Raw Dawgin' it;1159952 wrote:lol so every piece of land was flat? You seriously believe this?

Read again, I did NOT say flat.

fish82;1159968 wrote:Shockingly, the staff at Los Alamos, Rockwell International, UCLA, and the US Air Force seem to disagree with you.

Meaningless. The CEO's at Enron had Ivy league MBA's, yet still sunk the company. Nice try though.

And where is this passage in the Bible if the flood really happened:
<code>"And then Noah spent the rest of his days sailing from island to island spreading the animals in a pattern that made it appear that they had evolved based off of geographic location. And Troll, the Lord our God, saw this and said it was good." </code></pre>Even if we take the massive assumption (and I mean fucking massive) that a magic sky man told a 600 year old human that he was going to flood the entire earth via 40 days of rain and then wizarded the required water into existence (because it certainly wasn't there before hand unless Noah had gills to breath air that moist). Noah floated around with all the animals on the planet for about a year (Biblical citations for length of flood were in my post above) and then got off safely after god was done with his tantrum. Oh yeah forgot the part about all the mountains being formed in that year as well with your special believer Dr's model. Even if we assume all that is true it still doesn't explain the dispersion of species on the planet.

I Wear Pants;1159960 wrote:Also, jmog, does that guys model show how our mountain ranges were formed in slightly less than a year? I'm not a geologist but I'm pretty ****ing certain that kind of movement would have caused earthquakes of a cataclysmic size. Don't read anything in the Bible about Noah stepping off the boat and having to deal with a 282 scale aftershock.

Read his paper about it, it most certainly does go into moutain range formation.

Keep acting high and mighty, it is becoming on you.

I Wear Pants;1159962 wrote:You forgot the part where he's a young earth creationist.

Ah. So science only matters when practiced by people who share your views. Got it.

sleeper;1159973 wrote:Meaningless. The CEO's at Enron had Ivy league MBA's, yet still sunk the company. Nice try though.

I stand corrected. This is the shittiest analogy today. You're on a roll. Were any of the above institutions "sunk" recently?

jmog;1159977 wrote:Read his paper about it, it most certainly does go into moutain range formation.

Keep acting high and mighty, it is becoming on you.

Assuming the Dr is 100% correct, doesn't mean shit. Why waste time when a child with a 1st grade education can understand that 60 million animals on a boat is impossible.

fish82;1159980 wrote:I stand corrected. This is the shittiest analogy today. You're on a roll. Were any of the above institutions "sunk" recently?

Lehman Brothers.

fish82;1159967 wrote:Again, (and as usual) you're missing the point. He's not saying the flood happened. He's saying it's physically possible...that it could happen, which you incorrectly claimed was false.

It could happen if you ignore actual facts. Factually it couldn't have happened because we do have these mineral deposits, we do have these fossil locations, we do have the plant and animal dispersion about the earth in a way that perfectly jives with Darwinian theory, and we do have the geologic records we do as well as records from civilizations that all didn't die because of said flood.

Because we know those things we can say that factually the flood did not happen/could not have possibly happened.

If we set up a perfect hypothetical of course it's possible, but that's like saying you cannot say that I didn't win the lottery because I could have one the lottery. Even though we can look at my bank account, credit history, assets, etc. You don't have to have been following me my whole life to know that factually I did not win the lottery.

sleeper;1159945 wrote:So a nano-second is now a day?

Only in the bible...

You've never read the first three verses of the Torah?

cruiser_96;1159988 wrote:You've never read the first three verses of the Torah?

I don't read fiction.

I Wear Pants;1159985 wrote:It could happen if you ignore actual facts. Factually it couldn't have happened because we do have these mineral deposits, we do have these fossil locations, we do have the plant and animal dispersion about the earth in a way that perfectly jives with Darwinian theory, and we do have the geologic records we do as well as records from civilizations that all didn't die because of said flood.

Because we know those things we can say that factually the flood did not happen/could not have possibly happened.

If we set up a perfect hypothetical of course it's possible, but that's like saying you cannot say that I didn't win the lottery because I could have one the lottery. Even though we can look at my bank account, credit history, assets, etc. You don't have to have been following me my whole life to know that factually I did not win the lottery.

It's like saying if there's a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that something could happen, then it COULD happen so it must be true!

jmog;1159977 wrote:Read his paper about it, it most certainly does go into moutain range formation.

Keep acting high and mighty, it is becoming on you.

How am I acting high and mighty? You come here and post one guys opinion and we're supposed to go "oh you're right, god clearly flooded the earth, the Bible is true"? Dramatizing it there a bit but the point is still valid.

Besides, instead of simply linking to a presumably lengthy paper why don't you use it's information and explain it to us or at least use it to address our questions. Specifically of the dispersion of plant and animal life. Also the boat size problem still wouldn't be solved. Nor the fresh vs saltwater problem. Or the problem of where all that humidity went.

sleeper;1159950 wrote:vball there are plenty of other threads that no one reads that you can mess up. Leave this one alone.

