would discover the errors and contradictions that those who have read it discovered. They are told to accept as fact fantastic tales without evidence just because a book said so. Now you tell me who is intellectually lazy.

.

Prof. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Dept. of Archaeology at the University of Haifa wrote, “After years of research, however, I believe it is impossible to explore Israel's origins without the Bible.
No one said to discard the bible as a source of history and archeology where the Jews are concerned. In fact without the bible there isn't anything else to go on where their history and archeology is concerned . The bible gives some interesting clues to the Jewish past but again their is no evidence for the amazing claims made inside and no evidence outside the N/T for Jesus or his apostles.

At the same time, the research should be as objective as possible. The Bible should be used cautiously and critically. But again and again we have seen the historical value of the BIble. Again and again we have seen that an accurate memory has been preserved in its transmuted narratives, waiting to be unearthed and exposed by archaeological fieldwork nd critical mind work.â€Â
Again I invite you to start a new thread regarding archeology and the bible. Their are writings that give clues to the past of the Egyptians do you want to claim the powers and reality of Horus the God as well?

[/quote:48c89]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

I have pointed out the fact that simple influenza virus mutate or evolve yearly as proof positive that evolution exists.For more understanding here are some links if you dare read them.

Changes to adapt are design features, built by an intelligent designer. Even evil viruses are designed to mutate to perform their judgments on mankind.

Reznwerks wrote:

No evidence for Gods existance , then the claim he did something is thrown out.

God’s creation is as plain as the nose on your face. In fact, it includes the nose on your face.



Reznwerks wrote:

Well I guess you know more than God.(if he exists) Now you are an engineer on creation I guess. Why couldn't God do the creating in three days? An all powerfull God could have done this in one day I think.

The concept may be too hard for us to grasp. How fast can molecules be ordered into existence? I would guess it took that long for them to line up and form material substances and bodies with physical properties. He said it took 6 days and he wound up our universe and synchronized our time with his. I don’t know why he would lie about it. Do you think he is just trying to impress us? LOL. I would have been impressed if he said it took a zillion years.

Reznwerks wrote:

It does automatically include millions of years based on the many tests that validate each other in order to draw a conclusion.

The statements are in and the checkbook balances. Thats what evolution is:checks and balances. Claims are made then the evidence confirms the result.

Don’t you get it? Your test results have all been fudged to validate the claims. If they don’t agree with the ToE, they are tossed out. Talk about grasping at straws, look at their great evidence. Layers of mud that supposedly fell into place for millions of years without interruption? Tree rings that can’t be stretched any further than 5000 years in any one single tree so they add successive dead trees together to come up with the millions needed? Why don’t you just add the ages of all the people now living on the earth and come up with a nice figure you can use too? It makes almost as much sense.

Reznwerks wrote:

Sure they are. They are looking for extraterrestrials why not God. He would certainly be the biggest find in mans history. You really have to get away from the "God of the gaps" phenomena. Looking for the origins of the universe may never be solved but until a God makes himself know the origins will never be attributed to him. Not having another answer does not mean God did it and not accepting the evidence that is there does not mean its not real.

God did make himself known. Instead of keeping the knowledge of God intact, our ancestors added myths and fables to the actual record and left out parts and added others. In some cases it was lost altogether and replaced by something totally fabricated. How much you believe depends on your own truth meter. I happen to believe that the best kept record is the Jewish one, although I am not Jewish. Predictions made and later fulfilled point to a God who has the power to manipulate human events to suit his purposes. These events are a matter of history and even can be traced into other cultures. The ToE, however, is a total fabrication based on findings that wouldn’t hold up in a kangaroo court. Your all wonderful scientists may be great at counting isotopes and layers or gluing together broken skeletons, but their common sense is sadly lacking. Have you heard of my jelly bean diet? I have a jar containing 37 jelly beans. I consistently eat 2 every day. Last month, I consistently ate 4 a day. Next month, I will only eat one a day. How long ago was the jar full?


Reznwerks wrote:

Any discovery or fraud that you elude to changes very little of the concept of evolution and certainly has not changed my opinion of the subject. Evolution occurs as has been proved repeatedly but the process may not be fully understood. That does not mean it is false by any means and the majority have not changed their opinion either. If someone who goes to a casino to gamble and cheats to win and is caught does this somehow invalidate all those who win honestly. The answer is no and the same applies to those who have tried to gain notoriety by perpetrating a fraud with evolution. However it is a little more different with the bible and frauds. The bible has no evidence when it comes to ID and when fantastic tales are attempted to be validated with fraudulent claims you go from no evidence to no confidence.