Fuck you. It's my thread.

Go for it Vball! :thumbup:

Devils Advocate;1159999 wrote:Fuck you. It's my thread.

Go for it Vball! :thumbup:

It's not "your" thread. Carry on...

I Wear Pants;1159985 wrote:It could happen if you ignore actual facts. Factually it couldn't have happened because we do have these mineral deposits, we do have these fossil locations, we do have the plant and animal dispersion about the earth in a way that perfectly jives with Darwinian theory, and we do have the geologic records we do as well as records from civilizations that all didn't die because of said flood.

Because we know those things we can say that factually the flood did not happen/could not have possibly happened.

If we set up a perfect hypothetical of course it's possible, but that's like saying you cannot say that I didn't win the lottery because I could have one the lottery. Even though we can look at my bank account, credit history, assets, etc. You don't have to have been following me my whole life to know that factually I did not win the lottery.

You're still talking about two different things.

Did it happen? Probably not.

Could it happen? Unless you and sleeper are going to get around to disproving Baumgardner's model, (highly unlikely) then the answer appears to be yes.

sleeper;1160002 wrote:It's not "your" thread. Carry on...

Sure it is. I created it. ..... My thread.



God created the earth... His earth.


You however are a parasite that rides on both. Please quit sucking my ass, and get the hell off of God's earth.

Devils Advocate;1160009 wrote:Sure it is. I created it. ..... My thread.



God created the earth... His earth.


You however are a parasite that rides on both. Please quit sucking my ass, and get the hell off of God's earth.

Just because you started a thread does not give you ownership nor does it grant you special privileges.

sleeper;1159950 wrote:vball there are plenty of other threads that no one reads that you can mess up. Leave this one alone.

This thread is too boring, sleeper--I'm just spicing things up a little

fish82;1160007 wrote:You're still talking about two different things.

Did it happen? Probably not.

Could it happen? Unless you and sleeper are going to get around to disproving Baumgardner's model, (highly unlikely) then the answer appears to be yes.

His model is bias. Guy is a hack. I don't have time to dispel junk science wrapped in a nice package.

Devils Advocate;1159999 wrote:**** you. It's my thread.

Go for it Vball! :thumbup:

reps

vball10set;1160015 wrote:This thread is too boring, sleeper--I'm just spicing things up a little

Boring for you, I'm having fun breaking the mind of believers and watching them squirm when faced with evidence.

fish82;1160007 wrote:You're still talking about two different things.

Did it happen? Probably not.

Could it happen? Unless you and sleeper are going to get around to disproving Baumgardner's model, (highly unlikely) then the answer appears to be yes.

I thought I did that?

Unless his model includes something that could explain how all those things happened that I listed then it could not have possibly happened. His model would only be possible if it is able to work with the reality of things that we know as fact. Unless I'm missing something his model requires us to ignore/not think about the dispersion of plant and animal life about the earth in a way that works perfectly with Darwinian theory, ignore that we don't see evidence of massive extinction of the various cultures of the time, ignore the fossil records, ignore the geologic records, etc.

How does his model explain those? If it doesn't or can't then it simply isn't a valid model if we're trying to prove that the flood could have actually happened without creating a hypothetical where we don't have the plants and animals that we do where we do, we don't have the fossils we do, we don't have the mineral deposits we do, etc.

Like I could create some beautiful physics model showing me capable of leaping 175 feet in the air (well if I was a Dr. of Physics but the point is still valid). But without a method for explaining how this was possible given the reality of my body, gravity, etc it doesn't mean anything. It's only possible if we assume away facts.

sleeper;1159981 wrote:Assuming the Dr is 100% correct, doesn't mean ****. Why waste time when a child with a 1st grade education can understand that 60 million animals on a boat is impossible.

Read things that have been posted on here dozens of times, you don't need anywhere CLOSE to 60 million animals.

I Wear Pants;1159985 wrote:It could happen if you ignore actual facts. Factually it couldn't have happened because we do have these mineral deposits, we do have these fossil locations, we do have the plant and animal dispersion about the earth in a way that perfectly jives with Darwinian theory, and we do have the geologic records we do as well as records from civilizations that all didn't die because of said flood.

Because we know those things we can say that factually the flood did not happen/could not have possibly happened.

If we set up a perfect hypothetical of course it's possible, but that's like saying you cannot say that I didn't win the lottery because I could have one the lottery. Even though we can look at my bank account, credit history, assets, etc. You don't have to have been following me my whole life to know that factually I did not win the lottery.

None of your facts, geological record, fossil record, mineral deposits, etc prove a flood did not happen.

You can keep saying they do, but they don't.

Please fill me in on how they do, I like reading.