You may be right that the majority has not changed their views within the ToE. They blindly press on as if obsessed and hell bent on proving their theory in spite of the proof that frauds have been greatly used to advance the theory. The need to revise the ‘checks and balances’ should be recognized but as you admit, it doesn’t happen.
Here’s an example of the effects of one fraud in Germany:
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory.""Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald.
This is another in Japan:
The shock to the Japanese archaeological establishment, as well as to the public, was tremendous. For the past twenty years, Fujimura had been in the academic and media spotlight for a series of extraordinary discoveries dating from the Early and Middle Paleolithic Periods. In a career that spanned more than two decades, Fujimura’s findings had appeared to push back the earliest human habitation of Japan from 30,000 to 600,000 years ago….In the words of one archaeologist, Fujimura had been in the process of “rewriting the story of human evolution.â€Â…The presence of a Paleolithic culture (more than 10,000 years old) in Japan was not proven until 1949, when Aizawa Tadahiro, an amateur archaeologist, made the first discovery of Paleolithic artifacts at the Iwajuku site north of Tokyo. With his discovery Aizawa became one of the most celebrated archaeologists in Japan, and he also established the importance of amateurs within the field. In 1992, with his discovery of the Zazaragi site – the first unanimously confirmed Japanese Early/Middle Paleolithic site – Fujimura became the first winner of the Aizawa Award, which had been established in memory of Aizawa and was intended to recognize an amateur archaeologist who had made an outstanding contribution to the study of the Paleolithic. Fujimura later won the award again in conjunction with his colleagues (although all of these discoveries now appear to have been forged). Through this series of discoveries he mirrored Aizawa’s story, and people around him felt that a model of amateur-professional archaeological cooperation had emerged, despite some minor problems from time to time regarding leadership and credit for discoveries.
This should cause the entire archaeological establishment to re evaluate all fossils and artifacts and to admit that the desire to find one of great value is too tempting and the deception, too easily unnoticed or ignored.


UT previous:"If I had a dollar for every time I’ve read that science doesn’t believe that anymore, I wouldn’t even have to worry about a million dollar error in my checkbook."
Reznwerks wrote:

What an exageration. Surly you can cite some noteworthy examples on how these new found claims has somehow turned science on its ear.

You’re so right. I guess you are only allowed that kind of exaggeration if you are making up geological or evolutionary fables. I cited 2 examples above that should have bowled you over in the past but you keep ignoring their very serious implications. It's not just the fraud involved but the whole climate that spawns it that should amaze you.

Reznwerks wrote:

Number one : There is no evidence of God. It is an assumption and a hope for you because you somehow expect to be rewarded for spouting the company line. I haven't ignored the archeology of the bible. If is validated that is fine. As I said many times some things in the bible are correct and some things are not. So far the fantastic tales and promises have no evidence at all. As far as archeology is concerned we still have no evidence that the Jews were held captive by the Egyptians even though we can read their tablets like the newspapers today. There is absolutely no evidence that the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years . The desert is not that big to not have found evidence of at least their campfires. Lastly is it believable that no one came across the Jews and said something in the forty years of wandering in the desert? Is it believable that they could have survived in the desert for 40 years withoug resupplying? Oh I guess anything is possible when you want to just say God took care of everything even though you have no evidence. That is just for starters on archeology.

You haven’t found their campfires in the desert? Maybe because you haven’t dug deep enough or in the right areas. Sand has a tendency to shift and one day it will probably surface, like the name of King David did just after a famous skeptic published his book claiming he was totally myth. No one is going to laugh last or long at God. He’s just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

Reznwerks wrote:

Of course their isn't compelling drive to see if what they believe is true. They have already been told their is no evidence. As to Christians not being aware that proof is abundant and available that does not apply to those that are not Christian. That is not the case and logid would tell you this. Those that do not believe would have discovered the "truth" to the bible if it existed. It does not.

Who told them there is no evidence? The evidence is all around us. You’re not attributing it to God. The archeological evidence is more than abundant to prove the Bible is reliable and accurate history.

Reznwerks wrote:

No most theists are intellectually lazy. In fact most have never read their bible. If they did they would discover the errors and contradictions that those who have read it discovered. They are told to accept as fact fantastic tales without evidence just because a book said so. Now you tell me who is intellectually lazy.

I am not condoning the lack of study of lazy believers who don’t even know what the Bible teaches first hand. It is this apathy that causes the errors in denominations to flourish. As for the contradictions you find, most are foolish mundane examples of sloppy reading and ignorance of literary techniques. Some are copyists’ errors but these are even surprisingly rare. Some are easily understood translation problems. I personally only know of one that I haven’t heard a satisfactory answer to but since all the rest have been found, I remain convinced it also has a simple explanation. I am not a Bible worshipper, btw. Only God is infallible and only if he says so. :


Reznwerks wrote:

Again I invite you to start a new thread regarding archeology and the bible. Their are writings that give clues to the past of the Egyptians do you want to claim the powers and reality of Horus the God as well?

I have no interest in spoon feeding those too intellectually lazy to find their own substantiation. Anyone reading this has access to a computer and can type in a few words ( Bible, archeology, etc) and read until their brains pop.

The fact that there is a ‘Horus the God’ adds validity to my assertion that God has communicated to his creation. Just because they have the name in their own language doesn’t mean it isn’t based on the same one. If you believe that the Egyptians have the best record of creation, by all means, go for it. I personally am a little skeptical of anyone who worships cats, alligators, frogs, bugs or any other part of the natural world that they were supposed to have created and be lord over. I don’t even believe that the Jews who fell into idolatry should be followed, and they have the best preserved creation account I have seen.

 

[reznwerks]

gods

[/i]

I have no interest in spoon feeding those too intellectually lazy to find their own substantiation. Anyone reading this has access to a computer and can type in a few words ( Bible, archeology, etc) and read until their brains pop.
There is no debate here regarding archeology. I could not care less whether something is accurate regarding archeology and the bible. If it is, great, if not ,so what. Biblical archeology does not prove nor validate the fantastic claims and promises made elsewhere in the bible. Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.

The fact that there is a ‘Horus the God’ adds validity to my assertion that God has communicated to his creation.
Or it could be that these original explanations of phenomenon that man could not understand were passed down and adopted or "evolved" into Christianity. Here read it for yourself and then go to the library and confirm it.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ4.htm

Just because they have the name in their own language doesn’t mean it isn’t based on the same one. If you believe that the Egyptians have the best record of creation, by all means, go for it.
Why would I think that?
I personally am a little skeptical of anyone who worships cats, alligators, frogs, bugs or any other part of the natural world that they were supposed to have created and be lord over. I don’t even believe that the Jews who fell into idolatry should be followed, and they have the best preserved creation account I have seen.
The bible is only about three thousand years old. The oldest evidence of writing is probably 5000 years old. However since you are willing to accept every other pagan God as evidence of a creator perhaps you are finally seeing the light on Christianity. After all the earlier religions were closer to the event and God himself and perhaps you are correct in that the original thoughts and traditions have been abandoned. Perhaps you should think about following an earlier tradition and therefor a more true form of observance.
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:jzA ... ting&hl=en

[/quote]

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

There is no debate here regarding archeology. I could not care less whether something is accurate regarding archeology and the bible. If it is, great, if not ,so what. Biblical archeology does not prove nor validate the fantastic claims and promises made elsewhere in the bible. Fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence.

Yes, the Bible is accurate and you do care because you spend considerable time and effort trying to discredit it. You apparently realize you’re wrong. You need fantastic evidence? Try looking at the geological record of the flood. There was not a greater geological event in the history of the world. If you can’t believe that, what hope is there for you? I’m sorry. I can’t help you.


Reznwerks wrote:

Or it could be that these original explanations of phenomenon that man could not understand were passed down and adopted or "evolved" into Christianity. Here read it for yourself and then go to the library and confirm it.

Of course these explanations could have evolved. Many of them did. If you read them, you can see the connections and similarities. If you read the Bible and the book of Jasher, you can see the truth. Unless you’re hiding from it.



Reznwerks wrote:

The bible is only about three thousand years old. The oldest evidence of writing is probably 5000 years old. However since you are willing to accept every other pagan God as evidence of a creator perhaps you are finally seeing the light on Christianity. After all the earlier religions were closer to the event and God himself and perhaps you are correct in that the original thoughts and traditions have been abandoned. Perhaps you should think about following an earlier tradition and therefor a more true form of observance.

The Bible is an account that begins with creation. There is no account that predates it. The reason we don’t have Noah’s original writings is because the Jews were very careful to replace older copies of scripture. The originals were recopied and replaced when they became worn and there was any danger of it being unreadable. The oldest ones may have been destroyed or we just haven’t found them yet.

Let me clarify what I meant. Pagan gods are proof that the real creator exists. Even without a Bible to explain it, we can learn about God from his works. From a study of creation, we can easily see that creatures of every kind have the ability to communicate. From studies of man from earliest beginnings to the present day, we can see a built-in desire to worship a deity. This desire to communicate with and worship God is our ‘evidence of things not seen.’ If the Bible is true, we would also see the evidence of remnants of the knowledge of God that man took with him from the tower of Babel. If it is garbled, why wouldn’t it be? Those building the tower were not living with a complete picture of God or they wouldn’t have tried such an endeavor. Naturally, moving away wouldn’t improve their vision.

Your suggestion to follow an earlier tradition of God is understandable, given your beliefs. The problem is that all the others are more corrupted and less coherent. Maybe that is why the Jews were chosen as God’s representatives to the world. They were positively meticulous in their record keeping. Instead of painting a glorious, unblemished past, the prophets and scribes recorded events accurately depicting both the good and evil that happened.